'Sanctuary city for unborn' ordinances take off in Texas despite pro-choice pushback." A report

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hume said:
Shame on anyone who wants to deny a woman her fundamental bodily autonomy.
Click to expand...
Girls are victims of abortion too.

What about their bodily autonomy.

But I guess that a woman’s bodily autonomy only matters to you as long as it translates into bonuses for PP directors.
 
The Unborn neither have bodily autonomy nor do they have the capacity to want it because they don’t have the capacity to want anything.

Conceptually it doesn’t exist to them.
 
Hume said:
The Unborn neither have bodily autonomy nor do they have the capacity to want it because they don’t have the capacity to want anything.

Conceptually it doesn’t exist to them.
Click to expand...
What does that matter?

By this argument you would also have a reason to be killing people who are in a coma, or who are mentally impaired.

If you start to question the sanctity of life that is the beginning of a very slippery slope.

Future generations will look back on our time in horror when they see the sort of things people said to justify killing for profit.
 
Cirdan_XII said:
By this argument you would also have a reason to be killing people who are in a coma, or who are mentally impaired.
Click to expand...
Folks that endure in a coma are effectively killed. When insurance stops paying, the family runs out of money and the medical facility exhausts its goodwill, the cord gets unplugged.

"We’re not killing your loved one, but we are cleaning and moving this ventilator 3 rooms down to a guy that needs it (and can pay).

Without government intervention, the mentally impaired are abandoned and starved to death. Their guardians can’t directly kill them, per se, but they can cease and abandon support. The impaired becomes a ward of the state if the state is willing to do it. Ours is.
Cirdan_XII said:
If you start to question the sanctity of life that is the beginning of a very slippery slope.
Click to expand...
It’s reality as it currently exists.
 
Hume said:
Without government intervention, the mentally impaired are abandoned and starved to death. Their guardians can’t directly kill them, per se, but they can cease and abandon support. The impaired becomes a ward of the state if the state is willing to do it. Ours is.
Click to expand...
Because we live in a compassionate society.

And we wish for that compassion to grow and expand over time, not become less and whither away.
 
Hume said:
Folks that endure in a coma are effectively killed. When insurance stops paying, the family runs out of money and the medical facility exhausts its goodwill, the cord gets unplugged.

"We’re not killing your loved one, but we are cleaning and moving this ventilator 3 rooms down to a guy that needs it (and can pay).
Click to expand...
Say a family member just wants the inheritence sooner and smothers them?
 
Medical professionals will make it clear when a coma appears persistent. I.e. “We’ve done all we can”.

If next of kin want to collect the insurance asap, they can generally pull the plug at that point and go cash the check.
 
Bodily autonomy? Life is more fundamental than bodily autonomy. So take the life of one, to save the “bodily autonomy“ of another? I think your going to have a tough time holding this ground friend. And we’ve debated this before.
 
Servant31 said:
Bodily autonomy? Life is more fundamental than bodily autonomy. So take the life of one, to save the “bodily autonomy“ of another? I think your going to have a tough time holding this ground friend. And we’ve debated this before.
Click to expand...
Hey Servant. We have, haven’t we?

It does appear that the laws of the US seem to support the notion that a woman holds absolute dominion over her body. If something requires her body in a way she does not consent to, she is not obligated to endure the risks associated with that bodily sacrifice. In short, she gets to choose.

Hope you had a happy 4th.
 
Again we’ve been over these. Stating opinions as fact don’t make them true. Laws at one point declared some people were 3/5 of a person, and less. That women didn’t have the “right” to vote. That certain ethnicities could be sent to internment camps. They were a flat hard wrong then too. Legality and morality just aren’t the same. Happy 4th.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
Medical professionals will make it clear when a coma appears persistent. I.e. “We’ve done all we can”.

If next of kin want to collect the insurance asap, they can generally pull the plug at that point and go cash the check.
Click to expand...
Lets say that the person will wake up in about nine months if left alone, and is a ward of state so the plug can’t be pulled.
 
Elf01 said:
Lets say that the person will wake up in about nine months if left alone, and is a ward of state so the plug can’t be pulled.
Click to expand...
If a medical professional can ascertain that they’ll probably wake up in 9 months with demonstrable reasoning, then I doubt anyone would be allowed to pull the plug.

But if no one can possibly know that and your claim that they’ll wake up in 9 months was just an angel in a dream telling you with perfect certainty, well… the angel in my dream said they’ll persist in their vegetative state for decades until some blockage in their heart or brain kills them.

Your church has addressed this, if I’m not mistaken. Keeping a persistent coma patient alive indefinitely is a “heroic measure” or some such phraseology. These types of measures are not required of the faithful.
 
Last edited:
That would be good, but at the end of the day I put human life above the desire of the parents.
 
Servant31 said:
Legality and morality just aren’t the same. Happy 4th.
Click to expand...
Quite right.

Just don’t force my wife to submit her body to Catholic morals if she’s not Catholic, cool?
Similarly, if someone comes along and tries to submit you to the Muslim Sharia, I’ll join you in fighting them too.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
The last steps won’t be taken by denying women control over their bodies
Click to expand...
That’s a non-start for me. I don’t recognize abortion as a valid right, and I don’t think anyone - whether woman or man - should be allowed to end a child’s life. Preserving life is more important than preserving bodily autonomy as far as I’m concerned.

The fact that you consider anti-abortion laws to be “shackles” and “denying women control over their bodies” shows a lack of willingness to understand the anti-abortion position.
 
BornInMarch said:
The fact that you consider anti-abortion laws to be “shackles” and “denying women control over their bodies” shows a lack of willingness to understand the anti-abortion position.
Click to expand...
And I think the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers don’t understand the bodily risks pregnancy carries.

Statistically, a healthy woman died in Texas last week in labor.

If a lady doesn’t want to assume that kind of risk, who are you to force her?
 
Hume said:
If a medical professional can ascertain that they’ll probably wake up in 9 months with demonstrable reasoning, then I doubt anyone would be allowed to pull the plug.
Click to expand...
Indeed. They’re not allowed pull the plug, but want the inheritence. Using your reasoning, since being in a coma makes you not a person I see no reason not to smother them.
 
As long as she doesn’t hurt an innocent child…but your happy to do that so…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top