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

[pnewton]

A fetus is not meaningfully a person apart from its mother.

I hope you grasp that as a Catholic website that no one, or few will by this lie. That you think this line of discussion is appropriate is revealing.

 

[Neithan]

If she wants it out of her body, she has the right to take the steps needed to accomplish that.

Even if that right were given (a debatable point if there ever was one), the state is not obligated to abet her or to allow anyone else to abet her in destroying a life.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

she can do with it as she wishes as her control over her body is not a point of debate.

Everything is debatable.

A fetus isn’t meaningfully a person apart from its mother until it is born.

Pro-lifers don’t believe that.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

A fetus is not meaningfully a person apart from its mother. If she wants it out of her body, she has the right to take the steps needed to accomplish that.

This is an assertation. Not a truth.

I hope you grasp that as a Catholic website that no one, or few will by this lie. That you think this line of discussion is appropriate is revealing.

Even if that right were given (a debatable point if there ever was one), the state is not obligated to abet her or to allow anyone else to abet her in destroying a life.

Guys, it’s a secular government in a nation where 1/5th are nominally Catholic and less than 10% of those approach orthodoxy.

For example, I’m not Catholic. My views get to be represented as well.

For most folks, Mom>Fetus.

A fetus isn’t considered a “person” like the born. When a woman miscarries or has a stillbirth, you don’t even report it to the coroner in most places.

If Catholics want to ban abortion for Catholics - awesome. But non-Catholics shouldn’t be forced to follow Catholic dogma, the Muslim Sharia, or any other religious view within a secular nation.

 

[Rau]

Biology has no say on the conveyance of rights and when, exactly, they are conveyed.

Well, if they all stem from the law, there’s nothing to discuss! Now I know why shooting people is wrong - because the law says so!

From where I sit, a fetus is a genetically varied extension of its mother until it is born.

Yes of course, that’s the corollary of your argument. So this is your justification for killing then - abortion is closer to clipping finger nails than killing a human being. Or is it because the law says you can?

As either part of her body or unambiguously dependent on her body, she can do with it as she wishes as her control over her body is not a point of debate.

The newborn is unambiguously dependent on others too. But I guess the reason mum can’t kill this demanding dependent is only that the law says she can’t? Are you an adult Hume?

 

[pnewton]

For most folks, Mom>Fetus.

Hume:

But non-Catholics shouldn’t be forced to follow Catholic dogma,

The same argument was used to justify slavery. Blacks were 3/5’s a person. Those who did not agree and considered blacks to be equally human were not forced to own slaves , but it was still a choice for those who considered them lesser than people.

 

[Rau]

The maternal death rate in the US is one of the highest on the planet

That it is at the high end on the planet is an indictment of the wealthiest nation. That it is still down at 1-2 in 10,000 is a comfort. It should of course be well less than 1 in 10,000 in a modern country and for most of those deaths pregnancy is indirect, not the direct cause. So pregnancy risk of death is quite tiny and not a major driver of abortions.

 

[Hume]

The newborn is unambiguously dependent on others too.

Absolutely, but it’s biologically separate from it’s mother at that point. Moreover, someone else besides mom can shake up a bottle.

 

[Rau]

If she wants it out of her body, she has the right to take the steps needed to accomplish that.

You should preface this with: “US law says…”

 

[Hume]

You should preface this with: “US law says…”

Yeah, based on the constitution and easily defended by a growing majority of people.

May Catholic law have the highest dominion and be held in the highest regard… inside a Catholic church or Catholic home.

 

[Rau]

For pro-choicers “The bodily concerns of the mom outweigh the life of the fetus”.

So, if the concern is not for the body, but for the future hassles of raising the child, abortion should not be permitted?

 

[Hume]

Hume:

For pro-choicers “The bodily concerns of the mom outweigh the life of the fetus”.

So, if the concern is not for the body, but for the future hassles of raising the child, abortion should not be permitted?

The woman should be free to do with her body as she wishes.

Super simple. And obvious to most.

 

[Rau]

I hope you grasp that as a Catholic website that no one, or few will by this lie. That you think this line of discussion is appropriate is revealing.

Frankly, why would one need to be Catholic to know the nature of our offspring? It might help because catholic principles point this out - just as they point out stealing is wrong.

 

[Rau]

Yeah, based on the constitution

The US constitution (which in no place contemplated abortion…) is a form of us law…

 

[Hume]

just as they point out stealing is wrong.

The big difference is that people can make solid and broadly appealing secular arguments for why stealing is wrong.

There aren’t any solid and broadly appealing secular arguments for why a woman must be forced against her will to use her body to carry a fetus she doesn’t want to term.

 

[Rau]

There aren’t any solid and broadly appealing secular arguments for why a woman must be forced against her will to use her body to carry a fetus she doesn’t want to term.

So what is the solid and broadly appealing secular argument That forbids a parent killing a newborn mum doesn’t want .

 

[Hume]

So what is the solid and broadly appealing secular argument That forbids a parent killing a newborn mum doesn’t want .

Babies are people in a way fetuses are not. When they begin forming, they’re roughly as personable as that mole I have on the small of my back. Not the same for mom. She can work. Pay taxes. Vote. Tell a good joke at the bar on Saturday night. She can serve our country.

Mom’s a real person in the way that fetus isn’t. Again, if the fetus dies before term, you don’t even have to notify anyone of the fact before it’s born.

So where does the line get drawn?

Birth.

 

[LilyM]

Rau:

Hume:

For pro-choicers “The bodily concerns of the mom outweigh the life of the fetus”.

So, if the concern is not for the body, but for the future hassles of raising the child, abortion should not be permitted?

The woman should be free to do with her body as she wishes.

Super simple. And obvious to most.

So why am I not free tonuae my body to hit or choke you (at least without your consent?)

Why am I not free to use my body to marry 5 othee bodies in polygamous marriage?

Why am I not free to use my body to drive a car after I’ve downed a bottle of Kacl Daniels at a gulp?

Why was I recently not free to take my body from Australia to America?

Autonomy is fine and all but there are other rights and duties that exist alongside and sometimes trump my right to bodily autonomy.

 

[LilyM]

Rau:

So what is the solid and broadly appealing secular argument That forbids a parent killing a newborn mum doesn’t want .

Babies are people in a way fetuses are not. When they begin forming, they’re roughly as personable as that mole I have on the small of my back. Not the same for mom. She can work. Pay taxes. Vote. Tell a good joke at the bar on Saturday night. She can serve our country.

Mom’s a real person in the way that fetus isn’t. Again, if the fetus dies before term, you don’t even have to notify anyone of the fact before it’s born.

So where does the line get drawn?

Birth.

Why? Why is the fact of being puahed out of the birth canal at all relevant to whether I am a person or have certain rights or not?

I was born about a month premature. It beggars belief that anyone could imagine that something so arbitrary as the timjng of my birth is at all relevant to whether or when I became a person and/or becane endowed with the right to live.

 

[Hume]

So why am I not free to use my body to hit or choke you

Because that affects another person, which a fetus is not.

Why am I not free to use my body to marry 5 other bodies in polygamous marriage?

You are. You just won’t get the government to sanction it.

Why am I not free to use my body to drive a car after I’ve downed a bottle of Jack Daniels at a gulp?

Because you’re endangering other people, which a fetus is not.

Why was I recently not free to take my body from Australia to America?

Because you’d endanger other people, which a fetus is not.

Autonomy is fine and all but there are other rights and duties that exist alongside and sometimes trump my right to bodily autonomy.

A person that lacks bodily autonomy is the most oppressed of slaves.