'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.
LilyM said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because at that point you’re biologically separate from your mother and no longer require her bodily sacrifice to exist.

This sacrifice is what she must have the freedom to grant or withhold without coercion. Our bodies are easily our most sacred tangible possession.

It’s easy to be pro-life when you focus on the baby and leave the deeply affected woman out of your calculus. It’s this glaring omission that drives the growing support for choice, imho.
 
Last edited:
“Bodily sacrifice” is a rhetorical device you invented to justify the argument.

Everyone depends more or less in external persons and factors. A born child needs his family and his resources to realistically eat and rest; yet it’s illegal for a family to abandon a child, the child must be guaranteed safety in another family or institution.

We can’t transplant an embryo mid-pregnancy, as far as I know, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the embryo is a living human being, and, just as you and me, depends on other living beings to live.

And “leaving the deeply affected woman out of your calculus” is just another annoying caricature of Pro-Life persons. Here in this thread we have Pro-life people pushing for more social security for pregnant women.
 
Last edited:
AlbMagno said:
“Bodily sacrifice” is a rhetorical device you invented to justify the argument.
Click to expand...
This is just a denial of obvious truth.

To the woman so many pro-lifers so readily discount, pregnancy involves enormous bodily sacrifice - may be the greatest many women ever offer up.

Lasting permanent damage of some sort is simply the norm. Fallen arches, increased episodes of urinary incontinence, “everything shifting down” are boringly common immediate outcomes to most pregnancies.

For an unlucky few, the immediate outcome of pregnancy is more dangerous. For 8% or so there are complications that are harmful. For about 1 in 500 globally, the pregnancy will kill her.

Then we have the chronic issues women experience because they had kids. Bladder and pelvic floor issues corrected by massive surgery that either don’t go away or rear their ugly heads as women age.

Both my mom and my wife’s mom had radical hysterectomies due to such issues, so it’s not rare. In both cases the doctors identified the primary cause as multiple births. “Kids”.

Another chronic issue that many women have to face is the very real and very biological effects of poverty. The wealthy live, on average, almost a decade longer than the poor and one of the best ways to become or remain poor is to have children you cannot financially care for.

Make no mistake, refusal to engage the fundamental women’s issues creates pro-choice converts.
AlbMagno said:
And “leaving the deeply affected woman out of your calculus” is just another annoying caricature of Pro-Life persons.
Click to expand...
Read above. To the individual I was responding to, that was exactly what they did.
 
Last edited:
Businesses won’t hire reproductive-age women if they have to give a year of paid leave for each baby.
 
Hume said:
Another chronic issue that many women have to face is the very real and very biological effects of poverty. The wealthy live, on average, almost a decade longer than the poor and one of the best ways to become or remain poor is to have children you cannot financially care for.
Click to expand...
You said previously that anyone could take care of the baby once it was born.
mythbuster1 said:
Businesses won’t hire reproductive-age women if they have to give a year of paid leave for each baby.
Click to expand...
What’s the alternative then?
 
Last edited:
I think professional sports has a good model for employment: contracts which specify the terms of employment, renewable every few years.
 
mythbuster1 said:
I think professional sports has a good model for employment: contracts which specify the terms of employment, renewable every few years.
Click to expand...
And which terms would help a mother want to keep her child?
 
mythbuster1 said:
Businesses won’t hire reproductive-age women if they have to give a year of paid leave for each baby.
Click to expand...
Well, 1. they already don’t. My wife is a medical professional and now that the reproductive ship has sailed for us, she gets much Much MUCH more opportunity.
  1. I think the best and most natural source for it is the Social Security office,
 
Hume said:
40.png
LilyM:
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?
Click to expand...
Because at that point you’re biologically separate from your mother and no longer require her bodily sacrifice to exist.

This sacrifice is what she must have the freedom to grant or withhold without coercion. Our bodies are easily our most sacred tangible possession.

It’s easy to be pro-life when you focus on the baby and leave the deeply affected woman out of your calculus. It’s this glaring omission that drives the growing support for choice, imho.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but WHOEVER raises that child after birth makes plenty of sacrifices - physical, emotional and financial. I would maintain that these sacrifices are almost if not actually as great as what a woman goes through in pregnancy and labour. Plenty of doctors, nurses and carers have fallen arches, and “everything shifts down” as you get older regardless of pregnancy or not, hate to tell you. Some carers have given body parts and even their lives for the sake of the child they are raising.

So again, why should the mother not make any sacrifices when the State at the very least doesn’t have that option and MUST care for any and all children within its borders as it is called on to do so, regardless of what sacrifice may be involved?

I want to make clear that I am only referring to pregnancy where the sex was consensual in relation to these points. After all one of the things sex is purposed for is producing children, and even the most reliable contraception has a very well-known failure rate, so anyone voluntarily having sex under any circumstances, arguably, voluntarily assumes risk of pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
mythbuster1 said:
Businesses won’t hire reproductive-age women if they have to give a year of paid leave for each baby.
Click to expand...
There are countries out there that have this as mandatory. The sky doesn’t fall in for women of child-bearing age workwise in those countries, nor for the businesses required to provide it.
 
LilyM said:
Sorry, but WHOEVER raises that child after birth makes plenty of sacrifices - physical, emotional and financial.
Click to expand...
Because they choose to.

Choice. So be pro-choice.
LilyM said:
So again, why should the mother not make any sacrifices when the State at the very least doesn’t have that option and MUST care for any and all children within its borders as it is called on to do so, regardless of what sacrifice may be involved?
Click to expand...
Again, choice. The state chooses to do this, the mother should get to choose too.
LilyM said:
After all one of the things sex is purposed for is producing children, and even the most reliable contraception has a very well-known failure rate, so anyone voluntarily having sex under any circumstances, arguably, voluntarily assumes risk of pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Arguably not. I’m snipped and my wife has an IUD. The only thing we consent to when we jump in the sack is a good time.
 
Hume said:
40.png
LilyM:
Sorry, but WHOEVER raises that child after birth makes plenty of sacrifices - physical, emotional and financial.
Click to expand...
Because they choose to.

Choice. So be pro-choice.
LilyM said:
So again, why should the mother not make any sacrifices when the State at the very least doesn’t have that option and MUST care for any and all children within its borders as it is called on to do so, regardless of what sacrifice may be involved?
Click to expand...
Again, choice. The state chooses to do this, the mother should get to choose too.
LilyM said:
After all one of the things sex is purposed for is producing children, and even the most reliable contraception has a very well-known failure rate, so anyone voluntarily having sex under any circumstances, arguably, voluntarily assumes risk of pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Arguably not. I’m snipped and my wife has an IUD. The only thing we consent to when we jump in the sack is a good time.
Click to expand...
You seem to be saying you would be happy for the state not to make that choice. How exactly does that work in practice? Deport children to other states if they will accept them? Euthanase the ones that they can’t otherwise deal with? Sounds evil.

I am sure that your doctors have explained to you that both vasectomies and IUDs do fail from time to time. Meaning that there is always a risk, albeit a small one. And probably gotten you to sign forms indicating that you are aware of the risks of vasectomies and IUDs, one such risk being the risk of failure.

You wouldn’t be able to sue anyone if she got pregnant for example, unless there was, for example, some unusual fault in the way the vasectomy was performed, or the way the IUD was manufactured or inserted. The mere fact of pregnancy is not grounds for compensation, because no surgical or barrier (or other artificial) method of contraception is designed or warranted to be 100% fail proof.
 
Only because the fertility rates in said countries are abysmal. Who will be willing to hire reproductive age women if they know they could be on the hook for endless paid leave?
 
RuthAnne said:
Supreme law.
Click to expand...
In the context of how this part of the thread arose, the adjectival description of the type or source of the law is rather irrelevant. My interlocutor asserted something as fact and I explained to him that he ought to have prefaced his statement with “US law states…”. Whether the law is constitutional or otherwise is of no consequence.
 
Hume said:
For many, a fetus is only a “someone” if mom wants it to be.
Click to expand...
Ding ding. And what about somethings mother wanting it to be human makes it human?
Hume said:
For pro-lifers “The life of the fetus outweighs moms bodily concerns”.
For pro-choicers “The bodily concerns of the mom outweigh the life of the fetus”.
Click to expand...
And my right not to wear a mask outweighs your right not to get COVID.
 
Last edited:
Elf01 said:
And my right not to wear a mask outweighs your right not to get COVID.
Click to expand...
That’s generally true.

But I can make wearing a mask a requirement for entering my grocery store or my c-store or the local mass retailer I manage.

So you’re confronted with a choice and you get to choose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top