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

[Rau]

The consent to sex is not the consent to parenthood.

One consents to take the risk. If a follower of Hume, one May have in the back of one’s mind the “final solution” as a backup plan should the risk play out.

 

[Hume]

One consents to take the risk.

No they don’t.

For example, I’m the master of my consent. It cannot be implicitly given.
When I enjoy congress with my wife, we do not consent to additional children. We just consent to congress.

If she catches pregnant by some miracle (we both have “goalies” in place), we’ll almost certainly keep it. But make no bones about it - we don’t consent to more kids. We don’t want more kids. Period. Hard stop.

 

[Rau]

When I enjoy congress with my wife, we do not consent to additional children.

I didn’t say you did (noting your definition of child). But you do consent to the risk of parenthood ie pregnancy. [ I assume circumstances have not rendered that risk 0.]. But I appreciate you may not be willing to accept the term “parent” as an appropriate description for your relationship to recently conceived off-spring.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Hume:

pnewton:

I guess that is one difference. You default to liberty. I default to not killing someone, or as was in the case of slavery, not enslaving someone.

One small addition;

The pro-life stance does enslave someone.

The woman.

That (for the most part) does not make any sense.

Of course it does.

“I want this out of my body”
“Tough. Regardless the risks involved, you will gestate that child inside your body - even against your will.”

That’s slavery through any lens.

A woman who.chooses to have sex knowing there is always - ALWAYS, no exceptions - a chance of pregnancy, is no more a slave than someone who chooses to get drunk.and drive knowing there is always a risk of an accident that cpuld harm.them.

The consent to sex is not the consent to parenthood.

As a religious matter, if you’d like to think otherwise, fine with me. Just keep your religious views out of my bedroom.
Individually, be just as pro-life as you want to be. Choice lets you do that.

It is nothing to do with religion.

You get drunk, get behind the wheel and hit a pedestrian, you cannot argue that you are not culpable or responsible or liable for it merely because you did not specifically consent to injure them.

There is such a thing as voluntary assumption pf risk - in this case risk of causing injury to another. In your case risk of pregnancy.

This is why, in my jurisdiction at least, a man who gets a woman pregnant is liable, to the extent he is able, to support that chikd.should.she choose to have it. He cannot argue that he did not consent to her being pregnant.

You play, you pay, it is simple as that.

 

[Hume]

It is nothing to do with religion.

The notion that a fetus is a much a “person” as a child is as much a person as an adult is a largely religious idea.

In the secular world, it’s not true. You obtain additional rights as you age. Personhood is a progression.

This is why, in my jurisdiction at least, a man who gets a woman pregnant is liable, to the extent he is able, to support that chikd.should.she choose to have it.

And in providing equal opportunity to the man as to the woman, he should be allowed to have what’s termed a “paper abortion”.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

It is nothing to do with religion.

The notion that a fetus is a much a “person” as a child is as much a person as an adult is a largely religious idea.

In the secular world, it’s not true. You obtain additional rights as you age. Personhood is a progression.

This is why, in my jurisdiction at least, a man who gets a woman pregnant is liable, to the extent he is able, to support that chikd.should.she choose to have it.

And in providing equal opportunity to the man as to the woman, he should be allowed to have what’s termed a “paper abortion”.

I get it, you want to play but not pay.

The law, at least in many places, fortunately recognises, like the manufacturers of contraception and, it seems, many other people.apart from you, that there is no such thing as completely risk- -free sex. As much as you like to kid yourself that there is.

Contraception, sterisilation and abortion all have rvery real rsks of their own (in terms of possible medical.consequences and side effects for the user).

That is scientific and logical.fact and nothing to do with religion. That is why secular states uphold tHe responsibilities of fathers by seeking that they pay child support.

And it is not an issue of a fetus having the same rights as an adult. Self-evidently neither fetuses, infants nor teenagera have or should have all or many of the same.rights as an adult.

It is about just ONE right in particular, but the most fundamental of all for humans, the one without which any and all others are meaningless. That being the right to life itself.

 

[Jimbo]

This is just one slippery slope fallacy after another, which is why it’s not considered by the broader population. “Maybe ‘they’ will just kill you too!” ok…

No, it’s not. It’s pointing out that the basis upon which you have set the humanity bar is based on the State’s determination; not taking it outside of the State and basing it on the inherent basis of the individual. Using the birth canal as your bright line rule instead of the inherent nature of the person means any arbitrary means can be used. And there are ones that make far more sense than passage of the birth canal. Puberty, for example, could easily be used. Or when the infant first speaks.

You are setting up arbitrary rules, then claiming they make sense because your arbitrary rule implies some sort of real change in the person. It doesn’t. That’s the same argument that the slave owners used to dehumanize African Americans. ‘But, they’re black…’ ‘They’re from Africa…’ ‘They’re from a savage place…’ All were just as arbitrary and all make just as much sense as your birth canal analogy. It’s a new flavor of the same madness we’ve used to justify oppression for centuries.

Guy going 56 in a 55 isn’t materially more dangerous than the guy doing 55 in a 55. But 55 is where the line gets drawn.

A fetus at 40 weeks isn’t materially more developed than the same child born 12 hours later. But birth is where the line gets drawn.

Are you seriously likening speed limits to humanity?

‘A white guy isn’t materially better than a black guy, but that color is where the line gets drawn’. That’s how dangerous and arbitrary that is. We don’t (shouldn’t) do things like that because the life and rights of real human beings are more important.

We have a conflict, here. The inalienable right of private property and the supposed right to gestate.

Yes. And nearly always trumps property, rightly so. I can’t shoot you for stealing my car. I can’t shoot you for stealing my bike. I can shoot you if you invade my home, but only because you might be a threat to my life. And no, a home invader isn’t the same as an in-utero human.

And ‘supposed right to gestate’? That’s called living, and yes, you, me, and the fetus all have a right to that.

The personhood of a fetus is very much up for debate, whether we like that reality or not.

So was the personhood of black Africans in the 19th century. Debate doesn’t mean it’s a good debate.

Again, if a woman miscarries - there is no investigation. No one is called to issue a death certificate. This is so because that fetus is not a person in the same way as someone already “here”.

For a variety of reasons, all of which make sense but don’t detract from the humanity of a person.

With all that. I’m out. It’s clear we have reached an impasse. I wish you and yours well, especially during this time of Pandemic.

 

[Hume]

No, it’s not. It’s pointing out that the basis upon which you have set the humanity bar is based on the State’s determination; not taking it outside of the State and basing it on the inherent basis of the individual.

It’s a conflict between inherent bases, as you call them. There’s more than one involved.

On one side, you have an ill-defined right of life for fetuses. On the other, the right of a woman’s self determination over her most sacred property - her body.

We have three solutions;

1. Force the woman to gestate the child (yours)
2. Force the woman to abort (no one’s)
3. Force nothing - let the woman choose (mine).

Options 1 and 2 enslave the woman, so they will not work.
Option 3 places the personhood of the woman, already a participant in human society, above that of the fetus. This option has much precedent and is the most rational.

Using the birth canal as your bright line rule instead of the inherent nature of the person means any arbitrary means can be used. And there are ones that make far more sense than passage of the birth canal. Puberty, for example, could easily be used. Or when the infant first speaks.

You’re wrong here because you refuse to accept the reality that a fetus requires a woman’s body to gestate and when it no longer uses that body, her right to refuse that gestation expires.

That’s the razor that utterly cuts apart your attempt to convolute where the line is best drawn - birth.

You are setting up arbitrary rules, then claiming they make sense because your arbitrary rule implies some sort of real change in the person. It doesn’t. That’s the same argument that the slave owners used to dehumanize African Americans.

Then I look forward to observing your additional efforts to require that women who experience miscarriages and stillbirths submit to a cursory investigation in order to ensure that no foul play was involved in the deaths of those “people”.

Any unwillingness to agree is the expected evidence of substantial ideological inconsistency on your part.