Why the focus on abortion?

[Elf01]

In the mother-child relationship, the courts don’t often allow a child to sue its mother for prenatal injury (outside of fetal alcohol syndrome or car accident) and the mother can’t sue the child for causing injury to her body from pregnancy/birth. For the most part, the courts consider the fetus as an extension of the pregnant woman’s body.

It seems she doesn’t really have bodily automony. She can murder her baby if she wants but can’t risk his or her health.

It does not make sense.

Also if the baby is killed without her consent should the person who killed him/her get off scott free.

 

[Brendan]

The death penalty is a state sanctioned punishment for a person who has been convicted of committing certain crimes that warrant the sentence of death penalty. So, Capital Punishment does not apply between mother/fetus.

Well, the abortion is state sanctioned, and the alleged crime was a violation of bodily rights. That would be Capital Punishment, would it not?

If the state is sponsoring the deliberate killing of another human for a perceived violation, with or without a trial, is that not form of Capitial Punishment?

In fact, in most moral systems, conducting the killing without benefit of a trial is considered a human rights violation.

 

[goout]

Lea101:

right to bodily autonomy more important than the right to life

Bodily integrity/autonomy is the the foundation for all other human rights. The right to have one’s body intact (inviolability of the body) and right of self-determination, including with what is done to one’s body and by whom it is done.

Please think about what you just wrote, and the circularity of it.
You just said that bodily autonomy is the foundation of all other rights.
So the question is: who is bodily autonomy proper to?

Does my cat have a right to bodily autonomy?
How about my dead grandmother. Does she claim the right to bodily autonomy?
How about a tree. Does a tree have a human right to bodily autonomy?

Isn’t it true that every human right presupposes living human beings, and if we do not respect that basic premise, all you have is arguments about assertions, with no real foundation?

And when you claim this kind of quicksand as “morality”, any crime becomes acceptable, because your claim is not based on reason, it is based on the will to power. And power can claim the right to oppress and kill whoever power wants to oppress and kill.
If you do not understand human rights, do not expect a humane society to result, expect chaos and oppression to rule. And you shouldn’t deceive yourself that because you have the right to bodily autonomy, you are safe, because in this amoral quicksand, it is merely a matter of time before you are under the knife.

So if compassion does not move you to recognized the powerless, maybe healthy fear would help.

 

[goout]

I love ice cream! The real stuff, with real dairy cream in it.
But cows? Man cows suck. Large smelly animals that flatulate all day long and eat of lot of grain. We should do away with cows.

But man I love ice cream.

 

[Annie]

social capital is given to the ones who are free to produce results

So you just accept that point of view: we are only economic units in society’s gears?

Well, I have to thank you for giving me an insight into where society today either is or is going. Bread and circuses to anethesize the economic units so the economy can work efficiently for Bezos and his ilk.

 

[MamaJewel]

But I mean…if you admit the fetus is a person, wouldn’t the fetus have that same right? I get that the fetus is in the mother’s body, but by your logic, the fetus would have a right to remain intact and not be crushed and sucked out of a vacuum?

Bingo!
A human derived fetus, as a human being, absolutely has just as much rights as the other human being it is in to be “let alone”. And even more so from a medical practitioner whose vocation in the Western world stems back to a perspective of do no harm; do good.That’s why I mentioned to Annie to argue against abortion from the perspective of embryonic/fetal bodily integrity and autonomy.

I could probably come up with a solid case that would shut down elective abortion if the judicial system honestly had to treat those in various medical professions equitably (equal protection). An abortionist is granted extra legal protections under “undue burden”, but stem cell researchers studying live donated embryos are expected to terminate the developing embryo by Day 14. That is when the embryonic cells differentiate and design the human to come into its own “being”. Other researchers are legally compelled to be very cautious when approaching gene-editing to cure illnesses. Doctors aren’t allowed to research on a living fetus while its in the womb and people know why (and most actually cringe at the thought of it).

My belief that a woman has the right to choose is from the understanding that each and every person has the right to decide how much they are willing to endure and sacrifice of their body for the direct benefit of another human being. Anything less makes that person a means to an end.

 

[MamaJewel]

So the question is: who is bodily autonomy proper to?

Living and dead human beings.
That is the actual basis of human dignity.

Trigger Warning for those who have experienced pregnancy loss or loss of a child.

Since you always ask me this question, GoOut, I had to use my pesky research skills to dig deep.
Here is a story about a human who:
is deceased,
is a person,
is a baby,
is a fetus,…
and she is an organ donor. But not just any organ donor, she is the first person to make an eye donation in the state of Oklahoma.

I think it is more than fair to say that the right of bodily integrity/autonomy applied to Eva Grace as much as it does to any other human being, especially since she is a person who is an organ donor.

Parents of Stillborn Baby Eva Plan for Organ Donation Prior to Birth — From New to ICU

 

[MamaJewel]

So you just accept that point of view: we are only economic units in society’s gears?

Do I personally accept this as my life statement. Heck no.
Do I treat others this way. No.
However it is my lived experience and the lived experience of, well darn, everyone that I know.
The guiding “Invisible Hand” wasn’t supposed to lead to it, but sadly, this is where the world is at. And I have a sinking feeling it is the way things have always been.

And you shouldn’t deceive yourself that because you have the right to bodily autonomy, you are safe, because in this amoral quicksand, it is merely a matter of time before you are under the knife .

Bodily integrity/autonomy is not amoral quicksand, it is the basic foundation of all human rights.

I’ve been under the knife of life. I call it the school of hard knocks and life experience.

Let me tell you what, I am a childhood survivor of sexual assault. I grew up in a family with major dysfunction and my marriage wasn’t the best either.

I’ve been through so many adverse situations and have lived under many extreme, negative circumstances. I’ve had several trained counselors who helped me through complex PTSD say, “What they did to you was horrific” or “What happened to you was horrific”. My right to be alive was intact through all of that crap. (Although in a few of those circumstances I was darn close to death’s door.)

I’ll take my right to bodily integrity/autonomy first, thank you.

If that basic foundation of my humanity had been respected, “horrific” wouldn’t be a part of my lived experience and hey, I’d still be alive anyway.

(In childhood, I had a good friend whose sibling was kidnapped and raped to death. It was a horrific crime without any sense of justice. The perpetrators had no right to touch that child to begin with, even if murder wasn’t their intent. And they didn’t have any right to the body even after that child had died. Sorry GoOut, I’m standing with bodily integrity/autonomy.)

I believe you are a very good, ethical, compassionate person. So, please explain to me, by your reasoning, how the right to life comes first.

Isn’t it true that every human right presupposes living human beings

That is a good question.

I would say that human rights presuppose human beings, whether living or dead, (and in the future, hopefully, their actual or synthetic derivatives). Gotta be human to have human rights.

 

[vz71]

So, please explain to me, by your reasoning, how the right to life comes first

Without the right to life secured first, there can be no other rights to quibble over.

 

[MamaJewel]

Without the right to life secured first, there can be no other rights to quibble over.

I disagree. We experience life through our body. Bodily integrity/ autonomy is the foundation for human rights. Nobody has the right to another human being’s body without consent or to interfere with another human being’s bodily integrity/ autonomy without consent. Full stop.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

they are willing to endure and sacrifice of their body

How about other things like finances or services?

 

[vz71]

. We experience life through our body. Bodily integrity/ autonomy is the foundation for human rights.

One must first be alive before this autonomy can be experienced.

Therefore the right to life is first.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Bodily integrity/ autonomy is the foundation for human rights. Nobody has the right to another human being’s body without consent or to interfere with another human being’s bodily integrity/ autonomy without consent. Full stop.

Wouldn’t it be that one can’t violate the bodily integrity of the fetus? How would you overcome this difficulty?

 

[MamaJewel]

Well, the abortion is state sanctioned, and the alleged crime was a violation of bodily rights. That would be Capital Punishment, would it not?

If the state is sponsoring the deliberate killing of another human for a perceived violation, with or without a trial, is that not form of Capitial Punishment?

In fact, in most moral systems, conducting the killing without benefit of a trial is considered a human rights violation.

There isn’t a crime by the embryo/ fetus, so there is no Capital Punishment.
With abortion, it is more like self-preservation on the part of the pregnant woman because she bears the direct physical risks of a pregnancy.
The woman goes to a doctor for an elective abortion or to treat a miscarriage (missed or spontaneous abortion). Medical care is involved, so it implies that there is a level of preservation of health involved in an abortion process.

And the government doesn’t acknowledge a developing embryo/ fetus as its own entity until it is outside of the woman’s body. So capital punishment wouldn’t apply because there is not a formal process for naming the fetus as an individual, much less accusing, trying, and sentencing the fetus.

 

[Aquinas11]

My belief that a woman has the right to choose is from the understanding that each and every person has the right to decide how much they are willing to endure and sacrifice of their body for the direct benefit of another human being

That decision was waived when they became pregnant through voluntary actions

This logic also permits a mother of 6 month old baby to walk out of house and let the baby die.

 

[EXdrinker]

I disagree. We experience life through our body. Bodily integrity/ autonomy is the foundation for human rights. Nobody has the right to another human being’s body without consent or to interfere with another human being’s bodily integrity/ autonomy without consent. Full stop

If you use your autonomy to engage in an act that knowingly can result in another person being created and will grow inside your body then you have made the choice to allow that life to be formed. Why do you then think it moral to selfishly kill that life that you willfully allowed to be created? Why would a civil society want such a selfish person who makes narcisistic choices for personal pleasure or gain at the expense of others to be allowed to act in such a manner? That person is a net loss to the fabric of society until they repent of their actions and amend their life.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Why would a civil society want such a selfish person who makes narcisistic choices for personal pleasure or gain at the expense of others to be allowed to act in such a manner?

This shows a lack of understanding of the reasons why many, if not most, women seek abortions. Until full understanding is obtained on both sides of this debate, things will never get better.

 

[EXdrinker]

This shows a lack of understanding of the reasons why many, if not most, women seek abortions. Until full understanding is obtained on both sides of this debate, things will never get better.

Please enlighten me. Why is it not selfish to kill a life you helped create?

 

[QwertyGirl]

I was referring to the statement that women seek abortions for personal pleasure or gain.

The women I know who have had abortions have done so out of:

• fear
• health concerns
• concern for the other children they already had and were raising
• Mental health problems

None of them had abortions for their own pleasure or for personal “gain” (whatever that means).

That is what I was addressing.

You can decide for yourself, as we all do, what you think is or is not selfish.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The women I know who have had abortions have done so out of:

• fear
• health concerns
• concern for the other children they already had and were raising
• Mental health problems

If each of these issues were taken care of or a suitable alternative was found, then abortion would not be morally or legally acceptable?