Why the focus on abortion?

[Aquinas11]

Nobody is legally obligated to give their body for the direct use by another under any circumstance.

If that’s true, then baby isn’t legally obligated to give the baby’s body for direct use by another (eg. use by mother in act of murder).

 

[MamaJewel]

You’ve refuted your own argument - above you say it’s neither a baby or a person inside the woman thus there is no “another”, per your argument, that the woman is giving her body to

No I didn’t refute my own argument.
When a woman conceives or if an in vitro fertilization takes place, it’s not a baby and it’s not a “person”. “Person” being the philosophical/legal/societal definition.
But it is the tangible beginning of a human being at the zygotic stage. If the pregnancy continues, it becomes an embryo, and then a fetus. In the lab, scientists terminate the primitive embryo at day 14 after fertilization.

So while not a baby or a person, it certainly is another human with a body that is developing.

And by law in the US, humans are not legally obligated to to hand over their body for direct use by another human being. Legally, we have abortion as a privacy issue between a woman and her doctor.

Not according to your argument that they only consent to an act (sex) and not foreseeable consequences of said act (pregnancy).

Really?
What is an IUD and who uses it?
What is the hormonal birth control pill and who uses it?
What is a hormonal birth control implant and who uses it?
The birth control shot?
The birth control patch?
The birth control vaginal ring?
Cervical sponge?

All designed so that a human being who is fertile only 48 hours, maybe 72 hours, out of a month doesn’t get pregnant. Oh, and these human beings happen to be female, or “women”.

OK. Women don’t see pregnancy as a foreseeable consequence at all, now do they?

Since women don’t utilize the process of parthenogenesis to conceive, I wonder who or what the other factor is in the conception process.

Oh, look, it’s men.
And men are fertile 24/7 once they hit puberty.
Let me list the forms of birth control men use to prevent pregnancy.

Condom. Well, there is also a female condom, so the women get credit in this area to.
Vasectomy. Well, women can have tubal ligations, even though they are way more risky and invasive. So, credit to both genders with these forms of birth control.

Sooooo.
If men are fertile 24/7, I think it’s men who are lacking the ability to foresee the consequences of sexual intercourse. It’s not like they are beating down medicine’s door for a way to control their bodies and prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

The burden to use birth control, not get pregnant, and not have sex has been solely on women for over 50 years now. It’s time for men to be held responsible for unwanted pregnancy as well.

 

[MamaJewel]

Nobody is legally obligated to give their body for the direct use by another under any circumstance.

Legally, it isn’t given full baby status.
When babies die unexpectedly of unknown causes, they get an autopsy by the state.
When an embryo or fetus is miscarried, the parents are expected to pay several thousand dollars to a lab try to determine the cause of death. Hospitals will usually perform an autopsy once the woman has recurrent losses. Just as many “babies” die each year from unknown “natural” causes than die from elective abortion. And it’s crickets from the pro-life community regarding babies lost by spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).

As far as the baby’s body being used by the mother,
a medical abortion, which is done up to 10 weeks, disrupts the pregnancy process, so the there is no direct use of the embryo or fetus in the process. The embryo or fetus dies as a secondary result. A woman’s action to medically abort can be considered self-defense because pregnancy is quite dangerous to a woman’s health, even with sound medical care.

With surgical abortion, there is direct contact with the embryo or fetus and it is violent contact. There is a valid argument on the basis of bodily integrity/ autonomy that an embryo or fetus has the right to be free of such violence and the right to be “let alone”. It certainly has the right to be free of invasive research or torture or exposure harmful industrial environments while in the woman’s womb.

The woman could argue justifiable homicide as a form of self-protection with surgical abortion, but it isn’t the woman that is doing the procedure.

Ethically, for the last 2500 years in Western medicine, a doctor would be justified to perform an abortion in cases of medical necessity for termination of the pregnancy. Back in Hippocrates’ day, the original group professing the oath supposedly didn’t perform abortion at all, while abortion was done for what was deemed medical necessity was done by a later established group of physicians.
Btw, I’ve had many people get very angry at me when I argue the above points.

To most pro-lifers, especially pro-life legislators, it is only a baby or alive if it is inside of a woman’s body. To them, human zygotes and human embryos in the Petri dish aren’t human or living. They aren’t considered babies.
This is why many pro-choice supporters believe the pro-life stance is about power and control of women’s bodies and forced-birth.

I know that most pro-life Catholics here see the human zygote or embryo in a lab to be just as human as one in a woman’s uterus. But this is not the stance of most pro-life evangelicals for sure.

On a side note, most ob/gyns don’t perform elective abortion because they view the fetus as a developing human being. However, the younger doctors coming in are more willing to be trained to do abortion procedures because they see it as a necessary part of health care for women who miscarry or want elective abortion.

 

[Aquinas11]

So while not a baby or a person, it certainly is another human with a body that is developing.

A baby is a “human with a body that is developing” so once again you’ve contradicted yourself.

 

[MamaJewel]

Homeostasis is not a sign of life. Life can well exist without it.

Take me to your tribe because I want to see a living organism that doesn’t require homeostasis for life. In other words, please share a credible source or two supporting the position that homeostasis is not a sign of life.

From conception, we are very clearly dealing with life.
And it is from the assurance of this that all else can be experienced.

If cellular structure and function is present, one can argue that we are clearly dealing with life. But neither conception, nor pregnancy is any type of assurance that a human being is present or that a human being will ever be present. A woman can be pregnant, but we aren’t guaranteed that the life of a human being is present.

Complete molar pregnancy (a type of cancer) and blighted ovum call to mind two examples of a scenario where a conception and pregnancy have occurred, but there is no human being produced.

You are wrong when making the assumption that from conception we are assured that “all else can be experienced”.

 

[MamaJewel]

A baby is a “human with a body that is developing” so once again you’ve contradicted yourself.

Not really.
Human embryos are certainly not babies.
A fetus isn’t a “baby” either, from the legal perspective.
However, a human embryo is a human in the embryonic stage of being. It’s body is at the embryonic stage. So I consider that a human being, but not a person (in the legal/philosophical/social sense) nor a baby.
A human fetus, as I have shown in previous posts, arguably retains a level of bodily integrity/ autonomy.

But legally it’s not a person with equal rights to the woman who carries it. Why, because her body is providing direct life support (benefit) to it while, by the nature of its presence within her body, it is placing her health and well-being at risk. Every cell and body system of a pregnant woman must adapt and maintain homeostasis for not only her, but the fetus as well. If her body doesn’t, they both die.

Please support your position on why the government should suspend a competent, non-criminal, pregnant woman’s right to her bodily integrity/ autonomy and privacy.

Like I posted before, “In law, we have to treat each person equally. Society doesn’t suspend the rights of people with legal capacity unless they have committed a crime or are legally deemed incompetent by a court with jurisdiction over their case.” Law can’t single out one group on a whim. There is equal protection under the law.

Are you saying being pregnant is a criminal activity? Or that pregnant women are incompetent?

 

[vz71]

woman can be pregnant, but we aren’t guaranteed that the life of a human being is present.

You suggest that humans do not give birth to humans.
The facts are against you.

 

[Aquinas11]

A baby is a “human with a body that is developing”

Not really.

So you believe a baby is a human with a body that is FULLY developed.

But legally it’s not a person with equal rights to the woman who carries it.

And legally a slave was not a person with equal rights to the slave owner who owned it.

That is the logic of slavery and its not a coincidence the same political party who supported slavery in 1800s support abortion in 2000s. Its the same logic.

A fetus isn’t a “baby” either, from the legal perspective.

No such thing as “the legal perspective”

In some countries/states, “legal perspective” provides that fetus has same rights as born baby

In other countries/states “legal perspective” provides that fetus does not have same rights as born baby

a human embryo is a human in the embryonic stage of being. It’s body is at the embryonic stage. So I consider that a human being

So it has body autonomy and thus per your logic, cannot consent to anyone using its body (e.g. murder out of inconvenience) against its will for benefit of another.

by the nature of its presence within her body, it is placing her health and well-being at risk

and by the nature of mother perpetrating an act of violence on the baby, the mother is more than placing baby’s health and well being at risk…you’re destroying your own argument since your own logic is defeating your position

Please support your position on why…

Go ahead and quote my position where I said that and I’ll respond.

All designed so that a human being who is fertile only 48 hours, maybe 72 hours, out of a month doesn’t get pregnant

You seem to be inferring that women who engage in sexual activity are not aware that these methods are not 100% effective and thus there is always some risk of pregnancy… That is rather patronizing of women is it not?

If I choose not to get health insurance, that may only mean a 10% risk of getting stuck with $100K hospital bill but I know that risk when I choose to get no health insurance since I’m fully aware of that risk at the time.

Same way if I choose to have sex and use a birth control method that is 95% effective, that may only mean a 5% risk of getting pregnant but I know that risk when I choose to have sex since I’m fully aware of that risk at the time I have sex.

 

[MamaJewel]

You suggest that humans do not give birth to humans.
The facts are against you.

I did not suggest that at all.

However, you stated that homeostasis is not a sign of life and “From conception, we are clearly dealing with life. And it is from the assurance of this that all else can be experienced.”

From my understanding, your argument supports that what is conceived and implants(pregnancy) places the obligation on a woman to give up her bodily integrity/ autonomy because it is a baby (as pro-lifers call it) and has a right to life.

I gave you two solid examples where conception and pregnancy occur, but the reality of a human being never comes to fruition.

I am going to leave you with one more example of a conception and pregnancy that produces a fetus that most people would not consider a human or a baby. Go look up an acardiac, acephalic fetus and come back and tell me such a pregnancy scenario does not possibly indicate a termination of pregnancy.

Don’t try to imply that I said anything of the sort that human beings don’t give birth to human beings when you have clearly implied that conception assures us that human life is present.

And please send your sources supporting that life doesn’t require homeostasis.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

To most pro-lifers, especially pro-life legislators, it is only a baby or alive if it is inside of a woman’s body. To them, human zygotes and human embryos in the Petri dish aren’t human or living. They aren’t considered babies.
This is why many pro-choice supporters believe the pro-life stance is about power and control of women’s bodies and forced-birth.

Never heard that used as a reason before. I’m not convinced that’s a widespread reason.

 

[vz71]

I did not suggest that at all.

Sure you did.

A woman can be pregnant, but we aren’t guaranteed that the life of a human being is present.

You indicated a pregnant woman is not necessarily carrying a human.

 

[MamaJewel]

So you believe a baby is a human with a body that is FULLY developed.

Don’t even try to go here when this was the context of the discussion.

So while not a baby or a person, it certainly is another human with a body that is developing.

referring to the zygote/embryo/fetus that I consider to be a type of “human being”.

You responded:

A baby is a “human with a body that is developing” so once again you’ve contradicted yourself.

Not really.
Human embryos are certainly not babies.
A fetus isn’t a “baby” either, from the legal perspective.
However, a human embryo is a human in the embryonic stage of being. It’s body is at the embryonic stage. So I consider that a human being, but not a person (in the legal/philosophical/social sense) nor a baby.
A human fetus, as I have shown in previous posts, arguably retains a level of bodily integrity/ autonomy.

But legally it’s not a person with equal rights to the woman who carries it. Why, because her body is providing direct life support (benefit) to it while, by the nature of its presence within her body, it is placing her health and well-being at risk. Every cell and body system of a pregnant woman must adapt and maintain homeostasis for not only her, but the fetus as well. If her body doesn’t, they both die.

My remarks following “not really” clearly show that I’m referencing a human embryo/ fetus.

Once again, I’ve been very generous with you in explaining my position and reading your words that accuse pregnant women who have abortion of murdering a “baby”. Give me proof that the woman is pregnant with a “baby” and how that baby’s right to life supercedes the right to bodily integrity/ autonomy of the person carrying it.

And legally a slave was not a person with equal rights to the slave owner who owned it.

You’re absolutely correct. A slave was 3/5ths a person. A form of human subjection to another person that even Christianity condones. Although a master could kill his slave, it wasn’t the right to life that was being violated when deigning a slave less than a person. It was the right to bodily integrity/autonomy.

No such thing as “the legal perspective”

Puhhlease. Do better than this?

 

[vz71]

Although a master could kill his slave, it wasn’t the right to life that was being violated when deigning a slave less than a person. It was the right to bodily

Killing is a violation to the right to life.
Slavery is a violation of bodily autonomy.

At conception, one is alive.
Slavery cannot happen until after birth.

 

[Aquinas11]

So while not a baby or a person, it certainly is another human with a body that is developing.

It can’t
(1) not be a baby AND
(2) be “another human with a body that is developing”
since (2) also includes a baby. You’ve contradicted yourself again. You don’t see it so we’ll agree to disagree

Although a master could kill his slave, it wasn’t the right to life that was being violated when deigning a slave less than a person. It was the right to bodily integrity/autonomy.

Not according to your logic, it is “the legal perspective” which governs and at the time, “the legal perspective” said it was legal for master to kill his slave since wasn’t full person (same words you used to define fetus). The famous Dred Scott Supreme Court case held blacks don’t have same rights as Americans. Hence why “the legal perspective” is a bogus standard.

1800s = Political Party argued blacks not real people to enslave blacks

2000s = Same Political Party argue babies not real people to murder babies

Same party, same logic

 

[MamaJewel]

So it has body autonomy and thus per your logic, cannot consent to anyone using its body (e.g. murder out of inconvenience) against its will for benefit of another.

by the nature of its presence within her body, it is placing her health and well-being at risk

Since laws allow for autonomy and self-defense, legally a woman can justify terminating her pregnancy because of the nature of pregnancy. She acts as direct life support or donor to the developing embryo/ fetus. Also the developing human is literally a foreign body (allogeneic tissue) inside of her, even if it is partly related to her. Pregnancy is natural, but it places her body at risk for serious harm. That’s why I don’t believe law can mandate a woman to carry a fetus, as in, do this or go to jail.

I definitely hold the 100% belief that a developing zygote/embryo/fetus has the right of bodily integrity and autonomy. In the womb or in a Petri dish, he/she/it/they/we (the developing human) has the right to be let alone. Why wouldn’t it have that right, if it’s human at the zygotic stage of being, the embryonic stage of being, or fetal stage of being?

Doctors aren’t allowed to experiment on the developing human in the womb and after 14 days post-fertilization in the lab. It must be dead and doctors must have consent from a parent before research or an organ donation is made from it. So, consent comes from the parents (or maybe the next of kin…I’m not sure on this).

Health care providers perform the elective surgical abortion procedure. I present the argument that without medical necessity, doctors are actually violating the developing human’s bodily integrity/ autonomy. People get peeved at me for making that point. But they can’t hit back that it’s not a human being, because there has to be consent from the mother for herself and the fetus, if fetal surgeons are going to treat it.

You seem to be inferring that women who engage in sexual activity are not aware that these methods are not 100% effective and thus there is always some risk of pregnancy… That is rather patronizing of women is it not?

Hmm. I have a living young adult child that I conceived without having sex. I had made it clear to my spouse that I was in way too much physical pain to engage in the marital embrace. I wasn’t even awake.

Consent to sex is consent to sex, regardless of the chances of getting pregnant.

Don’t patronize me.

 

[vz71]

I definitely hold the 100% belief that a developing zygote/embryo/fetus has the right of bodily integrity and autonomy. In the womb or in a Petri dish, he/she/it/they/we (the developing human) has the right to be let alone. Why wouldn’t it have that right, if it’s human at the zygotic stage of being, the embryonic stage of being, or fetal stage of being?

Understand.
Your vocabulary and mine may not be 100% the same.
But we agree abortion is evil from conception onward.

 

[Aquinas11]

Also the developing human is literally a foreign body (allogeneic tissue) inside of her, even if it is partly related to her.

No, a foreign body or allogeneic tissue comes from an external source to the body, whereas the baby is from an internal source within the body

Since laws allow for

That’s why I don’t believe law can

As already established, citing to laws or what is legal is bogus standard, since would justify slavery in past. I’ll give you benefit of doubt and assume you don’t endorse someone justifying past slavery on basis it was “legal” or supported by “law”

can mandate a woman to carry a fetus, as in, do this or go to jail.

Not mandating woman do anything

Just not letting her commit murder

Huge difference

I present the argument that without medical necessity, doctors are actually violating the developing human’s bodily integrity/ autonomy.

So you’re against abortion unless mother life at risk? So we may have some common ground

Consent to sex is consent to sex, regardless of the chances of getting pregnant.

Consent to eating junk food is consent to risk of weight gain

Consent to smoking is consent to risk of lung cancer

Consent to sex is consent to risk of pregnancy

 

[MamaJewel]

It can’t
(1) not be a baby AND
(2) be “another human with a body that is developing”
since (2) also includes a baby. You’ve contradicted yourself again. You don’t see it so we’ll agree to disagree

Oh yes a developing human in the womb or in the science lab can be a human being without being a baby or a person.
A teenager has a body that is developing and it isn’t a baby.
Ages and stages.
You just know that most folks don’t consider a human embryo or human fetus to be a baby, so you use the term “baby” to pull on heart strings.

MamaJewel is so cold with her terminology because she knows that the future pretty much holds one of two scenarios: society will function like Handmaid’s Tale or it will function like Brave New World. Depends upon who wins the arms race.

Legal perspective isn’t bogus. It’s what we’ve used for ages to establish and codify law.

Yes. Dred Scott held blacks don’t have the same rights as Americans. Masters could kill their slaves. If a master didn’t kill his slave, the slave was alive. But the act of being a slave disregarded the slave’s right bodily integrity/ autonomy. In other words, it kept the slave from being a full person in their own right.

As far as babies are concerned, it is not legal to kill a baby. A baby isn’t being murdered during abortion. You argue against “legal perspective” and say its “bogus”, and turn around use some of the very terminology that law uses.

 

[Aquinas11]

But the act of being a slave disregarded the slave’s right bodily integrity/ autonomy. In other words, it kept the slave from being a full person in their own right.

Nope since according your logic “the legal perspective” governs and at time slaves had no legal body integrity/autonomy to disregard.

A teenager has a body that is developing and it isn’t a baby.

So now the fetus is a teenager? Murder case is now a slam dunk!

Legal perspective isn’t bogus. It’s what we’ve used for ages to establish and codify law

It is if you’re using it to make arguments on morality, instead of some other basis, since it’s been proven to be unreliable

 

[grotto]

We must focus on ending abortion - every prayer and action concerns our soul’s eternal life with Our Lord. God’s creation for those made in His Image and Likeness is known to God as the Soul belonging to Him.
That’s it - no arguments about sperm, ovum, zygotes, fetus, foreign body, legal/illegal, parasite, internal, external. Enough! Advances in science and medical knowledge are good or bad. The “choice” is serve God or not. To continue distracting others and tempting them to choose the evil of abortion equates to “lets kill everyone” - sounds like the cry of Iran’s mullah - “Death to America!”. So, why stop there … nuke em all! The grievous sin of abortion is the fundamental killing of
Life!