Why the focus on abortion?

[IQ170]

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

Consent to risk is not the same as consent to the outcome - unless there is a logical and deterministic connection. Stochastic relationships do not “consent” to the outcome.

 

[Aquinas11]

Consent to risk is not the same as consent to the outcome

Never said it is. Quote where I made that assertion.

 

[MamaJewel]

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.

Forgive me for my semantics. The act of enslavement disregards the an individuals right to bodily integrity/ autonomy. Being declared a slave results in an individual’s loss of bodily integrity/ autonomy and any other rights/liberties.

I wasn’t arguing the morality of it. I’m stating the fact of what enslavement does to an individual in response to what you wrote.

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

You mentioned slavery first.

We do use legal perspective to make arguments on what is morally acceptable in our laws.

My forebears considered the legal perspective of the day, (ie. the king wasn’t doing what he was supposed to do to in regards to his authority over the colonials) and fought in the American Revolutionary War to establish a new set of codes called the United States Constitution. Slavery was one of those moral arguments they debated.

Are you telling me what they did was bogus because they looked at various legal perspectives of their day? People during that period were making arguments that slavery could be wrong, even though it had its legal, economic, and religious place in society.

Slavery is condoned in the Bible. People that use the good book as their moral guide have argued for slavery in the past, can argue for it today, and could ideally argue for it in the future. It’s not like the rights to bodily autonomy and life are solid Biblical positions.

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!

Are you referring to a former fetus that is now a teenager.
And that teenager is murdered? It’s a murder case, slam dunk?
What are you trying to say?

And please, don’t tell me that teenagers, who are living, breathing people that have been murdered, get a murder case, slam dunk, over their deaths.

 

[MamaJewel]

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

No doubt, we have common ground.
Medically, abortion is a termination of a pregnancy. And since there are many ways a pregnancy can be terminated, the word abortion has different meanings.

In and of itself, pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk just by the nature of the process. I believe a woman has the right to her health and well-being, and should not be legally required to provide direct bodily life support to another human in whatever stage of its development. I believe that if she wants to terminate the pregnancy, she can do so because she has the right to decide how much she is willing to sacrifice to allow her body to be directly utilized by another human being at any stage of their life.

So you will absolutely disagree with me there.

As far as medicine is concerned, even if doctors don’t take the Oath, they must ethically abide by the principles of non maleficence and beneficence, autonomy, informed consent, and justice, at a minimum. And while pregnancy put’s a mother’s health/life at risk in general, a doctor is responsible for treating a patient in such a manner that balances harm with good. The benefits must outweigh the risks for a procedure to be done.

A healthy pregnant woman, with a healthy pregnancy process, and a healthy fetus needs a medical procedure like elective abortion performed where? Where does the benefit outweigh the harm in such a procedure? On top of that, doctors serve human life through all of its ages and stages. A developing human embryo/ fetus has the right to be free from harm balanced with benefit for any activity a doctor provides towards it as well. The developing human doesn’t have to be the doctor’s patient. It’s human and has it’s right to its bodily integrity/ autonomy, and thus, its life. Justice dictates this.

However, I wouldn’t exactly say that I’m against abortion unless the mother’s life is at risk. The human body is dynamic, which results in the practice of medicine as an art and a science. I’ve had 11 pregnancies and I can assure that each one presented with its own complexities. What was medically necessary with one pregnancy, might have resulted in my demise or my kid’s demise in another.

Rather I’d say that I’m against abortion if non maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, informed consent, and justice are not applied by medical practitioners when performing an abortion procedure. If we uphold these standards, which go back 2500 years in medicine, it pretty much eliminates surgical elective abortion.

Now, if you really want to end abortion:

1. Kick the “undue burden” clause to the curb
   and
2. provide Medicare for All.

Medicare doesn’t pay unless there is documented medical necessity for a procedure. Oh, and I am pretty sure that Medicare’s Conditions of Participation require that doctor’s who perform surgery in outpatient settings maintain admitting privileges with a hospital. I’d have to look it up.

 

[vz71]

Being declared a slave results in an individual’s loss of bodily integrity/ autonomy and any other rights/liberties.

Being declared anything implies a time when the condition did not exist.
Do you wish us to believe that whoever is declared a slave was not alive previous to that?

Given your admission that human zygotes are alive, is it possible that the zygote is a slave?

 

[vz71]

In and of itself, pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk just by the nature of the process

By what standard?

Every activity has a risk associated with it.

 

[vz71]

against abortion unless mother life at risk

Along with this

In and of itself, pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk just by the nature of the process.

Leads to being for abortion in all cases.

 

[IQ170]

So you’re against abortion unless mother life at risk?

Your post was mistakenly directed to me as an answer. But that is fine. I will just present my views.

First of all no one is FOR abortions. There was never a case when a woman purposefully got pregnant, just to go through the process of an abortion. So the label of “pro-abortion” is incorrect. But it is “useful” to paint the “pro-choice” people with a dark-stain.

There is no rational argument against birth control. Good old “nature” made the process of procreation pleasurable, because otherwise no one would be willing to engage in it. After all the pregnancy is uncomfortable and bad for the woman’s health. Medically speaking it is much more dangerous than a quick miscarriage or an abortion. Bringing up children is also a long, arduous process. It takes time, energy, money, all of which could be spent much better to enhance the quality of the life of the parents.

So to procreate is an irrational choice. But nature does not care about the individual. Se we are “created” irrational in this respect. Most people feel that their life is more fulfilling when they have children. They feel that the sacrifice is “worth it”. After all, their genes will be propagated, so they will not be totally “gone” when they die.

This is all well and good. It is fine to accept our irrationality. But from that it does not follow that one must be “open” to procreation every time when engaging in sexual activity. The average couple has two or three children, and has sex pretty much every day during their fertile period. Thousands of sex acts, and two-three offsprings.

What is wrong to enjoy the pleasure part without the side-effect? Because pregnancy is THE side effect for these people. There is no rational argument against wanting the pleasure only. In those few instances, when people want to have children, they can do away with the prevention.

There is a recurring objection against people who practice contraception: “why do you wish to enjoy the pleasure without the effect?” And the answer is “why NOT”? Not to mention that it is much more “unitive” to have sex when there is no risk of a side effect.

The natural consequence of food consumption is to get nutrition. Is it wrong to have low calorie food or drink just to enjoy the taste? Of course not. The natural consequence of walking is to get from one place to another. Is it wrong just to walk around, without any special destination, just to enjoy the scenery? Of course not.

 

[Aquinas11]

I believe that if she wants to terminate the pregnancy, she can do so because she has the right to decide how much she is willing to sacrifice to allow her body to be directly utilized by another human being at any stage of their life.

A healthy pregnant woman, with a healthy pregnancy process, and a healthy fetus needs a medical procedure like elective abortion performed where? Where does the benefit outweigh the harm in such a procedure?

Another massive contradiction - if the mother has the absolute right to decide to terminate any pregnancy, then any such conversation about criteria on whether she “needs” an abortion are irrelevant.

 

[John10]

There’s a part of me that wonders what the pro-life activists would do with themselves if abortion were wiped off the face of the earth? I almost feel like they’d just keep talking about it…

I am sure there would still be other issues we would have to deal with. After knowing what a “dismemberment” late term abortion is and in some countries this is being enforced as a “on demand” human right. I would wonder how could I remain indifferent about such diabolical scheme.

 

[vz71]

There is no rational argument against birth control

The Catholic Church teaching on this is very rational.

 

[Aquinas11]

There is no rational argument against birth control.

It increases promiscuity which increases emotional damage associated therewith (depression, suicide, inability to emotionally bond with partner long term, etc)

First of all no one is FOR abortions.

False. Dozens of celebrity quotes in past few years saying they explicitly love it. I would post them here but would be banned for posting crude and explicit content.

Bringing up children is also a long, arduous process. It takes time, energy, money, all of which could be spent much better to enhance the quality of the life of the parents.

GIven that we were all brought up along a “long, arduous process” and thus personally benefited from said process, it doesn’t have much weight to essentially argue against the same process that we all personally benefited from. Its like going through Weight Watchers, losing 20 pounds and then saying “Weight Watchers sucks”. Doesn’t hold much weight if person saying it benefited from Weight Watchers.

Oh wait, its only a “long arduous process” for OTHER parents to bring up OTHER kids besides us? Cause if that was true for you and me, we couldn’t rationally make that argument or be exposed as hypocrites.

So to procreate is an irrational choice.

Thus, to continue to live is to perpetuate said irrational choice. So the fact that you and I got out of bed this morning disproves that assertion…or demonstrates that we are perpetuating irrationality.

Oh wait, its only an irrational choice for OTHER people to procreate OTHER than us…everyone see how this works now?

The average couple has two or three children, and has sex pretty much every day during their fertile period.

More like once a week on average , I don’t think the average couple has sex every day.

What is wrong to enjoy the pleasure part without the side-effect? Because pregnancy is THE side effect for these people. There is no rational argument against wanting the pleasure only

Because there are far more side effects than pregnancy of engaging in sex , particularly if multiple partners/promiscuous which is mainstream in today culture

(1) PHysical side effects: STDs, sex assault, drug use, violence, etc
(2) Emotional side effects: inability to bond with long term partner, depression, suicide

The natural consequence of food consumption is to get nutrition. Is it wrong to have low calorie food or drink just to enjoy the taste? Of course not. The natural consequence of walking is to get from one place to another. Is it wrong just to walk around, without any special destination, just to enjoy the scenery? Of course not.

Food can be abused just like sex - e.g. Bulimia
Exercise can also be abused just like sex - e.g. Anorexic people who over exercise

Every activity has a natural method of practicing it and an unnatural method of practicing

 

[IQ170]

It increases promiscuity which increases emotional damage associated therewith (depression, suicide, inability to emotionally bond with partner long term, etc)

Do you really assert that all those negative consequences are all unavoidable, and happen each and every time when a couple practices birth control? Or that they might happen sometimes. And in the second case, what is the risk-benefit analysis?

Dozens of celebrity quotes in past few years saying they explicitly love it. I would post them here but would be banned for posting crude and explicit content.

I would be happy if you just presented a list of all those people (celeb or not) who purposefully got pregnant just to be able to undergo the process of an abortion. Because no one can speak for others.

GIven that we were all brought up along a “long, arduous process” and thus personally benefited from said process, it doesn’t have much weight to essentially argue against the same process that we all personally benefited from.

Most people make the choice (if it is a choice and not an accident) before they would be able to assess the results. I would love to implement a new approach. Before anyone can get pregnant, they would HAVE TO care for an artificial (but totally life-like) baby, which would exhibit all the positive and negative features of a real one. Wakes you up every 2 hours, cries due to some stomach ache, pukes on your new dress when you want to go out and celebrate, gets a fever periodically and so on. So you would know what you really get into.

Because there are far more side effects than pregnancy of engaging in sex , particularly if multiple partners/promiscuous which is mainstream in today culture

(1) PHysical side effects: STDs, sex assault, drug use, violence, etc
(2) Emotional side effects: inability to bond with long term partner, depression, suicide

Are these all unavoidable, deterministic “side effects”?

Every activity has a natural method of practicing it and an unnatural method of practicing

That is right. And the natural practice of sex is to do it every time, when you feel like it, without the negative consequences. There is one natural barrier, for the males… eventually they will not be able to perform.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

So to procreate is an irrational choice.

Subjectively of course.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Don’t be naive, this person is obviously not going to listen.

 

[Aquinas11]

Do you really assert that all those negative consequences are all unavoidable, and happen each and every time when a couple practices birth control? Or that they might happen sometimes.

Your assertion was “there is no rational argument against birth control”

Not “there is no rational argument against each and every time birth control is practiced”

And in the second case, what is the risk-benefit analysis?

Risk of engaging in promiscuity - see numerous physical and emotional risks in post above
Benefit of engaging in promiscuity - sexual pleasure

Its like buying a candy bar for $1000. Sure, you’re getting pleasure out of it, but the cost is so steep only a fool would make the transaction.

presented a list of all those people (celeb or not) who purposefully got pregnant just to be able to undergo the process of an abortion.

Your contention was “no one is FOR abortion”

Not “nobody purposely got pregnant just to be able to undergo process of abortion”

Before anyone can get pregnant, they would HAVE TO care for an artificial (but totally life-like) baby, which would exhibit all the positive and negative features of a real one

I would just change the HAVE TO to SHOULD. I dont believe in compelling behavior.

The solution isn’t forcing people to care for babies. The solution is supporting the nuclear family and 2 parent homes where children are taught faith and morals from young age, dangers of pre marital sex, etc.

Are these all unavoidable, deterministic “side effects”?

Again, your contention was “pregnancy is THE side effect” , not “unavoidable, deterministic side effect”

Heck, pregnancy doesn’t even qualify under that standard.

the natural practice of sex is to do it every time, when you feel like it,

that naturalizes rape

 

[IQ170]

Subjectively of course.

I brought up arguments for that assessment. You are welcome to present counter-arguments.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Since it is derived on the unprovable assumption that suffering is bad then it can be dismissed on those grounds alone.

 

[vz71]

Don’t be naive, this person is obviously not going to listen.

Would you think less of me for feigning surprise and shock?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

From your standpoint there is hardly any results, aside from potentially being mocked.