Jump to content

Meadowchik

Contributor
  • Posts

    5,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Meadowchik

  1. Such a binary take of our possible options as a country is comically sad and of course not the case.
  2. Access to medical care, which the state can provide, can help the mother afford pregnancy. Anything the state does becomes an element of our culture.
  3. Exactly. The pro-life "solution" has always been simple-minded and forceful. Never realistic and certainly never considering a whole approach.
  4. The point being, your anecdote is rather an exceptional one. And we're not talking about what we would personally do to help someone. We're talking about how we would obligate people by law to help someone.
  5. First, I think that many who consider late term abortions and who have to deal with the restrictions even before now were because of a nonviable baby. The restrictions inhibited their ability to release their baby from pain and suffering. Second, I'm really skeptical of claims of women at full term wanting to abort a viable pregnancy. Full-term pregnancy is usually after 34-35 weeks but isn't the same as "late term" in the moniker "late-term abortions" which term is typically used sometime after 21 weeks or so. Those additional months between 21 and 40 weeks are of major impact on a woman's body and can impact her in multiple various ways. But, more specific to your question, fetal size varies a great deal between 21 weeks and 40 weeks. In addition, even women at full term deliver stillborn babies vaginally because it is typically still safer than a cesarean. A C-section is still major surgery with much greater risk and requirements for healing.
  6. From the link you provided: "Yes, you must render assistance to a vessel in distress, and you can go to jail for failing to do so. This is yet another area where boaters and landlubbers face a different set of laws. On land, you generally have no duty to assist a person in distress. The law simply requires that if you choose to render assistance, you do so without acting negligently. A licensed physician is subjected to a different standard, and ’Good Samaritan’ laws in most states provide some protection against civil liability for certain people who render assistance, but for the most part, you will incur no liability if you just ignore the incident."
  7. I like what Anne of Green Gables said about going out into a field face up to the sky to just *feel a prayer.* I think that a life lived in concert with the Divine is prayer in action.
  8. I would agree with the first quote. The second, I would say that person hood is at the foundation of moral society. Abortion bans are a result of denying person hood of the woman and is like enslavement. Aggression can sometimes be necessary to defend a person. When my eldest son was about nine, he was being harassed on his way home from school by a classmate. The school eventually helped with the situation, but in the meantime I told him that if he was being cornered or hurt, he has the right to fight free. I made very clear though that once he was able to leave the situation, he should get away and get home. In other words, only be aggressive if necessary. To me, it would not have been moral to tell him he must absorb blows passively from his schoolmate.
  9. Of course, exponentially. The difference between being able to work or not, being able to finish school/training or not, being able to care for other children or not, being able to leave an abuser or not...these are very common and realistic situations. But you framing the travail as inevitable really doesn't help your case. So unplanned pregnancy is only a result of selfishness and hedonism eh? Do you know that married women with children have elective abortions? And if they do so, very often because of financial hardship? My guess is that they are often staffed by nonmedical personnel giving medical advice, is a major reason. Humans can do better to help each other. You're willing to support a massive law to try to make the world better, so I see a contradiction here: you telling me utopia is impossible yet you trying to force your own vision upon other people.
  10. Yup, and women are the ones enduring that process, in their bodies. Reproductive health is a huge part of a woman's well-being and we often go through alot just to manage having bodies that are constantly naturally preparing to reproduce. The United States should be producing much better results for maternal health and infant mortality--trying to legalistically control the process more is not going to result in better healthcare for women
  11. Atleast you do acknowledge the travails of mortality. But I am not convinced that you're being realistic about that in your argument. I find that whatever travails exist, being pregnant can make them exponentially more complicated and sometimes worse. You just can't know the particulars of every woman. You can repeat "murder" ad infinitum but you don't convince me of actual concern for the innocent, especially when you get carried away in a political rant. To me that just diminishes your argument as one using the unborn as a political football rather than beings we must endeavor to help. My point of view is that we cannot collectively help the unborn by trying to force women to birth them. That attitude comes married with other damaging perspectives that continue to harm women and children. I think political will should have been channelled along time ago toward making the world better for women, which would naturally make it more amenable for bringing new life into the world.
  12. In your estimation. But you don't know every situation, do you?
  13. The situation doesn't make someone nonhuman, not at all. Likewise, self-defense doesn't make a person non-human, nor does distribution of resources in times of scarcity, nor does triaging medical service when it is limited. Situations can reduce people's options and force them to make decisions when every option is difficult, whatever they choose. And so in the situation of pregnancy and possible abortion, a woman can be choosing what she estimates as the lesser of evils. Regarding the persons involved, the woman's bodily resources are being directly consumed by another. It is her choice whether to allow it to continue or not.
  14. The personhood route is wrong. It's not the personhood that gives the unborn less rights than the baby, it is the situation.
  15. You're talking in circles. The social bonds serve a purpose independent of reproduction. The release and pleasure serve a purpose independent of reproduction. Those are both biological purposes, ie impacting the health and wellbeing of the person. You can say only reproduction matters but that would only be your opinion and would also be objectively incorrect. Human beings don't just have sex to procreate.
  16. Marriage doesn't guarantee support or fidelity.
  17. Creating social bonds is also a known biological purpose of sex. Relieving tension and experiencing pleasure are also legitimate biological purposes which can enhance health and overall well-being. And a person can engage in sexual intercourse and have a reasonable belief that pregnancy is extremely unlikely.
  18. It's a yes or no question. Not unreasonably posted, given MB's extreme claim.
  19. And according to his rule, since pregnancy *always* poses a risk to women, a man who has sex with a woman is always selfishly "playing roulette" with her life. Shame on you, menz /s
  20. Are you saying that anyone who is in a position to save someone's life has the moral and legal obligation to do so? This doesn't sound well thought out. It's also a very specific example that you created. And obviously the person trying to hold on to the other might not be able to hold on forever, or able to pull them up. They could also get pulled over the cliff as well. They might also have physical or mental limitations that prevent them from being able to safely help even under the best outcome. They could face significant risk to life by helping in this case Regardless, trying to compare it to pregnancy is absurd, because of the fundamental differences: in pregnancy, someone is living inside another person, depending on that person's body to exist and grow. Also, in pregnancy, the unborn's presence automatically puts numerous types risk on the mother. Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy. I think there is a better application of the cliff example: The person holding on to the edge, dangling, might represent a woman who is in a desperate position because of the circumstances of pregnancy. That person is holding another dangling person with one hand and the cliff with the other. You're walking by, though, and you see her situation and you're concerned. You rush off to the mayor's office and insist the city makes a law that people hanging off cliffs and holding other people are not allowed to let them go. You make it illegal. Then you go home to your bed and sleep very well. You have done a good deed! It's now going to be illegal for desperate cliff-hanging people to let go of other people! You don't wonder what happened to the people you saw today who were hanging off the cliff. You have done your part.
  21. Not sure what your point is. Comatose people are not inside someone else's body.
  22. It is her body with a body inside it in total dependence on her body, and she's the only one (between her and the unborn) who can act. She must act autonomously and does in reality. The problem is that people disrespect that fact.
  23. It's not a compelling thought experiment imo because the baby lives outside her body, and she can forfeit her parental rights and give up the baby to state care. The key principle from the collective side, as in what *all of us* do, is to create a state that lessens hardship for people during pregnancy and beyond, and helps provide access to essential care.
×
×
  • Create New...