an unborn fetus has no bodily autonomy -- it is fully imprisoned within the womb
🇳🇱
So is the logic here that when a person is physically/medically confined to a space they should loose all rights to bodily autonomy, including one's right not to be intentionally killed by another?
I am not disagreeing with you by the way, just trying to understand the logical precedence you are trying to create.
an unborn fetus is not a functioning person -- it is totally dependent on the host body to survive (could be considered a parasite when not wanted) -- what is applicable to them does not translate to applicable for people generally
So no, its not because they are confined to the womb your saying, it is because their life is dependent on another to survive? So is that the criteria in which murder is not murder?
Again not disagree or agreeing, just trying to understand the rules your setting forth for when a (non-functioning) person should be allowed to be killed intentionally.
not a criteria for murder at all
do we murder attacking microbes or cure ourselves? it's not even homicide, unless they are developed enough to live outside the womb, but the ending of a process
> not a criteria for murder at all
Huh, this is the first time the word murder was used in this thread. I was very careful about my choice of words. I said killed, not murder.
> do we murder attacking microbes or cure ourselves?
Murder? No, but I didnt ask anything about murder. I asked about killing, and yes, we kill them all the time. How is that relevant? Are you saying a person who is dependent on another to survive is equivalent to microbes?
> it's not even homicide...
Again, no one used that word either.
> unless they are developed enough to live outside the womb, but the ending of a process
Ok so again you didnt answer the question, I asked about killing, I didnt ask about murder or homicide. So your response hasnt really helped me know any better what your stance is.
, we have a newly forming creature growing within the body of a more mature creature of its kind. When that relationship is desired by the mother, it is wonderful and fulfilling. When that relationship is not desired, it is horrendous, nightmarish. Then, of course, there are the situations when the pregnancy is actually dangerous to the health of the mother, or to the health and well-being of her other children, or. ... https://windsongmyths.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/creating-hell-for-fun-and-profit/
> we have a newly forming creature growing within the body of a more mature creature of its kind. When that relationship is desired by the mother, it is wonderful and fulfilling. When that relationship is not desired, it is horrendous, nightmarish. Then, of course, there are the situations when the pregnancy is actually dangerous to the health of the mother, or to the health and well-being of her other children, or. ...
I dont disagree with any of those statements. But it also is not an answer to my question, perhaps that is my fault as I may not be asking my question clearly enough, and thus remain confused by your stance. I will retry to ask again.
Without invoking any statements about the **specific case of abortion**, in other words, without talking about whombs, mothers, or fetuses (that includes descriptive references), would you mind explaining to me when it is right to kill some entity with human dna. Whether that be a clump of cancer, a fetus, or your best friend, what are the **general case** where killing a living human entity/thing is acceptable and morally ok.
Obviously you dont have to cover every possible case, just the rules that, while not referencing abortion, would be relevant in us to reason about abortion would be welcome.
I think some of your earlier statements could have been examples of this, but you seemed to backtrack (thats not a jab, backtracking is ok, it means we are exploring the ideas and refining them)... like you said one entity physically dependent on another, that would be a fine rule, would even cover cancer... but I think you realized quickly it could also be problematic. Ok so we changed our response slightly, but that didnt work either, again ok. So whats the real answer? One that doesnt just create a circular argument by pointing out its a fetus. We need the general case moral rules we are working under, or at least, I do if im going to get on board.
self defense or the defense of others who need that help
or expressly asked for mercy killing
Fair, I think that is an answer that is more agreeable to me and satisfies the question. I appreciate that.
So in this case I presume we are seeing an abortion as a self-defense against the invasiveness of the fetus?
Ok fair, then I think I understand your logic here.
I do see some problems with it, so it may either be wrong, or at least incomplete. Or perhaps simply an unfair characterization of pregnancy. Or maybe its something else where I am wrong and just have not realized it yet. Lets explore if your willing.
So I would argue that its more nuanced than this. it depends largely on what the pregnant lady knew, and when, and how she got pregnant. In certain circumstances this is scenario is harder for me to agree with than others.
For example lets say the woman simply didnt know she was pregnant, or worse yet was raped. In that case its hard to force a child on a woman.
Lets say the situation is such that the woman knew she was pregnant early on, and engaged in unprotected sex, so the pregnancy is largely an act of negligence on her part for not using protection. Furthermore she gets an abortion late int he process with no particular change in her circumstances that would drive her to do so. Lets also assume she could have afforded it. In this scenario I would say it is the fetus who is in the position it is in due to the negligence and willful actions of the mother. As such it would appear, if I am being objective, that making abortion illegal (in this scenario only) would inf act be required to adhere to your own rules, that is, it would be an act of self-defense on the part of the fetus because the fetus is only in the position of being threatened due to the negligence and willful actions of the woman.
So while I do feel we are getting closer to a useful world view it still feels inconsistent or incomplete to me.
why are you making assumptions about fictional women?
if this pregnant person is indeed aborting this fetus for purely arbitrary reasons -- not because she would be in danger -- then, of course she is doing right by her not to be born child by not giving them both miserable lives
> why are you making assumptions about fictional women?
It was neither a fictional woman nor an assumption. It was a category of scenario, that category may never happen, it may happen often, I was showing that certain categories would leave to your application of your rule causing counter intuitive consequences. I am not saying that those scenarios happen, are you saying you are ok with **if** such a scenario were to happen then abortion would be made illegal to defend the life of the fetus?
> if this pregnant person is indeed aborting this fetus for purely arbitrary reasons -- not because she would be in danger -- then, of course she is doing right by her not to be born child by not giving them both miserable lives
So if we could garuntee the baby not to have a miserable life, for example some wonderful family is willing to adopt the baby, then by this logic the abortion should be legally stopped. Doring so would uphold the two criteria you set: self-defense principle for the fetus and not having a miserable life for the fetus.
and the fictional mom? Have we honestly delved her reasons? Is she ok with this adoption? Why legally? The law has no place in these personal matters (even if there are laws that do)
How about we have a fictional conversation with those involved and see where we are?
@libramoon Sure, in this scenario you had that conversation and they are the perfect family in every way as far as all investigations go.
Should the abortion be stopping. You can say no, it just means your moral rules we established are incomplete. Thats fine, we can always endeavor to complete them.
For the record so far your logic is in line with all my own reasoning on the subject, and in turn found similar paradoxes, things that logically meant i was missing something, and/or wrong... So me pressing you for your logic is not meant to say your wrong, Im only curious how you get over this ethical hurdle and if, whatever that is, might give me some insight on how to further refine my own POV.
You also can disengage anytime you want, you dont have to answer. I am just making clear why i am drilling you like this, as I want to make it clear it is not to convince you you are wrong, but rather, to elucidate your reasoning for my own consideration.
death is the natural result of life
no one is guaranteed anything
hopefully we learn to avoid the stupidity of activities that are both bad for us and others, but people tend toward stupidity when not sufficiently motivated to think
abortion is neither the problem nor the important issue
> abortion is neither the problem nor the important issue
So you are ok that it is illegal in some states? Because abortion isnt an important issue?
I would disagree, I'd say its a very important issue and it being illegal in some states is very concerning. It is also concerning to me when late-term abortions are made legal on the other extreme of the issue.
the point is abortion is not the point -- it is the subjugation of women, which is evil and a majorly important issue
and most late term abortions are to save the life or health of the mother when a pregnancy has gone wrong -- so illegal to save women's lives
people don't actively seek out medical procedures without real motivation
here's a short story that may help
https://bdelectablemnts.runboard.com/t2681
I am ok with medical exemptions being made if it poses a higher than normal risk to the mother and she is only just finding out late.
complications can occur at any time -- or get worse
or maybe everyone can be saved if the mother goes on bed rest for the rest of the pregnancy -- so what does she do about other obligations? how is she to pay for this complicated pregnancy while unable to work?
it's all about life or death, right?
how about when the baby will have serious health issues? The potential mother is the person who makes these choices for herself and progeny -- let her have the autonomy
We dont give people the free reign to decide what they want to do with their bodies with any other treatment. Even to get a cancer removed a doctor would need to approve it and decide that the patients life is actually in danger. Why should abortions be the only exception?
we ought to be giving people that bodily autonomy -- in my experience, doctors are not gods, judges, juries or very good at listening to their clients' concerns or facts
So youd be ok with people getting any drug they want without a prescription or restriction as well as any surgery or procedure no matter how ill advised?
And in that exchange who gets the final say. If the doctor thinks its completely wreckless and the patient wants said drug or procedure anyway, who gets the final say?
there are other professionals, and the black market -- it's not an either/or if the person is strongly motivated
Agreed, but that didnt answer my question.
yes, it did
Then clearly I missed it... yes or no, if someone wants to get any procedure or drug and the doctor doesnt agree, should the doctors decision be honored (meaning the patient now needs to go to the black market), or is the patients request to be honored (they are given the drug or procedure despite the doctors saying no)?
Obviously if you did answer it I am too stupid to know which of those answers it was, please help me out.
it is not either/or
How is it not? Either legally the doctor gets the call or the patient... how can it be something in between?
because I suggested dialog to a mutually satisfactory conclusion, or, obviously these two parties can't meet and another solution will be found if the person is sufficiently motivated
I am not talking about arbitrary laws, but actual possibilities
often a dr. is more concerned with liability than the patient's needs
@libramoon Ok so the doctor **must** approve in order to move forward (otherwise they are not mutually agreeing). So the answer is, the doctor has the authority and the final say. Any situation that requires mutual agreement is the same as giving the doctor the authority, which is the same as states that outlaw abortion but make medical exemptions, which, based on how you say it should work, would be what you support.
I myself dont agree with that. I do not think abortions should be illegal, they should be legal but only under very specific conditions. Late term abortions would and should need doctors to agree with the patients that it is medically needed (which apparently you also think should be the case).
no, the doctor only gets that doctor's say -- the final say is when the patient gets their way or decides on some other option
@libramoon Right, thats how it is in states where abortion is illegal. When the doctor says no the patient can etiher keep going to doctors until one says yes, the procedure is medically needed, or they go on the blackmarket for a solution.
Obviously as you pointed out one way or another the patient will get their way, but since you qould require a doctor to agree the doctor has final say in the sense that you still need a doctor to agree to the medical need.
of course the dr. must agree -- we can't be forcing medical professionals to do what they believe wrong -- but that one dr. is far from the only option, maybe even in the same facility
or the patient can find other kinds of healthcare than mainstream
I've even heard of self-surgery
and there are all kinds of medical procedures done for reasons other than medical need
But thats not what I asked. I didnt ask if they simply agree with if they feel its morally right. I asked if they need to do what they do with every single other disease, which is evaluate if treating the disease puts more life at risk than it saves.. you cant get cancer removed if it isnt actually a risk to your life. It isnt because the doctor "doesnt want to", its because medically a doctor must show that removing the cancer reduces the risk to the patient(s). They explicitly must evaluate the life and safety concerns, not simply "if they want to".
Ergo I asked if abortions should be treated the same as cancer, that is, it will only be performed if there is actual medical risk to the patient.
My view is no, it shouldnt be viewed the same as cancer... early on it should be removed regardless of risk, later on liffe and safety issues should be considered like they would with other ailments.
As for your view, I'm not as clear on that. But it seems you think abortions should be considered a special case from all other disease too, but in this case that it should be exempt from considerations of risk to life and be purely the choice of the patient?
it is not about medical need (as with many procedures that are done) -- it's about personal choice -- getting back to autonomy -- for all concerned
pregnancy is not a disease
abortion is not disease treatment (although it can be)
it is a personal choice based on factors that the pregnant person is dealing with, whether medical or otherwise
Those two sound like the same things with different wording. Taking tylenol for a headach is a "personal choice" too, its still a medical procedure and has moral considerations like any other. Doubly so if another life is involved.
But for me this is a bit of a tangent. I actually would myself make all medical procedures and drugs that involve just you (most of them) legal and remove any authority from doctors... But I would make late term abortions illegal all the same, in fact, I'd make all abortions afgter 3 months illegal with the caveat that abortions are free (tax paid) and pregnancy tests are provided for free (tax paid) as well.
clearly you are not interested in what I have to say (or what you say)
done here
@libramoon I am very interested, just busy right now on a call.
@libramoon I am out of my meeting now, I can reply.
So yea, sorry you feel that way I was just busy and would have responded sooner.
I do care about your opinions, as I said I am at an impasse with my own logic and morality and thus am genuinely interested in yours in the hope that it might give me some insight to resolve my own stance, which has holes in it.
So to be clear, I am not interested neccesarly on all your thoughts or perspetives (though happy to listen to them), I am specifically interested in the general moral code and how I might apply that to a resolution for myself.
Hope that clarifies for you.
@freemo
apparently you are making major assumptions and not actually understanding what I have been saying
have you read the posts on the links I gave you? if what you want is to know my positions, read them
@libramoon I have reviewed everything you said and made an honest effort to understand you. Obviously you dont think I have, and maybe I havent, but the effort was in earnest, and still is.
I most certainly do not support states that outlaw abortion in any way -- this should not be a matter of law
Late term, any term, it ought to be up to the potential mother
that doesn't mean I support forcing anyone to perform anything
On that we disagree as well, much as we would have disagreed if you thought all abortion should be outlawed i also disagree that all abortion should be legal.
again, outside the purview of law
@libramoon Which is where we disagree. I would say it is very much inside the purview of law and should be. Both the rights of the mother to bodily autonomy and the right of the fetus should be considered asnd t he nuance in such things considered to determine when it should be legal or not.
@freemo
I am ok with people deciding what they want and telling the people they need to help them with that, and said helpers having the autonomy to agree or explain why not, enter into dialog to figure out what would work for all concerned.