Abortion Discussion

Jack Kyle

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Well, to be a pedant about it, if she loses none of her autonomy, then its very easy to put a percentage on it (i.e., 0%).

But the thing is, if the foetus' right to life completely overrides the pregnant woman's right to exercise bodily autonomy (by preventing her from removing the unwanted foetus from her uterus), then how can you say her right to bodily autonomy is 100% intact?

No, you cannot.

Hard to put a percentage on it though.

Jack Kyle

Nodin wrote: »

....control over her womb. Being subject to the effects of pregnancy involuntarily.

What do you mean "involuntarily"?

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No, you cannot.

Hard to put a percentage on it though.

Ok, well, you've changed your position then.

When does she get her bodily autonomy back, in that case?

Jack Kyle

Frito wrote: »

If your argument of the right to life superseding all other rights, then why aren't we all being forced to donate a kidney to those who need them?.

I never said that the right to life supercedes all other rights.

You're comparing apples and pears.

There are zero similarities between forced organ donation and abortion.

Jack Kyle

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Ok, well, you've changed your position then.

When does she get her bodily autonomy back, in that case?

I have done no such thing, which is why I highlighted the fact that my post was selectively quoted. I said that the woman loses no autonomy other than the right to deliberately murder the child inside her. Yet that second part was left out when the post was quoted.

When the child is born I guess.

Frito

Fair enough, if your argument is the right to life supersedes a woman's right to decide who uses her organs, the why aren't we donating a kidney against our will to others who need them?

Jack Kyle wrote: »

There are zero similarities between forced organ donation and abortion.

Ok, we get the kidney back after nine months.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I have done no such thing, which is why I highlighted the fact that my post was selectively quoted. I said that the woman loses no autonomy other than the right to deliberately murder the child inside her. Yet that second part was left out when the post was quoted.

When the child is born I guess.

Dude, I quoted all three of your posts in response to my questions, in full.

Your first response to my question was:

Jack Kyle wrote: »

She just doesn't have the right to murder the child inside her. Its life is human life and must be protected. Some people might feel annoyed about men sticking their oar in but the baby has nobody to fight for his/her rights other than pro-lifers.

Which didn't answer the question at all. Your second response was:

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Your question is far from specific. It's ludicrous.

I would have thought that she loses no autonomy - She just can't systematically murder the child inside her.

How does one put a percentage on that?

This comes back to the salient point re abortion - A woman's right to autonomy in respect of her body does not supercede or override a baby's right to life.

Which clearly states that you think a woman loses none of her bodily autonomy on becoming pregnant. Your third response was:

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No, you cannot.

Hard to put a percentage on it though.

Which contradicted your previous assertion that no bodily autonomy is lost. Can you clarify which you believe to be the correct position?

Jack Kyle

Frito wrote: »

Fair enough, if your argument is the right to life supersedes a woman's right to decide who uses her organs, the why aren't we donating a kidney against our will to others who need them?



Ok, we get the kidney back after nine months.

Your logic is flawed and the comparison is erroneous.

With abortion, the dependence on the mother for life already exists. With an organ donation, that dependence hasn't yet been created.

It's be more apt to compare rape and forced impregnation with forced organ donation.

Compelling someone to create a dependent relationship and compelling someone to maintain a dependent relationship are completely different, so your point isn't valid.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I commend people who donate organs but I respect their right to refuse on the grounds that they have the right to determine what happens to their body.

Its not quite the same, because the the pregnant woman has a direct connection to the foetus, that the organ donor does not have to a total stranger. So the foetus could not have come into existence without the mother (and the father). These two individuals, the parents, then have some special rights and responsibilities that a stranger would not have.

Jack Kyle

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Dude, I quoted all three of your posts in response to my questions, in full.

Your first response to my question was:



Which didn't answer the question at all. Your second response was:



Which clearly states that you think a woman loses none of her bodily autonomy on becoming pregnant. Your third response was:



Which contradicted your previous assertion that no bodily autonomy is lost. Can you clarify which you believe to be the correct position?

You are completely misrepresenting what I said. There is absolutely no lack of clarity or contradiction in what I'm saying. I have said repeatedly that the woman loses no autonomy other than the right to terminate the child's life. She never had autonomy to terminate another human life before she became pregnant and that remains the case.

I suspect that you're trying to derail a cogent and legitimate argument with nefarious debating tactics. That's the usual modus operandi of the liberal left.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

You are completely misrepresenting what I said. There is absolutely no lack of clarity or contradiction in what I'm saying. I have said repeatedly that the woman loses no autonomy other than the right to terminate the child's life. She never had autonomy to terminate another human life before she became pregnant and that remains the case.

I suspect that you're trying to derail a cogent and legitimate argument with nefarious debating tactics. That's the usual modus operandi of the liberal left.

FFS, how could I possibly misrepresent something that I have actually quoted, verbatim, twice??

Again:

Your second post says she loses no autonomy.

My response to that asked how you can say her autonomy remains 100% intact when she is prevented from exercising her bodily autonomy and removing an unwanted foetus from her uterus. Your response, and once again, I quote, was:

Jack Kyle wrote: »

No, you cannot.

Hard to put a percentage on it though

If this doesn't mean that you cannot say her bodily autonomy remains 100% intact on becoming pregnant, then explain what it does mean.

You even mentioned that she gets the lost part of her bodily autonomy back "after the child is born." You cannot lose none AND some of a right.

If you're going to accuse me of derailment and nefarious tactics, then you'd better be prepared to illustrate same.

El_Duderino 09

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I never said that the right to life supercedes all other rights.

You're comparing apples and pears.

There are zero similarities between forced organ donation and abortion.

Just to be sure you get the point, the argument is that the similarities are between forced organ donation and a prohibition on abortion as it involves limiting the right to bodily autonomy.

Conversely there is a similarity between having the right to choose whether to donate organs or not and the right choose whether to carry a fetus term.

Frito

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Compelling someone to create a dependent relationship and compelling someone to maintain a dependent relationship are completely different, so your point isn't valid.

You're ok with terminations in the circumstance of rape?

They're not quite so different. For example, I could donate bone marrow which another person depends on, and I can withdraw my consent even if I've donated several times before. I cannot be compelled to maintain that dependent relationship.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote: »

Its not quite the same, because the the pregnant woman has a direct connection to the foetus, that the organ donor does not have to a total stranger. So the foetus could not have come into existence without the mother (and the father). These two individuals, the parents, then have some special rights and responsibilities that a stranger would not have.

That's an interesting point.

Imagine a mother can donate an organ to save the life of her child. Would you compel her to donate the organ?

I think she has the right to choose what happens to her body and that's why I think she has the right to choose in the case of carrying a fetus to term.

What do you think?

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Again, a tough question.

On balance, I think that it's the illegal termination of another being's life...on that basis you'd have to be talking about the usual sanction for that...custodial sentence etc.

Life imprisonment or the death penalty?

Sarky

Oh, Jan T. was banned. I wonder wh- Oh. That guy.

Now I feel like my big post rubbishing his claims was a big waste of time. Thanks a lot Jernal





>_>






<_<




:pac:

Nodin

Jack Kyle wrote: »

What do you mean "involuntarily"?

.....fairly self explanatory. If a woman is forced to carry on with a pregnancy etc.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I suspect that you're trying to derail a cogent and legitimate argument with nefarious debating tactics. That's the usual modus operandi of the liberal left.

O, its sophistry and word games hour. And there was me thinking you were just asking for clarification.

doctoremma

Jack Kyle wrote: »

A woman's right to autonomy in respect of her body does not supercede or override a baby's right to life.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

I never said that the right to life supercedes all other rights.

So, if the right to life does not necessarily supersede all other rights, does it always supersede the right to bodily autonomy? Or does it only supersede the right to bodily autonomy in the case of pregnancy?

What's the hierarchy of rights here?

And if you only want the right to life to supersede the right to bodily autonomy during pregnancy (which seems to be the case, given your answers re: organ donation), why is pregnancy such a special case? What are the aggravating/mitigating factors of pregnancy that cause this change in priority of rights?

gaynorvader

doctoremma wrote: »

So, if the right to life does not necessarily supersede all other rights, does it always supersede the right to bodily autonomy? Or does it only supersede the right to bodily autonomy in the case of pregnancy?

What's the hierarchy of rights here?

And if you only want the right to life to supersede the right to bodily autonomy during pregnancy (which seems to be the case, given your answers re: organ donation), why is pregnancy such a special case? What are the aggravating/mitigating factors of pregnancy that cause this change in priority of rights?

The only difference I can see is a woman can choose to be pregnant (i.e. have another life incumbent on hers). This would meant that a woman would be perfectly fine having an abortion if the pregnancy was the result of unwanted sex (i.e. rape) or if it was an accident (maybe the contraception failed) or she was in an impaired state of mind when she conceived (i.e. drunk). I'd probably be more sympathetic to a change in life circumstances or threat to the woman's life caused by the foetus, but that's just me

johnnyskeleton

Considering that the Catholic Church has changed its stance repeatedly over the years (ranging from historical revision of Jesus' life, a literal interpretation of genesis to an allegorical one, or simply the prohibition on meat on Fridays being removed), is there any reason why the pope can't just say that he spoke to the big man and yes, a child is only alive after it is born?

It might resolve a lot of the uncertainty.

Frito

doctoremma wrote: »

And if you only want the right to life to supersede the right to bodily autonomy during pregnancy (which seems to be the case, given your answers re: organ donation), why is pregnancy such a special case? What are the aggravating/mitigating factors of pregnancy that cause this change in priority of rights?

My simplified understanding of his argument is that because a foetus is already there, it should stay there until it's ready to be born.

But I'm waiting for a response as to why we must honour a situation just because it exists.

MrPudding

Frito wrote: »

My simplified understanding of his argument is that because a foetus is already there, it should stay there until it's ready to be born.

But I'm waiting for a response as to why we must honour a situation just because it exists.

Julian Bagini has a thought experiment in one of his books, it goes something g like this:

A man is out one night and gets rather drunk. He wakes up and finds himself in a hospital bed attached by tubing to various machines and the man in the bed next to him. A doctor arrives and explains that the previous night he agreed to be connected to the man, providing a kind of dialysis, for 9 months. Without the connection the other man would die. Can this man request that he be disconnected, even though the patient will certainly die?

I have asked this question previously of anti-choicers, but I don't recall ever getting an answer other than something like "I am not going to answer that, it would never happen" completely missing the point of a thought experiment.

MrP

Bannasidhe

MrPudding wrote: »

Julian Bagini has a thought experiment in one of his books, it goes something g like this:

A man is out one night and gets rather drunk. He wakes up and finds himself in a hospital bed attached by tubing to various machines and the man in the bed next to him. A doctor arrives and explains that the previous night he agreed to be connected to the man, providing a kind of dialysis, for 9 months. Without the connection the other man would die. Can this man request that he be disconnected, even though the patient will certainly die?

I have asked this question previously of anti-choicers, but I don't recall ever getting an answer other than something like "I am not going to answer that, it would never happen" completely missing the point of a thought experiment.

MrP

Perhaps it is the cynic in me, but I think the refusal to answer the question stems more from understanding the point very well.

doctoremma

MrPudding wrote: »

Julian Bagini has a thought experiment in one of his books

The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten? Best after-dinner conversation starter ever. Fact.

PopePalpatine

gaynorvader wrote: »

Life imprisonment or the death penalty?

If it is life imprisonment, should the incarceration of these women be outsourced to religious orders?

Brian Shanahan

Jack Kyle wrote: »

My own views are pretty clear.

Abortion on demand or as a form of contraception should never be allowed.

There are many valid reasons for having an abortion which do not include physical harm to the mother, for example being too poor to properly raise the child (would you rather the child living in abject poverty), the physical maladies of the child, the child being as a result of rape or incest, and so on.

Abortion where there's a medical threat to the mother life (e.g. the Savita case) is a medical issue and should be allowed.

I'm ashamed that we still don't have laws which properly safeguard the rights of living women during pregnancies.

Abortion where the mother's suicidal should not be allowed - It's hard to envisage circumstances where abortion is a cure for being suicidal.

How about keeping the woman alive long enough that we can treat the suicidal tendencies by removing the immediate focus of those tendencies. Is that not reason enough?

The fact of the matter is that abortion in suicidal ideation is not about "curing" it, but to give the woman the time and relieve the pressure on her, so that she may find the solution with the help of properly trained doctors.

Jack Kyle wrote: »

She just doesn't have the right to murder the child inside her. Its life is human life and must be protected. Some people might feel annoyed about men sticking their oar in but the baby has nobody to fight for his/her rights other than pro-lifers.

a) it is not murder becaue b) the foetus is not alive, and c) it is not a person.

Just because something has a potential for personhood and life doesn't mean it carries either of those two attributes right now. If they did, well then we'd never do anything for fear of killing all the potential sentient lives out there.

Brian Shanahan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Considering that the Catholic Church has changed its stance repeatedly over the years (ranging from historical revision of Jesus' life, a literal interpretation of genesis to an allegorical one, or simply the prohibition on meat on Fridays being removed), is there any reason why the pope can't just say that he spoke to the big man and yes, a child is only alive after it is born?

It might resolve a lot of the uncertainty.

Condsidering that catholic position on abortion has historically been:

religioustolerance.org wrote:

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A brief timeline:
[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Circa 100 to 150 CE: The Didache (also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"), was a document written for the guidance of Christians. It forbade all abortions.[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Prior to 380 CE: Many Christian leaders issued unqualified condemnations of abortion. So did two church synods in the early 4th century:[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul. [/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]St. Augustine (354-430 CE) accepted the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 3 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Pope Innocent III (1161-1216):[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Hedetermined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not "animated" at the time.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Pope Sixtus V (1588) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus." The soul was believed to have entered the pre-embryo at conception.[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Leo XIII (1878-1903):[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]He Issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used under crisis situations late in pregnancy. It is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman. [/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life.[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus." The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication. [/FONT]

I'm sure they can, yet again, reverse their position on abortion. After all flip-flopping to try and stay in with their adherents comes naturally to the Popes.

Timeline gratuitously stolen from here.

Frito

MrPudding wrote: »

I have asked this question previously of anti-choicers, but I don't recall ever getting an answer other than something like "I am not going to answer that, it would never happen" completely missing the point of a thought experiment.

MrP

Agreed, his central point is the foetus has a right to life because dependency already exists and therefore must be maintained, and this is not comparable to situations of involuntary organ donation where dependency is created.
Hence the bone marrow example of an existing dependency which requires the consent of the donating party in order to maintain said dependency.

Bannasidhe

Frito wrote: »

Agreed, his central point is the foetus has a right to life because dependency already exists and therefore must be maintained, and this is not comparable to situations of involuntary organ donation where dependency is created.
Hence the bone marrow example of an existing dependency which requires the consent of the donating party in order to maintain said dependency.

But if arguing from a 'every life is unique and must be preserved even if this means another person's body must be utilised against their will' perspective - which many have - then why do we draw a line which states this applies only when the life which must be preserved is in utero?

Akrasia

MrPudding wrote: »

Julian Bagini has a thought experiment in one of his books, it goes something g like this:

A man is out one night and gets rather drunk. He wakes up and finds himself in a hospital bed attached by tubing to various machines and the man in the bed next to him. A doctor arrives and explains that the previous night he agreed to be connected to the man, providing a kind of dialysis, for 9 months. Without the connection the other man would die. Can this man request that he be disconnected, even though the patient will certainly die?

I have asked this question previously of anti-choicers, but I don't recall ever getting an answer other than something like "I am not going to answer that, it would never happen" completely missing the point of a thought experiment.

MrP

Thats an interesting thought experiment, but is it a valid 'intuition pump' as Dennett would say or is it more of a 'Boomcrutch'

I think it needs to be tweaked a little bit to make it more fair to the pro-life's position.

Firstly, most women aren't strapped to a hospital bed for 9 months and can lead relatively normal lives for the first 7 months at least.

Also, the woman is directly responsible for the foetus, where as in this example, the man is just a random stranger. We need to introduce an element that makes you have an obligation to the man who needs your help.

Here's a better thought experiment.

You're out driving your car and you get distracted and you hit a man who was crossing the road. it was an accident and you were not driving dangerously but you caused this man to suffer life threatening injuries

Doctors have developed an experimental technology that will save his life, but it requires that you give a daily direct transfusion of blood directly from you to the man every day for 9 months. once you start the treatment only your blood will work and if you stop donating, the man will die. The blood has to remain absolutely pure so you have to adjust your lifestyle and cut out many of your favourite past times, but the blood needs to have high glucose levels, so you'll need to increase your calorie intake and will gain weight and lose fitness.

The man needs to begin the treatment immediately or he will die so the only person who is in a position to help him is you.

After the 9 months is up, the man will be brought out of his coma and he will require extensive re-habilitation which could take years and the man will rely on you to provide regular infusions and to support his rehab.

Would you be morally obliged to help the man?