Abortion and covid

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 389
#241
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Reason is something that humans do. So do I grant myself my own human rights based on my reason? Or does another human (or group of humans) grant me my human rights?
Reason, not whim. And its upon analysis of our condition, that these concepts are acknowledged. Neither an individual nor a group can "grant" you rights; they either acknowledge them, or they don't.

Correct. That verse establishes the death penalty as a just punishment for murdering an image-bearer of God. There are other verses to establish the role of government. Romans 13:4 would be one example of God's ordained purpose for government to "bear the sword." That is a much more in-depth topic though.
The death penalty ("the Sword") in that text is seen as an extension of God himself, because the rulers were seen to be an extension of God as well. Can you honestly state that this (these) government(s) (today) are an extension of God? Who makes the decision, the president or the pope?

Let's establish what you believe the responsibility of a parent is first. [It seems] you are saying that if 16-week-old fetus is removed from a mother's womb and left on a table to die, that is not murder. The fetus died because of it's inability to survive on it's own. Is that a correct analysis?
Yes.

And if that is correct, [it would seem that] if a parent decided to leave their one-year-old baby in a dumpster, that would also be acceptable because the baby is unable to survive on its own due to "physiological underdevelopment."
Exactly. And I've challenged before those who claim they are "pro-choice" to attempt to reconcile this dilemma. On what rationale is it acceptable to terminate a zygote/embryo/fetus and unacceptable to leave a baby on a dumpster? Some could argue that a baby once birthed is a citizen afforded the same privileges as you and I, but that would only pertain to documented births. Surely, they wouldn't argue that leaving a baby on a dumpster whether born in a hospital or not is acceptable. This is the reason I claim to argue a truly pro-choice position. Because regardless of the phase of development a person experiences, whether it is the zygotic or geriatric, I argue no distinction. That is, their parents don't owe them. Whether it is carrying a fetus to term, or letting her infant feed at her breasts, or purchasing a cap and gown for her son's high school graduation, or letting a 49 year-old son occupy the space downstairs, these are gifts, not obligations. Because she is submitting her body, her time, and her labor in service to the sustenance of her child.


But let's stress test the consistency of our respective rationales. First, a hypothetical. Suppose I have a daughter, and for whatever reason, she is suffering from kidney failure. The donor matching process is quite lengthy and her prospects appear bleak. It's discovered that I am perfect match, but I refuse to part with my kidney. It should be noted that up until this point, I've done everything I could for my daughter: keeping her fed, clothed, and sheltered; reading bed time stories; paying for numerous medical visits, etc. My daughter subsequently dies. So this begs the question: did I murder her in my refusal to part with my kidney? Or did I just kill her? Was it child neglect?

What if she were 27 years-old? Would any of my previous questions apply then?

Topic's author
#242
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Athias
 My point is how does one control for both the survival and death of the same sample? In order to determine this, one would have to know for a fact that the contraction of the virus would without fail produce death, and that the vaccine would without fail counteract the aforementioned event.
Covid sometimes results in death and the vaccine virtually always prevents these deaths and prevents symptoms from occurring within people that covid enters.
#243
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Reason, not whim. And its upon analysis of our condition, that these concepts are acknowledged. Neither an individual nor a group can "grant" you rights; they either acknowledge them, or they don't.
But where do the rights come from? Do I grant my own rights that others have the option to recognize?

The death penalty ("the Sword") in that text is seen as an extension of God himself, because the rulers were seen to be an extension of God as well. Can you honestly state that this (these) government(s) (today) are an extension of God? Who makes the decision, the president or the pope?
Government is an extension of God in the sense that God has established government to be a source of justice upon wrongdoers. But we live in a sinful world where that authority is often abused. The role of government in relation to the individual and the church has been a long-debated subject. I think the Founding Fathers established the best system to date, though it is not perfect. Our current government is corrupt, likely beyond being salvageable. Our people have abandoned God and are generally most concerned about their own personal health, wealth, and pleasure. And we are being judged for it.

And if that is correct, [it would seem that] if a parent decided to leave their one-year-old baby in a dumpster, that would also be acceptable because the baby is unable to survive on its own due to "physiological underdevelopment."
Exactly.
I appreciate your consistency. But I fear for your soul if you can justify leaving a baby out to die because it can't survive on its own.


Suppose I have a daughter, and for whatever reason, she is suffering from kidney failure. The donor matching process is quite lengthy and her prospects appear bleak. It's discovered that I am perfect match, but I refuse to part with my kidney. It should be noted that up until this point, I've done everything I could for my daughter: keeping her fed, clothed, and sheltered; reading bed time stories; paying for numerous medical visits, etc. My daughter subsequently dies. So this begs the question: did I murder her in my refusal to part with my kidney? Or did I just kill her? Was it child neglect?
No I don't believe that would be murder. That being said, I can't imagine not giving my kidney if it meant saving my child's life.

I think there are a number of category differences between the scenario and a normal pregnancy. A pregnancy is typically the result of two consenting adults who should know how procreation works. If a person is not willing to accept the responsibilities of parenthood, they should not be having sex. A normal pregnancy should also not cause much in terms of permanent adverse health effects.

However, the scenario involves deviation from normal kidney function. Health failure is not the same as normal biological functions. Removing a kidney from a healthy person will probably not kill them, but it does involve risk in the procedure, as well as permanent adverse health effects.

So the main difference I see is normal biological functions vs deviation from normal functions resulting in health failure.
#244
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Covid sometimes results in death and the vaccine virtually always prevents these deaths and prevents symptoms from occurring within people that covid enters.
Once again, this is impossible to determine because one would have to control for both the survival and death of the same participants in the same sample. That would mean that one would have to observe one's dying as a result of COVID and simultaneously having the prospect of this event counteracted by the vaccine, thereby resulting in their survival. May you please explain to me how one can die and survive? Any data from outside these samples will result in a fallacious ecological inference (e.g. Athias is 6' 9," therefore he's "likely" to be left handed.) And anything which would suggest that health was produced as a result of vaccination would be a post hoc fallacy.
#245
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
But where do the rights come from? Do I grant my own rights that others have the option to recognize?
They're concepts, so they're conceived, once again, as a result of analyzing our condition. Rights are not granted; they simply are a product of moral analysis and principle.

Government is an extension of God in the sense that God has established government to be a source of justice upon wrongdoers. But we live in a sinful world where that authority is often abused. The role of government in relation to the individual and the church has been a long-debated subject. I think the Founding Fathers established the best system to date, though it is not perfect. Our current government is corrupt, likely beyond being salvageable. Our people have abandoned God and are generally most concerned about their own personal health, wealth, and pleasure. And we are being judged for it.
So, a death penalty imposed by a corrupt government wouldn't be an extension of God, right? So why would one endorse any exercise of such a government? (Note: I don't endorse the concept of a death penalty; I'm only questioning your reference to Romans 13.)

I appreciate your consistency. But I fear for your soul if you can justify leaving a baby out to die because it can't survive on its own.
The baby isn't left on the dumpster because it can't survive on its own; the baby presumably will die because it can't survive on its own absent any participation of an individual willing to provide it sustenance. But you haven't really answered my question: why is the baby owed its mother's and/or father's participation in sustenance, or anyone else for that matter?

Now it's important to highlight this distinction: I am in no way endorsing or recommending that one not take care of one's child; but that's vastly different from stating that a child is owed its parent's care. And I'm trying to understand the justification of this debt a parent is alleged to have with respect to his or her child.

No I don't believe that would be murder. That being said, I can't imagine not giving my kidney if it meant saving my child's life.

I think there are a number of category differences between the scenario and a normal pregnancy. A pregnancy is typically the result of two consenting adults who should know how procreation works. If a person is not willing to accept the responsibilities of parenthood, they should not be having sex. A normal pregnancy should also not cause much in terms of permanent adverse health effects.

However, the scenario involves deviation from normal kidney function. Health failure is not the same as normal biological functions. Removing a kidney from a healthy person will probably not kill them, but it does involve risk in the procedure, as well as permanent adverse health effects.

So the main difference I see is normal biological functions vs deviation from normal functions resulting in health failure.
The point of the hypothetical is not to parse between the physical differences; the point is to highlight the principle. For the same reason I would argue that under my hypothetical that I bear a right to my person, I would argue the same for a mother who considers abortion--strictly where the zygote/embryo/fetus is expelled. In each scenario, we both prioritize our preferences and intentions as it concerns our bodies, because it's our bodies. And even under circumstances where our children need/require the use of our persons, this "necessity" neither substantiates nor justifies the submission of ours persons in service to this need particularly against our wills. Having prior knowledge of the consequences of sex substantiates little to nothing because the very same thing could be said about me in context of my hypothetical. As a father, I should know that my child could suffer from any ailment, and having a child should mean that I'm willing to sacrifice anything, even a part of my person, to ensure my child's welfare. And even if I had prior knowledge of this unfortunate prospect, e.g. during a genetic counseling exam, would that mitigate my priority over my person? Would my daughter be owed my kidney then?
#246
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
They're concepts, so they're conceived, once again, as a result of analyzing our condition. Rights are not granted; they simply are a product of moral analysis and principle.
So they're made up.


So, a death penalty imposed by a corrupt government wouldn't be an extension of God, right? So why would one endorse any exercise of such a government?
Even corrupt people can make right judgements. Most societies understand rape and murder are wrong and will condemn them as such. Both citizens and civil authorities have societal responsibilities before God, and they will answer to Him for how they fulfill those.


But you haven't really answered my question: why is the baby owed its mother's and/or father's participation in sustenance, or anyone else for that matter?
Marriage is between one man and one woman; this is the basis of the family unit (Genesis 2:24). Children are both a joy and a blessing from God, not parasites or burdens (John 16:21). Parents have a responsibility to raise their children (Deuteronomy 6:7), just as children have a responsibility to be obedient to their parents (Exodus 20:12). Individuals must care for their household, which includes parents caring for their childrens' needs (1 Timothy 5:8).


I am in no way endorsing or recommending that one not take care of one's child; but that's vastly different from stating that a child is owed its parent's care.
"I wouldn't suggest you throw your baby in the ditch, but it's totally fine if you do."

While this is an uncharitable summary, I don't think it is inaccurate. But the fundamental issue seems to involve the first question: where do human rights come from? If the answer is reason, you just have to find a logical pathway to justify killing babies. Treating the parent/child relationship like a contract that can be negated is one way to do this. It may not violate your reason, but it will send you down a dark path.
#247
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If a mother prioritizes her own survival over that of her unborn child's, why would anyone else get a say?
Good question.
#248
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
They're concepts, so they're conceived, once again, as a result of analyzing our condition. Rights are not granted; they simply are a product of moral analysis and principle.
So they're made up.
Just like god.
#249
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
"I wouldn't suggest you throw your baby in the ditch, but it's totally fine if you do."

While this is an uncharitable summary, I don't think it is inaccurate. But the fundamental issue seems to involve the first question: where do human rights come from? If the answer is reason, you just have to find a logical pathway to justify killing babies. Treating the parent/child relationship like a contract that can be negated is one way to do this. It may not violate your reason, but it will send you down a dark path.
Every human death is a tragedy.

114 people die every minute.

6829 people die every hour.

163,898 people die every single day.

You're wasting your time trying to "save" teeny tiny babies when statistically, making abortions illegal does not significantly impact infant mortality.

You really get the most bang for your buck (number of human lives saved per dollar) by investing in mosquito nets and clean drinking water for people who are already born.

Pregnant women have enough to deal with already.

They certainly don't need total strangers to tell them what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
#250
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you know what the second leading cause of death was in the U.S. in 2018?
#251
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you know what the second leading cause of death was in the U.S. in 2018?
# 1 HEART DISEASE - 659,041

# 2 CANCER - 599,601

# 3 ACCIDENTS - 173,040 [**]

A total of 619,591 abortions for 2018 were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. [**]



You might be surprised to learn that in the United States a woman coping with the heartbreak of losing her pregnancy might also find herself facing jail time. Say she got in a car accident in New York or gave birth to a stillborn in Indiana: In such cases, women have been charged with manslaughter.

In fact, a fetus need not die for the state to charge a pregnant woman with a crime. Women who fell down the stairs, who ate a poppy seed bagel and failed a drug test or who took legal drugs during pregnancy — drugs prescribed by their doctors — all have been accused of endangering their children.

So what motivates these prosecutions? The reality is that, in many cases, these women are collateral damage in the fight over abortion. As the legal debate over a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy has intensified, so too has the insistence of anti-abortion groups that fertilized eggs and fetuses be granted full rights and the protection of the law — an extreme legal argument with little precedent in American law before the 1970s.

Frustrated by the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, many in the anti-abortion movement hope for a sweeping rollback under a conservative Supreme Court — one that would block access to abortion even in states that protect women’s access to such health services. [**]


Teen birth rates peaked at 96.3 per 1,000 in 1957, the midst of the baby boom, after having risen dramatically following the end of World War II. But the composition of teen mothers has changed drastically. Back in 1960, most teen mothers – an estimated 85% – were married. Today, the majority of teen births (89%) are to unmarried mothers. [**]
#252
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
U.S. CAUSES OF DEATH IN 2018
# 1 HEART DISEASE - 659,041

# 2 ABORTION - 619,591

# 3 CANCER - 599,601

If abortion is the 2nd leading cause of death, I would say it is well worth the prevention effort.

So what motivates these prosecutions? The reality is that, in many cases, these women are collateral damage in the fight over abortion. 
There's an easy solution to ending this fight: stop trying to legalize the nationwide slaughter of babies which constitutes the #2 leading cause of death in the U.S.
#253
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
There's an easy solution to ending this fight: stop trying to legalize the nationwide slaughter of babies which constitutes the #2 leading cause of death in the U.S.
There's an easy solution to ending this fight: start paying for child-care and healthy food for 619,591 new citizens every year.

If you want to force unfit mothers to pop-out babies, you need to create a proper safety-net.
#254
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
We have the most generous welfare program in the world, yet people are still fighting tooth and nail for unrestricted access to child murder. More taxpayer-funded welfare is obviously not a functional solution. Not does it actually address the problem.

The fundamental problem is people want sex without being willing to accept the responsibility of parenthood. That is the main reason that 619,591 deaths happened in 2018, not lack of welfare.
#255
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
We have the most generous welfare program in the world,
Citation please.
#256
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The fundamental problem is people want sex
Blame god.
#257
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Citation please.
You don't have to accept it as true. I stand by the statement because generosity of welfare is not only determined by percentage of GDP spent. I do not consider universal healthcare and universal basic income to be welfare. But even if you reject it, there are plenty of programs that provide welfare for parents. We provide food stamps and free money to parents, as well as free health insurance programs. Lack of welfare is not the problem.

Not only that, but lack of taxpayer-funded welfare is not a justification for murdering babies. If parents can't afford to feed their toddlers, can they kill them too? Because that's the logical end of that argument.
#258
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Blame god.
If God is made up, then you can't use this excuse. If God is real, then sin is the problem, not God.
#259
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
# 2 ABORTION - 619,591
According to the 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the United States admitted a total of 1.18 million legal immigrants (618k new arrivals, 565k status adjustments) in 2016. [**]
#260
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Blame god.
If God is made up, then you can't use this excuse. If God is real, then sin is the problem, not God.
(IFF) GOD MADE THIS MESS (THEN) GOD SHOULD FIX IT
#261
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
According to the 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the United States admitted a total of 1.18 million legal immigrants (618k new arrivals, 565k status adjustments) in 2016.
Ok.
#262
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I do not consider universal healthcare and universal basic income to be welfare.
WTF.

I SAID "SAFETY-NET".
#263
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) GOD MADE THIS MESS (THEN) GOD SHOULD FIX IT
(IFF) WILLFUL HUMAN SIN MADE THIS MESS (THEN)....what?
#264
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Not only that, but lack of taxpayer-funded welfare is not a justification for murdering babies.
It's a question of RESPONSIBILITY.

Should we let homeless people die simply because they are unable to care for themselves ?

An unwanted-foetus is just a smaller homeless person.

If you want to live in a society where "ALLLIVESMATTER" then we really need to start acting like "ALLLIVESMATTER".

MAKING LAWS AGAINST BEING POOR AND STUPID WILL ONLY END UP COSTING YOU $40,000.00 /yr PER STUPID POOR PERSON.
#265
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
(IFF) GOD MADE THIS MESS (THEN) GOD SHOULD FIX IT
(IFF) WILLFUL HUMAN SIN MADE THIS MESS (THEN)....what?
(IFF) there is no god (THEN) we must decide for ourselves what kind of world we want to live in
#266
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
An unwanted-foetus is just a smaller homeless person.
By this logic, we either have to criminalize the murder of babies, or legalize the murder of homeless people.
#267
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
(IFF) there is no god (THEN) we must decide for ourselves what kind of world we want to live in.
I'm sure you feel that way.
#268
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
An unwanted-foetus is just a smaller homeless person.
By this logic, we either have to criminalize the murder of babies, or legalize the murder of homeless people.
CAN YOU FOR ONE SECOND FOCUS ON HELPING PEOPLE INSTEAD OF YOUR SEEMING OBSESSION WITH PUNISHING PEOPLE ?
#269
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
(IFF) there is no god (THEN) we must decide for ourselves what kind of world we want to live in.
I'm sure you feel that way.
Obviously, "god" is impotent and or refuses to fix any of the problems they created, so, either way, it's appears to be up to you and me.
#270
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
CAN YOU FOR ONE SECOND FOCUS ON HELPING PEOPLE INSTEAD OF YOUR SEEMING OBSESSION WITH PUNISHING PEOPLE ?
CAN YOU FOR ONE SECOND FOCUS ON SAVING INNOCENT CHILDRENS' LIVES INSTEAD OF PUSHING FOR SOCIALISM?