-->
@thett3
There can be occasional bleeding that could be mistaken for a period
the two are functionally indistinguishable
Restrictions on Abortion
Posts
Total:
329
-->
@3RU7AL
this is actually a great ideaeveryone seems to have lost focus on what the scope of government entailsthe primary use case for government is to provide basic public services, roads, water service, electricity and more broadly, public safety in the public spherethe secondary use case for government is to mediate disputes between citizensif you have personally been harmed in some quantifiable way by another citizen, then you have the right (not the obligation) to file legal action against that specific citizen
Those are both important basic roles for all governments. Probably the most important roles, too. However, I think the scope of government power should be a bit wider than that.
Governments have a vested interest in the well being of their people beyond just those two use cases.
-->
@3RU7AL
imagine the example, where you didn't cause the kidney failureyou simply have two compatible kidneysyou are not expected to save every single life on earth, even if you have the ability to save some
If you are just a person who is a US citizen and have two healthy kidneys, I don't think you should have to give one to save a random person who you haven't interacted with.
However, I believe that if there is some causal relationship between you and the person needing the kidney, then there can be instances in which you should be obligated to save them.
For instance, I think pregnancy falls under this principle, except for cases of rape. If you consent to sex and create a life, that is a causal relationship. That life needs assistance until it can be birthed and live without assistance. Considering the life was created (and the dependent condition of a fetus/unborn child) as a direct result of a man and woman's choice, the obligation to not kill/let it die is created.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Governments have a vested interest in the well being of their people beyond just those two use cases.
please explain
-->
@bmdrocks21
However, I believe that if there is some causal relationship between you and the person needing the kidney, then there can be instances in which you should be obligated to save them.
perhaps you raised your child on a diet of salted meat ?
would that count as a "causal relationship" in your book ?
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you consent to sex and create a life, that is a causal relationship.
how do you personally quantify coercion ?
-->
@thett3
Most people don’t want to ban abortion entirely but also don’t think it should be legal up to the moment of birth. What do you think the limit should be and why?
There should be no limitations because how a pregnant female--or any other individual for that matter--behaves her body falls strictly under her own authority. In no period when she gestates does her body stop being her body.
-->
@3RU7AL
please explain
If everyone is poor and depressed, that weakens the nation. So the government has an interest in solving those issues which providing roads probably won’t do.
perhaps you raised your child on a diet of salted meat ?would that count as a "causal relationship" in your book ?
If they only fed them salted meat? If that can be legally classified as child abuse, I would say yes.
There is obviously nuance because feeding anything other than the optimal diet can be considered a “but for” legal argument. But having a “but for” argument is insufficient to find someone guilty of something.
Negligence also requires proximate cause which means there must be a clear connection of an action to the harm
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you personally quantify coercion ?
Either forcing someone to do something against their will or taking advantage of them in some way (for example, if they aren’t mentally able to consent to something)
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you consent to sex and create a life, that is a causal relationship.
Strictly speaking, consent isn't required to render it a causal relationship. If a male rapes a female (or vice versa) which results in a pregnancy, the conception of a zygote/embryo/fetus would still have been caused by that relationship--albeit coerced.
That life needs assistance until it can be birthed and live without assistance.
Why does that "need" create an obligation.
Considering the life was created (and the dependent condition of a fetus/unborn child) as a direct result of a man and woman's choice, the obligation to not kill/let it die is created.
Again, why does this create an obligation? Do the parents "create" the dependent condition of the zygote/embryo/fetus? Or does Human physiology and development do that? Coitus which leads to conception results in the creation of human "life." So why are the parents "indebted"?
Note: I reject your description of this obligation as one "to not kill/let it die."
-->
@bmdrocks21
Either forcing someone to do something against their will or taking advantage of them in some way (for example, if they aren’t mentally able to consent to something)
perhaps "intoxicated" qualifies ?
-->
@bmdrocks21
Either forcing someone to do something against their will
what is your position on false promises ?
-->
@3RU7AL
perhaps "intoxicated" qualifies ?
It can. If a woman was highly intoxicated and was taken advantage of
what is your position on false promises ?
What kind of false promise?
-->
@Athias
Why does that "need" create an obligation.
I think that if someone creates a need for another person, they should be required to help with that as a general rule.
If you hit my car and I need to repair it, you have an obligation to pay for the repairs.
If you have a small child, you have an obligation to feed it and have it educated to some extent.
Strictly speaking, consent isn't required to render it a causal relationship. If a male rapes a female (or vice versa) which results in a pregnancy, the conception of a zygote/embryo/fetus would still have been caused by that relationship--albeit coerced.
My position is that if you freely engage in an activity designed for reproduction, then you must be prepared to accept the obligation if that results in a life.
I don’t think abortion is moral in the case of rape, but speaking from what should be the law in my opinion, I think that there needs to be some willing action from the woman who became pregnant to become pregnant in the first place, regardless of the actual desired intention (ex. Contraception failing)
If she was forced to have sex, she did not willfully accept any risk. If she did, then I think that she cannot terminate a life to free herself from the obligation.
Again, why does this create an obligation? Do the parents "create" the dependent condition of the zygote/embryo/fetus? Or does Human physiology and development do that? Coitus which leads to conception results in the creation of human "life." So why are the parents "indebted"?
The parents do create the dependent condition by creating the life in the first place. All life is dependent by nature for the first ~8-10 months after conception for humans. While physiology is the reason for said dependence, by creating a life, you are creating a dependent being that would otherwise not exist except for the parents’ actions.
I suppose I am for the most part (but not entirely, since you can’t kill born children conceived from rape) treating a fetus as if it was a small, born child. Toddlers are entirely dependent on their parents and we recognize that you can’t just let them die. So, with some slight modifications, it’s just a fusion of legal concepts adapted to the unique circumstances of pregnancy
Note: I reject your description of this obligation as one "to not kill/let it die."
Ok, why not?
-->
@bmdrocks21
I find this view a bit concerning- that if you aren’t an expert on the matter or directly involved then you believe we shouldn’t have a say in it and not regulate it.
Overgeneralization. Just because I have decided upon this outlook towards on one uniquely sensitive and family-level private and gender-specific policy question does not give you warrant to assume I'd advocate the same approach for other, very different public policy issues. Please be disabused of your presumptions. You assume further that I would not regulate abortions but that is false, I would regulate abortions the same as any other standardized medical procedure. The making of the decision should not be regulated by the state according to the majority will, or any other will except the pregnant mothers, by biological dictate- the same rights afforded any patient seeking heart surgery or knee replacement.
-->
@bmdrocks21
perhaps "intoxicated" qualifies ?It can. If a woman was highly intoxicated and was taken advantage of
ok, how do you propose we qualify this three months later when this woman is requesting an abortion ?
-->
@oromagi
the same as any other standardized medical procedure
exactly
imagine if a state outlawed all elective procedures
or if a christian scientist or a scientologist decided to make all medical procedures illegal in their state
-->
@bmdrocks21
what is your position on false promises ?What kind of false promise?
i will love you forever
you will never have to worry about anyone hurting you as long as we're together
Women can't menstruate while pregnant but they certainly can have spotting and other bleeding that resembles a period which may lead them to believe that they are not pregnant. So you don't get to call women liars cuz you don't understand how they're f****** bodies work.
Women can't menstruate while pregnant but they certainly can have spotting and other bleeding that resembles a period which may lead them to believe that they are not pregnant. So you don't get to call women liars cuz you don't understand how they're f****** bodies work.
100% THIS
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I did not call all women liars. I said not all of them are honest.
Do not confuse these statements as being identical.
-->
@RationalMadman
I did not call all women liars. I said not all of them are honest.
perhaps it's less than obvious to everyone (including the woman and including her doctor) exactly how long one has been pregnant
that's just one of the many critical flaws with laws that rely on unquantifiable circumstances
The 3.5 thing was to realise we cant really know when it began in those cases, estimate by fetal development and period cycles (if she is honest)
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think that if someone creates a need for another person, they should be required to help with that as a general rule.
It isn't the parents who create this "need." It's human physiology that creates it.
If you hit my car and I need to repair it, you have an obligation to pay for the repairs.
This isn't even remotely analogous.
If you have a small child, you have an obligation to feed it and have it educated to some extent.
And this, admittedly, is where many of those who are "pro-choice" are inconsistent. If her body is her body--an argument I maintain--then why isn't her time and resources hers as well? And this is where my arguments typically stray from the common description of "pro-choice." Because I would even extend a parent's autonomy to child rearing as well. In other words, parents owe their children nothing. Their time and labor are gifts, not debts.
Would I personally prefer that pregnant women not get abortions? Of course.
Would I personally prefer that both mothers and fathers take a vested interest in rearing and educating their children? You bet your your A-double snakes I do. But on principle--self-ownership to be precise--I cannot endorse any measure which would coerce an individual into behaving HIS/HER OWN BODY against his/her interests.
My position is that if you freely engage in an activity designed for reproduction, then you must be prepared to accept the obligation if that results in a life.
Once again, why is an obligation created? I agree with you, absent of coercion or duress, that two people--particularly male and female--can freely engage coitus. I agree with you upon conception, a "life" begins--or at the very least, the start of a human being's development begins. (I'm not questioning the "life" of a zygote/embryo/fetus per se; I only quote it to point out that it can take on various descriptions.) I even agree with you that from its zygotal to its fetal stage, a human being depends heavily, if not entirely, on its mother's resources--chiefly her womb--in order to develop. Now, how does knowing this and why does all of this create an obligation?
I don’t think abortion is moral in the case of rape, but speaking from what should be the law in my opinion, I think that there needs to be some willing action from the woman who became pregnant to become pregnant in the first place, regardless of the actual desired intention (ex. Contraception failing)If she was forced to have sex, she did not willfully accept any risk. If she did, then I think that she cannot terminate a life to free herself from the obligation.
Isn't the immorality of rape best expressed in that one's authority in how one's body is behaved was violated? How is coercing a pregnant woman into carrying a pregnancy to term any less a violation of that authority? Even if you argue that she was aware of what "could happen," how does knowing what could happen void her authority over her own body? Why should it void her authority over her own body?
The parents do create the dependent condition by creating the life in the first place. All life is dependent by nature for the first ~8-10 months after conception for humans. While physiology is the reason for said dependence, by creating a life, you are creating a dependent being that would otherwise not exist except for the parents’ actions.
This would also be true in cases of rape, but "knowing the risks" and consent qualify this for you. Why does the mother's consent matter before conception, but not after?
I suppose I am for the most part (but not entirely, since you can’t kill born children conceived from rape) treating a fetus as if it was a small, born child. Toddlers are entirely dependent on their parents and we recognize that you can’t just let them die. So, with some slight modifications, it’s just a fusion of legal concepts adapted to the unique circumstances of pregnancy
But it is legal for one to abandon one's child, namely a newborn can be left on the steps of a firehouse or church.
Ok, why not?
Because it's the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's physiological underdevelopment that makes its survival outside its mother's womb impossible. Of course, there are methods of abortion which primarily harm the fetus before expulsion, and I personally and on principle reject such methods.
-->
@Athias
parents owe their children nothing. Their time and labor are gifts, not debts.
great point
The 3.5 thing was to realise we cant really know when it began in those cases, estimate by fetal development and period cycles (if she is honest)
If, yeah. Pretty axiomatic.
-->
@Athias
and I personally and on principle reject such methods.
but would you consider it a "legal matter" ?
-->
@3RU7AL
but would you consider it a "legal matter" ?
I wouldn't consider any of this a "legal" matter--at least, not more than it is moral. But if we were to indulge any legal consistency, then yes, primarily harming the zygote/embryo/fetus wouldn't be much different than harming a newborn, infant, or toddler. I would imagine that it would be no more difficult to legislate this, than it it currently is for the latter.
-->
@Athias
But if we were to indulge any legal consistency, then yes, primarily harming the zygote/embryo/fetus wouldn't be much different than harming a newborn, infant, or toddler.
except for the fact that they are not a citizen
and they are 100% inside another person
-->
@3RU7AL
except for the fact that they are not a citizenand they are 100% inside another person
Legislation of citizenship is arbitrary, and its being inside another person does not change that it can be done harm.