Why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

This is an interesting question and one part of my answer is definitely "Religious and / or Philosophical."

There are some women who have been victims of rape who decided to keep their child in spite of the circumstances
under which the child was conceived.....
and a high percentage of these women are really, really, really glad that they decided to bring their baby to full term and either give that baby up for adoption or raise the baby themselves.

My theory is that the part of the human spirit or soul that experiences a first trimester abortion.....
is the part of the human spirit or soul that is closest to our Creator.....
and is continually in the presence of our Creator.........
and has been for millennia... and even millions or even for billions of years.........

I admit that my theory could be in error but it is a somewhat informed opinion based on over forty years of studying many aspects of the paranormal......


Matthew 18:10
"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; forI say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."

I have came to a rather unusual belief on what may perhaps be meant by "their angels".....
I think this phrase will eventually be known to fit perfectly with "The Man on the Throne" part of the near death experience of Mr. Christian Andreason.........
but of course i could be wrong..... and I have only heard a little bit on this general idea from others..... but I have heard some on this. I cannot claim that this is my theory alone.

 

All the effects are harm....just because they aren't happening to you doesn't mean they aren't.

NOPE, they are effects (harm) that happen to EVERY woman who goes through a pregnancy. NOT every one of them ( IF you read the headings you'd know) but EVERY woman suffers some of those effects and all women suffer some of those effects (harm)

They are ....having your immune system compromised is HARM and ALL womne have their immune system compromised....just because it's only women being affected doesn't mean it isn't harm.

LOL, you remind me so much of the Anti-Choicers, who when presented with that list, pick ONE effect( their favorite choice is stretch marks to minimize what women go through, (your's is sore breasts.)..so similar to the Anti-Choicer's flimsy argument


YOU have NOT shown that any woman has gone through a pregnancy with NO effects on her body as you CLAIM.


BTW, YOU and Anti-Choicers don't get to decide what effect is serious or is or is not happening.., Must be frustrating for you having to deny science and all...

 

Sorry, you don't know that...aborting a kid you can't afford and don't want IS thinking of the child...

Yes, but sometimes lawmakers have to protect people (women) from those who want to destroy their rights (Anti-Choicers)..

 

Welfare is for CHILDREN....so you want it ended so CHILDREN (PRECIOUS LIVES) starve to death ?

 

Then you have no idea of what bodily autonomy is...

 

I know what the sanctity of human life is.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Then you have no idea of what bodily autonomy is... ???

OKI.

 

I want it ended because it is no longer needed and the parents are supporting their children why do you oppose that? Should our policies be directed at creating more situations where it is needed or to eliminate the need in the first place?

 

It’s the right to not put something in your body you don’t want, like vaccines or sperm. Maybe women want the sperm but not the consequences. Let a human life exist or kill it. Sounds like a moral decision to me.

 

What is with you and strawman arguments. At what point have I claimed that because it is not happening to me it is not harm?

Again strawman. Please quote for me when I said that immune system compromise was not a harm. That said, women are not the only ones affected by immune system compromise. Maybe the only ones due to pregnancy, but you are the one saying that only women are being affected with it. Now, Since it is your assertion, show me the actual reference that states that all women are affected by this. Not simply you say it is so. Show me a reference.

Actually I chose change in breasts, not sore breasts. Again you can't seem to be bothered to read. Nor am I minimizing what women go through. That is your strawman again. But you still didn't answer the question, which I predicted. So once again I ask (and you will avoid), is puberty is harm to women/girls since it can cause some of the same effects (which you claim are harms) as pregnancy?

Amazing! Another strawman. I didn't make that claim. You keep falsifying what I say. You are making the claim that ALL woman suffer at least one harm or another, if not multiples. I have pointed out that the very definition of risk means that it may or may not happen, the probability of such varying with what the risk itself is. Even at a 99.9% risk, that still leaves .1% who will not suffer the effect, which is 166,700 women using the 2019 numbers for women in the US. That's still a lot of women not suffering an effect. So show me the reference that states as medical fact that there is not one single woman anywhere that gets through pregnancy with no harm

Nor do you. I'm not claiming what is or is not serious or is or isn't happening. I am pointing out that the very definition of risk means that it might not happen, yet you claim it always happens. Therefore is it actually risk? It's up to you to support your claim with an actual reference, and not a list without a reference. I have no claim to support because I am not making a claim. Which you will strawman again, saying I claimed something.

 

It's also the right to withdraw any permission for use of your bodily resources at any time except after the fact, and to correct any condition that you attempted to avoid yet happened anyway despite your precautions.

 

And kill an inconvenient human life you created. I can think of any number of people I find inconvenient...hmmm.

 

Can you show where they are using your bodily resources without consent?

 

That’s irrelevant. The relevant factor is they are inconvenient, same as for abortions.

 

Not legally. Socially, sometimes he does.

Perhaps so. But also all to often people interpret any pro-life stance as slut shaming women, when the motivation could instead be concern for the life of the unborn, and is stated to be that. I think we should be fair all around and give people the benefit of the doubt and not accuse secret motivations where there isn't cause to do so.

But yes, there definitely ARE some people who use the child as means to shame the woman, in a some sort of puritan way. Let's just not pretend that's everyone.

 

It doesn't matter if you ware hypocritical at that point. It just makes both you and the "righties" wrong. Being hypocritical doesn't make what the other guy is doing not bad, even if you yourself do worse things.

 

If the mother can't support the child she helped create, is she also sterilized?

Why should the man be made to take care of/support the pregnant woman, when she, after all, was present during the creation of the child and, has equal responsibility?

 

There is not a lot of misinterpretation in “she should have kept her legs together

Slut shaming

 

Up to the man to provide the support

 

Why? The woman shares the responsibility equally, she was there while the baby was being made.

 

I'm not. Why would you think that from what I wrote? I actually stated quite the opposite.

Obviously if she is raped then she has the sex against her will and isn't responsible. If she willingly has sex and then has an unplanned pregnancy, then she is responsible (as is the man). The child is never the responsible party. Between the mother and child, the mother should be held to some level of responsibility for putting the child in the harm the child is in (again, with the exception of rape).

If the child is considered a person (which is a separate question people argue either way), then again, I ask, should the people who put the child in danger not be responsible to see the child through the harm they put him/her into? If you pick up a toddler and hold them over a cliff, are you not responsible to put them down safely and not simply drop them. If your bodily autonomy is unrestrained completely, you could simply drop them.

And you project that onto what I wrote and you quoted that had absolutely nothing to do with that? I think that itself is a problem.

Again, that depends on how you view the unborn. We don't typically tell everyone to step back and respect the choice of others who kill innocent people. There is a debate here as to whether or not the killing is acceptable. If it isn't, that is a matter for all of society, and not just the one doing the killing.

I didn't. That was 100% projection on your part. You should be mindful of that.

 

If the man wants to, fine, if he wants to share the expenses, fine.

He isn't responsible for the entire tab, not when 2 people were involved.

 

I think the better question would be "Did you put them in a situation where they are using your bodily resources without your ongoing consent?"

The fact that the mother (barring rape) is responsible for creating the situation and that the unborn had no role in doing so should be kept in mind. I think that adds an important moral aspect.

If I lift you up over a cliff, I have a responsibility to not simply drop you to your death, and to safely put you down again, even if I decide while I'm holding you over a cliff that I no longer consent to you using my muscles to support you.

 

Ultimately, the child is the one we should be most concerned about. The child should be provided for. Next stop is the question of how that is done, and the state may have to play a role in footing the bill if the parents are unable or unwilling. Perhaps the parents should be punished if they are unwilling, but whatever we do, we should do it with the care of the child in mind, and the child shouldn't suffer for it if it can be prevented.

 

Well I don't now about you but unless you live in deepest Africa or currently Afghanistan, the state offers you support in health, education and basic care.
and more than likely it allows parents to work while the child is looked after in nursery OR grandparents/extended family pitch in. I doubt very much if there is an unaffordable child anywhere in a modern western nation. IMO it is an emotional, simplistic excuse for the parent to jettison their other considerations.
However, if the parent does feel they cannot emotionally support the child, there are many childless couples who can.

But to be clear, my opinion isn't so much about the direct moral rights and wrongs...
my issue is the role of the state in personal decision making. IMO that role should start and end at advice about safe abortion and about registering clinics. The decision as to whether or not to abort a child is PURELY that of the parents (and maybe direct family). The idea that a bunch of impersonal lawmakers, totally out of touch from your own circumstances and treating you like a category, tinged with some disapproving moral message, can make decisions that deeply and personally affect YOU is IMO a step way too far in letting the state into your life.

You may not remember but I clearly remember that is was illegal in New York in the 1960's to make love in any other position than the missionary position. A nonsense, unenforcible law yes, but it tells me that the state has been trying to interfere in the bedroom for far too long. It has NO PLACE in such intimate issues. If you aren't careful the state will be telling you whether you can be cremated or buried.