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

Incorrect. The relevant factor is the violation of bodily autonomy. It is because of that factor that the woman cannot terminate the offspring once it is out of the womb, or if it is her genetic offspring, but gestating in a surrogate's womb. For that matter, as I have pointed out repeatedly, if the medical knowledge/technology ever get to the needed level, the woman might not have any ability to call for termination of the offspring, only for its removal from her womb.

 

You do realize that I was spring boarding off your post and idea, not countering or criticizing it, right?

 

It's up to both, which is why when a father is the one who gets custody, the mother is the one who has to pay child support. SO yeah, by your idea, equal application of law would be if a woman keeps getting pregnant without being able to support the child as well, then she has the same repercussions as the man who keeps getting women pregnant.

 

I'm still not seeing what makes the difference on the offspring's part as to why it is alright to cause harm to it if it the result of a rape, but not alright to cause harm to it if it is not. As you noted the offspring is not responsible. For the purpose of this, let's set aside abortion to save the mother's life, as that is an event that can happen whether the pregnancy is the result of rape or not.

Also, as to the comment on unrestrained bodily autonomy, that right is no more unrestrained than any other right is. The only reason that the offspring gets terminated in the abortion is that there is no other way at this time. I had used breastfeeding earlier in the thread because someone made the example of that being use of bodily resources and thus the woman could kill the offspring (in an effort to counter the bodily autonomy argument). But since the violation of bodily autonomy can be halted without the termination of the offspring, then the offspring's right of life remains in play. Your example of holding the child over the edge of the cliff is not reflective of how the rights interact.

 

A very valid point. Did you see my hypothetical earlier in the thread? How would you answer that? I finally got bluesguy to answer after a lot of teeth pulling. I can present it again, if you need me to.

 

Given that so many people will claim that unable will be unwilling and that the parents are lying about unable, this seems problematic.

 

At the least there are legitimate reasons for both sides on that issue. What happens can impact upon other people or property. But that is for another thread.

 

Actually, applying the same criteria to a a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells (unless and until it has developed into a sentient being) that is applied to an actual person has its reasonable aspect. Brain-dead individuals are routinely removed from life support, and an entity that has never had a functional brain has the same status.

Before authoritarians rush in to arrogate the power over women and wombs and surrender it to politicians and bureaucrats, they should recognize that they are resorting to the coercive power of the State only because their right to proselytize has failed, but they are still hellbent imposing their will upon everyone.

​

 

Just keep denying science...it doesn't make you look good but everyone knows where you stand...

 

Just keep ignoring what is actually written. it doesn't make you look good, but everyone knows you can't honestly debate.

And of course you ignored the question again, as well as failed to actually support your claims with cited references. So once again I ask (and you will avoid, for a fifth time), is puberty a harm to women/girls since it can cause some of the same effects (which you claim are harms) as pregnancy?

 

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

And maybe the woman does not want to sink to a level of needing state aid so that righties can scream about supporting her and her children.

Maybe she just doesn't want to be on that financial level.

Maybe she wants a chance to get out of poverty and stay out of poverty and doesn't want her kids in poverty.

There may be FREE day care but I doubt it....and it is NOT the grandparents or family's responsibility to look after the kids and there may not BE grandparents and family to help.

Unfortunately there are many but people keep having them anyway.

Do you want to tell me why you think a woman has a responsibility to use her body to gestate a kid for someone else?

Why she should suffer the effects and pain of pregnancy and child birth, suffer financial setbacks, time off work, possible job loss, career and educational setbacks, just to give someone else a kid?

NO one has to do that....NO one is obligated to do that.

I totally disregard "morals" as they are as ephemeral as farts in the wind and vary from person to person.....law matters.

Nope, it is ONLY the woman's decision.....others may have input IF she allows input but it is ONLY the pregnant one's decision.

Yes, and those lawmakers wouldn't bring up abortion if the Anti-Choicers didn't. Politicians have to play to their constituents...and some people vote one issue, abortion....and they let their lawmakers know they want women's rights squashed.

It is busybody, interfering Anti-Choicers who are """out of touch from your own circumstances and treating you like a category, tinged with some disapproving moral message, """"

And if they control pregnant women they can tell them when to gestate and WHEN TO ABORT.

 

Using your "logic" pregnancy causes no harm because hangnails aren't serious...

Sorry, your "argument" is too silly for words..

 

1) The first problem is that the claim that the newborn is an equal person .. or even a person at all - is based on moronic arguments .. most often no argument at all.
2) Agree that the woman (as there is no mother) is responsible .. at least in part .. for an accidental birth. If a child is not desired ... the responsible thing to do is kill it as soon as possible.

 

1) The first problem is that the claim that the Jew is an equal person .. or even a person at all - is based on moronic arguments .. most often no argument at all.
2) Agree that the Jewess (as there is no mother) is responsible .. at least in part .. for an accidental pregnancy. If a Jew is not desired ... the responsible thing to do is kill it as soon as possible.

 

And once again, you fail to read what was written and substitute your own words for mine and make strawman arguments.

 

1) The first problem is that the claim that the Democrat is an equal person .. or even a person at all - is based on moronic arguments .. most often no argument at all.
2) Agree that society (as there is no mother) is responsible .. at least in part .. for an accidental Democrat. If a Democrat is not desired ... the responsible thing to do is kill it as soon as possible.

Your logic works as a fill-in-the-blank for anybody and anything.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Using your "logic" pregnancy causes no harm because hangnails aren't serious...

Sorry, your "argument" is too silly for words..

No, no "strawmen " , no "substitutions"....just showing you how silly, and pointless, your argument is...

Using your "logic" pregnancy causes no harm because hangnails aren't serious...

 

2) Agree that the woman (as there is no mother) is responsible .. at least in part .. for an accidental pregnancy. If a child is not desired ... the responsible thing to do is abort as soon as possible.

No it doesn't .. you are mistaking strawman fallacy for rational thought. An Accidental Pregnancy .. is not an accidental birth .. nor is an accidental Pregnancy .. an - accidental Democrat.

 

They do. The fact that you don't know about it changes nothiing.

 

Of course it's strawman because you keep claiming I said something other than what I actually said. You can't seem to counter with anything other than strawman arguments. Hell you can't even manage to answer questions that would further clarify your points. You can't even manage to back up your "science" with links and citations when asked.

 

The holding over a cliff example is reflective of how the rights interact. It is an example to show that the right to bodily automy should not be an absolute right (you seem to agree). So it is an open question on the case of abortion and not resolved by simply asking if your bodily resources are used by another without your consent.

 

I just entered the thread yesterday so I don't think I saw your hypothetical, no. I would appreciate you restating it.

 

Punishment may be too strong a measure. But something needs to be done to discourage people from having irresponsible sex without birth control (and refusing early abortion) etc. The state should be the payer of third resort, not first. Perhaps the social pressure is enough or perhaps not. It is debatable. I don't think people should be encouraged to have kids they can't support by knowledge that the government will send support.

 

I'm happy to hear that those folks to whom I refer are supporters of those who choose to have their babies but can't afford them. I certainly don't hear anything about it but you're right - just because I don't hear about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Perhaps I just hear a whole lot more criticism about people have families they can't afford and labeling them 'welfare queens'.

 

The use of the bodily resources would be the first question. Then comes the question of whether consent for that use is in play or not. Then, if the consent is not there, either never given or withdrawn, comes the question of whether another right overrides or is overridden. In both cases, abortion and your cliff example, there is nothing to override the bodily autonomy. Which means that the use has to end. In the cliff example, there is nothing to override the other's right to life, since the ending of the use of bodily resources can be done immediately without terminating the other. Abortion, not so much, at least at the current stage of medical knowledge/technology. Later, that might change, depending upon the advancements.