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

This is just a rambling list of statements not related to my comment . more false accusations - Strawman fallacy.

You equivocated Accidental Pregnancy with Accidental Birth . AP is not AB .
- nor is it an accidental Democrat. AP is not AD

This is fallacy - and you are mistaking your above fallacy for rational thought.

1) didn't make any Claim about Jesus being an Equal Person. so False accusation on your part of the Strawman variety.
1b) What Strawman ? You don't know what Strawman is
2) did not not insist on pregnancy - was you who made the iinsistence about Pregnancy -- a false one .. Then tried to project your failings onto me.

and then you finish with Ad Hom Fallacy Wow .. Not a word addressing my comment, but you are very good at spouting fallacy

 

↑
deleted

 

Still getting the hang of this forum and its quote component.
FoxH...from your posts I see a position that supports a woman's right to choose.
But you spend time countering my argument which is exactly that. My angle though is that the state should not be making that choice more difficult. Instead it should be providing support for whatever choice she (and the potential extended "family") makes.
Best not to alienate your allies.

 

Pardon? Saying people should be responsible and minimize dumping expenses on society isn't "slut shaming". You can **** whoever you want as often as you want. But take some responsibility for your actions. Why should you not do so? Why should the rest of us have to pick up your entire tab?

They certainly are not perfect, but they sure are better than not using them.

Legislation may not reduce arson either. Doesn't make it pointless to have the law if the act it is banning is decided to be murderous (which to many pro-life people abortion is).

Yes. We should also have UBI and universal single payer health care. Surprised I say that? Pssst... I'm likely on your left.

 

And I see no reason to agree with that. My guess is that you take that position based 100% on religious belief. Am I wrong?

I hear religious folks say "life begins at conception". I'm not sure where they get that idea from. Is it in the Bible or other holy text?

Does the Bible say that the soul is inserted into the egg with the sperm?

Or am I wrong in thinking this is religiously motivated on your part? Is there a secular reason to think that we should care about a fertilized egg that hasn't developed at all beyond that? I have difficulty seeing such an egg as on the level of even a squirrel in terms of how much empathy it could draw from me.

 

The point I was trying to make is that not even the bible holds that unborn are "people" or at the least, don't warrant the same level as those already born. Exodus 21:22-25 plainly shows that the loss of the offspring is a fine at best, where as harming the woman, is an equal harm offense. If the unborn were as valued as you claim, then why would they not also be an equal harm offense when killed?

 

First you have my apologies. I had not yet submitted the hypothetical on this thread. It was done on a different thread. I had offered up to others to present it.

You wake up to find that I have, through some machinery and tubes, hooked myself up to you. Let's say as a living blood filter. You are at no risk of IMMINENT death or serious injury, but if ever you are disconnected from me, I will die. Does your right of bodily autonomy allow you to kill me, directly or indirectly, overriding my right to life? Or does my right to life override your right to bodily autonomy, causing you to remain connected to me for however long as I need it to live, which could be decades?

I did copy and paste that from the other thread and then modified the last part since it was originally addressing something someone else wrote.. The capitalized imminent part was because the person I presented it to originally claimed that you could only kill someone if they presented an IMMINENT(sic) threat to one's life or serious bodily harm. I understand that this is an unlikely situation. It is a possible one, but highly improbable. However, the question is the principles involved. Hypotheticals are meant to test such principles even in highly improbable situations.

 

Interesting scenario. I am not certain what my answer is. But I would twist the hypothetical one turn and present the exact same scenario except that I am the one who hooked this up instead of you, and I then declare that I have the right to kill you at any moment, and that this is only a medical concern, and between me and my doctor, since you are draining my bodily resources. That would be more akin to abortion (presuming the unborn is considered our equal). Should I have the right to claim this option for myself, even though I and not you created the situation? Even if somebody says yes to your scenario, they may say no to mine.

 

Very nice. Had to respond, but a more detailed one will be later. But I will say now, that you have helped illustrate how the same set of conflicting rights can end up settled differently due to changes in the circumstances. I am looking forward to responding to this properly when I have more time.

 

Hey Pixie , Uh, want to try again after learning the quote function...and without adding anything to another's post..

 

Want to re address Post # 225

Don't add anything to my words....try READING them.....you are correct on some things and incorrect on others such as whose decision it is and why a woman should undergo 9 months of pregnancy to provide someone else with a kid..

 

YES.

One has NO obligation to sustain the life of another using one's body or any part of it.

 

So, first, have you seen his alterations to the hypothetical? Secondly, within what I presented is it within the other's right to have me killed directly (i.e. before the machines are unhooked), or is my death only allowed to be a result of the machines being unhooked? Or are both within the other's rights?

 

Yes, if there is no other way to stop the harm you may be killed...

Yes, if unhooking the machine kills you so what? The person you are using to stay alive has a right to do that.....they don't have to stay hooked to you for any reason.

It is odd how some just can't "get" : One has NO obligation to sustain the life of another using one's body or any part of it.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear in what I was asking, or maybe you're not as clear as you think you are in answering. What I want to know is does the used person in the hypothetical have the right to kill the user outright before unhooking the machine, or does the used person's right only allow for the unhooking of the machine?

 

There is only one God.

 

My opinion is based on my respect for human life.

 

Behaviour in relation to sex is immaterial because a large proportion of women seeking abortion are either married or in a stable relationship.
https://www.statista.com/statistics...tions-by-marital-status-in-the-us-since-1973/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172976

Among those not married a huge number, based on reposes on this bleary, think that interventions like condoms are effective in preventing pregnancy

Why do women seek abortions? Because of UNWANTED pregnancy. Failure of contraception equals unwanted pregnancy. For every 100 women relying on condoms for contraception approx 15 will become pregnant.

Yeah but legislation about arson does not increase the risk of the neighbourhood exploding either. You may not believe me on this one but there is a bog load of research supporting it - anti abortion legislation Not only does NOTHING to reduce the rates of abortion but it leaves a devastating carnage of dead and maimed women

https://www.guttmacher.org/report/abortion-worldwide-2017
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion

I very much doubt you are on MY left as most Americans on this forum look on me as a raving communist

 

Then you should be pro support services such as free health care, paid parental leave, child support payments, free child care etc

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Yes, if there is no other way to stop the harm you may be killed...

Yes, if unhooking the machine kills you so what? The person you are using to stay alive has a right to do that.....they don't have to stay hooked to you for any reason.

It is odd how some just can't "get" : One has NO obligation to sustain the life of another using one's body or any part of it.

You :""does the used person in the hypothetical have the right to kill the user outright before unhooking the machine,""


AGAIN : Yes, if there is no other way to stop the harm. If the used sees no other way to stop the harm or can't unhook the machine or doesn't know how they can shoot the user , throw a brick on his head.... stop the harm....

 

OK

I am betting you think condoms are effective for contraception don’t you?



Look up the cost of implants and IUDs and consider that the biggest demographic seeking abortions are women living in poverty

 

A pregnancy is a natural relationship between mother and child. It’s how the species propagates. The mother’s obligation to her unborn baby arises from natural law.

 

WOMEN are human life and deserve the respect of having the same rights you have.

 

Except that you have no respect for the woman's life, because you want her to take the risks associated with being pregnant against her will.