HelpQA Tags Search FAQ
Start a New Post Chat Login & Registration
1581744157174 1581744149313 miss bot
soco
last online: 03/19, 3:49
Verified User (7 years, 2 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
Editors:

Electric
BA1
05ad6afe 1f85 4c4a 8680 4f73a3c1f45c
Lano

Are you pro life?

Something to think about. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1015784030...

Last night I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have ever read; "Reasonable people can disagree when a Zygote becomes 'human life' - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.
Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy, protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold vs Connecticut (1965), McCall vs Shimp (1976), Roe vs Wade (1973).
Consider a scenerio where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe a plastic anaemia, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for what ever reason, the State cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It does not matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the ratonale for refusing is flimsy and arbitary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decesion to donate must be voluntary to be Constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That's the law. Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just and refusing, morally wrong. That is a defensible, philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But, legally, it must be the woman choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may chose to carry the baby to term. She may chose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But, it must be her choice and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that Precedent is what being pro-choice means.


I'm Lano and I just edited this post 😇

This open post was written |
Views: 226, Subscribers: 2 |
Leave a reply | Report Post

⇩ Zoom to bottom
Reciprocity (0)
Reciprocity
Since writing this post soco may have helped people, but has not within the last four (4) days.
Post Tags (3)
life, facebook, pro
Replies (8)
Electric
BA1
last online: 01/25, 20:20
Verified User (7 years, 2 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(7 hours after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

Last night I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper.

It may stop the show in your world but it doesn't even register on my OMG meter.... What are you talking about?

One of the best explanations I have ever read; "Reasonable people can disagree when a Zygote becomes 'human life' - that's a philosophical question.

It's only philosophical when both the moral truth AND science doesn't agree with you.
Question: is the Zygote made of human genetic material donated from a male constituant - yes or no.
Is the Zygote made of human genetic material donated from a female constituent - yes or no.
Is the Zygote undergoing development changes of a predictable pattern - yes or no.
Like it or not, in all cases the answer is yes. As such the Zygote was NEVER "unhuman" to begin with. It's not a question.

However, regardless whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.

-Doesn't obligate a "mother" to- (well, it's a little early to be calling anyone a mother at this point....)
How do you go from questioning the validity of life in a human Zygote to comparing a fetus to an adult, seasoned with the dramatics of "ethics."
Where is the journalistic bridge that delivers the topic to that point?
Zygote - life /Fetus - adult
"Ethics."

"Sacrifices" that never existed. The female anatomy is designed to facilitate human life. No child was ever harmed in utero by a uterus - and it's quite apparent the uterus is still there, after birth. The only thing being "sacrificed" is the child and the female's title of "mother."

Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy, protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold vs Connecticut (1965), McCall vs Shimp (1976), Roe vs Wade (1973).

As decided by....no.
Your right to privacy, independence & autonomy existed long before 1965. These court cases are not the foundation (let alone the cornerstone), upon which your individuality is protected. They bear very little to those rights and are exclusive to women only.

Consider a scenerio where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe a plastic anaemia, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you.

Okay, let's consider that scenario where I'm a perfect bone marrow match to an ALREADY BORN CHILD with a plastic anaemia.....

If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for what ever reason, the State cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent.

I fully agree... No human is biologically designed to readily exchange bone marrow with another human or even blood for that matter. No one should be forced to undergo an extreme proceedure against their will, even if it means saving the life of the child.

The problem most people have when it comes to articles such as this is their lack of discernment.
Comparing a life-saving procedure to a procedure that evokes death isn't going to further the cause of "pro-choice."
Moreover, other than becoming pregnant, you literally have to do nothing (or very little, medically speaking) to bring a child into the world.

It does not matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the ratonale for refusing is flimsy and arbitary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decesion to donate must be voluntary to be Constitutional.

Correct. Nature is/was responsible for the child having a plastic anaemia - it wasn't a result of some man made procedure and therefore I (you or anyone else) is not legally or Constitutionally required to benefit that child from our own physical means -

- but there are laws in place that prevent you, I or anyone else from bringing harm to that same ill child.

This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That's the law.

Again, that is correct - it is the law, it is also a person's unalienable right.

Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily.

If that is the case, a woman volunteers her life giving uterus every time she volunteers for the invasive procedure of ***sex that may result in pregnancy.....

By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just and refusing, morally wrong. That is a defensible, philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees.

I never needed anyone's permission or approval to clarify a matter. It's not going to be a choice of terms, one way or the other, granted by the majesty of - doesn't work that way, never has.

But, legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may chose to carry the baby to term. She may chose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But, it must be her choice and -

- No.
Pick one: God, Nature, Evolution and/or Science gave only woman the physical ability to maturate a bipartisan genome. Left in a natural course of events, the decision was already predetermined.
Look around you. Consider all of the things man (men) have invented and/or constructed. Women have had very little to do with that creative force compared to men. This is not saying women haven't had their role in it, but the percentage doesn't begin to reach a 50/50 level by a long shot.
Now, consider the fact there are very few times, on a monthly basis, that the chemistry of a female will spike a level pattern of emotions and thoughts...
Of all the things known in the creative universe, the creation of human life stands at the top of the chart and the decision to bring that life-force to full term cannot be solely left in the hands of one ***sex/gender, especially when that life-force was equally sequenced by two people (both male and female).

protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side.

- but it does not mean the law is exclusively on her side and lawmakers are waking up to the fact it takes two to tango.

Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.

The subject of body autonomy isn't going to be some ultimate solution when it comes to increasing the grounds of abortion.


BA1 edited this post .

Are you pro life? Something to think about. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10157840306480443&set=a.10150153950690443¬ ¬ Last night I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have ever read; "Reasonable people can disagree when a Zygote becomes 'human life' - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.¬ Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy, protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold vs Connecticut (1965), McCall vs Shimp (1976), Roe vs Wade (1973).¬ Consider a scenerio where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe a plastic anaemia, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for what ever reason, the State cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It does not matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the ratonale for refusing is flimsy and arbitary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decesion to donate must be voluntary to be Constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That's the law. Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just and refusing, morally wrong. That is a defensible, philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But, legally, it must be the woman choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may chose to carry the baby to term. She may chose not to. Either face soon could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But, it must be her choice and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that President us what being pro-choice means.

BA1 edited this post .

Are you pro life? Something to think about. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10157840306480443&set=a.10150153950690443¬ ¬ Last night I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have ever read; "Reasonable people can disagree when a Zygote becomes 'human life' - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.¬ Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy, protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold vs Connecticut (1965), McCall vs Shimp (1976), Roe vs Wade (1973).¬ Consider a scenerio where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe a plastic anaemia, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for what ever reason, the State cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It does not matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the ratonale for refusing is flimsy and arbitary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decesion to donate must be voluntary to be Constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That's the law. Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just and refusing, morally wrong. That is a defensible, philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But, legally, it must be the woman choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may chose to carry the baby to term. She may chose not to. Either face soon could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But, it must be her choice and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that PresidentPrecedent usis what being pro-choice means.

05ad6afe 1f85 4c4a 8680 4f73a3c1f45c
Lano
last online: 11/14, 3:18
Verified User (6 years, 9 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(19 hours after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

Unrelated question...why am i able to edit this post?

Help me with:

Advice Post

Electric
BA1
last online: 01/25, 20:20
Verified User (7 years, 2 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(20 hours after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

Lano wrote:
Unrelated question...why am i able to edit this post?

Because that was a primary feature of the old Help website and Roco has seen fit to maintain that ability.

Lano edited this post .

Are you pro life? Something to think about. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10157840306480443&set=a.10150153950690443¬ ¬ Last night I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have ever read; "Reasonable people can disagree when a Zygote becomes 'human life' - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.¬ Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy, protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold vs Connecticut (1965), McCall vs Shimp (1976), Roe vs Wade (1973).¬ Consider a scenerio where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe a plastic anaemia, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for what ever reason, the State cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It does not matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the ratonale for refusing is flimsy and arbitary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decesion to donate must be voluntary to be Constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That's the law. Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just and refusing, morally wrong. That is a defensible, philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But, legally, it must be the woman choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may chose to carry the baby to term. She may chose not to. Either face soon could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But, it must be her choice and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that Precedent is what being pro-choice means..¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ I'm Lano and I just edited this post 😇

05ad6afe 1f85 4c4a 8680 4f73a3c1f45c
Lano
last online: 11/14, 3:18
Verified User (6 years, 9 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(20 hours after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

BA1 wrote:

Lano wrote:
Unrelated question...why am i able to edit this post?

Because that was a primary feature of the old Help website and Roco has seen fit to maintain that ability.

We were always able to edit people's questions? I don't remember that.

Help me with:

Advice Post

Electric
BA1
last online: 01/25, 20:20
Verified User (7 years, 2 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(20 hours after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

Lano wrote:

BA1 wrote:

Lano wrote:
Unrelated question...why am i able to edit this post?

Because that was a primary feature of the old Help website and Roco has seen fit to maintain that ability.

We were always able to edit people's questions? I don't remember that.

Their Post, yes.
As far back as I can remember.
Others who know will also validate this.

05ad6afe 1f85 4c4a 8680 4f73a3c1f45c
Lano
last online: 11/14, 3:18
Verified User (6 years, 9 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(21 hours after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

I am going to respond directly to the post and then unsubscribe.


I think its a creative and fun legal argument. I don't know that it holds up if you assume that the fetus/zygote whatever is a living person with rights, because they did not choose to inhabit the womb. If a woman decides to have a child, conceives, and then changes her mind, she has basically put the zygote/fetus there against its will and is now deciding that it doesn't want it...and to me even if it is an accidental pregnancy that doesn't really completely absolve the potential mother from responsibility. Maybe it does in a case where the pregnancy is the result of sexual violence though.

My own opinion bears some similarity in reasoning, though in the opposite direction. I believe abortion is wrong whether or not you believe zygote/fetus has rights or not. I think the fact that it potentially will create a life is important and that we should respect life and allow it to do what it wants within reason. That, however, is a different question than whether or not abortion should be legal. Legality ought to be concerned about the rights of the unborn being, and that will depend on whether or not we consider it a person.

I'm sure that zygotes and embryos aren't people, anymore than the individual egg or sperm cell is a person, and I actually don't think there can be reasonable disagreement about whether or not zygotes and embryos have sentience. I think rights should be endowed based on sentience, and it's debatable whether or not a newborn has more sentience than adult pigs who are legally tortured and killed en masse everyday, and that we are in no great rush to protect the rights of.

So if personhood (or whether or not we endow a being with rights) is based on sentience, whether or not an abortion is legal, for me, is going to depend on the stage of fetal development. I haven't studied fetal development at all really and I'm sure there is a lot science doesn't know yet anyway, so I generally withhold judgement on that, but certainly first trimester abortions should be legal without restriction, regardless of whether or not I personally approve of them.

Edit: Forgot to mention: I believe that even after the first trimester, certainly if the mother's life is in danger some exceptions should made, also the question of serious side effects comes into play as well. If it is not discovered until late pregnancy that the baby is going to be born with a very serious deformity, abortion should be an option.


Also tangentially related monty python for fun:

https://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk

Help me with:

Advice Post

BA1 edited this post .

Are you pro life? Something to think about. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10157840306480443&set=a.10150153950690443¬ ¬ Last night I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have ever read; "Reasonable people can disagree when a Zygote becomes 'human life' - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.¬ Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy, protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold vs Connecticut (1965), McCall vs Shimp (1976), Roe vs Wade (1973).¬ Consider a scenerio where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe a plastic anaemia, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for what ever reason, the State cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It does not matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the ratonale for refusing is flimsy and arbitary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decesion to donate must be voluntary to be Constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That's the law. Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just and refusing, morally wrong. That is a defensible, philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But, legally, it must be the woman choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may chose to carry the baby to term. She may chose not to. Either facedecision soon could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But, it must be her choice and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that Precedent is what being pro-choice means.¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ I'm Lano and I just edited this post 😇

1581744157174 1581744149313 miss bot
Original Poster
soco
last online: 03/19, 3:49
Verified User (7 years, 2 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(1 day after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

The complete UNEDITED post were not MY words but from the cited 3rd party. His words should be able to stand on their own. I found the post interesting and thought I would share it here. I am not out to change peoples minds on the issue of abortion. Just give them something to think about before judging others, especially use of their bodies.

Lano. You should not have edited it.

Help me with:

We have another hurricane coming this way.

Electric
BA1
last online: 01/25, 20:20
Verified User (7 years, 2 months)
Long Term User
Shoutout0
#
(1 day after post)
Quote this reply Report this reply to moderators

@soco
I personally recognize the article was not yours and make no implications regarding you.
I noticed the link only provided an image of the article and therefore I took the time to recopy what the author had wrote and imported it as it was directly related to the subject of your Post. The article was interesting (to say the least.)

There was no real editing that Lano did.

Peace.

A
⇧ Zoom to top

Help-QA supports basic Markdown, emoji 😁, and tagging friends with @username!

To use this site you must be 13 years or older and occasionally submit your email address. Your email address is only shared with your explicit permission.

Home Page - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Feedback