The Abortion/Homosexuality Paradox

[PureX]

Most Americans believe that it is of paramount importance that we respect the physical autonomy of all human beings. It's why rape and murder and slavery are illegal. And most people believe they should remain so.

Respecting other people's physical autonomy is sometimes difficult, and problematic, however. What about people who want to kill or maim themselves? Should we respect their right to destroy themselves? What about people who don't respect their own physical autonomy, like drug addicts and prostitutes who give their bodies over to the abuse of others? And what about the circumstances that arise due to technology, like people living in a permanently unconsciousness state, and the question of abortion?

In the past, force alone ruled the lives of everyone. The powerful "owned" the weak, and could do as they pleased with them. But as humanity has slowly developed, it has come to abide more and more by ideals rather than brute force. And one of those ideals is a respect for an individual's physical autonomy. It's a relatively new idea, and some of you obviously are ignorant of or indifferent to it. But most Americans believe this respect for individual physical autonomy is important, and has to be considered and weighed against the fetus' right to develop within the mother, and to be born.

This is what the abortion debate is about. And if you can't grasp the ideal of individual physical autonomy, you aren't going to be able to understand the essence of the debate. As many of you don't.

 

[glassjester]

But most Americans believe this respect for individual physical autonomy is important, and has to be considered and weighed against the fetus' right to develop, and be born.

Agreed. This is the debate.

So when two rights are at odds, how can we determine which takes precedence?

 

[TomO]

That is the current law.

That depends on which state you are in and enforcement is questionable at best.

 

[Rusha]

This is what the abortion debate is about. And if you can't grasp the ideal of individual physical autonomy, you aren't going to be able to understand the essence of the debate. As many of you don't.

There is ANOTHER individual involved (the unborn baby) whose autonomy you support destroying.

Insofar as excuses as to why one should be able to intentionally kill their unborn baby, there is no debate ... because it is unacceptable.

 

[TomO]

The powerful "owned" the weak, and could do as they pleased with them.

How ironic. lain:

This is what the abortion debate is about. And if you can't grasp the ideal of individual physical autonomy, you aren't going to be able to understand the essence of the debate. As many of you don't.

I hate to tell you but you are the one who doesn't "grasp" the concept.

 

[bybee]

There is ANOTHER individual involved (the unborn baby) whose autonomy you support destroying.

Insofar as excuses as to why one should be able to intentionally kill their unborn baby, there is no debate ... because it is unacceptable.

Amen Sister.

 

[PureX]

There is ANOTHER individual involved (the unborn baby) whose autonomy you support destroying.

The fetus' individuality and autonomy have not manifested, yet, (except in your mind). Thus, when confronted with the dilemma of weighing the two "individual's" autonomy, the mother is given the greater consideration. … Until the fetus is able to survive apart from the mother's body. Then they are given equal consideration.

But let's face it. I could write this a hundred different ways and you will not grasp it. Because you just don't want to. Which is why you will not be able to interact with those who don't see it the way you do, and find resolution.

 

[Rusha]

The fetus' individuality and autonomy have not manifested, yet, (except in your mind). Thus, when confronted with the dilemma of weighing the two "individual's" autonomy, the mother is given the greater consideration. … Until the fetus is able to survive apart from the mother's body. Then they are given equal consideration.

But let's face it. I could write this a hundred different ways

And you would still be wrong ... as you are on most issues.

 

[bybee]

The fetus' individuality and autonomy have not manifested, yet, (except in your mind). Thus, when confronted with the dilemma of weighing the two "individual's" autonomy, the mother is given the greater consideration. … Until the fetus is able to survive apart from the mother's body. Then they are given equal consideration.

But let's face it. I could write this a hundred different ways and you will not grasp it. Because you just don't want to. Which is why you will not be able to interact with those who don't see it the way you do, and find resolution.

You are a man. You have no idea how profound and debilitating the effects of an abortion can be on a woman.
It is the murder of a developing child ... not just a thing, not just a collection of cells but a developing child.

 

[glassjester]

Thus, when confronted with the dilemma of weighing the two "individual's" autonomy, the mother is given the greater consideration.

Still no explanation for why this is.

 

[PureX]

Still no explanation for why this is.

Because the fetus' individuality and autonomy have not yet manifested. They are still developing, while the mother's are fully manifested, and plainly evident.

At some point you have to actually read what I post, and consider it. Otherwise I just end up endlessly repeating myself because you won't be bothered.

 

[PureX]

You are a man. You have no idea how profound and debilitating the effects of an abortion can be on a woman.
It is the murder of a developing child ... not just a thing, not just a collection of cells but a developing child.

You are a woman … you are not ALL women. You have no idea how all other women feel about an unwanted pregnancy, really. You just think you do.

 

[quip]

:doh: Really?

Yes, really!

Nor can any victim of murder. You're reasoning boils down to, "Dead men tell no tales."

More like:Incipient life can't live without mommy's body.

I'm asking why you say that the fetal child's right to live is trumped by the mother's supposed "right to bodily autonomy" ?

For the same reason I have no access to your potential life-saving, bone marrow sans your consent.

 

[bybee]

Yes, really!



More like:Incipient life can't live without mommy's body.



For the same reason I have no access to your potential life-saving, bone marrow sans your consent.

The baby is an extension of the mother. You, are not.

 

[glassjester]

For the same reason I have no access to your potential life-saving, bone marrow sans your consent.

If my actions put you in the state of needing my specific bone marrow; then yes - I would be morally obligated to donate.

 

[quip]

If my actions put you in the state of needing my specific bone marrow; then yes - I would be morally obligated to donate.

Perhaps, but not legally obligated.

 

[quip]

The baby is an extension of the mother. You, are not.

Like her hair, fingernails?

Seems like an odd pro-life argument.

 

[bybee]

Like her hair, fingernails?

Seems like an odd pro-life argument.

Her hair and her fingernails are rooted into her physical being. The roots stay. The extensions project and stop projecting when life ceases.
The fertilized egg has been so programmed to expect to have nine months in which to develop in safety and then detach itself into the world. After the baby comes the placenta, the root if you will. Then it detaches itself and dies.
the mother is still alive and may have more babies. The baby that is born is now a separate entity yet carrying it's mother with it genetically. Fingernails and hair do not become anything once detached from their origins.

 

[glassjester]

Because the fetus' individuality and autonomy have not yet manifested.

So... because they can't say, "No, don't kill me!"

Right, got it.

 

[glassjester]

"Manifested" autonomy is not, nor has ever been a valid way to decide what lives or dies.

Both animals and humans clearly manifest a will to not be killed. Yet, it is considered murder to kill a human, but not an animal.

Why is that? What difference brings about the distinction?

Clearly the difference cannot be as simple as "manifested" autonomy, since both possess this.


Let's make it more concrete.

A farmer with an ax chases a chicken, as it runs away in terror. The chicken clearly does not wish to be killed. The farmer catches the chicken and kills it with the ax. Not a crime.

A farmer with an ax chases his brother. His brother runs away in terror. His brother clearly does not wish to be killed. The farmer catches his brother and kills him with the ax. This is murder.


Why the distinction?