Abortion is evil

[Mary Contrary 999]

I didn't jump to a conclusion. Not everything is spelled out because the analogy is well known.

It's not so complex that you could not just state your the analogy in full here. And, you know I have not experienced serious discussion of this analogy before. You may be skipping info to avoid scrutiny of it.

What the analogy says is the reason one can disconnect from the patient is because they have bodily autonomy, which is true for the full 9 months they are expected to stay hooked up to the patient.

The hook up analogy is better because it puts bodily autonomy against the life of a developing human. The plane trip does not involve this.

You say your compromise fits perfectly and then turn around and show how it doesn't.

At length I described how it fits. You do not explain how it doesn't.

The issue is the 16 weeks since the analogy is in the context of all-or-nothing.

The analogy becomes worthless when you have to force things with arbitrary restrictions.

The baby is innocent regardless what the mother or father think or do.

The stow away could be innocent but crazy. If jeopardizing the safe completion of the journey, he could be ejected in self defense. True even if unintentionally dangerous like deliriously trying to open the hatch and pilot cannot leave duties long enough to effectively restrain.

So, the life of the mother exception holds in this weak analogy.

An unconscious stow away placed on the plane against his will and posing no serious risk, could not simply be ejected. This says very little about pregnancy and abortion. The scenarios lack major features in common. A plane and a person are different domains. The stowaway is taking up some energy during the flight. The pregnancy poses some health risk to the mother and majorly alters her capacities in the final trimester. Her biology is being robustly exploited.

You have to add so much to this analogy that it becomes ludicrous.

Then the analogy isn't helping you. You'll have to rely on something else to support your compromise.

You still have not said why.

Understand that the baby is a human starting at a single cell. The baby is innocent.

Stem cells are babies too, then.

That a baby looks more like an egg than a delivered human at the single cell stage doesn't matter to its humanity or innocence.

Stopping development at an early stage is less egregious than later.

A rapist, despite the poor justice system not doing its job, would prefer not getting caught. Especially in the case a female knows her rapist.

Why is this relevant?

I'm speaking in generalities.

I was explaining why one analogy was better than another. The airplane over the Pacific analogy is better.

Okay now you added over the Pacific. Why is using a full grow individual in one scenario a great way to elucidate wisdom in a scenario with a developing human?

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Is it okay for mothers with fertility issues to create several embryos when trying for just one child? It is common practice to have several because there is a high chance the first attempted attachment will not take. Frozen embryos can be stored for future attempts. If pregnancy is successful early, can the embryos be discarded?

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

If in a building collapse you are pinned against an infant with a major wound. Reducing the pressure of the rubble on top of you will result in the infants death. You can be sustained in the current position indefinitely. There is a risk of further building collapse and a risk you could develop permanent circulation issues if you remain there. Should you be allowed to leave?

 

[marke]

If in a building collapse you are pinned against an infant with a major wound. Reducing the pressure of the rubble on top of you will result in the infants death. You can be sustained in the current position indefinitely. There is a risk of further building collapse and a risk you could develop permanent circulation issues if you remain there. Should you be allowed to leave?

Trying to excuse murder by abortion does not fool or confuse God.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Trying to excuse murder by abortion does not fool or confuse God.

Trying to avoid a question that exposes flawed logic protects misconceptions.

 

[Idolater]

There's often times where family relatives do step in to take care of the child and not always through the child being abused or neglected. Absolutely fine if they're up to the job but that's not always the case. Sometimes it's not viable and you can hardly force a relative into the role of parenthood either.

You absolutely can. That is absolutely what absolute human rights means, it means you can force people to do, or to refrain from doing, in order to protect or defend rights. And to your point, you made earlier, that children do have real human rights, to their essentials, I think we agree that those rights impose obligations on their parents. And that does mean that if those parents deny their children their essentials (whether it's neglect or abuse or whatever), that they will be punished (as rights violators).

And if those parents die, leaving their children orphans, what about their rights? Just because their parents are dead? Do their rights impose obligations on no one else? Are their absolute human rights nullified, because their parents died?

I think not. But I think the first idea is to see about the deceased parents' relatives. The rights impose obligations on those people first. Why should I have to pay taxes to subsidize a government service to provide orphans with their essentials, just because the kid's uncle won't do it? And if that is what is happening, then why isn't the kid's uncle in jail?

Ideally there'd be no need for orphanages or child protection services but it's not an ideal world and sometimes the only way a child's rights can be ensured are for them to be taken into care. The alternative is to deny them any sorts of rights and let the chips fall where they may...

I just think we should be expecting relatives to do more to limit what subsidized government child services have to do. Probably reduce by a factor of 10 or 100 if we expect relatives to pull more weight when their own family needs help.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You absolutely can. That is absolutely what absolute human rights means, it means you can force people to do, or to refrain from doing, in order to protect or defend rights. And to your point, you made earlier, that children do have real human rights, to their essentials, I think we agree that those rights impose obligations on their parents. And that does mean that if those parents deny their children their essentials (whether it's neglect or abuse or whatever), that they will be punished (as rights violators).

And if those parents die, leaving their children orphans, what about their rights? Just because their parents are dead? Do their rights impose obligations on no one else? Are their absolute human rights nullified, because their parents died?

I think not. But I think the first idea is to see about the deceased parents' relatives. The rights impose obligations on those people first. Why should I have to pay taxes to subsidize a government service to provide orphans with their essentials, just because the kid's uncle won't do it? And if that is what is happening, then why isn't the kid's uncle in jail?

I just think we should be expecting relatives to do more to limit what subsidized government child services have to do. Probably reduce by a factor of 10 or 100 if we expect relatives to pull more weight when their own family needs help.

Well, no, you can't, not forcibly anyway in regards to relatives. You can't automatically expect a grandparent/brother/sister/cousin etc to suddenly become a responsible parent/guardian of a child for all manner of reasons, nor should they be legally obligated to. If a family relative is willing to become so then hey, absolutely fine but a relative is hardly responsible for their family shortcomings or deaths are they? Nor are they always in a position where they're able to take on the mantle of responsibility where it comes to looking after a child.

 

[The Real MaryContrary]

To be clear: I do not and never have supported abortion for any reason or at any time. My position has not "evolved" over time.

Life begins at conception and abortion is murder. That is my position.

I can only hope that Mary Contrary 999's position on abortion has made clear to anyone who knew me in the past that they are not, in fact, me. I never intended to return to TheologyOnline or even post, but I will not have my reputation tarnished.

 

[The Real MaryContrary]

If in a building collapse you are pinned against an infant with a major wound. Reducing the pressure of the rubble on top of you will result in the infants death. You can be sustained in the current position indefinitely. There is a risk of further building collapse and a risk you could develop permanent circulation issues if you remain there. Should you be allowed to leave?

I'm curious as to what real life situations this analogy of yours might be tied to.

 

[Rusha]

To be clear: I do not and never have supported abortion for any reason or at any time. My position has not "evolved" over time.

Life begins at conception and abortion is murder. That is my position.

I can only hope that Mary Contrary 999's position on abortion has made clear to anyone who knew me in the past that they are not, in fact, me. I never intended to return to TheologyOnline or even post, but I will not have my reputation tarnished.

Hello Mary and WB, even if you decide not.to stay.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

To be clear: I do not and never have supported abortion for any reason or at any time. My position has not "evolved" over time.

JR acknowledges that removal of the baby in life threatening conditions to the mother is acceptable, but he requires more invasive surgery in unrealistic attempts to save the life of the child. Surely that's right at least.

And, I do not support abortion. I think it should be legally tolerated under certain situations. In many rape situations I would encourage the mother to bring the child to term and to either raise the child or put her up for adoption. The point is for a narrow window iof situations it should be up to the mother AND she must make the decision expediently.

Life begins at conception and abortion is murder. That is my position.

Generally true

I can only hope that Mary Contrary 999's position on abortion has made clear to anyone who knew me in the past that they are not, in fact, me. I never intended to return to TheologyOnline or even post, but I will not have my reputation tarnished.

Mary Contrary and TOL are inseparable, though long breaks are to be expected.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Hello Mary and WB, even if you decide not.to stay.

Please stay. You are quite a good writer.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

I'm curious as to what real life situations this analogy of yours might be tied to.

Oh Mary, please. You know right well. Similar situations occur in car accidents on occasion like in the movie Signs, although life can be sustained only for small periods.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Oh Mary, please. You know right well. Similar situations occur in car accidents on occasion like in the movie Signs, although life can be sustained only for small periods.

Also, conjoined twins present a similar issue. The analogy is better than stow away on transcontinental flight at least.

 

[The Real MaryContrary]

And, I do not support abortion. I think it should be legally tolerated under certain situations.

Then you support abortion.

 

[The Real MaryContrary]

Mary Contrary and TOL are inseparable, though long breaks are to be expected.

What is that supposed to mean? You came on here pretending to be me. I take issue with this.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

What is that supposed to mean? You came on here pretending to be me. I take issue with this.

I did not pretend to be you. Who are you? If you had a similar name at one time, then oh well. It's a screen name. I've used it many times. And guess what, a lot of times it's already taken.

 

[The Real MaryContrary]

I did not pretend to be you. Who are you? If you had a similar name at one time, then oh well. It's a screen name. I've used it many times. And guess what, a lot of times it's already taken.

I've apparently misunderstood the situation. My apologies, Carry on.

 

[Sherman]

There are still problems, not only the misunderstanding...

 

[Sherman]

To be clear: I do not and never have supported abortion for any reason or at any time. My position has not "evolved" over time.

Life begins at conception and abortion is murder. That is my position.

I can only hope that Mary Contrary 999's position on abortion has made clear to anyone who knew me in the past that they are not, in fact, me. I never intended to return to TheologyOnline or even post, but I will not have my reputation tarnished.

Welcome back, and my sincere apologies for mistaking the other user for you.