|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Some states protect women's rights | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
The real question is, Who gets to decide? Would you force the healthy person to keep Sandy alive?
Here's another question. Suppose you were introduced to Sandy, an adult human being who suffered from a terminal illness that could be cured by hooking Sandy's circulatory system up to a healthy individual's circulatory system for nine months.... Sarah Bellum writes:
Even if the healthy person originally consented, does he have the right to change his mind? For some reason, however, they leave the switch to the machine in your reach. Do you have the right to flip the switch to OFF?Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Of course. In the examples you mentioned a person is being reasonably ask to make a relatively small effort or to make a relatively small personal contribution that will have a huge impact on the well-being or life another person.
That is different than the medical examples we are talking about here. In this case we are forcibly violating the sanctity of a person's very body. No one is, in my opinion, obligated morally to allow that. - When it comes to the abortion argument, there are two reasons I am pro-choice. These reasons are independent of one another; neither relies on the other. A forced birther needs to overcome both. The first is that a fetus is not an entity about which we can discuss "well-being" in any meaningful way. In that case, the well-being of the mother, as defined by herself, is the only thing we need consider. The other is that no person has a moral duty to allow their body to serve as a "life-support" machine for another person. The first point, admittedly, is based on my understanding of the nature of consciousness and what makes something a "person" whose well-being is something I need to consider. Conceivably, new information could change my mind on this without causing huge problems in my entire philosophical outlook. The second point, though, is closer to being an "axiom" of my ethical framework. It would take a lot to get me to change that since it would involve having to reexamine a lot in my moral outlook.If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 623 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
Why can't we discuss the "well-being" of the fetus? How does the fetus compare with a pet dog? How does the fetus compare with a severely handicapped Rubella baby aged one year? Does your opinion about the "well-being" apply equally to a one-month gestation fetus and an eight-month gestation fetus?
Is your assertion that nobody has a moral duty to be a "life-support" machine a matter of degree? Does someone have a moral duty to tell someone to get out of the street if a speeding truck is approaching?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 623 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
The question of forcing someone to keep Sandy alive is a much different question. I might, for example, think it a good thing that someone donate a kidney to someone else that they might live, but that is not the same as thinking we ought to force that person to undergo surgery to extract their kidney against their will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
that is not the same as thinking we ought to force that person to undergo surgery to extract their kidney against their will. Is this different from forcing an unwilling person to carry an unwanted fetus to term. Is the invasion of bodily sovereignty any different in these two scenarios?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
Why can't we discuss the "well-being" of the fetus? In the first trimester, the central nervous system is still pretty rudimentary, I can't imagine (admittedly, this may say more about my limitations than the status ofa fetus) that it would be possible fora fetus to have any of the cognitive functions we associate with self-awareness or consciousness. It makes as much sense to worry about the well-being of a fetus as it does the well-being of a carrot. What do you think? What is it about a "one-month gestation fetus" that makes you think we need to worry about the ethics of terminating its life? We can discuss the other points you bring up in a bit; right now I want to see where our viewpoints are similar and where they are different.If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 623 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
It's always appropriate to discuss the ethics of any medical procedure, don't you agree?
In answer to your question about my position: I take the position that just because something's morally wrong, that doesn't mean government should (necessarily) prohibit it. That's a stance most people take, even if they don't recognize it consciously. Religious people, for example, often think it's morally wrong to believe in a deity other than their preferred one. But they don't want their government to follow the Islamic example and punish certain kinds of worship! On abortion, I don't think much about the "woman's right to do what she wants with her body." It sounds nice, but it's not relevant. If she were nursing a month-old baby and decided to stop and let it starve nobody would say she has a "right" to starve it! I think about the old days, the back-alley abortions, the coat hangers, the home remedies like ergot and turpentine, the resulting injuries, sterility, infection, deaths. Nobody wants to see those days again. The pro-life people may be sincere, saying all a woman has to do is give up the baby for adoption. That only happens in an ideal world. And we don't live in an ideal world. The ethics of it still worry me. Imagine a death-penalty supporter who supports it because they believe it works (prevents crime, appropriate punishment, etc.) and makes the world a better place, but they still have qualms because . . . it's just a nasty thing to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 623 days) Posts: 826 Joined:
|
I would say, yes, there is a definite difference. Childbirth is a natural procedure that women have been going through for quite a long time. Your mother went through it, probably.
Removing a kidney requires a deliberate act. It won't happen if you just sit around and do nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
On abortion, I don't think much about the "woman's right to do what she wants with her body." Obviously, this is where we disagree. As I said, bodily integrity is a pretty important concept to me. I'm pretty sure we could spin out some far-fetched scenarios to test where the boundaries of this "right" exist - no right is absolute, after all - but that would probably start to become irrelevant to the abortion issue. -
If she were nursing a month-old baby and decided to stop and let it starve nobody would say she has a "right" to starve it! I don't know about other countries, but here in the US there is no law that requires a mother to nurse her child with her own breast milk, so I'm not sure this is an adequate example for the topic. There is an issue that a parent cannot harm their child through neglect, but whatever the issue involved in obligating parental care it doesn't involve bodily autonomy so isn't quite the issue here.If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The idea of bodily sovereignty or autonomy, or having no obligation to be a host to "another," meaning a developing baby, is really really weird. The baby forms by Nature, is not put there by itself or by anyone. You really want women to regard themselves as put upon by Nature? As having the right to kill the developing child within her for this bizarre reason? I can barely make sense of this point of view.
Maybe if you wanted to hold the man responsible who got her pregnant we could talk? Maybe he could pay all her costs -- or half of them or something. I'm certainly not advocating that she has a right to kill it in any case, but if its father has abandoned her I'm for holding him responsible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
I can't figure out what you're saying here. Your second sentence seems to agree with me - i.e. we shouldn't force anybody to keep Sandy alive. But your first sentence says there's a difference when it comes to abortion. Why? Why should we force a woman to keep a fetus alive? You seem to be giving the fetus more rights than Sandy. The question of forcing someone to keep Sandy alive is a much different question. I might, for example, think it a good thing that someone donate a kidney to someone else that they might live, but that is not the same as thinking we ought to force that person to undergo surgery to extract their kidney against their will.Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
Hi, Faith.
You really want women to regard themselves as put upon by Nature? I want each individual perspn to have the right to decide for themself how they're going to regard their own pregnancy.If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
The idea of bodily sovereignty or autonomy, or having no obligation to be a host to "another," meaning a developing baby, is really really weird.
if you don't have control over your body what prevents the government from mandating you have an abortion? or forcing you to donate an organ?It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I guess if I don't lke my lver I could ask to have it cut out of me. The Izquierdo might think that a very good idea.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
but they still have qualms because . . . it's just a nasty thing to do. My wife and I aborted our first child even though it was the last thing that we wanted to do. The fact that we were able to make that choice is the greatest thing that my country has ever done for me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024