Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8971 total)
184 online now:
jar, marc9000 (2 members, 182 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,371 Year: 7,119/23,288 Month: 1,025/1,214 Week: 37/303 Day: 37/37 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some states protect women's rights
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 1 of 286 (853030)
05-21-2019 7:21 PM


With Alabama's anti-abortion law in the news lately, the New York Times ran an article describing some states where officials are working to protect women's health and reproductive choices.

As Some States Limit Abortion, Others Move to Protect Abortion Rights

The article mentions a couple of governors who will veto anti-choice legislation passed by their state legislatures, Nevada repealing a law prohibiting a woman from terminating her own pregnancy, and a couple of other items.

But taking center stage is Vermont passing a law that prohibits the government from interfering in any way with a woman's choice.

It does not change the status quo in Vermont, where there currently are no legal limits on when or under what circumstances a woman can decide to end a pregnancy. But supporters say that the bill sends an important message to the nation about the state’s views on abortion rights, at a time when other states are sending far different signals.

Vermont has also completed the first step in a lengthy process to amend the state constitution "that would declare 'personal reproductive autonomy' to be a fundamental right."


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 8:16 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 6 of 286 (853088)
05-22-2019 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
05-22-2019 9:55 AM


...most abortions are done after it LOOKS LIKE a child....

I did a very quick internet search. Most abortions in the US are preformed before the 8th week. And the pictures I've seen of an 8 week fetus doesn't really look like a human child to me. I admit, though, that this may depend on how hard one wants it to "look like" or "not look like" a child.

-

That's just a silly rationalization.

This may just be me, but all the claims the religious right makes about fetuses being "babies" always sound like rationalizations to me.


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 05-22-2019 9:55 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-22-2019 12:05 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 21 of 286 (853136)
05-22-2019 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
05-22-2019 12:05 PM


Nevertheless a fetus is genetically a full human being....

Well, I'm not sure whether "genetics" has anything to do with it, does it? I'd be concerned over your welfare regardless of what your "genetics" might be. Hell, I don't even care whether you even have genes! I certainly don't care how similar you are "genetically" to me or any other person.

"Genetics", I think, is going to be a dead end as an argument.


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 05-22-2019 12:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-25-2019 9:15 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 29 of 286 (853294)
05-25-2019 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Sarah Bellum
05-25-2019 9:15 AM


No obligation to let others use your body.
Hi, Sarah.

Have you read Peter Singer? Your example is right out of Practical Ethics, where Singer promotes his version of utilitarian ethics. If a person hasn't really thought about a systemic philosophy of ethics, then I recommend Singer's book as a good starting point.

Do you have the right to flip the switch to OFF?

But utilitarianism isn't the end-all and be-all of ethics. I, myself, am not a utilitarian, so I would answer: no person is morally obligated to leave the swith ON.

-

Good question to ask the pro- life crowd, though.


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-25-2019 9:15 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-25-2019 11:36 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 32 of 286 (853301)
05-25-2019 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Sarah Bellum
05-25-2019 11:36 AM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-25-2019 11:36 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-26-2019 6:24 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 36 of 286 (853368)
05-26-2019 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Sarah Bellum
05-26-2019 6:24 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-26-2019 6:24 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-27-2019 8:16 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 39 of 286 (853398)
05-27-2019 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Sarah Bellum
05-27-2019 8:16 AM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-27-2019 8:16 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 05-27-2019 11:56 AM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 66 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-28-2019 6:19 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 42 of 286 (853422)
05-27-2019 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
05-27-2019 11:56 AM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 05-27-2019 11:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 76 of 286 (853581)
05-29-2019 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Sarah Bellum
05-28-2019 6:19 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
I'm having a difficult time understanding your question. I would have thought the answer would be clear from my earlier posts. In fact, the answer to your question is in the very post to which you are responding.

Added by edit:

I should be more specific and point out that the answer to the question is probably in the last paragraph of the post to which you're responding.

End of addition.

Is there something specific that's confusing you?

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Sarah Bellum, posted 05-28-2019 6:19 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-02-2019 8:20 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 101 of 286 (853688)
05-30-2019 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
05-30-2019 6:32 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
No, I'm pretty sure Dr. Jones* owns no slaves.


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 05-30-2019 6:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 106 of 286 (853714)
05-31-2019 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by AZPaul3
05-30-2019 11:24 PM


A different society, a different people
And frankly I really don't give a flyin' flip what the founding fathers may think. They're all dead and this society has changed.

In fact, as far as Constitutional matters go, people forget how much of what the founders intended and implemented was superceded by the 14th Amendment.

Society had already changed a lot by 1868, let alone in the additional century and a half since then.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Time to change the subtitle.


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by AZPaul3, posted 05-30-2019 11:24 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(5)
Message 110 of 286 (853761)
05-31-2019 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taq
05-31-2019 12:46 PM


Founder fetish
They were fallible humans like anyone else.

What's more, in their writings they admitted that they really d didn't know what they were doing. At that time, there really weren't any examples of democratic republics built around the Enlightment ideals they were working under. They were pretty clear that they realized they were just making it up as they went along.

Not to mention that the actual institutions they created were not based on Timeless Truths That Will Last Forever, but rather the result of profane compromises between politicians who had very different, even contradictory, beliefs about how to proceed.

Today, we have 230 years of experience of democratic republics, not only at the federal level but also the individual states and the other democracies in the world.

In the meantime, the fields of psychology, sociology, economics, and anthropology have been developed. Overall, we have a lot more data on how the real world operates and what does and what doesn't work.


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 05-31-2019 12:46 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 124 of 286 (853902)
06-02-2019 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Sarah Bellum
06-02-2019 8:20 AM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
In one case, the fetus is still connected to the mother, drawing nourishment from her body, disposing of its waste through her body, at this point adding several pounds of weight to her body, and so forth.

In the other case, the infant is a free living individual who in no way is parasiticing anyone else's body. Requiring the mother to occasionally pick it up and stick a bottle in its mouth in no way compares to "hooking the kid up" physically to anyone's body, and it's even possible to find someone else to take over these duties.

Perhaps you don't see an essential difference here, but I don't think I can help you here. All I can point out is that to me, this is the essential difference.

-

I should also point out that, leaving aside these abstract arguments, in real life if a pregnancy gets to the ninth month and then a termination is being considered, it's because some very serious complications have come up that threaten the health or life of mother or child.


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-02-2019 8:20 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-04-2019 3:20 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 154 of 286 (854113)
06-04-2019 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Sarah Bellum
06-04-2019 3:20 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
But there, you see, when you say that a termination in the ninth month is for serious health reasons, you're conceding that it's a different situation from a termination at, say, seven weeks.

Sure there's a difference, but in degree, not in kind.

But if you look at the exchange to which you were replying, you had brought up the difference between a fetus not yet born and an infant who had been born. That is a difference in kind.


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-04-2019 3:20 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-08-2019 3:16 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6914
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 157 of 286 (854173)
06-05-2019 12:02 PM


Today's worship word: "fetal heartbeat"
From The Guardian:

Doctors' organization: calling abortion bans 'fetal heartbeat bills' is misleading

Not much I can add to this.

“Arbitrary gestational age bans on abortion at six weeks that use the term ‘heartbeat’ to define the gestational development being targeted do not reflect medical accuracy or clinical understanding,” said Dr Ted Anderson, president of [the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]. The organization represents 58,000 physicians across the US.

“Pregnancy and fetal development are a continuum. What is interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically induced flickering of a portion of the fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops,” Anderson said.

In addition, the Guardian has updated its style guide more accurately to reflect abortion bans spreading across the United States.

Instead of using “fetal heartbeat bills”, as the laws are often called by anti-abortion campaigners, the Guardian will make “six-week abortion ban” the preferred term for the laws, unless quoting someone, in order to better reflect the practical effect of the laws.


If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020