posted
I don't know why that would make a difference. Unintended but foreseeable consequences are still unintended but foreseeable consequences.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, try thinking of it (just to see the other side) as not deciding not to be a parent, but as deciding not to have your body be used by another being.
The trouble is there's one totally effective way of deciding not to have your body be used by another being, and multiple all-but-certain methods* of doing so that completely avoid the messy entanglements of quite possibly terminating a human life simply out of avoidable bad planning.
quote:I know the two are (with the current state of medical science) inextricably linked. But if you can think of them as separate, there are two burdens on the woman, one of parenthood and one of host. If the two could someday be separate, then, yes, I think that both parents should have equal rights and obligations to the child.
So here's what I don't understand. When addressing inequality against the male, you're saying it's acceptable (if unfortunate) because of the biological realities involved.
But when it comes to the notion that abortion should perhaps not be legal because of other biological realities - that is, pregnancy being a potential consequence of unprotected or improperly protected sex - you're not willing to point to biological realities?
The biological realities you're willing to cite seem pretty fluid to me.
quote:I don't know why that would make a difference. Unintended but foreseeable consequences are still unintended but foreseeable consequences.
Say rather 'unintended but foreseeable and easily avoidable consequences'. If abstinence isn't on the table, properly used birth control by both parties surely is, yes?
Joe has no control over whether or not Jane in the passing lane is plastered out of her gourd late at night when they're driving. Joe does have control over whether or not he's using a condom correctly. Joe also has control over whether or not he's sleeping with a woman is using birth control herself.
*When properly used, birth control even with only one party using it is very, very effective. When both parties are doing so, the chance of failure dwindles even further.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my good friends just had a child. Those pesky sperm (from her cyclist husband which they claim decreases sperm quality) made it through three forms of birth control. If you are using three forms and still get pregnant, then is it acceptable to have an abortion?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you trying to discover people's limits here? I don't think there is any difference with this case, except to say these consenting adults still managed to get pregnant and have to now deal with it. I don't think abortion should EVER be used as a bandaid for those oopsy daisy moments in the bedroom, or those results from irresponsible drunken parties. I'd hope adults have more control of themselves than to need to take such a drastic measure as killing a growing human to fix their mistakes. I've known people who were a product of a mistake, and they're grateful for the life they have. My youngest brother was a "mistake" (completely unplanned for), and we're all grateful to have him in our lives.
Edit: The only valid reasons for abortion, in my opinion, are cases of rape and in which the woman is likely to lose her own life. I think those should be handled on a case by case and the choice of abortion presented to the woman as acceptible. I don't see any good enough reasons for other cicrumstances.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit: The only valid reasons for abortion, in my opinion, are cases of rape and in which the woman is likely to lose her own life. I think those should be handled on a case by case and the choice of abortion presented to the woman as acceptible. I don't see any good enough reasons for other cicrumstances.
Inherently though, the abortion that takes place in that case is still murder right? And if that's true, then why is it fine to murder an unborn child when the woman is raped as opposed to just when she makes a mistake?
Edit: I ask because I think sometimes abortion is thought of in terms of what we value most and what we empathize with most. For instance, I've heard this argument before, and when it comes right down to it, the argument turns on how much pain and anguish the mother will experience and the reason behind that pain and anguish. If the mother is at fault for the pregnancy, then a person is less likely to be empathetic to the mother, and thus, find the abortion both a ducking of responsibility and morally wrong. However, if the mother is not at fault because she was raped, then a person is more likely to feel empathetic to the mother, and thus, fund the abortion morally correct on the grounds that it was not the mother's responsibility. But isn't that interesting? The real deciding factor to many, of course not all, who make these moral judgments is not the child or the act of murder, but whether or not the mother is being responsible. Of course, the argument here makes no claim about the moral correctness of abortion nor does it apply to those who want all abortions legalized or banned, but to those in the middle, those who seek to draw a line somewhere between those two extremes, one of the more important factors, dare I say the deciding factor, concerns the personal responsibility of the mother.
Notice too that I said nothing, in that entire paragraph, about men.
posted
Out of curiosity, for those here who believe abortion is murder, what should the legal penalty for women who seek abortions be?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Out of curiosity, for those here who believe abortion is murder, what should the legal penalty for women who seek abortions be?
Your question makes no sense. Abortion is legal. It's like asking what should the legal penalty be for an executioner who puts to death a criminal convicted of the death penalty. The law is in dispute and the petty and selfish justifications are on display.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, try thinking of it (just to see the other side) as not deciding not to be a parent, but as deciding not to have your body be used by another being.
The trouble is there's one totally effective way of deciding not to have your body be used by another being, and multiple all-but-certain methods* of doing so that completely avoid the messy entanglements of quite possibly terminating a human life simply out of avoidable bad planning.
And there's a totally effective way of insuring that you will never be party to a car accident.
I think that you are placing some unwarranted faith in most forms of birth control.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of my good friends just had a child. Those pesky sperm (from her cyclist husband which they claim decreases sperm quality) made it through three forms of birth control. If you are using three forms and still get pregnant, then is it acceptable to have an abortion?
What three forms of birth control were they using? Because I'll be blunt here: I very much doubt that they could have been using three simultaneously and still gotten pregnant. It's nothing personal, it's just incredibly unlikely.
But, let's say they were the incredibly unlikely couple that this happened to. I think it should be legal for them to have an abortion, because they didn't bring the fetus into existence with intent. So long as they decide to get an early abortion, I think it should be legal. Throw in some mandatory sex-education classes for all couples (or singles) who desire an abortion and claim they were using birth control. Subsidize the production of reliable birth control methods to make it cheaper, increase government regulation of it to make it even more reliable.
There's some actual ideas, rivka.
quote:I think that you are placing some unwarranted faith in most forms of birth control.
That was just a quick look, but it appears to me that condoms are very effective and birth control is very, very effective in preventing pregnancy. When they're both used simultaneously? I'm not saying it will never happen, but rather that it would happen a lot less.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of my good friends just had a child. Those pesky sperm (from her cyclist husband which they claim decreases sperm quality) made it through three forms of birth control. If you are using three forms and still get pregnant, then is it acceptable to have an abortion?
What three forms of birth control were they using? Because I'll be blunt here: I very much doubt that they could have been using three simultaneously and still gotten pregnant. It's nothing personal, it's just incredibly unlikely.
But, let's say they were the incredibly unlikely couple that this happened to. I think it should be legal for them to have an abortion, because they didn't bring the fetus into existence with intent.
"I didn't intend to get pregnant. My boyfriend told me he was sterile." (from my sister-in-law)
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
That was just a quick look, but it appears to me that condoms are very effective and birth control is very, very effective in preventing pregnancy. When they're both used simultaneously? I'm not saying it will never happen, but rather that it would happen a lot less.
I have to agree with rivka here. Let's look at it this way. There are about 300,000,000 people in the United States. Let's say, for the sake of easy math, that 100,000,000 of them are sexually active females of reproductive age.
Let's say they are all using the same type of birth control I am, which is 99.4% effective. It's the non-hormonal IUD, which is good for 10 years, and it is just about the best form of birth control you can use without abstaining or taking permanent measures.
If all of those 100,000,000 people were using the same form of birth control that I am using, then 600,000 of us would get pregnant. (Wow...that's a scary number when I look at it like that.)
But of course, not everyone is going to use that type of birth control. For one thing, I'm pretty sure you have to have had a baby to get an IUD (don't quote me on that). For another thing, not everyone is going to like how this form of birth control works. It tries to block sperm, but it also prevents fertilized eggs from implanting. A lot of people are uncomfortable with that.
The pill is 97% effective in practice. That's 3,000,000 women each year who would get pregnant on the pill if all 100,000,000 people were using it. And a lot of people aren't comfortable with this method. I hate hormonal methods of birth control, personally.
Tubal ligation (tying the tubes) is about 98% effective over the course of 10 years since the tubes have been known to fuse back together. So even if we all get ourselves "permanently" fixed, I assure you the human race will go on.
Any time you have sex you risk getting pregnant, with or without birth control. Heck, most Christians believed abstinence failed once.
I guess I'm saying that I just don't see where intent plays into this.
posted
Huh. I think it's been 10 years now since I got my tubes tied. Mine were cauterized rather than tied, and I believe that reduces the chances of them fusing back together, but it's still pretty scary to think that I've got a 2% chance of getting pregnant. Especially now that I'm old enough that it would automatically be a high-risk pregnancy.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, if you're using three methods of birth control, the number gets a lot smaller. Not zero, but if you use the rate of failure for typical use of 14% for condoms and 20% for diaphragms, the number of pregnancies falls to 16,800. Well, assuming that the probability of failure is independent for condoms and diaphragms, which may not be the case. And that IUD failure is also independent.(Anyone know the answer to that one?)
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Also, I'm wondering what about low probabilities makes intent no longer play into things. After all, there are lots of very bad low probability events out there that we consider intent to be very important in regards to (such as auto accidents).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I'm saying that I just don't see where intent plays into this.
For me, the place intent matters is that if a person takes highly reliable, properly used preventative measures, their level of responsibility to the life that may be created is sharply decreased, and if both parties do so, effectively eliminated entirely.
quote:Any time you have sex you risk getting pregnant, with or without birth control. Heck, most Christians believed abstinence failed once.
Where I believe I diverge from at least some pro-lifers out there is that I don't think, in cases where both parties properly use reliable birth control, that we as a society should treat such a pregnancy as something that must be lived with. Because both parties took such effective measures, it truly was an accident.
---
fugu,
quote:After all, there are lots of very bad low probability events out there that we consider intent to be very important in regards to (such as auto accidents).
And in the case of automobile accidents, someone who is wearing their seatbelt, has had their car properly serviced and inspected, wearing any necessary glasses and that sort of thing, wasn't intoxicated or talking on their cell phones, and was obeying traffic laws and driving defensively gets treated differently from someone in the same accident who wasn't doing one or more of those things, from a legal standpoint.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Of course, if you're using three methods of birth control, the number gets a lot smaller. Not zero, but if you use the rate of failure for typical use of 14% for condoms and 20% for diaphragms, the number of pregnancies falls to 16,800. Well, assuming that the probability of failure is independent for condoms and diaphragms, which may not be the case. And that IUD failure is also independent.(Anyone know the answer to that one?)
I believe using a condom and diaphragm simultaneously is actually likely to substantially increase failure, as having two layers of latex rub against each other increases friction and thus the odds of a tear.
You could probably pair a condom with a cervical cap, though.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And in the case of automobile accidents, someone who is wearing their seatbelt, has had their car properly serviced and inspected, wearing any necessary glasses and that sort of thing, wasn't intoxicated or talking on their cell phones, and was obeying traffic laws and driving defensively gets treated differently from someone in the same accident who wasn't doing one or more of those things, from a legal standpoint.
But not from a medical standpoint. We still, by law, do everything medically possible to mitigate the physical consequences of such an accident no matter who was at fault or how much at fault they were. How dreadful would it be if we didn't?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: exactly. I was responding to Christine's "I guess I'm saying that I just don't see where intent plays into this."
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But not from a medical standpoint. We still, by law, do everything medically possible to mitigate the physical consequences of such an accident no matter who was at fault or how much at fault they were. How dreadful would it be if we didn't?
That's not the way car accidents are relative to this discussion, really. Someone - maybe it was you, I don't remember - pointed out that car accidents are a natural consequence of driving cars. That's perfectly true. And that the government doesn't simply sit back, shrug its shoulders and say, "You knew what you were getting into when you got behind the wheel," which is also perfectly true.
Where it breaks down, though, is that the government and the private sector (insurance companies, which make their rules with government consent) treat people very differently depending on how exactly the accident happened.
Everyone still gets a trip to the ER and gets their casts, but some people get their bills all but entirely paid and get a rental car to drive while theirs is in the shop....and some other people lose their car, end up in debt for years, and even go to jail.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My friend did have the baby, but she got her tubes tied afterwards. Hopefully they stayed tied (she has some medical problems so another baby would be very dangerous.)
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. My point is regarding the physical consequences.
And even with those, the government helps (or requires insurance companies to help, which amounts to the same thing) to the extent that the parties involved were behaving responsibly.
You'll get your cast, you'll get your trip in the ambulance to the ER, but the extent to which you're free of long-term consequences varies.
You insist the government should free women (and men) of the long-term consequences in all cases.
And of course there's the part of the car accident story that doesn't take into account, through some method of comparison, the presence of the fetus in the pregnancy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. My point is regarding the physical consequences.
And even with those, the government helps (or requires insurance companies to help, which amounts to the same thing) to the extent that the parties involved were behaving responsibly.
You'll get your cast, you'll get your trip in the ambulance to the ER, but the extent to which you're free of long-term consequences varies.
You insist the government should free women (and men) of the long-term consequences in all cases.
And of course there's the part of the car accident story that doesn't take into account, through some method of comparison, the presence of the fetus in the pregnancy.
Nope. I insist that the government refrain from preventing people from becoming free of physical consequences if that freedon is medically available.
Right. We already discussed what I think about weighing the rights of the fetus and the rights of the woman. I am now dealing with the "it's her own fault for getting knocked up" part of the complicated equation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine, for the tubal ligation, is that a 2% chance over 10 years, or a 2% chance per year after 10 years?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope. I insist that the government refrain from preventing people from becoming free of physical consequences if that freedon is medically available.
Except that's not what the government does in car accidents. What it does is examine the situation, determine responsibility or negligence, and determine if the person should have to handle the physical consequences on their own or should be helped in doing so.
The only intervention the government does in every case is to provide treatment where it would have to be provided anyway. Then it decides if the person is going to be free of responsibility for handling those physical consequences or not.
Insofar as this comparison fits abortion - and it doesn't exactly do a good job of that - you're insisting that the government help everyone be free of physical consequences no matter what if they wish to be. That's not what the government does in car accidents.
quote:Right. We already discussed what I think about weighing the rights of the fetus and the rights of the woman. I am now dealing with the "it's her own fault for getting knocked up" part of the complicated equation.
Now I think it's my turn to ask you if that sort of language is helpful, kmbboots. I don't think about this in that sort of derogatory tone, nor do I think about it from an 'it's all her fault' angle either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I'm saying that I just don't see where intent plays into this.
For me, the place intent matters is that if a person takes highly reliable, properly used preventative measures, their level of responsibility to the life that may be created is sharply decreased, and if both parties do so, effectively eliminated entirely.
That's an odd point of view and I'm not sure what to do with it. It almost seems as if you want to artificially increase the level of punishment for those who have unprotected sex and artificial decrease the level of risk for those who use protection.
I'm also not sure how to measure the level of protection. What's good enough? Condom? Condom + birth control pill? Just the pill? I've actually found natural family planning to be highly effective, when used properly.
Let's couple this with the flood of misinformation out there. It's almost laughable, but there are honestly women who believe that they can't get pregnant the first time, or on their menstrual cycle (though in their defense, this is highly unlikely), or if the woman is on top, or if the man pulls out before finishing, or...How does intent play in if someone honestly *thinks* they've taken proper protection. Do we punish people for ignorance as well as overt risk-taking behaviors?
If the baby is not a human entity with rights of its own, why should we differentiate the ability to terminate it based on intent? And if it is a human entity with rights of its own, how does it become less human because I tried to keep it from happening?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is a little helpful in highlighting what seems to be the focus of your argument - that it is the fault of the person who got pregnant. That it was a foreseeable consequence and that makes her liable. "Knocked up" was probably not useful, but "fault" is what we are talking about.
And I am not insisting that the government free people from physical consequences. I am saying that the goverment does not stand between medical mitigation and someone who needs that mitigation regardless of fault.
The government does not say, "It was that person's fault for getting into a car accident so the doctors can't set his broken leg. He has to live with those consequences."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that the baby is punishment for sex.
I think most people would be more comfortable with "consequence". Where does preventing medical mitigation for a physical consequence because that person could have avoided that consequence become punishment?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "consequence" is another person's life. Why would it be okay to snuff out another person's life because someone wants to avoid consequences?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The "consequence" is another person's life. Why would it be okay to snuff out another person's life because someone wants to avoid consequences?
According to some parts of this discussion, yes. If the consequences that occured were not that woman's fault. In cases of rape or a really good faith effort at birth control, for example. Some people who oppose obortion tend to be more okay with a rape exception because it isn't her fault.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The "consequence" is another person's life. Why would it be okay to snuff out another person's life because someone wants to avoid consequences?
I think some people take the view that if a fetus is a person, its rights have to be balanced against the mother's rights. They might never think it's "okay" to abort the fetus, but they might think it's "okay" to let the mother make the decision, even if she chooses to do something wrong.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the existence of the child is at the mother's whim, then it has no rights at all. There's no "balance."
A "balance" of rights would allow the mother to choose whether or not to engage in behavior that would likely create the life. If she was raped, she didn't get a choice. If she wasn't, then she did. Considering it is a LIFE that is being balanced again, there is only one choice, not two.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's an odd point of view and I'm not sure what to do with it. It almost seems as if you want to artificially increase the level of punishment for those who have unprotected sex and artificial decrease the level of risk for those who use protection.
A few problems with this. First problem is your use of the word 'artificial'. The status quo, too, is artificial. We've artifically decreased the level of 'punishment'.
Second, I don't view pregnancy as punishment.
Third, I do want to artificially decrease the level of risk for those who use protection, but it's pretty insignificant decrease for what I was talking about-properly used effective birth control on the part of both parties, that is. The risk there is already very, very small. So that part of your statement was accurate, I'm just clarifying.
quote:I'm also not sure how to measure the level of protection. What's good enough? Condom? Condom + birth control pill? Just the pill? I've actually found natural family planning to be highly effective, when used properly.
The condom plus birth control pill (both properly used) would be 'good enough' for what I'm talking about.
quote: Let's couple this with the flood of misinformation out there. It's almost laughable, but there are honestly women who believe that they can't get pregnant the first time, or on their menstrual cycle (though in their defense, this is highly unlikely), or if the woman is on top, or if the man pulls out before finishing, or...How does intent play in if someone honestly *thinks* they've taken proper protection. Do we punish people for ignorance as well as overt risk-taking behaviors?
Well, in the sort of set-up I'm semi-talking about here, that sort of ignorance would be much more effectively combated from a very young age, to say the least. Unfortunately on that end of the discussion, it's more often pro-lifers who are the problem.
It's just anecdotal opinion here, but from what I can tell people opposed to comprehensive sex-education from a young age are more likely to be pro-life. And that's a big problem.
quote: If the baby is not a human entity with rights of its own, why should we differentiate the ability to terminate it based on intent? And if it is a human entity with rights of its own, how does it become less human because I tried to keep it from happening?
It doesn't. It does, however, impact one way or another the level of obligation the mother and father have to it.
Two extremes: a woman is raped by a man and becomes pregnant. She has zero obligation, in my opinion, towards the life she's now carrying, even though that life if it is a human being has done nothing wrong to anyone.
A woman and a man are married with the intent to have children. They plan accordingly, and have sex with the primary goal of reproducing. Together they have a very, very large obligation towards that life, both individually and as a family.
The scenarios we're discussing fall somewhere in between those two extremes. I feel they fall quite a lot closer to the second extreme than, say, kmbboots does.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is a little helpful in highlighting what seems to be the focus of your argument - that it is the fault of the person who got pregnant. That it was a foreseeable consequence and that makes her liable. "Knocked up" was probably not useful, but "fault" is what we are talking about.
Certainly it's helpful, I was just objecting to the tone of the characterization you used, that is, "It's her fault she got knocked up." That's not a fair characterization IMO even if it is technically accurate.
quote:And I am not insisting that the government free people from physical consequences. I am saying that the goverment does not stand between medical mitigation and someone who needs that mitigation regardless of fault.
'Need'? Are we to characterize healing a broken leg as being on the same level of need as 'mitigating' an unwanted (but easily avoidable) pregnancy?
quote:The government does not say, "It was that person's fault for getting into a car accident so the doctors can't set his broken leg. He has to live with those consequences."
No, what the government says is, "It was that person's fault for getting into a car accident, so he must live with the consequences, one of them being, 'large debt to a hospital'." That's not really the same thing.
ETA:
quote:According to some parts of this discussion, yes. If the consequences that occured were not that woman's fault. In cases of rape or a really good faith effort at birth control, for example. Some people who oppose obortion tend to be more okay with a rape exception because it isn't her fault.
I wouldn't say it's 'okay' in the case of a really good faith effort at birth control...I would still think it was wrong, just not in that case that the government should say, "No," to it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's just anecdotal opinion here, but from what I can tell people opposed to comprehensive sex-education from a young age are more likely to be pro-life. And that's a big problem.
Indeed. In fact, I think that there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions if we were more open about sex in a healthy way. I don't think that the way we are open about sex now is either healthy or all that open. I think that there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies aborted if the shame of it weren't such an issue.
This is partly why I harp on the fault aspect.
quote: No, what the government says is, "It was that person's fault for getting into a car accident, so he must live with the consequences, one of them being, 'large debt to a hospital'." That's not really the same thing.
But that is not a bodily, physical, consequence. That is the distinction I am trying to make.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that is not a bodily, physical, consequence. That is the distinction I am trying to make.
But then we come back to the question of 'need'. If you've got a pierced lung, you need to get it fixed. You'll die if it ain't. If you've got a broken leg, you need to get it fixed. You can't walk, you can't drive, you'll lose your job, etc.
And, again, it's just you in that situation. You persist in trying to zero in on the part of the (already faulty) comparison where the fetus equivalent is completely absent.
If you're pregnant, though? Well, just as in the car accident, if you're incapable of sustaining yourself, the government will help you there, too. Maybe not enough, maybe not properly...but the government doesn't just say, "Tough s@#t!" either.
Which is one way the comparison actually is apt, come to think of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the issue currently under discussion (as I understand it) isn't whether the government will help you end the pregnancy; it's whether the government will forbid you from ending the pregnancy through your own resources. You seem to be conflating the two.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the issue currently under discussion (as I understand it) isn't whether the government will help you end the pregnancy; it's whether the government will forbid you from ending the pregnancy through your own resources. You seem to be conflating the two.
Actually, the discussion we were having there (and I admit it's getting far afield) was in comparing whether or not the government requires people to live with the burdensome consequences of legal activity when the chance of incurring those consequences is remote.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the issue currently under discussion (as I understand it) isn't whether the government will help you end the pregnancy; it's whether the government will forbid you from ending the pregnancy through your own resources. You seem to be conflating the two.
Actually, the discussion we were having there (and I admit it's getting far afield) was in comparing whether or not the government requires people to live with the burdensome consequences of legal activity when the chance of incurring those consequences is remote.
Sort of. I was talking about whether the government requires one to live with the physical consequences of any action.
We take people's money pretty regularly when someone has done a bad thing. We take away their freedom when they have done worse bad things. Very seldom do we take away their right to sovereignty over their own body. Penal labour is even out of fashion.
We allow medical remedy for other physical consequences of even really stupid actions. Currently we allow a medical remedy for careless sex.
And no, I am not forgetting that there is a third party here. But why would the possible rights of the fetus increase or decrease depending on whether or not the woman carrying it has screwed up?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sort of. I was talking about whether the government requires one to live with the physical consequences of any action.
The government does require that, though. I guess for me I count 'working to pay off debt' as a sort of 'physical consequence'.
quote:Very seldom do we take away their right to sovereignty over their own body. Penal labour is even out of fashion.
There is a set of circumstances, however, when we do take their body-sovereignty away: when they have given it away, that is, late-term abortions.
quote:And no, I am not forgetting that there is a third party here. But why would the possible rights of the fetus increase or decrease depending on whether or not the woman carrying it has screwed up?
They don't, and I believe I've answered that question (though not directly to you) at least once already. What increases or decreases is the responsibility the woman has to protect those rights.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sort of. I was talking about whether the government requires one to live with the physical consequences of any action.
The government does require that, though. I guess for me I count 'working to pay off debt' as a sort of 'physical consequence'.
Ah. See, no it doesn't. The government can take away property but they do not make you work off a debt. If you choose to not work and live on charity or whatever, the government does not force you to work.
quote:
quote:Very seldom do we take away their right to sovereignty over their own body. Penal labour is even out of fashion.
There is a set of circumstances, however, when we do take their body-sovereignty away: when they have given it away, that is, late-term abortions.
I'm not sure what you mean here? Are you talking of the body sovereignty of the fetus?
quote:
quote:And no, I am not forgetting that there is a third party here. But why would the possible rights of the fetus increase or decrease depending on whether or not the woman carrying it has screwed up?
They don't, and I believe I've answered that question (though not directly to you) at least once already. What increases or decreases is the responsibility the woman has to protect those rights.
I agree there is a moral responsibility. I won't agree that there should be a legal one.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
