"Women are Hosts"

[DaveC426913]

The risk of having to obtain an abortion? That is a serious risk, with serious consequences.

And yet, the risk of a pregnancy was taken, eyes open.

To say, afterwards "I've changed my mind." is irresponsible.

Why was the issue of a dangerous abortion not considered before engaging in the act would might lead to it?

 

[DaveC426913]

I like how you place this responsibility on her. Not what 'did they think was going to happen???', but what did "she" think was going to happen.

Bells. while it may seem to you I am simply being belligerent, I am not trying to deliberately manipulate the culpability for my benefit. The issue of "they" versus "she" is a tricky one, and I'm trying to distinguish between the two thoughtfully.

"They" both willingly engaged in sex, which could lead to pregnancy. The issue responsibility does fall on both of them.

But, it is not his rights to his body that are jeopardized. So yes, what did she think was going to happen when she engaged in an act that could jeopardize her right to her body?

In a way you are correct, it is her body after all and thus, it is her choice.

It is certainly her quandary and hers alone.

The question simply becomes: if another life is decided (by principle, not by law) to be a person, then she has put her right in conflict by engaging in sex.

It can't just be dismissed by rationalizing, "I have decided, retroactively, that I do not want to accept the consequences of my actions. I will abort the fetus."

It is her life that will be affected by this, it is her body and her life that is now at risk and will be permanently affected.

And the life growing inside her.

You are arguing that the moment she has sex, then she forfeits all rights to her body.

I am asking:

When she decided to have sex, knowing it could result in the dependency of another life, did she own the responsibility for that?

She owns her body. You do not. She has the right to determine what she does with it. You do not.

Sure, and she also owns her body when taking her three young children to the zoo.
But she does not have the right to do with her body whatever she wants if it endangers her living children.
Because she has agreed to care for them. When she acted to get pregnant.

The only question I'm asking is: when should they become a responsibility, instead just an inconvenience?

If she falls pregnant and does not wish to have a baby, it is her body, her life and thus, her right to proceed as she so chooses.

As above. If she carries on to give both to children, she does have some restrictions on the she can do with herself. She has chosen those responsibilities. She can't just give them up when her children turn five.

Whether the term is 'waive' or 'forfeit', a parent has taken responsibilities that restrict their freedoms.

I am simply questioning when those responsibilties to that life should kick in.

Would you prefer she goes on to have the baby and then kills it or abandons it or fails to take care of it?

No. I would prefer she be a grown up when she decided to have sex. She is saying "I am risking pregnancy here. Am I prepared to follow through on that responsibility?"

Or is she saying "Nah. If it happens I can always get an abortion." Surely, access to an aborion is not a get out of jail free card for the predictable consequences of sex?

The responsible adult would weigh their options. A responsible woman would weigh her ability to have the child and care for it. A responsible woman would decide what is best for her.

Perfect. And would she think about this before or after the act that instigates it?

He cannot address or acknowledge any of these things, Jeeves.

And yet, here I am, addressing them.

The reason for that is simple. To address any of it would mean addressing that women are human beings with fundamental human rights over their own bodies. [/QUOTE]
Parents take on responsibilities. Yes, even at the expense of their health. That's what deciding to get pregnant means.

In a way, it is a means to basically shame women who are sexually active. He may not intend to do it, but that is the end result.

Bell, you insert your own agenda into other people's mouths. Argue in good faith.

Any person (man OR woman) who engages in sex and are grown ups, must grapple with the consequences (worse of women, granted).
The only shame here is in not wearing one's grownup pants.

When did sex become only an act of consequence-free recreation?


What do you have to say about the issue of taking responsibility beforehand rather than simply sweeping the problem away in the light of day?

 

[DaveC426913]

Surely the time to decide that you don't want to take responsibility for a possible car accident is before you get in the car.

And yet, people get in cars and drive all the time, despite the risk of permanent injury or death.


So, you've decided to drive a car
despite the risk of having a car accident
and, if the dice don't fall in your favour
you can decide after-the-fact, that you don't want to accept the full responsibility of your actions - the known consequences
but it's ok, because expensive medical assistance is always an option to ameliorate or eliminate the consequences.

Exactly my point.

When you get in a car, you do take a risk. You can't decide afterward: "My body is my own. I have decided not to lose that limb. Make it didn't happen please."

(The analogy doesn't hold up all that well. Car accidents can be caused by others. In sex, there is no third party people in involved that can be blamed for the outcome. But if you get in a car, say after drinking, such that you are aware that you are directly affecting that risk - that might be a better analogy.)

 

[Michael 345]

My argument here is simply about where personhood applies.

The law has settled on the cutting of the umbilical cord

Here's a thought bubble for the hard line prolifers with the belief the soul enters the person at conception

If the zygote begins to develop but does not progress to the stage of becoming a hollow ball of cells called the blastocyst (any extremely early spontaneous abortion) does that zygote go to your heaven?

Does it look like a zygote in heaven?

If so there would be many more unborn zygotes, blastocyst, embryos, fetuses in heaven than any other group

 

[Michael 345]

When did sex become only an act of consequence-free recreation?

I would say it always has been

I don't intend that as a flippant joke

What do you think people were having sex for BEFORE the link to pregnancy was understood?

And ask the church why they think sex is ONLY for procreation

 

[DaveC426913]

The law has settled on the cutting of the umbilical cord

A law.
And laws change, to reflect society's wishes.
And that's why we have discussion like this. To determine if the laws - and ensure that the laws continue to - reflect society.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here's a thought bubble for the hard line prolifers with the belief the soul enters the person at conception

This soul thing is irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

What do you think people were having sex for BEFORE the link to pregnancy was understood?

I don't think there has ever been a time, in the millions of years since mammals were living, that the link between sex and pregnancy were not understood.

 

[iceaura]

And yet, the risk of a pregnancy was taken, eyes open.
To say, afterwards "I've changed my mind." is irresponsible.
Why was the issue of a dangerous abortion not considered before engaging in the act would might lead to it?

But it was. Nobody changed their minds. What are you talking about?

But, it is not his rights to his body that are jeopardized. So yes, what did she think was going to happen when she engaged in an act that could jeopardize her right to her body?

How is it that she is supposed to think her rights to her body could be jeopardized? On whose authority are those rights to be taken away?

Any person (man OR woman) who engages in sex and are grown ups, must grapple with the consequences (worse of women, granted).
The only shame here is in not wearing one's grownup pants.
When did sex become only an act of consequence-free recreation?

It never did.
For example, one of the consequences of having sex in certain ways with certain kinds of people is that a woman may, possibly, be faced with the choice of abortion or childbearing. That is a serious consequence. Grownups should take it seriously - and they do.

 

[Michael 345]

This soul thing is irrelevant.

I understand for the religious view it is huge since for them THAT is the moment of becoming a person

 

[iceaura]

I understand for the religious view it is huge since for them THAT is the moment of becoming a person

There is no evidence of that being an actual belief held by any significant number of people. The claim only arises in the context of abortion and its politics, and other motivations for it are in that context quite obvious.

My argument here is simply about where personhood applies.

You aren't making any such argument - maybe you haven't got around to it?

 

[DaveC426913]

You aren't making any such argument - maybe you haven't got around to it?

Then you definitely haven't been following along.
I have explicitly raised the issue of when a fetus should be considered a person about a dozen times in the last hundred posts or so. It has been my primary argument.
You can easily search for the word person or personhood in posts by me if you wish to catch up.

 

[Jeeves]

OK, perhaps you weren't the first to open the door, but you did walk through it.

You perceived a door to wherever you wanted to go. But then decided what subject matter [women's responsibility] would be covered, and what [men's responsibility] would be exempt from further scrutiny. I merely asked to follow the logic to some general rule.

I simply walked through the same door behind you.

Other way around, i think. See how subjective memory can be?

While the Declaration of Human Rights doesn't apply to to unborn children,

Well, there ya go!

it does declare that people have a right to live.

And do they exercise that right, universally? Does anyone enforce it? Anywhere? Say, by providing unpoisoned water, or enough food, medical aid or a cease-fire, or fishing them out of the sea and giving them a asylum when they're fleeing dangerous places?
See, the thing is, saying people have a right to live is just saying that if they're already alive, we shouldn't be allowed to kill them - but yet we kill them by the thousands, daily, for any number of perfectly legal reasons.
The Declaration is nice; I approve of it wholeheartedly - but it's basically a wish-list, rather than a legally binding document.

My argument here is simply about where personhood applies.

And I've answered that several times. Both the rights of autonomous persons and the protections a society extends to dependent/incapacitated persons are a matter of law.
There is nothing absolute, universal or supernatural about it. It's a question of the philosophy on which a nation's legal structure is founded.
Every nation specifies the persons included under the provisions of various laws, and the conditions under which such rights and protections are withheld/nullified.
To make a sound law, you have to negotiate the definitions and limitations with the voting population, and revisit the problem as required.
To make a sound social contract, you have to solve practical problems, rather than designate scapegoats.

 

[DaveC426913]

She owns her body. She has the right to determine what she does with it.

I need to address this issue as one that appears to be absolute, or sacrosanct.

Yes, there are limits to what one can do with one's body when there are other factors in-play, such as a dependent life.

In a contrived example: If a woman has a babe-in-arms who is actually latched at the breast, she cannot go scuba-diving. It would jeopardize the baby's life.

Sure, she can temporarily mitigate that by handing off the baby. But the point is made: a person who has another life in their care is limited. That right is not sacrosanct.
If it bothers you to say that she has waived her right to scuba dive while in the process of breastfeeding, I can't help that.

She does have responsibility of another life that will hamper her desire to do what she will, when she will, with her body.

I am simply raising the issue of when that responsibility for that life kicks in.

 

[Jeeves]

I am simply raising the issue of when that responsibility for that life kicks in.

When she decides to be a mother.

There are other options.
Taking a morning-after pill when she doesn't know whether there might have been a pregnancy or not. Terminating a pregnancy that has already begun. Carrying the foetus to term, giving birth and handing it off to adoptive parents. Giving birth and killing the baby out of fear or desperation. Keeping the baby until she discovers that she's incapable of good mothering, and then handing it off. Failing to discover that she's incapable of good mothering and having the authorities forcibly remove the child from her care - after whatever damage has been done.
Keeping the baby and becoming a good mother.
Without an adequate social support structure, the outcomes are more likely to be negative.
Being "stuck with" a child, perceiving one's child as an albatross, or being forced into motherhood as a punishment for naughty behaviour are not very good bases for a nurturing relationship.

 

[DaveC426913]

You perceived a door to wherever you wanted to go.

You opened a door that was wider than you thought.

...Other way around, i think. See how subjective memory can be?

No need for memory; it's preserved in perpetuity.

Maybe he should have thought about that before ...

And my response, following it:

Careful with that one. That argument applies as much to the goose as the gander.

The implication of your comment is essentially that people (any people) who find themselves in situations they don't like - because they didn't think about the consequences beforehand - are not automatically resolved of the responsibility for them.

All I did was expand the pronoun to all to whom it can apply.
The door was labelled simply "Maybe X should have thought of Y before ..." That's a far-reaching argument about responsibility.

It can also apply to those who engaged in sex, knowing it could result in a pregnancy.

The general case: Either people take responsibility for their actions beforehand, or we end up in a quagmire where people try to abdicate the responsibility to the consequences of their actions. Which addresses the larger issue of taking responsibility for a pregnancy.

 

[Jeeves]

The door I assert you opened was labelled simply "Maybe X should have thought of Y before ..."

So, you do know I didn't say that! You do know that you answered James R, [somewhat out of context, but I'll let him defend it] before I made any mention of

... a far-reaching argument about responsibility.

All I asked regarding that responsibility you keep harping on was: What are the consequences for the man? and How do you word a law that distributes responsibility equitably?

 

[DaveC426913]

Didn't know you were online. Did some editing. But hopefully didn't alter the meaning too much.

So, you do know I didn't say that! You do know that you answered James R,

You said "Maybe he should have thought to of that before..."

If that's a valid argument for holding someone accountable, then it's fair game to be applied to the larger issue.

All I asked regarding that responsibility you keep harping on was

I'm not accusing you of making the specific argument I'm making.

I'm simply leveraging the argument that 'one should think of consequences beforehand, not doing so doesn't absolve one of the consequent'.

 

[Capracus]

When she decides to be a mother.

When is that decision to be made? Week 0, week 20, week 39, or does it even matter?

 

[DaveC426913]

Being "stuck with" a child, perceiving one's child as an albatross, or being forced into motherhood as a punishment for naughty behaviour are not very good bases for a nurturing relationship.

Granted. As a practical matter.

I have said before that I think it is critical to hash out the principle of the matter. This would better inform practical solutions.