"Women are Hosts"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by ElectricFetus, Apr 1, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    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?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    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?


    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."


    And the life growing inside her.


    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?

    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?

    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.


    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?

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

    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.

    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?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    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.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,586
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,586
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    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.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    This soul thing is irrelevant.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    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.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,500
    But it was. Nobody changed their minds. What are you talking about?
    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?
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,586
    I understand for the religious view it is huge since for them THAT is the moment of becoming a person

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,500
    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.
    You aren't making any such argument - maybe you haven't got around to it?
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,673
    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.
    Other way around, i think. See how subjective memory can be?
    Well, there ya go!
    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    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.
     
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,673
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    You opened a door that was wider than you thought.
    No need for memory; it's preserved in perpetuity.
    And my response, following it:
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  20. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,673
    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
    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?
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    Didn't know you were online. Did some editing. But hopefully didn't alter the meaning too much.
    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.

    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'.
     
  22. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    When is that decision to be made? Week 0, week 20, week 39, or does it even matter?
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,675
    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.
     

Share This Page