I did clarify that the rights we are talking about are in regards to the mother’s body (blood, organs, nutrients, etc…). I don’t see how that is in conflict with premise 1? I could be wrong (something I don’t see).
I didn’t do a good job wording #1. I did do a qualifying statement about it, but I understand this thread is long. I’ll try to rephrase #1.
The unborn and born should have equal rights to their mother’s body (in regards to things like blood, organs, nutrients, etc…)
I think that is an important caveat. We can agree that one needs to use their body to take care of their child. I think we also agree that when it comes to requiring a parent to care for their child that requiring components of their actual body is where the line is drawn. We require parents to feed their children, we don’t force them to use the mother’s breast to do so though.
With those clarifications, do you still take issue?
And that is okay. I enjoy debate, and it was free of attacks (at least I think haha).
I think on this one plenty of intelligent people are on both sides. There are pretty hard opinions on the matter.
I encourage you to examine the premises though if you care too. It challenges me to think them through. It allows me to see where I am not precise with my words. I’m still not sold on the idea of the contract though.
I’m not sure. I think most states say if your “life is threatened.” I don’t think I’ve seen self defense law use the term health, but I could be totally wrong.
I mean that’s the problem with looking at every pregnancy through the lens of “well women should have thought about that before sex.” Yet some women are raped, drugged, etc. I mean you have some very special needs people who have sex and cognitively aren’t thinking things like “well I better be prepared financially and mentally for this.”
I mean saying all that is fine and dandy but it simply doesn’t reflect reality at any point in history. I suppose we can keep saying those things over and over and hope that changes I guess. Or we can deal in reality.
I don’t know if I see it this way. Until around 1960, birth control wasn’t even a conversation and condoms weren’t popularized until the mid-1900’s. I think this is a generational difference and that throughout human history - sex (whether consensual or not (please spare me the ‘consensual’ definition)) implicated that a child would be born as a result.
Obviously there is some nuance there that I don’t believe needs to be flushed out.
My parents (Boomers/Gen x) always taught me that if I do things which can make babies - that I ought to expect the result to be a baby being made. I think this is pretty straight forward and should be applied to society as a whole, but sex is meaningless these days.
What I’m getting at, is that I think history would argue against your second point - and that if anything is changing, it’s the commonality of sex which doesn’t result in bearing children.
Could not would be born as a result. Which is what the vast majority of people knew then and what they know now. Why don’t you look at pregnancy ages back then? And you definitely had self abortions back then as well. All the shaming and talks in the world didn’t prevent people from having sex and having babies without being financially or mentally prepared.
@mnben87 - I need to state that my premise that can be challenged in good faith is the idea of an implicit contract.
If the woman is not in a contract to see and care for the unborn through birth, she can rightfully say:
“I am not responsible for a favorable outcome for my unborn baby.”
“I cannot be held accountable if my unborn baby dies by any means, whether is my choice or not.”
“I cannot face any consequences regarding my unborn baby.”
Ultimately my belief lies in “seedtime and harvest” (Gen 8:22) for all the “seeds” we sow. In sowing a seed you have agreed to the contract. You might reap the harvest and you have no legal rebuttal. (BTW sometimes the harvest is good.)
If my position being Bible based negates its application to the secular world, I am okay with that opinion. Some people… maybe most people detest Bible thumpers.
I would also say that life expectancy was much shorter at the time as well, so that plays a role in reproductive age. And I’m sure there were some self-abortions back then, but as you alluded to at the end of your statement, there were plenty of people who birthed babies who weren’t prepared to deal with the difficulties they bring with them. The difference is that if abortions weren’t common or popular back then - whereas now it seems unimportant.
I don’t advocate for people to bring children into the world if they cannot care for them, but that doesn’t mean they should fuck people indiscriminantly and just let medicare pay to egg beater the baby for them. I stated my opinion earlier in this thread that I think the correct solution is for abortion to depend on viability, which is an inherently changing timeframe due to scientific advancements. I also believe that a more robust adoption system that helps children make it out of the foster care system could make a good bit of difference in the overall number of aborted babies. But I doubt government will do either, because this engages common sense.
Does it sound like I’ve been making that argument? I’m simply saying that historically if you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies scare tactics, shaming, etc haven’t been effective. You think we’re the first group ever so say people should think more before they have sex? Of course not. Our parents did that and it didn’t work and so did their grandparents.
Teach people what safe sex is, the importance of it, and remove barriers to contraception. Those have a chance to lower the amount of unwanted pregnancies I believe.
What some are discussing in here are the very things that have been done over and over for generations with the same results. I’m simply saying it doesn’t make sense to continue that and expect different results.
I am not opposed to people taking the view that there is a contract / obligation to the unborn. But, I believe that it is an opinion / belief more so than a fact. Because of that, I think they should keep that obligation to themselves. That the belief shouldn’t be legislated into law for everyone. That one should have a choice if they believe they have that obligation or not.
I am not a fan of legislating morality outside of what rationally is supported. A lot of religious teachings are also supported by secular arguments (don’t murder people, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness…). I am fine with those type of things being put into law since one can rationally come to a conclusion about those actions. I also think there are religious morality teachings that are not supported by rational arguments (avoiding certain foods, avoiding certain fabrics, dress codes, etc…). I don’t think those should be turned into law in a secular country (and I would include banning abortion in that list). All of those things are fine to do on an individual level, but don’t tell me I can’t eat shell fish, or have rights to my body.
Well… and here I am Bible thumping. Read 2 Tim 2:15, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightfully dividing the word of truth.”
The Mosaic Law is a covenant between God and the nation of Israel.
I am not sure about the “certain fabrics”, but those other two things are legislated into law in several Muslim countries. The laws can’t be supported with sound logic. They are supported by the Quran saying so. I am not for that type of government. I have a lot of Muslim women in my area. I am okay with them wearing a hijab. I am not okay with them saying every woman has to wear a hijab. There are women in my area that are pro life, I am fine with that. I am not fine with them forcing that on everyone else.
I know this isn’t a thread about religion but the question was asked and felt compelled to respond. Sorry for adding to derailments of the topic at hand.
I consider myself, agnostic, so yes I question. If I were ever to become a believer I am pretty sure it will be outside of organized religion. I grew up LDS (mormon) and it left a sour taste in my mouth against any religion. I was questioning of a god existing as a young pre-teen to being atheist in early teen years. I’m sure family forcing me to attend a church I was already questioning didn’t help.
My wife considered herself Christian but had not attended church since being a kid. After being married and having kids together, she felt something was missing and wanted to attend a non-denominational church. As I had gotten older I was beginning to question my belief in no god, so out of curiosity and support for my wife I agreed to attend with her. With the church we went to, it was the closest to me becoming a believer, but never quite got there. I fully invested trying to, conversing with pastor about my thoughts, reading the bible and other books about religion. Wife got baptized and I just converted from an atheist to an agnostic. In all honesty I wish I did have a belief, but there are just some humps I can’t get over and TBH I don’t think I could even really explain them.
Such a random thing to come up with. A bit gay, too. Has a “Queer eye for the ancient guy” kind of vibe.
Then again there was all sorts of crazy stuff like the obsession for foreskins, so being a fashion dictator isn’t that surprising.
The first guys who wrote the character really tried hard to make him a psycho.
That’s nothing. What about Deut 23:1?, “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”