The Abortion Ministry of Dr. Willie Parker

and you don't see how that seems rather uncompromising? dare I say just as uncompromising as people who want to get rid of morning after pills?

 

There is only one point in time that any person is truly the sole provider, and that is during pregnancy.

At any other point, with any other animal, person, or other, there are multiple providers, one of which you are very familiar with, government.

Can you turn a dog over to the pound? Yes. It has another provider, and another place it can go.

 

Why does there need to be compromise?

 

Because there is an alternative that in no way weighs heavily or provides risk for anyone not willing to take the risk

 

no one is stopping the woman from putting the kid up for adoption.

 

And if we can make an artificial womb? And then transplant said baby into said womb? Would that then not make abortion illegal by your rules because we can put it off onto another provider? If you have serious health concerns, you need to transfer the fetus to this iron womb and at the end of its gestation, you have a baby that you are fully and legally responsible for?

Premature babies already survive very well many weeks before they are due. Just because mom's biology has decided they shouldn't be kicked out yet because it is better to let them grow inside until their head will just barely fit through her pelvis is just that, a biological adaptation.

 

Which means that it isn't about life. If life was the be all end all of importance, we could for it on them. And should. But it isn't, so we don't.

The point with ending another's life is that you do have a defense against it, you have been granted the ability by being granted the sole decision maker for an individual that is unable to make their own decision. Did you not catch the scenario? Comatose, you're the loved one, must say they undergo a procedure to save their life. Should you be obligated to say yes to the procedure? Did you miss that?

Again, abortion is still not a difficult decision, even if you give it a right to life. Because as we've already seen, the right to life is not the ultimate important thing, otherwise all doctors would do 100% of everything necessary to keep every single person alive, always. But they don't. And it isn't because that person said they didn't want to live.

Semantics? You stated "fetal stage," which is about 9 weeks or so. You said that it now has a right to life. You've just defined a moral, ethical (but thank god not legal) opinion. You can't say it is semantics when I point out that your own view about the timing doesn't match your definition.

 

you said it much better than i.

 

Nobody is, but they are requiring that she be a vessel for the kid in the first place, with no alternative.

See the difference? After birth, alternatives. Before birth, no alternative.

You are skipping the no alternative bit, as it is just a walk in the park, maybe a light jog.

 

Do we have a transporter that will remove the child from the womb entirely, without any incision being made, no need for hormonal changes, no biological changes in the mother whatsoever?

Hell, why even build the artificial womb, why not just make all births take place in a pod, where the sperm and the egg are placed together?

And then yes, I would say don't kill the babies. But so long as there is another human being biologically responsible, at any stage, that person has ultimate choice.

And now I've put it to you like this, we've developed some Superman hive baby thingy, where all babies are made in your artificial womb. Should someone be forced to give up their sperm? No, of course not. That'd be stupid.

 

You are a saint, float. I can't stand to even read this circular thread anymore.

 

I gave an example of a woman and her newborn on a deserted island. She is sole provider for said baby. Can she, ethically, kill that baby? Does not the baby have rights?

I argue, ethically, she cannot.

You have the right to vote. Should you be forced to vote just because you have that right?

I have a right to life, should I be forced to live even if I don't want to live?

And until you can hold a microphone up to a fetus, ask it "Hey fetus, you want to live?" and it say "Yes" or "No", we have to assume it wants to live.

We cannot force the mother to put the fetus into an iron womb, but we can say you cannot have an abortion just like you cannot murder a day old infant. A or B. Carry to term or allow us to perform a c-section and put it into the iron womb for you. We do not have this option at the moment, so I argue we must not allow her to terminate a post-set-time period pregnancy. I have given my date at around 14 weeks.

As for the forced gestation in a hive womb, that is ludicrous.

 

First things first. The rights you are pointing out is the point. I'll elaborate. I have a right to vote. If we follow the same logic about your fetus wanting to live (meaning, we always assume it wants to live) then the same assumption about my right to vote is that I always want to vote. Tracking? So why have voter registration? If the assumption is that I'm always going to want to vote, I should just always be allowed to vote. Same with the right to life. If the assumption is that I will always want to exercise my right to life, why do we have surrogate decision makers when we are in a position where we can't choose for ourselves, and have no previous designation? Shouldn't the assumption just be that we want to live.

In fact, in damn never every walk of life in our "civilized" society, no assumptions about our rights are made. And given that, and the above, to say that a fetus should have assumed choices, when we generally don't in other walks of life is not exactly hypocrisy, but it is illogical and irrational.

Right, again, you are forcing something upon another. Period. That is it. You are forcing another to do something that they don't want to do for a period of time, for no reason other than what? So we feel better? Or so we look good? So we can use the phrase "value of life." That's ludicrous. Mine is merely science fiction.

----

Now, to your scenario. The fate of the child is directly related to the fate of the mother. You see this I presume? If the mother dies, the newborn dies. Two lives lost. This is clear?

Ok, moving on. In the event that the mother's life is in jeopardy due to the newborn, she has a moral "pass" to kill the child. Because if she doesn't, they both die. Here, you safe one life. Or at least prolong one life, we'll not make any assumptions. Hard decision, but a necessary one. And, one that doesn't have to be made. See the difference? The mother has a choice. (She does not have a choice when you are forcing her to incubate to a period of weeks. No choice. Here, choice. Good?).

Moving on, yet again. If the mother's life is not in jeopardy, she has an obligation to protect life, morally speaking. It is the right thing to do. She can't strand herself on a deserted island for the sole purpose of killing her newborn knowing full well that in two days, someone is going to come pick her up. That would be murder. But that is not the same as saying there are rational, logical and ethical reasons for killing the newborn. Because there are.

 

Wouldn't the baby's rights be determined by whatever rights she decided to give it on the island of, and under the government of, "Womanian"?

 

We've been pretending this isn't motivated by religion for awhile. Might as well pull it into the open.

 

So there are no inalienable rights? Would you say people in North Korea do not have the right to life just because they happened to be born in North Korea? Was the Holocaust not wrong because it took place under Nazi Law?

As far as religion goes, I do not see why that has to be brought into it. I do not believe in God. I do not believe we have been handed any ethics from some supernatural being saying "Do this or I will get pissed off." They are simply the ideas that a human has the right to live his or her life, and it should not be taken away simply out of inconvenience.

 

can you imagine the traffic in this country

 

I don't have to assume you want to vote. I can straight up ask you, "Float, do you want to vote?" If so, come here and vote. Registration is archaic. If everyone has the right to vote, why make me get registered. But I digress.

Can you ask OV in his coma if he wants to live? No, you cannot. But his wife or next of kin who knew him, might understand his wishes or have been flat told his wishes. They could be a proxy.

A fetus has no such proxy. It has not had a chance to claim if it wants to live or not. Therefore it is paramount that we protect its life via the law until such a time as it can decide for itself or nature decides for it.

I think your last paragraph is correct, especially the bold part.

 

Are humans the only living creatures with inalienable rights? If so, why?

 

A fetus does not have the ability to want anything.