(September 30, 2015 at 3:51 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:(September 30, 2015 at 3:32 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:
I can agree with all of that. We have no right to say what they do with their own body. But the debate stems from how the fetus is classified. I've seen it classified as anything from a human being to a parasite. I personally think classifying the fetus as anything but a human is disingenuous. It is and always will be a human. It is a human in its early stages of development with a beating heart 18 days after conception. While I have no say over what a woman does to her own body, do I have a say in what she does to my child? It's tough right?
Wait I say next will undoubtedly be controversial. Can you explain why killing a baby in utero is ok based solely on the decision of the mother (as you said you have no say), but killing a baby a minute after its born is murder? Is it a different baby? Is it any less dependent on the mother than when in utero?
I am in no way saying you support any of this, I'm honestly just curious what you think on this. Thanks for the reply
We certainly do recognize, in law, that a person has different rights at different stages in their life. For instance, a minor child has many fewer rights than an adult, particularly in terms of bodily autonomy, and the adults who are its caregivers may make decisions of many types that will affect his or her life. However, after being born, the status does change such that they may no longer deprive the child of what it takes to continue living or being healthy; then again, the child does not directly depend on the body of its parent for continued survival, either. It's a crucial difference. And it's why I point out in my kidney example that it wouldn't matter, legally speaking, if the fetus was a child or a full grown adult, in terms of forcing someone to risk their life to continue the life of the other.
Yes, it is significantly less biologically dependent on its mother once born. Anyone can support that child, at that point, and compromising the legal right to bodily integrity/autonomy of another person is never required in order to do so. Economics is another matter, legally speaking-- that's why it takes a criminal court (and the Reasonable Doubt standard of proof, at least in theory) to incarcerate the body of a person, but only a civil court (and a "preponderance of the evidence" standard) to take away their property.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
