New Iowa Law Restricts Abortion To Before Most Women Know They're Pregnant

[I_am_not_mafia]

So you think that motherhood is oppression? 

Forced motherhood is oppression, yes.

[Angrboda]

No, it doesn't actually point that out.  It shows that in the trolley problem, for some reason we don't understand, one action is viewed differently from another.  We have no conscious introspection as to the reason why, and no principle derived from ethics seems to point the way to an answer.  We don't know why we have an intuition that one instance has a significant moral distinction to the other.  You're simply trading on our ignorance to make a claim that you cannot justify by an appeal to any moral theory.  Regardless, the case in question does not parallel the one at issue, as you would be equally outraged if instead of killing the fetus, doctors simply removed the fetus and allowed it to die of natural causes.  So you're simply being disingenuous by claiming that the difference lies in the act of terminating the life.  That's not your real sticking point.  And since it isn't, you're once again faced with providing a justification for treating the two cases differently, the case of being forced to give up a lung or a kidney, and that of being forced to carry a non-viable fetus to term.

So do you not think that doctors removing the baby, and letting it die, is killing it?  Do you think it is wrong to intentially harm and kill another without some moral justification?   I don’t think that if a person locked someone in a room and let them die from “natural causes” would be any less murder; do you?

So now, even if the doctors do everything they can to give the newly evicted fetus a chance at life, that amounts to killing it? You're killing me. No, I mean literally, you're killing me. Unless you paypal me the money I need to live on, according to your definition, you're killing me.

Well let's see where we can go with this new definition. Obviously, if you don't give the potential lung recipient your lung, they are going to die of natural causes, too, so you are killing them. Same with the kidney. So, apparently, you think it's okay to "kill" the potential lung recipient, but not to "kill" a fetus. And the lung recipient is a fully born person. You think it's fine to "kill" them, but not the fetus. Your ethics are every bit as inconsistent as they were before. You don't remove an inconsistency in a system by redefining a term. I'd think as an engineer that you would understand this, but apparently not. All you accomplish by redefining the term is to move the inconsistency to another place in the system. Perhaps you might get lucky that way, and your interlocutor not be able to spot where it has moved to, but you will have accomplished nothing. You've swept the problem under the rug, but you haven't gotten rid of the dirt. About all you've shown in attempting to hide the problem this way is that you lack the integrity to face the problem outright.

[I_am_not_mafia]

As to murder, I can understand that distinction in regards to a legal matters. However what I am meaning by it is unjustified killing.   This is beyond what is lawful, to what is right. The rights of human beings.  

And who decides what is justified or not and what is right?

What makes you think that you are the one to decide for the rest of us what is justified and right?

Because it's written in a book of fairy tales that you believe actually happened.

What about the state executing a murderer? You wouldn't call that murder, but you would call killing a collection of cells that are not yet an independent human being murder. Why does the state get to say what is justified but not the individual when it concerns their own body. You sound like the typical American idea of what a socialist is.

[RoadRunner79]

So do you not think that doctors removing the baby, and letting it die, is killing it?  Do you think it is wrong to intentially harm and kill another without some moral justification?   I don’t think that if a person locked someone in a room and let them die from “natural causes” would be any less murder; do you?

So now, even if the doctors do everything they can to give the newly evicted fetus a chance at life, that amounts to killing it? You're killing me. No, I mean literally, you're killing me. Unless you paypal me the money I need to live on, according to your definition, you're killing me.

Well let's see where we can go with this new definition. Obviously, if you don't give the potential lung recipient your lung, they are going to die of natural causes, too, so you are killing them. Same with the kidney. So, apparently, you think it's okay to "kill" the potential lung recipient, but not to "kill" a fetus. And the lung recipient is a fully born person. You think it's fine to "kill" them, but not the fetus. Your ethics are every bit as inconsistent as they were before. You don't remove an inconsistency in a system by redefining a term. I'd think as an engineer that you would understand this, but apparently not. All you accomplish by redefining the term is to move the inconsistency to another place in the system. Perhaps you might get lucky that way, and your interlocutor not be able to spot where it has moved to, but you will have accomplished nothing. You've swept the problem under the rug, but you haven't gotten rid of the dirt. About all you've shown in attempting to hide the problem this way is that you lack the integrity to face the problem outright.

So you didn’t answer the question. If a person locks someone in a room and lets them die of natural causes ( starve ) is that murder? Is it the same to you, as not giving a person a lung? Do you think that ones actions prior and their intentions make a difference in regaurds to ethics.

[brewer]

I see that the law suit was filed today.

[Angrboda]

So now, even if the doctors do everything they can to give the newly evicted fetus a chance at life, that amounts to killing it?  You're killing me.  No, I mean literally, you're killing me.  Unless you paypal me the money I need to live on, according to your definition, you're killing me.

Well let's see where we can go with this new definition.  Obviously, if you don't give the potential lung recipient your lung, they are going to die of natural causes, too, so you are killing them.  Same with the kidney.  So, apparently, you think it's okay to "kill" the potential lung recipient, but not to "kill" a fetus.  And the lung recipient is a fully born person.  You think it's fine to "kill" them, but not the fetus.  Your ethics are every bit as inconsistent as they were before.  You don't remove an inconsistency in a system by redefining a term.  I'd think as an engineer that you would understand this, but apparently not.  All you accomplish by redefining the term is to move the inconsistency to another place in the system.  Perhaps you might get lucky that way, and your interlocutor not be able to spot where it has moved to, but you will have accomplished nothing.  You've swept the problem under the rug, but you haven't gotten rid of the dirt.  About all you've shown in attempting to hide the problem this way is that you lack the integrity to face the problem outright.

So you didn’t answer the question. If a person locks someone in a room and lets them die of natural causes ( starve ) is that murder?  Is it the same to you, as not giving a person a lung?  Do you think that ones actions prior and their intentions make a difference in regaurds to ethics.

Nobody is denying the fetus anything that it has a right to access. A fetus doesn't have the right to exploit the woman's body simply because it cannot survive without doing so. So, no, your argument is invalid.

[Rev. Rye]

The way a fetus works is, the way I see it, analogous to a tenant and landlord, if the landlord is letting her own body instead of her building. If the situation with her boarder becomes intolerable or untenable, it should be (and is) her prerogative to kick it out. Seriously,
I know the majority of abortions are performed with pregnancies that don’t have high stakes for the mother, but seriously, there are loads of examples (Hell, Wikipedia’s “abortion in Ireland” page shows a couple case studies) where it is simply the best option.

Honestly, if we could develop the technology to transfer a fetus from a pregnant woman who doesn’t want it to a non pregnant woman who does, I’d support it, and if it works, I’d say it would obviate the need that abortion fills. That said, that technology does not exist, and I’m sure someone who knows more about obstetrics will be able to explain why such an idea would be physically unsound, so I don’t think we’re likely to change that.

[Minimalist]

When you have to mid-represent the other side with such a bad false dichotomy, I think that is a major indication about your position.

What do you think gives you the fucking right to impose your beliefs on other people?

What possible interest could you have in the situation?

[RoadRunner79]

When you have to mid-represent the other side with such a bad false dichotomy, I think that is a major indication about your position.

What do you think gives you the fucking right to impose your beliefs on other people?

What possible interest could you have in the situation?

I don’t think that innocent babies should be violently dismembered and killed. That is my interest.

What is your interest in my interest? And if you where really interested in not imposing ones beliefs on others, then I suspect you won’t be telling me what to believe.

[Silver]

A fetus is not an innocent baby. It's a parasitic bundle of cells.