Do you believe that the law should be able to compel you to donate a kidney to your 13 year old son if you are the only available match?
Bricker, this is another good question- if the legislature passes a law that the state can force citizens to donate blood or organs, does this pass muster, or does this violate the Constitution?
Bricker,
I am so very sorry I did not compose a post to your liking. I was busy changing the two year old’s poopy daughter and trying to get her sister to take a shower. You know. Actually rearing my kids, something you will never do even as you tell me to have them if the birth control fails even at risk to my health and life.
You want logic? We tried outlawing abortion. All we got was illegal abortion. We also got maimed and dead women. That’s all we’ll get again if we follow your dearest wishes, your extremist religious beliefs and the crazed dictates of the celibate sexists who run your church. It is not logical to call yourself pro-life while blithely espousing the certain death and maiming of women.
Let me know the next time you get a prostate exam. I’ll be happy to lobby to do what I can to make it as expensive, painful and intrusive as possible. My church of the holy prostate believes the prostate is important and must be protected as much as possible from men who would treat it badly.
…Is it just me, or is Bricker comparing the right to bodily autonomy to the legal requirements surrounding child support? That seems incredibly dumb. Or is it just me?
Courts can certainly order fathers to find work, and impose contempt sanctions if the judge eblieves the father is not making a good-faith effort to do so. And child support is an eighteen-year commitment, or possibly more; pregnancy is only a nine-month one. So yes, there are differences, but I regard the analogy as a fair one.
No. But I don’t support a law that requires a parent to continue a pregnancy in the face of certain death, either.
That’s not the threshold we impose on other laws. We didn’t scuttle the Obamacare law because there was not a “clear and strong majority of people, from all belief systems,” supporting it. Why would I possibly agree that this standard should be applied only here?
Because, like any other law, it was passed by a majority of the legislature and signed by the chief executive. That’s the system we have more making laws.
Yes.
And it’s hard for me to take seriously a parent that wouldn’t.
OK, good luck.
But I’m not too worried, because I suspect that your church’s following is pretty limited.
So is yours. Most Americans don’t want abortion outlawed, at least during the first three months. They don’t love abortion (no one does) but unlike you they don’t love the idea of maimed and dead women. All over the world where abortion is outlawed women still get them. What makes you think that won’t happen here?
If I wanted an abortion and it was illegal I’m pretty sure I could get one. My mom did. Would you prosecute me for it?
How about if your sibling needs a kidney? Or a cousin does? Or a work acquaintance? Or a total stranger? Is the hypothetical law you have in mind narrowly tailored to only affect parents and their children?
It’s not just you and yeah it is incredibly dumb. Just like calling yourself pro-life while lobbying for laws that will maim and kill women.
Makes me think of another question for Bricker (lucky you!)- if statistics proved that outlawing abortion would result in a reduction of the abortion rate by 20%, but an increase of the pregnant women’s mortality rate by 500%, would you still support outlawing abortion? Let’s say that the 20% reduction in abortion means X fewer abortions, and the 500% increase in the pregnancy mortality rate means X/2 more dead pregnant women.
I disagree with your regard.
So only “in the face of certain death” would you consider the termination of a pregnancy to be okay? How many doctor’s opinion on that would you need before you would accept that it was “certain death”? One? Two? Nine? What should the text of the law be, in your opinion?
Because this law serves little purpose but to impose religious beliefs on people who may not have the same religious beliefs. The ACA has no such ties to religious beliefs.
Again you try and divide your opinion between “right” and “legal”. Why do you do this, over and over and over: give the impression that you support any law, simply because it is the law, regardless of it’s content? It makes you look detestable more often than it it makes you look admirable.
For Bricker’s benefit, I’ll put my three hypotheticals together in one post:
-
Out of curiosity- if you engaged in risky behavior one day (or took precautions but the precautions failed), and the next day woke up with something growing inside of you that you didn’t want there that caused pain, discomfort, a reduction in your faculties and abilities, and an increased risk of death, how would you feel if the law said you could not expel this thing? What would you do? I’m not asking “what if you were a pregnant woman”, I’m asking about who you are now, with something growing inside of you. If it matters, we’ll say that this dangerous object is a tiny, shrunken person who needs to feed off your bodily fluids for several months to grow or he’ll die.
-
If the legislature passes a law that the state can force citizens to donate blood or organs, does this pass muster, or does this violate the Constitution?
-
If statistics proved that outlawing abortion would result in a reduction of the abortion rate by 20%, but an increase of the pregnant women’s mortality rate by 500%, would you still support outlawing abortion? Let’s say that the 20% reduction in abortion means X fewer abortions, and the 500% increase in the pregnancy mortality rate means X/2 more dead pregnant women.
There is a big difference between thinking poorly about a person who is not willing to take the risk of surgery (which is comparable to the mortality rate of pregnancy I believe) and requiring by law that the person take that risk.
Well, in this thread, as evidenced by my reference to what legislatures have done, I wasn’t really defending the idea of completely outlawing abortion, because I recognize there isn’t sufficient public support for such a move.
So I’m supporting the ultrasound rule, for instance, and if your physician performed an abortion without doing the requisite ultrasound first, in a state with such a law, I’d be in favor of prosecution.
I would very much like to see sufficient public support to outlaw abortion. But in the absence of such public support, I can’t say we should have such a law – or, obviously, any prosecutions under it. In other words, while I want to see abortion outlawed, I want it to happen the right way: by public support.
No, I’d be leery of outlawing abortion if that were the result.
This distinction is the correct one, because no born person’s ‘right to life’ entitles them access to another person’s in order to survive.
No person has the right to lay claim or authority over another person’s biological processes.
No person has the right to consume the flesh and bones of another person’s body in order to nourish themselves. (literally, leeching the calcium from another person’s bones in order to strengthen their own)
No person has the right to excrete their biological wastes into another person’s body.
No person has the right to inject mind altering hormones into another person’s body.
No person has the right to implant themselves into the body of another person.
No person has the right to rearrange the internal organs of another person.
No person can wreak the kind of physical, biological havoc on another person’s body caused by even planned, wanted and healthy pregnancies. Her consent is required.
You need to make the case for super fetal supremacy of rights. Because, no born person has the rights fetal personhood proponents are trying to bestow on a fertilized egg.
No (born) child can make the claim or authority over their parents bodies or biological processes which you seek to mandate of pregnant women. Even if their parents are mandated to provide financial support. You are trying to conflate mandatory financial support with mandatory biological life support, when we have not ever mandated biologically provided life support from another person’s body. Financial support =/= Biological life support. (this is truly a silly argument and I expected better from you, Bricker)
The scientific consensus is clear: yes, pregnancy and childbirth cause irrevocable biological changes to a woman’s body. Even healthy, non-life threatening pregnancies.
Ethically, morally, etc, this can only take place with the explicit consent of the woman. Otherwise you need to mandate this type of violation of body integrity/autonomy of ALL people. If fetal ‘right to life’ justifies violation of another person’s body autonomy then EVERY life justifies violation.
Is the law against murder derived from religious beliefs?
Only because you’re not reading what I’m saying. I don’t support the current law concerning abortion. I feel it’s immoral and wish the majority of people agreed with me.
But I must recognize that, like it or not, that current law is the product of our democratic system. I can say I wish it were gone; I can’t say it’s not legitimate.
This is in contrast to the commentators here: if they don’t like a law, they simply declare that since the law violates their personal sense of morality, they are correct, and the law is illegitimate.
I want an answer to **Snowboarder Bob’s **question.
How far is certain death? A little over one in twenty pregnancies wind up pre-eclamptic. Pre-e is a very serious medical condition with few treatments. Very often the only thing that will treat it is early delivery, something that may seriously endanger the life of the fetus. Does the OB have to consult with you Bricker, oh wise one, before making the decision to deliver a non-viable fetus and save the woman’s life? Does the pregnant women with a restricted fluid diet have to seek your permission about what to do if her condition worsens?
Hell why don’t you just go whole hog and demand that women everywhere seek your advice before making decision about their pregnancies? If the fetus has a right to life, doesn’t it have the right to a healthy life? Make pre-natal visits mandatory. Jail women if they don’t eat properly, take their pre-natal vitamins or have even a tiny glass of wine. We’re just vessels after all.
Says you.
That’s all. You have listed a series of definitive statements. “No person has the right to implant themselves into the body of another person.” Where did you learn this fact? Why should I accept it as true? Because you said it so forbiddingly?
I say that while I accept your statements as generally true, as regards two born individuals, I don’t agree they’re true in the context of a mother and her unborn child.
Now – what makes you absolutely right and me wrong?