My Kidney Challenge II

[Kylie]

Yes, which is what you were asked about.

tall73 said: ↑
The child at that point is quite developed. So why would it be right to strip the child of bodily autonomy, and life?



So you apparently don't stand by your bodily autonomy argument. You even referenced how they could just have the baby at that point, but you are fine with killing it even though it is quite far along.

I said very clearly that I couldn't answer because I have never been in that position.

 

[tall73]

The woman is not responsible for the man inseminating her.

Why don't you just say the woman has no responsibility for anything and has no agency, that events just befall her? She was describing consensual penetrative sex between a fertile man and a fertile woman. If she deludes herself into thinking that doesn't risk pregnancy, what more can be said? The woman is self-deceived, or gaslighting the reader.

Please, tell me how a woman can get pregnant if the man does NOT [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

She told you in the article.

And you blame the woman when it's the man who can't pull out in time.

Of course I hold both responsible, because they both agreed to engage in sex with the possibility of life. All contraceptive methods have a failure rate.

But in this case I certainly wonder at her logic

Under ideal circumstances it has a failure rate of four percent. Seminal fluid can be present prior to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], which she admits. And she knows that in practice it has a far higher rate. She knows all of this going in, and signs up for it anyway. That is a choice to risk pregnancy.


Article:
Let’s move to the topic of responsibility. Often, men don’t know, don’t ask, and don’t think to ask if they’ve caused a pregnancy.

tall73 said: ↑
Perhaps stop having sex with men who are not part of your life.

Oh yes, because no unwanted pregnancy ever happened because a woman slept with a man who was a part of her life.

Who said that? I said that penetrative sex between a fertile man and woman has the capacity to produce life, even with contraceptives.

She was complaining that men don't ask about or notice pregnancy. If she is sharing her life with the person she has sex with, then that person is there to see the pregnancy.

If she is hooking up with folks who, by her description, put their pleasure before her health, does she really think they will call and ask about pregnancy?

The woman's actions? What does a woman do that makes it inevitable that she gets pregnant?

Inevitable? I did not say inevitable.

She is describing consensual penetrative sex between a fertile man and woman. I have stated a number of times that when you engage in that there is a CHANCE of pregnancy. And she knows it. She even knows the percentages. And she willingly engages in the action. But she only places blame on the man.

That is called denial of reality.

Both parties engage in the act, knowing the risk, and both have a responsibility to the child. You admitted it in the case of the man with child support. But you deny it for her. She DOES have agency in consensual sex scenarios. Her stating otherwise is either self-deception or intentional gaslighting of the reader.

I'm not going to go through the rest of your post, because it's the same old stuff that happens when we let religion decide what is right and wrong about sex.

Failure rates of contraception are published.

And even you admitted that the man is responsible for child support when consenting to sex that led to pregnancy.

Religion is not necessary to comprehend any of that. Nor is it necessary to realize that both people in a consensual sexual arrangement play a role, and have responsibility. If someone does not want to take on that risk, they should not engage in the acts that lead to it.

You have outlined a variety of other things people do to avoid penetrative sex between a fertile man and woman.

 

[tall73]

I said very clearly that I couldn't answer because I have never been in that position.

And by doing so you invalidated your earlier argument about bodily autonomy. The child at that point is developed and should have the right to it. But you now say you can't answer whether the child does because you have never been in that position.

 

[tall73]

After all, you never answered my question from post 277: Would you oppose an abortion before 13 weeks (the point at which you suggested a fetus can feel pain?

I have stated throughout that the fertilized egg is a unique human life, with its own DNA, and is valuable. It should be protected. That is my standard.

In responding to your own suggested principle of bodily autonomy I said a child that withdraws from pain during an abortion is an example of not wanting bodily autonomy violated, because the child is demonstrating that it does not want the procedure.

I was employing an example using your own standard of bodily autonomy to see if you would actually stand by it. You didn't.

 

[Kylie]

I have stated throughout that the fertilized egg is a unique human life, with its own DNA, and is valuable. It should be protected. That is my standard.

This standard has you conferring the rights of personhood one a brain dead body on life support.

In responding to your own suggested principle of bodily autonomy I said a child that withdraws from pain during an abortion is an example of not wanting bodily autonomy violated, because the child is demonstrating that it does not want the procedure.

My source discusses this exact thing. Apparently you didn't read it.

 

[o_mlly]

Ah, you see, I have this crazy idea ...

Yes, we know you do but so far efforts to disabuse you of it have failed. I leave this thread cautioning you to avoid granaries.
Mt 18:6–7; Mk 9:42; Lk 17:1–2.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, we know you do but so far efforts to disabuse you of it have failed. I leave this thread cautioning you to avoid granaries.
Mt 18:6–7; Mk 9:42; Lk 17:1–2.

You want to disabuse me of the idea that if you quote me you are talking to me?

Yeah, there's really no point in talking to you anymore.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

I have stated throughout that the fertilized egg is a unique human life, with its own DNA, and is valuable. It should be protected. That is my standard.

This standard has you conferring the rights of personhood one a brain dead body on life support.

I think that is a fair critique.

However, part of the value is that the child is developing, barring some other circumstance, towards brain function. Developing towards brain function is not the same as someone who is beyond the possibility of further brain function when considering artificial life support.

So I would not see those as parallel. But perhaps I need to include in the standard some notion of the development.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑
In responding to your own suggested principle of bodily autonomy I said a child that withdraws from pain during an abortion is an example of not wanting bodily autonomy violated, because the child is demonstrating that it does not want the procedure.

My source discusses this exact thing.

The article notes that reflexively pulling away may not indicate pain.

However, in recent conversation we were discussing late abortions in the context of cryptic pregnancy. If we are at the point where even your article acknowledges that a child can feel pain then the pain of having a limb ripped off is probably not just a reflex.

So let's take another case study and see if you apply your standard:

They had abortions late in their pregnancies. These are their stories | CNN

This article relates the story of "Katherine" (a pseudonym) who had confirmation of pregnancy at 30 weeks, originally at a crisis pregnancy center that discouraged abortion, then confirmed by an abortion clinic. They helped her arrange an abortion in New Mexico some days later, at least three, but it is not clear exactly how much time elapsed between the two assessments.

“There’s a place where they can pay you for college, and you can stay there to have the baby,” Katherine remembered a woman at the clinic told her.

Maybe that was an option, she thought at first, but it wasn’t what she wanted. She’d bring a baby into the world only if it had its parents, both of them.

- She had to go through the pain of labor with this abortion.

- The child was at the point where feeling pain was possible

- The child had a high likelyhood of survival at that stage of development.

Was it moral to abort the child?

 

[tall73]

Ah, you see, I have this crazy idea that if you quote a post of mine then you're actually talking to me.

While quoting may indicate @o_mlly wants to speak to you, given the context of the conversation being in a public forum, he may simply want to address your assertions for others.

 

[tall73]

Yet another strawman. Being open to procreation is not the same as intending procreation.

I suppose such distinctions don't matter given the overall viewpoint.

She denies any responsibility for one party, and places one hundred percent on the other party, both engaging in the same act, knowing that it could lead to pregnancy.

She posted an article where a woman discussed consensual sex, detailing the percentage chance of pregnancy associated with particular birth control methods.

The woman in the article then claimed a woman engaging in such sex had ZERO responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy resulting from that, but the man who had sex with the woman in that situation had 100 percent responsibility.

In other words, the conclusion is not based on an assessment of the actual choices made, but on an ideology that men are responsible for women's problems, and women have no agency or responsibility for their own decisions and actions.

 

[tall73]

You seem unfamiliar with the concept of a hypothetical.

I am familiar with it. I am noting that I wouldn't go there, and they shouldn't exist.

But even if we overlook that, your hypothetical still has some issues.

Fertilized eggs in such a facility are usually bound by legal constraints, determined by the couple.

They are often thawed and destroyed, or donated to scientific research, etc.

I do not have time to look up legal agreements when making this decision. The baby, if rescued, will be saved from death. The embryos may well not be saved from death in a setting where they are frequently destroyed.

Facilities that create human lives only to be destroyed should not exist.

 

[rturner76]

You should not be forced by law but by your conscience

 

[Kylie]

tall73 said: ↑

I have stated throughout that the fertilized egg is a unique human life, with its own DNA, and is valuable. It should be protected. That is my standard.



I think that is a fair critique.

However, part of the value is that the child is developing, barring some other circumstance, towards brain function. Developing towards brain function is not the same as someone who is beyond the possibility of further brain function when considering artificial life support.

So I would not see those as parallel. But perhaps I need to include in the standard some notion of the development.

I think that the need to included contingencies for such circumstances shows that your position is not very strong. I mean, can you imagine if that sort of thing was done in other areas? "Yes, two positive numbers always has a result that is higher than the two numbers, except on Tuesdays when leaves are on the ground..."

 

[Kylie]

tall73 said: ↑
In responding to your own suggested principle of bodily autonomy I said a child that withdraws from pain during an abortion is an example of not wanting bodily autonomy violated, because the child is demonstrating that it does not want the procedure.



The article notes that reflexively pulling away may not indicate pain.

However, in recent conversation we were discussing late abortions in the context of cryptic pregnancy. If we are at the point where even your article acknowledges that a child can feel pain then the pain of having a limb ripped off is probably not just a reflex.

So let's take another case study and see if you apply your standard:

They had abortions late in their pregnancies. These are their stories | CNN

This article relates the story of "Katherine" (a pseudonym) who had confirmation of pregnancy at 30 weeks, originally at a crisis pregnancy center that discouraged abortion, then confirmed by an abortion clinic. They helped her arrange an abortion in New Mexico some days later, at least three, but it is not clear exactly how much time elapsed between the two assessments.

“There’s a place where they can pay you for college, and you can stay there to have the baby,” Katherine remembered a woman at the clinic told her.

Maybe that was an option, she thought at first, but it wasn’t what she wanted. She’d bring a baby into the world only if it had its parents, both of them.

- She had to go through the pain of labor with this abortion.

- The child was at the point where feeling pain was possible

- The child had a high likelyhood of survival at that stage of development.

Was it moral to abort the child?

You seem to have resorted to exceptionally rare cases in order to support a general conclusion. This suggests that your position is not very strong.

I mean, even if I agree with you here (and I'm not saying I do, since, as I've said, I can't speak to the experience that these women were going through), the idea that a late term abortion for non-medical reasons is immoral says nothing about abortions in other cases, since these late term abortions for non-medical reasons make up only the tiniest minority of abortions. You can't use such rare cases to make a blanket judgement of ALL abortions. That's like saying that since some drivers have deliberately run people off the road, no one should ever be allowed to drive a car.

 

[Kylie]

While quoting may indicate @o_mlly wants to speak to you, given the context of the conversation being in a public forum, he may simply want to address your assertions for others.

If that was the case, then he should have indicated that.

 

[Kylie]

I am familiar with it. I am noting that I wouldn't go there, and they shouldn't exist.

But even if we overlook that, your hypothetical still has some issues.

Fertilized eggs in such a facility are usually bound by legal constraints, determined by the couple.

They are often thawed and destroyed, or donated to scientific research, etc.

I do not have time to look up legal agreements when making this decision. The baby, if rescued, will be saved from death. The embryos may well not be saved from death in a setting where they are frequently destroyed.

Facilities that create human lives only to be destroyed should not exist.

Irrelevant, since we are not talking about what the facility does, but rather your view of their worth. And you've made it clear that you value the fertilized embryos just as much as a toddler.

 

[tall73]

I think that the need to included contingencies for such circumstances shows that your position is not very strong. I mean, can you imagine if that sort of thing was done in other areas? "Yes, two positive numbers always has a result that is higher than the two numbers, except on Tuesdays when leaves are on the ground..."

I would hardly say recognizing the difference between developing a brain and never having brain function again is some random exception. They are different things.

Meanwhile, you came up with the "person" designation because human didn't work, and then you can't even define what "personhood" means.

Mine has a biological reality, new unique life, with DNA being the beginning of protection, going until life is no longer possible, whether that is actual death or brain death.

 

[tall73]

You seem to have resorted to exceptionally rare cases in order to support a general conclusion. This suggests that your position is not very strong.

I mean, even if I agree with you here (and I'm not saying I do, since, as I've said, I can't speak to the experience that these women were going through), the idea that a late term abortion for non-medical reasons is immoral says nothing about abortions in other cases, since these late term abortions for non-medical reasons make up only the tiniest minority of abortions. You can't use such rare cases to make a blanket judgement of ALL abortions.

I am not making the argument just about that. I made the argument about the unique life with its own DNA starting at conception.

What I was doing with this case was testing what you claimed was your standard. And SURPRISE, you can't find a single abortion that you can say you disagree with, even when it is viable, can feel pain, etc. despite you making an argument about bodily autonomy.

 

[Kylie]

I would hardly say recognizing the difference between developing a brain and never having brain function again is some random exception. They are different things.

Meanwhile, you came up with the "person" designation because human didn't work, and then you can't even define what "personhood" means.

Mine has a biological reality, new unique life, with DNA being the beginning of protection, going until life is no longer possible, whether that is actual death or brain death.

Are you going to keep going on with this silly quibbling over what word I used instead of addressing the actual meaning of my posts?