Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Lucidus]

If an individual - either accidentally or purposefully - shoots someone, should they be required by law to allow the person they shot to use their blood / organs to save or sustain their life? Should the right to life of the person who was shot supersede the bodily autonomy of the shooter?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2023, 04:17 PM)Lucidus Wrote: If an individual - either accidentally or purposefully - shoots someone, should they be required by law to allow the person they shot to use their blood / organs to save or sustain their life? Should the right to life of the person who was shot supersede the bodily autonomy of the shooter?

I get what you're going for here, but this is a poor analogy.  Your analogy would be more apt if the person who shot the other (the mother) was the person who got to make the medical decisions for the person who was shot.  Who on Earth would be in favor of that?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-13-2023, 04:17 PM)Lucidus Wrote: If an individual - either accidentally or purposefully - shoots someone, should they be required by law to allow the person they shot to use their blood / organs to save or sustain their life? Should the right to life of the person who was shot supersede the bodily autonomy of the shooter?

Never thought of that. I’m going to go with yes. The shooter already decided it’s ok to exert bodily autonomy over another.

[Lucidus]

(06-13-2023, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get what you're going for here, but this is a poor analogy.  Your analogy would be more apt if the person who shot the other (the mother) was the person who got to make the medical decisions for the person who was shot.  Who on Earth would be in favor of that?

Let's use an even more precise scenario:

A child will die very soon if they don't get a new kidney.
Their mother is the only suitable match for a transplant.
She is in charge of all medical decisions involving the child.
The mother must decide whether or not to allow the child use her kidney.
Said decision will result in the child's life ending or continuing.

Does the child's right to life supersede the mother's right to autonomy?
Should the mother have the right to make that decision according to her own volition?
Would you support or oppose legislative action that would seek to take the decision away from her? 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-13-2023, 05:49 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Let's use an even more precise scenario:

A child will die very soon if they don't get a new kidney.
Their mother is the only suitable match for a transplant.
She is in charge of all medical decisions involving the child.
The mother must decide whether or not to allow the child use her kidney.
Said decision will result in the child's life ending or continuing.

Does the child's right to life supersede the mother's right to autonomy?
Should the mother have the right to make that decision according to her own volition?
Would you support or oppose legislative action that would seek to take the decision away from her? 

At which point is the mother actively killing the child? I'm a reformed pro-lifer, but gotta have a little loyalty. People can make and live with their own decisions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2023, 05:49 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Let's use an even more precise scenario:

A child will die very soon if they don't get a new kidney.
Their mother is the only suitable match for a transplant.
She is in charge of all medical decisions involving the child.
The mother must decide whether or not to allow the child use her kidney.
Said decision will result in the child's life ending or continuing.

Does the child's right to life supersede the mother's right to autonomy?
Should the mother have the right to make that decision according to her own volition?
Would you support or oppose legislative action that would seek to take the decision away from her? 

Michaelsean just answered this above, but I'll expound a bit.  You're asserting there is no difference between a death by action and inaction.  In one instance the mother is deciding not to take an action to save the child's life.  In the other, abortion, she is taking an action to deliberately end the child's life.  They are not the same.

If I push you off a cliff and you grab the edge and I don't help you up I caused your death.  If I walk by and see you hanging from the edge of a cliff, don't help you and you fall to your death I failed to prevent your death.  I trust you see the vast difference between these two choices.

[KillerGoose]

(06-13-2023, 05:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Michaelsean just answered this above, but I'll expound a bit.  You're asserting there is no difference between a death by action and inaction.  In one instance the mother is deciding not to take an action to save the child's life.  In the other, abortion, she is taking an action to deliberately end the child's life.  They are not the same.

If I push you off a cliff and you grab the edge and I don't help you up I caused your death.  If I walk by and see you hanging from the edge of a cliff, don't help you and you fall to your death I failed to prevent your death.  I trust you see the vast difference between these two choices.

I agree with your thoughts here. While I think that this hypothetical you has played an active role in my death in varying degrees in both scenarios, the version where you actively pull the trigger bears more blame than the version who simply allowed me to die.

I do think we can construct an analogy that fits and perhaps causes some conflict. Let’s say you willingly enter a blood drive so that you may donate blood. The process begins, and at some point during the process you are informed that you have an incredibly rare type of blood. As chance would have it, there is a person in the hospital who also has this rare blood type and is in dire need of a transfusion, as well as future transfusions. Given the unique situation, they have wheeled this individual down and they are now using you to keep them alive without discussing with you first. Without you there, the person will surely die.

Do you believe that you should be mandated to now stay and support this person through your own bodily means, or should you have a choice of whether or not you do so?

Also, just a note that I find these philosophical discussions interesting so this isn’t coming from a place of malice or a “gotcha” attempt. I’m just trying to construct an intellectually honest analogy, one where I feel like there is potential to create conflict in a situation that many see as black and white.

[*pally*]

Here is a scenario...

woman, a current mother of 3, is 22 weeks pregnant
She is diagnosed with cancer that will require chemotherapy and radiation to cure. Radiation and chemotherapy will kill the unborn fetus. She is in no immediate danger but she risks her cancer spreading and even potentially death (leaving her living children without a mother), should she postpone treatment. The doctor recommends termination so they can start treatment immediately

She lives in Florida

Should she be able to have a termination?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2023, 06:24 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I agree with your thoughts here. While I think that this hypothetical you has played an active role in my death in varying degrees in both scenarios, the version where you actively pull the trigger bears more blame than the version who simply allowed me to die.

I do think we can construct an analogy that fits and perhaps causes some conflict. Let’s say you willingly enter a blood drive so that you may donate blood. The process begins, and at some point during the process you are informed that you have an incredibly rare type of blood. As chance would have it, there is a person in the hospital who also has this rare blood type and is in dire need of a transfusion, as well as future transfusions. Given the unique situation, they have wheeled this individual down and they are now using you to keep them alive without discussing with you first. Without you there, the person will surely die.

Do you believe that you should be mandated to now stay and support this person through your own bodily means, or should you have a choice of whether or not you do so?

Also, just a note that I find these philosophical discussions interesting so this isn’t coming from a place of malice or a “gotcha” attempt. I’m just trying to construct an intellectually honest analogy, one where I feel like there is potential to create conflict in a situation that many see as black and white.

What you're describing is the exact same thing as walking by and seeing a person hanging from a cliff.  If you don't help them you can be described as contributing to their death by not helping, but you did not cause their death.  This is different then causing them to hang from the cliff in the first place.  In answer to your question, my answer is, no.  No one should be compelled to assist or aid anyone, even if it may cause that person's death.  I am huge on personal freedom, I think taking away a person's freedom is the absolute worse thing you can do to them.  That's why I think life imprisonment with no parole is a far worse punishment than the death penalty.

If we apply this logic to abortion it would be along the line of, your baby is going to die unless you submit to a very risky medical procedure and the mother refuses.  This is wildly different then having an elective abortion, even if the end result is the same.

[KillerGoose]

(06-13-2023, 07:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What you're describing is the exact same thing as walking by and seeing a person hanging from a cliff.  If you don't help them you can be described as contributing to their death by not helping, but you did not cause their death.  This is different then causing them to hang from the cliff in the first place.  In answer to your question, my answer is, no.  No one should be compelled to assist or aid anyone, even if it may cause that person's death.  I am huge on personal freedom, I think taking away a person's freedom is the absolute worse thing you can do to them.  That's why I think life imprisonment with no parole is a far worse punishment than the death penalty.

If we apply this logic to abortion it would be along the line of, your baby is going to die unless you submit to a very risky medical procedure and the mother refuses.  This is wildly different then having an elective abortion, even if the end result is the same.

I'm not sure I agree that it is the same. In the cliff scenario, you are not actively helping them. You are aware that they need assistance, but you have not rendered them any aid. It is a death by inaction. However, in my described scenario, you are rendering them aid, albeit against your will. You have been connected and are providing them with your blood. Now, you have the choice to discontinue that aid but with the knowledge that doing so will kill them. You are playing a more active role in their death should you make that choice.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2023, 07:47 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I'm not sure I agree that it is the same. In the cliff scenario, you are not actively helping them. You are aware that they need assistance, but you have not rendered them any aid. It is a death by inaction. However, in my described scenario, you are rendering them aid, albeit against your will. You have been connected and are providing them with your blood. Now, you have the choice to discontinue that aid but with the knowledge that doing so will kill them. You are playing a more active role in their death should you make that choice.

OK, yeah I'll concede the difference.  I still think your decision to stop helping is an inaction on your part.  Compelled action is the issue at hand.  Continuing to help is an action.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-13-2023, 06:24 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I agree with your thoughts here. While I think that this hypothetical you has played an active role in my death in varying degrees in both scenarios, the version where you actively pull the trigger bears more blame than the version who simply allowed me to die.

I do think we can construct an analogy that fits and perhaps causes some conflict. Let’s say you willingly enter a blood drive so that you may donate blood. The process begins, and at some point during the process you are informed that you have an incredibly rare type of blood. As chance would have it, there is a person in the hospital who also has this rare blood type and is in dire need of a transfusion, as well as future transfusions. Given the unique situation, they have wheeled this individual down and they are now using you to keep them alive without discussing with you first. Without you there, the person will surely die.

Do you believe that you should be mandated to now stay and support this person through your own bodily means, or should you have a choice of whether or not you do so?

Also, just a note that I find these philosophical discussions interesting so this isn’t coming from a place of malice or a “gotcha” attempt. I’m just trying to construct an intellectually honest analogy, one where I feel like there is potential to create conflict in a situation that many see as black and white.

The problem is really is no good analogy. It is a unique situation. While I would never associate myself with pro-choice and their stereotyping and demonizing an entire group , I do believe that abortion should be legal. I discovered that I personally don’t consider the fetus equal to a child. I’m appalled when people kill or try to kill abortion doctors. I wouldn’t blink an eye if someone killed a child murderer. So I had to conclude that my opposition to abortion doesn’t fit what I feel deep down. But it’s nothing I’m proud of. I can’t think of another area where someone would change positions and be disgusted by it. No analogy fits.

[KillerGoose]

(06-13-2023, 07:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The problem is really is no good analogy. It is a unique situation. While I would never associate myself with pro-choice and their stereotyping and demonizing an entire group , I do believe that abortion should be legal. I discovered that I personally don’t consider the fetus equal to a child. I’m appalled when people kill or try to kill abortion doctors. I wouldn’t blink an eye if someone killed a child murderer. So I had to conclude that my opposition to abortion doesn’t fit what I feel deep down. But it’s nothing I’m proud of. I can’t think of another area where someone would change positions and be disgusted by it. No analogy fits.

You’re right, or course. Abortion is a unique situation and one that is incredibly mentally taxing for the individual. I think we can craft scenarios that create a similar moral conflict, but there is no perfect analogy.

[KillerGoose]

(06-13-2023, 07:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OK, yeah I'll concede the difference.  I still think your decision to stop helping is an inaction on your part.  Compelled action is the issue at hand.  Continuing to help is an action.

I see your point. I think it could be argued inaction is a compelled action, but I do think the scenarios are different. Again, I wouldn’t impose the same moral penalty on a person who chose to let you fall off the cliff as the person who chose to push you off the cliff. I would at least argue that actively choosing to not help would be a compelled action. If I chose to stand there and watch you fall, I contributed to your death in an indirect way. If I choose to help you, only to reconsider in the middle of it and let you go, I have played a much more active role in your death, even if it doesn’t carry the same malicious intent as pushing you off to begin with.

[samhain]

Abortion is never a pretty option regardless of the situation. Ideally, all families are planned and kids are born healthy to healthy, expectant parents with the means to care for them into legal adulthood. Unfortunately, the scenario I just described is rarer than people might think (or not).

The fact that people just can't seem to accept out loud while simultaneously accepting it through their actions as a society is this: People copulate for fun. In fact, people copulate for fun a hell of a lot more than they copulate to procreate. This is absolutely undeniable. They do it with people, often times multiple, that they have zero intention of having kids with. They do it for sometimes decades on end. It's damn near a sport for ones that are particularly adept at it. Sexual pleasure drives the very existence of more people than we might want to even admit, especially early in adult life.

The consequence of this is pregnancy. Lots of it. A great deal of it of the unwanted variety. Some people slog through it and make a good life out of raising a family with someone they never dreamed of marrying. Others try, fail, and pay significant emotional and financial prices, as do their offspring born into reluctant arrangements.

Intercouse drives advertising. It drives the things we buy, ie cars and clothes as status symbols. people don't even limit their interests to their owns pursuits, as they talk incessantly about the carnal activities of people they may or may not be acquainted with.

Outside of money, sex for pleasure is probably the single biggest driver of human motivations, with violence possibly being a close third.

In this kind of world, abortion is a need, not a want. It's not a position, it's a necessary aspect of healthcare. Much like guns and drugs, abortions will be obtained through illegal means regardless of legislation. That's not an acceptable situation in developed society.

[Leon]

if you take a life on purpose you go to jail. only acception is rape or incest. thats it. it should be that simple. murder is murder.

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2023, 07:06 PM)Leon Wrote: if you take a life on purpose you go to jail. only acception is rape or incest. thats it. it should be that simple. murder is murder.

Why should children who are sired via rape and incest through no fault of their own be subject to a death that "legitimate" children are not?  I don't get this.  Don't kill a baby!  Oh wait, she said no...ok, get out the vaccum...sorry kid, your ol' man is a rapist.

[Leon]

(06-14-2023, 07:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Why should children who are sired via rape and incest through no fault of their own be subject to a death that "legitimate" children are not?  I don't get this.  Don't kill a baby!  Oh wait, she said no...ok, get out the vaccum...sorry kid, your ol' man is a rapist.

cause the woman did nothing to create the life. shes not responsible for a crime put on her. 

if you go to the pound and get a puppy you are responsible for it.. if a puppy was dropped of on your porch its up to you weather to be responsible for it or not. this aint complicated. folks just make it that way.

[*Nately120*]

(06-14-2023, 07:40 PM)Leon Wrote: cause the woman did nothing to create the life. shes not responsible for a crime put on her. 

if you go to the pound and get a puppy you are responsible for it.. if a puppy was dropped of on your porch its up to you weather to be responsible for it or not. this aint complicated. folks just make it that way.

I have to admit, when you compare rape to a puppy being left on one's doorstep it does give the whole thing a more simplified spin.

[Leon]

(06-14-2023, 08:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I have to admit, when you compare rape to a puppy being left on one's doorstep it does give the whole thing a more simplified spin.

you know dang well i wasnt comparing rape to a puppy. do better