5 ms·

First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Providing sustenance to

First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Providing sustenance to a fetus is the necessities. This is up to debate, but is not as simple as you are making it out to be. Second, Aquinas was wrong on multiple things according to the Catholic Church. No Catholic believes Aquinas was infallible. Thirdly, you are also (intentionally?) misinterpreting Aquinas. He did not believe ensoulment happened until later in the pregnancy, but was opposed to abortion at any stage because it violated natural law. Fourth, most of Christianity does not believe it is bullshit since the majority of Christians are Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, etc and appear to be in line with their Churches teachings. Maybe you mean the majority of American Christians? If that is what you mean, who cares? It doesn't even matter if it is the majority of Christians in the world. Christianity (well the denominations most Christians are in) are not democracies. Fifth, it doesn't really matter if Christians agree or disagree with abortion. You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. Funny how proabortion people are always the first to bring up religion.

trasz 4y ago
>First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why? >You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones. The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above. Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax. We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why A kidney is not the basic needs that you are obligated to provide. The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter. Donating a kidney goes above and beyond the basic needs. It may be a good thing to do though, but it is above and beyond your obligations. The purpose of your kidney is to support your own body. The purpose of a uterus is to support the baby. I would also say that parents have a stronger obligation to their children than strangers or relatives that are further than your children. Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back. >You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones. Fundamentally untrue. A good resource to learn about this is Secular Prolife. [1] >The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above. Your comment of comparing a kidney and a uterus is derailing the conversion. Your comments about religion is derailing the topic. Prochoicers are always the first to being religion into the abortion conversation. >Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax. Funny how many of the people who accuse others of being antivax are pro vaccine mandate, which could easily be considered a violation of bodily autonomy. Bringing antivax into the conversation is yet another derailing attempt by you. > We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion. Like I said above. You are just wrong. There are millions of nonreligious prolifers. Just because you are ignorant of that fact doesn't mean you are correct. I assume you didn't mean to say just because this issue is "supported" by religions that makes it a religious issue. If so, then are you an advocate of removing murder, theft, rape, etc laws? Religions do support those after all. [1] https://secularprolife.org/ https://secularprolife.org/
  - verall 4y ago
    > The purpose of a uterus is to support the baby. So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth? I'm sorry if I'm not reading this charitably, but I find this argument to be abhorrent. > Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back. Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation[1]. > The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter. Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime. I guess this is fine though, because those uteruses are for babys after all... [0] https://utsystem.edu/offices/population-health/overview/severe-maternal-morbidity-texas https://utsystem.edu/offices/population-health/overview/seve... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089229/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089229/
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      >So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth? I am saying the purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. I wouldn't use this argument to argue against abortion, strictly against your comparison of forced organ donation. >Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation As far as I know if there is a complication they don't remove the kidney after transplant and return it to the person donating the organ. Correct me if I am wrong? If you donate your kidney it is gone forever. If a fetus uses the uterus it will be gone in less than a year. I'm confused what the percentages are for? I think you are reading into what I am saying more than you should. >Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. You are required to either provide directly or find somebody else who can. What you cannot do is leave your born baby outside to die or stab it to death or whatever. When it comes to pregnancy with the current technology you cannot find somebody else to care for the baby and as such you must provide the care yourself. This is the same situation as born children. As far as I know every state allows you to drop a baby at a fire station, but imagine a scenario where you couldn't. There are no orphanages and nobody will take your child. Are you allowed to kill the child? Of course not. If you are unable to get anybody to help provide for your child you have no right to kill it. In a few years artificial wombs will be available and it will change things. People could choose to remove the baby and have it grow in the womb. Somebody else could then be responsible. Until that time comes you have an obligation to provide for your children until an alternative provider can be found.

trasz 4y ago

>First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why? >You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones. The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above. Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax. We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>Nope. If your relative needs a kidney you aren’t forced by law to donate it. Yet you require pregnant people to donate their bodies. Why A kidney is not the basic needs that you are obligated to provide. The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter. Donating a kidney goes above and beyond the basic needs. It may be a good thing to do though, but it is above and beyond your obligations. The purpose of your kidney is to support your own body. The purpose of a uterus is to support the baby. I would also say that parents have a stronger obligation to their children than strangers or relatives that are further than your children. Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back. >You cannot. There are no valid arguments against availability of abortion other than religious ones. Fundamentally untrue. A good resource to learn about this is Secular Prolife. [1] >The ones pretending to be are either based on logical fallacies, or are aimed at derailing the discussion - like your own attempt couple of comments above. Your comment of comparing a kidney and a uterus is derailing the conversion. Your comments about religion is derailing the topic. Prochoicers are always the first to being religion into the abortion conversation. >Once again: supporting abortion ban is no different from antivax. Funny how many of the people who accuse others of being antivax are pro vaccine mandate, which could easily be considered a violation of bodily autonomy. Bringing antivax into the conversation is yet another derailing attempt by you. > We just pretend it isn’t because of political correctness - because this particular fringe theory is supported by major religion. Like I said above. You are just wrong. There are millions of nonreligious prolifers. Just because you are ignorant of that fact doesn't mean you are correct. I assume you didn't mean to say just because this issue is "supported" by religions that makes it a religious issue. If so, then are you an advocate of removing murder, theft, rape, etc laws? Religions do support those after all. [1] https://secularprolife.org/ https://secularprolife.org/
- verall 4y ago
  > The purpose of a uterus is to support the baby. So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth? I'm sorry if I'm not reading this charitably, but I find this argument to be abhorrent. > Another thing to keep in mind is donating a kidney is permanent. You don't get your kidney back. Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation[1]. > The basic needs that one is obligated to provide are food, water, and shelter. Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime. I guess this is fine though, because those uteruses are for babys after all... [0] https://utsystem.edu/offices/population-health/overview/severe-maternal-morbidity-texas https://utsystem.edu/offices/population-health/overview/seve... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089229/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089229/
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >So because women have a uterus and the purpose of a uterus is to support a baby, once a baby is in the uterus a woman is required to carry it to live birth? I am saying the purpose of a uterus is not the same as other organs. I wouldn't use this argument to argue against abortion, strictly against your comparison of forced organ donation. >Unless there are complications? My great state of Texas, which will ban abortion, was found to have a severe maternal morbidity rate of 1.97%[0] while this study I found taken Iran gives a 1.5% rate for severe complications for live donors in a kidney transplantation As far as I know if there is a complication they don't remove the kidney after transplant and return it to the person donating the organ. Correct me if I am wrong? If you donate your kidney it is gone forever. If a fetus uses the uterus it will be gone in less than a year. I'm confused what the percentages are for? I think you are reading into what I am saying more than you should. >Once a baby is born, you are not obligated to provide food, water, and shelter. You have the option to give the baby (or child) up for adoption. When you remove a woman's option for abortion, you put an obligation on her that is greater than her obligation at any point after the child is born and is greater than the obligation a father has to the child at any point in their lifetime. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. You are required to either provide directly or find somebody else who can. What you cannot do is leave your born baby outside to die or stab it to death or whatever. When it comes to pregnancy with the current technology you cannot find somebody else to care for the baby and as such you must provide the care yourself. This is the same situation as born children. As far as I know every state allows you to drop a baby at a fire station, but imagine a scenario where you couldn't. There are no orphanages and nobody will take your child. Are you allowed to kill the child? Of course not. If you are unable to get anybody to help provide for your child you have no right to kill it. In a few years artificial wombs will be available and it will change things. People could choose to remove the baby and have it grow in the womb. Somebody else could then be responsible. Until that time comes you have an obligation to provide for your children until an alternative provider can be found.