|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:15 pm
WatersMoon110 That's true. But, from my persepective, since no born person has the right to use the body of another person against their will, no unborn person (if unborn humans were given the legal status of personhood - thus I will say "unborn person" as this theoretically has already happened for the hypothesis of this thread) would gain that right either. The reason why no born person can use someone else's body against their will is because in every case that it can happen, it happens to be illegal. There's not blanket law that covers all of these cases, they are illegal seperately. And pregnancy is unique in that it isn't illegal. WatersMoon110 Well no, non-pregnant women would have the right to deny use of their body to anyone, which would be lost when they get pregnant, if abortion was illegal. I guess this depends on how you look at it because pregnant women could still deny the use of their bodies to the same people that non-pregnant women could. WatersMoon110 In my opinion, this would be more a case similar to not donating life saving organs or marrow, that of just killing someone because one feels like it. The unborn person would need the use of the uterus, and the use of the woman's nutrients. The woman doesn't wish to be pregnant or to give those things to the unborn person. The only way to stop this is to remove the unborn person, which results in their death if viability hasn't yet been reached. There is a difference between doing something and not doing something. Not donating organs or bone marrow isn't really killing anyone, it just simply isn't helping. Having an abortion goes beyond simply not helping. WatersMoon110 Well, yes. But most pregnant women choose to keep their pregnancies. However, for women who don't want to remain pregnant, telling them that pregnancy usually doesn't have many complications isn't really the best of ideas. *wink* Hmm, what would you suggest then? *cough, cough*
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:31 pm
WatersMoon110 That is true, Roe v. Wade was eventually decided on the Right to Privacy. But the majority of Pro-Choicers (that I know of, at least) believe that it falls more correctly under the Right to Bodily Integrity. And I'm sure it will fall there, once right to bodily integrity is recognise by our lawmakers. WatersMoon110 I don't know about that. There are plenty of rights that lead to harming people that didn't do anything wrong. If someone runs out directly in front of my car, and it is shown that I had no time to stop, even though that person might be hurt or killed, I would still not be punished. I believe that's called unavoidable consequence. If there's nothing that you could have done about it, you're not really at fault. WatersMoon110 I can choose not to donate blood, even though someone out there might die because of a lack of my blood type. In this case you're not really killing. Just, not helping. WatersMoon110 Corporations have the right to pay their employees the minimum wage, even though some families would suffer because they can't afford their basic necessities. The corporations are actually helping a little (as oppose the families not getting any money) so they are not actually causing harm, just not helping as much as would be needed. WatersMoon110 Heck, if we look into mental harm, churches have the right to deny membership to anyone, and the right to not marry couples - that could be considered harm. Not really. Well, the people could take it badly, but then they're really harming themselves. Anyways, I now realise that I should reword my statement. XD How about "you can't actively harm someone yourself".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:42 pm
Tyshia2
@ Conren :: I haven't been able to find a source that has the full case of Roe vs Wade. Do you know where I can find it? I really would love to study it. is where I read about it. mrgreen However it does link to other sites that probably have more in-dept information. Tyshia2 Anyway: That isn't necessarily true. Many rights we have, we can use even if it harms someone else. But I'm familiar with your point. But if a fetus is considered a person, can its actions [inhabiting and using the mother's body against her wishes] be considered crimes? Of course it can't be charged with them, but would they still be crimes? (Oh jeez, here comes the whole debate from the other thread again. Haha, sweatdrop .) Well, they could be considered crimes. I don't see something being criminalised with no intention of enforcing it ever happening. Plus I'm still not sure if self-defense can be used on someone under the ACR, so even if it is criminalize, abortion may still not be a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:27 pm
Conren The reason why no born person can use someone else's body against their will is because in every case that it can happen, it happens to be illegal. There's not blanket law that covers all of these cases, they are illegal seperately. And pregnancy is unique in that it isn't illegal. No, there's cases like McFall v. Shimp, where a man was ruled to not have to donate bone marrow to save the life of his cousin. Conren I guess this depends on how you look at it because pregnant women could still deny the use of their bodies to the same people that non-pregnant women could. That's true. Conren There is a difference between doing something and not doing something. Not donating organs or bone marrow isn't really killing anyone, it just simply isn't helping. Having an abortion goes beyond simply not helping. Not really true. Someone out there might die because there wasn't enough blood, or kidneys or live or bone marrow to go around, and I could very well be a perfect match. But you are right, abortion actively ends a life that one is acquainted with, but for the most part (except in rare cases like McFall) people don't meet those who desperately need their organs, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:49 pm
I agree with you on the parts I didn't quote (so I didn't quote them, then thought I should mention why). Conren WatersMoon110 Corporations have the right to pay their employees the minimum wage, even though some families would suffer because they can't afford their basic necessities. The corporations are actually helping a little (as oppose the families not getting any money) so they are not actually causing harm, just not helping as much as would be needed. I don't know about this. I really think that not paying people a living wage is harmful. Not just to the people, but to the whole country, because when people can't afford to use the products they make/sell, who the heck is going to buy those products? Not paying people (even the poor) enough money to live in makes the country bad for everyone. Sorry, that really something for another thread. Conren Anyways, I now realise that I should reword my statement. XD How about "you can't actively harm someone yourself". That sounds a bit better. Though, from a grammar standpoint, you don't need the "yourself" in there. *wink* Also, it's illegal to, say, pay someone to beat up your ex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:08 am
Well, it is illegal to force surgery on a patient. Medical ethics and all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:03 am
Conren Well, it is illegal to force surgery on a patient. Medical ethics and all. That's very true. But when any medical surgery is needed to be done on an unborn human, the pregnant woman has to give consent, not the unborn human (since it can't). Same for small children, actually. When someone is in a coma, say, their closest relative (spouse, often) is required to give consent for them, as well. Not to say that is justification for abortion. Just pointing out that there are other cases where someone has to give consent for another person because that person can't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:09 am
I was actually referring to McFall v. Shimp XD, maybe I should have quoted that.
p.s. you're current look makes me want to pet you >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:04 am
Buy I have seen laws in which the actual DEATH of the person, as in, pulling the plug, cannot be decided by anyone but the person in question. They have to sign a form in release saying either" Keep me alive" or "Let me die", and if they did not put in any information, they are to be kept alive. At least in New Hampshire.
Other decisions, like wether or not to do a risky operation, can be made by the spouse or relative, but not death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:21 am
divineseraph Buy I have seen laws in which the actual DEATH of the person, as in, pulling the plug, cannot be decided by anyone but the person in question. They have to sign a form in release saying either" Keep me alive" or "Let me die", and if they did not put in any information, they are to be kept alive. At least in New Hampshire. Other decisions, like wether or not to do a risky operation, can be made by the spouse or relative, but not death. I'm not sure about all States (I'm pretty sure this is a State by State, and not Federal law), but I was under the impression that "pulling the plug" is something that can be decided by next of kin, based on their knowledge of what the person wanted. Though maybe I should find a release form to sign about this. I, in no way, want to be kept alive if my brain is dead. And I would hate for my husband to be too broken up to make that choice, though I hope it never comes to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:23 am
Conren I was actually referring to McFall v. Shimp XD, maybe I should have quoted that. p.s. you're current look makes me want to pet you >.>That case was decided on bodily integrity as justification for not having to consent to surgery. I want to pet the little kitty-AJ also. *grin*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:24 pm
WatersMoon110 divineseraph Buy I have seen laws in which the actual DEATH of the person, as in, pulling the plug, cannot be decided by anyone but the person in question. They have to sign a form in release saying either" Keep me alive" or "Let me die", and if they did not put in any information, they are to be kept alive. At least in New Hampshire. Other decisions, like wether or not to do a risky operation, can be made by the spouse or relative, but not death. I'm not sure about all States (I'm pretty sure this is a State by State, and not Federal law), but I was under the impression that "pulling the plug" is something that can be decided by next of kin, based on their knowledge of what the person wanted. Though maybe I should find a release form to sign about this. I, in no way, want to be kept alive if my brain is dead. And I would hate for my husband to be too broken up to make that choice, though I hope it never comes to that. I think it was for New Hampshire and maybe another few states. But it's not just for coma. It's also in case the person can't make an informed decision. Such as delusions, dementia, alzheimers, whatnot. Either way, it is proof that laws can be made in the favor of not killing people when they can't make informed decisions. There's probably a better way to say that, but it's late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:30 am
Conren I was actually referring to McFall v. Shimp XD, maybe I should have quoted that. p.s. you're current look makes me want to pet you >.>I wana do more then that honostly XP. I'm a total furvert right now. Dont ask why
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:12 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:18 am
WatersMoon110 "pulling the plug" is something that can be decided by next of kin, based on their knowledge of what the person wanted. Though maybe I should find a release form to sign about this. I, in no way, want to be kept alive if my brain is dead. And I would hate for my husband to be too broken up to make that choice, though I hope it never comes to that. In NY at least... Yes, you must designate a health care proxy, or a judge will pick one for you. If you have specific requests about your health care, they must know about them--and be willing to honour them--or you must have it in writing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
