We need to deal with tangible numbers and statistics, to see exactly in what sort of proportion that compares with other considerations. If a woman has a 0.05 percent chance of dying if she gives birth, but a 0.04 percent chance of dying from abortion (0.05 - 0.04 = 0.01), then I would say it's disingenuous to talk about "needing" an abortion due to risk to life.
I question whether those Christian Democrats are even a real Christian party if they're perfectly okay with abortion at 18 weeks. Sounds like a similar situation to the "Holy Roman Empire" to me. (see quote by Voltaire on that)
Not every woman is in imminent danger of dying from a pregnancy. If you look at the statistics, women these days are more likely to die in an automobile accident than die from pregnancy.
Depends on the math. There is an area of statistical mathematics called game theory that can be used to determine the most optimal choice for chance of best outcome, in such situations. Still, there is a difference between deontological and ontological approach to morality, but in this sort of situation I'd be willing to concede to the woman her choice between them. (assuming the choice based on outcome is supported by game theory, intending to maximize life)
she could be committed to a psychiatric institution for trying to intentionally harm "her" brain. (If you argue the fetus is part of the woman's body then isn't it also true it is "her" brain in the fetus? Let's be consistent here...)
I don't believe the state legislature has ANY business making that call. At all. Such a decision directly affects the woman and she has a doctor. She may also have a family. Various doctors have various opinions about levels of risk, etc.
Don't you believe there is some extreme point where the call should be made? I mean, focus on only the severest types of abuses.
And she'll probably shop around until she finds a doctor who will say what she wants to hear. Even if that means passing over 10 other doctors. I mean, it's not like she is given one doctor at random and then has to follow through with what that doctor tells her. So this idea that the doctor has something to do with it is kind of ridiculous.
But, the physical risk to the woman is only a fraction of the concern. And, the fact that in most cases that may not be a deciding factor in favor of abortion is irrelevant. You are STILL suggesing that this call be made by the legislature. And, turning this over to the legislature, which is NOT made up of doctors, psychologists, those at risk, etc., is just not acceptable. Beyond that, it is perfectly acceptable for the woman to have a VERY different view of what a fetus is, based on their religious views that simply do not match yours. You're still trying to impose YOUR religious beliefs on others using our legeslative and judicial systems.
Problem easily solved. We could appoint a panel of impartial doctors and embryologists to set the public policy for us. Maybe even a few philosophers to weigh in on the ethical considerations.
I wasn't aware her beliefs mattered. She could believe flying spaghetti meatball monsters are falling from the sky. (Again, we're not talking about forcing her to partake in something she believes is morally wrong, since no woman believes not getting an abortion is an evil thing)
I would say rape and incest are severe types of abuses. And, only the woman knows if it was rape. The legislature does not know. Not even the doctor can determine that it wasn't rape or incest. I might have my preferences, but this is an issue for the WOMAN - not for the legislature. One can't just "focus on the severest types of auses", because no laws proposed by any legislature look at it that way. YOU don't look at it that way! But, you want me to.
That second sentence is a statement that you don't give a crap WHAT she believes. Yet, you want YOUR beliefs to be imposed on all pregnant women throughout the USA. Seriously. You need to think about that.
Tell you what, if she's willing to not impose her beliefs on the fetus, I'm willing to return the favor.
What happens when two persons cannot just go their separate ways? My right to decide who's in government very much can conflict with your right to decide who's in government. So we compromise by sticking to the principles of equality - you get one vote and I get one vote. Equality: where everyone's rights are equal (theoretically). You would agree it is a violation of the rights of a newborn baby to be molested, correct? (rhetorical question) We know that conjoined twins, for instance, still have rights, even though they may not be entirely individuated and able to go their own separate ways.
That doesn't solve anything at all. They still represent the legislature, NOT the woman. You still want to use the power of our legislature and judiciary to force YOUR personal moral values on an individual. Your "a few philosophers" idea is pretty hilarious, though. I can just see THAT in a court of law somewhere. Are you aware that more than 70% of Americans are in favor retaining Roe v. Wade? What we have today is certain states figuring out ways to make it impossible or difficult for poor people to get abortions or pre and post natal care while ensuring that the wealthy have full access. The Anti-Choice, Anti-Healthcare crowd is turning this into just one more assault on the poor and minorities. And, the fact that they look at ONLY laws against women as a way of reducing abortions is just more proof that this isn't a real issue of morality. If it were, demanding preposterous laws against the poor would NOT be the sum total of their approach as is YOUR approach today.
So any decision that directly affects a person should not be the call of a legislature, you are saying?
Oh... can't believe you're going there. Tell you what, would you stop complaining if pro-life conservatives carved out an exception for them? Or would that be all the more racist?
I have NO MORTAL IDEA of what you are saying here, except that you think it is fine to have the legislature involved in a woman's decision. The legislatures of our country can keep their hands OFF what is going on inside a person's body. And, I asolutely do NOT accept that except for the case that the fetus is viable - which is a vanishingly small percent of cases.
Maybe our society should lend more credence & prestige to philosophers and theologians than they currently have. You know in old times, under the Babylonian and Persian Empires they had "wise men", a group of special highly learned people employed by the king's court, to help advise him in various special matters.
The only persons being discussed here are women. And, yes - legislatures can keep the heck out of what is going on inside their bodies.
What about outside a person's body? Is inside and outside so different? If I hug and completely wrap my body around a little baby, it doesn't make that baby a part of my body, even though one could arguably say it was geometrically "inside" me.
