Some good that could come out of the Abortion Heartbeat laws?

[Harry Bosch]

I hate to point out the obvious: but liberals have lost the supreme court. It's over. 8 years of Bush and potentially 8 years of Trump has sealed this fate. However, maybe there could be some good things to come out of the draconian laws that are coming? I thought of a few:

1. No more people dying on the Organ Transplant waiting lists. The great new heart beat laws coming from the south mean that women must cede control of their bodies to the government. Well, does this not also apply also to men? Therefore, if people can survive with one kidney, all people who can donate should be forced to do so. Person needs a kidney, the government could find the closest compatible person available at the cheapest price, then bam - do that surgery. Problem solved. Same thing with livers. We know that most kids can survive with half a liver when they are young (the full liver will grow back). Therefore, we should immediately start harvesting livers for older people who need them. This is exciting stuff.

2 If government can force a woman to carry a fetus to term, could government not force women to have abortions? In other words, maybe the government could enforce lower population for forcing abortions? China did this to great effect.

I'd like to hear more great things that could come out of this great expansion of government power over the individual.

 

[barbos]

Well, Judge Kavanaugh knows his liver is no good, so he is safe from government harvesting it.

 

[ZiprHead]

I hate to point out the obvious: but liberals have lost the supreme court. It's over.

Slight derail: I think if the dems win the senate and the presidency, congress should bring up impeachment for perjury for both Kavenaugh and Clarence Thomas.

There's also the fact that there is no specified limit of members of the SCOTUS. In the above situation, two new seats could be created and filled with progressive judges.

 

[fast]

1. No more people dying on the Organ Transplant waiting lists. The great new heart beat laws coming from the south mean that women must cede control of their bodies to the government. Well, does this not also apply also to men? Therefore, if people can survive with one kidney, all people who can donate should be forced to do so.

No, it’s not like that. Any bodily control lost is incidental, not wanting. No one is out to control woman’s bodies. The point of a counterterrorist strike isn’t to kill innocents. The point of giving someone a headache pill isn’t to make them swallow. If swallowing pills is to be avoided at all costs, there are other means to subduing a headache, but there are no other means to prevent the killing of a fetus than to forbid it.

If the goal were to save the fetus, you’d have a point, but neither is it the goal to save the fetus than it is to save a man in need of a kidney. Saving the fetus at all costs, just as saving the man at all costs, is one thing, but taking a course of action where the purpose is simply not to kill, then there is no danger of one being forced to do anything.

I’m not arguing for the laws or anything like that; It’s this “where does it stop at” mindset I’m challenging. You’re looking at a consequence as if it’s the purpose. That’s the problem.

 

[zorq]

1. No more people dying on the Organ Transplant waiting lists. The great new heart beat laws coming from the south mean that women must cede control of their bodies to the government. Well, does this not also apply also to men? Therefore, if people can survive with one kidney, all people who can donate should be forced to do so.

No, it’s not like that. Any bodily control lost is incidental, not wanting. No one is out to control woman’s bodies. The point of a counterterrorist strike isn’t to kill innocents. The point of giving someone a headache pill isn’t to make them swallow. If swallowing pills is to be avoided at all costs, there are other means to subduing a headache, but there are no other means to prevent the killing of a fetus than to forbid it.

If the goal were to save the fetus, you’d have a point, but neither is it the goal to save the fetus than it is to save a man in need of a kidney. Saving the fetus at all costs, just as saving the man at all costs, is one thing, but taking a course of action where the purpose is simply not to kill, then there is no danger of one being forced to do anything.

I’m not arguing for the laws or anything like that; It’s this “where does it stop at” mindset I’m challenging. You’re looking at a consequence as if it’s the purpose. That’s the problem.

How is "saving the fetus" not the purpose of these laws? Really, explain it to me. It looks to me like you are splitting a pretty narrow hair here.

Our society expects us to try to save the kidney patient because he is a contributing member of society. That's a goal, not a consequence.

 

[Harry Bosch]

1. No more people dying on the Organ Transplant waiting lists. The great new heart beat laws coming from the south mean that women must cede control of their bodies to the government. Well, does this not also apply also to men? Therefore, if people can survive with one kidney, all people who can donate should be forced to do so.

No, it’s not like that. Any bodily control lost is incidental, not wanting. No one is out to control woman’s bodies. The point of a counterterrorist strike isn’t to kill innocents. The point of giving someone a headache pill isn’t to make them swallow. If swallowing pills is to be avoided at all costs, there are other means to subduing a headache, but there are no other means to prevent the killing of a fetus than to forbid it.

If the goal were to save the fetus, you’d have a point, but neither is it the goal to save the fetus than it is to save a man in need of a kidney. Saving the fetus at all costs, just as saving the man at all costs, is one thing, but taking a course of action where the purpose is simply not to kill, then there is no danger of one being forced to do anything.

I’m not arguing for the laws or anything like that; It’s this “where does it stop at” mindset I’m challenging. You’re looking at a consequence as if it’s the purpose. That’s the problem.

What's the difference between forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term and forcing a man to donate one of his kidney's to a person who needs it? In both cases the government would compel a person against their will...

 

[fast]

1. No more people dying on the Organ Transplant waiting lists. The great new heart beat laws coming from the south mean that women must cede control of their bodies to the government. Well, does this not also apply also to men? Therefore, if people can survive with one kidney, all people who can donate should be forced to do so.

No, it’s not like that. Any bodily control lost is incidental, not wanting. No one is out to control woman’s bodies. The point of a counterterrorist strike isn’t to kill innocents. The point of giving someone a headache pill isn’t to make them swallow. If swallowing pills is to be avoided at all costs, there are other means to subduing a headache, but there are no other means to prevent the killing of a fetus than to forbid it.

If the goal were to save the fetus, you’d have a point, but neither is it the goal to save the fetus than it is to save a man in need of a kidney. Saving the fetus at all costs, just as saving the man at all costs, is one thing, but taking a course of action where the purpose is simply not to kill, then there is no danger of one being forced to do anything.

I’m not arguing for the laws or anything like that; It’s this “where does it stop at” mindset I’m challenging. You’re looking at a consequence as if it’s the purpose. That’s the problem.

How is "saving the fetus" not the purpose of these laws? Really, explain it to me. It looks to me like you are splitting a pretty narrow hair here.

Our society expects us to try to save the kidney patient because he is a contributing member of society. That's a goal, not a consequence.

If you happen upon an automobile accident that has already happened to which you played no part in the cause for it happpening, then although the consequence could be the same should it be a life threatening situation that the accident victim dies assuredly as if you harmed him yourself, it is still the case that not helping is not the same as harming. If the victim dies and it’s discovered you could have helped and didn’t, it is not the case you caused any harm. So, thin or otherwise, there is a meaningful difference (despite the potential for an identical outcome) between not helping and harming.

The kidney patient has a right to refuse treatment. If you honor his rights and the patient dies, it is the case you did not help the patient, but it is not the case you harmed the patient.

As an uninvolved driver, you have no duty to render assistance, but as a doctor, you do have a duty to provide care, but like I said, the patient has rights that can be refused. Either way, (in either case), the laws do not allow for the harming of another. You may not cause harm to the fetus, and you may not cause harm to the kidney patient.

But all of that is beside the point.

I’d like to knock the shit out of someone, but there are laws that prohibit the harming of others; are they trying to control my behavior? Well, yeah, but are they trying to control my body (or parts of my body, namely my fists)? No, that just happens to be what I use to knock the hell out of people. The laws aren’t focused on saying what I can or can’t do with my body. The point is to not cause harm. That’s why, ceterus parabus, we don’t have to worry about laws forcing men to give up a kidney to save another—it will cause harm.

If you see “not causing harm” as the goal and focus on just that without allowing the distraction of “saving lives”, ya might see where I’m coming from with that hair splitting, yet substantively meaningful, distinction.

 

[fast]

1. No more people dying on the Organ Transplant waiting lists. The great new heart beat laws coming from the south mean that women must cede control of their bodies to the government. Well, does this not also apply also to men? Therefore, if people can survive with one kidney, all people who can donate should be forced to do so.

No, it’s not like that. Any bodily control lost is incidental, not wanting. No one is out to control woman’s bodies. The point of a counterterrorist strike isn’t to kill innocents. The point of giving someone a headache pill isn’t to make them swallow. If swallowing pills is to be avoided at all costs, there are other means to subduing a headache, but there are no other means to prevent the killing of a fetus than to forbid it.

If the goal were to save the fetus, you’d have a point, but neither is it the goal to save the fetus than it is to save a man in need of a kidney. Saving the fetus at all costs, just as saving the man at all costs, is one thing, but taking a course of action where the purpose is simply not to kill, then there is no danger of one being forced to do anything.

I’m not arguing for the laws or anything like that; It’s this “where does it stop at” mindset I’m challenging. You’re looking at a consequence as if it’s the purpose. That’s the problem.

What's the difference between forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term and forcing a man to donate one of his kidney's to a person who needs it? In both cases the government would compel a person against their will...

I’m not arguing what it is you think I might be. I could hold a ‘do not ban abortion’ stance and still maintain my argument.

You’re finding similarities between the two; I get that, but if the overarching primary goal is to not cause harm, then the difference lies there, not in the discovered similarities. If the purpose was to control people’s bodies, you’d have a point, but that’s not the intent. In both cases you mention, members of society would be forced against their will to do something, but why allow that to think we’re in danger of the latter happening since we’re in danger of the first happening—in light of the fact the goal is to not cause harm, not control bodies against peoples will?

 

[Harry Bosch]

What's the difference between forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term and forcing a man to donate one of his kidney's to a person who needs it? In both cases the government would compel a person against their will...

I’m not arguing what it is you think I might be. I could hold a ‘do not ban abortion’ stance and still maintain my argument.

You’re finding similarities between the two; I get that, but if the overarching primary goal is to not cause harm, then the difference lies there, not in the discovered similarities. If the purpose was to control people’s bodies, you’d have a point, but that’s not the intent. In both cases you mention, members of society would be forced against their will to do something, but why allow that to think we’re in danger of the latter happening since we’re in danger of the first happening—in light of the fact the goal is to not cause harm, not control bodies against peoples will?

However, if someone voluntarily withholds a kidney from a person who needs it to survive, are they not causing harm? I'm actually pro life personally and have signed up to be a donner if needed. But in both cases, I believe that the individual should decide. Bottom line for me, I do not believe that the government should have control over any law abiding citizen's body.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I do not believe that the government should have control over any law abiding citizen's body.

Are you with Kevorkian, and want to put condemned prisoners in comas for medical experiments and organ donations? I just worry about the distinction you had to make, there.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I do not believe that the government should have control over any law abiding citizen's body.

Are you with Kevorkian, and want to put condemned prisoners in comas for medical experiments and organ donations? I just worry about the distinction you had to make, there.

Of course not. But what is the difference if we give the government the power to force women to carry fetuses to term?

 

[fast]

What's the difference between forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term and forcing a man to donate one of his kidney's to a person who needs it? In both cases the government would compel a person against their will...

I’m not arguing what it is you think I might be. I could hold a ‘do not ban abortion’ stance and still maintain my argument.

You’re finding similarities between the two; I get that, but if the overarching primary goal is to not cause harm, then the difference lies there, not in the discovered similarities. If the purpose was to control people’s bodies, you’d have a point, but that’s not the intent. In both cases you mention, members of society would be forced against their will to do something, but why allow that to think we’re in danger of the latter happening since we’re in danger of the first happening—in light of the fact the goal is to not cause harm, not control bodies against peoples will?

However, if someone voluntarily withholds a kidney from a person who needs it to survive, are they not causing harm? I'm actually pro life personally and have signed up to be a donner if needed. But in both cases, I believe that the individual should decide. Bottom line for me, I do not believe that the government should have control over any law abiding citizen's body.

No, they are not. If my neighbor is hungry and I don’t feed him, I have not caused harm.

 

[Gun Nut]

1. No more people dying on the Organ Transplant waiting lists. The great new heart beat laws coming from the south mean that women must cede control of their bodies to the government. Well, does this not also apply also to men? Therefore, if people can survive with one kidney, all people who can donate should be forced to do so.

No, it’s not like that. Any bodily control lost is incidental, not wanting. No one is out to control woman’s bodies. The point of a counterterrorist strike isn’t to kill innocents. The point of giving someone a headache pill isn’t to make them swallow. If swallowing pills is to be avoided at all costs, there are other means to subduing a headache, but there are no other means to prevent the killing of a fetus than to forbid it.

If the goal were to save the fetus, you’d have a point, but neither is it the goal to save the fetus than it is to save a man in need of a kidney. Saving the fetus at all costs, just as saving the man at all costs, is one thing, but taking a course of action where the purpose is simply not to kill, then there is no danger of one being forced to do anything.

I’m not arguing for the laws or anything like that; It’s this “where does it stop at” mindset I’m challenging. You’re looking at a consequence as if it’s the purpose. That’s the problem.

What's the difference between forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term and forcing a man to donate one of his kidney's to a person who needs it? In both cases the government would compel a person against their will...

That's like saying, "What's the difference between compelling a person to pay a parking ticket versus paying for a senator's wife's boob job? 'In both cases, the government would compel a person against their will'"

 

[Gun Nut]

I do not believe that the government should have control over any law abiding citizen's body.

Are you with Kevorkian, and want to put condemned prisoners in comas for medical experiments and organ donations? I just worry about the distinction you had to make, there.

Of course not. But what is the difference if we give the government the power to force women to carry fetuses to term?

They would say that they are not forcing them to carry a fetus.. just that they force her to CONTINUE to carry the fetus once it is there. It was her choice to begin carrying it. That's what they would say.

I say call it murder if you want, but that does not change the fact that in my state you can kill a person for trespassing on your property. The woman should give the fetus at least 5 minutes to pack up their shit and get out of their most private of property upon notice that they are trespassing. After that, it is a justifiable "killing".

I also will say that the limit I would put on abortion would be "allowed up until the fetus is 18 years of age"... but that's just me.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Wouldnt it come then to how the abortion is done? Actively killing the unborn vs taking a drug so the woman's body doesn't provide nourishment etc and it dies in without the active killing? That's more analogous to stabbing vs not helping right?

 

[Gun Nut]

Wouldnt it come then to how the abortion is done? Actively killing the unborn vs taking a drug so the woman's body doesn't provide nourishment etc and it dies in without the active killing? That's more analogous to stabbing vs not helping right?

I guess so... but then when you see a pregnant woman eating McDonalds, you need to perform a citizens arrest for attempted murder of the fetus?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How long until in vivo pregnancy becomes a thing of the past? Babies can be made in baby factories with sperm and eggs grown in vats. Testicle and ovary vats. Imagine that. It actually could be a thing one day. Then all humans can be infertile and women won't have to take any time away from work/leisure to have a baby. Then centuries later people will be amazed that humans actually used to come out of other humans. "What?" they will ask in shock. "Like Russian nesting dolls? That's crazy!"

 

[fast]

Wouldnt it come then to how the abortion is done? Actively killing the unborn vs taking a drug so the woman's body doesn't provide nourishment etc and it dies in without the active killing? That's more analogous to stabbing vs not helping right?

This reminds me of the logic that you have a virus and give it to another but argue you have not caused harm because it’s not the virus itself but rather in fact your very own cells attacking other cells in your own body that is causing an ailment. Even though the virus is not the direct cause of your ailment, it’s the consequences of your actual actions that set everything in motion. Recall my accident example. If the accident has already occurred, I’ve played no part in any cause, but an introduction to the virus would be a catalyst for future harm to occur.

But like you said (while contemplating the distinction), if the duty is not to save (and thus no potential for charges of neglect), then withholding nutrients necessary for survival might be a loophole; the line not to cross would then be where action causes harm.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Another analogy may be a squatter in a building. Forcibly removing them vs no longer providing the building with power/gas (so they freeze to death) etc. To perfect that analogy you'd have to have brought the squatter there in the first place though. The unborn didn't put itself/himself/herself in the situation.

 

[Gun Nut]

How long until in vivo pregnancy becomes a thing of the past? Babies can be made in baby factories with sperm and eggs grown in vats. Testicle and ovary vats. Imagine that. It actually could be a thing one day. Then all humans can be infertile and women won't have to take any time away from work/leisure to have a baby. Then centuries later people will be amazed that humans actually used to come out of other humans. "What?" they will ask in shock. "Like Russian nesting dolls? That's crazy!"

Wasn't that a central plot in Brave New World?... No one had babies the "old fashioned way" anymore... and those who did were savages on the fringes of society.