Should Women Be Allowed To Have Babies At Home? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

should home-births be legal?

1. Yes, home-births should be legal for women.
22
73%
2. No, home-births should not be legal for women.
4
13%
3. Other.
4
13%
#14963255
I get that there's a fundamental disagreement over the moral status of the unborn but what I don't get is what qualifies the pro-lifers as authorities on the matter? The Bible is ambiguous at best when it comes to abortions and on some readings it even seems to mandate it in certain circumstances. So what is the source of their authority? If it's just their moral intuition then that's just not good enough because most people don't share their intuition, in fact many people have the exact opposite intuition.
#14963346
Sivad wrote:I get that there's a fundamental disagreement over the moral status of the unborn but what I don't get is what qualifies the pro-lifers as authorities on the matter?


I can't speak for all pro-lifers, but I don't think there is any ambiguity in the teachings of the historic faith on this matter.

Though, I will stand with the even more historic pre-20th century universal faith on this, that personhood precedes even conception, logically-speaking, and therefore that contraception is just as wicked as abortion.

I have given that argument before (which was actually inspired by a biblical commentaries from John Calvin and the Westminster Divines which I also combined with my ethical argument that I asked you to review in the Agora)

Sivad wrote:The Bible is ambiguous at best when it comes to abortions and on some readings it even seems to mandate it in certain circumstances.


Not really, agency and moral liability are applied to human beings from the time of conception.

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
(Psalm 51:5)

But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased 16to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles,

(Galatians 1:15)

Psalm 139:13 says similar things.

Jeremiah 1:5 is also instructive.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”


Likewise, John the Baptist "leapt for joy" in his mother's womb at the presence of Christ, which is a consistent understanding of the person-hood of pre-born children as seen elsewhere in Holy Writ.

Likewise, in Genesis 38, we see the Onan incident, which is awfully translated into english as "Onan spilled his seed on the ground."

A literal rendition of the actual Hebrew into English would be that "Onan destroyed his offspring on the ground."

The word translated spilled does not mean spill, nor can it mean spill, and is always used in scripture to describe the angry destruction of others, either in reference to the judgement of God against sinful people, or in reference to an immoral act of murder of one against another, etc.

Every reputable commentary on that text from the apostles through the reformation, and even post-reformation confessional divines, all agreed universally that this text taught the intentionally prevention of pregnancy to be murder.

My proof in the objective morality thread debate I did in the agora has a syllogism based on their arguments from Holy Writ.

Sivad wrote:So what is the source of their authority? If it's just their moral intuition then that's just not good enough because most people don't share their intuition, in fact many people have the exact opposite intuition.


The source is in fact Scriptural, but beyond this, some of us would even go further to condemn intentionally anti-procreative sex acts under the same logic, as likewise derived from Scriptural reasoning.
#14963349
I think an ideal birth system would be something like this:

1. A single payer public health care program that has...
2. Certified midwives taking care of almost all births and...
3. Birthing centres attached to most hospitals where student midwives would learn the trade and people with higher risk pregnancies could give birth, and finally....
4. Midwives who help babies be delivered at home would be able to reserve ambulances if they feel it is necessary.
#14963357
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think an ideal birth system would be something like this:

1. A single payer public health care program that has...
2. Certified midwives taking care of almost all births and...
3. Birthing centres attached to most hospitals where student midwives would learn the trade and people with higher risk pregnancies could give birth, and finally....
4. Midwives who help babies be delivered at home would be able to reserve ambulances if they feel it is necessary.


yes, yes, yes, and yes. :up:
#14963383
Its amazing you ask people about what happens when a live baby is produced from an abortion and they run and hide like cowards. They know by answering they destroy their credibility on other progressive human rights issues.


Sivad wrote:I get that there's a fundamental disagreement over the moral status of the unborn but what I don't get is what qualifies the pro-lifers as authorities on the matter? The Bible is ambiguous at best when it comes to abortions and on some readings it even seems to mandate it in certain circumstances. So what is the source of their authority? If it's just their moral intuition then that's just not good enough because most people don't share their intuition, in fact many people have the exact opposite intuition.


What is a pro -lifer what constitutes this label ? Somebody that is for life ? What is the alternative ? Weird.
#14963384
Finfinder wrote:Its amazing you ask people about what happens when a live baby is produced from an abortion and they run and hide like cowards. They know by answering they destroy their credibility on other progressive human rights issues.

Nobody is running or hiding. That statement is non-sensical. An abortion BY DEFINITION does not produce a live baby. If a live baby is produced, BY DEFINITION is called a delivery NOT an abortion.
#14963385
Finfinder wrote:Its amazing you ask people about what happens when a live baby is produced from an abortion and they run and hide like cowards. They know by answering they destroy their credibility on other progressive human rights issues.


Can you provide evidence that this happens? I would need to know the context before making a comment about it.

What is a pro -lifer what constitutes this label ? Somebody that is for life ? What is the alternative ? Weird.


A “pro-lifer” wishes to ban or limit abortion. It is the label they give themselves.

The implied assumption is that the alternative is pro-death.
#14963388
XogGyux wrote:Nobody is running or hiding. That statement is non-sensical. An abortion BY DEFINITION does not produce a live baby. If a live baby is produced, BY DEFINITION is called a delivery NOT an abortion.


are you really this clueless ask hypcrite AKA POD

VANCOUVER—Recent statistics from the Canadian Institute for Health Information reveal at least 152 children were born alive after abortions performed in Canada last year.

According to CIHI, all were at least 20 weeks old and died after they were born alive.

“These numbers do not include late-term abortions from Quebec, so this number could be and probably is higher,” said pro-life blogger Patricia Maloney, who obtained the numbers through information requests.

The CIHI report reveals Ontario and Alberta had the highest numbers of children born alive after abortions: 75 and 41 respectively. In B.C., five were born alive.

While it’s unclear what happened next, CIHI told The B.C. Catholic the children did not live long.

https://bccatholic.ca/content/stats-sho ... -abortions
#14963391
...and the next paragraph after the one you quoted says:

    “Our analysts confirmed there are intended terminations of pregnancy procedures for gestational age at or over 20 weeks that led to live births and subsequent deaths, e.g. mother was at risk, or there were significant defects in fetal development,” said communications specialist Julie Bortolotti. “These live births resulted in subsequent death in hospital.”

So all these late term abortions were medically necessary.

And all thse live births were cases where the baby was going to die anyway of development abnormalities, or could have killed the mother if the pregnancy continued.

I guess my comment would be that these are 152 very sad stories of mothers who tried very hard to bring their babies to term but could not for very serious reasons.

I would also say that this does not change my position on abortion in the slightest.
#14963400
Pants-of-dog wrote:A “pro-lifer” wishes to ban or limit abortion. It is the label they give themselves.

The implied assumption is that the alternative is pro-death.


I would say its more complicated than that, its an ethical and not just a legal position.
#14963401
Finfinder wrote:are you really this clueless ask hypcrite AKA POD

VANCOUVER—Recent statistics from the Canadian Institute for Health Information reveal at least 152 children were born alive after abortions performed in Canada last year.

According to CIHI, all were at least 20 weeks old and died after they were born alive.

“These numbers do not include late-term abortions from Quebec, so this number could be and probably is higher,” said pro-life blogger Patricia Maloney, who obtained the numbers through information requests.

The CIHI report reveals Ontario and Alberta had the highest numbers of children born alive after abortions: 75 and 41 respectively. In B.C., five were born alive.

While it’s unclear what happened next, CIHI told The B.C. Catholic the children did not live long.

https://bccatholic.ca/content/stats-sho ... -abortions


First and foremost, get your terminology straight. If it is an abortion it does not produce a living baby/child. It might produce a fetus which might show some lingering signs of activity but this is different to so many levels. If I cut off your finger, the cells inside the amputated portion will continue to remain "alive" for hours, maybe a few of them even days yet we can probably both agree that the finger is not alive.
Also, lets get something straight, this whole debate is a religious freakshow. For instance, what about the many pregnancies that produce fetus with malformations incompatible with life.... This is not about saving lives because then, you wouldnt care to terminate those right? after all, they are going to die anyway, you would just be performing a kidness to the fetus, the mother and her family by getting it over with quicker. Yet that is not what happens, over and over again religion gets in the way and shames the women who gets the abortion and guilt-trips the rest into not doing it.
Second, the specifics matter. From what you posted I don't know if the abortions happened because the fetus had major genetic abnormalities that were incompatible with life and it was doomed to die regardless or if the life of the mother and thus the child was on imminent danger etc. Furthermore, it continues to disregard the fact that this is not "life of the baby vs death of the baby issue". Remember what I posted before, the mother could have had a full grown 18year old, living adult inside her and she still has to retain the autonomy of her body, doing otherwise is the equivalent of treating her like an incubator and thus denying her personhood. We know that smoking causes harm to the child yet nobody is legislating gestational smoking.
Your point continues to be weak.
Last edited by XogGyux on 14 Nov 2018 19:39, edited 1 time in total.
#14963402
@Victoribus Spolia

Yes, and I would go even farther and say that both sides have ethical positions about it. And even more, each side has more than one ethical justification for their position.

For example, an-caps believe in the right to abort at any stage during pregnancy because of their ethical belief in self-ownership, while Canadians have the same position becuase of their ethical belief in the right to bodily integrity.

On the other side, Christians have an ethical belief about personhood at conception, while pro life atheists approach it from a human rights angle.

Of course, Marxists also have a pragmatic justification.
#14963407
Pants-of-dog wrote:...
And all thse live births were cases where the baby was going to die anyway of development abnormalities, or could have killed the mother if the pregnancy continued.


It maybe logically reasonable but you can't prove that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:...
I guess my comment would be that these are 152 very sad stories of mothers who tried very hard to bring their babies to term but could not for very serious reasons.


It maybe logically reasonable but you can't prove that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:..
I would also say that this does not change my position on abortion in the slightest.


Good for you, were you under some impression this is about you changing your mind?
#14963413
Finfinder wrote:It maybe logically reasonable but you can't prove that.


Your own article claims that. I even quoted the text that provides evidence for the claim.

It maybe logically reasonable but you can't prove that.


According to your own source, this is what happened.

Good for you, were you under some impression this is about you changing your mind?


You asked for my opinion about it. Now that I have given it to you, you seem upset that I answered your question.
#14963423
XogGyux wrote:First and foremost, get your terminology straight. If it is an abortion it does not produce a living baby/child. It might produce a fetus which might show some lingering signs of activity but this is different to so many levels. If I cut off your finger, the cells inside the amputated portion will continue to remain "alive" for hours, maybe a few of them even days yet we can probably both agree that the finger is not alive.


This is an opinion based discussion are you a doctor or something? Does that finger look exactly like a little human being?

XogGyux wrote:Also, lets get something straight, this whole debate is a religious freakshow. For instance, what about the many pregnancies that produce fetus with malformations incompatible with life.... This is not about saving lives because then, you wouldnt care to terminate those right? after all, they are going to die anyway, you would just be performing a kidness to the fetus, the mother and her family by getting it over with quicker. Yet that is not what happens, over and over again religion gets in the way and shames the women who gets the abortion and guilt-trips the rest into not doing it.


I never brought religion to this discussion, further more you are really lowering the level by flailing at typical talking points. I think your stereotype is wrong. Next your going to call me racist or something. Who else are you wanting to take a shot at?

Also I wonder what this world would look like if everyone that was told they have no hope and they were going to die just laid down and did so. Of course the glass half empty folk consider themselves victims for being born.

XogGyux wrote:Second, the specifics matter. From what you posted I don't know if the abortions happened because the fetus had major genetic abnormalities that were incompatible with life and it was doomed to die regardless or if the life of the mother and thus the child was on imminent danger etc. Furthermore, it continues to disregard the fact that this is not "life of the baby vs death of the baby issue". Remember what I posted before, the mother could have had a full grown 18year old, living adult inside her and she still has to retain the autonomy of her body, doing otherwise is the equivalent of treating her like an incubator and thus denying her personhood. We know that smoking causes harm to the child yet nobody is legislating gestational smoking.
Your point continues to be weak.


Ok then, lets use Kermit Gosnell as an example does this strengthen my point?


Pants-of-dog wrote:Your own article claims that. I even quoted the text that provides evidence for the claim.



According to your own source, this is what happened.



You asked for my opinion about it. Now that I have given it to you, you seem upset that I answered your question.


Emotions have nothing to do with it. I am and surprised you didn't pull that response sooner this a POD 101 tactic. .

Ok in your mind you owned me on the Canada article :lol: :lol: How about I concede that, and we use Kermit Gosnell as an example then?

So your reply to me is going to be "is there a question here"? I'll save everyone from the 3 pages of you avoiding answering and putting play on words, doing your best Bill Clinton impression " depends on what is is" show and just leave it here. :lol: Feel free to comment or not. :lol:

I do have 1 question do you think they should extend "wet foot dry foot" in the US to fetuses that make it out alive or should the Cubans only get that right ? :D
Last edited by Finfinder on 14 Nov 2018 20:58, edited 1 time in total.
#14963435
Finfinder wrote:In this opinion based discussion are you Doctor or something?

Yes, a physician actually.
Does that finger look exactly like a little human being?

Is the "looks" that really bother you? because at 20w time a fetus is not much larger than a rat and nervous system is actually much less developed than a rat's. At 20 weeks, fetuses can hardly move, no myelination of the nerves is complete and there is hardly any neural activity other than an occasional kick as the nerves start to develop. This is not a human, this is a blob of cells at this time.
And the point is still irrelevant because we can replace the fetus with an adult and the adult still should not receive the right to overnight the women's bodily autonomy. If a mother would have to "abort" an 18year old adult from her womb and this would still result in the demise of the 18year old PERSON (not fetus, PERSON, as in a voting adult) I would still agree that the woman has that right. You don't get to dictate someone else's body rights.
I wonder if the technology to implant these aborted fetuses into male incubators so that they could be incubated to term if you would be volunteering to be an incubator or if you would be happy if society forced you to be one regardless of what you want.
Ok then, lets use Kermit Gosnell as an example does this strengthen my point?

No. It strengthens mine. Instead of having a society where the rights of women are respected and that fascilitates means as to exercise these rights. We put the unnecessary burden on these women so that they seek help with abortion later in pregnancy when they are far more dangerous to perform and force them to seek help from unethical practitioners like this guy.
This makes your point weaker and mines stronger.
#14963444
Interesting what kind of physician why is that different than a Doctor? I disagree. I don't view women in general as victims of man made "burden" they are strong and capable of handling themselves just fine. When I think of Kermit Gosnell who was also a physician I think of a cold blooded murderer not an "unethical guy". After all, that is what he was convicted of. How does that strengthen your argument again?
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
EU-BREXIT

@snapdragon mcdonnel is now pushing for full on […]

Atheism is Evil

@SSDR As mentioned before, there is no fixed h[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Deficit $22 Trillion and rising. I rest my case.

Cis heterosexual males have suffered massive disc[…]