Brain-dead pregnant woman’s life support can be switched off, Irish court rules

[Wells]

By all means, correct. But if bodily autonomy was the ONLY reason surgical abortion was legal ( and not a mix of it and personhood ) then surgical abortion would be illegal because the fetus has the right to its own body. ( assuming personhood doesn't kick in ).

You really don't understand how this whole bodily autonomy things works huh.

Even if removing me from your body would kill me, I have no right to your body.

[pateuvasiliu]

You really don't understand how this whole bodily autonomy things works huh.

Even if removing me from your body would kill me, I have no right to your body.

I think you really need to read my last 5 posts or so because I get tired of explaining it over and over.

But if bodily autonomy was the ONLY reason surgical abortion was legal ( and not a mix of it and personhood ) then surgical abortion would be illegal because the fetus has the right to its own body. ( assuming personhood doesn't kick in ).

[Wells]

I think you really need to read my last 5 posts or so because I get tired of explaining it over and over.

Yeah I've read it. Its still stupid and incorrect.

Your needs, whether if be kidneys or a womb, do not give you the right to another's body, even if the removal would kill you.

[Poopymonster]

Dude, I'll fucking dice it up and put it in my salad if I want to.

I prefer smoothies myself. Better texture.

[pateuvasiliu]

Yeah I've read it. Its still stupid and incorrect.

Your needs, whether if be kidneys or a womb, do not give you the right to another's body, even if the removal would kill you.

This post shows you didn't understand it at all.

[Endus]

I disagree with it. Humans should have rights because they're humans. If Personhood is what defines rights then by that logic a genius should have more rights than a less than intelligent man because the genius has a more complex way of thinking.

1> Whether or not you're a human is a statement of personhood. Not human, not a person. If you're not a legal person, then as far as the law is concerned, you're not a human being. Because that definition already covers everyone that is a human being. The two terms are, essentially, interchangeable.

2> Personhood is not a question of degree. There aren't people who are "more of a person" because they're smarter. All you're doing in that second sentence is demonstrating how completely you do not understand what personhood fundamentally is, and what it means.

If personhood isn't the reason then the autonomy argument can be used on fetuses.

The reason the bodily autonomy of fetuses isn't respected is that they're not considered persons.

You can't have one without the other, they go together.

No, it doesn't.

Even if you wanted to apply this argument, which would require that the fetus be a person in the first place (and they aren't), all it would do is require that abortion methods not harm the fetus directly. The mother would still be entitled to use whatever chemical or mechanical means she could to remove the fetus, cause her body to reject the implantation, or what have you. Which is pretty much all abortion methods save for late-term abortions, which are typically only given in cases of medical necessity in the first place.

[Sunseeker]

And why is the mother entitled to the fetus' body?

"the fetus" can't have a body if it is not autonomous from the mother. "The fetus" is for all intents and purposes an extension of the mother's body, it cannot function without her and would cease to exist without her.

There is no issue where you are attempting to create one. Until a certain point where the fetus is generally capable of surviving without the mother, "the fetus" is no different from the mother's appendix.

[pateuvasiliu]

"the fetus" can't have a body if it is not autonomous from the mother. "The fetus" is for all intents and purposes an extension of the mother's body, it cannot function without her and would cease to exist without her.

There is no issue where you are attempting to create one. Until a certain point where the fetus is generally capable of surviving without the mother, "the fetus" is no different from the mother's appendix.

The only conclusion I draw from that is that her appendix was for some reason transplanted from someone else, because it has a different DNA from hers.

[PizzaSHARK]

Step back children, raised Catholic Irishman reporting in.

The official stance of the Church is that unbaptized infants go to Limbo, not Purgatory. It's a major theological difference, but not the end of the story on this issue. There is a small number of references which make it seem that unbaptized infants go directly to Heaven, so it is plausible (lol religion) that infants do not suffer Limbo at all.

What's the difference? I know Purgatory is basically Heaven's waiting room while you basically sit around bored until God's bean-counters decide you've sat around long enough to be let back in, but what about Limbo? Is it just, like, non-existence, or what?

And why is the mother entitled to the fetus' body?

As far as the law is concerned, the fetus doesn't have bodily autonomy, because it isn't considered a person. A fetus is no more a person than a tape worm is. Would you also be upset if someone wanted to remove a tape worm from their intestines?

[pateuvasiliu]

As far as the law is concerned, the fetus doesn't have bodily autonomy, because it isn't considered a person. A fetus is no more a person than a tape worm is. Would you also be upset if someone wanted to remove a tape worm from their intestines?

The fact that you can compare them in the eyes of the law shows that the law can and is often wrong and subjective.

[PizzaSHARK]

The fact that you can compare them in the eyes of the law shows that the law can and is often wrong and subjective.

How is the law wrong?

A fetus is essentially a parasite for the majority of its existence inside its mother's body; it certainly could be described as one for the first two trimesters. It's a constant drain and strain on the mother's body and it cannot survive outside the mother's body. By the third trimester this changes somewhat, but conveniently that's also where the law typically draws the line.

[pateuvasiliu]

How is the law wrong?

A fetus is essentially a parasite for the majority of its existence inside its mother's body; it certainly could be described as one for the first two trimesters. It's a constant drain and strain on the mother's body and it cannot survive outside the mother's body. By the third trimester this changes somewhat, but conveniently that's also where the law typically draws the line.

I'm fairly sure it's because by the third semester aborting it would mean causing it physical pain, which it would be able to feel due to having developed a working nervous system.

[PizzaSHARK]

I'm fairly sure it's because by the third semester aborting it would mean causing it physical pain, which it would be able to feel due to having developed a working nervous system.

Why don't we apply that to all living things that can feel pain, then? There's plenty of evidence that even bugs can feel pain with their rudimentary nervous systems, yet we don't have laws about smashing them and we don't usually prosecute those nascent sociopaths that like to burn ants with a magnifying glass or tear the wings off a fly.

[pateuvasiliu]

Why don't we apply that to all living things that can feel pain, then? There's plenty of evidence that even bugs can feel pain with their rudimentary nervous systems, yet we don't have laws about smashing them and we don't usually prosecute those nascent sociopaths that like to burn ants with a magnifying glass or tear the wings off a fly.

Because we're biased. We give more rights to an animal the cuter it is.

Poison a rat? No issue.

Poison a dog? Issue.

[PizzaSHARK]

Because we're biased. We give more rights to an animal the cuter it is.

Poison a rat? No issue.

Poison a dog? Issue.

So you only have an issue with the laws being biased when they go against your morals?

[Wells]

Because we're biased. We give more rights to an animal the cuter it is.

Poison a rat? No issue.

Poison a dog? Issue.

You're literally arguing your position is irrational.

[pateuvasiliu]

You're literally arguing your position is irrational.

It's irrational to put humans and animals which are close to humans above other animals?

[Wells]

It's irrational to put humans and animals which are close to humans above other animals?

You haven't offered any metric by which humans are special.

There's only one really, and you know it. You're avoiding it because it doesn't look good for those who oppose abortion.

[PizzaSHARK]

It's irrational to put humans and animals which are close to humans above other animals?

Humans are more special than other animals why?

[pateuvasiliu]

Humans are more special than other animals why?

Because of our instinct to survive as a species?

Because we're intellectually superior to animals?

That human you'd be saving over say a dog could end up doing great things.

There's nothing emotional about this, it's pretty logic if anything.