Here Is An Interesting Scenario

singinbeauty · Post by **singinbeauty** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:40 pm

Hello All!
Ok, so I came across something very interesting last night that I would like your opinion on. There are some people out there who are considered mentally unstable because of a desire they have to have certain limbs or parts of their bodies surgically removed. The parts are perfectly fine and normal. The person just feels like they don't need it, the feel it's a nuisance, or it is causing them to feel like it's hindering them in some way. It is against the law for a surgeon to perform these surgeries and they can lose their lisence for it. Is this any different then say a woman wanting to abort her baby because, with nothing being wrong with the baby, she just feels like it's going to hold her down, she doesn't need it, or it's going to be a nuisance? I mean this is a part of her and is very attached to her. Let me know what you think!

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:14 pm

Moved to the appropriate forum as the debate topic was aimed at a personal perspective rather than anything revolving around scripture.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 1:01 am

I believe you're talking about Body Integrity identity Disorder (BIID), which, as I understand it, is a malfunction in the body image center of the brain. The famous neurologist Oliver Sacks wrote about things like this -- people who believe that their legs are not a part of them, and regard them with suspicion. My own personal opinion is that people with this disorder do have a condition caused by a malfunction of their biology. But I don't think all the research has been done on this. Sacks' patients clearly had brain lesions, but some people with BIID apparently have no detectable injuries.

But taking your example, as an objective observer, I would say that the person with BIID wishes to go from a body state that is whole to a body state that is what society would call "disabled." Of course, the BIID sufferer would not see it that way, and there are disabled activists who would object to this view also.

But the woman seeking an abortion is not permanently moving from one body state to another. There is a normal body state of not being pregnant, and to return to that state is not an analogous situation, though both are "choices," as you point out. It would be reasonable to assume that there is a fundamental problem with the way the BIID sufferer sees him/herself, something we can attribute to the way we know the brain works (i.e., we know there is a body image center, and there are separate locations in the brain for the image of each body part -- I would speculate that this helps us recognize when there is something wrong with the way our body looks -- like a rash or a cut -- so that we can take care of it.).

But the woman with the unwanted pregnancy does not have this same condition, and her desire to return to her previous condition is not the same as the desire to attain a new condition based on erroneous information from the brain. We treat anorexia, another body image problem, as a disorder. We also treat self-mutilation (cutting) as a psychological condition. It seems to me that BIID is another body disorder that requires intervention.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:48 am

Is this any different then say a woman wanting to abort her baby because, with nothing being wrong with the baby, she just feels like it's going to hold her down, she doesn't need it, or it's going to be a nuisance?

I do not believe the matter is as trivial as you make it and I doubt most women would procure a miscarriage in such a capricious fashion.

The short answer is that it is quite different. I assume the reason these mentally unstable people are prevented from frivolously removing organs and appendages is because they are causing unnecessary harm to their own selves, and the government has a duty of care to protect you, to a certain extent, from your own reckless behaviour. This extends to citizens and foreigners within its borders. Your Supreme Court (I am assuming you are American) for whatever reason has decided that a foetus cannot be protected from what some might call the reckless behaviour of its bearer until it reaches a certain age. The reasons are various and entirely rational and have been covered extensively in the abortion topic of this forum, so I will not dwell on them. Suffice to say, the masochist is prevented from doing to himself what will cause unwarranted and unwilling suffering, for, being insane, "they know not what they do". A foetus, up until a certain age, has not yet developed a consciousness and thus cannot conscientiously object to being made to suffer, nor can it feel it, in which case, its removal harms no one.

I see this differently to you. I believe that if the government cannot reasonably force someone to donate a rare type of blood to keep a stranger alive, or force someone to donate an unused organ against their will, then it cannot ask a mother to do the same for months on end, with the added burden of an increasing weight and pain.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:03 pm

The Government did not force her to get pregnant (of course, she was forced in the case of rape).

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:13 pm

Amadeus wrote:The Government did not force her to get pregnant (of course, she was forced in the case of rape).

Sure, but neither did she probably seek, or actively attempt, to, get pregnant, otherwise she would not be seeking to procure a miscarriage in the first place. Contraceptives fail, women get manipulated, raped, drugged, drunk or pressured. One cannot force a person to keep something they never wanted in the first place.

Now we are straying from the debate, out of comparisons and into abortion, so I will stop this here.

ENIGMA · Post by **ENIGMA** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:21 pm

Amadeus wrote:The Government did not force her to get pregnant (of course, she was forced in the case of rape).

Scenario:

Bob is at his house one evening, thinks it's a bit stuffy in the room and opens a window to let some fresh air in.

Later, a thief comes by, sees the open window, gets into the house and steals most of Bob's stuff.

The thief is later captured by the police, with Bob's stuff in his possession.

Since the thief did not forcibly open the window, is it acceptable for the police to forbid Bob from coming to get his stuff back?

If such a thing is not acceptable then why is it acceptable for the government to forbid a woman from having an abortion on the basis that she was not "forced" to risk becoming pregnant?

(EDIT: Oops, crosspost)

singinbeauty · Post by **singinbeauty** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:26 am

Sure, but neither did she probably seek, or actively attempt, to, get pregnant, otherwise she would not be seeking to procure a miscarriage in the first place. Contraceptives fail, women get manipulated, raped, drugged, drunk or pressured. One cannot force a person to keep something they never wanted in the first place.

Ok, there is sooooo much about this comment that makes me shiver... Even though she did not "seek" or "actively attempt" to get pregnant, should that justify the killing of a child. You call it a miscarriage but a miscarriage is:

Main Entry: mis·car·riage
Pronunciation: "mis-'kar-ij, 'mis-"
Function: noun
1 : corrupt or incompetent management; especially : a failure in the administration of justice
2 : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable and especially between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation

Check out definition #2. It's a spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus. Abortion is not spontaneous it is deliberate.

One cannot force a person to keep something they never wanted in the first place.

That something you are referring to is a child though. You may not be able to force someone to keep a car they may not want or a piece of clothing but, c'mon, a child... IF you don't want to get pregnant then don't have sex. It's as simple as that. You are right. Contraceptives fail all the time and none are 100%. If you lay down with someone you are inviting the chance of getting pregnant. Just because it's "inconvenient" doesn't mean that justifies slaughtering a human life before it has a chance to start.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:32 am

Amen!

singinbeauty · Post by **singinbeauty** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:42 am

Now, along with the original post, I have a question to pose. Do you think that if a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy her decisions are more likely to be powered by the hormones that are developing at an amazing pace. Meaning, let say a woman (before she is pregnant) thinks that abortion is an option even though she can't imagine being in the situation that would put her in the position to make that decision. Now, she gets pregnant because the condom broke. She finds herself in the situation she could not imagine. Her boyfriend leaves her, she has no money, and she doesn't want the responsibility of a child. Because of the shock of the situation and her desperation do you think that hormones play a part in her making the decision to abort the child? Hormones make women do things that are maybe somethings they would not normally do. Weird cravings and demands and such. Do you think that this may magnify a situation so much that killing her child seems like the only way out?

Debating Christianity and Religion

Here Is An Interesting Scenario

Here Is An Interesting Scenario

Re: Here Is An Interesting Scenario