Dude..... Let's break that down, leaving out religion. We all have free will. You can commit any number of crimes, up to murder, by using your "free will". That doesn't mean that at certain points the rule of law does not intervene with your "free will".
If a law someone else came up with that you fail to agree with is imposed on you do you still have "free will"? I say you don't. I say you have a list of societally approved activities in which you can participate and nothing more.
We are speaking legally, in lieu of morally, no? Legally there is nothing to be done if someone dies of natural causes, but that doesn't mean that there was therefore no loss of life. It's not "all good" if a woman's body cannot support life. Ask a mother how she feels following a miscarriage, though that's not even the discussion we are having. There is no choice with life, if you "choose" whether someone lives or dies(and choose death), it's murder. The question is where you define life.
Then how would you describe the actions of criminals? They chose to not follow laws. Certainly you would agree.
When they willfully participate in an activity outside of the societally approved list and are caught they are fined or imprisoned...that doesn't come free either as a price is paid for that activity. Nothing free about it. They may have the will to do it but it certainly isn't free.
Again I ask that if a woman willfully engages in actions that would stress her body to the point of inducing a miscarriage is that murder or an act of nature? Ignore the poor women that did everything to the best of their abilities to produce a viable child and failed to so as that is indeed a tragedy. I am specifically asking that if a woman has the no ability to access a legal doctor administered abortion and undertakes actions to force a miscarriage is she a murderer? If your answer is yes then she has no "free will". She only has the societally approved choice of carrying that pregnancy to term.
Free will has never been described by freedom from consequences. That's something all together different. Free Will is just that.
You answered your own question. A miscarriage is a natural process. Anything done to cause the loss of a pregnancy, intentionally, no longer meets that criteria.
Nope. Before societies were created by man. Free will was what he had. Once society and it's set of rules were developed free will no longer existed.
I'm not sure where you're going on this train. You're arguing we no longer have free will based on societal consequences and laws, yet you overlook (the many) cases where people get away with crimes. You're in essence saying that a murderer has no free will if they are convicted, but if they escape it was free will after all? There's just nowhere for me to go with that one, bud.......
No I am just trying to find where the line in the sand is drawn. You say her choosing to stress herself to the point of miscarriage is indeed murder and I saying that if she did, and told no one, that a murder did not take place by your definition. It would be viewed by anyone that did not have the information that she willfully chose to do so as a natural act. The free will argument gets us into religion and we all know I think that's a crock of shit. As long as society exists, and that society has a set of rules that if violated incurs penalties, then it isn't really "free". It's free until society catches you violating them.
No penalties I am aware of for kindness except the on going expectation of giving more. No one has ever been fined or put in jail for excessive kindess.
This. They have been roughly 70 million abortions since Roe v Wade. What the hell would we do with all of those people? What would we do with all the people those people would make? Remember, most abortions some from the lower end of the scale, so a large chunk of those people would be on the public dole.
One thing I've never gotten a clear answer on is IVF with relation to "moment of conception", for example: - 3 eggs are retrieved and fertilized. - all 3 are successfully fertilized ("conception" has happened at this point) - They are grown in the lab for 2-5 days and are now a cluster of cells that is multiplying and living - 2 are implanted into the mom - 1 takes, the other does not If you say "conception" is in fact what happens in the lab before implanting, is the lab held responsible for aborting the one 3rd one that stayed in the dish? Who is responsible for the embryo that didn't take? Is it safe to assume people are calling "conception" at this point when the embryo attaches to the mother's womb? Why? Just minutes earlier there were 3 more or less identical embryos sitting in a dish together.
It is without a doubt the leading cause of death for African Americans, several times over. Sanger's legacy.
I'll end the night with the recognition that this has been a pretty civil run down this particular and potentially very volatile rabbit hole.
No. How do you view a dialog that systematically excludes all people capable of having said procedure?
Systematically excludes? Who hung the "No Girls Allowed" sign across this thread title? Jesus you fucking liberals and your imaginations.