2 Deep PRO-LIFE Questions from an atheist

[Elf01]

But the woman that is not choosing to be a mother to the fetus, the fetus is no more her child than any other child. Genetic relationship is irrelevant to the title of mother or father. Your choice to take on that responsibility

Should a man who gets a woman pregnant pay child support if she keeps the baby?

 

[Damian]

No, because requiring a lung does not arise from human nature itself

Irrelevant, it arises from the need of the person to survive. Just like how a fetus is underdeveloped to survive outside the womb, a child born with a genetic disorder that destroys their lungs will die without a lung transplant. All natural for the death of these children. But neither has a right to force someone else to give up their body’s use to save their lives. The child needing a lung transplant is no different than the fetus needing a womb to develop. Both can’t survive without the use of someone else’s body.

 

[Damian]

Should a man who gets a woman pregnant pay child support if she keeps the baby?

Not if he signs away his parental rights.

 

[Damian]

To me giving a woman the ‘right’ to kill the child in her womb is a special right.

So the woman that refuses to donate bone marrow to save someone else has a “special right” to kill that person needing the bone marrow? Interesting take on it, but its exactly no different to say that she has a right to how her body is to be used over anyone else’s access to it, even if it kills them if she doesn’t consent to give up her body.

By your own admission the baby is directly killed

No it will die of natural causes without the use of her body just like the cancer patient will die of natural causes if she doesn’t give up her bone marrow. She is ending someone else using her body. If they die of it or not is irrelevant. She has and always has a right to consent and to withdraw consent once given.

Making a baby or adopting a child makes you a parent. Come on - I don’t think you even believe what you wrote there

Yes I do. Making a baby is irrelevant to being a parent to that child. The people that choose to care for the child, regardless of their genetic relation to the child, makes them a parent.

 

[Elf01]

So the woman that refuses to donate bone marrow to save someone else has a “special right” to kill that person needing the bone marrow? Interesting take on it, but its exactly no different to say that she has a right to how her body is to be used over anyone else’s access to it, even if it kills them if she doesn’t consent to give up her body.

No. I think I’ve explained this. Not donating bone marrow is letting nature take its course. Abortion isn’t. You have admitted that.

I would also say in a scenario where she caused the person to need a transplant and was the only possible donor she would have a moral obligation to donate and would support legally compelling her to.

 

[Damian]

Abortion isn’t. You have admitted that.

Abortion is disconnecting someone to the woman since she withdrew consent of her body to be used by someone else. The natural result will be that the fetus dies though. Just like the cancer patient will die without her bone marrow donation. Just the fetus dies quicker. The outcome of the person needing to use someone else’s body is irrelevant. The only relevancy is that right to bodily autonomy is never given up, it is only continually consented to.

I would also say in a scenario where she caused the person to need a transplant and was the only possible donor she would have a moral obligation to donate and would support legally compelling her to.

Morally probably, but legally no. The parents that place their child in the car and then run a red light example. The child, from the car crash, now needs an organ donation to survive and can’t wait for a match, so needs their parents to survive. Are the parents legally obligated to give up their body to save their child? What if it was a drunk driver that ran the light? She would be guilty of man-slaughter if the child dies, but even then the drunk driver never has to legally give up her body to save the life of that child either. Every scenario, once a child is born, no one has to give up their body’s use to save the child, even if they caused the child harm. But the fetus does get this. So that is granting special rights to a fetus that no one else gets.

 

[Elf01]

Abortion is disconnecting someone to the woman since she withdrew consent of her body to be used by someone else. The natural result will be that the fetus dies though.

The fetuses natural place is in the womans body and you have said that it is usually killed first.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Disagree here. Someone volunteered their body’s use to keep the mother alive and develop by taking on the role as a parent. This is not granted by default. This is the natural outcome of a woman, who chooses to be a mother to the fetus.

Humans absolutely require a period of dependency in order to exist, and dependency begins within the zygote itself before implantation. If human nature has rights, then dependency is one of them because dependency is fundamental to human nature.

Human nature does not spring up fully formed, capable of consent and bodily autonomy. It must pass through a period of dependency in order to function with bodily autonomy. If you are claiming that bodily autonomy is a right inherent to human nature, you absolutely must concede that dependency is also a right inherent in human nature because dependency is required for bodily autonomy to develop.

That the mother was able to depend on someone is not a “happy accident”, it was a fundamental requirement for her to attain bodily autonomy. The only question that remains is who does the fetus have the right to claim dependency on, and that must be the humans that caused it to be; consent does not play into this because the fetus’ existence and dependency precedes the parents’ knowledge of its existence, and therefore it is dependent upon them (even on a cellular level, with the mRNA of the mother providing the tools for the zygote’s DNA) prior to their ability to give consent. They can’t come in after the fact and deny consent to a being that already has rights to their care.

This seems to be a fundamental difference between the pro-life and pro-choice movement. That parental responsibility starts at conception instead of when the adult decides to be a parent to the fetus. Being a parent is a choice, not an obligation.

No, being a biological parent is a fact, not a choice. Taking care of a child is a choice, but being a biological parent is a bare fact that does not require consent. That other modes of parenting exist does not negate this fact.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Nope you didn’t get this right. I am still talking about the idea that people have a right to their body over the right of someone else’s right to life. I make a side note that I don’t believe the government should be making laws that force people to give up their bodily autonomy and that the government shouldn’t have the power to kill its citizens.

Yes, you are claiming that people have a natural right to their body, beyond whatever the government affords them. If a person has a natural right to their body, then they also have a natural right of dependency during their earliest time of existence, because the right to the body follows from this period of dependency.

If you are simply claiming that people have the legal, but not natural, right to their body then you are of course wrong; the law can change, and people do not have a legal right to their body at all times.

Every child has biological contributor to their existence, but that does not make those people parents to the child unless they consent to be parents to that child.

This is illogical in the extreme. The child exists prior to consent, they have biological parents prior to the consent of those parents, and human nature requires dependency. Consent can not logically be the foundation of parenthood if the child is caused prior to consent.

 

[Damian]

First, in cases requiring a genetic match, (e.g. kidney and bone marrow transplants), there has been no known crisis of family members refusing to help.

Irrelevant that family members refuse to give help. What is relevant is that they never lost their rights to refuse to help, they just never exercised that right to refuse help.

Second, unlike the pre-born, people requiring a blood and organ donations have a safety net of other peoples’ banked blood and organs.

Irrelevant since these people had a choice to donate or not, correct? If no one donated, would you advocate for people to be rounded up and forced to donate?

“I brought you into existence but don’t want you, so this doctor is going to crush you to death.”

So you have a problem with how we treat the body of the dead fetus once it would die of natural causes from being unhooked from a woman’s body then. I’m only talking about her right to always have to give consent on how her body is being used by someone else.

Afterward, when it hurts like hell and she’s cleaning up blood.

And if there was no pain and no blood to clean up and the only outcome from it was that she knew she was raped, then would it be okay?

If it’s that subjective, _any_body could accuse _any_body of assault for any reason. Fortunately, the definition is somewhat tighter than that.

Assault is when someone forces themselves onto someone else without their consent, regardless of the degree of it. AKA your right to swing your arm stops at my nose. Grabbing a woman’s butt = assault, pinching their butt = assault, touching them in any way that is not accidental without their consent, like bumping into them in the subway, is assault.

induced abortion is an act of active killing, not “natural causes.”

Abortion is the disconnection of a fetus to a woman. Since the fetus will die of natural causes from this, the doctor induces death through an over dosage of sedative to the fetus. Otherwise, the fetus would eventually die within the woman and if left there, will poison the woman.

 

[Damian]

If a person has a natural right to their body, then they also have a natural right of dependency during their earliest time of existence, because the right to the body follows from this period of dependency.

Disagree here. Yes you do need people to care for you till you are able to be independent or else you would die of exposure to the elements and starvation. This is where we have a conflict of moral issues. Rights to care, rights to life, rights to bodily autonomy. Seems bodily autonomy supersedes these other issues by the law. Again, yes these are natural law issues, but we use the legal law system to address these conflicts.
Yes the law can change because the law only works by the consent of the people to be governed under that law. Want it changed, the work to change it. That’s perfectly fine. But there’s other people that believe otherwise on the hierarchy of natural laws and when they conflict with each other. I just suggest once you do change it, you make it affect men as much as women and lets see how much traction you get on lobbying for that bill since men in government seem to never even consider that an option.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Disagree here. Yes you do need people to care for you till you are able to be independent or else you would die of exposure to the elements and starvation. This is where we have a conflict of moral issues. Rights to care, rights to life, rights to bodily autonomy. Seems bodily autonomy supersedes these other issues by the law. Again, yes these are natural law issues, but we use the legal law system to address these conflicts.

Do you believe that bodily autonomy is a natural right, or a privilege?

 

[Damian]

The fetuses natural place is in the womans body and you have said that it is usually killed first.

What our bodies are naturally designed for is irrelevant to what we consent our bodies to be used for. When did I ever state that it is usually killed first? What was that in context to? I do say that in abortion, the women is removing her consent of her body to be used by someone else, the doctor disconnects the fetus from the mother, the doctor administers an overdose of painkillers to the fetus, and then extracts the body of the fetus from the woman. Otherwise, if left to its natural course, the fetus would die quickly of natural causes and begin to poison the woman. So where is the “usually killed first” part you’re referring to?

 

[Damian]

Do you believe that bodily autonomy is a natural right, or a privilege?

Separate issue, but all our “rights” is what we are willing to fight for that seem to be universal to the human experience that we would fight for. Such as right to bodily autonomy. Right to life, right to safe environments, rights to socialization, etc. Pick out any person anywhere at any time period and see how they react if you force them to give up their body’s use.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Separate issue, but all our “rights” is what we are willing to fight for that seem to be universal to the human experience that we would fight for. Such as right to bodily autonomy. Right to life, right to safe environments, rights to socialization, etc. Pick out any person anywhere at any time period and see how they react if you force them to give up their body’s use.

This isn’t an answer to the question. Is bodily autonomy something that humans should have (a natural right), or just something that some people are granted by society/government/what have you (an extrinsic privilege). If it is the latter then you have no grounds for arguing that the mother “should” have the right her own body, you can only say whether or not she is afforded this privilege by society. If it is the former then you must account for the other natural rights.

Let me put it this way: natural rights arise from the very nature of the thing in question. Natural human rights are inherent to human nature, and don’t require any law or consent in order to exist, though obviously these things are needed in order to support these rights (and must be fought for in many cases). Anything that requires consent to exist is not a right, but a privilege.

If bodily autonomy is a natural right, then it derives from human nature itself. Human nature itself is fundamentally dependent, at least in its early stages. If bodily autonomy is a right, then it follows that dependency is also a right since human nature is dependent in and of itself, not owing to outside accidents like injury, disease, or circumstance. A fetus isn’t dependent because it is a human that needs a womb, it is dependent because it is human; there is no human nature without this dependency.

If you deny this dependency, you deny humanity, and without humanity there are no natural human rights like bodily autonomy.

If you simply believe that these “rights” are merely the things people commonly fight for, then you don’t believe in rights but in privileges. Privileges that people universally fight for, but privileges none the less. It would be better to not speak of the “right of bodily autonomy” if that’s the case.

 

[blackforest]

Irrelevant that family members refuse to give help. What is relevant is that they never lost their rights to refuse to help, they just never exercised that right to refuse help.

It is relevant because refusal to help isn’t an issue and therefore debunks your analogy.

Irrelevant since these people had a choice to donate or not, correct? If no one donated, would you advocate for people to be rounded up and forced to donate?

There is no scenario in which somebody else may donate their own body for an unwanted embryo growing in another woman’s body. So your analogy has another hole.

So you have a problem with how we treat the body of the dead fetus once it would die of natural causes from being unhooked from a woman’s body then.

How on earth did you extrapolate that? It’s not even related to my point.

And fetuses aren’t “unhooked.” They are either killed through abortion, miscarried when they die of natural causes, or delivered through the childbirth process.

Assault is when someone forces themselves onto someone else without their consent, regardless of the degree of it. AKA your right to swing your arm stops at my nose. Grabbing a woman’s butt = assault, pinching their butt = assault, touching them in any way that is not accidental without their consent, like bumping into them in the subway, is assault.

Then it’s a willful action on the part of the assailant, something impossible for a fetus or embryo to accomplish.

You were saying that it’s all “mental” and defined by whomever feels they’ve been assaulted. I’m challenging that point to say that the definition is more specific.

Since the fetus will die of natural causes from this, the doctor induces death through an over dosage of sedative to the fetus.

Elective, induced abortion requires killing the fetus. Death by killing is not death by natural cause.

And if there was no pain and no blood to clean up and the only outcome from it was that she knew she was raped, then would it be okay?

I had to save the “best” for last because this statement is so outrageous.

I cannot @#$%$ believe I have to explain this, but there’s no such thing as painless rape.

And here I thought pro-choicers were feminists . . . .

 

[Pattylt]

First, in cases requiring a genetic match, (e.g. kidney and bone marrow transplants), there has been no known crisis of family members refusing to help.

McFall vs. Shimp

McFall v. Shimp - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I was curious at your statement and looked it up…

 

[Elf01]

Elf01:

The fetuses natural place is in the womans body and you have said that it is usually killed first.

What our bodies are naturally designed for is irrelevant to what we consent our bodies to be used for. When did I ever state that it is usually killed first? What was that in context to? I do say that in abortion, the women is removing her consent of her body to be used by someone else, the doctor disconnects the fetus from the mother, the doctor administers an overdose of painkillers to the fetus, and then extracts the body of the fetus from the woman. Otherwise, if left to its natural course, the fetus would die quickly of natural causes and begin to poison the woman. So where is the “usually killed first” part you’re referring to?

the doctor gives a lethal dose to the fetus and then has to remove the dead person from the woman.

There you go.

 

[MamaJewel]

I understand the rulings and the concept of right to privacy.
I also understand that one could invariably argue that the aid given an embryo at implantation is not the same as the aid given to a fetus by the woman’s body. The initial demands placed by the embryo do not burden the woman’s body in the same manner a developing fetus does.
A fetus exacts everything required for survival from the woman’s body, to her detriment, if need be.
The fetus is totally dependent on the woman’s body systems and it creates such a burden that for the woman to survive her body must process enough nutrients, calories, oxygen, etc. and efficiently eliminate waste products, not only for her body systems but for the fetus as well. These processes demand significant increased respiration, nutrient intake, blood volume, and waste elimination. Her body is literally doing the work for two bodies.
I don’t think the argument holds that a donation must continue when said donation progressively places more and more significant health demands on the donor, at least in the case of pre-viability. For the woman, her body systems must compensate or she dies.Period. And without the use of the woman, the pre-viable fetus dies too.
However, it might be argued that once a woman donated use of her body to the point that the fetus is viable, the state does have a interest in the survival of both parties and has to weigh what is best for both parties. Could both parties be best served by ending the pregnancy without directly terminating the life of the fetus? Are both parties best served by the woman carrying to term? If the woman would have preferred termination of the pregnancy, but carries the fetus to term and places it for adoption, does society have the responsibility to compensate the woman for the fetus’ use of her body?

Our concepts of life, quality of life, right to life, person, personhood, privacy, autonomy, consent, etc. are changing as medicine and technology evolve and people live longer. Law and ethics struggle to find solutions that are fair for all involved. The questions above will likely be heard in courtrooms in the future. Women are responsible for taking care of themselves and supporting themselves by the fruits of their own labor, and pregnancy/childbirth/parenthood present women with special challenges and this has to be considered in law.

 

[goout]

Abortion is a sin, but the pro-life movement in America is a fraud. Pro-lifers don’t make a peep about children dying in border patrol custody, and the more anti-abortion party, the GOP, wants healthcare to be as much a hassle as possible. Neither party is pro-life, but through social welfare ideas the Democrats are slightly more nearly pro-life.

You are point blank wrong.
You buy into political caricatures. And that is sad when human life is on the line.
Why don’t you stop with the political caricatures and think for yourself?