2 Deep PRO-LIFE Questions from an atheist

[Damian]

Isn’t the right of bodily autonomy supersedes someone’s right to life applicable to everyone, regardless of the basis of X category of people though? That is why we don’t force the dead to be harvested against their wishes for example and that it is, by default, the position to hold unless they specifically allowed this to be the case in their will.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The thing about the dead bodies is changing and also there have been many bodies in archeology that have been taken and used without consent. Besides bodily autonomy serves no purpose when someone is already dead. On the otherhand I have heard of woman who were in a vegetable state who were kept alive in order to give birth.

 

[Damian]

You’re addressing that example but not the idea that the example was about. Doesn’t bodily autonomy supersede someone else’s right to life get applied to everyone regardless of the basis of X category of people though? If so, where’s the discrimination?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I don’t agree with the premise
And bodily autonomy is based on who possess what right?

 

[Damian]

That we posses an inherent right to our body and its use over someone else’s right to live by the use of our body. That’s why we have to consent to be an organ donor, to give blood, etc to save someone else’s life, even if they are our own child. IE: if a 5 year old child needs a kidney from parent and there is not enough time to wait for another donor, that parent still has to consent to that. If not, the child will die of natural causes and the parent is not obligated to save their child at the expense of the use of their body to save their child.

 

[Ghosty1981]

That we posses an inherent right to our body and its use over someone else’s right to live by the use of our body.

This premise is not entirely true. A child, regardless of age, is limited in its ability to care for itself by its very nature and has a natural right to parental care. All humans pass through this stage, and some never leave it, so this dependency can’t be called a defect of nature but rather is a property of human nature. Just as we can’t sanction parental neglect of a child on the grounds of personal autonomy, we can’t sanction infanticide.

This natural right to parental care is what sets the fetus apart from the comatose violinist: the fetus, and infant, and toddler have a natural right to the care of their parent, and the parent has a natural obligation. This isn’t an easy obligation, and as a society we tend to compensate for the difficulties some people have with fulfilling this natural obligation (adoption, extended families assisting with child rearing, ect) but this doesn’t negate the natural right of the child to parental care.

The child can’t be treated as an autonomous outsider to either parent; the child arises naturally from the natural processes of the parental bodies, and every single human being is naturally dependent on their parents to some degree at some point in their existence, even as a zygote before implantation as they utilize maternal mRNA to set up the cellular “workshop” needed for the new individual DNA to operate. As I said above this dependency is inherent in the human condition, and can’t be treated as some unwarranted defect or burden, as would be the case in some disease requiring organ donation. Furthermore, this natural right does not derive from the parents’ voluntary choice to have and raise a child, but is inherent in human nature itself. This right is as deeply rooted as the right to autonomy, and is both logically and naturally prior to bodily autonomy as every single “autonomous” person first passes through dependency, and our ability to act autonomously follows from the care we receive during our period of dependency.

To put it another way, the child is a natural effect of the parents in a way that a potential organ recipient is not. This effect is a human person, so it derives its rights both from its personal human nature and as something directly and dependently derived from someone else.

 

[EnglishYew]

Most people who say that a zygote isn’t a person aren’t arguing that a zygote isn’t alive, they are simply arguing that it isn’t a human being.

And of course they are wrong. Since it is clearly a living being, and it has a 100% human genome, than it is a human being. It’s not a fish, or a toad, or a dandelion.
It’s fascinating how uneducated (or deliberately obtuse) the pro-abortion folks seem to be about basic biology, embryology, and logic.

 

[QwertyGirl]

The argument is that a zygote isn’t a person and it isn’t yet a “being” ( which, it can be argued, is an ambiguous word)

 

[MamaJewel]

While I believe in a woman’s autonomy, I also believe that society has an inherent interest in the people who comprise it. So, the public good can insist on not paying for elective abortions. That responsibility would fall on the pregnant woman.

I also can see situations where society might pay toward abortion in cases of rape, incest, life-threatening issues, etc. But tht would be determined by the society.

 

[MamaJewel]

That we posses an inherent right to our body and its use over someone else’s right to live by the use of our body. That’s why we have to consent to be an organ donor, to give blood, etc to save someone else’s life, even if they are our own child. IE: if a 5 year old child needs a kidney from parent and there is not enough time to wait for another donor, that parent still has to consent to that. If not, the child will die of natural causes and the parent is not obligated to save their child at the expense of the use of their body to save their child.

This is the perspective of many pro-choice atheists today.
Legally, one person can’t be compelled to give another person the direct benefit (use) of his or her body. So even though the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being in those developmental stages, a person cannot be compelled to carry it (pregnancy).

 

[EnglishYew]

Not really ambiguous at all. The zygote exists, with form and matter, in composite with its essence. Therefore it has being. It’s essence is humanity; therefore it is a human being. Though its form may change over its lifetime (gestation, then ageing) it is always a human being, from conception.

 

[blackforest]

First off, I want to thank you for your thoughtful replies to my link. In our scroll-and-go culture, I’m not used to people actually deep reading the links that I post, let alone even clicking on them!

I’m in the middle of a profoundly stressful life event for which I petition CAF’s non-atheists to pray for me. In your case, I’ll just ask that you bear with me until I get a chance to provide a thorough reply to your analysis.

 

[goout]

The Catholic objection is not to the taking of a precious and unique life. It is to the DIRECT INTENT of taking of such a life. Catholic doctrine is ok with, e.g. the removal of even a late-term fetus along with the fallopian tube in which it is growing if it is an ectopic pregnancy. And it is ok with the collateral deaths of a thousand late-term fetuses as an known but unintended side effect of military action in a ‘just’ war. The Catholic position is philosophical and to do with the belief that ‘the end does not justify the means’. The humanist-atheist position is to do with doing the greatest good possible in the circumstances whatever order things come in.

You misunderstand Catholic moral theology.
Morality evaluates human acts in reference to an objective good. Morality is not philosophical construct that serves as it’s own end. It points to “the good.” The Catholic Church is not “ok with the collateral deaths of a thousand late term fetus”. That’s a bogus claim that doesn’t hold any water. Provide a source if there is one.

In this case , the good at hand is the sanctity of human life. Human life is good. It is good to be alive. Do you agree with this? It should be an inherent value in every human being, and the Church is simply observing what is revealed: it is good to be alive and life should be valued and be protected. That is the end of morality here.

You bring up situations of just war. The same good is in operation in just war, and the same good is the end of the moral evaluation.
You already know this, right? You’ve been here a while.

If a person is walking down the street carrying a bomb, we are justified in killing that person to save innocent human life. It’s a tough decision, but alas we have responsibilities as thinking human beings to make tough decisions.

Now we can be sure that in war there are many crimes are committed. These crimes are condemned. And many peaceful ways of accomplishing peaceful ends should be employed to protect human life. The Catholic Church does not deny this and condemns excessive force that harms innocent people.

The humanist-atheist position is to do with doing the greatest good possible in the circumstances whatever order things come in.

Right we understand. Might makes right. We do what is popular. It might be an atheist position, but it’s not very human. When you are unhinged from a good objective end, you have quicksand…ie force. Those without power become subjects of those with power.
How has this “popular force” model worked in practice within officially atheistic societies like communist Russia? Do you have any statistics on how the common good was served by moving-target morality?

 

[Pattylt]

I’m going to give a ray of hope here (I hope)!

The safety of workers in the 1800’s was not a priority…at all. Thousands died in very unsafe working conditions. Why? Because the value of a human worker was much lower the cost of implementing safety in all its varieties. Why did this change? Because the value of human life changed as we became better off. There were people involved in pushing this change but the reason it happened was due to an increase in the value of human life in society.

This is a continuing ongoing process… the data supports it. Society IS slowly changing and we can look forward to the day that abortion legality becomes a moot point or abortions are so very few in number that we retire the law as not applicable. This attitude is showing even now. Fewer young are in favor of abortion for any reason. Time alone may be the final solution.

For the pessimists, there is strong data to support this trend. It may not be fast enough but it is inevitable unless a drastic change to society causes it to speed up or decline. So, have some hope!

 

[rose321]

PLEASE answer my questions. You will realize that something written 2000 years ago by PEOPLE cannot answer these questions. We need laws and rules but not based on something whose authenticity and veracity are NOT beyond any doubts.

Respectfully opinion only…but one forgets 2,000 years and thousands of generations before us… our ancient forefathers …already knew… exactly that…We needed Laws!!!

Every Nation needs Civil and Moral Laws to maintain the… Health, Prosperity and Protection for ever nation…

Ten Commandments are known as the …The Covenant Royal Moral Laws… are they not? …

Laws ( Torah) Ten Commandments were moral & Civil laws created to provide…Equality Rights, Freedom and Protection for all …Life, All Human Beings.

Why the Ten Commandments all the …Thou shall not’s gives us teaching and instructions… to know right from wrong…

All… The Thou shall not’s…choosing to live by is for ones benefit fully then… thou shall not be done against you also? Moral and Protection laws also?

Thou shall not kill? murder?
Each Titled Commandment has underneath each one lists, defines and gives instructions to … what is considered murder, killing is? How else would we know what it means thousands of years ago?

Respectfully toward and hope you find the answers you are looking for!

And CAF is a good place to start also with Experts in the Field of Science…

Peace and respectfully toward

 

[Elf01]

This is the perspective of many pro-choice atheists today.
Legally, one person can’t be compelled to give another person the direct benefit (use) of his or her body. So even though the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being in those developmental stages, a person cannot be compelled to carry it (pregnancy).

And if we’re not talking about a mother and her unborn baby but conjoined twins that share a vital organ? They can be operated on in 9 months and both have a good chance of survival.

If there is no major impact to the twin that would survive if the operation is performed now should he/she be required to give up his/her bodily autonomy so that their twin can survive?

 

[Pattylt]

And if we’re not talking about a mother and her unborn baby but conjoined twins that share a vital organ? They can be operated on in 9 months and both have a good chance of survival.

If there is no major impact to the twin that would survive if the operation is performed now should he/she be required to give up his/her bodily autonomy so that their twin can survive?

Could you rephrase this? I’m confused…(typical for me)
Conjoined twins sharing a vital organ seems to mean one will get the organ and the other dies. If no vital organs are shared, then separating them gives each of them their own autonomy. Could you clarify what you are stating.

Thank you.

 

[Elf01]

Conjoined twins sharing a vital organ seems to mean one will get the organ and the other dies. If no vital organs are shared, then separating them gives each of them their own autonomy. Could you clarify what you are stating.

Assume that there is a transplant available so that both could live but the wait is 9 months.

 

[Pattylt]

If both survive, then they are achieving autonomy due to the surgery. Since the separation surgery is performed when the chances of a best outcome may mean to wait, are you asking if it should be performed immediately so that the autonomy will be achieved sooner?

Sorry, I’m sometimes slow to understand…

 

[Elf01]

If both survive, then they are achieving autonomy due to the surgery. Since the separation surgery is performed when the chances of a best outcome may mean to wait, are you asking if it should be performed immediately so that the autonomy will be achieved sooner?

Sorry, I’m sometimes slow to understand…

Yes, that’s what I’m getting at.