2 Deep PRO-LIFE Questions from an atheist

[blackforest]

She can lose her parental rights to the child once its born if there is a record of her abusing her body in a way that affects the development of that child since she has already consented to be a mother to that child and bring it to term. No different than removing a parent’s rights to their child once the child is born and they are abusing it.

And yet fair to do in the womb. There are cases of botched abortions, i.e. abortions that the fetuses have survived. These cases were not treated the same way as other maltreatment cases such as in-utero narcotics. Somehow an attempt at an abortion that harms the child gets waived away.

The pregnant woman must first consent to be a parent to a child in the first place before you can obligate her to the responsibilities of a parent. Being pregnant does not make you a parent. Consenting to care for a child, regardless of its development stage makes you a parent.

This is a matter of irreconcilable philosophical views. It very much made me a parent form the moment I decided whether or not to eat soft cheeses.

 

[blackforest]

A child has no more right to someone’s breast milk than an adult has a right to someone’s breast milk.

So fundamentally, I’d be justified in starving the child? To preserve my bodily autonomy if I so choose? I’m just asking to clarify.

Their actions to fix their broken arm is their declaration of “I didn’t consent to this.”

I’m envisioning a loud splat and violent death here. But by all means, mend the arm.

 

[blackforest]

Using your body to keep people alive is great to do, but we don’t hold people legally accountable if they don’t go this far to save people.

I actually think that in my scenario, once a woman got back to civilization with a dead baby and claims of bodily autonomy, she’d be faced with charges . . .

 

[Damian]

Somehow an attempt at an abortion that harms the child gets waived away.

Then I would advocate to fix the law on this issue. Once a person consents to be a parent, regardless of development stage of the child, they are to be held legally accountable for the care of that child or lose their parental rights by force if need be.

This is a matter of irreconcilable philosophical views. It very much made me a parent form the moment I decided whether or not to eat soft cheeses.

I agree, irreconcilable philosophical views. You are granting special rights to a fetus while I am granting the exact same human rights that everyone gets. Why does an unborn child have a right over the bodily consent of their parents but once they are born, they lose their rights over the bodily rights of their parents to stay alive? That’s granting the fetus special rights over everyone else and then it loses those special rights once its born. I’d be for passing laws that would force parents to give up their bodily rights to save their child regardless of their developmental stage then if that’s what your advocating for. Now fathers would lose their bodily rights as much as mothers do. But since men make the rules, I don’t see them actually doing that any time soon.

 

[Damian]

I actually think that in my scenario, once a woman got back to civilization with a dead baby and claims of bodily autonomy, she’d be faced with charges . . .

She’d be a social outcast probably but not legally as I see it. I wouldn’t want to be around people that wouldn’t go that far to save people for sure. But I’m definitely not going to codify that into law because I fundamentally disagree that we should grant our government the power to have say over our body’s use.
Same thing with the death penalty. I fundamentally disagree that we should give our government the right to end the lives of its citizens. Both of these points are a line I will not allow it to cross. We as a society can outcast people ourselves, but the government should never gain this much power over our lives and bodies.

 

[Damian]

So fundamentally, I’d be justified in starving the child? To preserve my bodily autonomy if I so choose? I’m just asking to clarify.

You have a legal right to keep your bodily autonomy over the life of someone else regardless of their development stage. Starving this child is no different than not giving up a kidney or blood or marrow to save the life of the child either. Just the starving child dies sooner.

I’m envisioning a loud splat and violent death here. But by all means, mend the arm.

I’m hoping I was just 5 feet off the ground and missed a hand hold.

 

[Elf01]

Why does an unborn child have a right over the bodily consent of their parents but once they are born, they lose their rights over the bodily rights of their parents to stay alive?

I see it as letting nature take its course.

The unborn child only needs the same as any other human at that stage of development.

The born child needing a transplant needs medical intervention - also the chances of only one potential donor are low.

 

[humbleseeker]

Y’all can keep discussing this with Damian if you wish but all their points have been hashed out already. You’re not going to persuade someone that a fetus has a right to life when they start from the premise that pregnancy is an assualt on a woman’s body.

Why are you pro-choice 19Sept2018 Trent call Moral Theology

So I called into the CAL to talk about why be pro-choice on 19Sept2018 with Trent. The conversation was going along fine and we had to take a break. They hung up on me over the break and every time I tried to call back in, they kept hanging up on me without ever explaining why. I used the name Carlos from Denver. So if we could pick it up where we left off with this conversation. The pro-choice position, as I understand it, is about consent of use for someone’s body. I gave the example of how …

 

[blackforest]

Then I would advocate to fix the law on this issue.

So to paraphrase, a woman with a successful abortion is A-OK both ethically and in the eyes of the law. But you would seek to prosecute and punish her if the abortion failed and caused her child’s cerebral policy?

Do I have that right?

You are granting special rights to a fetus while I am granting the exact same human rights that everyone gets.

But you’re not. I can’t approach just anyone and say, “Through no intention of your own, you’re invading my space. I don’t consent to you being here, so I’m going to put you through a suction tube that will crush you to death.” This mentality is the height of malignant narcissism.

I’m also trying to keep my cool here, as a woman, because whether or not you’re aware of it, your underlying assumptions are profoundly misogynistic. To equate a human growing naturally inside a woman to assault, e.g. rape, is an inflammatory slap in the face to rape survivors.

She’d be a social outcast probably but not legally as I see it

This is false. To starve one’s child legally constitutes an act of neglect.

But since men make the rules, I don’t see them actually doing that any time soon.

It’s strange how men have no right to be pro-life because “they don’t get it” but have every right to be pro-choice . . . even though they still “don’t get it.” As a uterus-owner with plenty of experience in pregnancy, I proudly endorse the position of pro-life men.

You have a legal right to keep your bodily autonomy over the life of someone else regardless of their development stage. Starving this child is no different than not giving up a kidney or blood or marrow to save the life of the child either. Just the starving child dies sooner.

Granted, I’m no lawyer. But I don’t think any court would uphold this argument for you.

 

[goout]

Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right at the expense of someone else’s right to live.
This prioritization is very difficult to accept, but it has to be maintained, because the alternative is to subject one person’s right to live to the claim on another’s resources. And it does seem obvious that this kind of subjective view of human life leads to evil.

And none of us can assert that we live without claiming dependence of others. No exceptions. We need each other.

The other point is: the claim to freedom is not minimalist and individualist. Freedom is not for me alone. Freedom only flourishes to the degree that others also flourish.

 

[Ghosty1981]

You are granting special rights to a fetus while I am granting the exact same human rights that everyone gets.

You are actually denying normal rights to the fetus, not giving them the same rights as anyone else. You are denying the fetus the natural right to parental care, a right that its mother must have enjoyed in order to be in the position to be pregnant in the first place. You seem to concede that humans do have natural rights as you are claiming the right of bodily autonomy, but you aren’t consistent in your recognition of these rights.

Human brains, minds, and the exercise of our natural personhood literally require parental nurturing (intentional or not) in order to develop. Our development involves much, much more than simply “stealing nourishment”, and dependency is integral to human nature. A fully developed human person can’t just happen, it requires parental involvement.

Consent requires a functioning mind, and a functioning mind requires development, and development requires dependency. You are granting this to the mother and denying it to the child. Regardless, the child’s natural right to parental care is more fundamental, and therefore overrides, the parent’s right to bodily autonomy until this dependent period ends. Without a period of dependency, bodily autonomy absolutely can not develop and be exercised, so to deny this right of dependency is to grant bodily autonomy to the mother while fundamentally denying it to the child. Society may or may not have the resources to compensate for a parent that neglects or is unable to perform their natural duties, but this doesn’t change the fact that a child has a natural right to this care.

I will also add that this isn’t a male vs. female thing; the child has a natural right to paternal care as well. It is easier for the male to shirk their duties, but it is not therefore less of a crime.

Peace and God bless!

 

[goout]

blackforest:

So fundamentally, I’d be justified in starving the child? To preserve my bodily autonomy if I so choose? I’m just asking to clarify.

You have a legal right to keep your bodily autonomy over the life of someone else regardless of their development stage. Starving this child is no different than not giving up a kidney or blood or marrow to save the life of the child either. Just the starving child dies sooner.

I’m envisioning a loud splat and violent death here. But by all means, mend the arm.

I’m hoping I was just 5 feet off the ground and missed a hand hold.

This becomes a silly argument that reduces to the location of a human being in space. Our laws constantly make claims on one person’s autonomy pursuant to the rights and betterment of others.
The argument that the child is an invader on one’s autonomy is simply a matter of where the child is located. Seen in that light, our government is constantly making demands on our autonomy, and we should reject just about any law.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right at the expense of someone else’s right to live.

Even if we grant that it is, the right to parental care is more foundational as it is the root from which the right of bodily autonomy grows.

So even if we grant that your right to bodily autonomy gives you (Goout) the right to “kill” me (Ghosty) if I violate your bodily autonomy, we are not granting that a mother has the right to kill the fetus that is growing within her. The fetus is merely exercising the right to parental care that the mother has already been afforded; to deny the right of dependency is to undercut the right of bodily autonomy entirely, cutting it off at the root before it is ever allowed to develop.

This is not treating the fetus and mother as equals, it is denying fundamental human rights to the child while granting them absolutely to the mother.

 

[Pattylt]

premise that pregnancy is an assualt on a woman’s body.

Are you claiming that pregnancy isn’t an assault on a woman’s body? Could you define assault?

I agree a woman’s body is designed to withstand that assault but it is still an assault in my view. We just tend to usually allow our body to be used for the purpose.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Are you claiming that pregnancy isn’t an assault on a woman’s body? Could you define assault?

I agree a woman’s body is designed to withstand that assault but it is still an assault in my view. We just tend to usually allow our body to be used for the purpose.

It is a natural process of the woman’s body, pleasant or not. It is no more an assault than a bowel movement: both can be unpleasant, and both arise naturally from the bodly processes.

A rape leading to a pregnancy is an assault, but the pregnancy is not an assault and the fetus is not a perpetrator. The fetus, being absolutely innocent, has the natural right to dependency that all humans enjoy.

 

[Pattylt]

You still haven’t defined assault. The woman’s body is designed to deal with a pregnancy but it isn’t a natural function of her body required for living. Many women never have children and many that do can have all sorts of problems with their biological functions while pregnant. Typically, it is extremely rare that any pregnant woman doesn’t have some problem or another during a pregnancy.

I’m not sure you can definitely state that pregnancy is in no way an assault on her body. This doesn’t mean it gives one the right to assault it again with an abortion, however.

 

[blackforest]

You still haven’t defined assault.

Our good buddy Webster does. Which of these definitions do you think applies to pregnancy? Assault | Definition of Assault by Merriam-Webster

 

[Ghosty1981]

You still haven’t defined assault. The woman’s body is designed to deal with a pregnancy but it isn’t a natural function of her body required for living.

Any definition of assault includes an outside actor with intent. The embryo has no agency in this situation, and therefore is not assaulting anyone.

The fact that the woman’s body doesn’t require pregnancy in order to survive has nothing to do with whether or not pregnancy is a natural process of her body. I don’t require sight, taste, pleasure, digestion ect. to survive, but they are all natural process of my body.

Pregnancy is unique in that another human being has the right to the bodily processes of another, but this is a foundational element of human nature, the very same nature that we are saying implies rights for the mother.

 

[Pattylt]

Either this…
a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
Or
a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension (see APPREHENSION sense 1) of such harm or contact

The problem is there is no intent by the fetus to assault the mom but all that a moms body has to do to nurture and develop the fetus plays differing levels of havoc on her systems. I’m just trying to figure out defending an anti abortion position by denying it’s an assault to her body will score any points? My first reaction to that statement was, “did you ever have a baby?” Maybe I’m just overthinking this?

 

[Ghosty1981]

I’m just trying to figure out defending an anti abortion position by denying it’s an assault to her body will score any points? My first reaction to that statement was, “did you ever have a baby?” Maybe I’m just overthinking this?

Underthinking it, not overthinking it. It’s a completely understandable and acceptable emotional response, just not a reasoned one.

Even a wanted pregnancy comes with a load of emotional and physical baggage and trauma that no one but the mother herself can experience or understand. I doubt that any mother has ever been of “one mind” even over her own pregnancy.

Traumatic as pregnancy is, and it absolutely is (I don’t even believe the pious legends about Jesus passing intangibly through Mary’s uterine wall), it isn’t assault. I can experience severe trauma without any assault, and I can experience assault with little to no trauma; they are distinct kinds of experiences that may overlap but aren’t the same thing.

As for whether or not the “it isn’t assault” point would be appropriate in an argument, I think it depends on how it is said and in what context. It is a rational point, but a rational rebuttal isn’t always appropriate; shouting it in the face of a rape victim would be a horrible thing to do. We should always be mindful in these discussions that we are often dealing with very real and very severe trauma, and a “right” point can still be the wrong point to make depending on the circumstances.