2 Deep PRO-LIFE Questions from an atheist

[Ghosty1981]

So being a parent makes you lose your rights over your body’s use to save the life of your child?

Yes. The right of the parent to bodily autonomy follows from that same parent’s right to dependency when they were a child. Cutting off the latter logically eliminates the former. Put it another way, the parent only has bodily rights because at one point they were afforded dependency, and if bodily rights are inherent to human nature then obviously dependency is as well.

So if your child needs a lung to stay alive at the age of 6, you are legally compelled to give up a lung? If not, why is this different for a fetus then? That is special rights.

No, because requiring a lung does not arise from human nature itself, unlike the natural dependency of needing a womb and a nurturing environment in order for human nature to properly blossom. This is leaving aside the fact that you are again conflating natural rights with legal obligations.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The people had thosr special rights when they were a fetus.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The people had thosr special rights when they were a fetus.

Precisely, and by virtue of those rights they were able to grow and develop. All other human rights depend on this first right being protected.

 

[Elf01]

What person has a right to use someone else’s body to stay alive? Only a fetus does. That is the exact example of special rights.

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

Since the fetus will die of natural causes on its own and then poison the woman if left there, the doctor gives a lethal dose to the fetus and then has to remove the dead person from the woman.

By your own admission the baby is directly killed, not simply removed from the woman. Yes, I would have less issue with abortion if the baby was simply removed from the uterus and every attempt made to save him/her.

Again, being pregnant does not make you a parent until you consent to be a parent. Otherwise, every child on the street that runs into a random person can claim that adult as a parent as well.

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

 

[blackforest]

Is the person that refuses to donate blood or anything else about their body to save someone else also killing someone then? If so, then everyone that is not an organ donor is at least guilty of man-slaughter.

Respectfully, this analogy has far too many holes in it.

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. Inherent altruism renders the discussion of compulsory donation moot. There is no similar system for the pre-born except adoption.

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

Because of this - and here is the third gaping hole - there is a tremendous difference between a passive, “No thanks. I’m not giving blood. Better luck finding someone else’s” . . . . and an active . . . “I brought you into existence but don’t want you, so this doctor is going to crush you to death.”

Where’s the medical assault on a woman who’s unconscious and doesn’t have her body damaged, but is raped in her sleep.

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

Assault is a mental assessment of the situation regardless of its impact to our bodies.

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

I agree that she did the most she could to save those children and I applaud her for it. I do not agree that we should have legislation that forces people to give up their body to save someone though because I don’t agree that our governments should have that much control over us. They should never gain control over how we use our bodies and never have power over killing us either.

Sure, but I’d like your opinion of the ethics. Would you look down on her if she refused and allowed those babies to die? Would refusing to breastfeed in this case be right or wrong?

Everyone has a right to life, just not to a right of any amount of life through forcing other people to give up their body to prolong life.

Just the fetus will die quicker from natural causes than the person needing the kidney transplant.

And as I already stated, you’re granting an older and stronger human a unique set of rights not available to a smaller and more defenseless human. It is this assumption that I am questioning.

By way of correction, elective, induced abortion is an act of active killing, not “natural causes.”

 

[skelly]

In a lab any successful fertilization with any development is a life and deliberate destruction is murder. If pregnancy occurs after the natural act between man and woman then any deliberate destruction of the baby (abortion) is a murder.

 

[blackforest]

I did wonder about this. Bodily autonomy arguments clearly wouldn’t apply in a laboratory setting.

 

[goout]

Ghosty1981:

You are actually denying normal rights to the fetus, not giving them the same rights as anyone else.

What person has a right to use someone else’s body to stay alive? Only a fetus does. That is the exact example of special rights.
You are again conflating right to life over someone else’s right to bodily autonomy.

Do you realize that all of this assumes one thing:
that the right to bodily autonomy is proper to a living human being.
You go in circles.

Is this right to bodily autonomy proper to a dead body? How about the mere thought of a body?
A cow?
An ant?

No, the assumption you make disproves the point you would like to assert. The right to human existence is prior to your right to bodily autonomy.

If you deny this, how can your position be taken seriously?

 

[EnglishYew]

Yes. The Church opposes IVF but if a zygote occurs, that is a human being and it’s life has as much value as mine is yours.
The Church also opposes rape, but if a zygote occurs, that is a human being, etc.

 

[Pattylt]

After sleeping on my comment that pregnancy is an assault on a woman’s body, even though her biology accommodates it, I agree with ‘Tis bear’ that assault is the wrong word. Trauma is better but still not right…I’m still trying to think of an appropriate word.

Damian, one problem I’m not clear on…in the case of a fetus, the baby is already dependent on the mother whether she’s given consent or not. So aborting the fetus is removing the dependency already in place vs. arguing that the fetus has no right to that dependency as it’s after the fact?

I don’t want to swerve the conversation over to the death penalty but I wonder what your position would be on the right to body autonomy for a death penalty prisoner that WANTS to be put to death? Does his right to autonomy mean we must comply with his request? Just curious on your view here.
Thanks.

 

[blackforest]

I read your use of the word “educated” as an implication that those who don’t see things your way are “uneducated.” I apologize for misinterpreting you. I find that life experience is complex, often tragic, and has a profound impact on how we shape our views.

I’ve addressed your points about autonomy in other posts to other people, but I just wanted to offer a cyber-hug because you’ve been through so much!

 

[MamaJewel]

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.

In the United States bodily autonomy is a right. A person is free from the intrusion of another person having direct use (benefit) of his or her body without his or her consent.

Claiming another’s resources is different from claiming the direct benefit of the use of another person’s body. Resources and body autonomy are two separate, very distinguishable situations. It would cause more evil to allow one human being the direct claim of the use of another human being’s body, without that individual’s consent.

It’s one thing to be forced to share resources, it’s another to be forced to share your own physical bodily systems, organs, and tissues for the benefit of another. Just because we need each other and are dependent on each other does not mean that we have to give our bodies for others to utilize (research, organ/marrow/blood donation, dialysis, etc) We have the freedom from that kind of intrusion on our person.

I do want to say that I agree with you in part that freedom is not for me alone. However, I disagree that freedom only flourishes to the degree that others flourish. That once was my belief. My personal experiences have shown me that the individual within a society has to flourish as well. Meaning that freedom only flourishes to the degree that I am able to be my best by maximizing my time, talent, and treasure and that this applies to my fellow human beings as well.

 

[goout]

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.

In the United States bodily autonomy is a right. A person is free from the intrusion of another person having direct use (benefit) of his or her body without his or her consent.

Let me ask you a question that might seem antagonistic in it’s simplicity.
You are referring to “a person”.
What is “a person” that has this right to bodily autonomy?

 

[MamaJewel]

Awww, thank you so much. I was about to leave for class when I spouted off my response and wondered if I might be conveying a “Bertha-Better-Than You” message when I post. I apologize if it seems that way.

I really appreciate your cyber-hug and you are absolutely spot-on with life’s tragedies impacting outlooks. I realize that I am on a Catholic forum and I understand and respect the Catholic pro-life view. I don’t want to make anyone feel disrespected.

 

[MamaJewel]

generally speaking, an human being
but sometimes I have been known to use the term “person” for an entity or corporation

 

[MamaJewel]

In simplicity, what defines a person to you?

 

[goout]

generally speaking, an human being
but sometimes I have been known to use the term “person” for an entity or corporation

Correct me if I am wrong.
You are saying that “a person” who claims a right to bodily autonomy must be a human being.
Perhaps you see the problem with the prioritization of the right to bodily autonomy.
Put another way, the right to bodily autonomy is conditioned by, or subject to, a prior and more fundamental thing, that of being human.

 

[Damian]

The child in this scenario is not given anything that the mother has not already received by definition. On the contrary, you are seeking to remove this natural right from the fetus while having already tacitly granted it to the mother

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. 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 is what makes you a mother or a father.
Side not: Which is why I loath the title “Step parent”. No it’s just parent. The person that choose to be there as a parent is a parent regardless of their genetic relation to the child . It’s perfectly fine to say you have one mother and two fathers for example.

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. Just because an adult may choose to not be a parent for their first fetus does not mean they will not choose to be a parent to the next one. They are taking in other factors that it takes to be a successful parent to that child besides getting knocked up.

 

[Damian]

We are not talking about legal rights, but natural rights.

Legal rights are natural rights that came into conflict and we needed a way to assess the situation as best we can. That seems to be what I’m addressing. So not getting distracted with this issue of legal vs natural. Moral vs legal. etc. because they all start with our rights that come into conflict. The right to life over right to bodily autonomy. Which supersedes the other? When? etc. That’s what the law hashes out.

Gladly. You wrote:

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. That’s where I draw the line in the sand for governmental powers. So to your point, where did I not consent that people have these rights? I have always pointed out that people’s right to life and people’s right to bodily autonomy are in conflict and currently I agree that people’s right to bodily autonomy supersedes someone else’s right to life.

Consent doesn’t cause the child to exist, and every child has parents.

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. I believe this is where you are attempting to smuggle in the idea that being a biological contributor to someone’s existence makes you morally obligated to be their caregiver in the way of a parent because we use the common term of “biological parent” to describe the people someone is genetically related to. Sorry but again, the only thing that makes you morally culpable as a parent to a child is being the person that declared they will parent this child and accept the responsibility of being a parent to this child.

The right of dependency must be a given before the right of bodily autonomy,

Sorry but bodily autonomy never is superseded by right of dependency because to use someone else’s body is granted by the person whose body is being used and they never lose the right to withdraw consent. Just like in sex, she can consent at the beginning of sex, but she never loses her right to bodily use through out sex. So if she withdraws consent half way through, then she is now being raped.

 

[Damian]

These are examples of legal obligations, not intrinsic natural ones.

These examples of how the law has currently been used to work out natural laws.