2 Deep PRO-LIFE Questions from an atheist

[VanitasVanitatum]

Doesn’t the other twin have a right too since they share the organ?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Then how come people can be compelled to give away their money for things that they rather not support?

 

[Pattylt]

This was a very difficult thought experiment and I can’t see it ever existing in real life. The problem is that each person, in my view, has a right to body autonomy. To stay true to my view, the right of someone to BE autonomous supersedes the right of the other to stay attached. My mind isn’t 100% set on this, however. It’s just where I’m at right now.

Do I like this position, NO! Nor do I think any conjoined twin would make this decision, especially if all he had to do was wait nine more months so both could live. But! The scenario was that the conjoined twin wanted the surgery now and would I force him to wait. My answer is no as ugly as that is.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You might want to consider that in doing so you deny the other twin their autonomy.

 

[Pattylt]

Then there isn’t a moral dilemma, is there? If both will survive then the surgery should take place as soon as they can. Or am I missing something here?

Edit to add… the last sentence wasn’t there when I first responded.
The twins do not have body autonomy as long as they are joined. My point is that I feel that the twin that wants to achieve autonomy supersedes the twin that doesn’t want it.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I mean that only one could survive from the surgery, but it could be done on either.

 

[Pattylt]

Ok, I see.
It doesn’t matter which one it is. Autonomy trumps remaining joined.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But which one’s autonomy gets the priority?

 

[Pattylt]

That doesn’t make sense? Every person has a right to their own body and no one should be forced to share it if they don’t wish it. Free will and all that… Do I have a problem with one of them dying because of it? You bet I do! That’s usually the point of thought experiments!

 

[MamaJewel]

A mother who just survived a plane crash would have an ethical obligation to save her own life first. If she felt well enough, then she would have a moral obligation to nurse her baby. Her legal obligation to nurse would likely be determined by the child neglect and abuse laws of the state where the crash occurred.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Since both share the body and both want to recieve the surgery that result in separation (and the other twins death) than which one should be prioritized? I’m not sure if I made this clear in my previous posts though.

 

[Pattylt]

You mean that either can get the shared organ and survive so which one gets it?

I have no answer to that! I could be flippant and say flip a coin but I really don’t know how anyone could answer that question. What’s your answer?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I am not sure either.

 

[MamaJewel]

Being compelled to give money away for something you don’t support and being compelled to let another person have the direct use of your body for his/her benefit are two different things.

Look, I’ve been pregnant 11 times in my life and I have 8 living children. I’ve hemorrhaged and put my life on the line with pregnancies to the point my providers were afraid for my life. The natural consequence of practicing natural family planning and naturally having so many babies can quickly result in naturally bleeding out. I’m lucky to be alive.

When I was pro-life, I believed it was my duty to forego the right of my autonomy to bring a human being to term. Now that I’ve become educated, I realize that I can’t argue for legal suspension of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy while she is pregnant (ie. the zygote/embryo/fetus) because doing so leads to a slippery slope of any person being forced (legally compelled) to give the direct use of her body to another human being at any stage of their life.

Why is an unborn human being anymore valuable than a human being who has survived the womb, labor, and birth? At what stage is one human being to be directly utilized for another’s benefit? If we can legally force a woman to give up her body to sustain an unborn child, we can force her to give up her body to sustain a child after birth.

In the United States, a person cannot be legally compelled to give his or her body for the direct benefit of another. That means we can’t be forced to give blood, donate marrow, donate a lung or kidney, or other tissue, etc. We do not have to share our body with another human being, to the benefit of that person. Pregnancy carries many risks and can quickly become a life-threatening or fatal ordeal for a woman, so the law allows for termination of pregnancy at her choice.

At the same time, with federal law, a woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term. If she chooses to carry a high risk pregnancy to term, there are certain providers out there that are legally obligated to treat her. (Whether she has access to them is another story.) So the law can work in favor for a mother who chooses life as well.

In my humble opinion, to avoid widespread elective abortions, we have to fight for social justice and remove the barriers that prevent a woman from wanting to bring a pregnancy to term.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Money is very important for a person substance and since both body and wealth are owned by the person in question and to separate the way these are treated is inconsistent and shows that there is a flaw in the logic.

 

[blackforest]

So this may be parallel to the abortion to save the life of the mother.

We’ll say, for the sake of argument, that she’s able to fish and gather berries, akin to the majority of women who live through pregnancy.

I can’t think of any state whose abuse and neglect laws would condone starving a child to preserve bodily autonomy . . .

When I was pro-life,

Now that I’ve become educated,

This is what one commentator calls the language of the Anointed . . .

We the Benighted are not less “educated” than you; we simply see the issue through different set of ethical lenses.

Humility and an open mind are beneficial to these discussions.

In the United States, a person cannot be legally compelled to give his or her body for the direct benefit of another.

It depends.

Medical interventions are legally compelled. Mandatory vaccination laws call for citizens, mostly school children and hospital employees, to surrender their bodily autonomy and submit to medical intervention ostensibly to benefit others, i.e. avoid spreading disease.

 

[Damian]

Ah! Consent is the issue! Bodily autonomy applies differently to pregnancy than, say, the plugged-in violinist argument because in most cases, assuming consensual sex was involved, the woman actually did something to cause the existence of another human being.

Consenting to risky behavior is not consenting to being forced to live with the bad outcome of the risky behavior. If I decide to go rock climbing, I am only consenting to climb and reaching the top. I am not consenting to falling and breaking my arm, but I acknowledge that is a risk to the behavior. Same with driving a car and acknowledging you accept the risk of getting into a car crash. Now because you and I consented to risky behavior and now have broken arms, are we forced to live with that bad result? No, we take the responsibility and fix the bad result of the broke arm by taking the responsibility of the bad result and go to the hospital to fix the broken arm. We are not forced to live with the broken arm as a result of our risky behavior. Same with consenting to have sex and not consenting to the pregnancy as a result. The pregnancy is the broken arm here. Consenting to risky behavior is not consenting to keeping the possible bad results of the risky behavior.

Now you can claim that that she used birth control, so the pregnancy was unintended.

And you wore your seat belt and I used a rock climbing rope and helmet too.

When we make free and willful decisions, we take willful ownership over the potential risks . . . or benefits.

Yes we acknowledge the risks and take on the responsibility of fixing the bad results of risky behavior.

Am I under any moral obligation to breastfeed the baby? Or am I morally justified in claiming bodily autonomy and withholding my breastmilk, thereby starving and dehydrating the baby?

Does a full grown adult have a right to your breast milk as well? Even if you don’t want to, do they have a right to forcefully hold you down and take it from you?

Now suppose I survive the plane crash with somebody else’s baby. I don’t know the baby. I don’t necessarily feel an emotional attachment to the baby. Am I under any moral obligation to breastfeed in this scenario?

Is the adult pilot able to take your breast milk by force if you don’t consent? See age of the person needing your body is irrelevant to the bodily autonomy rights question it seems. That’s why a 3 year old that needs a kidney transplant from their parents has the exact same right to her father’s kidney as the fetus has a right to the woman’s womb to stay alive. Both adults have to consent to have their body used to save a child or fetus or adult’s life. Otherwise you are granting special additional rights to a fetus that no one else has rights to.

 

[Damian]

Wouldn’t that constitute bad parenting, as well?

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. Otherwise every woman and man that walks past a homeless child is also under the laws of “bad parenting” for not helping that homeless child.

What if a pregnant woman is a drug addict? If she’s intending to have the baby, should she have to give up her bodily autonomy for forced addiction treatment?

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.

 

[blackforest]

Does a full grown adult have a right to your breast milk as well? Even if you don’t want to, do they have a right to forcefully hold you down and take it from you?

Is the adult pilot able to take your breast milk by force if you don’t consent?

There are no other survivors. And how are either of these scenarios analogous to the defenselessness of the unborn child? If I concede that the pilot survived, I will be finding the same food and drink to nourish the pilot that I would for myself. (Contrary to The Grapes of Wrath, a sip of breastmilk won’t do it).

If I do the latter, I’m sacrificing some bodily autonomy, including the physical labor to gather the food and fewer rations for myself. Under these circumstances, am I under any fundamental moral obligation to help the pilot?

From my own ethical standpoint, I’d say that I’m under just as much obligation to the pilot as the baby.

Now, let’s try another one on for size, this time a real-life example. I remember when this story broke a decade ago. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/22/china.breastfeed/

This Chinese police officer was a hero for sacrificing her bodily autonomy to breastfeed so many babies left estranged from their mothers by a massive earthquake.
The bigger question is: Would she be a monster if she didn’t? Or would she be ethically justified in withholding such altruism?

Consenting to risky behavior is not consenting to being forced to live with the bad outcome of the risky behavior. If I decide to go rock climbing, I am only consenting to climb and reaching the top. I am not consenting to falling and breaking my arm, but I acknowledge that is a risk to the behavior. Same with driving a car and acknowledging you accept the risk of getting into a car crash. Now because you and I consented to risky behavior and now have broken arms, are we forced to live with that bad result? No, we take the responsibility and fix the bad result of the broke arm by taking the responsibility of the bad result and go to the hospital to fix the broken arm. We are not forced to live with the broken arm as a result of our risky behavior. Same with consenting to have sex and not consenting to the pregnancy as a result. The pregnancy is the broken arm here. Consenting to risky behavior is not consenting to keeping the possible bad results of the risky behavior.

None of us can live with that sense of entitlement. It is logically impossible. No rock ill-fated rock climber gets to shout, “I didn’t consent to this!”

 

[Damian]

No rock ill-fated rock climber gets to shout, “I didn’t consent to this!”

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

There are no other survivors. And how are either of these scenarios analogous to the defenselessness of the unborn child?

I’m pointing out that the age of the people in any crisis situation is irrelevant to their rights to use someone else’s body to stay alive. A child has no more right to someone’s breast milk than an adult has a right to someone’s breast milk. We do have an obligation to try to save each other though. Which is why you can be held legally negligible if you throw one person off the boat so that you can survive on the remaining rations. However, we can hold you accountable for not sharing the rations, but not accountable for not wanting to have your body’s breast milk used to save people. 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. But we will if they don’t share a sandwich.