The question has been asked and answered. No. A pregnant woman does not have the right to deny her own child the “use of her body”. Her child has a right to live that is equal to her own right to live. She is obligated to attempt to safely deliver her child.I think we’re getting off track. Does a woman have the right to deny any Homo sapiens use of her body?
No, a woman does not have an unconditional right to do as she wishes with her body. She does not have right to deny her child the right to live in her body.I think we’re getting off track. Does a woman have the right to deny any Homo sapiens use of her body?
If a woman chooses to DENY a child use her body to be nurtured until able to survive outside the womb, she should exercise her RIGHT to say no to sex.I think we’re getting off track. Does a woman have the right to deny any Homo sapiens use of her body?
In the case of rape it would be the original victim, the mother, making a victim out of her child. Does her being a victim give her the RIGHT to victimize another? That is what this rationalization comes down to. Her body, her person was violated so, according to the abortionist rationalization, she has the right to violate the body, the person of her child.That right does not extend to the extent that they may harm any innocent person in the process. In the case of the child this is what would happen.
The difficulty with this question is that it presupposes that an unborn child has no right to life. If an unborn child has a right to life, then why does a woman’s so-called “right” to control her body take precedence over that child’s right to life?I think we’re getting off track. Does a woman have the right to deny any Homo sapiens use of her body?
9 months vs. A LIFETIME. If the mother truly does not want the child let me know, I’ve worked in adoption services for over 5 years and newborn babies are always in high demand from thousands of potential adoptive parents.A pregnancy only requires the use of a woman’s body for a limited period of time…
If someone has to be killed why is it the innocent child and not the rapist?If a baby is literally dropped on your doorstep, he would diwe if you left it therre. Does that mean you are obligated to care for him?
If she was raped?
Then you wouldn’t mind providing a citation.These are not my words. Looking for response
The bolded is an important distinction. But a woman creates (intentionally or not) a new life and has certain obligations to that new life.The question has been asked and answered. No. A pregnant woman does not have the right to deny **her own child **the “use of her body”. Her child has a right to live that is equal to her own right to live. She is obligated to attempt to safely deliver her child.
For a (his) personal opinion?Then you wouldn’t mind providing a citation.
The baby is an innocent. If you find a baby “squatting” in your vacant rental property you may not throw the child in the bin, or put him out on the street. You may not do as you please in order to assert your property rights.Is it not true that a woman may deny another human use of her body? I’m not saying the fetus is her body, or that it’s acceptable to dismember him/her to remove him/her from the uterus. Also note I’m agnostic.
There are times and circumstances where such a right can be asserted, and times and circumstances where it cannot. The morality of the act of “denial” needs to be assessed. Evicting the unborn child (abortion) will never be found moral if Catholic moral principals are applied.I think we’re getting off track. Does a woman have the right to deny any Homo sapiens use of her body?
Whose child this is does not matter. If a woman woke to find that another couple’s child had been implanted in her womb, she would have no right to evict (abort) the child. Such would be an immoral act. The child is an innocent human being and may not be murdered.The bolded is an important distinction. But a woman creates (intentionally or not) a new life and has certain obligations to that new life.
Abortion gets a lot of traction because it is related to sex and today sex is seen as a right with no boundries or obligations. But lets look at a non-sexual example.
Does a homeowner have the right to deny anyone entry into his/her home? Not unconditionally. The homeowner must allow entry to his/her children and other dependents. His/her obligation to those dependents supercedes his/her personal property rights.
In the same way a woman’s obligation to her dependant child supercedes any right to bodily autonomy. A woman can deny access to her body to virtually all other people in the world, but not to her OWN dependent offspring.
Honestly, CeaselessMedik, the best advice any of us could offer would be to recommend that you read Trent Horn’s book, Persuasive Pro-Life. It covers all of the situations you discuss and more, and would offer a much more comprehensive coverage of this topic than we can provide on this forum.For a (his) personal opinion?
And I was asking a question, not trying for an argument. @.@
You said it was NOT your personal opinion but someone else’s words that you were quoting. When you quote someone else, you should give attribution.For a (his) personal opinion?
And I was asking a question, not trying for an argument. @.@
These are not my words. Looking for response