Another abortion question part 2

[theCardinalbird]

When speaking to someone Pro-Choice, she asked something somewhere along the lines of, “why should other people have a say in how I use my body?”

“If I’m going through all the pains of creating a child, shouldn’t I have a say in whether or not I want to stop it?”

Also: “pregnancy is dangerous, why should I be put through that without a choice?”

 

[goout]

When speaking to someone Pro-Choice, she asked something somewhere along the lines of, “why should other people have a say in how I use my body?”

“If I’m going through all the pains of creating a child, shouldn’t I have a say in whether or not I want to stop it?”

You can respond that individual rights are not absolutes. In no other circumstances do we allow a person to assert and exercise individual rights at the expense of innocent life.

The shallow rebuttal to this can only be that a child is not innocent, it is attacking the mother. Which is a sad position to hold.

 

[Knight]

I’d say they can do what they want with their body. However the child is a different body which simply is geographically located inside yours.

Maybe a bit graphic but when a man and a woman make love is the man’s body part now a woman’s body?

 

[SeriousQuestion]

That kind of logic is naive and pretty selfish too.

 

[theCardinalbird]

The shallow rebuttal to this can only be that a child is not innocent, it is attacking the mother. Which is a sad position to hold.

Yet people ask me, what option is there if the child is killing the mother?

 

[goout]

goout:

The shallow rebuttal to this can only be that a child is not innocent, it is attacking the mother. Which is a sad position to hold.

Yet people ask me, what option is there if the child is killing the mother?

The complication of a dangerous pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother is a more complex issue, and it is exceptional to the norm, so you can’t translate exceptional circumstances into universals.
If in the process of saving the mother’'s life the child is lost, that is justifiable.

 

[edward_george1]

“If I’m going through all the pains of creating a child, shouldn’t I have a say in whether or not I want to stop it?”

Okay, great. Let’s start there. Then where do you draw the line? “I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it,” except in this case it’s not a joke. If a woman wants to say she can terminate a pregnancy on the basis of having gone through the pains of creating a child, then why can’t she also terminate her two week old infant? Her three year old? Her twelve year old? Her thirty year old? Where’s the line at? Either a child is human, or it’s not. And either it’s wrong to take a human life, or it’s not.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Jimbo]

When speaking to someone Pro-Choice, she asked something somewhere along the lines of, “why should other people have a say in how I use my body?”

There are lots of things that come to mind; but an easy one is that she does have a say over her body. She does not have a say over the body of the child. And just like another person can say she has no right to kill her born children, an outside person can say she has no right to kill her unborn children.

The basis of everything is the biological fact that the unborn are living humans. Living humans are persons. When we deny this, or try to downgrade it, (through calling slaves non persons, the Jews and slaves as untermensch) humans do horrible, bad things to those whom they have just dehumanized.

Let’s stop doing that.

 

[theCardinalbird]

If in the process of saving the mother’'s life the child is lost, that is justifiable.

That is very true

I have to say though what can we make of Medical associations like the American Medical Association who say abortions save mothers lives?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

goout:

If in the process of saving the mother’'s life the child is lost, that is justifiable.

That is very true

I have to say though what can we make of Medical associations like the American Medical Association who say abortions save mothers lives?

I hate to be this cynical, but they have a vested interest in maintaining legal assess to abortions.

ETA: if they are honest they will admit that these cases are exceeding rare. And in those rare instances there are better more ethical options than directly killing the child. Even in the case of preeclampsia, the baby and mother can usually survive to viability.

 

[goout]

goout:

If in the process of saving the mother’'s life the child is lost, that is justifiable.

That is very true

I have to say though what can we make of Medical associations like the American Medical Association who say abortions save mothers lives?

I am not familiar with AMA using that justification as a universal statement.

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

“why should other people have a say in how I use my body?”

Well we can agree that to an extent people should have a (legally speaking) right to how they use their own body, but complete body-autonomy is not really a compelling argument. If a man sits on my wallet or eats my car keys (somehow), should I just shrug my arms and say “Well it’s his body” or do I have a right to demand that he does not do that?
This applies to whether or not a child should be killed. (They might object to this point in particular)

“If I’m going through all the pains of creating a child, shouldn’t I have a say in whether or not I want to stop it?”

We are in agreement that a woman should definitely have a say in whether or not a child should be created in her, however once conception happens, the child has already been created. It’s now growing and developing, and to stop that is to stop a life. (This last point is something they might object to)

Also: “pregnancy is dangerous, why should I be put through that without a choice?”

1. Not all pregnancies are dangerous.
2. This refers back to my first point, I agree that a woman has every right to choose whether or not she should be pregnant but once she already is pregnant, then to stop that is to stop a life (which is something they might object with).

Essentially it would (and should) be brought to the question “what is the unborn?” which your job then would be to show why the unborn is a human being that has the right to live like any other human person.

 

[goout]

…
Also: “pregnancy is dangerous, why should I be put through that without a choice?”

Another pointed rebuttal to this thinking is to point out this person’s own participation in childbirth.
If the difficulty of childbirth is the criteria for existing, then this person should not exist to ask this question.

And then they will probably appeal to choice and “privacy” which are weak cop-outs.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Trent Horn does an excellent job answering this common argument here. The comments section is also answered by top notch folks like Brandon Voit (far too long to copy and paste):

Answering Three Common Arguments for Abortion

NOTE: The following post, the second of two from Trent Horn, is excerpted from a new book he will publish in September defending the pro-life position. Read the first post here. In Part 1 of this short series, we saw that there isn’t a way to consistently define what a “person” is that inclu

strangenotions.com

 

[theCardinalbird]

How about in the case of rape. The mother never chose to have the child, why should she keep it?

 

[Knight]

How about in the case of rape. The mother never chose to have the child, why should she keep it?

Why should an innocent child die because of a violent act?

The child didn’t ask to be born either. It’s a sensitive case for the mother since she is the victim. But why would we permit the death of a child because another violent act took place?

 

[theCardinalbird]

I also have to say this. I’m in a debate with the majority of my class about medically necessary abortions. I told them what the Dublin Declaration told me:

“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.​

We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.​

We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”​

Despite the many signatories, how can I be confident I’m correct?

 

[theCardinalbird]

That is a good question

 

[Elf01]

When speaking to someone Pro-Choice, she asked something somewhere along the lines of, “why should other people have a say in how I use my body?”

In addition to pointing out the fact that the baby’s body is not the mothers I would offer an analogy of conjoined twins who share a vital organ. There is a nine month waiting list for a replacement that would allow both to survive. I sincerely doubt anyone would say that they should be separated immediately if it is what the one who will survive wants.

“If I’m going through all the pains of creating a child, shouldn’t I have a say in whether or not I want to stop it?”

Also: “pregnancy is dangerous, why should I be put through that without a choice?”

Bluntly unless you were raped you chose to engage in an act that makes babies. If rape is offered as a scenario then I would point out that if we are giving the death penalty for rape the rapist is the one that should be sentenced and maybe point out that if a woman already had children and the father raped her she could not kill them. More diplomatically in the case of danger to the mother the doctor has two patients and needs to give both the best possible care.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Giving the death sentence to a child because of the crime of the father seems a bit much.