Changing our culture of death

[Rau]

The intent is to remove the unborn child from the mother’s womb immediately, regardless of the effect on the child. For the purpose of this question, the woman who is pregnant as the result of rape did not consent to be pregnant, and does not want to be pregnant.

There is some similarity with the predicament of the child, also having consented to nothing!

If the mother has the right to attack the child, who has the right to defend thd life of the innocent child? Removal of the child and murder of the child are not morally distinct acts in this scenario.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It is not that the Woman is forced to do something - more what morality demands she may not do.

This thread is discussing a future in which Roe v. Wade has been overturned, and a pro-life ethos has infused the nation. So I’m assuming that all abortion has been criminalized, i.e., the state is in fact forcing the woman to carry the child to term under penalty of criminal law.

My answer to the OP’s question is that one way we could really underscore the pro-life perspective in such a future would be to make organ donation mandatory. Given that the raped women has no right to choose not to be pregnant any more, I don’t see why the rapist’s more selfish desire not to donate his organs should be honored by the state.

 

[mikekle]

What if conception has already occurred at that point? Is the woman forced to carry the pregnancy to term at the expense of her bodily integrity?

In Gods eyes, that fetus is still a human life though, even though it may be the rapists baby, its still a HUMAN LIFE. Adoption is always a better alternative.

 

[Just_Lurking]

In Gods eyes, that fetus is still a human life though, even though it may be the rapists baby, its still a HUMAN LIFE. Adoption is always a better alternative.

The person who will die without an organ donation is just as much a human life as the fetus.

 

[Just_Lurking]

If the mother has the right to attack the child, who has the right to defend thd life of the innocent child? Removal of the child and murder of the child are not morally distinct acts in this scenario.

And who has the right to defend the life of the person who needs an organ donation to live?

 

[kozlosap]

You’re forgetting the principle that what is legal is accepted by more people. Boys ((or parents) who think nothing of bullying their girlfriends or daughters into an abortion will have less freedom to bully. In my experience, many women wouldn’t get an abortion if they weren’t bullied or threatened into it, by threats of loss of affection, loss of income, or a place to live.
Families aren’t going to send their fifteen year old daughters to China, when they can send them to a nearby maternity home and arrange an adoption. Surely a preferable outcome for all.
Plenty of poor women are getting abortions, paid for by their boyfriends, pimps or parents.

.

I don’t know your age, but in the late sixties, when I was a teenager, very few teenage girls went to maternity homes. Now, I’m from Northern California, so on average the area is much more progressive than say, the deep South. Parents were more concerned about their daughters being able to finish the university. As a junior and senior in high school, I had two friends get back ally first term abortions. One girl almost died from sepsis, the other was fine
and had no complications. Even if Roe was entirely vacated, women with middle class families will be able to access the procedure because they have $$$$$. Just an observation from a baby boomer…

 

[Rau]

And who has the right to defend the life of the person who needs an organ donation to live?

The God-given law includes both positive and negative precepts. The negative ones (Thou shallt not…) are absolutes, while the positive precepts (eg. Love thy neighbour…, Honour thy parents…) require a personal judgement.

There is clearly merit in organ donation and all efforts to encourage its practice are praiseworthy. The idea that it be compulsory is novel (to me), but might be reasonable.

It appears to me you argued the woman’s right to not be pregnant was such as to mean she had a right to murder the child, If that is not your position, I am relieved.

 

[Rau]

This thread is discussing a future in which Roe v. Wade has been overturned, and a pro-life ethos has infused the nation. So I’m assuming that all abortion has been criminalized, i.e., the state is in fact forcing the woman to carry the child to term under penalty of criminal law.

The State law typically does force parents to care for their children, and not harm them, even unwanted children, unless and until adoption or alternative care becomes available. Abortion would likely continue because the persons concerned would perceive a good chance of escaping the law - the fact of the child’s existence is very closely held and the child will not be “missed”.

 

[NM505StKate]

Since it is now clear beyond a doubt that life begins at conception, and it is only a matter of time until Roe vs Wade is overturned, we might want to give some thought to the response to this event. (Okay, it may be years, but it’s inevitable, just as the outlawing of slavery was, even though it took decades.)

The people who are prochoice will be devastated, and feel that they are being forced to accept an unjust situation, that is being forced to carry babies to term. Pro-life people don’t see it that way, of course, but my point is that if we work toward preparing the culture to accept it, it may go easier.

One way to do that is to teach girls assertiveness skills, so they can say no to unwanted sexual attentions, by dates or even husbands. Or better job skills, so women can avoid needing to choose prostitution. And working to increase the acceptance of adoption.

After the Civil War, Reconstruction would have gone much smoother if Lincoln had still been alive, since he advocated charity for all and malice toward none. We could take a page from his book and prepare our society for the change we see coming.

.

Context please. Where in the world are you getting this information?

 

[Rau]

Context please. Where in the world are you getting this information?

I think you can take everything starting with “Roe vs Wade will be overturned” as hypothesis.

 

[mikekle]

It appears to me you argued the woman’s right to not be pregnant was such as to mean she had a right to murder the child, If that is not your position, I am relieved.

I have never understood this hypocrisy, it is legal and fine to murder an unborn baby, but when a mother kills a baby or child, suddenly everyone is outraged, calling for the death penalty, if they agreed it is the mothers decision about the baby, why would they care if it was born or unborn, its still the same mother, same choice…and its still a life, that can be scientifically and legally proven, I have seen local court cases where a man was convicted of 2 counts of murder for a pregnant woman, so the state/legal system DOES recognize the unborn AS A HUMAN LIFE.

I am not a proponent of killing anyone at anytime, born or unborn.

 

[Rau]

I have never understood this hypocrisy, it is legal and fine to murder an unborn baby, but when a mother kills a baby or child, suddenly everyone is outraged, calling for the death penalty, if they agreed it is the mothers decision about the baby, why would they care if it was born or unborn, its still the same mother, same choice…and its still a life, that can be scientifically and legally proven, I have seen local court cases where a man was convicted of 2 counts of murder for a pregnant woman, so the state/legal system DOES recognize the unborn AS A HUMAN LIFE.

I am not a proponent of killing anyone at anytime, born or unborn.

Why do you address these comments - particularly the last paragraph - to me? The post to which you respond was addressed to JustLurking, not to you. I’ve not suggested you favour or would endorse murdering anyone.

 

[Viki63]

Context please. Where in the world are you getting this information?

It is true, as Rau says, it’s hypothesis. Based on what I understand of history, especially around the Civil War. People thought the institution of slavery was here to stay, but the abolitionists never gave up until it was eliminated. Remember the Dred Scott case in the Supreme Court? That ruling, similar to Roe vs Wade, was an egregious error and everyone now knows it.

In the same way, people are starting to see that Roe vs Wade falls into the same category. It declares open season on human beings, based on the stupid premise that since we don’t know when life begins, we might as well allow the killing of the unborn.

That’s about as smart as a hunter who says, “I see a brownish creature in the underbrush, I’m not sure what it is, but on the off chance that it’s a deer and not a human being, I’ll shoot it.”

.

 

[NM505StKate]

It is true, as Rau says, it’s hypothesis. Based on what I understand of history, especially around the Civil War. People thought the institution of slavery was here to stay, but the abolitionists never gave up until it was eliminated. Remember the Dred Scott case in the Supreme Court? That ruling, similar to Roe vs Wade, was an egregious error and everyone now knows it.

In the same way, people are starting to see that Roe vs Wade falls into the same category. It declares open season on human beings, based on the stupid premise that since we don’t know when life begins, we might as well allow the killing of the unborn.

That’s about as smart as a hunter who says, “I see a brownish creature in the underbrush, I’m not sure what it is, but on the off chance that it’s a deer and not a human being, I’ll shoot it.”

.

ROFLMAO. Declares open season on humans? I didn’t know the Hunger Games and the Purge are part of daily life here in America.

 

[Sarcelle]

What if conception has already occurred at that point? Is the woman forced to carry the pregnancy to term at the expense of her bodily integrity?

Pregnancy does not violate bodily integrity. The rape already happened and it is this act that violated her bodily integrity. The baby is as innocent is his or her mother. It is the rapist that deserves to be punished.

 

[openmind77]

Pregnancy does not violate bodily integrity. The rape already happened and it is this act that violated her bodily integrity. The baby is as innocent is his or her mother. It is the rapist that deserves to be punished.

Bodily Integrity may not be the correct term, the correct term maybe bodily autonomy. Pregnancy is a natural state, so it does not violate bodily integrity, but an unwanted, forced pregnancy does violate the bodily autonomy of the woman as long as it is in the woman’s womb against her wishes.

The rapist will be punished if he is caught and found guilty, but the woman is innocent and should not have to suffer this violation of her body for so many months. She should have a say in how her body is used and what she has to carry within her body.

 

[Rau]

Bodily Integrity may not be the correct term, the correct term maybe bodily autonomy. Pregnancy is a natural state, so it does not violate bodily integrity, but an unwanted, forced pregnancy does violate the bodily autonomy of the woman as long as it is in the woman’s womb against her wishes.

The rapist will be punished if he is caught and found guilty, but the woman is innocent and should not have to suffer this violation of her body for so many months. She should have a say in how her body is used and what she has to carry within her body.

The means by which she may enforce her rights are not without limits though. Murder is not an action available to anyone for any purpose, including enforcing some personal right. If the child is an innocent human, killing the child is murder.

 

[openmind77]

The means by which she may enforce her rights are not without limits though. Murder is not an action available to anyone for any purpose, including enforcing some personal right. If the child is an innocent human, killing the child is murder.

And who appointed us to be her judge and jury? First of all people don’t agree that the fetus is a child, so we can not call it murder. But even otherwise how can we just deny the woman the right to control what is inside her body? Who gave us this authority?

What she does or does not do with body is between her soul and her God, nobody has given us the right to judge.

 

[robertmidwest]

my point is that if we work toward preparing the culture to accept it, it may go easier.

I applaud your confidence.

This point here might be better stated in a reverse manner. The goal isn’t to make it easier for pro-abortion people to tolerate the illegality of abortion. The goal is to make pro-abortion people value life so greatly that abortion becomes unacceptable. That’s why it is called the pro-life movement and not the anti-abortion movement.

 

[Rau]

And who appointed us to be her judge and jury? First of all people don’t agree that the fetus is a child, so we can not call it murder.

But even otherwise how can we just deny the woman the right to control what is inside her body? Who gave us this authority?

What she does or does not do with body is between her soul and her God, nobody has given us the right to judge.

So, if asked whether such and such a course of action would be “moral”, we ought respond - “I’ve no idea”? How will we regulate our own life if that is our answer to all questions of morality?

If your position is that the child (“entity”?) within is not human until some particular time-point, then there you have a reason to say the act is not murder. But then you presumably also can say when the child switches to being human, and you can point to some basis for that?

I am not aware of any principal of morality that places the right to “control” another life - one within her mother - by virtue of location. Unless in this you revert to the idea that the life within is not human.

Is there ever a case when murder (intentionally killing - willing the death of - an innocent human) is moral?