How can you justify being pro-life if you believe in bodily rights?

[Andrea_Canada]

This is also not at all obvious to people who are not Catholics.

Of course to non-Catholics a lot of things are not obvious. If they don’t develop a relationship with Jesus, several loving concpets will go right over their head

 

[Andrea_Canada]

OP, to answer your question ‘How can you justify being pro-life if you believe in bodily rights’ is simple IMO. You CAN"T

The bible says you can not worship 2 Gods. I have never heard the term ‘bodily rights’ until I saw your post. But if ‘bodily rights’ teaches it is OK to abort, they you can NOT believe in it

 

[TRose225]

The idea of bodily rights has more to do with the government has no authority to impose it’s will on your body-forced vaccines, forced sterilization, forced abortion being some examples. At least not rightfully. But even “bodily autonomy” has its limitations. One can’t use the “bodily autonomy” argument to purposefully kill someone either by withholding care with the knowledge it will kill them or directly killing them through dismemberment.

 

[TRose225]

A Republican House and Senate cannot outlaw abortion. I’m not sure where you got that idea, but Roe v Wade has to be reversed by the Supreme Court before any Federal Laws are inacted. The issue of pregnant women being abused by partners is a red herring. Prolife people obviously are opposed to abuse and killing of pregnant women. However abuse should NEVER be a reason to be coerced into abortion. Do you have a source for that statistic? In the U.S., approximately 830,000 abortions occurred in 2017 alone so I’m a bit curious as to your source when you say the same amount of fetuses die from abuse to the mother. Your stat on medical reasons is incorrect. According to the Guttmacher Institute(prochoice site btw) 4% of abortions are done for fetal anomalies found in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, less than 1% for rape. I went to your source from the CDC. Those are reasons for MISCARRIAGE not elective abortion. According to Guttmacher the largest age demographic of women getting abortions is 20-24, followed by 25-29. Women who do not want to be inconvenienced because they have things to do. Who are probably not married with a family. You have no idea why rural white women choose suicide and yet here you are speculating about pregnancy. There are a lot of hardships being faced currently by all genders and races. And the suicide rate has increased for all since COVID lockdowns.

 

[Jen7]

But very early term delivery also seems wrong to me.

How early?! I was a micro premie. There are lots of us. I’d delivery my baby early if it would save his life!

 

[IYE]

This woman addresses the bodily rights argument quite well, I believe.

 

[Bluesky]

I think this argument needs some work, the uterus just provides the interface to the mother, but a mother supports her baby with every organ in her body, and pregnancy does put a strain on those systems. Women who have problems with heart, kidney issues etc… need to be monitored very closely.

 

[Theo520]

The pro-life movement was designed as a wedge issue and cash cow for the Republican party and ‘religious’ right.

This is utter BS. The movement wasn’t designed by anyone, it’s been in play since abortion laws were first enacted.

THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF BANNING ABORTION. Just ask bishop Timlin and Cardinal Law. When the Republicans were in power, they did NOTHING to really limit access to abortion.

Another strange comment, me thinks someone may be copying prepared talking points?

• Due to SCOTUS rulings, no state can ban abortions
• Many conservative states have enacted increased restriction, often to be overturned by the courts.
• Funding is regularly reduce with a GOP federal admin

The ‘pro-lifers’ have the same medical competence as the anti-vaxers and are actively trying to INCREASE FETAL & MATERNAL DEATHS!

I notice you didn’t provide any support for this provocative slander

 

[mimi05]

Sorry, I completely forgot to respond to this before.

If no one can force you to use your body to help someone, there are some circumstances where a person could die from it. The blood transfusion was an example of this, where there was even a parent-child relationship, but the parent could still passively kill the child by not providing blood for him/her. That is a form of passive killing or “letting die” by not providing the blood necessary for the child’s survival.

Now I have to admit that I currently not as sure as I was before on whether the parent could refuse to donate blood; I would hope everyone agrees that refusing to save your child’s life if their is no danger to your own is a pretty despicable and immoral thing to do, and the law shouldn’t allow immoral behavior. But, I am not completely sure about this either, and I am still thinking it through.

 

[Rau]

If no one can force you to use your body to help someone, there are some circumstances where a person could die from it. The blood transfusion was an example of this, where there was even a parent-child relationship, but the parent could still passively kill the child by not providing blood for him/her. That is a form of passive killing or “letting die” by not providing the blood necessary for the child’s survival.

Parents have a great duty to their children - far greater than their duty to care for all those in need in the world. An omission of this kind toward ones child might be difficult to explain at the pearly gates.

Are we guilty of “letting die” all the homeless who are in need of food and shelter, who could be saved if we used our bodies - got off our chairs and went to their aid? Certainly not in the same way as if we intend harm. And not in the same way as if we fail to assist our children in grave need.

The above situation (the homeless in need and dying) differs from abortion in key ways. First, the above deaths are remote and indirect from our choices. And second, the command to love neighbor while “directional” is not definite in what it obligates - we are called to help the poor - but how much? The command not to kill, however, is definitive & absolute.

 

[RhodesianSon]

I don’t get to kill someone to get myself food.

I don’t get to kill someone to get myself money.

I don’t get to kill someone to get myself a place to live.

I don’t get to kill someone to get an organ for a transplant.

You don’t get to kill someone (that you made) because it’s inconvenient.

 

[Rau]

I would hope everyone agrees that refusing to save your child’s life if their is no danger to your own is a pretty despicable and immoral thing to do, and the law shouldn’t allow immoral behavior.

The law serves the good of a heterogeneous community. The law will not allow parents to mistreat (including by omission) their children. But the law does not set out to enforce “morality” - recognizing that the whole community does not share a common understanding of what is moral, nor whether the community would benefit from enforcement in every case.

 

[RhodesianSon]

But the law does not set out to enforce “morality”

That’s part of the problem

recognizing that the whole community does not share a common understanding of what is moral,

And that’s the rest of it. A society that does not have cohesive morals will never last.

 

[Rau]

And that’s the rest of it. A society that does not have cohesive morals will never last.

Nearly no community is 100% aligned in its understanding of morality.

 

[RhodesianSon]

In the modern day, no. And it doesn’t even need to be 100% believed, it just needs to be enforced through governmental and social norms.