Interacting with a pro-choice individual on their terms

[Muze]

Okay, but what about in cases of rape?

Different argument. Basically, there isn’t any other instance when someone gets to kill a 3rd party (even an animal) because they are the victim of a crime.

What if the couple were using contraceptives that failed, and therefore didn’t “consent” to pregnancy?

They still consented. The very fact that they were trying to prevent pregnancy only shows that they knew that it was possible and were acting to reduce the possibility that what they consent to would happen.

 

[josh987654321]

Different argument. Basically, there isn’t any other instance when someone gets to kill a 3rd party (even an animal) because they are the victim of a crime.

They still consented. The very fact that they were trying to prevent pregnancy only shows that they knew that it was possible and were acting to reduce the possibility that what they consent to would happen.

Why focus on these arguments? All you need to do is show that murder is wrong and abortion is murder, whether the child is inside the womb or outside the womb it is still a human life.

Just like the “Kermit Gosnell” case in America, he was killing babies, that would legally be allowed to be killed if they were still in the womb at older and more developed stages.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Muze]

Why focus on these arguments? All you need to do is show that murder is wrong and abortion is murder, whether the child is inside the womb or outside the womb it is still a human life.

Because people who are pro-choice think they have answers for these arguments, and making them only causes them to put up a wall through which they will not hear.

Making an argument that exposes their own bases as insufficient is more effective.

Just like the “Kermit Gosnell” case in America, he was killing babies, that would legally be allowed to be killed if they were still in the womb at older and more developed stages.

I’m sure that’s had some effect in terms of exposing people to the reality of abortion. But that emotional impact is going to be short lived. We need not abandon traditional arguments, but we should be looking for other ways through the defenses.

 

[polytropos]

Because people who are pro-choice think they have answers for these arguments, and making them only causes them to put up a wall through which they will not hear.

Making an argument that exposes their own bases as insufficient is more effective.

I don’t think it really is an argument against abortion, though. I agree that there is no valid analogy that justifies killing a fetus in order to reinstate bodily autonomy, but most arguments still come back to whether the fetus has a right to live.

The current strategy on the part of pro-choicers seems to be to speak as though the fetus is not even an entity. This is the aim of rhetoric like “my body, my choice” - to ignore the fact that the woman’s body is the only object under scrutiny here. Simply saying that they aren’t entitled to such an action is correct, but they are conditioning people to not think of fetuses as persons, so to them it doesn’t make much of a difference.

I think the point about consenting to pregnancy through sex is valid, but it really just makes the pill easier to swallow, from the “emotional” perspective. From the “logical” perspective, abortion is wrong for the same reasons whether the sex was consensual or not. The fact is that whether you consented to becoming pregnant or not, the dependence of another human being on you does not justify killing that human being. There is no valid medical analogy which justifies killing the human being.

 

[Rence]

Effectively, they say that abortion is a woman’s right because it’s her body and she has the right to do what she wishes with it.

Well, here’s the counter argument:

When a woman engage in coitus with a man and willingly allows him to release sperm into her reproductive system, she consents to to use of her body to gestate a fetus to term. And thus, even if a woman has a right to her own body, the consent given means she has an obligation to fulfill.

It doesn’t matter what means she took to prevent pregnancy, it is universally known that sex produces offspring. And, as such, when offspring are produced, the woman contented to it forming there and consented to the use of her body until birth.

And thus the argument about a woman’s right to her body falls apart on the issue of her consent to give up that right for a period of time.

And has this method been working for you? Has it changed anyone’s mind or behavior?

 

[Rence]

Different argument. Basically, there isn’t any other instance when someone gets to kill a 3rd party (even an animal) because they are the victim of a crime.

Then why would it work for the first argument?

They still consented. The very fact that they were trying to prevent pregnancy only shows that they knew that it was possible and were acting to reduce the possibility that what they consent to would happen.

People do not live by what you or others claim they have consented to. Women who have sex with the intention of not getting pregnant have not “consented” to being pregnant, especially if they have been using some kind of birth control. While you and others might think that sex automatically leads to pregnancy, the declining size of families will debunk that theory of yours. It’s obvious people are having a lot more sex than the occurence of sex. Yes, it’s a bit silly to forget about the simple fact that sex can lead to pregnancy. However, obviously real life shows us this is not a guarantee. So no, women who have sex have not already consented to being pregnant with each and every sexual encounter.

You’re better off with just sticking to the facts: The Church forbids abortion, therefore, if is forbidden." Leave the tap dance for something less important because non-convincing arguments are irrelevant which makes the original message irrelevant.

 

[Muze]

I don’t think it really is an argument against abortion, though. I agree that there is no valid analogy that justifies killing a fetus in order to reinstate bodily autonomy, but most arguments still come back to whether the fetus has a right to live.

It deals with the pro-choice that a woman has the right to an abortion because she has the right to do with her body as she wishes (privacy.)

Granted this isn’t the end, but it does address this objection specifically.

The current strategy on the part of pro-choicers seems to be to speak as though the fetus is not even an entity. This is the aim of rhetoric like “my body, my choice” - to ignore the fact that the woman’s body is the only object under scrutiny here. Simply saying that they aren’t entitled to such an action is correct, but they are conditioning people to not think of fetuses as persons, so to them it doesn’t make much of a difference.

And this directly addresses that point. It says: OK, your body, your choice, but also your consent to using your body to gestate the fetus you created, as a result of your choice to allow a man to release sperm into your reproductive system.

I think the point about consenting to pregnancy through sex is valid, but it really just makes the pill easier to swallow, from the “emotional” perspective.

Which is a big part of the picture. The abortion debate is as much emotion as logic

From the “logical” perspective, abortion is wrong for the same reasons whether the sex was consensual or not.

That would be a moral perspective, not a logical one.

The fact is that whether you consented to becoming pregnant or not, the dependence of another human being on you does not justify killing that human being. There is no valid medical analogy which justifies killing the human being.

Which is the next step after you get the pro-choice person to accept consent.

 

[Muze]

And has this method been working for you? Has it changed anyone’s mind or behavior?

I have had several pro-choice people interact with the argument in a fairly serious manner, sorting out the difference between consent to an expected outcome and consent to unexpected accidents and whether birth control changes anything.

It is often difficult to tell whether one’s mind has been changed or moved from an internet debate. My suspicion is that many are at least rethinking the rights aspect of the pro-choice position, given the consent argument.

Again, small steps hopefully in the right direction.

 

[Muze]

Then why would it work for the first argument?

Because the intercourse is voluntary. The woman consents to the man releasing sperm into her reproductive system.

People do not live by what you or others claim they have consented to. Women who have sex with the intention of not getting pregnant have not “consented” to being pregnant, especially if they have been using some kind of birth control.

I disagree, as the use of birth control is an indicator that the woman/couple KNOW that pregnancy is an expected result, and wish to minimize the chance of what they know they’d be consenting to.

While you and others might think that sex automatically leads to pregnancy, the declining size of families will debunk that theory of yours.

Not necessary for the debate.

It’s obvious people are having a lot more sex than the occurence of sex. Yes, it’s a bit silly to forget about the simple fact that sex can lead to pregnancy. However, obviously real life shows us this is not a guarantee. So no, women who have sex have not already consented to being pregnant with each and every sexual encounter.

That’s a nice assertion, but it isn’t supported by logic. When you consent to do something that has an expected outcome, then you consent to the outcome.

You’re better off with just sticking to the facts: The Church forbids abortion, therefore, if is forbidden." Leave the tap dance for something less important because non-convincing arguments are irrelevant which makes the original message irrelevant.

Yeah, that almost works with protestants… atheists… pro-choice Catholics… (err. NOT)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Women who have sex with the intention of not getting pregnant have not “consented” to being pregnant, especially if they have been using some kind of birth control. …]It’s obvious people are having a lot more sex than the occurence of sex. Yes, it’s a bit silly to forget about the simple fact that sex can lead to pregnancy.

I agree with what you said. I think the primary argument of this thread relys on conflation of “consent” with engaging a “risk”.

 

[utunumsint]

Yeah, that almost works with protestants… atheists… pro-choice Catholics… (err. NOT)

Hahahaha… too funny.

 

[polytropos]

It deals with the pro-choice that a woman has the right to an abortion because she has the right to do with her body as she wishes (privacy.)

Granted this isn’t the end, but it does address this objection specifically.

And this directly addresses that point. It says: OK, your body, your choice, but also your consent to using your body to gestate the fetus you created, as a result of your choice to allow a man to release sperm into your reproductive system.

Here is an analogy. You start watching a TV show you like. Then a commercial comes on before it ends. Are you obliged to follow through to the end, even though the commercials are really bad and long? No, because changing the channel is not an immoral action, even though you “consented” to the possibility of a commercial break by beginning to watch TV.

The fact that there is consent is not the issue. The issue still comes down to the moral status of the fetus, because unlike changing the channel which we are justified in doing, abortion is never justified.

 

[polytropos]

I agree with what you said. I think the primary argument of this thread relys on conflation of “consent” with engaging a “risk”.

The word “consent” should not have been used. In any case, if one knowingly undertakes a risk, immoral action may not be undertaken to correct for any potential consequences of the risk, even if those consequences are not intended. If you lose a lot of money gambling, you cannot steal to get it back. If you donate a kidney to someone, you cannot kill him and take it back. If you become pregnant, you cannot abort your child.

But the point holds whether the risk was undertaken or not. If someone steals your money, you can’t steal someone else’s. If both of your kidneys were stolen in an act of organ theft, you still need to connect with a voluntary donor. If the sex was not consensual, you are still not justified in aborting your child.

And that is why the argument still hinges on abortion being an immoral action.

(This post is not meant to be combative or argumentative; just commenting on the relevance of either “consent” or “risk” in the abortion debate.)

 

[Rence]

I disagree, as the use of birth control is an indicator that the woman/couple KNOW that pregnancy is an expected result, and wish to minimize the chance of what they know they’d be consenting to.

Actually, the use of birth control is an indicator that one does NOT consent to a pregnancy, otherwise they wouldn’t bother with the birth control.

That’s a nice assertion, but it isn’t supported by logic. When you consent to do something that has an expected outcome, then you consent to the outcome.

Actually, the use of birth control is an indicator that one does NOT consent to a pregnancy, otherwise they wouldn’t bother with the birth control. Obviously, pregnancy isn’t the “expected outcome” when one uses birth control. So again, no “consent” there.

Yeah, that almost works with protestants… atheists… pro-choice Catholics… (err. NOT)

Well good luck to you

 

[Rence]

I agree with what you said. I think the primary argument of this thread relys on conflation of “consent” with engaging a “risk”.

Exactly. Taking a “risk” and taking steps to avoid an unfavorable outcome certainly doesn’t equate to “consent”. The odds are in their favor too.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The word “consent” should not have been used.

Nope, it shouldn’t have. Were it used to try to convince some one I think it would only come across to the person as not being understood and their position being misrepresented, which puts up quite a barrier to achieving agreement.

I don’t think it’s an issue that can be overcome in this thread; especially since new people that join the thread will probably see that argument first. To get past it I think it would be necessary to come up with a new argument and start a new thread.

Exactly. Taking a “risk” and taking steps to avoid an unfavorable outcome certainly doesn’t equate to “consent”.

Indeed. Imagine a fire man consenting to get burned while trying to get some one out of a burning house or a law enforcement officer consenting to get shot by opposing an armed violent offender.

In any case, if one knowingly undertakes a risk, immoral action may not be undertaken to correct for any potential consequences of the risk, even if those consequences are not intended.

I think you could get agreement with this in principal. But the point of disagreement is where people draw the line or define the criteria on what is moral; this will be influenced by one’s value judgements. Even when one does consider it immoral that may not be enough to prevent the behavior. Borrowing from one of your examples of a person that has lost money to gambling such a person may recognize stealing money from some one else as a moral violation. But that recognition doesn’t always result in the person deciding not to steal.

 

[Muze]

Here is an analogy. You start watching a TV show you like. Then a commercial comes on before it ends. Are you obliged to follow through to the end, even though the commercials are really bad and long? No, because changing the channel is not an immoral action, even though you “consented” to the possibility of a commercial break by beginning to watch TV.

But you DID consent to commercials being broadcast to your television. That’s the point.

Once consent is established, now we can begin the discussion of the moral implication of termination. For the television, it’s no big deal to turn the channel.

For a pregnancy, the life that the woman consented to gestate would be terminated, if she were to abort. Where the argument changes is that the pro-choice person CANNOT claim the right of the mother to do as she wishes with her body, the right of “privacy” to justify abortion, because she gave up that right when she allowed a man to release sperm into her reproductive system.

It disarms that argument.

The fact that there is consent is not the issue. The issue still comes down to the moral status of the fetus, because unlike changing the channel which we are justified in doing, abortion is never justified.

And, with your way, you yell “It’s a baby”, and the pro-choice person yells, “It’s my body”, and the two of you will never communicate.

All I’m doing is providing an answer to “It’s my body” to disarm that argument before continuing to the moral argument, which is now easier to make with consent on the table.

But, go ahead, continue yelling without communicating.

 

[Muze]

Exactly. Taking a “risk” and taking steps to avoid an unfavorable outcome certainly doesn’t equate to “consent”. The odds are in their favor too.

“Risk” is the wrong term, because it implied an unexpected outcome. If I drive my car down the road, a car accident is a risk, but not an expected outcome. A car isn’t (legally) driven to cause an accident.

OTOH, pregnancy is always an expected outcome of sex, even if it doesn’t happen every time, and even if one takes steps to prevent it. In reality, the primary purpose of sex is to procreate, and that’s true regardless of whether you’re a Christian or a hard care atheist evolutionist. (Indeed, for the atheist, the reason sex is so enjoyable is so that people will do it incessantly and produce a lot of offspring, fulfilling the evolutionary mandate.)

Think of it like a subway car. If I get into an active subway car I consent to the subway system taking me to the next station. That’s the expected result. I can’t sue the city for kidnapping because they took me from one station to another.

Likewise, the “right” of a woman to privacy with respect to her body and pregnancy was given up when she consented to having sperm released into her reproductive system. That pregnancy doesn’t happen 100% of the time, or that the couple attempts to prevent this from happening doesn’t change the fact that when a woman releases sperm into her reproductive system, pregnancy is an expected result, and she consents to the use of her body for that purpose until such time as the life created can be safely sustained on its own.

 

[polytropos]

Even when one does consider it immoral that may not be enough to prevent the behavior. Borrowing from one of your examples of a person that has lost money to gambling such a person may recognize stealing money from some one else as a moral violation. But that recognition doesn’t always result in the person deciding not to steal.

Oh, certainly. The only point is that such behavior should be publicly acknowledged as immoral and should not be endorsed by the law.

 

[polytropos]

But you DID consent to commercials being broadcast to your television. That’s the point.

Once consent is established, now we can begin the discussion of the moral implication of termination. For the television, it’s no big deal to turn the channel.

Yes, you did consent to it, but changing the channel is still only wrong if it is intrinsically so. The consent is irrelevant.

Regardless of whether consent is established, we must proceed to the moral implication of termination, because the argument will not succeed unless termination is immoral. Now, one could say that we aren’t tackling the rape issue yet, if that’s necessary to make the case more palatable to secular audiences, but it is the moral status of the fetus that actually matters whether there was consent or not.

For a pregnancy, the life that the woman consented to gestate would be terminated, if she were to abort. Where the argument changes is that the pro-choice person CANNOT claim the right of the mother to do as she wishes with her body, the right of “privacy” to justify abortion, because she gave up that right when she allowed a man to release sperm into her reproductive system.

It disarms that argument.

She cannot claim that right only because the fetus has a more compelling right to life, which her right to bodily autonomy never trumps. The fact that she could have become pregnant from her actions does not inherently discredit her right to terminate a pregnancy; it is only discredited because there is never a right to terminate a pregnancy. If the fetus had no moral status, then she would be as justified in terminating the pregnancy as she is in changing the TV channel.

I think we are really arguing semantics. The use of the argument is as I have stated previously: if one knowingly undertakes a risk, immoral action may not be undertaken to correct for any potential consequences of the risk, even if those consequences are not intended. I think (correct me if this is wrong) that this is the point you ultimately intend to make. I am only saying that this whole argument must be presented at once, and it is not fruitful to begin with the issue of consent without the issue of the fetus’s moral status.

And, with your way, you yell “It’s a baby”, and the pro-choice person yells, “It’s my body”, and the two of you will never communicate.

All I’m doing is providing an answer to “It’s my body” to disarm that argument before continuing to the moral argument, which is now easier to make with consent on the table.

But, go ahead, continue yelling without communicating.

I’ve communicated with pro-choice individuals in this thread, pretty civilly. I don’t recall any shouting. Inevitably, the discussion turned to the moral status of the fetus, because simply saying that the woman knowingly undertook a risk (or, in your language, consented) is not enough.

I agree with the bolded statement, but I don’t think the point about consent stands on its own, and it need not be presented as an argument in itself because without consideration of the moral status of the infant, it goes nowhere.

The thing about the “it’s my body” objection is that it’s just propaganda. It also happens to be completely false; a fetus is not a woman’s body, it is not an organ, and it’s not a parasite. People use the phrase in public settings to convince others, by repetition and association, that there is not another party with competing rights claims involved. “It’s my body” is a visceral, dishonest, unphilosophical appeal to the “right” for abortion. It prefigures the right to bodily autonomy as an absolute right, which is a false assumption whether the issue of consent is being considered or not. “It’s my body” is what people write on posters and shout at pro-abortion rallies; it’s not an argument.