Irrefutable pro-life argument

[adriancombe]

I think rape makes a difference. If the baby has a mind, and the woman consented to sex then I think she is obligated to carry the baby to term unless doing so presents a risk to her health or life.

But if the woman was raped, then she didn’t consent to sex, and so has no obligation to allow the fetus to use her body to grow.

Are you saying that two wrongs make a right?

 

[flyingfish]

Are you saying that two wrongs make a right?

I don’t see where you’re getting that. I’m saying that a woman who did not consent to sex did not consent to the risk of pregnancy, and so has no moral obligation to let a fetus use her bodily resources to grow.

 

[adriancombe]

I don’t see where you’re getting that. I’m saying that a woman who did not consent to sex did not consent to the risk of pregnancy, and so has no moral obligation to let a fetus use her bodily resources to grow.

Refusing to “let a fetus use her bodily resources to grow” means killing a being whose personhood is at least in question. Do you think it is right to kill a being whose personhood you cannot rule out based on mere inconvenience?

 

[flyingfish]

Refusing to “let a fetus use her bodily resources to grow” means killing a being whose personhood is at least in question. Do you think it is right to kill a being whose personhood you cannot rule out based on mere inconvenience?

I think the woman is within her rights to keep her body’s resources for herself if either the fetus has no mind, or if she was raped, or if continued pregnancy threatens her health or life.

Yes, it means the fetus dies.

 

[adriancombe]

I think the woman is within her rights to keep her body’s resources for herself if either the fetus has no mind, or if she was raped, or if continued pregnancy threatens her health or life.

Yes, it means the fetus dies.

So you condone murder?

 

[flyingfish]

So you condone murder?

I think murder is the unjustified killing of a being with a mind. So, no.

 

[adriancombe]

I think murder is the unjustified killing of a being with a mind. So, no.

To you, what is the difference between killing a being whom you consider a person and killing one who you know might be a person?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think rape makes a difference. If the baby has a mind, and the woman consented to sex then I think she is obligated to carry the baby to term unless doing so presents a risk to her health or life.

But if the woman was raped, then she didn’t consent to sex, and so has no obligation to allow the fetus to use her body to grow.

Soooo…if the woman is raped but can’t decide whether to keep the baby or not and “allows” the baby to keep growing inside her, but then decides she doesn’t want the fetus to use her body anymore, yet the fetus has a mind at this point, is it morally justifiable for her to kill the fetus?

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[flyingfish]

To you, what is the difference between killing a being whom you consider a person and killing one who you know might be a person?

Assuming we’re talking about unjustified killing, I would not consider the “might be” a person. So it would be the difference between killing a person and a non-person.

Soooo…if the woman is raped but can’t decide whether to keep the baby or not and “allows” the baby to keep growing inside her, but then decides she doesn’t want the fetus to use her body anymore, yet the fetus has a mind at this point, is it morally justifiable to kill the fetus?

Yes, I think since she was raped she never implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy, and has the right to terminate at any time.

Ideally, she would do this in the first stages of pregnancy when it’s certain that there is no mind.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t believe we have souls, and I don’t believe human beings are special by virtue of being human. I think it’s our minds that make us special. Without a religious framework, I don’t see how you can use anything other than a mind to define personhood.

Then why do you list your religious affiliation as “agnostic?” Sounds more like “atheist” to me.

It also seems strange to me that you think it’s OK to take away the only life a person will ever ever ever ever have. If a baby does not have a soul, then this is it. You condone removing the only existence that person will have.

You should be more adamantly prolife than me. At least I believe an aborted baby will be taken care of by a loving God. You just let them stop existing. It’s not fair to them. It’s cruel.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

Assuming we’re talking about unjustified killing, I would not consider the “might be” a person. So it would be the difference between killing a person and a non-person.

Yes, I think since she was raped she never implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy, and has the right to terminate at any time.

Ideally, she would do this in the first stages of pregnancy when it’s certain that there is no mind.

But it’s OK for her to kill the fetus who has a mind. Yet you say this fetus is a person. And wouldn’t the fetus be an innocent person? So it would be murder.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t see where you’re getting that. I’m saying that a woman who did not consent to sex did not consent to the risk of pregnancy, and so has no moral obligation to let a fetus use her bodily resources to grow.

Yeah, those selfish fetuses! Just womb-squatters, that’s all they are.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe tonight.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[flyingfish]

Then why do you list your religious affiliation as “agnostic?” Sounds more like “atheist” to me.

I think agnostic more accurately describes me. I still pray sometimes, but when I pray I wonder at the same time if anyone is listening. Agnosticism means not knowing if there is a God. That perfectly describes me, I don’t know if there is a God. I think it’s very unlikely that there is a God who interferes in human affairs. I also don’t think it’s meaningful to talk about God because God would be beyond our comprehension.

It also seems strange to me that you think it’s OK to take away the only life a person will ever ever ever ever have. If a baby does not have a soul, then this is it. You condone removing the only existence that person will have.

You should be more adamantly prolife than me. At least I believe an aborted baby will be taken care of by a loving God. You just let them stop existing. It’s not fair to them. It’s cruel.

The women also have the only lives they’ll ever have. And the women definitely have minds, the fetuses (especially in the early stages) most likely don’t.

 

[flyingfish]

But it’s OK for her to kill the fetus who has a mind. Yet you say this fetus is a person. And wouldn’t the fetus be an innocent person? So it would be murder.

This is specifically about a RAPED woman. I think if the fetus has a mind, the woman who consented to sex can only abort it if it threatens her health or life.

I don’t think we can compel anyone who didn’t consent to give their bodies over to another person. Just like I don’t think you’re a murderer for not donating your “spare” kidney to someone who needs it to live. I think the situation of the raped woman is equivalent to the situation of you not donating your kidney.

 

[exoflare]

Irrefutable pro-life argument? Try a 7th grade biology class.

Any pro-abort who is not genuinely that ignorant of such basic science, is being dishonest with themself or flat out just doesn’t care at all.

 

[doughnut]

I don’t see where you’re getting that. I’m saying that a woman who did not consent to sex did not consent to the risk of pregnancy, and so has no moral obligation to let a fetus use her bodily resources to grow.

what do you mean exactly by “no moral obligations”? if we believe that life is given to us by God, then already are saying “No God, I didn’t ask for this, therefore I can murder this annoying growth in my tummy.”

I’m not condemning the choice of the mother if she choose to remove it, and certainly she needed our understanding and comfort, and prayers, but it doesn’t mean that this is the right thing to do.

Life is given by God, not the rapist. We can only pray that she sees it that way.

 

[doughnut]

This is specifically about a RAPED woman. I think if the fetus has a mind, the woman who consented to sex can only abort it if it threatens her health or life.

I don’t think we can compel anyone who didn’t consent to give their bodies over to another person. Just like I don’t think you’re a murderer for not donating your “spare” kidney to someone who needs it to live. I think the situation of the raped woman is equivalent to the situation of you not donating your kidney.

well, if you’re alive and well, donating your kidney might impaired your health ~ hence there is no obligation. God created you that way - but put it in another way.

but, will you kill another person for an organ because you’re sick and needed it?

Abortion (for the sake of the mother’s well-being) is similar to this. The mother felt that she has no responsibility for the baby because ‘she was the victim’, thus see it fit to ‘victimised’ another ‘human life’ so that she might feel better. Do we know for certainty that she will feel better? (who knows years down the road she might be suffering from guilt for murdering her own child?)

Killing another person for an organ might not mean you have 100% survival, but you have definitely 100% stolen the life away from another. It is the same as abortion - including rape.

 

[adriancombe]

Assuming we’re talking about unjustified killing, I would not consider the “might be” a person. So it would be the difference between killing a person and a non-person.

Are you claiming that any uncertainty justifies killing? Does this exonerate the guy who shoots the moving bush without waiting to be sure there is a person in there? If not, what is the distinction?

 

[adriancombe]

But if the woman was raped, then she didn’t consent to sex, and so has no obligation to allow the fetus to use her body to grow.

How do get, logically, from person A raping person B to person B being allowed to murder person C? Put another way, why do you insist on the euphemism of ‘using another person’s body’? What specifically about this makes you think it legitimizes murder?

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

But 24 weeks is not the limit for legal abortion in the U.S. Abortion is legal throughout nine months of pregnancy as long as one can cite a health reason of any kind. According to Doe v Bolton, it could be anything.

The pro-abortion view does not seem to be willing to consider any sort of cutoff point at all. What the mother desires is the only deciding factor. If she wants to give birth, the child lives. If not, the child dies.

Sorry you are indeed correct. I should have made it clear I am talking about abortion solely by choice. Nothing to do with medical exceptions etc.

There are many exceptions to my position on abortion. For example I believe strongly that a human being should be allowed defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary from harm. This is regardless of whether the harm is intended or not.

If a developing foetus/baby is threatening the life of the mother then this is a wholly different scenario.

The essay I linked to should merely be read in terms of free choice abortion which, as you will see in the essay, I argue for allowing in the 0-12 / 0-16 week area but I am very much against the 24 week cut off that is common in the US for this.