J
- Status
E
ellzeena
Guest
No. That is the “issue” that is created by a Godless society. In one other post, Zimm, you called the developing fetus an “it”. This is the vernacular of secular society and brain washing (yes, brain washing). “It” is only a blob of tissue; “it” has no feelings; “it” has no rights because “it” is a “parasite” in the woman’s body. Meanwhile: have you ever watched an ultrasound of an abortion, even an early abortion? “It” ACTIVELY ATTEMPTS TO AVOID the scalpel introduced to cut “it” into pieces; “it” receives no ANESTHESIA and suffers “its” dismemberment; “it” CAN feel (obviously or “it” wouldn’t move away from the scalpel). Most of the time, “it” also has a a beating heart. I had an ultrasound at 8 weeks and my baby’s heart was BEATING. Most abortions are performed way past 8 weeks into pregnancy.
The real “issue” is: GOD gives life. I do not conceive accidentally or because I forget my contraception (if I’m stupid enough to use it, tons of reasons against that from a lifetime of experience here). GOD conceives that child in my womb for His purpose. “It” is a human life. That life has a right to its life. No woman, for her “convenience” (i.e., letting the father off the hook, by the way), has the right to end another human life. This is MURDER, this is not a choice.
Your vernacular suggests to me that you aren’t Catholic or, if you are, you may be in apostasy. I have no idea what sex you are but I don’t think you’ve had children or this would not be an issue for you any longer. Once that baby is known to exist (yes, BABY), this is a person, living and growing inside you, an awesome gift, a huge responsibility, and a wonderful blessing. The blessing of a child is greater than the trauma of rape or the inconvenience of society’s nonacceptance should the child have been conceived outside of marriage. That, too, is changing, There are single women deliberately having children. GOD is allowing this. I think it an error since every child needs and deserves two parents, but just saying…
Either God is IN CHARGE or He is not. If He is not, then what we do with the unborn child means nothing and I think we’d need to re-evaluate our entire belief system. I don’t see any real indication that such re-evaluation is required nor, for that matter, permissible. Ergo: God gives life. God takes life back to Himself. We have no right to end the life of an innocent.
E
ellzeena
Guest
S
sw85
Guest
Correct, the state does not recognize bodily autonomy as an untrammeled good that trumps all others. For instance, if I try to destroy my own body, the state will take my body and put it in prison or a mental institution until I can handle the responsibility of having one.
I’m afraid I never found the violinist argument compelling for the exact same reason that I never found arguments for abortion compelling. Dependency creates obligation. This just is a part of reality, and refusing to deal with reality on its own terms is psychotic. So, yes, if you unplugged the violinist for a piddling nine months of “autonomy” (which, let’s face it, you’d probably squander, anyway), you’d be a scumbag.
The state forcing people to donate blood or organs isn’t analogous because there is no direct personal dependency in action there. Specifically, you’re saying that the natural law prohibition on abortion should be extended to include a consequentialist perversion of that same prohibition. But consequentialism is alien to natural law; under natural law, the ends do not justify the means. Your inability to distinguish the two makes you see a logical connection that doesn’t exist.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
No need to go into your examples, the law already clearly indicates the state does not recognize a person’s complete right to bodily autonomy. Prime example of this would be the laws against selling organs, drug use, and prostitution.
As to your abortion is the same thing as donating an organ comparison, not a very good comparison. Abortion is the active taking of a life. Not donating an organ can, at best, be argued the passive taking of a life. If we switch subjects, you are basically trying to argue that I’m as guilty of theft if I don’t do anything after seeing a guy unknowingly drop his wallet as I would be if I pickpocketed him.
A
aux1
Guest
That’s not very convincing. Here’s why:
- Assume that the fetus, as a distinct and unique individual person, has an inalienable right to life.
- Observe that, in order to exercise that right, the fetus must use the body of a woman.
- A woman may NOT give such consent, even implicit (sex vs. rape – implicit consent can be argued to exist in the case of the former, but not with the latter)
- If woman does not consent to pregnancy, and the state denies her abortion, then the state effectively forces her to allow the use of her body by another individual (the fetus)
- Observe that people are equal under the law. If person A (woman) can be forced to provide her body for use by person B (fetus), then why can’t person C (you) be forced to provide your body for use by person D (violinist)? In other words, if you agree that the state has the right to overrule a woman’s bodily autonomy, then you have to agree that the state can overrule your own bodily autonomy, and decide to use your body for any purposes it sees fit.
A
aux1
Guest
Pure deontology.
Abortion is bad, because God said so.
Not donating a kidney is neutral, because God didn’t say that you have to donate kidneys.
That’s all fine, except that deriving morality from God’s command means that there is no such thing as individual rights, there is only devine law. Individual rights are the product of Enlightenment philosophy, not God.
And if there are no individual rights, then you can’t claim that fetus in utero has a right to life. A woman then is prohibited form killing it, yes, but the prohibition stems from the divine command, not its inherent rights.
If you want to base an anti-abortion argument on fetal rights, then you have to recognize that exercising these rights may require violating woman’s rights – in which case, why single out women? Everyone donate kidneys!
Counterpoints welcome and appreciated
A
aux1
Guest
Under the working assumptions in this thread, yes.Here’s a question for you. Do you believe that if a pregnant mother gets murdered it should be prosecuted as a double homicide?
I grant that child in utero is a person with rights, including right to life.
I object however to the idea that the state can force the woman to donate her body so the fetus can exercise this right – because that means the state can force anyone else to donate his/her body for the purposes the state sees fit.
I don’t claim that woman has an inherent right to abortion. I claim that the state should not have jurisdiction over anyone’s body, which results in a right to abortion.
J
JimG
Guest
Interesting. You are saying that the child in utero has a right to life, but you would not allow the state to protect her right to life. The state must as a matter of policy, step aside, and allow any mother to kill the child at will.
At what point will the state be allowed to protect the child? After the umbilical cord is cut? When the child is delivered but with uncut umbilical? Eight or nine months into pregnancy?
It sounds like a rather contingent right to life.
A
aux1
Guest
Pretty much yes.
It’s a very bad situation, but the alternative is that the state pretty much owns woman’s body, and by extension – due to equality under the law – everyone’s body.
Logically speaking, only when the state can get to it without going through the mother’s body.
Yes, because it can’t be enforced without trumping mother’s rights.
J
JimG
Guest
So I take it you would not have a problem with sex-selection abortion? Or abortion of Down Syndrome babies? Isn’t that a form a sex discrimination and discrimination against the disabled?
And what about a child who is born? Can the state step in to protect it? That’s the sort of legislation that Barack Obama voted against in the Illinois State legislature.
So the child really has zero right to life, and the mother has an unlimited license to kill, as long as it’s a child in utero.
A
aux1
Guest
It has a right, except that its right is unenforcable without violating mother’s rights. Should the state be able to do that?
Likewise, violinist’s right to life is unenforcable without violating your risghts. Should the state be able to do that?
If the state is allowed to violate mother’s rights to enforce child’s right to life, then what’s stopping it from violating your rights to enforce violinist’s right to life?
S
St_Francis
Guest
First, all rights are limited. One’s right to free speech is limited if he shouts fire in a crowded theater, etc.
Second, rights are the flip side of prohibitions. The reason we have a right to our property is that others are phohibited from stealing.
And the reason humans have a right to life is that others are prohibited from taking that life. And the right to life is limited–if one endangers others, their right to self-defense may override the attacker’s right to life–if that would be what it took to stop the attack.
Now, a woman may be violated and left pregnant as a result. There is no way that she has a right to take the life of the unborn baby. Were she to try to do so, she would be attacking the unborn baby, and she would lose her right to act.
Suppose someone was attacking me in the street–hitting me with a baseball bat. Would others have the right to stop the attacker? Yes! And some people (police) would have the obligation to intervene.
In the same way, if a woman attempts to take the life of her unborn baby, society has not only the right but the *obligation *to protect the life of the unborn baby.
But what about the fact that the unborn baby is in the woman’s body and needs to stay there until birth? Is this analogous to the violinist? As usual, the analogy is imperfect, but… you say that thenperson to whom the violinist is attached has the right to separate from the violinist, and that is true (under a separate set of moral teachings).
The difference is that the person attached to the violinist does **not **have the right to **kill **the violinist.
The violinist is in a state where his body is working improperly, and this improper working will kill him without some outside action being taken.
The unbirn child, however, is in a situation where everything is working as it is supposed to. No intervention is needed; in fact, if intervention occurred, the act of intervening would kill the unborn baby.
Second, rights are the flip side of prohibitions. The reason we have a right to our property is that others are phohibited from stealing.
And the reason humans have a right to life is that others are prohibited from taking that life. And the right to life is limited–if one endangers others, their right to self-defense may override the attacker’s right to life–if that would be what it took to stop the attack.
Now, a woman may be violated and left pregnant as a result. There is no way that she has a right to take the life of the unborn baby. Were she to try to do so, she would be attacking the unborn baby, and she would lose her right to act.
Suppose someone was attacking me in the street–hitting me with a baseball bat. Would others have the right to stop the attacker? Yes! And some people (police) would have the obligation to intervene.
In the same way, if a woman attempts to take the life of her unborn baby, society has not only the right but the *obligation *to protect the life of the unborn baby.
But what about the fact that the unborn baby is in the woman’s body and needs to stay there until birth? Is this analogous to the violinist? As usual, the analogy is imperfect, but… you say that thenperson to whom the violinist is attached has the right to separate from the violinist, and that is true (under a separate set of moral teachings).
The difference is that the person attached to the violinist does **not **have the right to **kill **the violinist.
The violinist is in a state where his body is working improperly, and this improper working will kill him without some outside action being taken.
The unbirn child, however, is in a situation where everything is working as it is supposed to. No intervention is needed; in fact, if intervention occurred, the act of intervening would kill the unborn baby.
J
John_Q_Sinner
Guest
I’m sorry but who wouldn’t want to save him if you knew he will live? Offer it to God and help the violinist.
C
Cojuanco
Guest
To the original poster:
We have the rights to bodily autonomy, but our natural rights end where they interfere with the rights of others. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
We have the rights to bodily autonomy, but our natural rights end where they interfere with the rights of others. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
S
St_Francis
Guest
The right to life is only the right not to be killed by another human being, and even that is limited if the violinist were to endanger others. The important point here is that the right to life does *not *mean he has the right not to die. If his body’s natural functions stop working, then he will die of natural causes. In terms of thsi scenario, the violinist has the right not to be *killed, *shot, stabbed, run over by a car…
As I showed above, the mother has no right to attack and kill anyone, including her unbirn child.
S
St_Francis
Guest
It would be a great act of charity to help the violinist in this way, but it would be considered extra-ordinary care. We are obliged to provide ordinary care, assuring that a patient is gven food and water as long as the patient’s body can use those, but there is no [ii]obligation to provide dialysis.
J
JimG
Guest
If the right to kill one’s child is due to the child’s state of dependency, there is no reason that such right should not continue past birth. The point is made that the child is occupying the woman’s womb, and the state should not be able to force her to accept such a situation.
But after nine months, the child goes from occupying her womb to occupying her home, and remains in a state of dependency for many years to come. Should the state be able to force her—or her husband—to care for a dependent individual, who at the earliest stages of infancy requires care 24 hours per day?
If she can kill the child up until the time it exits the womb, why not up until the time it exits the home? Only when the child is fully independent will it be safe.
It sounds outrageous, yet we already have serious proposals for “post-birth” abortion, along with proposals that the dependent elderly might be helped to end their state of dependency through euthanasia. Is killing always the answer?
Personally I don’t like to think of any woman as being licensed to kill by the fact of having a womb. Rather to the contrary, it seems to bespeak a nature of protection and nurturing. Have times changed so much that the womb is the most dangerous place for a child to live?
But after nine months, the child goes from occupying her womb to occupying her home, and remains in a state of dependency for many years to come. Should the state be able to force her—or her husband—to care for a dependent individual, who at the earliest stages of infancy requires care 24 hours per day?
If she can kill the child up until the time it exits the womb, why not up until the time it exits the home? Only when the child is fully independent will it be safe.
It sounds outrageous, yet we already have serious proposals for “post-birth” abortion, along with proposals that the dependent elderly might be helped to end their state of dependency through euthanasia. Is killing always the answer?
Personally I don’t like to think of any woman as being licensed to kill by the fact of having a womb. Rather to the contrary, it seems to bespeak a nature of protection and nurturing. Have times changed so much that the womb is the most dangerous place for a child to live?
P
polki
Guest
I would argue that the child needs the mother’s womb to stay alive. The violinist would be able to survive on a dialysis machine.Pure deontology.
Abortion is bad, because God said so.
Not donating a kidney is neutral, because God didn’t say that you have to donate kidneys.
That’s all fine, except that deriving morality from God’s command means that there is no such thing as individual rights, there is only devine law. Individual rights are the product of Enlightenment philosophy, not God.
And if there are no individual rights, then you can’t claim that fetus in utero has a right to life. A woman then is prohibited form killing it, yes, but the prohibition stems from the divine command, not its inherent rights.
If you want to base an anti-abortion argument on fetal rights, then you have to recognize that exercising these rights may require violating woman’s rights – in which case, why single out women? Everyone donate kidneys!
Counterpoints welcome and appreciated
D
DannyGR
Guest
I added bolding.
I would (and others too, I assume) appreciate it if you didn’t call your fellow human beings “it.” I doubt you (or any group of people) would appreciate being referred to as such.
- Status