The Right-to-Life doesn't include

[Ana_v]

But now let’s create a hypothetical scenario intended for a Catholic, prolife audience.

The pregnant mother has express intention on ending the child’s life because she wants to terminate the pregnancy. You want to do everything in your power to dissuade her from having the child killed.

It is in your power to induce labor, or otherwise arrange for labor to be induced, so as to relieve the mother of the pregnancy that she doesn’t want. The mother is willing to settle for “removal of the fetus” as an alternative to “the active killing of the fetus”.

Would you opt to remove the fetus, or refrain?

This question is interesting and relevant insofar as in the future the medical profession may be able to devise artificial wombs or incubators intended for very early inductions of otherwise non-viable fetuses.

Catholics adhere to the principle that “the end doesn’t justify the means”. So the question is – is the removal of a non-viable fetus in and of itself, wrong? Or does it depend on what is done with the fetus (e.g. left without care vs. transferred to another womb, whether artificial or natural).

 

[goout]

Gorgias:

pregnancy is a natural process.

I agree that it is a natural process. I also agree that it is involuntary.
Consider menstruation as an example of the same.

Excuse me for being stunned at reading this.

Menstruation is the shedding of the lining of the uterus on a monthly basis when no child is living in the mother’s womb.

Pregnancy is the growth of a unique human being in it’s natural place of development, the womb of his/her mother.

The fact that they are both part of natural biological processes is reallly, REALLY, moot. The objects (or “ends”, or “results”, or “trajectory”) of the natural processes are nothing alike.

surely that difference has been overlooked somehow…

 

[goout]

But now let’s create a hypothetical scenario intended for a Catholic, prolife audience.

The pregnant mother has express intention on ending the child’s life because she wants to terminate the pregnancy. You want to do everything in your power to dissuade her from having the child killed.

It is in your power to induce labor, or otherwise arrange for labor to be induced, so as to relieve the mother of the pregnancy that she doesn’t want. The mother is willing to settle for “removal of the fetus” as an alternative to “the active killing of the fetus”.

Would you opt to remove the fetus, or refrain?

This question is interesting and relevant insofar as in the future the medical profession may be able to devise artificial wombs or incubators intended for very early inductions of otherwise non-viable fetuses.

Catholics adhere to the principle that “the end doesn’t justify the means”. So the question is – is the removal of a non-viable fetus in and of itself, wrong? Or does it depend on what is done with the fetus (e.g. left without care vs. transferred to another womb, whether artificial or natural).

The sure sign of an ethical dead end is the proposal of near impossible hypothetical dilemmas that only obscure straightforward moral values and imperatives.

By analogy:
“So let’s say the starving man was already mostly dead, and he was a thousand miles away, and I have a broken leg, and we can’t get food to him on a timely basis, and he has a stomach condition that won’t allow him to eat, and also has a cancer, and he has no family and no job anyway, and
So is it really a moral imperative to feed hungry people?”

Don’t let hypotheticals get in the way of a struggling conscience. Do the hard but simple work. Make the hard moral choices no matter how difficult. Society will be more sane, more just, more healthy for everyone.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

As to biological parents having the obligation to protect the livelihood of their offspring – I agree with you. But here again, there’s is a catch. We can transfer this obligation to others as in the case of adoption or legal guardianship. This is the case for children who are born. What about the unborn?

If I have a child may I morally, or legally, “withdraw my consent to be a parent” and make it take effect immediately? Let’s say I’m out camping with the kid and decide right then and there I don’t want to be a dad anymore… so I abandon him in the woods. Or better, to make it truly analogous to what we’re talking about here, I pull out my gun and shoot him in the head. Is this justified? Nobody can compel me continue being a father a single second longer than my consent allows, right?

 

[Ana_v]

If I have a child may I morally, or legally, “withdraw my consent to be a parent” and make it take effect immediately? Let’s say I’m out camping with the kid and decide right then and there I don’t want to be a dad anymore… so I abandon him in the woods. Or better, to make it truly analogous to what we’re talking about here, I pull out my gun and shoot him in the head. Is this justified? Nobody can compel me continue being a father a single second longer than my consent allows, right?

This is the sort of response I would have given as well which is intended to show the wide implications of “consent can be withdrawn at anytime”, however, I can anticipate the objection by the prochoicers:

Their argument that “consent can be withdrawn at any time” on the basis of individual bodily autonomy refers specifically to contexts that would involve the use of your body as the means by which another person is to live or stay alive.

Remember, their whole premise is that “Your right to life does not include the right to use another person’s body without that person’s consent”.

That’s why I called Thomson’s argument a more sophisticated defense of abortion. Because it doesn’t rely on the premise that a fetus is not a human being or a person. Nor does it deny that the fetus has a right to life. Rather, it says that a right to life is not “a right to life by any means whatsoever”.

So the question is, by what means?

They’ll point out, for example, that even parents are not legally required to provide blood transfusions for their children who need it.

 

[po18guy]

So, baby now equals parasite? On the order of amoebic dysentery? It must be frustrating to constantly yield to the wind - whichever way it blows.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

Remember, their whole premise is that “Your right to life does not include the right to use another person’s body without that person’s consent”.

That’s why I called Thomson’s argument a more sophisticated defense of abortion. Because it doesn’t rely on the premise that a fetus is not a human being or a person. Nor does it deny that the fetus has a right to life. Rather, it says that a right to life is not “a right to life by any means whatsoever”.

So the question is, by what means?

They’ll point out, for example, that even parents are not legally required to provide blood transfusions for their children who need it.

Right, and placing naturally occurring pregnancies (so natural that literally every single person on the planet to have ever existed came into existence by them) among the extraordinary means like blood transfusions, organ transplants, or entirely mythical parabiotic unconscious violinists is stupid. I don’t consider Thompson’s argument at all intriguing. It’s a stupid argument whose only saving grace is that it at least concedes the humanity of the fetus.

Furthermore the main premise (that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct and inviolable) is false. We compel people to do things and not do things with their bodies constantly and for far less morally compelling reasons. I’m morally and legally required to provide for children I have and that necessarily involves me being physically present at a job to bring home the bacon, or further, to use my body to physically feed the child. I’m morally and legally compelled to show up to jury duty and thats as some more abstract responsibility I have as a citizen.

And none of this even addresses the fact that abortion is not a passive action. It’s the positive choice to kill an individual, so even going back to all of these stupid pro-choice arguments, no, I absolutely may not rescind my consent by shooting my child when he needs an organ transplant/blood transfusion, nor can I shoot the unconscious violinist.

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

If terminating a pregnancy is justified because it’s withdrawing aid, then is child abandonment justified for the same reason? Withdrawing aid is only justified if aid is burdensome, impractical, futile, or dangerous. So terminating a pregnancy could only be justified with those conditions.
If forcing a mother to carry a pregnancy to term is justified, then is forcing a pregnant mother to have medical treatment justified? Forcing a mother to have treatment for the baby’s health or forcing her to have dangerous treatment to save the baby’s life wouldn’t be justified. Treatment directed on the mother that gravely threatens her life would never be justified to save the baby.

 

[goout]

That’s why I called Thomson’s argument a more sophisticated defense of abortion. Because it doesn’t rely on the premise that a fetus is not a human being or a person. Nor does it deny that the fetus has a right to life. Rather, it says that a right to life is not “a right to life by any means whatsoever”.

The argument has no sophistication. It’s another thinly disguised attempt to deny the most basic human right, without which all other claims to rights are senseless.

The “argument” (it’s not really an argument but an assertion) does rest on the denial of the child’s humanity. Read the above paragraph again.

The last sentence betrays the thinly disguised ruse:

a right to life is not “a right to life by any means whatsoever”

As if the child growing in the womb is not doing what every human being has done that has ever existed. “any means whatsoever” is a deception used to cast doubt on the right of that human being to live in the natural way everyone does.
The child is not using “any means”, it is naturally progressing with the only means human beings survive at that age.

I would like to encourage pro-lifers not to play footsie with these vacant assertions. When you engage a false assertion as if it has real content, you get nowhere. The right to absolute bodily autonomy is a farce and should be nuked immediately when brought up, not discussed as though legitimate.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You can use discrimination as a possible counter example.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

In this context the lack of consent is the reason not the trauma.

 

[Ana_v]

Right, and placing naturally occurring pregnancies (so natural that literally every single person on the planet to have ever existed came into existence by them) among the extraordinary means like blood transfusions, organ transplants, or entirely mythical parabiotic

Yes, it is most certainly natural, but did you miss the part about her (the atheist I talk about in my OP) shooting this down by calling it a “naturalistic fallacy”.

The idea that a conclusion about what “ought” or “ought not” to be the case (e.g. that abortion should be illegal/ a woman should carry a pregnancy to term) holds true simply based on what “is” the case (pregnancy is natural).

Nobody on this thread has addressed the accusation that we are committing the naturalistic fallacy. And let me tell you – this naturalistic fallacy accusation is something that she repeatedly tells her prochoice followers to respond with when debating abortion with a prolifer who uses the naturalness of pregnancy as the basis for believing a woman has an obligation to the pregnancy.

I have my own comeback to this, and did it in fact write a second response to her specifically on the naturalistic fallacy issue, but I wanted to see what others here might say before posting what I already wrote to her.

In regards to your assessment of Thomson’s argument. I don’t think Thomson’s argument is stupid; I think it’s clever. But it’s power of persuasion rests on the assumption that the reader will agree that he is not morally required to stay connected to the violinist.

And if that is the view of the reader, the question Thomson (or those who use her argument) would pose is: why not?

And if you give any answer to the effect of:

• Because I have the right to make medical decisions about my body, or that involve my body

Retort: The “right to abortion” is merely the “right to bodily autonomy” applied to a different circumstance (pregnancy) that involves a tension between someone else’s right and your own

• I am not responsible for the life of a stranger

Retort: the violinist is your child, relative, friend, the Pope, etc, [insert person of significance to you or to the world]

• Because of the degree of burden involved in sustaining the life of the violationist

(Retort: stress the ways in which pregnancy is burdensome)

 

[Ana_v]

Furthermore the main premise (that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct and inviolable) is false. We compel people to do things and not do things with their bodies constantly and for far less morally compelling reasons. I’m morally and legally required to provide for children I have and that necessarily involves me being physically present at a job to bring home the bacon, or further, to use my body to physically feed the child. I’m morally and legally compelled to show up to jury duty and thats as some more abstract responsibility I have as a citizen

This is where the real meat is. Because unfortunately, I don’t think the distinction between extraordinary and ordinary treatment will get us very far. For a few reasons:

1. It isn’t always clear where the line is between the two, especially as technological advances are made and certain practices become more commonplace. It is possible for things that constitute “extraordinary care” at one time, constitute “ordinary care” at another. Situational ethics comes into play, and this is tricky if what we’re actually aspiring to is a principle or general rule that applies to all cases.

And it is, at least to some extent, relative. Is sending parents to a nursing home extraordinary care?

1. Not all prolifers will agree on what the right thing to do is for the violinist, even if they all agree that he may not be actively killed.

Some will be of he opinion that, regardless of whether the care is ordinary or extraordinary, you have an obligation to preserve his life through your own even if you did not consent to this relationship of dependency.

 

[Ana_v]

Consider the difference between Zach’s opinion versus that of Cirdan’s:

Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy and consent to the responsibility and obligation to care for and protect the child that results from the sex and the pregnancy. So there is consent excluding rape.

We are not talking about just any human being as in the violinist analogy. The parent has the responsibility and obligation to care for and protect the child until adulthood. If we agree that the baby in the womb is a human being, which is assumed in the analogy, that responsibility and obligation applies. We can quibble and split hairs all we want about consent but this is the key. The parent’s obligation to care for and protect that child’s life takes precedence over anything else short of saving the mother from dying.

Nobody has the responsibility and obligation to care for and protect a stranger or anyone who is not their offspring. There is zero consent and zero responsibilty and zero obligation - unlike the pregnant mother where all three apply - for the kidnapped person in the violinist analogy to keep the sick person alive. Even where there is no consent in pregnancy from rape there is still parental obligation.

I think in the case of the violinist, it may well be the case that the violinist became dependent on my body through no informed choice of my own. But now that violation of my rights is in the past. So whether or not I consented or whether or not I knew what I was doing is irrelevant. A situation has been created in which the violinist depends on me for survival, and my refusal to allow a continuation of that dependency would kill the violinist. So even if the situation was maiciously engineered without my consent, I cannot turn the clock back so I must live with the result or terminate it. In that respect it is akin to a pregnancy caused through rape or ignorance. As a good pro-life catholic I would not terminate such a dependency. Period.

 

[Ana_v]

Excuse me for being stunned at reading this.

This really shouldn’t be controversial or shocking. I stand by my comment that pregnancy (from fertilization/implantation → labor) is involuntary. Menstruation was just my example of another bodily process that is involuntary.

Another example: ingesting food (“eating”) is a voluntary act; digestion is not. I cannot help the fact that my intestines squeeze food along. Can you? And what about going to the bathroom to complete a bowel movement?

“The digestive tract begins this involuntary process once food is consumed. Saliva begins the breakdown of food, and other enzymes in the digestive tract extend this process. As digestion continues, the food is propelled from organ to organ through muscular contractions called peristalsis .”

Digestive System Anatomy, Area, and Diagram | Body Maps

The human digestive system is the means by which tissues and organs receive nutrients to function. The system breaks down food, extracts nutrients from it, and converts them into energy. The digestive tract begins this involuntary process once food is consumed.

www.healthline.com

Why do you think it is that some people are bullimic? Don’t you think if they could control the digestion part they would, rather than resorting to the gross and unpleasant experience of purging? Bullimia is what they do to because they can’t help the fact that the body processes the food that has been swallowed, but they don’t want to give up eating altogether.

Neither the man, nor the woman, who have sex with each other can control whether she actually conceives. They can control whether he ejaculates inside the vagina, but that is where the “choice” ends, as far as the relationship between sex and the actualization of pregnancy is concerned. After ejaculation, the rest is a generative process that may or may not result in conception, and is outside of their natural control.

 

[goout]

goout:

Excuse me for being stunned at reading this.

This really shouldn’t be controversial or shocking. I stand by my comment that pregnancy (from fertilization/implantation → labor) is involuntary. Menstruation was just my example of another bodily process that is involuntary.

Take a look in the mirror, and note that you are a living human being, and then tell us that you willed (voluntas) yourself into being.
Did you will yourself into being? It think not. In fact your coming to be is completely involuntary on your part.

So then by your logic, your very being is of the same value as just another natural and involuntary menstrual cycle.
Really? Does that really make any sense? Does that point of view lend any dignity to your humanity? If you are just another involuntary process worthy of being discarded, what does that speak about the dignity of humanity?
See, your argument is really not any more sophisticated than that of the humanity deniers. It’s just another naked attempt to deny the unique dignity of human beings in our most vulnerable condition.

You are tying yourself into knots of il-logic.

 

[Lea101]

The pregnant mother has express intention on ending the child’s life because she wants to terminate the pregnancy. You want to do everything in your power to dissuade her from having the child killed.

It is in your power to induce labor, or otherwise arrange for labor to be induced, so as to relieve the mother of the pregnancy that she doesn’t want. The mother is willing to settle for “removal of the fetus” as an alternative to “the active killing of the fetus”.

‘removing the fetus’ would be fancy talk for killing here. Because the intention is to still kill. You’re still killing the kid because you’re intentionally removing a non viable baby out of the womb, because the woman doesn’t want the pregnancy.

Viability depends on location, type of healthcare available etc. So if there’s some sort of incubator for this fetus, we would say this baby is viable.

So in this case, a non viable baby is definitely going to die.

There are cases where non viable fetuses have to be removed to save the mother. Some women have to have their wombs removed with the fetus, for example. This isn’t abortion because it’s not the direct killing. It’s to directly save the mother’s life which results in the death of her child. So in the case where the mother is unable to carry, removing is not immoral.

Different from the mother not wanting to carry on the pregnancy, because this indicates her wanting the death of the baby.

Now, if you’re asking if it’s okay to remove the fetus which would be viable in this hypothetical scenario (BC technology) all because the mother doesn’t want to bring the baby to term, I don’t know.

Because in this hypothetical situation, the mother wants the child to be alive and the child will be alive. It’s almost like wanting an early Labour.

 

[Lea101]

Why do you think it is that some people are bullimic? Don’t you think if they could control the digestion part they would, rather than resorting to the gross and unpleasant experience of purging? Bullimia is what they do to because they can’t help the fact that the body processes the food that has been swallowed, but they don’t want to give up eating altogether.

But this is why we say bulimia is disordered. Because the person is going against the nature of their bodies.

Whether it’s sinful depends on the person’s moral culpability. Because bulimia nervosa is a mental illness, we can’t really comment about whether it’s a mortal sin.

But we know that the act is disordered, going against nature/God’s design for the body and hence wrong.

Abortion is akin to stopping the digestion (you’re going against the natural part of what happens next), although obviously the sin here is murder.

 

[Gorgias]

I agree that it is a natural process. I also agree that it is involuntary.
Consider menstruation as an example of the same.

You don’t have to consent to, or participate in, any action in order to menstruate. You do, however, have to participate in sexual relations in order to be impregnated. Not involuntary…

If the people having sex are using contraception, they are clearly not consenting to pregnancy.

If a skydiver wears a parachute, he’s clearly not consenting to falling to his death. Nevertheless, he freely chooses an action which might lead to that occurrence. It’s the consent to the foreseeable possibility that we’re talking about, here…

You have to be careful when saying that willing the cause means consenting to the effect.

I’m not. I’m saying that willing the cause means consenting to the possibility of the effect. Even that, I’d assert, is sufficient to be responsible for the effect.

 

[Sbee0]

In this context the lack of consent is the reason not the trauma.

I always go back to the story about the stowaway when that comes up. If a sailor finds a stowaway on board their ship or rescues one at sea aren’t they morally obligated to care for the stowaway? Even if they didn’t consent to do so or if it’s “inconvenient”. It doesn’t entitle them to throw the stowaway overboard.