I've gone through an evolution in my thinking on the issue. What seals the deal for me is the principle of human autonomy over one's own mind, body and life. It's articulated well by one of my favorite philosophers: man (meaning humans) is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. Pro lifers, consider this: You think the unborn have a right to life, the same right that the born have. Ok, let's say I concede this. If that means that a woman can be forced to carry the unborn to term then it means any person may make use of any other person's body to sustain life. I can force you to donate an organ if I need one. Forget the right to your own body. I can strap you to a chair, hook you up to a device and extract from your body anything that I need to live. What? You don't agree? Then why does the unborn have such a right? What's the difference?
The woman engaged in actions which put the fetus into the situation the two now find themselves in. The woman is culpable. She started the process rolling along and now only her body can supply the sustenance to finish it. It would be unfair for the woman to bring little lives into existence, only to snuff them out again at her convenience. You talk about people being required to donate their organs. Well, maybe they should be required to donate use of their body in some cases. Imagine someone who engaged in completely reckless actions, knowing it could lead to someone else getting killed, and it ended up putting someone in a situation where they required a massive blood transfusion (with a rare blood type) from the very same person who caused their medical problem. Some pro-choicers try to compare pregnancy to organ donation, but unlike with organ donation, the condition of pregnancy is much more temporary. It's not as if the woman has to permanently give up any of her organs. The process is completely natural, there are millions of women across the world who intentionally choose to be pregnant. In fact, more likely than not, the woman who is getting the abortion will later want to choose to become pregnant. (If this was not the case, why didn't the woman get her tubes tied?) So imagine a person who has made several blood donations in the past (in exchange for money), but now they refuse to make a donation to the victim they injured because they're not getting anything out of it. But they are likely to continue selling their blood in the future. If we look at it this way, it becomes hard to argue they should not be required to donate their blood.
Already explained how pregnancy is not like organ donation. But just suppose hypothetically that the one being required to donate their organ was the same person who mortally wounded the other individual, to the point they urgently needed an organ transplant. Kidneys, lungs, or a pancreas do not regrow. In contrast, pregnancy, for the most part, is not a permanent thing. Also most pregnancies do not leave any scars (unless it is a C-section, but even then most C-sections that are performed are not absolutely necessary) And it's not just any person we're talking about there; it's her own child. Pregnancy is also completely natural. Can you think of an organ removal process that is completely natural? That the human body is designed to handle? That may be true, but the woman still had a choice over the matter. She could have done better to prevent the pregnancy, she took risks. She knew what her actions could result in. And more likely than not, she didn't take adequate contraceptive measures. Simple concept? How about this: When a woman gets pregnant that has to either result in two outcomes. The woman should have known this. Over 99% of the time, the woman made a choice that led her to her present predicament. To make another choice that will get her "out" of her predicament, basically involves killing someone else. The fetus has some level of awareness of its surroundings, even if it can't fully comprehend what's happening yet. That doesn't make it right. That's pro-choice denialism. This is what a woman is basically saying when she gets an abortion. Why? They engaged in actions that put the fetus there. Why is the woman's choice more important than her child's life? Or I should say her continued choice, because she already made a choice in the past. In many cases they actually are. If they have made unhealthy lifestyle decisions and seem intent on continuing those lifestyle choices that will jeopardize their life, many hospitals will outright refuse to perform an organ transplant when there is someone else who could benefit from the organ more, and the organs are in short supply. There are laws against murder. How you want to interpret those laws is up to you. Of course, the individuals who have been appointed to be judges get to determine how the laws are implemented. In some cases they are, but in most cases, not so much. . That's just the reality. Any person could kill any other person. Of course, it's rather more difficult to kill another person when that person is inside your body without seriously harming yourself. And we can make it very difficult for the woman to "choose". Should women be legally free to choose? Well, that's another question.
Incoherent, like most of these pro baby killing arguments are. That woman you refer to, helped to put the baby to where it is. So, she is responsible, as well as the man with the sperm. Yet she demands to be irresponsible, doesn't want to realize the consequences of her own, free will behavior. Now, when a females get pregnant and she didn't copulate, get back with us pro life people. Why is it that so many people want to justify killing an unborn human being? Could it be nothing more than simple selfishness? We see what happens when the rich are afflicted with it. So now we have an example of what happens when a average or lower than average person is eaten up with this selfishness. It will even kill a human life. Yeah, if a woman is raped, she should not have to birth the child of the rapists, for she did not agree to copulate. But if she agrees? Then she should be forced to be responsible, for otherwise a human being dies, an innocent human. When does selfishness trump human life? When the pro killers get their way.
I love this - men apparently do not have sex or if they do they have nothing to do with the resulting pregnancy Consent to sex is not consent to motherhood
LOL. Consent to sex runs the risk of motherhood. Which all unprotected women know. Man, how you guys will try to twist this simple thing into something more complex than you could ever make it.
If you truly believed this then you would be advocating for a safe and reliable male contraceptive Better yet let all men become sperm donors than then sterilise them - if someone wants a baby they can then apply to retrieve some of the sperm but first they have to show they are capable of supporting the child That way there would be no unwanted pregnancies and no abortion - - - Updated - - - Yes because men will not take responsibility for prevention of pregnancy but would prefer to blame women
This is what I used to think too. There are two human beings, their existence intimately tied together, and it is not possible to uphold the rights of both of them; someone's rights have to be violated. It's easy to think the woman's bodily rights trump the rights of the fetus, since the fetus could not live without her. Yet if we take a step back and examine this argument more thoroughly, it can be seen that this is as much a reason for the woman not to be allowed to get an abortion as it is a justification for abortion. The fetus needs the use of her body to survive. Therefore the woman may have some obligation. Especially since she more likely than not effectively put the fetus there through her own prior choices. Whose rights are greater? The right of the woman to terminate the use of her body by another, or the right of the fetus to life? And does the woman really have absolute and total right over her bodily functions during a pregnancy? Couldn't it be argued that a woman's body is not entirely all her own during this time?
If anything, this strengthens the woman's claim to her rights, not the other way around. May I assume you believe God created life? According to your religious myth, he gets kill and torture his own creation at will. Then he imposes on those very humans the duty to sacrifice for their unborn offspring (then again, the bible doesn't really command against abortions so that actually confuses me.) You still haven't explained how the unborn have rights the born clearly do not have and no one wants them to have. Even your own BORN children (you know, the ones YOU brought into the world) have no right to use your body against your will to sustain themselves but you think the UNBORN are an exception to the principle. Your rights are secure from your own born children but not the unborn. That's the most vivid example of special pleading I've seen.
I would put forward the following for consideration: The one who creates life does not necessarily have a right to revoke it at any time. We all recognize that parents do not have a right to kill their grown children. Pregnancy is special situation. In no other situation does one human being live inside of another. (actually there are other situations that is extremely rare) Pregnancy is perfectly natural, and it is generally sort of expected that a mother has obligations to her unborn child. It's also a set time period, where the woman's obligations are set within a reasonable time frame from the point at which she gets pregnant. It's not like she's on the hook for a longer time frame. She can adopt. And even if she was on the hook financially, that would be only a matter of money. She would not be required to let her child use her body after the nine months were over. Although I suppose an argument could be made that a woman has some obligation to breastfeed for a length of time after the birth. So the woman's obligations are pretty clearly defined and limited in time. Again, it's completely natural, and it's all a biological process, that will happen on its own if the woman leaves it alone. In fact, it can be rather difficult for a woman to stop it, at least not without the intervention of an abortionist.
Pro-lifers disagree with this. When a woman is pregnant, it is not just all her body anymore. She has someone else to think about—her unborn child. The two are as one, in some respects. Absolute bodily integrity does not override someone else's right to life. Particularly when the woman had a choice.
What about late term abortions. The infants are old enough to live outside the womb? Why doesn't that make a difference. There are over 1000 such abortions a year in the US, and I doubt any are "to protect the life of the woman". Well, the #1 reason that comes up seems to be that it is inconvenient (E.G. they 'cant afford it'). http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/10/study-ids-reasons-for-late-term-abortions/?page=all
No it means if you choose to engage in an adult act that leads to a life being created, you deal with the consequences. The unborn didnt force itself on the mother, the mother decided that herself.
That's what I posted:Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post So you believe that a woman who has consensual sex should be FORCED (PUNISHED) "" YOU finally admit it's ALL and ONLY about punishing women..... YOU just keep babbling that it's taking "responsibility" but you never can say who EXACTLY is the "Ruler Who Determines Correct Responsibility"" YOU? Why? .
How is consent to sex (one act) consent to pregnancy (a separate act) ??? YOU: ""The unborn didnt force itself on the mother"" Yet YOU want to force the fetus on the woman. (There is no mother unless the woman has already given birth) "Life" was created a few billion years ago.....
What human doesnt comprehend sex can lead to pregnancy? So if you gut punch a pregnant woman and her unborn dies its just assault right?
What about late term abortions? They are illegal except for the life/health of the woman and/or fetus. What you "doubt" has no meaning to anyone else....."seems to be" is not fact nor proof of anything......... if you think doctors are doing illegal abortions DO something about it.....I'm sure if it's true you'll be a whistle blowing HEroe...
Dear [MENTION=51043]Object227[/MENTION] I think the concept is not to terminate life unnaturally, by human choice or hand, and certainly NOT to endorse this through GOVT if some people believe it is murder! People have the right NOT to believe in artificial termination; and to believe that if a soul is created and given life, that is a natural process INDEPENDENT of what people or govt can dictate. So your scenarios all sound unnatural. Like NO you don't have the right to rape someone and force them to give birth. the act of RAPE is wrong in and of itself, regardless of any other resulting outcome after that. So all the acts you mention are UNNATURAL and would be as manipulated as unnaturally induced abortion. The argument I think can hold, independent of what someone believes or doesn't believe about life, abortion, choice, murder, etc. is the fact that if the govt waits until the point of pregnancy or abortion to enforce laws, that UNEQUALLY AFFECTS THE WOMAN. It puts all the legal burden on the female partner in the pregnancy. It does not prescribe any responsibility for the MALE partner. If you look at pregnancy, the chances of the choice to have sex being * mutual between the male and female * coerced where the male forced the female * coerced where the female forced the male And you look at the rate at which rape/incest occur as male on female coercion and force, Clearly the chances are greater that the MALE coerced the female, so this makes no sense to penalize the female more than the male. Once that is established, then the point at which both men and women can be held EQUALLY responsible is BEFORE having sex -- WHICH IS NOT THE JURISDICTION OF GOVT. So that is why prochoice prevails, because at the point that both partners responsible for pregnancy can be held equally accountable, that is outside the realm of govt to regulate. It must remain up to people by choice to make the responsible decision not to have sex if they don't want the consequences of sex.
To be exact, it is not quite just that simple. People can still have sex and use proper contraceptive measures, to make the risk of pregnancy very lowin fact as low as they want it. But there will always be some small degree of risk. So maybe a better question would be whether consent to getting pregnant is consent to remaining pregnant. Once there is a little life in there, there's only two options. One of them is not really acceptable. That's why pro-lifers say that consent to getting pregnant is like consent to continued pregnancy.
Most people do understand sex can lead to pregnancy....so ? Taking risks( driving a car, walking across a steet , getting out of bed in the morning all are risks for someone....if they get hurt are they denied care? YOU: """So if you gut punch a pregnant woman and her unborn dies its just assault right?"" Depends on the law, it may be or it may be murder . Severely ingrained sexism does not allow some to see words like "women's consent"..."taking away the woman's choice""(notice murderers and rapist and Anti-Choicers have in common the fact that they Take Away the Woman's Choice....
