Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Right to use their mother's womb

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    218
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    By engaging in activities that brought the unborn child into her womb (the child had no choice), she did actually not only give the right to occupy the womb, but with no input from the child effectively forced it there.
    Some pro-choicers would argue that the consent to sex is not the same as the consent to pregnancy and without the consent to pregnancy the unborn do not have that right. How would you respond to that?

  2. #12
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    218
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrikature View Post
    Don't conflate "rightful" (this is proper) with "right" (legally protected ability). If you're going to use rights language, you'd be better off saying that a person's right to life exceeds another person's right to property. In this case, the woman's body is considered her property. Even this line of reasoning will fail pretty hard if taken to it's logical conclusion, since it would mean you're required to provide certain organs to those whose life is in jeopardy without a transplant.
    Someone could say that the woman's body was designed to provide life support for another person so the unborn belong there. God did not design human relationships in such a way that a person is not obligated to provide organs to other people who are outside of that person's body.

    I generally discourage rights language for a reason. There's nothing concrete about rights. Even claiming that something is "God-given" will be easily dismissed by a non-theist.

    It'd be better, in my opinion, to hold consent to carry a child to term as being an implicit part of consensual sex. Use of birth control minimizes the risk of unwanted pregnancy but doesn't remove the potential.
    Some pro-choicers claim that the consent to sex is not the same as the consent to pregnancy. The consent to play baseball is not the same as the consent to get injured.

  3. #13
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,106
    Amen (Given)
    1350
    Amen (Received)
    3517
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxb View Post
    Some pro-choicers would argue that the consent to sex is not the same as the consent to pregnancy and without the consent to pregnancy the unborn do not have that right. How would you respond to that?
    I would totally reject that argument. Anybody who is old enough to know what sex is knows what the risk of sex entails (let alone the biological purpose of sex), and that contraceptives are not foolproof.

    This line of argumentation does not apply in the case of pregnancy caused by rape, so standard personhood arguments would be needed to argue against abortion there.
    I want something good to die for to make it beautiful to live.

  4. #14
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    35,080
    Amen (Given)
    3119
    Amen (Received)
    17100
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxb View Post
    Some pro-choicers would argue that the consent to sex is not the same as the consent to pregnancy and without the consent to pregnancy the unborn do not have that right. How would you respond to that?
    It is a foreseen consequence, like drinking and driving. If you drink and drive, and you get into an accident you can't say "well I didn't MEAN to kill that guy, so it isn't my fault"

  5. Amen KingsGambit, Carrikature, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  6. #15
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,577
    Amen (Given)
    2084
    Amen (Received)
    1072
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxb View Post
    Someone could say that the woman's body was designed to provide life support for another person so the unborn belong there. God did not design human relationships in such a way that a person is not obligated to provide organs to other people who are outside of that person's body.
    'Designed for' does not equate to 'must be used for that purpose'.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxb View Post
    Some pro-choicers claim that the consent to sex is not the same as the consent to pregnancy. The consent to play baseball is not the same as the consent to get injured.
    There's no way to separate the two. Sex is fundamentally a procreative act even when not engaged in for that express purpose. Short of surgical removal of reproductive organs, one necessarily consents to the consequences. It's pretty much the same reason we have injury waivers when engaging in sports and other extreme actions.
    I'm not here anymore.

  7. #16
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    218
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    30
    David Boonin in his book In Defense of Abortion on pages 154- 164 makes the following argument. How would you respond to it?

    There is a difference between voluntarily bringing about a state of affairs and voluntarily doing an action foreseeing that this may lead to a certain state of affairs. Let me give you an example of this and then let me explain how this would apply to abortion. Suppose there are two men at a restaurant- Bill and Ted. Bill wants to give the waiter a tip so he leaves money on the table. Ted voluntarily puts money on the table, but does not intend to give a tip. Why did Ted put money on the table? The money was in his back pocket and it felt uncomfortable to him so he took it out of his pocket and put it on the money. He intended to put the money back in his pocket after he was done eating. He knew that if he forgot to put the money back into this pocket that the waiter would take it. He knew that forgetting to take the money after he put it on the table would have unintended consequences. Ted finishes his meal, pays for it, but forgets to take the money that he put on the table. Since he forgot to take the money, the waiter took it.

    The point of the illustration above is that Bill consented to give his money to the waiter, but Ted did not consent to give his money to the waiter even though he knew that putting the money on the table and forgetting to take it with him would have unintended consequences. This illustration is analogous to abortion. A woman who chooses to have sex and intends to get pregnant is consenting to pregnancy. A woman who chooses to have sex, but does not intend to get pregnant is not consenting to pregnancy even if she knew that having sex could lead to unintended consequences.

  8. #17
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,577
    Amen (Given)
    2084
    Amen (Received)
    1072
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxb View Post
    David Boonin in his book In Defense of Abortion on pages 154- 164 makes the following argument. How would you respond to it?

    There is a difference between voluntarily bringing about a state of affairs and voluntarily doing an action foreseeing that this may lead to a certain state of affairs. Let me give you an example of this and then let me explain how this would apply to abortion. Suppose there are two men at a restaurant- Bill and Ted. Bill wants to give the waiter a tip so he leaves money on the table. Ted voluntarily puts money on the table, but does not intend to give a tip. Why did Ted put money on the table? The money was in his back pocket and it felt uncomfortable to him so he took it out of his pocket and put it on the money. He intended to put the money back in his pocket after he was done eating. He knew that if he forgot to put the money back into this pocket that the waiter would take it. He knew that forgetting to take the money after he put it on the table would have unintended consequences. Ted finishes his meal, pays for it, but forgets to take the money that he put on the table. Since he forgot to take the money, the waiter took it.

    The point of the illustration above is that Bill consented to give his money to the waiter, but Ted did not consent to give his money to the waiter even though he knew that putting the money on the table and forgetting to take it with him would have unintended consequences. This illustration is analogous to abortion. A woman who chooses to have sex and intends to get pregnant is consenting to pregnancy. A woman who chooses to have sex, but does not intend to get pregnant is not consenting to pregnancy even if she knew that having sex could lead to unintended consequences.
    To make the scenario analogous to abortion, David Boonin would have to insist that Ted has the right to his money even though he left it on the table. Most people would find that pretty absurd. In reality, you're out that money no matter what you meant to do with it.

    Except the stakes are higher. You're not just out some money. It's not just a stupid mistake that happens to everyone. You're talking about 1) a life, and 2) a reasonable expectation of possible consequences. "I didn't know I would leave my money there" makes sense. "I didn't know a baby could happen from sex" doesn't.
    I'm not here anymore.

  9. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  10. #18
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,211
    Amen (Given)
    18015
    Amen (Received)
    5913
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxb View Post
    Some pro-choicers would argue that the consent to sex is not the same as the consent to pregnancy and without the consent to pregnancy the unborn do not have that right. How would you respond to that?
    All the expressions of this argument have been more than adequately answered. It is simply an absurd argument.

    Speaking of argument this thread is dangerously close to becoming an argument thread. This is not acceptable.
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

  11. #19
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    218
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrikature View Post
    To make the scenario analogous to abortion, David Boonin would have to insist that Ted has the right to his money even though he left it on the table. Most people would find that pretty absurd. In reality, you're out that money no matter what you meant to do with it.

    Except the stakes are higher. You're not just out some money. It's not just a stupid mistake that happens to everyone. You're talking about 1) a life, and 2) a reasonable expectation of possible consequences. "I didn't know I would leave my money there" makes sense. "I didn't know a baby could happen from sex" doesn't.
    That is so true. Those are reasonable expectations.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •