Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Right to use their mother's womb

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Right to use their mother's womb

    Unborn humans belong in their mother's womb. Their mother's womb is their rightful place. They have the right to use their mother's body for life support. Pro-choicers object by saying that unborn humans do not have the right to use a woman's body unless the woman gives that right to them. Moreover, they would say that the woman gets to decide what the rightful place of the unborn human is. The only response that I can think of is that God gave unborn humans the right to use their mother's womb for life support. Is there any other response that you can think of?

  • #2
    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.
    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?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
      Unborn humans belong in their mother's womb. Their mother's womb is their rightful place. They have the right to use their mother's body for life support. Pro-choicers object by saying that unborn humans do not have the right to use a woman's body unless the woman gives that right to them. Moreover, they would say that the woman gets to decide what the rightful place of the unborn human is. The only response that I can think of is that God gave unborn humans the right to use their mother's womb for life support. Is there any other response that you can think of?
      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.

      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.
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #4
        This seems reminiscent of the debate over Judith Thomson's infamous Violinist argument.
        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          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.
          Your approach may be better, but the result is that the unborn child has implicit consent to use the uterus. That was, obviously, my point.
          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?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
            Your approach may be better, but the result is that the unborn child has implicit consent to use the uterus. That was, obviously, my point.
            I took a long time writing it. I didn't see your post until after I posted.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #7
              Both approaches have merit.
              Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

              Comment


              • #8
                For the layperson, the analogy I would use is that this is equivalent to inviting somebody over to your house and then calling the police and accusing them of trespassing when they come in.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #9
                  Not bad.
                  Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    For the layperson, the analogy I would use is that this is equivalent to inviting somebody over to your house and then calling the police and accusing them of trespassing when they come in.
                    more like inviting them in and then shooting them dead for trespassing.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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 am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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'.


                              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.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X