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?
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
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Right to use their mother's womb
Collapse
X
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostUnborn 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?
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostDon'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.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
-
Both approaches have merit.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostFor 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostBy 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostDon'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostSome 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?
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
-
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostSome 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
-
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostSomeone 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.
Originally posted by Jaxb View PostSome 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.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment