Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Bodily Rights Arguments

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

  • Bodily Rights Arguments

    There are different versions of the bodily rights arguments. These arguments concede to the pro-life position that the unborn human is a person just like a human being outside of the womb. One version of this kind of argument says that women have the right to decide what happens inside of their bodies and no one can use their body without their permission. The woman has the right to determine whether the unborn human can receive nourishment from her body. Advocates of this argument claim that unborn humans do not have the inherent right to use a woman's body for life and nourishment.

    They will often use this kind of reasoning:

    Suppose that you need a kidney transplant in order to survive, and that your mother is the only person in the world who is a physical match, meaning that she is the only person who can provide you with a kidney and hence preserve your life. Do you have a right to your mother’s kidney? No, you do not have the right to use your mother's kidney. In the same way, unborn humans do not have the right to use their mother's body for survival.

    My response to this argument is that the purpose of one’s kidney is different from the purpose of one’s uterus. The kidneys exist for the health and proper functioning of the body in whom they reside. In contrast, each month the uterus gets ready for someone else’s body. Unborn humans belong in their mother’s womb. They are supposed to be inside of their mother’s womb. Unborn humans are not like strangers who break into your house. They are not like people who do not belong in your house.
    Last edited by Jaxb; 05-27-2015, 06:20 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
    There are different versions of the bodily rights arguments. These arguments assume that the unborn human is a person just like human beings outside of the womb. One version of this kind of argument says that women have the right to decide what happens inside of their bodies and no one can use their resources without their permission. The woman has the right to determine whether the unborn human can receive nourishment from the mother's body.
    No more right to deny nourishment than if the child was outside her womb and the nourishment came from the mother's pantry.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      No more right to deny nourishment than if the child was outside her womb and the nourishment came from the mother's pantry.
      I agree, but some pro-choicers will say that an unborn child has no more right to use his mother's womb than an adult seeking a kidney transplant in order to survive. This is a bad analogy that some pro-choicers make. Unborn children are supposed to be inside of their mother's womb. They belong there. However, one person does not have the moral obligation to give one of his kidneys to another person.
      Last edited by Jaxb; 05-27-2015, 06:39 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        No more right to deny nourishment than if the child was outside her womb and the nourishment came from the mother's pantry.
        Or her breasts! Though the baby could be fed formula in a pinch. One wouldn't try to make a young infant fend for themselves.
        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
          I agree, but some pro-choicers will say that an unborn child has no more right to use his mother's womb than an adult seeking a kidney transplant in order to survive. This is a bad analogy that some pro-choicers make. Unborn children are supposed to be inside of their mother's womb. They belong there. However, one person does not have the moral obligation to give one of his kidneys to another person.
          That's a false analogy because what the fetus is gaining is nutrition from the mother, same as after birth occurs. The mother is obligated by law to care for the nutritional needs of the infant, which is no different from providing them in-utero
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #6
            The logic is also flawed in the premise: you (general) had intercourse knowing full well where babies come from (nowadays it's hard to argue even a young girl doesn't) and that contraceptives have failure rates (read the box, idiot) so you did in fact 'invite' the young 'un. The baby cannot exist absent the parental action and cannot consciously choose not to come into existence (oh, drat, she's on the Pill. Guess I'll have to find another womb) so from the baby's POV intent is implied.

            That holds true for rape - although is not desirable. The baby cannot cause its existence and is not complicit in the rape. It's an innocent bystander and has no way to know it wasn't wanted. Ergo, again, to its POV, invitation occurred.

            The fact is that actions beyond the baby's control resulted in its presence in the womb. It is in no way accountable for those acts, legal, stupid, illegal, really stupid or otherwise. It has not invaded nor is its occupation improper - someone else bears that responsibility. As an innocent, the baby has every right to expect its right to live to supersede the rights of the mother to 'privacy' or 'convenience'.

            Invitation is a stupid argument.

            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
              My response to this argument is that the purpose of oneís kidney is different from the purpose of oneís uterus. The kidneys exist for the health and proper functioning of the body in whom they reside. In contrast, each month the uterus gets ready for someone elseís body. Unborn humans belong in their motherís womb. They are supposed to be inside of their motherís womb. Unborn humans are not like strangers who break into your house. They are not like people who do not belong in your house.
              Plus these particular persons were invited in by conception. They are not invaders at all.
              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


              • #8
                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                Invitation is a stupid argument.
                I do not see how it is a stupid argument. The child was invited in via sexual intercourse.
                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


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                  I do not see how it is a stupid argument. The child was invited in via sexual intercourse.
                  No, the original argument - that an invitation is even necessary. It's self evident that the child was in fact 'invited' since only adult actions result in its presence.

                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    'Rights' is a terrible framework on its own, and needs the balancing of 'responsibilities, but it's still not very good.

                    So yes, the teleological response is best:
                    My response to this argument is that the purpose of one’s kidney is different from the purpose of one’s uterus. The kidneys exist for the health and proper functioning of the body in whom they reside. In contrast, each month the uterus gets ready for someone else’s body. Unborn humans belong in their mother’s womb. They are supposed to be inside of their mother’s womb. Unborn humans are not like strangers who break into your house. They are not like people who do not belong in your house.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      The logic is also flawed in the premise: you (general) had intercourse knowing full well where babies come from (nowadays it's hard to argue even a young girl doesn't) and that contraceptives have failure rates (read the box, idiot) so you did in fact 'invite' the young 'un. The baby cannot exist absent the parental action and cannot consciously choose not to come into existence (oh, drat, she's on the Pill. Guess I'll have to find another womb) so from the baby's POV intent is implied.

                      That holds true for rape - although is not desirable. The baby cannot cause its existence and is not complicit in the rape. It's an innocent bystander and has no way to know it wasn't wanted. Ergo, again, to its POV, invitation occurred.

                      The fact is that actions beyond the baby's control resulted in its presence in the womb. It is in no way accountable for those acts, legal, stupid, illegal, really stupid or otherwise. It has not invaded nor is its occupation improper - someone else bears that responsibility. As an innocent, the baby has every right to expect its right to live to supersede the rights of the mother to 'privacy' or 'convenience'.

                      Invitation is a stupid argument.
                      I would like to add that when people engage in sexual intercourse, they are aware that what they are doing can lead to the creation of a new human being. They are responsible for their actions. If they are responsible for bringing a new person into this world, then they are responsible to take care of the child or give the child up for adoption.

                      The analogy between a person needing a kidney transplant and a woman having a child in her womb is not a good analogy. There are no other people that could have caused him to need a kidney transplant, but the pregnant woman engaged in an act that is designed to bring about new human beings into this world.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The analogy works if the woman is responsible for the person needing her kidney. The baby is there because of the woman's actions. So the Kidney-taker has to be there because of her actions too.

                        She may have the right not to let him use her kidney - fine - but then she's guilty of murder because it's her fault he needed it in the first place.
                        "Some people feel guilty about their anxieties and regard them as a defect of faith but they are afflictions, not sins. Like all afflictions, they are, if we can so take them, our share in the passion of Christ." - That Guy Everyone Quotes

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by hamster View Post
                          The analogy works if the woman is responsible for the person needing her kidney. The baby is there because of the woman's actions. So the Kidney-taker has to be there because of her actions too.

                          She may have the right not to let him use her kidney - fine - but then she's guilty of murder because it's her fault he needed it in the first place.
                          That is a pretty limited possibility, but yes in that case she is responsible just as in the case of pregnancy.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by hamster View Post
                            The analogy works if the woman is responsible for the person needing her kidney. The baby is there because of the woman's actions. So the Kidney-taker has to be there because of her actions too.

                            She may have the right not to let him use her kidney - fine - but then she's guilty of murder because it's her fault he needed it in the first place.


                            And arguably would be criminally responsible for murder in that case.

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Abortion and Forced Organ Donation

                              Some people say that banning abortion is like forcing people to donate their organs to those who need it in order to survive. They say that no one has the right to use someone's uterus against their will just like no one has the right to use any other bodily organ against their will. How do you respond to this?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 01:42 PM
                              28 responses
                              131 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sherman
                              by Sherman
                               
                              Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 11:16 AM
                              3 responses
                              42 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Juvenal, Yesterday, 04:13 AM
                              14 responses
                              59 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Terraceth  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-24-2020, 06:20 PM
                              22 responses
                              130 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-24-2020, 06:10 PM
                              5 responses
                              46 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X