Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
So the mother's right to choose trumps the baby's right to live? Why?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christian democratic
- Thread starter BenTheBeliever
- Start date
BenTheBeliever
Active Member
Cause it is the woman's body. How would you feel if someone forced you to do something you did not like that involved your body?
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
But the mother in the vast majority of cases has already chosen to have sex, and this can result in pregnancy, it wasn't forced upon them, right?
Sorry to hear that, and I too live in a bible belt state and have met people like you describe. I just avoid them. But on a positive note I have close friends from both parties that I'm happy to say have never questioned my faith due to my personal opinions on politics. The ones who would do that I am also happy to say don't talk much to me.
BenTheBeliever
Active Member
That is good to hear. I happen to be from Oklahoma. What about you?Sorry to hear that, and I too live in a bible belt state and have met people like you describe. I just avoid them. But on a positive note I have close friends from both parties that I'm happy to say have never questioned my faith due to my personal opinions on politics. The ones who would do that I am also happy to say don't talk much to me.
BenTheBeliever
Active Member
That is not always true and you know that. Let use the example of rape cause it happens every day. She did not chose to have sex. It was force on here. Do you think they should be force to have the child?
BenTheBeliever
Active Member
Let me ask you do you know people who have been raped. Or abused? Who has been force? I am friends with people who went through that. Even to this day they still battle with what had happened to them
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
I've already said the vast majority of abortions aren't rape, I'm not talking about the small minority of cases but the majority. In those cases how do you justify the mother's rights over the child's, when the mother has chosen to have sex?
BenTheBeliever
Active Member
Because each person has a right in this country to decide what to do with their bodies. And you would be surprised how many abortions happen cause of rape
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
As I asked before, why does the mother's right to her body trump the baby's right to live, rather than just wait a few months and be adopted?
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Consent to one thing is not consent for a thing that sometimes (or even often) follows from the first thing. Tanning can result in skin cancer, but consent to tanning is not consent to contracting skin cancer.
Also, even when there is consent to pregnancy, consent to pregnancy - like all consent - can be withdrawn.
I've used the example of organ and tissue donation before: say there's a leukemia patient who need a bone marrow donation to live. A match comes forward, and he agrees to the bone marrow donation. After the third in the course of five procedures to extract bone marrow, the donor says "no - stop. I'm done" and withdraws his consent.
This is the donor's right. We don't strap the donor down and remove the remaining bone marrow against his will - not only is this illegal, most people would say that this would be horribly unethical and immoral. We don't do this even if the patient will certainly die without the donation. We don't do this even if the fact that the donor came forward caused the search for another match to end and because of this, the leukemia patient is utterly dependent on the donor because of the donor's actions. The donor can still withdraw consent even if the donor created the conditions that meant withdraw of consent would cause the death of the patient.
This is how we handle the situation where one person's bodily security conflicts with the right to life of someone who's unquestionably a thinking, feeling, conscious human being, capable of expressing a desire to live and who is afforded all human rights. In these cases, bodily security wins every time.
To disregard the woman's right to end her abortion, you need to argue for either:
- why you think pregnant women should be afforded a much lower level of rights than a normal person.
- why you think that fetuses should be afforded a much higher level of rights than a normal person.
... or, I suppose, you could make an argument that the right to life should trump bodily security, but this would also be an argument against making organ and tissue donation (among other things) voluntary.
Edit: assuming for the purposes of the argument that a fetus has rights at all, which you still haven't argued for - When the rights can both be satisfied, they don't trump each other. The woman's right is not to be forced to continue the pregnancy against her will. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, that can be accomplished by inducing a live birth. Her rights are satisfied by termination of the pregnancy, not necessarily termination of the fetus.
Edit 2: so one reason why the the mother's right wins out is that the fetus has no rights to trump. The point of the bodily security argument is to illustrate that even if you granted all the rights of an actual person to a fetus, we'd still uphold the woman's right to end the pregnancy throughout the entire pregnancy. If you want to argue for restriction on abortion, not only would you need to make an argument for why the fetus' rights should outweigh those of the woman's; you would also need to make the case for why fetuses should have rights in the first place.
Last edited:
That's pretty much it: their position wasn't so much that violence was always wrong as it was that human violence was an attempt to do something that only God has the authority to do.
Well, Jesus did tell his followers to go out with nothing but a begging bowl.
He condemns worrying about the future and their need for food and clothing, calling people who do this "ye of little faith." What's wealth but a hedge against the possibility that God won't provide for you in the future?
I have a bank account and a retirement fund because I expect to have to provide for my needs myself. I don't see why anyone who truly trusted God to provide for their needs would think these things are necessary.
The problem with Republicans is they think the constitution was written by God, and they treat it as more important than the words of Jesus, their supposed saviour. Half the founding fathers weren't even religious, most of the problems in America stem from the constitution being over 200 years out of date. European countries that have constitutions written much more recently have less problems with BS than Americans do because of their constitution.
I'm from Oklahoma also. How's that for coincidence?
My family is pretty diverse politically. My parents and grandparents are all democrats. My sister and her family are republican. I'm somewhere in the middle. Despite this we all get along although we do sometimes tease each other about it.
Very valid point. Whatever terminology a person chooses to use whether "fetus" or "product of conception" , it is still a human life we are talking about, and at the most vulnerable and helpless stage of life.
BenTheBeliever
Active Member
My family is mostly all Democrats. My wife side is almost republicansI'm from Oklahoma also. How's that for coincidence?
BenTheBeliever
Active Member
I answered your question. You just did not like what I said
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
"Each person has a right to do what they want with their bodies". My question is, why does this trump the baby's right to live?