• 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!

each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

Curious George

Veteran Member
I'm actually advocating for the limitation of anyone making decisions concerning someone else's body.

The not-yet-born are unique and distinct living human persons.

Their bodies are not the mother's body. They are separate.
Sure. But you must realize the spin you are putting on the topic.

In the process of advocating this you are advocating the limitation of another persons rights. Moreover, you are also advocatimg that it is withing the governments authority to make a judgement regarding these.

I understand your point of view. I disagree, but I understand.

Trying to spin the argument makes the advocacy seem disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

The actual discussion requires a balancing of rights and a question of authority.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Sure. But you must realize the spin you are putting on the topic.

In the process of advocating this you are advocating the limitation of another persons rights. Moreover, you are also advocatimg that it is withing the governments authority to make a judgement regarding these.

I understand your point of view. I disagree, but I understand.

Trying to spin the argument makes the advocacy seem disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

The actual discussion requires a balancing of rights and a question of authority.
I think the only reason you feel this way is because you are making false assumptions about the not-yet-born.

You consider them "less than" and therefore not worthy of consideration.

You don't believe that refusing them life is a limitation upon their rights?

You don't believe a government should protect the lives of the small and defenseless?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I think the only reason you feel this way is because you are making false assumptions about the not-yet-born.

You consider them "less than" and therefore not worthy of consideration.

You don't believe that refusing them life is a limitation upon their rights?
I think you have misinterpreted my statement.

I also consider laws that make assisted suicide or suicide illegal as a limitation on a persons rights to make their own medical decisions. Do you think I am making false assumptions about these people?

I understand it is more convenient for you to believe my premises are false than to actually acknowledge that you are in fact arguing for the limitation of at least one persons rights.

If you want to take a crack at proving my premises false:

1) Abortion is a medical procedure that affects the body of the person undergoing that procedure.
2) limiting abortion limits the ability to have an abortion.

Therefore, limiting abortion limits the rights of a person to make medical decisions concerning their own body.

That it also affects the fetus or zygote is entirely separate from the fact that limiting abortion limits a persons right to make a medical decision concerning their own body.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
I also consider laws that make assisted suicide or suicide illegal as a limitation on a persons rights to make their own medical decisions.
I actually agree with you here to an extent. I don't want anyone to commit suicide and believe it to be selfish and stupid act.

However, if people want to leave this life, they should be able to decide when so long as they take care of all of their responsibilities before departing.

A single mother of five children should first make sure her children are taken care of before exiting, for example.

Not only this, but other social, legal, and financial responsibilities should be taken into consideration.

It should be illegal for a person to commit suicide to get out of paying back what they owe or getting out of a guilty verdict.
Do you think I am making false assumptions about these people?
Only in terms of relevance to this discussion.

Are you making the claim that the not-yet-born have a desire to never be born?

The mother is responsible for the unborn child inside of her.
I understand it is more convenient for you to believe my premises are false than to actually acknowledge that you are in fact arguing for the limitation of at least one persons rights.
How am I limiting anyone's rights when no one has the right to murder another person?

Why can't you acknowledge the rights of the not-yet-born?
If you want to take a crack at proving my premises false:

1) Abortion is a medical procedure that affects the body of the person undergoing that procedure.
2) limiting abortion limits the ability to have an abortion.

Therefore, limiting abortion limits the rights of a person to make medical decisions concerning their own body.
The mother has a responsibility to her unborn child.
That it also affects the fetus or zygote is entirely separate from the fact that limiting abortion limits a persons right to make a medical decision concerning their own body.
Your rights supersede the rights of others?

You can use your freedom of speech to take away someone else's right to freedom of speech?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I actually agree with you here to an extent. I don't want anyone to commit suicide and believe it to be selfish and stupid act.

However, if people want to leave this life, they should be able to decide when so long as they take care of all of their responsibilities before departing.
I did not take a position on whether someone should be able to commit suicide or not. I merely stated that saying they could not was a limitation on their rights.

A single mother of five children should first make sure her children are taken care of before exiting, for example.
This is you defining when it is okay to limit the rights of a person.
Not only this, but other social, legal, and financial responsibilities should be taken into consideration.
This is you setting factors that could balance one persons rights to others.
It should be illegal for a person to commit suicide to get out of paying back what they owe or getting out of a guilty verdict.
More of the same
Only in terms of relevance to this discussion.
Hopefully you see how this is relevant by now.
Are you making the claim that the not-yet-born have a desire to never be born?
No, I am not.
The mother is responsible for the unborn child inside of her.
Relevance?
How am I limiting anyone's rights when no one has the right to murder another person?
Murder is a legal term.
Why can't you acknowledge the rights of the not-yet-born?
Have I said that fetuses or zygotes have no rights?
The mother has a responsibility to her unborn child.
You really want to imply a legal duty of a mother to any unborn child?
Your rights supersede the rights of others?
Sometimes
You can use your freedom of speech to take away someone else's right to freedom of speech?
Yes. I am not sure you understand how freedom of speech works.

You realize that nothing you said has in any way shown either my premises nor my conclusion to be false. This is a discussion about the balancing of rights and the authority to do so.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If the not-yet-born are living human persons then aborting them for the sake of convenience is murder.

No one has the right to murder.
This is what I was talking about. You're in favour of denying the rights to abortion and bodily security.

The next time you lie and say that you aren't talking about denying any rights, remember back to your post here.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
This is what I was talking about. You're in favour of denying the rights to abortion and bodily security.
If the not-yet-born are living human persons then no one has the right to murder them. End of discussion.

As to your claim of pregnancy being a threat to "bodily security", what does that even mean?

The female human doing exactly what it was designed to do is somehow a threat to their "bodily security"?

Even if it could be deemed such, it's not as though any woman is getting pregnant accidentally (excluding non-consensual encounters).

Everyone knows that sex leads to baby humans.

Let me ask a hypothetical so I can wrap my head around your claim.

If someone with a peanut allergy were to willingly eat a product that they knew "may contain peanuts" and had an allergic reaction, they can claim that the product was a threat to their "bodily security"?

They can blame the product even though they understood how their body worked and that there was always a possibility that they would have a reaction if they consumed it?

Can I claim that a bad bowel movement is a threat to my "bodily security", even though it was my choice of diet that led to it?

To you, what isn't a threat to someone's "bodily security"?
The next time you lie and say that you aren't talking about denying any rights, remember back to your post here.
No one has the right to murder.
No, you're doing the opposite of that.
I am advocating that no one should make decisions concerning the bodies of the not-yet-born.

Just because someone cannot speak for themselves, that is no reason to assume that they don't want to remain alive.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
I did not take a position on whether someone should be able to commit suicide or not. I merely stated that saying they could not was a limitation on their rights.
I understand, but find it important to note that all of our rights are limited because our rights end the moment they begin to infringe on the rights of others.
This is you defining when it is okay to limit the rights of a person.
No. This is you having a very one-dimensional understanding of rights.

You don't think that children have the right to be taken care of?

If a mother exits without making preparations for her children she would be infringing upon their rights.
This is you setting factors that could balance one persons rights to others.
Exactly, as is appropriate. No one has the absolute right to do whatever they want.

For example, we all have the freedom of speech, but calls to action (like shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater when there is no fire), or calls to violence, or cases of slander - are not protected speech and are argued not to be speech at all.
More of the same
We all have the right to receive what is owed us.

Exiting before fulfilling that responsibility would be infringing on that right.
Hopefully you see how this is relevant by now.
Nope. The not-yet-born have the right to be born.
Murder is a legal term.
Relevance?

Are you making the claim that a mother does have the right to murder her unborn children?
Have I said that fetuses or zygotes have no rights?
Claiming that someone has the right to murder another is saying that the victim has no rights.

That's very plain.
You really want to imply a legal duty of a mother to any unborn child?
There should be no legal difference between a born and a not-yet-born child.

Any difference you'd want to enforce would lead to inconsistencies and double-standards.
Sometimes
When?

Your child's existence is inconvenient to you so you can murder him?
Yes. I am not sure you understand how freedom of speech works.
Nope. You can't silence someone with your speech.

To do so would require a call to action, which would not be protected.

The First Amendment guarantees that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech.

It can never be taken away from any citizen ever.
You realize that nothing you said has in any way shown either my premises nor my conclusion to be false. This is a discussion about the balancing of rights and the authority to do so.
This discussion has shown that you have a very limited and one-sided understanding of "rights".
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
No. This is you having a very one-dimensional understanding of rights.

You don't think that children have the right to be taken care of?

If a mother exits without making preparations for her children she would be infringing upon their rights.
Not when the mother's own bodily security is at stake as well. For instance, a mother doesn't have a legal obligation to run into a burning building to save her children. One person's rights end where the bodily security of another begins.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If the not-yet-born are living human persons then no one has the right to murder them. End of discussion.

As to your claim of pregnancy being a threat to "bodily security", what does that even mean?
Bodily security is also called bodily integrity or bodily autonomy. It's the idea that the use of - or risks to - our bodies can't be compelled without our consent.

It's the reason why you can't be forced to donate organs or tissue, or to participate in a medical study, or to risk your own life to save another. It's why you have the right to refuse dangerous work.

The female human doing exactly what it was designed to do is somehow a threat to their "bodily security"?
Your religious beliefs about what God "designed" things to do are your own business, not anybody else's. If you think God is telling people not to get abortions, then don't get an abortion. Don't try to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else unless you're prepared to have all their beliefs imposed on you in return.

Even if it could be deemed such, it's not as though any woman is getting pregnant accidentally (excluding non-consensual encounters).

Everyone knows that sex leads to baby humans.
Is the idea of continuous consent completely foreign to you?

Consent to sex isn't consent to becoming pregnant. Consent to becoming pregnant isn't consent to continuing the pregnancy. Consent to continuing the pregnancy at one point isn't consent to the entire pregnancy.

The alternative is the logic of the rapist ("yeah, she said 'no' while it was happening, but she invited me up to her apartment - what did she think was going to happen?").

Let me ask a hypothetical so I can wrap my head around your claim.

If someone with a peanut allergy were to willingly eat a product that they knew "may contain peanuts" and had an allergic reaction, they can claim that the product was a threat to their "bodily security"?
Would it be reasonable to deny them access to an Epi-Pen on the grounds that they "consented" to anaphylaxis by choosing to eat peanuts?

They can blame the product even though they understood how their body worked and that there was always a possibility that they would have a reaction if they consumed it?

Can I claim that a bad bowel movement is a threat to my "bodily security", even though it was my choice of diet that led to it?

To you, what isn't a threat to someone's "bodily security"?
I think you know full well that your ridiculous examples have nothing to do with bodily security.

No one has the right to murder.
There are occasions where a person has a right to kill. There are many more occasions where a person has the right to withdraw themselves from a situation even if a death will necessarily result.

I am advocating that no one should make decisions concerning the bodies of the not-yet-born.

Just because someone cannot speak for themselves, that is no reason to assume that they don't want to remain alive.
Your fantasies about the wishes of fetuses would still be irrelevant even if they weren't baseless. *I* can clearly articulate that I want to live, but despite this, I have no right to demand that my mother's organs, tissue, or body in general be used to sustain my life against her will.

Even her corpse is afforded this right: if it's her wish that she not donate her organs, then any organs she has that could have saved a life will be buried with her and whoever could have been saved by them will die.

Even the wishes of dead people supersede someone else's right to life. Why do you want to deny pregnant people rights we even grant to corpses?

If it will help with your compassion, it might be useful to remember that every woman was once a fetus.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Ugh. Why not?
For the same reason that we appreciate the persistence of the abolitionists and civil rights fighters.

Because sometimes social morality is a difficult row to hoe. It takes a long time to convince people that traditional ethical codes need to be replaced by more sophisticated ethics, when a majority prefer the status quo.
Tom
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
For the same reason that we appreciate the persistence of the abolitionists and civil rights fighters.

Because sometimes social morality is a difficult row to hoe. It takes a long time to convince people that traditional ethical codes need to be replaced by more sophisticated ethics, when a majority prefer the status quo.
Tom
Wow, comparing being against abortion to working to free slaves and civil rights for blacks. That's certainly not arrogant and tonedeaf at all.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Wow, comparing being against abortion to working to free slaves and civil rights for blacks. That's certainly not arrogant and tonedeaf at all.
Call me ProLife if you must.
I wear that one proudly. Similarly, opposed to slavery and irrational racism.
Also Capital Punishment and pre-emptive war and fiscal policies that result in the degradation of the Human Situation.

You might think that my moral principles are arrogant and tonedeaf. Do you also think I am arrogant and tonedeaf when I stand up for the rights of transfolk? Some people think I am. I stopped caring about what other people think, if they can't back up their opinions with evidence and reason, a long time ago.

I believe that feeling entitled to fertile sex, and also to killing your progeny if you wish you hadn't chosen the sex, degrades the Human Situation in a variety of ways. It contributes to irresponsible parenting and rape culture, by separating potentially fertile sex from parenthood.
Tom
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Call me ProLife if you must.
I wear that one proudly. Similarly, opposed to slavery and irrational racism.
Also Capital Punishment and pre-emptive war and fiscal policies that result in the degradation of the Human Situation.

You might think that my moral principles are arrogant and tonedeaf. Do you also think I am arrogant and tonedeaf when I stand up for the rights of transfolk? Some people think I am. I stopped caring about what other people think, if they can't back up their opinions with evidence and reason, a long time ago.

I believe that feeling entitled to fertile sex, and also to killing your progeny if you wish you hadn't chosen the sex, degrades the Human Situation in a variety of ways. It contributes to irresponsible parenting and rape culture, by separating potentially fertile sex from parenthood.
Tom
I do view it as arrogant and tonedeaf to comparing wanting to police women's reproductive choices and shame them to freeing slaves and civil rights for black people. That's a very rude comparison to make.

Not to go off-topic, but I haven't seen you defend trans people. I have seen you say derogatory things about us such as trans being "icky". Wow, such advocacy. :rolleyes:

Sometimes abortion is for the best. I'd rather someone who is irresponsible get an abortion than subject a child to a life of hardship. Obviously it would be best if they used a condom, the pill, were sterilized, etc. But this isn't a perfect world.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Not when the mother's own bodily security is at stake as well. For instance, a mother doesn't have a legal obligation to run into a burning building to save her children. One person's rights end where the bodily security of another begins.
You have yet to prove that pregnancy should be considered a threat to a woman's "bodily security", so why act like you have?

Barring rape, women accept the conditions of sexual intercourse.

Not being legally obligated to run into a burning building is not the same as being prosecuted for setting the fire in order to murder your children.

The not-yet-born are living human persons and have a right to live. No matter how inconvenient that may be.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You have yet to prove that pregnancy should be considered a threat to a woman's "bodily security", so why act like you have?
If the fetus is a person, then pregnancy is a case of one person using the body of another. It's also a case of risk and potential harm to the pregnant person.

(BTW: the term "pregnant person" is more accurate than "woman" in this case. While I recognize that the anti-choice movement is strongly linked to misogyny, it's important to remember that trans men can and do get pregnant, too)

Barring rape, women accept the conditions of sexual intercourse.
So you take the rapist's approach: consent to one part is consent to everything that you deem to follow from it.

No. This isn't how consent works.

Not being legally obligated to run into a burning building is not the same as being prosecuted for setting the fire in order to murder your children.
You miss the point yet again.

The not-yet-born are living human persons and have a right to live. No matter how inconvenient that may be.
Pregnant people are living human persons and have all the rights that go along with that, even if this offends you or your religion.
 
Top