No right to life if it involves using another's body?

[tinytherese]

 

I'd like to talk about one comment to this video and the responses to it.

 

 

@rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676

1 day ago

NO other human has the right at ANY time to the use of another human's body without their consent. No human should have that right. Not to the blood, or the organs, or any other body part. You do NOT have the right to life if it means using another body. You cannot mandate that people give blood, kidneys, livers or any other organ to keep someone alive.

 

 

@averytheloftier

1 day ago

so if the issue here is consent, I assume you oppose abortion except in cases of rape?

 

@juliesalazar9463

1 day ago

An unborn child is a separate human being from the mother so to compare it to donating blood or an organ doesn't apply.

 

@rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676

1 day ago

 @averytheloftier  Exactly what part of my comment was unclear to you?

 

@rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676

1 day ago

 @juliesalazar9463  No human has the right to the organs of another human. Period. And yes, they are a separate human, and no different from a human on a transplant list. They don't get to force people to give them organs either. And they die every day because of that. Do you WANT someone to be able to force you to give them a kidney?

 

@averytheloftier

1 day ago

 @rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676  none of it, glad to see another pro-lifer!

 

@rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676

1 day ago

 @averytheloftier  Define "pro-lifer".

 

@DefendersOfWomen

1 day ago

Long live pro-life!

 

@meliciousgoremay8627

1 day ago

Are women not responsible for the well-being of their own children? Creation of a new life has no obligations and the actual option of killing the child if ya feel like it?

 

@ThanksHermione

1 day ago

 @rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676  What organs are mothers cutting out of their bodies to give their babies?

 

@KirisutonoNeko

23 hours ago

Ehh… If I donate a kidney to someone, that person’s right to life trumps my right to my body after merely that one point of consent. I don’t get to take it back whenever I please, even though it is verifiably my body which is keeping that person alive. And that is for much longer than nine months. That above argument therefore only applies to cases of rape.

 

@m.w.3194

23 hours ago

The right to life is a self evident and inalienable right bestowed on those created equally. Can you define self evident? Inalienable? Created? Equal? And youre the only one trying to justify violations of bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy never grants a right to take premeditated and intentional action against another human beings body for your own benefit without that human's consent. The child takes no action against the mother. The mother has no right to take action against the child. Abortion is not self defense. Self defense is not premeditated or intentional.

 

@Daniel-zv4to

23 hours ago

This isnt as good of an argument as you thought it was chief

 

@rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676

22 hours ago

 @m.w.3194  Sure it does. No human has the right to parasitize another human. It is simple.

 

@rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676

22 hours ago

 @ThanksHermione  So you are saying that is someone needed a Kidney, they could attach themselves to you and you would have no choice? You could do that with a pig too. So why aren't you using your heart to save people? Oh RIGHT, you have the CHOICE to say no.

 

@rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676

22 hours ago

 @KirisutonoNeko  Wrong. You are not forced to donate that kidney. No one can make you, and if they did, you could rightly fight them, even to the death to protect yourself. It would be self defense.

 

@rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676

22 hours ago

 @Daniel-zv4to  I don't see any that are better.

 

@KirisutonoNeko

21 hours ago

 @rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676  Try re-reading my reply again. More slowly this time.

 

@jasonzimmerer8658

20 hours ago

 @rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676  You failed to understand the point mentioned with the first comment. If a women consents to sex, she by default is consenting to the chance of becoming pregnant. Thus, choices have consequences. She does not have a right to rectify her decision by killing her son or daughter.

 

@rustythegreatandpowerfulla2676

10 hours ago

 @KirisutonoNeko  Speed changes nothing. It's still a specious argument.

[Didacus]

I think you're on to something with the rape comment there...

Consent was given during the sexual act... outside of rape, that destroys that logic outright.

(and note: consent given by both the man and woman means both are equally responsible for the new life created)

[tinytherese]

On 3/24/2023 at 12:58 PM, Didacus said:

I think you're on to something with the rape comment there...

Consent was given during the sexual act... outside of rape, that destroys that logic outright.

(and note: consent given by both the man and woman means both are equally responsible for the new life created)

Someone else made that comment.

 

I cringe at the statement that a baby is a parasite in their mother's womb. I also don't understand how the one commenter insists that protecting the unborn from abortion is the same as forcing someone to surrender their kidney to someone else.

[Didacus]

The child is not a parasite - the child is a FRUIT!

[MIKolbe]

I find it interesting (though I am not a doctor) that all organs in the body are seem to be made for the person embodying them (heart/kidneys/lungs/eyes...etc) ...except for the uterus.  It seems like the nature of the uterus is that it specifically is for someone else.

iono...just me thinking.

[Didacus]

21 minutes ago, MIKolbe said:

I find it interesting (though I am not a doctor) that all organs in the body are seem to be made for the person embodying them (heart/kidneys/lungs/eyes...etc) ...except for the uterus.  It seems like the nature of the uterus is that it specifically is for someone else.

iono...just me thinking.

I think you're on to something there!

I firmly believe that the giving of one's self is a divine trait.

[little2add]

In consensual sex, even in the case of failed contraception, the man and woman voluntarily engage in the act that brings a new life into existence. The unborn child is not an intruder who uses force and violence to attach himself to the mother, the way a parasite attaches to a host. Rather, the unborn child is right where he is supposed to be, doing what he’s supposed to be doing. Conception is the natural fruit of sex, and a child developing in the womb is a sign of reproductive health. Conception and gestation are natural results of sex. People—parents especially—bear responsibilities for the natural consequences of their acts. A man and a woman who voluntarily engage in the act that can create new life, a life that comes into existence in the condition of radical dependence, owe duties in justice to care for that new life. This is the heart of parental obligation.

Pregnancy for many women can be a burden, and for some it can entail grave physical costs, but that doesn’t justify the intentional killing of another innocent person—and not just any innocent person, but the woman’s child. Missing from bodily autonomy arguments for abortion is any recognition that a moral relationship between mother and child already exists by the time a woman is contemplating an abortion. Both mother and father have natural duties to protect and care for their children, regardless of whether they are “wanted” or “unwanted,” “planned” or a “surprise,” “perfect” or “defective.”

Thomson’s analogy, then, fails as applied to nearly all pregnancies. The analogy seems apt only when the pregnancy in question was the result of rape. Even in the case of rape—a horrible violation of a woman’s dignity, bodily integrity, personal autonomy, and rightful liberty—justice still requires respecting the unborn child’s life. The child, after all, wasn’t the rapist, did nothing wrong, and is still the mother’s child. The burden of persisting in even a difficult pregnancy is not proportionate to losing one’s life. That is, there exists a profound asymmetry between existence or non-existence on the one hand, and the burdens and costs of pregnancy, even one that comes with profound psychological challenges, as in cases of rape. And, of course, as a moral matter nothing justifies intentional killing of the innocent, let alone one’s own child. (As a legal matter, exceptions for rape may be a political necessity to enact otherwise protective laws.)

But we shouldn’t fall captive to this pro-abortion rhetorical red herring. Abortion supporters most often point to pregnancies resulting from rape not because they believe that abortion should be limited to these truly hard cases but to use these difficult examples to justify abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy. If the Thomson argument succeeded, it would justify abortion only in rare cases when the mother did not consent to sex and thus is not responsible for the fact that a new life came into existence inside of her. Even so, it still wouldn’t justify intentional killing. What’s important to remember is that the overwhelming majority of children are conceived as the natural result of consensual sex. Unlike Thomson’s hypothetical individual, who suddenly woke up and found himself attached to the violinist, parents bear responsibility for the fact that they have conceived a child.

The first three steps of our book’s argument—a new human being comes into existence at conception, human beings possess intrinsic dignity and worth, and government exists to protect innocent human beings from lethal violence—explain the long moral and legal tradition against murder. Examining the bodily autonomy argument for abortion highlights another pro-life point: abortion is wrong not only because strangers shouldn’t kill each other, but also and especially because parents have special obligations to their children, and it isn’t governmental overreach to require parents to fulfill those obligations. The unborn child in the womb isn’t an intruder or parasite. He is exactly where he is supposed to be, doing exactly what he’s supposed to be doing, and his parents are supposed to be nurturing, protecting, and loving him. Though some parents cannot care for their child after birth, they have a responsibility at least to bring their child into the world and find someone who can care for him. Carrying a baby to term and placing him for adoption is one way in which parents can fulfill their obligations to a child for whom they are unable to care after birth.

source: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2022/06/82963/

[chrysostom]

On 3/23/2023 at 8:49 PM, tinytherese said:

 @m.w.3194  Sure it does. No human has the right to parasitize another human. It is simple

I would have said. "Sure. And pregnancy is not parasitism. It is simple."

[little2add]

15 hours ago, chrysostom said:

parasitize

What kind of crazy world would you call your direct descendent a parasite?
 

My apologies to whomever may be offended, I do not mean to reference the poster directly,  my  reference to a parasite is a Metaphor.