PureX
Well-known member
Well, all you've posed is a conundrum. Not a solution.
Now, whats your solution?
Perhaps we could remove unwanted fetuses and develop them in test tubes? Unfortunately, that's not possible, yet.
The Abortion/Homosexuality Paradox
- Thread starter The Horn
- Start date
Now, whats your solution?
Perhaps we could remove unwanted fetuses and develop them in test tubes? Unfortunately, that's not possible, yet.
glassjester
Well-known member
"I am arguing that the fetal child has the same right to life that the mother has."
Do you agree?
Who is responsible for the unborn child being dependent on their mother's body? The Pregnancy Leprechaun? An innocent person should not lose their life because of another person's actions.
Oh really. Yet the MOTHER takes it upon herself to unsurp the autonomy of her child's body by destroying it.
Right. BTW, it's not necessary for you to spout another pro-abortion rationalization ... I have read them all. None of them negate the fact that the mother is using a legalized form of murder to end the life of her child on the altar of convenience.
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that it is a made up issue by those who wish to condone the intentional killing of unborn babies.
A person's rights should not extend in such a way that it fatally impairs the life of another human being.
One made a choice to allow pregnancy. IF not for that *choice*, there would be no innocent baby to slaughter.
glassjester
Well-known member
This sounds more like an argument against abortion, than for it.
Besides, wasn't it the woman's exercise of her oh-so-precious bodily autonomy that resulted in pregnancy?
Still waiting on this one - do you agree or disagree?
PureX
Well-known member
This isn't about the "right to life", it's about one's physical autonomy. The fetus does not have a right to usurp the mother's physical autonomy. And neither does anyone else. So unfortunately for the fetus, it is dependent upon the mother's body for life. And that being the case, it is also dependent upon her decision to allow it to grow inside her, or not to.
We all have a "right to life". But in this world, that right is often not respected, by man or nature.
PureX
Well-known member
Says who? We kill and eat "innocent" animals every day. Don't they have a "right to life", too?
The fetus is dependent upon the mother's body for it's survival. The mother is in charge of that body, and what happens to it and in it. Not you, not me, and not the fetus. That's just the way it is.
PureX
Well-known member
Yes, and you weren't in charge of that, either. Like it or not, people get to do what they want with their own bodies. And the fact that a fetus is sometimes dependent upon women who do not want them in their bodies is unfortunate. But no more unfortunate than being conceived in a sick body, or being conceived with a damaged or deficient DNA blueprint.
There is much we do not get to control in this world.
That's a load of
ureX:....There are plenty of laws which restrict what we can do with our bodies. If you want you use a simplistic "Lifes not fair" argument to justify this butchery then fine but at least be honest about it.
glassjester
Well-known member
It's about both.
Still no answer.
The fetal child and the mother both have the right to live. Do you agree or disagree?
GFR7
New member
Just finding this thread now as I was away for a few days:
Horn, I think I can understand your argument:
If Christians support life so much that they cannot stand to see a fetus aborted, then why when some of those fetuses are born gay, do they condemn them?
Answer: They don't believe they were born gay, or that there are gay fetuses.
They would think of it like this:
It is good that as a fetus, Charles Manson was not aborted.
But what he became as an adult was despicable.
Ergo, we have a right to condemn him now, though he was dear to us as a fetus.
You are assuming gay = good. You are assuming that gay = genetic, fixed at birth.
The pro-life people are assuming no such thing.
What they do presume is that a fetus is a human person, with human rights.
Pro-choice people assume no such thing (a fetus is not human, etc.)
So it is an argument at cross-purposes, from divergent and mutually exclusive purviews.
Horn, I think I can understand your argument:
If Christians support life so much that they cannot stand to see a fetus aborted, then why when some of those fetuses are born gay, do they condemn them?
Answer: They don't believe they were born gay, or that there are gay fetuses.
They would think of it like this:
It is good that as a fetus, Charles Manson was not aborted.
But what he became as an adult was despicable.
Ergo, we have a right to condemn him now, though he was dear to us as a fetus.
You are assuming gay = good. You are assuming that gay = genetic, fixed at birth.
The pro-life people are assuming no such thing.
What they do presume is that a fetus is a human person, with human rights.
Pro-choice people assume no such thing (a fetus is not human, etc.)
So it is an argument at cross-purposes, from divergent and mutually exclusive purviews.
Solution, if you don't want your baby, give it up for adoption.
glassjester
Well-known member
This is some wacky logic.
A child is dependent on other people for a long, long time. Not just prenatally.
And yes, that means losing some autonomy, doesn't it?
Try to square some examples with your way of thinking:
Mommy wants her body to be in Aruba for 2 weeks. So she leaves her 6-month old baby at home to starve. Oh well, Mommy does what she wants with her own body.
Mommy puts 1-year-old baby in the bath. Mommy's body is tired. Mommy decides she wants her body to go to sleep now. Mommy sleeps all night; baby drowns. Oh well, Mommy does what she wants with her own body.
Mommy has a 20-week-old baby in her womb. Mommy decides she doesn't want to be pregnant. She pays a doctor to pull the baby's body out of her and kill it. Oh well, Mommy does what she wants with her own body.
In all of these situations, a loss of the mother's autonomy was necessary to preserve the baby's life.
Yet I doubt you'd argue that the first two ought to be legally acceptable.
What makes the third example any different?
glassjester
Well-known member
Another solution - don't have sex. :idea:
He was asking for a solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
glassjester
Well-known member
So was I.
Unwanted pregnancies almost exclusively (over 99%) result from wanted sex.
Your argument is to compare the life of an animal to the life of an innocent child? :think:
When is the last time you heard a parent tell their child to "fetch" or "roll over and play dead"? When is the last time you have seen a parent keep their child on leash or in the back yard?
As much as I love my many pets, they do not compare to the love I have towards my children. Perhaps I just assumed that all parents would feel this way. My bad.
PureX
Well-known member
Like what? And keeping mind how rare your examples will be compared to an unwanted pregnancy.That's a load of
I'm simply pointing out that you and I do not have control of other people's bodies. They do. And trying to use the force of law to usurp that control is a very serious problem for a great many people. And until you somehow solve that problem, you will not be able to make abortion illegal.
So far, I have not seen anyone post a good reason why they should be allowed to usurp another persons physical autonomy. Insults and declarations of self-righteousness don't count.
Since we're in the market for in-apt comparisons:
When is the last time you've witnessed a parent tuck their zygote into bed with an out-of-tune lullaby?
glassjester
Well-known member
Still no answer...
Does the fetal child have a right to live, just as the mother as a right to bodily autonomy?
Well, considering you know that the unborn baby cannot be tucked in, your comparison doesn't apply.
Don't blame me that one of your fellow anti-lifers compared children with animals.