This is my response to someone on Prof. LaBossiere’s blog. (I have much respect and admiration for Prof. LaBossiere, although we disagree on this issue, and I suggest that those who are interested in logic and ethics subscribe to his blog. Get Prof. LaBossiere’s ebook: 42 Fallacies for .99 cents on Kindle and Nook; you can also download the FREE PDF or view the book online.)
[NOTE – I have added some links to this response, as a blog post, which were not included in my original response, in order to assist the reader of this blog.]
You – “So what you are saying is that the rights of the “baby” override the rights of the mother?“
Me – Yes. Two people are involved, not one. women’s rights presuppose human rights, dignity, and worth. If the child has no protection from the mother who seeks to harm her, why should the women have protection, say, from a man who wishes to harm her? Maybe he thinks women are less than human. Who is to say, right? What standard will we use to protect women from men once we have allowed baby murder?
You – If a state is obligated to protect it’s subjects in the matter in which you describe, would a starving person be allowed to steal food from another who has food? What if the starving person came up with a way to attach a tube from themselves to another in order to be fed (like an umblicial cord) would the person they attached the tube to be allowed to remove said tube even if it meant the death of the other person?
Me – Yes, a person who is starving may take food that does not belong to her because she has the inherent right to provide for her own life. In this instance it is not stealing. This is Catholic moral theology. Your analogy is very faulty. Such an instance is never necessary, ever. The child in the womb is not an invader, she is an innocent, living, growing, person who depends upon her mother to survive. By nature, women have a strong desire to care for their unborn child even at the expense of their own life.
You – Most Christians that I know that are “pro life” want to do everything they can to protect something that isn’t a human yet but don’t actually give a shit about people who are alive and need help.
Me – Excuse me? What is the “something that is not human” pro-life people want to protect? The child? The child is human. Did you flunk 8th grade biology? Christians are commanded (and do) help people in need. There are far more Christian aid organizations that there are atheist ones, for example. What’s the largest charity in America? Catholic Charities?
You – What IS the “majesty and mystery” of human life? Are you protesting against wars, are you attempting to prevent massacres in Africa, are you against the death penalty, are you attempting to REALLY do something to prevent violence and killing in the US or is it just about forcing women to do something you want them to do?
Me – Did you watch the video: From Conception to Birth? Watch it, please. I do protest against wars, euthanasia, poverty, racism, capital punishment, and abortion, and have been in jail over some of these protests (war and abortion). You? I am committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today’s world by war, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment and euthanasia. I believe these issues are linked under a ‘consistent ethic of life’. I challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected. I wish to create a peaceful, just, and sustainable future which respects all of humanity and the planet. [See video of March 20, 2010 anti-war protest here. See my record of protest arrests here, here, and here. See Maryland trespass warning here.]
You – Libertarians would disagree since they are all about property rights and you are your own property.
You – Things that are not a human body are not, a human body.
Me – ? Watch the video, please. And have a heart, too. Thanks🙂
You – “life” in its earliest stages isn’t that special. Things that are actually alive, grown, and mature have a better chance at living than things that are just starting to grow. A lot of early life is extinguised naturally or, using a scientific word, aborted. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion, “Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester. The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception, and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners have the ability to detect the presence of an embryo. Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.” It sound like the state has a long way to go to protect the “unborn” from nature.