Here’s an interesting prolife argument:
In pregnancy, the baby is dependent upon the woman because the woman put the baby in that situation. If the woman never had sex, the baby would not be in the position it’s in. I would change your analogy to say that the baby needs a kidney because of something the mother did.Here’s a better analogy: Imagine I’m a pilot and while you’re sleeping, I take you aboard my plane as a prank and take off flying. It turns out some defect in the plane prevents me from landing, but there is only one parachute. Should I have a legal obligation to give you that parachute and die if necessary? Yes. I put you in that situation, and I have an obligation to get you out.
Of course, this argument has gruesome implications for those who are victims of sexual assault - what did she do to put the baby there in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised you even posted this. It's not helpful and worse, could be seen as blaming victims.
I am very pro-life. I just don't want this stuff out there as being something most pro-life people would dare suggest.
It doesn't have to apply to rape victims. Every prolife argument needn't be applicable to every conceivable situation. You're being simplistic.
DeleteBlaming what victims? Rape victims? Since the argument was never intended to address that particular scenario, your objection is scurrilous.
Did you have some other victims in mind? What about the victims of abortion itself (e.g. babies)?
"In pregnancy, the baby is dependent upon the woman because the woman put the baby in that situation. If the woman never had sex, the baby would not be in the position it’s in."
DeleteIn the event of a rape, what did the mother do that put this baby in this situation?
I am responding to the quote you highlighted. If you didn't mean for people to respond to it, perhaps you should have included more of the article.
Listen, I'm not saying I'd be okay with abortion being permitted (rather like shooting the child left behind by the burglar, right?), but to say that the woman in this case did something to become pregnant should be an unacceptable argument.
Chris H
Delete"In the event of a rape, what did the mother do that put this baby in this situation?"
A red herring. The argument isn't addressing that rare circumstance, but normal cases.
"I am responding to the quote you highlighted. If you didn't mean for people to respond to it, perhaps you should have included more of the article."
Perhaps you should avoid malicious caricatures.
"...but to say that the woman in this case did something to become pregnant should be an unacceptable argument."
Since that doesn't fall under the scope of the argument, you're burning a straw man.
I see. Okay, while we're all arguing about "normal cases," we can get painted by the pro-abortion crowd as hating women and not caring about rape victims. That'll surely help our cause. But at least we'll be talking about "normal cases."
DeleteMalicious caricature? There was nothing malicious about my response. If you didn't mean for people to respond to the section you highlighted, then you ought to have highlighted something more/different. I didn't ascribe to you motive, but you have to me.
Not a straw man. The section you highlighted was not as specific as you intended it to be. I didn't take your argument out of context, but quoted directly from the section you've highlighted.
So: Is it your argument, then, that a woman who has become pregnant due to rape has done something to cause the pregnancy? The section of article you've highlighted here seems to lead us to that conclusion.
Chris H
Delete"I see. Okay, while we're all arguing about 'normal cases,' we can get painted by the pro-abortion crowd as hating women and not caring about rape victims."
Actually, you're contributing to that stereotype by making their dishonest argument for them.
"That'll surely help our cause. But at least we'll be talking about 'normal cases.'"
Why do you put normal cases in scare quotes? You think pregnancy by consensual sex is not the norm? That's not an ad hoc distinction.
"If you didn't mean for people to respond to the section you highlighted, then you ought to have highlighted something more/different."
I'm under no obligation to forestall malicious, unreasonable interpretations.
"The section you highlighted was not as specific as you intended it to be. I didn't take your argument out of context, but quoted directly from the section you've highlighted."
You're pretending that the argument includes rape. Many arguments involve generalities. They don't pedantically cite every possible exception. That's not the nature of human discourse. Readers are expected to exercise minimal intelligence in making allowance for unstated exceptions. Don't be obtuse.
"So: Is it your argument, then, that a woman who has become pregnant due to rape has done something to cause the pregnancy? The section of article you've highlighted here seems to lead us to that conclusion."
You keep confirming your malicious agenda.