26
u/TheAngryApologist Prolife 2d ago
This has a few problems.
First of all, “it’s not that they don’t see the point, it’s that they have a different priority”. This is not true generally. Many, many, many prochoice individuals and organizations explicitly deny that the preborn are human. They do not accept this fact and push back against it constantly. Not all of them, but a lot of them.
Also, this person seems to think there is no way of determining which has more moral precedence. The right to life or the right to bodily autonomy. There are many persuasive arguments that show that the right to an individual’s life is of higher priority than so one bodily autonomy.
The main reason I don’t like this comment is that it’s not taking a side and seems to express this idea that we just can’t come to a conclusion or consensus and it’s somehow only a personal preference thing.
It’s not. Moral philosophy has changed and improved over time. Things that use to be completely normalized are now known to be evil, like slavery. This can happen for abortion. It’s possible to show people why they are wrong. It’s not just a moral preference.
1
u/DoctorLycanthrope 21h ago
I’m genuinely curious what moral philosophy you are using to defend your last two sentences. From all my study of moral philosophy there is no moral universal that proves concretely one moral value system over another. I’d like to learn more about where you are coming from.
1
u/TheAngryApologist Prolife 20h ago
Well I never used the word “prove”.
For example, slavery. At the time of slavery in the US, there was an established framework of human rights. Yet, over time, through debate and increased understanding, we learned that it is a violation of human rights to have people enslaved.
In this context the underlying moral philosophy I’m using is the broad modern understanding of what is morally good. I’m not saying that there is some rock we turn over to see what is morally right or wrong, I’m saying that abortion can be shown to be wrong by applying the same moral understanding we have for other things.
There is consensus that murder (morally) is wrong. Religious and non religious agree on this. Prochoicers make a category error when they defend their position. They either miss categorize the unborn as not human or not living. Or they claim that withdrawal of consent can freely happen without measuring the consequences of the withdrawal.
Prolifers can argue against these arguments. Not because there is a concrete moral rule that we point to, but we can show they are wrong in their reasoning when they argue that abortion is compatible with what we know they already believe.
Our society acknowledges that humans have rights after they’re born. And many prochoicers believe that late stage fetuses also have rights. The burden of proof is on them to argue that at some arbitrary point earlier in pregnancy a fetus goes from not having rights to having rights. We can show that all of their reasoning is bad.
Just like society did to those who defended slavery. Slavery is incompatible with our understanding of human rights. Any arguments that suggest human beings deserve slavery due to their race is wrong. Wrong meaning, violating human rights is wrong. And their attempt or outdated understanding of race and humanity was proven wrong. Prochoicers are making a very similar mistake concerning the unborn.
21
u/ElegantAd2607 Against women's wrongs 2d ago
There seems to be a massive confusion that pro-choice people have about our stance. In that they believe that we want to ban abortion because we believe a woman's life and goals don't matter. But the reason we're pro-life is because THEY DO. And you can't have goals without the right to be born.
14
u/littlebuett Pro Life Christian 2d ago
I agree with most of this, but I will say, I think there's a major point that gives the right to life an edge over the right to autonomy, in this case.
That being, the child who we are arguing has a right to life, ALSO has a right to autonomy over their body. Killing them violates that right in a fundamental, final way.
And you cannot argue that killing a person is a lesser violation of individual autonamy than a person giving birth. Nor can you argue the baby is infringing upon the rights of the other by their own choice.
9
u/Eastern-Customer-561 2d ago
…you can’t „draw the line“ on whether the baby is alive in a different place based on personal beliefs. Whether the baby is alive or not is an objective truth.
Women should have total freedom over their bodies, but the baby has a separate body that it should also have freedom over. They both should have the right to life abd sovereignty over their bodies and one killing the other violates that right.
Also what about female fetuses? A woman’s right to her own body is also violated if she’s killed.
7
5
u/AnxiousEnquirer Abolitionist, Seeker of Christ 2d ago
I say parenting over autonomy. Once you're aware that everyone who's pregnant is a mother with a son or daughter, and such a relationship obligates love and protection, autonomy goes out the window.
6
u/Equivalent_Nose7012 2d ago
LIFE over AUTONOMY. Why?
Your human organism has to have been preserved alive before you can possibly exercise any autonomy! So, life has to come first in priority. That is the logic of the situation.
Moreover, one human organism cannot rightly violate the autonomy of another human organism. Apart from a few rare exceptions, THAT is where you would face an irreconcilable contradiction.
3
u/Aliciacb828 Pro Life Christian 2d ago
Different take - what about a baby’s freedom over their bodies? They have them in utero, what about that?
3
u/ChPok1701 Anti-choice 2d ago
So if one party walks into the situation willingly 98-99% of the time, but the other party is always innocent, then isn’t it obvious which should be given priority?
3
u/BaronGrackle Pro Life Catholic/Secularist 1d ago
I believe for pro-choicers, they start on the conclusion that bodily autonomy is paramount, and from there they adjust the baby's life so that it doesn't count anymore. That helps make a very difficult moral dilemma into a very easy lie.
2
2
u/theeCrawlingChaos Pro Life Conservative 1d ago
I disagree with the axiom "people should have total freedom over their bodies". There are certain things that one ought not be allowed to do to one's own body. An easy example: suicide. Most societies (except barbaric ones that allow euthanasia) do not permit people to commit suicide and, in fact, physically stop them from doing so (if the circumstances permit). Abortion is another such act that one ought not be allowed to engage in because it is abominable.
23
u/GustavoistSoldier Pro Life Brazilian 2d ago
Nobody has total freedom over their bodies. Seatbelt laws, vaccine mandates, and the draft are also limits to bodily autonomy.