Right to life vs Right to Autonomy

[CoffeeSaint]

If people are made slave for the sake of children, then who are the masters? Or do you actually mean that you do not believe people should be expected to be held parentally responsible for their children?

When the two lives are in conflict (Which is not the case in almost any situation other than pregnancy, because our culture has thankfully evolved to the point where children do not need to be abandoned on mountaintops), and an adult is forced to surrender autonomy for the sake of a child, who do you think the master is? The adult's needs become subservient to the child's therefore the child is the master. And no, I don't think that's right.
Should parents be expected to care for their children? Yes. Forced to? No.

Without life, is there autonomy?

No. And the reverse is also true.

That's basically the reason behind Susan Smith's double murder of her two children when her dream of a new life with a rich man was encumbered by the burden of her children.

A case in which a psychopath believes that her life would be easier without the inconvenience of her children is not evidence against my argument. There is no objective reason why a child deserves life more than an adult deserves life.
The belief that a child deserves life more than an adult is why the Menendez brothers killed their parents. Ditto Kip Kinkle. Want to keep trading psychopaths? Or shall we stick to genuine examples?

Without life there would be no freedom or choice to speak of.

Without freedom of choice, there is no life to speak of. Ask a slave.

In any situation? Really? Are you suggesting that you would not support a child's right from the sexual exploitation of an adult pedophile or an adult child porn industry?

Precisely my point! Thank you for taking this seriously enough to carefully consider my position, and sum it up so aptly.
I'll say it again: when the two are in conflict, the right to autonomy trumps the right to life, because the being that risks its autonomy already has both, but without it, the being that needs the other -- in this case the fetus -- has neither. No person should be forced to give up their autonomy, their body, or their life, for a being that only has the potential of all three.

In almost any other case, the two are not in conflict. The pedophile does not need the child to survive; the two are not in conflict. Are you implying there is a parallel between a pregnant mother and a pedophile?

 

[FallingPianos]

Without life, is there autonomy?

no. However a fetus has no level of autonomy that can be taken away by its death.

Without life, there is nothing. The "However" part is meaningless without existence.

The answer is simply "no".

biological life is a means, not an ends.

yes, a person needs to be alive in order to have autonomy. however, a fetus's life takes away the autonomy of its mother, thus defeating its very own purpose.

 

[blastula]

biological life is a means, not an ends.

A means to what? Your statement makes no sense to me.

yes, a person needs to be alive in order to have autonomy. however, a fetus's life takes away the autonomy of its mother, thus defeating its very own purpose.

I understand your position regarding a fetus's life vs the right of the pregnant woman's right to have autonomy of her body. We and many others had argued ad nauseum on this topic in the past and I'm not dwelling on this here.

If you read my previous posts carefully, I was debating CoffeeSaint's assertion regarding children's right to life vs adults' right to autonomy in general.

 

[blastula]

When the two lives are in conflict (Which is not the case in almost any situation other than pregnancy, because our culture has thankfully evolved to the point where children do not need to be abandoned on mountaintops), and an adult is forced to surrender autonomy for the sake of a child, who do you think the master is? The adult's needs become subservient to the child's therefore the child is the master. And no, I don't think that's right.
Should parents be expected to care for their children? Yes. Forced to? No.

What do you mean by "two lives are in conflict"? Are you suggesting a child is threatening to kill the life of the mother? If that's truly the case, would a mother resort to violence as the only option to kill the child, or should the mother sought a non-lethal way to overcome the child and sought medical and psychiatric help for her child?

To say that the parental duty to care for one's children is slavery and the children are the masters is a stretch of reality. If you feel that your needs which are subsevient to your child are not right, then let somebody else adopt your child. But, you certainly cannot neglect or take the life of your child simply because it is not in the convenience of your needs.

No. And the reverse is also true.

Without life, there is no reverse.

A case in which a psychopath believes that her life would be easier without the inconvenience of her children is not evidence against my argument.

Yes, it exposes your illogical argument.

There is no objective reason why a child deserves life more than an adult deserves life.
The belief that a child deserves life more than an adult is why the Menendez brothers killed their parents. Ditto Kip Kinkle. Want to keep trading psychopaths? Or shall we stick to genuine examples?

Nobody in this world is arguing that a child deserves life more than an adult deserves life. A child's life is just as deserving as an adult's life when considering the issue regarding autonomy of an adult.

Yes, Menendez brothers and Kip Kinkle are children who took the lives of their parents and they are very wrong to do so. Society did not accept their plea for their murders. Neither do I argue for their right of autonnmy to murder against the right to life of their parents. But you on ther other hand are arguing for the right of autonomy of an adult against the right of life of a child. And therefore, your psychopathic examples are inapplicable.

Without freedom of choice, there is no life to speak of. Ask a slave.

Without freedom of choice there is still life if life is not taken. With life, there is always hope. Without life there is utterly no hope. Yes, go ask a slave.

Precisely my point! Thank you for taking this seriously enough to carefully consider my position, and sum it up so aptly.

So, you're suggesting that you would not support a child's right from the sexual exploitation of an adult pedophile or an adult child porn industry. Well, I have nothing to say.

I'll say it again: when the two are in conflict, the right to autonomy trumps the right to life, because the being that risks its autonomy already has both, but without it, the being that needs the other -- in this case the fetus -- has neither. No person should be forced to give up their autonomy, their body, or their life, for a being that only has the potential of all three.

You are trying to confuse the argument here. I know very well your position regarding the right of a woman's autonomy to her body vs the right of life of a fetus. It's been harsh and reharsh ad nauseum in the past. That's not the question I have issue with you. The issue I have with you is regarding your previous assertion pertaining to the right of life of a child vs the right of autonomy of an adult. Or are you now acknowledging that a fetus is indeed a child? Now, that's a new confession if that's your admission.

In almost any other case, the two are not in conflict. The pedophile does not need the child to survive; the two are not in conflict.

The right of a child to survive and be protected from pedophiles are always in conflict with each other. Absolutely so, no question about it.

Are you implying there is a parallel between a pregnant mother and a pedophile?

How do you come up with such a parallel is beyond me.

 

[FallingPianos]

A means to what? Your statement makes no sense to me.

Whatever a person deems as important I suppose. happiness, prayer, thought, feeling, love, freedom, etc.

I understand your position regarding a fetus's life vs the right of the pregnant woman's right to have autonomy of her body. We and many others had argued ad nauseum on this topic in the past and I'm not dwelling on this here.

funny, because thats the topic of this thread.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

What do you mean by "two lives are in conflict"? Are you suggesting a child is threatening to kill the life of the mother? If that's truly the case, would a mother resort to violence as the only option to kill the child, or should the mother sought a non-lethal way to overcome the child and sought medical and psychiatric help for her child?

The child cannot have life unless the mother sacrifices her autonomy. That's a conflict. There are almost no comparable circumstances; in almost any other case in which a person requires assistance to sustain life, that assistance can come from any person; thus if someone gives that assistance, it is a voluntary sacrifice. That is not the case with a pregnant woman. In the rare situations in which a mother's life is in actual danger from the child's continued life, the mother should abort the fetus, in my opinion, but if she chooses not to, that is her right, as well. All I want is for her to have the choice.

To say that the parental duty to care for one's children is slavery and the children are the masters is a stretch of reality. If you feel that your needs which are subsevient to your child are not right, then let somebody else adopt your child. But, you certainly cannot neglect or take the life of your child simply because it is not in the convenience of your needs.

Precisely. You have the option to give the child to another, after its birth, and thus any sacrifice you make to care for that child is voluntary, and quite noble, in my eyes. But a pregnant woman does not have the option to give up the care of the child to another: thus the sacrifice is not voluntary, and it is slavery. The only way to escape that is to allow the mother to remove the fetus -- kill the baby, before you jump on my use of the word "fetus."
No, you do not have the option to allow the child to come to harm just because it is inconvenient, because you have an option that allows you to preserve your autonomy, and the child's life: adoption. A pregnant woman does not have that option, which makes her a slave of the child, barring the option of abortion.

Without life, there is no reverse.

Do we really need to keep going round and round with this? Yes, life is important, life is one of the most basic rights, and there is nothing without life. I agree. Let it go.

Yes, it exposes your illogical argument.

Because a psychopath committed a heinous action that has no relation to what I am speaking about, seeing as how she was not pregnant with her children at the time? I'd say you need to study more logic.

Nobody in this world is arguing that a child deserves life more than an adult deserves life. A child's life is just as deserving as an adult's life when considering the issue regarding autonomy of an adult.

Yes, Menendez brothers and Kip Kinkle are children who took the lives of their parents and they are very wrong to do so. Society did not accept their plea for their murders. Neither do I argue for their right of autonnmy to murder against the right to life of their parents. But you on ther other hand are arguing for the right of autonomy of an adult against the right of life of a child. And therefore, your psychopathic examples are inapplicable.

Ah, but your psychopathic example proves your point. Interesting use of hypocrisy as a debate technique.
Their autonomy was not threatened by their parents, so again, these examples are irrelevant. I was using them only to point out that your use of a psychopathic killer is also irrelevant.

Without freedom of choice there is still life if life is not taken. With life, there is always hope. Without life there is utterly no hope. Yes, go ask a slave.

And yet, there are countless examples of slaves killing themselves rather than continuing to live as slaves. There are countles examples of slave women killing their own children, rather than allowing them to live as slaves. And there are countless examples of women killing themselves in efforts to escape pregnancy. Are you sure that life without choice is worth living?

I realize that this is simply the impasse, the point where we cannot agree: I think autonomy is as important as life, and you think simple biological existence is more important than anything. Tell me, do you oppose war? Do you oppose the death penalty? Do you oppose the ban on federal funding of stem cell research? Because it seems to me, if there is always hope as long as there is life, then you should always fight for life, in every case. I also hope that you would prefer to remain in a vegetative state for thirty years should the unthinkable happen. But I would appreciate it if you would recognize that not everyone shares your values.

So, you're suggesting that you would not support a child's right from the sexual exploitation of an adult pedophile or an adult child porn industry. Well, I have nothing to say.

It staggers me that you did not recognize my sarcasm. But, so be it. Look at it this way: ask a ridiculous question, you're going to get a ridiculous answer.

You are trying to confuse the argument here. I know very well your position regarding the right of a woman's autonomy to her body vs the right of life of a fetus. It's been harsh and reharsh ad nauseum in the past. That's not the question I have issue with you. The issue I have with you is regarding your previous assertion pertaining to the right of life of a child vs the right of autonomy of an adult. Or are you now acknowledging that a fetus is indeed a child? Now, that's a new confession if that's your admission.

I refuse to get drawn into the semantics argument. It's a child, it's a fetus, it's an innocent little pink baby; the words make absolutely no difference to me. As long as its life is dependent upon the sacrifice of the woman's autonomy, it does not have the right to life. Period. Nobody has the right to make another a slave.
As for confusing the argument, you're the one who brought up pedophiles.

The right of a child to survive and be protected from pedophiles are always in conflict with each other. Absolutely so, no question about it.

You don't understand what I mean. The pedophile does not have a right that conflicts with the child's right, which means there is no justification for the pedophile's acts, which certainly do interfere with a child's rights. That means a pedophile's abuse of a child is always, absolutely, uncategorically wrong, evil, and punishable. This is not the case with a pregnant mother: the child's right to life and the mother's right to autonomy are in direct conflict. It is a unique situation, which requires a unique solution.

How do you come up with such a parallel is beyond me.

For criminy's sake, YOU BROUGHT IT UP! I was talking about pregnant women, you are the one who thought pedophilia had something to do with my position. Don't criticize me for your confused arguments.

 

[blastula]

funny, because thats the topic of this thread.

There is nothing funny about it. I think you need to follow your thread closely so that you can keep up with the context within your topic of what I was debating.

Yes your topic was "Right to life vs Right to Autonomy". Although it is a generalized topic that can include discussion relating to unborn and born in one umbrella, I did not respond to any of your discussion when you started out with regards to fetus in terms of "Right to life vs Right to Autonomy".

I only started to respond to CofeeSanint's post #20 which I found illogical when the focus of the topic shifted to discussion about post-birth infants and children when you posted him the question of "what happens after its born" (see post #20).

Here, let me re-post post #20 hereunder to re-direct your focus:

and then what happens after its born? (emphasis mine) it either has to continue to impinge on its mother (or someone) for care, or die. the fact that there are people willing to adopt is a lucky circumstance, but it does not change the moral issue at its core. imagine that adoption werent possible, that if the mother didnt care for the child, no one would and it would die.

If there were no one who would care for the infant other than its mother, then its life would still be infringing upon her right to autonomy, and my position would change.

I do not believe people should be made slaves for the sake of children. I believe it is noble to choose to give up your freedom for a child, but I don't think anyone should be forced to do it. I suppose, then, that I should be arguing that the right to life never trumps the right to autonomy; my only reason for saying so in the case of a viable fetus was that I think after viability, the fetus should be allowed to come to term and be born and given up for adoption, since it has become more certainly capable of doing so; but that is based on the assumption that someone else would care for it after its birth. If we remove that assumption, as you have, then I would have to go back to my original position: the right to life does not trump the right to autonomy when the two are in conflict.

Effectively, I don't believe that children are more deserving of life than adults, and I think a life without freedom and without choice is not a life worth living. So I would not support a child's rights over an adult's, in any situation.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

There is nothing funny about it. I think you need to follow your thread closely so that you can keep up with the context within your topic of what I was debating.

Yes your topic was "Right to life vs Right to Autonomy". Although it is a generalized topic that can include discussion relating to unborn and born in one umbrella, I did not respond to any of your discussion when you started out with regards to fetus in terms of "Right to life vs Right to Autonomy".

I only started to respond to CofeeSanint's post #20 which I found illogical when the focus of the topic shifted to discussion about post-birth infants and children when you posted him the question of "what happens after its born" (see post #20).

Here, let me re-post post #20 hereunder to re-direct your focus:

Blastula:
If your main objection is my statement that I would not support a child's life over an adult's in any situation, I will withdraw it; in retrospect, it is too extreme and/or non-specifc. In a situation in which the rights of the two persons are in conflict, as in pregnancy or after birth provided there were no one else to care for the child, I would choose the adult's right to autonomy over the child's right to life. In our present situation in our society, in which adoption is a perfectly viable option, the rights of the two are only in conflict when the mother is pregnant and the child is not viable outside of the womb; that is the only time the mother should have the right to choose.

Does that help at all, or will you still argue that the right to life always trumps the right to autonomy, even in the circumstance of pregnancy?

 

[blastula]

The child cannot have life unless the mother sacrifices her autonomy. That's a conflict. There are almost no comparable circumstances; in almost any other case in which a person requires assistance to sustain life, that assistance can come from any person; thus if someone gives that assistance, it is a voluntary sacrifice.

So the child cannot have life unless the mother sacrifices her autonomy? Is that the reason why Susan Smith drowned her two children when she refused to sacrifice her autonomy of a new life with a rich man?

That is not the case with a pregnant woman. In the rare situations in which a mother's life is in actual danger from the child's continued life, the mother should abort the fetus, in my opinion, but if she chooses not to, that is her right, as well. All I want is for her to have the choice.

You are so confused. I thought pro-choice or pro-abortion people strongly refused to accept the notion that a fetus is a child. So, now you're acknowledging that a fetus is indeed a child? Then, wouldn't that make abortion into murder? So then why get so upset when we told you people the truth all along that abortion is murder?

Precisely. You have the option to give the child to another, after its birth, and thus any sacrifice you make to care for that child is voluntary, and quite noble, in my eyes. But a pregnant woman does not have the option to give up the care of the child to another: thus the sacrifice is not voluntary, and it is slavery. The only way to escape that is to allow the mother to remove the fetus -- kill the baby, before you jump on my use of the word "fetus."

HELLO! Did you not know what you were debating about when you posted your post #20? You were talking about infants and children who are already born.

No, you do not have the option to allow the child to come to harm just because it is inconvenient, because you have an option that allows you to preserve your autonomy, and the child's life: adoption. A pregnant woman does not have that option, which makes her a slave of the child, barring the option of abortion.

You are either truly confused, or you are willingly trying to confuse and diffuse a debate.

Do we really need to keep going round and round with this? Yes, life is important, life is one of the most basic rights, and there is nothing without life. I agree. Let it go.

We didn't really have to go round and round if you hadn't started the illogical round, What's so hard for you to see that without life there is nothing?

Because a psychopath committed a heinous action that has no relation to what I am speaking about, seeing as how she was not pregnant with her children at the time? I'd say you need to study more logic.

Your respond in post #20 was not about woman pregnant with her child/children (well, at least it's nice you now acknowledge that the unborns in the pregnancy are children). You were talking about born infants and children.

Ah, but your psychopathic example proves your point. Interesting use of hypocrisy as a debate technique.
Their autonomy was not threatened by their parents, so again, these examples are irrelevant. I was using them only to point out that your use of a psychopathic killer is also irrelevant.

Unless I had made a claim that the right of a child to autonomy superceded the right of life of their parents, then no, your examples were moot. I don't expect you to see the difference if you haven't figure this one already.

And yet, there are countless examples of slaves killing themselves rather than continuing to live as slaves. There are countles examples of slave women killing their own children, rather than allowing them to live as slaves. And there are countless examples of women killing themselves in efforts to escape pregnancy.

And yet you keep coming up with another pessimistic stretch.

Are you sure that life without choice is worth living?

Life under even the most difficult situation is worth fighting for. For every life there is hope. Do you give up THAT so easily?

I realize that this is simply the impasse, the point where we cannot agree: I think autonomy is as important as life, and you think simple biological existence is more important than anything. Tell me, do you oppose war? Do you oppose the death penalty? Do you oppose the ban on federal funding of stem cell research? Because it seems to me, if there is always hope as long as there is life, then you should always fight for life, in every case. I also hope that you would prefer to remain in a vegetative state for thirty years should the unthinkable happen. But I would appreciate it if you would recognize that not everyone shares your values.

A child who is born is not attached physically to the mother's body. So what other autonomy the women can claim that can be so important as to justify denying the life of a child?

Unless our country has been attacked, or our citizens' welfare are being pursued and threatened, or there is imminent threat to our life or to our family, I don't believe in taking an innocent human life (human being to be specific in the discussion relating to human issue).

A living will with regards to a terminating medical condition is not the same as taking the life of another. In living will, you are making a decision regarding your own life at terminating situation. You should know the difference.

It staggers me that you did not recognize my sarcasm. But, so be it. Look at it this way: ask a ridiculous question, you're going to get a ridiculous answer.

I am not asking a ridiculous question. I am confronting your ridiculous argument that begs for a ridiculous rebuttal.

I refuse to get drawn into the semantics argument. It's a child, it's a fetus, it's an innocent little pink baby; the words make absolutely no difference to me. As long as its life is dependent upon the sacrifice of the woman's autonomy, it does not have the right to life. Period. Nobody has the right to make another a slave.
As for confusing the argument, you're the one who brought up pedophiles.

I did not make the semantics argument. You are confused if you don't know what you wrote in post #20.

You don't understand what I mean. The pedophile does not have a right that conflicts with the child's right, which means there is no justification for the pedophile's acts, which certainly do interfere with a child's rights. That means a pedophile's abuse of a child is always, absolutely, uncategorically wrong, evil, and punishable. This is not the case with a pregnant mother: the child's right to life and the mother's right to autonomy are in direct conflict. It is a unique situation, which requires a unique solution.

So now you are saying a child has right from pedophile's abuse? Didn't you say earlier in post #20 that an adult's right to autonomy supercedes a child's right to life? A child has other rights but no right to life?

For criminy's sake, YOU BROUGHT IT UP! I was talking about pregnant women, you are the one who thought pedophilia had something to do with my position. Don't criticize me for your confused arguments.

No, you were not talking about pregnant women when the focus was shifted to born infants and children in post #20.

 

[blastula]

Blastula:
If your main objection is my statement that I would not support a child's life over an adult's in any situation, I will withdraw it; in retrospect, it is too extreme and/or non-specifc. In a situation in which the rights of the two persons are in conflict, as in pregnancy or after birth provided there were no one else to care for the child, I would choose the adult's right to autonomy over the child's right to life. In our present situation in our society, in which adoption is a perfectly viable option, the rights of the two are only in conflict when the mother is pregnant and the child is not viable outside of the womb; that is the only time the mother should have the right to choose.

Does that help at all, or will you still argue that the right to life always trumps the right to autonomy, even in the circumstance of pregnancy?

Sorry, I didn't read your post while I was typing and posting the above response.

My argument was based on your respond in post #20 regarding the right of life of infants and children vs the right to autonomy of adults in post-birth situation.

Regarding the part "after birth provided there were no one else to care for the child, I would choose the adult's right to autonomy over the child's right to life", can you please clarify?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Sorry, I didn't read your post while I was typing and posting the above response.

My argument was based on your respond in post #20 regarding the right of life of infants and children vs the right to autonomy of adults in post-birth situation.

Regarding the part "after birth provided there were no one else to care for the child, I would choose the adult's right to autonomy over the child's right to life", can you please clarify?

The only time one person's right to autonomy overrides another person's right to life, indeed the only time one person's rights overrides another person's rights in any way, is if they can only gain their rights by taking away the rights of another. If a woman who became pregnant had no ability to abort the child, she loses her autonomy, her control over her own body, so that the child may live. The child's right to life does not give it the right to take away a woman's autonomy, in my opinion; first and foremost because the child cannot be seen as having "life" yet, since it cannot live on its own. It has only the life its mother grants it, and if she chooses to take it away, that is her choice.
Once a child is born, in our society, the mother can regain her autonomy without taking away the child's life, and so the two rights are no longer in conflict. Therefore neither has the right to remove the other's rights.

Now: if adoption were not an option, if the child's life continued to depend on the mother's sacrifice of her autonomy because nobody else would take care of the child in her place, then the mother's autonomy and the child's life are still in conflict. Again the child has only the life the mother chooses to grant it, since without her it would surely die. If that were the case, I would still support the mother's right to allow her child to die, rather than force her to give up control of her life in order to preserve the life of her child.

I am on shakier ground, here, and I know it. The child is clearly viable; it has passed the point when it is granted citizenship and personhood by our courts and therefore it does have the right to life, and it certainly is a sentient human being. But this is where I started -- I'm going to use the word "ranting" -- about never feeling a child's life is more important than an adult's. Ranting because I'm not sure if my choice is the right one.

Fortunately for me, this situation is only hypothetical; our society has found the only solution that prevents the conflict and saves both the child's life and the adult's freedom: adoption.

I hope that makes it clear, and that I haven't rehashed unnecessarily.

 

[blastula]

Now: if adoption were not an option, if the child's life continued to depend on the mother's sacrifice of her autonomy because nobody else would take care of the child in her place, then the mother's autonomy and the child's life are still in conflict. Again the child has only the life the mother chooses to grant it, since without her it would surely die. If that were the case, I would still support the mother's right to allow her child to die, rather than force her to give up control of her life in order to preserve the life of her child. Ranting because I'm not sure if my choice is the right one.

I am just speechless. But I hope you will come to know for sure whether your choice (POV) is the right one.

I hope that makes it clear, and that I haven't rehashed unnecessarily.

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem if people want to reharse anything they want. If I want to reharsh a topic, I will reharsh the topic with you or any interested party. But, I wasn't looking to discuss an issue that I had given my POV several times in the past concerning the fetus' right to life vs pregnant woman's right to autonomy. I just wanted to focus the issue raised by you concerning born children's right to life vs adult's right to autonomy and let others had their shares to provide new insights on old issue.