3 ms·

I don't think this is true at all. Pregnancy ("creating a life that requires birth" since we're not debating "when does life begin" at this point in the thread)

I don't think this is true at all. Pregnancy ("creating a life that requires birth" since we're not debating "when does life begin" at this point in the thread) is a predictable consequence of (voluntary) sex. "Organ donation" is not a predictable consequence of sex. There's nothing inherent to the pro-life position that would require mandatory organ donation between parents and children or anyone else whether before or after death.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
To jump a few steps ahead in the dialogue, I'll posit that simply the medical reality of our ability to perform organ donations, and the consequence of donations saving lives makes have-ing organs a sufficient condition for forced donation. Medical realities currently play a role in viability calculus so it is a perfectly valid analogy in that medical advances in organ donation being a possibility are equally valid.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Rather than reiterating arguments, I'll just link people to the thread where you and I debated this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32142968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32142968
tsimionescu 4y ago
I'm not sure what sex has to do with it. The pro-life position is that human life is so precious that preserving the human life of the fetus it is more important than any right the mother may have. There is no logical reason this argument would stop after birth - the mother (and presumably father as well) should maintain this obligation of preserving the life of their child by any means that don't require them to give up their own life. Being legally required to, say, donate blood for their child should be a no-brainer, if you bleieve that the preservation of your child's life should be a legal requirement that trumps any other right you may have (except your own right to life). Donating their organs to their child after death should also be an obvious legal requirement.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Well, that's not "THE pro-life position", it's an extreme example of a pro-life position (nut-picking, effectively). A more moderate pro-life position argues that consensual sex constitutes a waiver of the right to forego birth (except in cases where birth puts the mother's life at great risk--for some value of "great").
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. Even less so among those who also oppose classes of contraceptives that immediately kill fertilized eggs, such as the Catholic Church. Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Edit to add: the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      > I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. It seems like you're conflating "pro-life" and "people who want to ban abortion entirely". The pro-life position includes people who want to ban abortion in the general case even while allowing abortion for exceptional cases. > Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Agreed, but that doesn't refute pro-life people having rape exceptions (multiple groups can allow for rape exceptions). > the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology Can you source this claim about the majority of pro-life campaigners (also, why does that seem indicative of pro-life people in general)? Also, even if it's accurate, I don't think it constitutes proof of much--in particular, they could hold that it's not the government's job to provide sex education or free contraception (I personally favor the government providing both of these, by the way). In any case, rather than arguing about ONE pro-life position, it seems like it would be better to acknowledge that there can be multiple specific positions within a movement. I'm certainly happy to concede that the pro-life movement includes many people with extreme positions, why can't we agree that it includes some more moderate positions as well?

kelseyfrog 4y ago

To jump a few steps ahead in the dialogue, I'll posit that simply the medical reality of our ability to perform organ donations, and the consequence of donations saving lives makes have-ing organs a sufficient condition for forced donation. Medical realities currently play a role in viability calculus so it is a perfectly valid analogy in that medical advances in organ donation being a possibility are equally valid.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Rather than reiterating arguments, I'll just link people to the thread where you and I debated this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32142968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32142968

tsimionescu 4y ago

I'm not sure what sex has to do with it. The pro-life position is that human life is so precious that preserving the human life of the fetus it is more important than any right the mother may have. There is no logical reason this argument would stop after birth - the mother (and presumably father as well) should maintain this obligation of preserving the life of their child by any means that don't require them to give up their own life. Being legally required to, say, donate blood for their child should be a no-brainer, if you bleieve that the preservation of your child's life should be a legal requirement that trumps any other right you may have (except your own right to life). Donating their organs to their child after death should also be an obvious legal requirement.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Well, that's not "THE pro-life position", it's an extreme example of a pro-life position (nut-picking, effectively). A more moderate pro-life position argues that consensual sex constitutes a waiver of the right to forego birth (except in cases where birth puts the mother's life at great risk--for some value of "great").
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. Even less so among those who also oppose classes of contraceptives that immediately kill fertilized eggs, such as the Catholic Church. Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Edit to add: the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > I think you'll find that this position is actually less common among pro-life people than the one I am describing. Exceptions for rape are rarely accepted by those who want to ban abortion entirely. It seems like you're conflating "pro-life" and "people who want to ban abortion entirely". The pro-life position includes people who want to ban abortion in the general case even while allowing abortion for exceptional cases. > Exceptions for rape are much more common among those who also accept at-will termination of pregnancy up to some gestational age (e.g. at-will abortion up to 12 weeks, or up to 20 weeks in cases of rape). Agreed, but that doesn't refute pro-life people having rape exceptions (multiple groups can allow for rape exceptions). > the vast majority of active pro-life campaigners are also opposed to sex education and free contraceptives, once more proving that the question of consensual unprotected sex is not in any way at the forefront of their ideology Can you source this claim about the majority of pro-life campaigners (also, why does that seem indicative of pro-life people in general)? Also, even if it's accurate, I don't think it constitutes proof of much--in particular, they could hold that it's not the government's job to provide sex education or free contraception (I personally favor the government providing both of these, by the way). In any case, rather than arguing about ONE pro-life position, it seems like it would be better to acknowledge that there can be multiple specific positions within a movement. I'm certainly happy to concede that the pro-life movement includes many people with extreme positions, why can't we agree that it includes some more moderate positions as well?