I can see why this argument fails. The pro-lifer in your hypothetical isn’t denying anyone sex; they are just grossly indifferent to the life and death implications of an unwanted pregnancy resulting from sex.
Personally, I don’t want or expect anyone to care about my sex life. But if I found out I was pregnant tomorrow and was not mentally or physically prepared to handle the stress this would be put on my body, I would hope someone would care about this.
Yeah, it’s an exaggerated argument. Gross indifference to life and death implications does not equal denial. The pro-lifer isn’t denying anyone sex – they’re simply eliminating any potential for sex not to risk a life-threatening pregnancy. If a woman wants sex so badly she’s willing to risk her life, well, that’s her God-given right.
Actually it’s not her God-given right - the impression I get of those who are inclined to bring God into the equation is that they’re of the opinion that God has actively denied women the right to control their own genitalia, and that the only person with the right to decide that sex should happen is the woman’s husband. Outside of marriage God hasn’t given permission for woman to have sex at all.
If they suffer horrible consequences for flauting God’s will, well, they asked for it.
I don’t take a position on the birth control or abortion debate, and I am not a female. But I can imagine taking the position that there is no moral right for either partner to have sex without risking live birth.
I can also imagine a position which allows a woman with known chronic health conditions to undergo sterilization. If sterilization is contraindicated it would boil down to, “I’m sorry, but you just can’t have sex without risking pregnancy and your health.” Sex is a basic life function, but so is the ability to sustain pregnancy and live birth. That one function is morally independent of the other is a matter of opinion. The pro-lifer might recommend a surrogate mother or adoption if you want to raise kids, but there is nothing inherently outrageous about them saying you can’t have sex because you (or your wife’s) body can’t handle pregnancy. It’s not a happy occasion. It is possible that they legitimately think avoiding the risk of aborting a child is more important than your having sex. If they convince the majority of society to enact laws based on this philosophy, you are out of luck.
~Max
Really? Putting aside for the moment your utterly unwarranted personal hostility, one would think that words, and definitions, are very, very important, whether one is drafting legislation to protect women’s right to abortion or to restrict it.
When rubber condoms first became available they were banned in most US jurisdictions- presumably because they promoted “immorality”. And even after absolute bans were lifted, for decades afterwards condoms had to follow the legal fiction of being solely prophylactic: “for the prevention of disease only”. This is strange if you presume that it’s all about controlling women’s bodies because condoms seemingly would hand men an advantage: being able to have sex while evading the risk of making a woman pregnant. At least by this example, it really does look like the point of banning birth control was to proscribe sex outside of marriage.
I was being facetious. Sort of.
But the pro-life crowd clearly believes they understand God’s mind, and that God favors precious little innocent zygotes over the valid concerns of actual adult women. And if you take that thinking to its extreme, the *only *right left to a woman for whom a pregnancy might be life-threatening is the right to not have sex at all.
Birth control? Yes.
Abortion? Not necessarily. People who oppose legalized abortion do so for a variety of reasons, for example they might consider the rights of the unborn fetus more important than the rights of the mother.
~Max
Not at all – if it’s the 1700s.
The message is “no sex outside of marriage”, but it’s entirely possible for the reason behind that message to be “because women are the property of their fathers and if they get sexed up before being sold off they’re soiled goods”.
If you would like I can try and defend that position, for the sake of debate. Why do you think it is outrageous to say a woman cannot have sex if her body cannot handle pregnancy?
~Max
Wouldn’t the obvious rebuttal be “there’s more than one one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to avoid a pregnancy”?
You assume that only white people are opposed to abortion?
Another example of demonization : people opposed to abortion are just racist, now.
Nobody tried Nazism yet? I’m wondering why. Are you really sure that people aren’t opposed to abortion because they hate Jews? Or don’t believe in climate change? Or are pedophiles (and wanting more children to abuse)?
I can imagine a lot of positions, some good and some bad. The challenge is finding an ethical one that doesn’t negate the right of self-preservation for a woman.
You can instruct a woman not to have sex until you turn blue in the face, but how far are you willing to go when she becomes pregnant? Let’s say she’s got cancer and has been taking chemo drugs that are contraindicated in preg women. She decides to get an illegal abortion rather than either expose the fetus to these meds or threaten her own life by discontinuing her meds. Do you condemn her? Lock her up? Lock up the person who gave her the abortion?
Outside of abortion, can you imagine a scenario in which a person can be prosecuted for making a medical decision that is in the best interest of their health?
If you avoid the pregnancy, there is no reason to defend abortion and my argument is moot.
Perhaps my question should have read “Why do you think it is outrageous to justify opposition to abortion by saying a woman cannot have sex if her body cannot handle pregnancy?”
~Max
I am a big fan of social-utilitarian arguments like this, and I think they’re important, but they should always be subordinate to arguments of empathy. i.e. murder is wrong because I know how I’d feel for someone to take my life or the life of one of my loved ones. Everything can’t be just about whether it makes society work more efficiently; it can be enough that suffering is bad.
As applied to the abortion argument, fetuses have about as much feeling as a tapeworm, therefore it’s OK (indeed necessary) to let the woman carrying it decide whether it’s a person or a parasite.
I feel obliged to admit that the immediate answer that popped into my head was “because they aren’t going to listen to you and they’ll have sex and get pregnant anyway. And then what do you do?”
It’s really quite unfortunate that people become fertile at such an early age. It would be much better if it didn’t happen until they were more responsible, say sixty or so.
Because there are multiple technologies available to allow her to have sex without risking pregnancy. Sure, you can draw a line between pre-conception and post-conception, but many of the people drawing that line also work to limit access to the pre-conception variety. Taken to extremes, that thinking becomes “you can fuck, or you can live.”
If the moral reason is good enough, as much as I’ve an issue with people (all sorts of people) trying to restrict the sexual activity of others, it would make sense.
For instance, I’m sure you wouldn’t have much problem with denying a pedophile the basic life function of having sex (and please don’t answer : he can have sex with an adult, that would be as bad an argument as “an homosexual can have sex with/marry someone of the opposite sex”). So, if sex must result in someone’s death (either the unborn baby considered fully human or the mother), then yes, saying “you should keep it in your pants” makes complete sense. As important as sex is, it isn’t more important than yours or someone else’s life.