You're right that it's a whole tangent in itself, but briefly I'll just note that it's not that much different from suicide which at various times has been formally considered illegal (I'm not sure but it still may be in some states) but almost never prosecuted.

The analogies are all designed to point out that this is a rather strong requirement that we rarely if ever require in any other circumstance — legally requiring the use of one person's body to support another.
Again, I think it's a false distinction (or at least, exaggerated distinction) to claim that we can never legally require this type of support by one individual for another when we have all kinds of other situations where individuals are compelled by law to provide care for minors or dependents who are incapable of self support. I do understand that the line being drawn there is based on the autonomy over one's body- but I still don't think that's as bright a line as others make it out to be. And really, that's just another way of recognizing what you and phil are pointing out, the uniqueness of the situation of a gestational human being.

BTW, paca, I do appreciate that you use the word 'child', purposefully, to express your opinion that the unborn being is a human being albeit one that does not have the same right to life as a born child. I just disagree and I hope you can see that if the unborn child does have right to life then none of the violations of the mother's rights can be addressed by taking the life of the child.

It is worth noting that the only reason issues of “property” are coming up at all is precisely because the law is involved. My own personal take is that people must take responsibility for their actions and that includes carrying and raising any children created through consensual sex. But what happens if a mother decides she does not wish to do so? If you are pro-choice or pro-life, you can argue with her that she has a moral obligation. But, the pro-life position adds another step. It says that, not only is it the right thing to do, but the mother is legally obligated to continue gestation and we will punish her for refusing to do so. (Actually, it's interesting that people very rarely talk about punishing the mother legally for an abortion; the focus is almost always on punishing the person who assists her. But that's a whole different discussion.) This additional requirement says that the woman no longer has legal control of her own body. She is legally compelled (by that limited small government) to continue the pregnancy.

The analogies are all designed to point out that this is a rather strong requirement that we rarely if ever require in any other circumstance — legally requiring the use of one person's body to support another. I accept that some may simply reject any and all analogies and claim that pregnancy is simply different from all that. That's possible. And if so we then must focus again back on the central question: Does becoming pregnant confer legal obligations on a woman such that she is forced to remain pregnant even if she chooses not to?

I always come to this with two central thoughts: 1) the life inside a mother is a human child; and 2) the fact that a child is growing inside a person and not an incubator MUST be morally and legally relevant, so if my positions would be identical in both situations, then I'm in error somewhere.

I”m glad you finally got around to this part, Pacatrue. That's absolutely correct, that it's only in cases of rape where the woman has found herself in that situation involuntarily (philwynk phrased it all beautifully.) Does the woman find herself having a higher cost for having sex than a man does? Certainly. But again, this is due to biology, not legal oppression. The government isn't obligated to correct all kinds of other inequities that are forced on us by nature, nor should it.

We already have laws against rape and although it's not possible for government to guarantee that rape will not occur (just as with other violent acts, murder, assault, etc.), this is the correct societal obligation toward the woman's right to protect her own body. Consensual sex is always open to some possibility of a pregnancy as a result, and both men and women should take responsibility for that. Currently, having abortion as a permissible option in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy actually helps absolve the men of the responsibility, which I feel is a move in the wrong direction. We'll never be able to equalize the gender roles in bearing children, now should we (once more, a situation of nature, not of man's doing.) But laws should be constructed to at least recognize the responsibilities of both parties who consent to sex and that in doing so they incur a chance of creating another human being in the process.

The tortured logic requires that we imagine the mother's body is property, and that gestation is a grant of “squatter's rights.” I'm tempted to observe that the correct analogy would be that every time a woman has sex, she's actually inviting a specific human being to live on her “property,” offering a legally enforceable, 9-month contract that the owner willingly and consciously waives the right to revoke. That would, in fact, be a better analogy, and much, much closer to the truth, but even that correction misses the point.

But the real truth is, the woman's body is not property of any kind, and a gestating infant is not a squatter, a renter, or any sort of tenant. This is human reproduction we're talking about; it's a special case that is unlike any other, and defies analogy, because humans inhere dignity, and producing life lies at the heart of what it means to be human. To deny it means to revoke our own humanity, and to cease to be civilized, or even human in any meaningful form.

Judith Jarvis Thompson wrote a famous philosophy paper in the late 70s arguing along similar lines. Her analogy was that a woman woke up one day to discover a world famous violinist was connected to her such that she was feeding the violinist by having her blood course between the two of them. According to Thompson, many might feel the right thing to do for the woman is for her to allow this situation to continue until the violinist recovers and can go off on his or her own. But few, says Thompson, would feel the woman should be legally compelled to continue offering her blood to the violinist. She should have the legal right to stop it, even if it means the other person dies, because she has not lost the legal right to control her own body.

The very nice thing about this paper, in my view, is that it attempts to show that the legal obligations of a mother are not clear and obvious even if you decide an unborn child is a full human. You may have noticed in my own comments that I've always used the terms “child” and not “fetus”. Many people act as if the status of the child is the only thing to consider and after that we know what to do. In my mind, the fetus is an unborn human and it's entirely unclear what is right. (My personal beliefs are always towards bearing the child, but what my personal beliefs mean for my legal beliefs is hazy to me.)

However, the violinist argument fails in various ways as well. One of the biggest is that in Thompson's scenario, the woman awakens to find herself hooked up to another person. However, except in the case of rape, the woman has some sort of role in becoming pregnant. If the woman chooses to have the violinist hooked up to her, does it change what we require of her legally?

Success!

Exactly. And now that the government rules seem to be requiring of them what their consciences will not allow them to provide, they are deciding they are in the wrong business — as is their right under God, whether it's lawful or not — and leaving the business. This is what they ought to do. Nobody — NOBODY — has the right to deny them this choice.

Governments have no right — EVER, under ANY circumstance — to force a man to violate his conscience. This is the very right America's founders fought to protect. If the government attempts to force this conduct, they have violated natural law, and it is every man's right to overthrow this government and establish one that will recognize the human right to liberty of conscience.

1. The Catholic Church has already come out on Stem Cell research. I don't think is an illogical leap to figure they would be against treatments that would come that research.
2. Segregation of blood came right out of the preachers mouth's at the time. “The mark of Cain” and keeping his descendants separate. That was the spiritual force that was invoked to justify first slavery, then segregation. Sorry, that's historical fact.

You wondered what side of the line I came down on.
I will defend anyone's right to believe what they want and fight anyone who figures they know what's best for me.
If a church wants to run a business that enters a field with that is run by secular rules, I submit that that church must render unto Cesar what is secular and to God what is His. If you can't do both, you're in the wrong business.

We don't in this country force people to be organ donors, even if someone is going to die.
Even if you don't attribute rights to the fetus, again, please at least be scientifically accurate. A fetus is not an organ; at the very least it is an organism which is quite different. By equating it with an organ you are moving the goalposts of the discussion to prevent people from even considering the possibility of the fetus being a distinct human being.

And I didn't mean to imply that I think my personal situation should apply to everyone. I bring it out because again, there seems to be this presumption among a lot of prochoice people that the prolife movement is mainly made up of men, or of women who are cowed by men or something. Yet have you ever been to a rally? Ever notice the thousands of women who choose to be there? They aren't doing this because they're coerced to- it's a heartfelt, deep conviction among a lot of women to protect life.

So, perhaps I do overread the degree of that sentiment among women, but I'd say it sounds like you also might be overgeneralizing some of the women you've come across who are on the other side of the spectrum in terms of their belief that they can't control their own bodies if they aren't permitted to terminate pregnancies. I can't relate to that feeling in the least.

Pacatrue- all I can say is that from my perspective (and while I'm only one woman, so take it for what it's worth- although I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in this conversation who has had this experience), being the primary caregiver for an infant is far more challenging than carrying the child in utero. Obviously there are some pregnancies where the demands are worse (I actually hated pregnancy and had some complications, so it's not as though I'm diminishing that) and then there are some situations with infants with special needs where the demands of their care are extraordinary. But all other things being equal, I can honestly say that I believe there's far more restrictions on a person's personal freedom when one has to care for an infant 24-7 than when one is gestating one.

That's not to dispute what you are saying about the relationship changing profoundly- I do agree with that. But since the essence of the issue here is whether or not the demands on the mother are 'fair', I just wanted to give my two cents on the relative hardships in each situation.

The bottom line is that if one believes that the preborn human being is a living human being with right to life, not much else really matters. And so I'm trying to point out that even though the mother's rights and freedom are infringed, I simply don't believe that society or the law should be obliged to correct that by permitting the killing. Society does have other obligations, and that's where I think the focus should be, not on allowing termination of pregnancy as if there isn't another human being involved.

Our nation was built by men articulating the natural right of liberty of conscience: each man owes his conscience to God, not the King, and the King has no right to coerce a man against his conscience. Shaw turns this notion upside down, and posits a moral responsibility for individuals to serve the state by performing their career task, even if it violates their conscience. This is identical to the Soviet model of the New Socialist Man who serves the party faithfully, but utterly negates liberty of conscience.

I'm really curious to know what Mr. Shaw intends to do when the doctors simply refuse to perform abortions. Does he propose stationing policemen at the doctor's sides so they can move his arms if he refuses to move them himself? Trust me, some of these doctors will gladly accept prison rather than perform abortions. I know I would. If they try to keep these hospitals open, they will provoke a revolution. I kid you not.

There is no part of Shaw's reasoning that passes muster. This is totalitarianism, pure and simple. If this sort of reasoning takes hold, the American republic is dead, and it will be time for men of good conscience to provide new guards for their future security.

So, was this a poorly done attempt at satire? Or are you really so vile that you think that forcing people to give you what you want is perfectly acceptable behavior?

Here's a hint: no one owes you anything. You what the Catholic Church to provide health care to people at low cost, then you put up with the conditions they put on that care. You don't own them, you do not get to demand that they provide what you want them to provide, rather than what they want to provide.

You don't like it? Great. Start your own damn hospitals.

My only point is that making a distinction between legal rights pre and post birth is not arbitrary. The relationship between a mother and a child truly changes in meaningful ways at birth.

“But the changes in the legal status certainly don't happen in the absence of changes in the mores of the culture- in fact the legalization almost represents a culmination of those changes.”
Often it does, and I think it generally did in some ways in this country, but there are lots of instances where this is definitely not the case, where instead of the laws gradually legalizing or banning abortion, a new leader or group comes into power and changes the laws over night.

“or that FOCA would allow, for that matter- which is why that federal legislation is being pushed, to overturn many of the decisions made at the state legislative level”
I suppose there are two sides to this. First, most legal rights have not been conferred upon minority groups through public ballot; this does not mean those rights should not exist. Second, there is a lot of misinformation created by the wording of public opinion polls, which translates into misinformation in advertisements meant to sway public opinion during an election. Example: you'd get very different answers to a public opinion poll if you asked the two following questions. 1) Do you believe that anyone should be able to murder a baby at any time? 2) Do you believe the government should be able to force medical decisions upon patients?

“What is the rationale for restricting abortion at all in the later stages of gestation if not to recognize right to life for the fetus after viability? And then if it has the right to life, how can you assert a right of the mother to end its life at that stage as opposed to (what I assume you'd agree) would be murder after the child leaves her birth canal?”
This isn't necessarily the party line, but I actually think this more about the woman than the fetus. We don't in this country force people to be organ donors, even if someone is going to die. I'd like to think that I, personally, would give up my kidney, etc, for someone else to keep on living, even given the health risks, and particularly to someone I love, but we don't mandate that. After viability, you basically have a baby with mom's skin over it. They can live without the organs of the mother — get it out, give it over to an adoption agency. Fine.

As birth defects — The mother of course has the choice to keep a baby that has a birth defect. I do think that if a child will be born with an untreatable, fatal disease, say their heart is on the outside, or many are even born dead, I think it's only cruel to force the mother to go through with the rest of the pregnancy anyway. At, say, 7 months, this is most certainly a wanted pregnancy, and a tragic, heart-wrenching decision must be made, but for goodness' sake, do we really want to take away that decision?

“I'll be kind and preempt you walking into a trap with this one.”
There was no trap. That's great for you that you've made decisions in your life that make you happy. I would like to point out that other people are not necessarily like you. If I were your friend, I probably would tell you about the birth control or that abortion back in the teenage years either. That doesn't mean that those stories aren't quite common. I could site many anecdotal cases from my clinic volunteering years, so I know the prevelence of it.

The facts of biology dictate that prior to birth, one particular person has to provide that care. The law should not have to correct for nature.

“What is the rationale for restricting abortion at all in the later stages of gestation if not to recognize right to life for the fetus after viability? And then if it has the right to life, how can you assert a right of the mother to end its life at that stage as opposed to (what I assume you'd agree) would be murder after the child leaves her birth canal?”

Well, the difference of course is that the child (see, I used the word) is inside a human being still. I would think it natural that the mother have more rights over the child when the child is part of her body than she does when the child is no longer part of her body. It seems different to me to legally require a person to feed and care for a child that has been born (and many places allow for some form of “safe” abandonment (see Nebraska) and all allow for adoption) than it is to legally require her to continue employing her body in some way.

I'm not arguing that there are no limits on the mother's rights post-viability, but it also does seem clearly different than post-birth.

I'll be kind and preempt you walking into a trap with this one.

I'll let you know that I am female and I do practice the viewpoints that I espouse. I'm married, do not use artificial birth control, and when we realized that we were not able to conceive a second time (after having one biological child) we adopted our second child.

And although I haven't been super active in the prolife arena, I have been involved with a lot of women who share my viewpoints both politically and personally, and haven't seen any evidence of gross hypocrisy or 'concerns about controlling our bodies'. I think we're all pretty aware of how babies are made and we know what we can do to prevent pregnancies, and we know we have options- some of which we consider morally acceptable and some not.

The most extreme that I refer to tend to be the profiteers of the abortion industry, but groups like NARAL also state the polling data in misleading ways to make it seem as though most Americans are strongly prochoice. While there's pretty strong support for the idea that abortion should be legal in some cases, the vast majority of Americans favor more restrictions than the prochoice advocates would allow (or that FOCA would allow, for that matter- which is why that federal legislation is being pushed, to overturn many of the decisions made at the state legislative level.)

So, where do you get your information on what prolife people believe and what they practice in their personal lives? I find that the idea that prolife groups strongly oppose birth control is greatly exaggerated. Personally I oppose the use of birth control but I do not in any way oppose access to nonabortifacient birth control, because my opposition to it is based on religious belief. How sure are you that you aren't conflating people's personal beliefs with what they advocate politically?