|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 04, 2021, 12:45:05 AM

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderators: Gustaf, TJ in Oregon)
  Pro-choice people: Can nursing mothers without access to formula kill newborns?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Skip
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 23

Author Topic: Pro-choice people: Can nursing mothers without access to formula kill newborns?  (Read 571 times)
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 19, 2021, 12:21:02 PM »

I come from a pretty rural, VERY poor part of Arkansas. The women there are ďforcedĒ to use their bodies to breastfeed because they cannot afford formula, and their doctors, backed by WHO, recommend it because it reduces infant death rates several fold. Are the women there allowed to refuse to breastfeed and thus kill their child because the newborn forces them to use their body against their will?
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2021, 12:30:29 PM »

To be clear, this is addressed to those who do not argue for abortion because the unborn are less sentient, but because people can be killed if their life depends upon the violation of bodily autonomy.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,829


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2021, 01:40:47 PM »

This is not an argument made in good faith. Indeed it's an argument that no one is making. Withholding food to an infant is infanticide. It has nothing to do with 'bodily autonomy'.

Also, do you know anything about breastfeeding and the bodies production of breast milk? I ask that seriously.
Logged
SecularGlobalist
vitoNova
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 970
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2021, 01:53:09 PM »

I was nourished by canned formula, and turned out pretty fantastic.

Breasts are sexual objects, and should not be used to feed infants.  That's just weird. 
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2021, 02:38:50 PM »

This is not an argument made in good faith. Indeed it's an argument that no one is making. Withholding food to an infant is infanticide. It has nothing to do with 'bodily autonomy'.
I have talked to several pro choice friends of mine. A majority of them agree that if a woman does not have access to formula, she can not be forced to use her body to provide food for newborns.

Iím asking for consistency on bodily autonomy - what is the alternative to being FORCED to use their bodies if women canít access formula?
Logged
satsuma
Rookie
**
Posts: 26
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2021, 03:05:38 PM »

This is not an argument made in good faith. Indeed it's an argument that no one is making. Withholding food to an infant is infanticide. It has nothing to do with 'bodily autonomy'.
I have talked to several pro choice friends of mine. A majority of them agree that if a woman does not have access to formula, she can not be forced to use her body to provide food for newborns.

Iím asking for consistency on bodily autonomy - what is the alternative to being FORCED to use their bodies if women canít access formula?

It's parental neglect if they can't feed a baby in any suitable way. They'd need to look into getting help (charity, government, etc.) or giving up the baby.

The "force" is different philosophically because a newborn and mother are not inseparably, biologically conjoined. Adoption is often considered an alternative to abortion, but, say the pro-choicers, that still requires women to carry to term.

Infanticide has been allowed in many past cultures because resource scarcity was much more dire. There wasn't this reserve army of middle-class families ready to adopt babies. However, it's now illegal, so new moms who won't take care of their babies have the minimum requirement of giving them up to someone who will. As for charity and welfare, it's something to look into. I'm not aware of how much there is available.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,150


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2021, 03:07:47 PM »

I think your friends jumped the gun. My view is basically utilitarian-influenced, which means I am rarely about absolutes. There are different degrees of bodily autonomy. Requiring breath, blood and urine samples for traffic violations are not a human rights violation. Requiring vaccination is a tougher bar than that, since it is more invasive, but mandating it is pretty clearly accepted.

Pregnancy is a really extreme form of bodily autonomy (maybe the most extreme form) because it is deeply invasive, involves almost all the body's systems, and long-term. There are also life-changing emotional consequences for having a child, whether it is raised personally or not. All that being said, I would still say the sentience argument is a stronger case for the pro-choice position than bodily autonomy. The only reason that bodily autonomy is brought up disproportionately by pro-choicers is that it highlights that the woman is also an important party to this debate.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,829


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2021, 03:15:03 PM »

This is not an argument made in good faith. Indeed it's an argument that no one is making. Withholding food to an infant is infanticide. It has nothing to do with 'bodily autonomy'.
I have talked to several pro choice friends of mine. A majority of them agree that if a woman does not have access to formula, she can not be forced to use her body to provide food for newborns.

Iím asking for consistency on bodily autonomy - what is the alternative to being FORCED to use their bodies if women canít access formula?

And I'm asking you. Do you understand lactation? Expressing milk? Mastisis?

Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2021, 03:40:06 PM »

And I'm asking you. Do you understand lactation? Expressing milk? Mastisis?
What in particular about it? Am I familiar with breastfeeding, its health benefits, and a handful of risks? Yes. For example, it is well established that breastfeeding within the first hour of life significantly increases the babyís chance at surviving for a number of reasons. Nourishment, bonding, its role as the first and most potent vaccine, reduced risks of SIDS, etc.

The Trump administration received a range of criticism for opposing medically prescribing breastfeeding.
Logged
Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2021, 03:46:11 PM »

Mother's milk is a perfectly decent alternative to formula. To suggest anything else is unscientific.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,829


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2021, 04:03:17 PM »

And I'm asking you. Do you understand lactation? Expressing milk? Mastisis?
What in particular about it? Am I familiar with breastfeeding, its health benefits, and a handful of risks? Yes. For example, it is well established that breastfeeding within the first hour of life significantly increases the babyís chance at surviving for a number of reasons. Nourishment, bonding, its role as the first and most potent vaccine, reduced risks of SIDS, etc.

The Trump administration received a range of criticism for opposing medically prescribing breastfeeding.

No I'm asking you not about the properties of milk, but how a woman lactates, what her body does and what she needs to do about it.

Obviously, I'm not getting anywhere but breast milk isn't a tap. A woman can't choose one day to 'stop'. Milk needs to be expressed even if a woman choses not to use it and to use formula at least until such times as her body adjusts. Many women who miscarry can still, with great psychological trauma lactate and will still need to express. Not expressing can also cause pain and infection.

To not feed a child to let it starve is infanticide. Breast milk is a bodily secretion, not a part of a woman's body. I have no idea why you think a woman would theoretically squirt her milk down a drain in spite rather than feed a child.

In earlier times before formula, babies were fed other milk (often from other women as wet nurses) or even wine, honey and eggs. There are four thousand year old feeding vessels.

Again. Not feeding a child is infanticide. Breast milk is a secretion. Other alternatives are available.
Logged
God-Empress Stacey I of House Abrams
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,356
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2021, 05:17:47 PM »

This is not an argument made in good faith.

/thread
Logged
Away, haul away, we'll haul away, Joe!
Nathan
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,427


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2021, 05:39:25 PM »

Mother's milk is a perfectly decent alternative to formula. To suggest anything else is unscientific.

Who in God's name sees a mother's milk as an "alternative to formula" rather than the other way around?! That's a ridiculous reversal of values and priorities, so much so that it makes one suspect that anprims have a point about most people being completely alienated from their natural selves.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,330
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2021, 05:41:34 PM »

     I am disappointed that nobody has referenced the violinist thought experiment, which would logically lead to the conclusion of the topic question and I have seen posited as a strong argument against the pro-life position.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2021, 05:47:29 PM »

No I'm asking you not about the properties of milk, but how a woman lactates, what her body does and what she needs to do about it.

Obviously, I'm not getting anywhere but breast milk isn't a tap. A woman can't choose one day to 'stop'. Milk needs to be expressed even if a woman choses not to use it and to use formula at least until such times as her body adjusts. Many women who miscarry can still, with great psychological trauma lactate and will still need to express. Not expressing can also cause pain and infection.

To not feed a child to let it starve is infanticide. Breast milk is a bodily secretion, not a part of a woman's body. I have no idea why you think a woman would theoretically squirt her milk down a drain in spite rather than feed a child.
Breast milk is produced by the womanís body - newborns are nearly as dependent upon women as fetuses are, especially in areas without access to formula. I allege that parents have a duty, from the beginning of a babyís life, to nurture that baby. It is inconsistent to rely upon an argument of bodily autonomy and then pretend that bodily autonomy will no longer be infringed after birth.

Quote
In earlier times before formula, babies were fed other milk (often from other women as wet nurses) or even wine, honey and eggs. There are four thousand year old feeding vessels.
Thatís a good way to kill a baby, to feed it wine and honey.


I am disappointed that nobody has referenced the violinist thought experiment, which would logically lead to the conclusion of the topic question and I have seen posited as a strong argument against the pro-life position.
I did not come up with it myself - a Methodist liberal pro lifer I follow on social media made the argument today in that context, as a response to the violinist argument.

You don't insult your way to winning an argument. This adoption of rhetoric from the dirtbag left is above you, Tony, and I think you know that as well as I do.
Logged
Southern Delegate Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2021, 05:49:00 PM »

Mother's milk is a perfectly decent alternative to formula. To suggest anything else is unscientific.

Who in God's name sees a mother's milk as an "alternative to formula" rather than the other way around?! That's a ridiculous reversal of values and priorities, so much so that it makes one suspect that anprims have a point about most people being completely alienated from their natural selves.
I was reacting to a point of view I felt was being strongly implied in the thread. I'll be happy to be proved wrong if this proved to be an inaccurate assumption.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,829


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2021, 05:55:01 PM »

This isn't worth my time.

Bodily autonomy is not infringed by having to feed a baby however you choose to do so. A baby is in fact so autonomous from it's mother after birth that other people can feed it.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,330
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2021, 05:56:47 PM »

I am disappointed that nobody has referenced the violinist thought experiment, which would logically lead to the conclusion of the topic question and I have seen posited as a strong argument against the pro-life position.
I did not come up with it myself - a Methodist liberal pro lifer I follow on social media made the argument today in that context, as a response to the violinist argument.

     It's a very good point, and the violinist argument is for me in many ways a symbol of how divorced academic moral philosophy is from the real world. I have seen far too many people that I otherwise respect treat it as a solid apologetic for legalized abortion, when it leads us to conclusions that our pro-choice friends rightly find abhorrent.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2021, 06:27:08 PM »

I was reacting to a point of view I felt was being strongly implied in the thread. I'll be happy to be proved wrong if this proved to be an inaccurate assumption.
Breastfeeding is widely recommended in the medical community. In fact, it is recommended as exclusive nourishment in the first six months of life.

https://www.who.int/news/item/31-07-2018-3-in-5-babies-not-breastfed-in-the-first-hour-of-life
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/3/e827


This isn't worth my time.

Bodily autonomy is not infringed by having to feed a baby however you choose to do so. A baby is in fact so autonomous from it's mother after birth that other people can feed it.
Breastfeeding is a violation of bodily autonomy:

ďAutonomy is commonly understood in reference to an individualís ability to consider their own welfare and make decisions accordingly. And, whilst a woman is almost always sovereign over her own body, she is also responsible for her baby, as babies cannot autonomously make decisions, nor act on them. For mothers, a definition of autonomy would need to include two persons at least, and this interplay is not yet fully understood when it comes to breastfeeding.Ē
http://breastfeedingandfeminism.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Yate_Handout.pdf
Logged
Away, haul away, we'll haul away, Joe!
Nathan
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,427


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2021, 04:33:56 PM »

The problem here is with this odd assertion that a lot of people seem to make that bodily autonomy is a right that, unlike literally every other right we have, is completely unrestricted. MRDA to me saying this, but this just isn't the way normal moral reasoning on the subject works. Seatbelt laws and breathalyzer tests are obvious, straightforward infringements on bodily autonomy, but nobody thinks of them as human rights violations. The bodily autonomy argument for abortion rights is strongest when the point being made is (as Beet says above) that pregnancy is a uniquely demanding process, not when it's framed as this absurd claim that no violation of bodily autonomy is ever acceptable under any circumstances. That just isn't how people actually think about right and wrong.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2021, 04:57:02 PM »

The problem here is with this odd assertion that a lot of people seem to make that bodily autonomy is a right that, unlike literally every other right we have, is completely unrestricted. MRDA to me saying this, but this just isn't the way normal moral reasoning on the subject works. Seatbelt laws and breathalyzer tests are obvious, straightforward infringements on bodily autonomy, but nobody thinks of them as human rights violations. The bodily autonomy argument for abortion rights is strongest when the point being made is (as Beet says above) that pregnancy is a uniquely demanding process, not when it's framed as this absurd claim that no violation of bodily autonomy is ever acceptable under any circumstances. That just isn't how people actually think about right and wrong.
Thatís exactly how they justify it. Raising an infant is not less demanding than pregnancy, for that matter. Human babies are somewhat uniquely incapable of even the most basic tasks for years. Singer and Appel have explained before the minimal distinction between a baby up until 6-12 months and even a fetus at 8-9 weeks.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,196
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2021, 10:22:33 PM »

This is not an argument made in good faith. Indeed it's an argument that no one is making. Withholding food to an infant is infanticide. It has nothing to do with 'bodily autonomy'.
I have talked to several pro choice friends of mine. A majority of them agree that if a woman does not have access to formula, she can not be forced to use her body to provide food for newborns.

Iím asking for consistency on bodily autonomy - what is the alternative to being FORCED to use their bodies if women canít access formula?

At least in the context of the United States, and I would presume the rest of the developed world, this is an argument in bad faith for the simple reason that there is no lack of access to formula. One of the aspects of the WIC program is to provide formula free of charge to moms who either cannot or choose not to breastfeed but could not otherwise afford to do so.

Moreover, even if that were not the case, the alternative to giving the child up for adoption is clearly both readily available and morally superior to infanticide.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2021, 10:59:49 PM »

At least in the context of the United States, and I would presume the rest of the developed world, this is an argument in bad faith for the simple reason that there is no lack of access to formula. One of the aspects of the WIC program is to provide formula free of charge to moms who either cannot or choose not to breastfeed but could not otherwise afford to do so.

Moreover, even if that were not the case, the alternative to giving the child up for adoption is clearly both readily available and morally superior to infanticide.
What sort of morality only works in the developed world?

Similarly, in most of the non-developed world, adoption programs take months to take children and many of them are covers for human trafficking. Hardly a serious alternative.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,196
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2021, 11:41:11 PM »

At least in the context of the United States, and I would presume the rest of the developed world, this is an argument in bad faith for the simple reason that there is no lack of access to formula. One of the aspects of the WIC program is to provide formula free of charge to moms who either cannot or choose not to breastfeed but could not otherwise afford to do so.

Moreover, even if that were not the case, the alternative to giving the child up for adoption is clearly both readily available and morally superior to infanticide.
What sort of morality only works in the developed world?

Similarly, in most of the non-developed world, adoption programs take months to take children and many of them are covers for human trafficking. Hardly a serious alternative.

Compared to infanticide?  I think it's fairly obvious who's not being serious here.
Logged
Away, haul away, we'll haul away, Joe!
Nathan
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,427


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2021, 09:22:22 AM »

The problem here is with this odd assertion that a lot of people seem to make that bodily autonomy is a right that, unlike literally every other right we have, is completely unrestricted. MRDA to me saying this, but this just isn't the way normal moral reasoning on the subject works. Seatbelt laws and breathalyzer tests are obvious, straightforward infringements on bodily autonomy, but nobody thinks of them as human rights violations. The bodily autonomy argument for abortion rights is strongest when the point being made is (as Beet says above) that pregnancy is a uniquely demanding process, not when it's framed as this absurd claim that no violation of bodily autonomy is ever acceptable under any circumstances. That just isn't how people actually think about right and wrong.
That’s exactly how they justify it. Raising an infant is not less demanding than pregnancy, for that matter. Human babies are somewhat uniquely incapable of even the most basic tasks for years. Singer and Appel have explained before the minimal distinction between a baby up until 6-12 months and even a fetus at 8-9 weeks.

Singer and Appel are notorious galaxy-brained ghouls who think about morality completely differently from almost literally everybody on earth who doesn't have the misfortune to be a professional bioethicist. Again, that is not how normal people understand right and wrong.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 16 queries.