I like debating with you! I can tell you really care, and you're also respectful. Thanks!
Thanks, you too.
Ok, so. Think about it in this framework: interfering to prevent something immoral is ok, because bad things shouldn't happen. Interfering to add something to someones life is admirable, but unnecessary. Letting someone die or suffer isn't bad, because it isn't my responsibility, and if they got to those circumstances doing something wrong then even more so.
Well, for one, I would argue that in two of the three cases I mentioned in my second comment, we're talking about pro-lifers taking away something children used to have. There were kids who had lifesaving healthcare under SCHIP who had that taken from them. There are low income women and children who have lifesaving prenatal care and healthcare and pro-life politicians literally want to take that away from them. That's active harm, not passively walking by.
I would also argue that we're talking about the lives of innocent children here. We're not talking about adults who could help themselves. If you don't help an adult, maybe you could argue that would encourage them to help themselves. If you don't help a baby, it cannot help itself. It simply can't. So it's really a situation that's pretty unique as far as the active versus passive harm continuum goes.
So, within this mental framework theyve constructed, the LIFE of the baby is important, but the healthcare or quality of life of the child isn't their responsibility and helping would encourage bad behavior (sex). (They sometimes say they don't want to pay for it, but it actually costs them money to NOT pay for it. Penny of prevention...)
This is exactly what I mean--it might be that I agree with you on this. What I'm arguing is that the only framework in which these seemingly-contradictory views make sense is one in which one of the primary goals is to punish women. Punishing women, in this framework, is more important than helping children. The opportunity to punish women for immoral behavior justifies not helping children, even though it would be cheaper in the long run. I'm not saying that no people hold these views. I'm saying that that, whatever their deeply-held views about personhood, pro-lifers overwhelmingly hurt children more than they help because at the bottom of their position is another deeply-held view--punishing sluts.
Forcing them to carry the baby? Nope, they CHOSE to take the risk of carrying the baby by having sex
I'm not sure if you think this or you're just articulating that someone else does, but I'd argue here that this is in no way how consent works in terms of matters of bodily autonomy. This kind of consent is dealt with in medicine and in sex. In medicine, consent must be informed. In sex, consent is ongoing--it can be revoked at any time--and consent to one thing never necessitates consent to something else. So the idea that a person can give irrevocable consent to a person who doesn't even exist yet is just so far outside of the ballpark of bioethics thinking that it's totally absurd. (Especially since the risks of a pregnancy can change during the pregnancy.)
But even then, they'd argue that ANY ONE'S right to NOT BE MURDERED (not right to life) is more important than someone else's comfort.
Again, I don't know if this is your thinking or not, but check that list I posted again. We're not talking about comfort. We're talking about the right to decide whether another person can use your body in a way that could maim or kill you. That's a fundamental human right, even if a fetus is a person.
Embryos that don't implant? Happened naturally with no interference. I didn't kill it, I just let it die. No one actively terminated it's life. It wasn't my or anyone's responsibility to save it, so it's fine.
In this case I'm not talking about a responsibility, but I'm talking about a suspiciously gaping hole in priorities. That is to say, these are politicians who sign on to sponsor bills about research for diabetes and national cancer awareness whateverness. These are everyday people who walk for the cure. I do research that's funded by the government. I've gotten grants funded by charities. And there's no funding for this. If fetuses are people, why isn't this the pet issue of every single pro-lifer who supports government funding for research? Why isn't this the pet charitable cause for every single pro-lifer who gives (and Christian conservatives do donate quite a lot)? It's just a gaping hole that reveals a serious disconnect.