2. Reproduction is a natural physiological process.
So is cancer.
The new human being comes into existence not by its own free choice, but the free choice of its mother.
Nonsense. A woman using contraception, say, may be doing so because she doesn’t want children. Her choice to enter into a sexual relationship with a man does not mean that she also consents to enter a pregnancy relationship with an embryo, assuming you consider it to be a person.
The woman makes her choice before the child is conceived, namely when she decides to have sex.
Nope. See above. Pregnancy is legally considered a different thing than sex; for instance, the Supreme Court decision Michael M. v. Sonoma County held that it was constitutional for a state to penalize men, but not women, in statutory rape because unlawful sexual intercourse could result in pregnancy, which imposes harm on women that men do not face. If you were correct and intercourse/pregnancy were the same thing, then the only harm would be the intercourse in cases of statutory rape. The Court held otherwise.
Similarly, in cases of forcible rape, normal pregnancy has been found to be “great bodily injury” above and beyond the rape, in other words a separate intrusion or violation.
Then there are pregnancies after sterilizations fail (“wrongful pregnancy” cases). Not only have physicians been held liable for child support in these cases, they are also required to pay damages for the pregnancy itself, as a legal injury. The wrongful pregnancy, although resulting from consensual intercourse, is a damage or wrong done to the woman: an intrusion quite separate from the intrusion she accepted when she had intercourse.
So, you’re wrong.
From the beginning of human history, sex has been the only means by which human beings have reproduced.
Again, irrelevant. However, not true. Let me direct you to the interesting case of the African woman who was born without a vagina and could not become pregnant through sexual intercourse. One day, as she was giving one of her lovers a blow job, another lover burst in on them. A knife fight ensued, and the angry lover stabbed the woman. The knife cut her stomach and semen spilled out into her abdominal cavity. Some entered her fallopian tubes and she was surprised to find herself pregnant.
Now, here is a woman who not only does not engage in, but cannot engage in reproductive sexual intercourse. She is pregnant as the result of a crime committed against her (leaving out for the moment the actions of the embryo). Giving a blow job is not a crime, and she had no reason to expect a violent felon to try to kill her. She was merely going about her everyday activities, which could never result in pregnancy.
Yet here she is, pregnant solely as the result of a violent crime committed against her (again, ignoring the embryo for now). She has every right to defend herself against both the knife-wielding felon and the pregnancy process which unexpectedly began within her.
However, rape victims who are pregnant are also the victims of crime. On the other hand, consensual sexual intercourse is not a crime; however, since it’s always the embyro which causes pregnancy, all women are in the same position when it comes to pregnancy: consenting to one relationship perhaps (sexual intercourse, or nonprocreational sexual activity) but not to any other (rape, or being slashed with a knife, or being impregnated by an embryo). They all have the same right of self-defense against any act or process which intrudes on their bodily integrity.
Human physiology was not constructed with provision for artificial contraceptives to regulate number of pregnancies.
Actually, human physiology was constructed with built-in birth control: anovulation. Under normal, natural circumstances, active women ovulate only a handful of times per lifetime and menstruate less than that. Normally, women would have sex hundreds or thousands of times per lifetime and become pregnant 3 or 4 of them.
Unnatural food production and food storage, unnatural eating habits for both women and babies, and so forth, have resulted in today’s hyperfertility and massive waste of bodily resources in monthly menstruation and constant pregnancy, unless artificial measures like contraception or abstinence are taken. (Paraphrased from Williams Obstetrics.)
So as far as nature is concerned, every intercourse has the potential to produce an offspring.
The human race couldn’t have survived if every intercourse had the potential to produce a pregnancy. However, women have also fallen back on infanticide and abortion when too many pregnancies occurred. This is perfectly natural as well, and the key to human survival.
Animals do not interfere with nature and abort pregnancies.
Yes, they do. For instance, rabbits simply absorb embryos when they are given a scare, or are hungry.
It is not common practice for animals to kill their own offspring. Our supposed direct ancestors - bonobo apes, gorilla, chimpanzees et al - most certainly don’t.
Veronica. Honey, please do some reading. None of these animals are our direct ancestors; they are distant relatives—gorillas far more distant than chimps (both common and bonobo).
Chimps commit infanticide regularly; bonobos don’t. In the case of humans, we come down on the side of the common chimps. As late as the early 1800s, a third of all babies born in Europe died by infanticide, according to The New England Journal of Medicine.
Other animals commit infanticide as well.
Today, we are fortunate to have contraception and abortion as much preferable methods of population regulation, since it’s almost certain that women will never be able to go back to the life that permits anovulation to restrict births to such a tiny number.