I finally have caught on I guess. Some here are pro-choice/abortion because “the baby is part of the woman’s body and she decides all”. The other half are pro-choice/abortion because they don’t believe that the fetus has any protection rights as a lump of tissue.
Does this sum it up? Is anyone here pro-choice/abortion because of both of these reasons?
Because a tick has no rights which we are bound to respect. Therefore there is no other important factor to be considered in deciding how to dispose of a tick.
Of course, consent is implied to some degree even by taking a walk in the woods and being bitten by a tick.
Suppose you had an irrational fear of ticks. So you demanded that the entire forest be sprayed with DDT once a week, so that you could walk there safely. Most people would argue the right of others to use the forest without being contaminated by DDT, and that you had consented in some sense to the risk of being bitten by a tick. Therefore you surrendered, to some degree, the right to be tick-free in favor of the rights of others to be DDT-free.
Thus the burden shifts back to you, to slather yourself in repellent and wear long sleeves and boots during your walks. If you get bit by a tick anyway, most people would agree that this was a risk you assumed by walking in the woods, and that your right to be tick-free does not automatically trump the rights of others to walk in the woods without encountering DDT.
Same argument for abortion. For those who argue that the fetus is either human, or has at least a sufficient right not to be destroyed, your desire not to be pregnant does not trump the right of the fetus to exist.
No one argues this in the case of a tick, many do in the case of a fetus. By walking in the woods, you assume a certain risk of ticks. Thus you cannot expect others to give up their rights to be DDT-free. By having intercourse, you assume a certain risk of pregnancy. Thus you cannot expect others (the fetus) to give up its rights to live.
Which leaves entirely untouched the vexed question as to whether or not the fetus does have such a right. I am not arguing pro or con on that topic. I am presenting the line of reasoning of those who argue against abortion, but make an exception in the case of rape but not consensual intercourse.
No, but pregnancy and childbirth do have benefits in general - namely reproduction of the species and continuation of the family. And those benefits need to be considered in making decisions as to how to treat a pregnancy.
Regards,
Shodan
With 6 (7?) billion people in the world, I don’t think we need to worry about reproducing the species. We’re not going extinct any time soon.
But families, which I also mentioned, go “extinct” all the time. And lots of people feel the need to reproduce to carry on their name or their genes.
And human biology and family patterns evolved during periods where extinction was a very real possibility.
There may be a lot of us now, but the human species still needs to replace its members. This is a benefit. It is, in fact, the purpose of pregnancy and birth, and should not be disregarded in setting moral priorities.
Regards,
Shodan
Because the intrinsic issue behind a making law is security of self and self interests; encompassed by sustaining life.
It would be a logical counter if such ideas we allowed to be neglected.
I see some pro-choicers ducked out of here early after I and whuckfistle’s similar questions…
Just an IMO, but I think if you want your tubes tied, and the docs think you might regret it someday, they should send you to a mandatory counseling service so that you can be fully informed of the implications so that you can make a calculated, logical decision. At the end, if you still want, they will do the procedure. This seems to be the most sensible direction to take, rather than a simple no. How restrictive.
Plus, eliminating future possible regret is not as good as eliminating incidents of women killing their unwanted babies… this policy seems kind of bassackwards.