In that case, all criteria are arbitrary and arbitrariness becomes irrelevant to the discussion.
Well, in that case, I invite you to (under safe medical conditions, of course) slice open your abdomen, insert a baby (with a snorkel, I guess), and walk around for a while. If I understand your argument correctly (and there’s always the chance I haven’t), the baby’s location inside your body is meaningless and arbitrary.
Heck, if you could fit a three year-old in there, you could fly and go to drive-ins without having to pay the extra charge.
waits for omg to make this argument in an immigration thread
Hey hdc, I’m gonna need one of your kidneys, that was some killer sushi you made me. Yeah I know this is risky for you and will have permanent effects on your body, but since you were an agent in my condition, I’m sure you agree that it’s a reasonable compromise for me to let you keep one, right?*
*apologies if this is double posted, working from my stoopid phone
OMG A Black Conservative Unless you can explain how and why location is an arbitrary criteria, you haven’t given anybody any reason to agree with you.
Why would I do that?
Only insomuch as location has anything to do with being afforded basic rights.
I dunno, but if you did and decided to end the experiment early, I’ll support your right to do so.
Well, we’re just going to end up disagreeing on whose interests should prevail when “basic rights” are in conflict.
I don’t know how many times I will have pointed this out, but the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with the female’s body. In fact, the vast majority of abortions are done for a reason independent of it, where the only link between “the woman’s body” and having an abortion is that she can have an abortion because it’s “her body”.
I do believe the individual using the whole “location is where it’s at!” line of reasoning is the one burdened with explaining why one should have to accept that chain of logic, even over other similarly applied chains of logic.
And what experiment was that?
There is no right more fundamental than the right to not be killed. If there is, I’d like to hear what it is.
Others have stated a position and attempted to back it up. You just stated a position.
What post were you reading? “You can’t be a person if you’re inside of another person because to be a person you have to be born, which you’re not if you’re unborn as you’re inside another person” is pretty much the attempted justification behind the whole location argument. To be short, that’s not a justification at all and it provides no argument as to why it’s less arbitrary than any other criteria one can come up with or even, if you want to get down to it, why one should accept your dividing line over, say, mine.
I don’t know either, likely because it was as incoherent as that, and I ignored it.
Does trying to make me repeat myself count as a win for you, or something? Do you think if you pretend not to understand my point, my point becomes meaningless?
Well, the right to be secure in one’s person, which includes, if necessary, the right to self-defense even at the cost of another’s life. But we’re just gonna disagree, yada yada…
No discussion of fetuses is complete without a mention of
Paranex, The Fighting Fetus
There’s nothing incoherent about it. Stuff like “pregnancy being risky” and “pregnancy having a lasting effect on the woman’s body” are red herrings, simply because pro-choicers, in general, will allow a woman to have an abortion for any reason even if her reasons for doing so have nothing to do with “pregnancy being risky” or the “pregnancy having a lasting effect on her body”. But as much as I’ve pointed this out, it gets ignored. So oh well.
It’s more likely the result of not understanding the point you were trying to make, on account of you trying to argue some point not made. But, if you wish, you can go with what you said.
I started to type something out, but this pretty much sums it up:
There’s more to read than that, but you can read it all there. Only when someone threatens your life can you kill them. You cannot, for example, kill someone because they are punching you in the arm. If you do, you’ll end up in trouble. Again I say to you that I would like to see you show me which right is more fundamental than the right to life. I kind of want to see if you will assert that liberty trumps life.
Well, here I am doing just that - the liberty of the woman is something I hold as more important than, trumping if you will, the life of the fetus. I have various unarbitrary reasons for deciding in this manner, which I’m sure I’ve explained at length in other threads.
Besides, you’d only get “in trouble” if the state decides you should be “in trouble”, and I don’t see any justification in this case for the state to do so.
omg, I certainly can’t be bothered to try to edit your pile of words on ny phone, but of course I want women to be able to abort “just” because it’s their body. That’s, you know, the point. It’s my body. I’m not obliged to share it. Here’s something no one ever seems to hear no matter how often I say it: I cannot be legally compelled to donate an organ or even blood to my existing extra-uterine child, even if she’ll die without it. What makes a fetus so special that you’d imbue it with rights no other human has?
As for risk and effects, that’s simply a counter to the “inconvenience” crap that people (mostly with penises) spew. Of course, if you want to talk red herrings, more women die in childbirth than seek third trimester abortions, not that I imagine that troubles you.
It’s usually propaganda.
They want to sound like new posters asking for opinions about things.
That’s why all links are SPAM.
In tangentially related news, I keep waiting for some dipshit republican to propose that the solution to unemployment is to simply bar women from holding jobs other than nursing, housekeeping, or providing childcare. Remember folks, you heard it here first.
I beg to differ. Your reason boils down to “because it’s inside of the woman’s body”, and when I ask you why that’s important you tell me “because it is” or something similar. I can find you an example of this if you like, though it probably won’t matter in the long-run.
I find preventing one individual from killing another at his or her whim to be a pretty powerful justification.
Essentially, this means that one only has control of their body so long as someone else allows them to. That seems kind of counter to the whole “control-over-one’s-body” talk, don’t you think?
It’s probably because it doesn’t have any bearing on the issue. The relationship between a born child and its mother is different to that of an unborn child and its mother.
It’s important to note that men and women do not hold fundamentally different views of abortion, and that where differences are found men are typically more supportive of abortion than women whereas women tend to inhabit the poles and are more extreme in their views. So, as it relates to this, you’re more likely to find that “inconvenience crap”, as you call it, spewed by a woman than you are a man.
But I digress. Pointing out the “risks and effects” of pregnancy isn’t much of a “counter” to anything since virtually no one denies that pregnancy can be dangerous. What is being said is that the overwhelming majority of pregnancies are done for reasons which have nothing to do with pregnancy being dangerous or carrying risks. They, in essence, amount to lifestyle decisions.
And…? If, hypothetically speaking, there was a maternal mortality rate of zero, would you agree that abortion should be illegal?