Yes, my ethics and morality are fine with women making choices about their own bodies, even if it results in pregnancies ending and fetuses dying. If a fetus (or anyone else) is in my body, I get to make that choice.
Not sure what this has to do with anything. I had asked you specifically about whether “inconvenience” applied to pregnancy-by-rape, and your response indicated that you thought it did.
And I reject the “ethics and morality” that results in killing kids. I hope that answers the OP.
Do you agree that pregnancy-not-by-rape is an “inconvenience”? You don’t? Then why are you harping on pregnancy-by-rape? That’s another casuistic argument.
We’ve already established we have different ethical and moral systems. I reject yours, and you reject mine.
I’ve learned a new word today, by the way. Thank you 
This is Great Debates, and in addition to expressing my own views and trying to ensure I understand yours, I’ve been on the lookout for inconsistencies, poor logic, and other forms of bad argument in your statements. As you probably are with mine.
‘Inconvenience’ might be the right word some women would apply to their pregnancy – others might use ‘violation’, ‘blessing’, ‘danger’, ‘catastrophe’, or a myriad of other terms.
So I’m ‘harping’ both to ensure I fully understand your point of view, and to suss out any possible inconsistencies or just plain bad arguments I think that you might be making.
Let me rephrase it then. The right to life can be trumped by another person’s right to life. It cannot be trumped by inconvenience, violation, catastrophe, etc. However you want to call it.
That’s fine, though I disagree. In my view, the right to life can be trumped by another person’s right to bodily autonomy.
Based on a literal reading of your statement above, your statement means a rape victim can’t kill her rapist unless he’s also trying to kill her.
Defending yourself from a crime is obviously not part of the statement I made. Would you like me to rephrase it again?
That’s up to you. I would think “violation”, or a similar word, would be something we’d both agree should trump someone’s right to life, even if you don’t agree that sometimes pregnancy can be a “violation”.
You can call a tail a leg, but a dog still cannot have five legs.
Huh? Are you saying rape is not a “violation”?
It always becomes obvious that the pro-abortion crowd is feeling the heat when vanishingly small instances of rape, incest and death of the mother becomes the defense.
Actually, supernumerary limbs do occur. Polydactyly (extra digits) is the most common duplication, but extra limbs occur occasionally, most often in amphibians.
LOL. I’ve already made my “defense”, and it has nothing to do with rape, incest, or the death of the mother. Those questions are part of my efforts to examine and fully understand Terr’s argument.
My argument is all about the right to bodily autonomy.
Pro-abortion? Heat? Defense? Huh?
Not sure that they are vanishingly small, unless you subscribe to the Republican science that says that women have ways to shut down pregnancies resulting from rape.
The essential thing is that we are never going to agree on when life begins and when a fetus starts having rights. To be, a clod of cells the size of a booger is not human, cannot think, feels no pain, and has no inherent rights. In the last month of pregnancy, it has the ability and the right to live outside the womb. Somewhere in between is the line, and I think the Roe verdict was pretty reasonable.
It’s not human?
What is it then, a rhododendron?
A fertilized egg is unquestionably a human being. That’s simply a matter of biology. you can choose to put the fertilized egg into a class of human beings that aren’t ‘persons’, and can be wantonly killed. That’s a moral decision, not a question of fact. I’d say, though, that you are keeping some unsavory company by so doing.
It’s a potential human. If I lay a cornerstone for a building and then remove it, Im not destroying a building, just cancelling its completion. If I start to create a human and then stop, it’s quite similar.
So is mine…the baby’s. He or she didn’t ask to be created, and shouldn’t be allowed to be rent asunder and killed for the convenience of the person whose actions did create it.
The argument re the woman’s bodily autonomy is a red herring. It’s not about the woman’s body and never has been; it’s about the body inside hers that she helped create. That body has its own brain, its own nervous system, and for all we know its own consciousness and ability to feel pain. It is not the mother’s body and should be accorded the same rights and privileges it would be accorded were it to suddenly find itself on the other side of her abdominal wall.
A baby’s separateness should be obvious given that murderers who kill pregnant women get charged with double murders.
I am saying pregnancy isn’t. As in “right word some women would apply to their pregnancy – others might use ‘violation’, ‘blessing’, ‘danger’, ‘catastrophe’, or a myriad of other terms.”
As I said, if you have some kind of a self-assembling pod that, if left alone, will grow into a building in a few months, then yes, if you destroy it, you are destroying a building.
“Republican science”? Have you any cite that this notion is typical to Republican ideology? Or are you taking the words of one crackpot and attributing them to Republicans as a whole?
I’ll take misattribution for the win, Alex. :rolleyes:
While I differ from some anti-abortionists in that I too don’t object to abortion in the very early stages before the embryo has taken on human form, I think we should err on the side of the baby in determining when that point is reached as we don’t know at what point consciousness and feeling exists. The baby in this article which I posted upthread was born four months premature. Note that at only five months into gestation it has developed into a complete human being, sleeping and breathing through a tiny oxygen mask.
Roe v. Wade is based on outdated technology.