By dint of having someone unwanted occupying one’s body, all against the host’s choice and will.
One of the problems with attempting to argue from analogy is that there isn’t anything else in the world that is really analogous. Each side has its own analogy, and will not accept the others.
The issue is remarkably intractable.
(So…let people choose for themselves what to believe!)
Well some analogies are obviously better than others. I personally would be very uncomfortable telling an actual rape victim that another’s lack of access to an abortion was a morally equivalent situation to theirs.
Do you see how frankly nonsensical that statement is?
Let’s substitute some other categories in place of ‘the unborn.’
‘if you think Jews/Blacks/Communists are persons, you can choose not to kill them. don’t tell me what I can do.’
To put it another way: it’s all very well to say we should respect pluralism and differing belief systems, but the duty to protect innocent human life is much more important. if I have to choose between saving the life of an innocent person, and respecting your personal freedoms and freedom of religion, etc., then I am obviously going to go with saving the life.
’
It’s funny how you prioritize the ‘bodily autonomy’ of the mother over the ‘bodily autonomy’ of the fetus.
I know one rape victim who agrees wholly with the analogy and uses it herself in discussion.
As before, I disagree with your analogy, exactly as you disagree with mine.
Fallacious. There isn’t anyone actually out there arguing for the right to kill Jews (etc.) There is no question of public consensus that Jews (etc.) are persons under the law and that killing them is intolerable.
There is exactly such a difference of opinion among good, informed, honest, earnest, sensible, moral people regarding the abortion of a fetus.
The comparison fails; it is not persuasive. My side rejects it. And, of course, you have the right to reject as unpersuasive the analogies we put forward.
That’s your opinion. My opinion is that the rights of the woman involved are much more important, and that laws compelling her to carry forward an unwanted pregnancy are vastly more harmful to society and repellent to good morality than the value of the fetus could possibly be.
It is a matter of opinion. I am not trying to compel you, by law, to do something you don’t want to do, on the basis of an opinion. Your side, alas, is willing to commit this encroachment.
That is a perfectly valid personal choice, and I respect your right to make it. No one here would ever compel – or even urge – a woman to have an abortion if she did not wish one. The best morality would be to allow our side the same dignity.
I think this is the lesson I learned from this thread. It’s inconceivable for some in the pro-life crowd to consider the needs of pregnant women, even when the exact same needs for themselves is evident and sacrosanct.
I personally am an actual rape victim who finds the situations analogous.
So you will, in fact, support a law that compels our hypothetical sole O-negative blood or perfect match kidney owner to donate their body parts to save an innocent person? What about a person who isn’t perfectly innocent, maybe one who smoked a joint or watched porn once?
Should stealing to pay for cancer treatment be legal?
I’m still trying to wrap my mind around Terr’s feeling that pregnancy is just an inconvenience. Even a pregnancy caused by rape. Unbelievable. I guess I knew people like that existed, but I’m surprised to find them on this board.
Strawman. I certainly don’t claim that an embryo has “sentience, self-awareness, perception, etc.”
I do, however, contend that it’s human life, and I defy you to prove the contrary. My claim hinges on the definition, which you have no more right than I to create.
I confess to being pretty uninterested in what your friend feels is a good analogy. The fact is the two situations are in no way analogous, regardless of how she might feel about it.
I have no idea whether a fetus has sentience or not. I’m a substance dualist, rather than a physicalist when it comes to mind-brain issues, so I don’t think a physical brain is necessary to have sentience. Sentience aside though, the fetus (or for that matter the embryo) is certainly a human being, and deserves the same protection from murder as any other innocent human being.
Except it’s not the same need. We are balancing the ‘bodily autonomy’ or whatever other fashionable buzzword you care to use, of the mother, against the life of her child. Compared to the life of her child, the ‘autonomy’ of the mother is trivial and should not be a major concern.
Especially when you consider that the child is a totally innocent party and exists only because of the actions of its mother in the first place (statistically rare instances of rape excluded).
Then why did you bring it up?
I’m “pretty uninterested” in anything you can possibly have to say after such an arrant dismissal. And that’s an arrant dismissal.
Are we here to listen to each other, or to cut each other off and storm out in low dudgeon?
You made a point; it has been rebutted (twice, as BrightSunshine also responded, and from personal experience.) The point, as a rhetorical essay, failed. Is retreating from the field and declaring “uninterest” a profitable debate tactic?
Remember that most of us on this side don’t believe a fetus (or embryo, or zygote) is a “child.” We use a more commonplace definition of child.
But, shrug, that’s just nomenclature.
Remember also that most abortions take place when contraception has failed. The actions of the two persons involved were usually quite responsible. It isn’t as if “I invited someone into my house.” It’s, “I went out to walk the dog, and they snuck in, even though I’d locked the door.”
Yes, yes, I know: you don’t accept that analogy. But that’s my point here: I don’t accept your analogy either. But you’re the one trying to compel me, and I’m not in any way trying to compel you.
At very least, you need a convincing reason, and this debate is one of the most clear in all history for neither side succeeding in being in any way convincing.
And if I believed that an ovum was human life and that allowing a menstruation to occur without intercourse was destroying a child, would I be justified in demanding that all fertile women be impregnated? Will nobody think of all the poor unconceived children!
Haven’t we already covered that there is a substantive difference between fertilized and unfertilized ova?
This. A fertilized ovum, in terms of what it essentially is, has much more in common with you, me, Bricker or Buck Godot than it has with an unfertilized ovum.