Which “somebody” is being hit with the “baseball bat” in your scenario?
I think it’s pretty clear that Flyer meant the fetus as the one receiving the blow from the baseball bat.
And you’re saying this to support the argument that the “rights” of a clump of cells the size of my thumb trumps the rights of a fully grown woman?
:smack:
I don’t know if “the doctor” is necessary in the argument, but it is not an appeal to authority fallacy. The doctor, in this case, is an actual authority on the matter, so an appeal to his or her decision is not fallacious. If I were to invoke Einstein’s opinion on that matter, that would be fallacious. Einstein was a pretty smart guy, but he was not a medical doctor, and not an authority on abortion.
But an abortion is a medical procedure, so it’s always wise for a woman to consult a doctor when an abortion is planned. The exception might be a “Plan B” situation where it’s not practical to do so. If we get to the point where there is an abortion pill a woman can safely take further along in the pregnancy, then that would be another instance where the doctor needn’t be involved.
Right from the start, you have an unwarranted premise there that is based on nothing more than a value judgment, and one that many people find completely bizarre.
Except speech rights and gun rights. Those are totally absolute. Or so I’ve been told.
Different rights. Right to live v. right to not be pregnant anymore. If the right to live is the same, i/e the woman will likely die due the pregnancy, then her right’s would “trump”.
And the smack smilie doesn’t really help your point.
And the anti-abortion argument is blind to the fact that you not wanting an abortion doesn’t mean you get to force everyone else not to have one.
True, abortion rights aren’t absolute. That’s why (legal) abortions have always been regulated. But it’s a right women have, so let them practice it. If you don’t want one, don’t have one. No one is controling your body or forcing you to.
Okay, let’s explore. The Republicans (by and large) oppose abortion. Yet they:
- oppose comprehensive sex education in favor of abstinence-only education which has repeatedly been shown to have much worse outcomes;
- have repeatedly espoused making women’s access to birth control pills more difficult;
- are busily working to shut down women’s health clinics and Planned Parenthood, which often provide both the aforementioned birth control (of various sorts) and valuable family planning advice; and
- have on various occasions taken stances on rape which, if not actually “pro-rape”, have certainly minimized the effects of the crime and the penalties therefore.
All of the above are things that would and have resulted in more unwanted pregnancies, which in turn have led to more abortions. Yet the GOP keep pushing for them harder, which makes me suspect that the real position of many of these people is not “we don’t want abortions” but rather “we want women who have sex to suffer”, particularly when you consider the lack of support for those babies once born.
If the GOP really wanted to stop abortions they’d do the exact opposite of the above: make birth control as accessible as possible, promote full and frank sex education, provide access to women’s health clinics* to poor women, and get men to be responsible for the babies they helped make (or get them to be more responsible for not making them). They should thank God for Planned Parenthood, which prevents far more unwanted pregnancies than it terminates. But they won’t, because then they wouldn’t get to feel all smug and self-righteous.
Oh, and another fun fact: states where access to abortion has been severely restricted in recent years have shown an uptick in internet searches for how to perform home abortions. But I guess those sluts deserve whatever happens to them.
- those Christian “family planning” shame factories don’t count.
Society does this all the time. Nobody says “YOU don’t have to steal, but you can’t force me to not steal” or “YOU may believe robbery is wrong so you don’t have to do it, but that doesn’t mean you can’t force me not to rob.”
And I wonder why it’s so difficult to discuss abortion on this site.
Sadly, I agree completely.
I supported the ultrasound requirement, under the theory that it would cause women to reconsider after gaining more accurate information – which is a legitimate government goal. However, after seeing data on the actual experience – delay, but statistically insignificant changes in rates – I withdrew my support, concluding that it’s a pretext to hinder, not a good way to provide information.
I fervently wish this were not so, but it is. The courts have spoken: it’s a right. The way to change this via persuasion and ultimately constitutional amendment.
Abortions for all!!!
The unborn child doesn’t get a say because it is irrelevant.
What made you believe that a woman seeking an abortion is not fully aware of what she is doing so that further information might cause such a re-evaluation?
No I think you’re taking the actions and beliefs of some pro-life people and ascribing them to all pro-life people. It’s a ton easier to do than deal with the issue, but I find it just drags down these threads until there is no point going on.
Whose “right” to live…the clump of cells the size of my thumb? Sorry, not buying it. And if you’re so concerned about it, you’d either a) advocate increased access to safe and effective birth control or b) ensure every child has access to the necessities of life AFTER they are born (and don’t tell me they do, we both know that’s a lie).
Your opinion of my use of the smack smilie is duly noted.
:rolleyes:
You’re right.
It’s my hope that this view will change.
I thought that at least some abortion-minded women would literally expect a clump of cells, and would be dissuaded when they saw recognizably human features.
When the law says that that clump of cells is a legal person at conception you’ll have a valid argument.
it doesn’t currently, and you don’t. We are not forced to use your stilted “unborn child” terminology, or your unbalanced “balanced rights” illogic, either.
OK. I fully advocate increased access to effective birth control and that children should have all the necessities after they are born. And?
I think that the law does recognize that a clump of cells is afforded some protection, the issue is when. And, as an aside, I don’t think “the law says” is a great argument for determining the validity of a moral argument, lest you rouse the ire of Bricker.
OK, dont. We can use your “clump of cells” terminology if it makes this easier on you.
I don’t understand what you mean. Other than the simple attempt to hand wave away something, I just don’t understand what you’re trying to hand wave away.