He’s not “pointing out” anything. He’s stating the obvious, as am I. The only difference between the (to term) unborn and the newborn is it’s location. But location is everything, and the use of my organs IS a matter of personal preference. MY personal preference.
All the more reason to ignore such arguments, as I do, and concentrate solely on location.
Heck, it wouldn’t matter if the embryo looked like a perfectly formed adult human in miniature and grew proportionately over its gestation or even had adult intelligence from the moment of conception. It’s inside the body of another human, who may have a personal preference that it not stay there and I’ve yet to see a compelling argument or a compelling state interest that such preferences be casually ignored.
I can imagine such cases where it would be ignored, though, but the circumstances would have to be pretty dire.
Given that the circumstances are “let them stay or they’ll die”, I think that “dire” is a pretty good word for it.
Seriously, I’m pro-choice, but this is a really weak way to get there. If you choose to treat the fetus or embryo as a full-fledged person, or to dismiss that this is an arguable point, you strongly weaken the justification for permitting choice.
Why? Again, “inside my body” vs. “outside my body” is not exactly an insignificant difference. If my existing child needs a kidney and will die without it, I still can’t be legally compelled to give it to her. Why is a uterus fundamentally different than a kidney?
Mostly because of this:
It’s pretty natural for people to accept that there are ‘reasonable’ concessions that people should be expected/forced to make to avoid “killing babies”. We make you strap them into carseats rather than tossing them in the trunk, we’d prefer if you fed and clothed them occasionally… people get in the habit of expecting the parent to cave to their child’s needs. So when we get to the abortion thing, you see the child’s ultimate need, life, stacked up against the “not-life” issue of merely being forced to carry a child to term, which frankly lots of people have gone through themselves and dismiss as being all that big a deal when weighed with a baby’s life.
Now, you can argue that you have rights, dammit, and no damn baby’s gonna step on them! I have a right to not own a carseat and that’s that! But we’re quite used to overriding those rights, and letting the abortion argument be framed that way is basically setting it up to be knocked down. It’s basically seen as murderous selfishness.
Building an argument on the fact that the thing being aborted isn’t a human, it’s a tumor, is much stronger, since it doesn’t parallel to other baby-protecting laws and it doesn’t come across as callously selfish. Win-win, and it’s supported by the facts to boot!
If someone moved into your house and refused to leave, you’d have every right to have them forcibly evicted. Yet you can’t do the same for the entity who takes over your body?
It turns out that destroying a major aspect of individual self-determination is even more dire. Similarly, if someone has broken into my house and is threatening me with a weapon, killing them is pretty dire. Letting them kill me is, however, more dire. As a result, I reserve the right to kill them if I feel I have to.
Besides, even with a million+ abortions a year in the U.S., their society hasn’t degenerated into Mad Max, so how “dire” could it possibly be?
I honestly don’t follow your reasoning. Rather than waste time debating and dictionary-mining to determine what predicate nouns apply to a fetus (“human”, “person”, etc), I recognize and wish to protect the rights of the woman, which are frequently and conveniently forgotten in pro-life arguments.
Which facts suggest that an embryo, if not terminated, will become a tumor?
I maintain that I’m entitled to callous selfishness regarding the use of my body, and that no one has the right to overrule me regarding the use of my body. It’s philosophically sound, AND intellectually honest. Win-win!
I disagree.
We don’t compel people to donate blood. We don’t compel people to donate organs after they’re dead. Lives depend on those donations but we don’t compel them. People will DIE without them, but we don’t compel them.
If you don’t see a fetus as a person, that’s fine. Someone else does. That’s still fine. Person or not, human or not, it doesn’t get my organs unless I let it, and I get to withdraw my permission just as you would be able to withdraw your permission to let someone take one of your kidneys to save someone’s life. Just as you would be able to stop donating blood whenever you choose. You don’t need anyone’s permission to stop.
I don’t see any facts in support of your argument, and since I don’t believe the “thing being aborted” is a tumor (though I think it bears similarities to many things, including parasites), I would by lying if I argued from the perspective.
I’d like to clarify my earlier statement so it is not misused. Conditions that I can imagine are sufficiently “dire” that a woman’s request for an abortion should be ignored include:
For an individual woman: she’s showing signs of mental illness where she varies from sincerely demanding an abortion to sincerely insisting that she’ll kill anyone who tries to hurt her baby.
For society in general: some sort of Children of Men scenario occurs where birth rates drop to near-zero, putting the human race at risk for extinction.
I’m sure I could think up some others, but the loss of the fetus under typical conditions doesn’t qualify.
Well, he didn’t start serving his sentence until eight years ago, and is on day parole right now. Just to set the record straight.
Sure to the first one.
Extinction is underrated to the second.
Same here. Is it really worth it to carry on the human race if we have to use forced births to do it?
Yeah, me too. If I’m the last woman on earth, my uterus is still mine.
Allow me to provide one: Without the ability to make this determination for themselves, parents are merely baby sitters for the state.
Why? The state regulates things you can do to your kids. Children not have all the rights that adults do, but they have the right to life, food, shelter, to not be abused.
If the fetus is going to kill you most people will approve of abortion on that ground; however this doesn’t parallel elective abortion. Elective abortion is: a dude is sitting in the middle your living room, not being particularly threatening (though he is annoying and darned inconvenient). Do you have the legal right to shoot him? Answer: NO. You analogy supports anti-choice, not pro-choice.
The business about “destroying a major aspect of individual self-determination” is an opinion that flies in the face of society’s demonstrated willingness to rob you of self-determination in the favor of caring for the child - even when we’re not talking about actually killing the child. Given that laws are not dictatorially decreed based on your opinions alone, this opinion is a piss-poor basis to argue for legalizing abortion.
How many (post-birth) murders are there a year? What? Millions? I guess murdering people is peachy-keen then!
Piss. Poor. Argument. Seriously people, I’m trying to argue for pro-choice here. Slop like this on my side of the table doesn’t help.
Actually they’re not forgotten, they’re dismissed, all the way up until the child turns 18. This is old news, and society is perfectly fine with it. Your difference of opinion will convince nobody and win no ground for our side.
What does what it would turn into in a fantasy future where it’s not terminated have to do with anything? It’s an unwanted growing clump of cells that is drawing resources from the body now. May not be a tumor, but close enough that I’m not going to debate using the term as shorthand.
It’s philosophically sound, intellectually honest, AND the majority of the population doesn’t think that you can kill people who are loitering on your property! Win-win-LOSE.
Correct. I think these things are unacceptable too.
I advocate a phasing in of adult rights and coincident responsibilities of the child on the way to adulthood. But to begin with it ought all be up to the parents, as the alternative is worse.