Really this argument should have ended when it was brought up that the differences in views are due to incompatible premises.
begbert holds the position that if the fetus has been labeled by society as a person, then the argument that we should have complete control over our bodies is not a sufficient moral justification for unrestricted abortion. I also hold this position as part of my much more general moral premise that sometime individual rights are ignored for societal benefit.
Diana and jsgoddess seem to be using the premise that individual rights should never be violated.
Clearly there is conflict between the foundations of our moral codes. And conflicts like that don’t get resolved by tossing around high level arguments like the implication of “using” a body or the difference between killing and letting die.
Slight correction - the society has to use non-retarded methods to label fetuses as people or not. None of this god crap until we repeal the first amendment, and what’s so transforming about the moment of birth, again? Etcetera. Otherwise yes - killing people is, as a general rule, not good. And fetal trespassing doesn’t ping my outrageometer sufficiently to argue that murder of a person is justified by it.
jsgoddess is making factual assertions about the law in order to bolster and sell her opinions. Some of these statements are false, sometimes blatantly so. This is a debate forum, so I see no problem in smacking these arguments down. I don’t hope to change her opinions; I do hope to educate her not to use such poor arguments (especally counterfactual ones!) in arguing for her opinions. It would make the pro-choice side less argumentively weak in general.
This is not to say that a person must believe that the babies should have a right to be there; it’s an emotional issue and people react very strongly to certain facts and much less strongly to others, making almost any position understandable as a personal belief. I merely think that only the opinions that withstand factual scrutiny should play any part in debate or lawmaking. And it is simply not the case that it there is legal or societal precedent for allowing the execution of “babies” on charges of trespassing.
I’ve had many pro-lifers disagree that it’s sufficient but, you know, they’re pro-lifers and are going to disagree. It doesn’t lead to the same hair-pulling the person/not person debates always descend to.
And I’ll freely state that if the technology is invented where the nascent life can be taken out and put in a mechanical womb or substitute uterus of some sort, I think that should be entirely up to society to decide. “Is this what we want to spend our money on?” If so, roll with it. If not, then we’d still be dealing with a being that no one wants enough to pay for.
To be fair, the actual assertions that she made are accurate (that we aren’t forced to donate things); it’s the extrapolation to the phrase “forced to donate a uterus” that is pretty sketchy.
A big thumbs up for the second paragraph. Of course, no precedent is not the same thing as morally indefensible. In which case, we’re back to the point of shouting at each other that you’re wrong because I said so.
Well, cause technically its wrong. We’d be forced to donate the placenta, but the uterus we’d only be obligated to provide on loan, but without any recourse for damage by the occupant and an insufficient security deposit.
(The placenta…which my OB always called “your body’s only disposable organ!”)
If the fetus is a person, then every miscarriage will have to be investigatedc as a “suspious death.” Maybe the woman caused it by having an asprin, coffee, or wine, and “thinking bad thoughts.”
As noted, you are correct that we’re not required to donate blood or organs, even when dead. However, that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT to the abortion debate.
We’re also not required to donate our driveways to people. But if a person is sitting in your driveway, then pulling out your pistol and blowing him away is NOT a legal response. Abortion is the case where the dude hanging off the cliff already has your rope, not the one where you can choose not to throw it to him.
Your assertions that the “being in your body” bit has been defined by society to be a carte blanche for murder are simply untrue.
Okay, so the “not a baby” argument is not likely to garner 100% popular support. And you think the “it’s my body dammit” argument will? I’m aware people tend to project their own opinions and beliefs on others, but even so this is a really silly idea - if it had any chance of being true, there would be no abortion debate!
In realityland, of course, the “it’s my body dammit” argument is extremely subject to people’s opinions, because that’s all there is to it! There are no (non-false) objective facts that can be used to convince a person that a “trespassing” fetus is fair game for murder. It’s all opinion. Nothing more.
The “not a baby” argument, on the other hand, is solidly based on objective facts - so much so, in fact, that there are no rational arguments that would entirely ban abortion. You are correct that there can be quibbling about which week should be the cutoff, but there are objective facts available there too to assist in setting that limit.
It’s one thing to personally give a lot of weight to the “it’s my body dammit” argument. But to think that everyone else agrees that it’s a solid argument borders on delusion.
Debating the jusitifactions for abortion law by citing abortion law seems kida circular, don’t you think? Moreso when one might expect to use these arguments to argue that those very laws shouldn’t be changed or removed.
Pre-Roe v. Wade there was the whole “feus should have all the rights of a person” hysteria.
If the fetus does have all the rights of a person and the special right to take over another person’s body, then women could be prosecuted for not eating right, not accepting medical care, taking any meds, NOT taking prescribed meds, etc. etc. while pregnant.
