Yes, please do. And explain how there’s but a discrepancy that protects property more than a woman’s body.
I’m not sure what you want me to say, it’s illegal to trespass on someone else’s property. In no state is it legal to kill someone who does so absent extenuating circumstances.
How about if they refuse to leave? Can’t you call the cops (doctor) to force them to leave? Isn’t the default assumption that you have authority over who is on your property? But somehow not over what is in your body?
One aspect of this argument is whether it’s okay to cause the death of the trespasser during the act of removal. To make it more relevant to the abortion debate, consider a situation where you own an island and someone washes up on it. You don’t want him on your island. He says that a boat will come for him in a month. Is it okay to force him off the island by pushing him into the water and have him drown rather than wait a month for the boat to come and get him?
So…the baby just goes away in about a month?
Perhaps. Feel free to make the time frame whatever works for you. It’s to make the trespasser argument more relevant to the comparison with abortion. If the rescue boat didn’t come for 8-9 months, would it be okay to push the trespasser back into the water?
Am I obligated to feed and house this trespasser while they wait for rescue?
For the purposes of making it similar to abortion, then I suppose you would have to provide nourishment for the trespasser just like in pregnancy. There could be two scenarios. One scenario is that there is plenty of food for the both of you, while in the other scenario there is only food enough for you alone.
Oh, I just remembered perhaps a better analogy. There’s a sci-fi story about a one-man spaceship that has a stowaway. In the story, the spaceship only has enough supplies for one person to reach the destination. Tough decisions have to be made about how to complete the journey with two people but only enough food for one. But there could also be a mission where there is plenty of food for two people. When is it okay to jettison the stowaway? (Sorry, I can’t remember the name of the story).
That’s just right wing propaganda, throwing out theoretical reasons for women to have “late term abortions” (not an actual medical term by the way) that never actually happen. Because they want everyone to be thinking about evil self-indulgent women who deserve to be punished for being “baby killers”, not a traumatized or dying woman dealing with a medical emergency.
It’s just rhetoric meant to demonize women and excuse tormenting and killing them.
Yes, the old she’s just having a bortion at 8 and a half months to fit into her prom dress, wedding dress, bikini, etc. It doesn’t happen and claiming it does is disgusting.
usually but not always. Consider how difficult it can be to evict squatters in certain areas of the country…but in any event having someone removed from your property doesn’t result in their death
again, usually yes, but not to the extent where you can kill them for being on your property.
I’ve already linked to the most discussed and defended hypothetical that’s been around for half a century,
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
If it’s winter, it certainly can. But that’s not the problem of the property owner to worry about. At least, not legally.
Why does property have stronger legal protection than my body?
To get back to the topic of the thread, this inconsistency is why it seems clear to me that the point is regulating female sexuality, and not some abstract rights.
Duh, 'cause you’re a female. Clearly you have no rights over your body, or protectins of those no- existent rights. Only a male relative or a congress citter has those rights. This is because females are vacuous, self- involved, pea brains, who cannot be trusted to make decisions.
Psst, they might otherwise get powerful. Disproving the comments above. Can’t have that…
“The Cold Equations”. The hook of the story was that supposedly the launch had exactly enough fuel to slow down and land safely down to the milligram, given the expected weight of pilot and (small but vital vaccines) cargo. Only the pilot could land the ship, the vaccines were needed to keep an entire colony from dying out. The stowaway was innocent and well-meaning, but… It was an early example of what later became the Trolley Problem.
It doesn’t, that’s my point. As I noted above, the laws regarding them (where abortion is prohibited) are roughly similar in scope. Deadly force (killing an intruder in the case of real property or abortion in the case of pregnancy) is only allowed when there is a reasonable apprehension or likelihood of serious harm to the person. Real property laws do not allow killing based solely on trespass.
A couple more of the things that make it exceedingly difficult for me to ascribe truly beneficent, good faith motivations broadly to those who would restrict or eliminate a woman’s right to bodily autonomy are …
-1- Abortion is the end of the line, when a bunch of other precedent things didn’t go optimally. Liberals want to fix those upstream things in order to reduce the demand for abortion.
Those same “social determinants” are also factors in gun violence, so liberals advocate measures that – in other countries – help there, too.
But here’s the difference: conservatives skip right to the end of the story in abortion, by banning abortion, but they won’t do the same thing (skip to the end) when it comes to gun violence. In other words, discussing guns is entirely off the table.
Not only that: they also oppose nearly all efforts to improve the social determinants that contribute to both abortions AND gun violence (and poverty and crime, and…), where the knock-on effects – as witnessed in other advanced-economy nations – are substantial and salutary.
-2- Look at the trend of the rate of abortions in the US – pre-Roe, post-Roe, and in the decades since. It’s hard to say in good faith that either the Supreme Court OR the anti-choice movement were looking for a problem to solve:
NB: I felt like it was okay to bring gun violence into this thread in this very limited way, and hope not to induce a hijack by doing so. MODS: if I shouldn’t have raised the issue here at all, please feel free to hide the text.
That’s simply not true. You CAN call the police to have a trespasser removed. Even if the trespasser has no place to go, no protection from the weather, no food. And the trespasser eating your breakfast cereal is less dangerous to you than the fetus growing inside me is to me.
Also, the trespasser is unambiguously a human being.
And in the meantime it can stay on the other side of the island. And it’s not affecting your health at all.
And to do so despite the fact that they may make me puke every day for months, may make me so sick that I may die, may permanently damage some of my organs, and may kill me either while they’re there or when the boat comes to pick them up; and will certainly hamper my movements and disturb my ability to sleep considerably during much of that time?
Cold Equations. (As I’ve been ninja’d on.)
Do you remember that the stowaway is jettisoned and dies? And that this is presented as essential?
Coming back to this:
Can you come up with a single confirmed example of someone aborting an eight-month pregnancy, in a fashion that kills the fetus, for any of those reasons?