So what? Can it have hiccups without the mother’s body?
Why do you get to arbitrarily decide life starts at conception? Without interference a man could impregnate countless women, are you going to legalise rape? Just how many babies are you prepared to murder here?
That was irony in case you missed it. Can I ask why you have adopted such an aggressive and pugnacious tone right from the start?
I think this topic is emotive enough without the rhetoric tbh. Ironic though you do precisely what you accuse others of, in using arbitrary rhetoric and dogma, almost as if you were deliberately trying to provoke?
No. because there are degrees of risk, even an abortion has risks. The point is not if it should be allowed in the case of risk to life, but in every other instance where the life of the mother is not at risk. This is not a one dimension issue.
You’re ignoring the risk of certain death to the LIFE of the son, if he doesn’t get his father’s kidney.
Why do you get to arbitrarily decide this 18 year old should die, while simultaneously denying this right to a woman over how her own body is used?
Remember it was you who started by insisting that preservation of LIFE was the determining factor…
[quote=“AlphaLogica157, post:42, topic:172”]
No. because there are degrees of risk,
You mean your arbitrary point, that sounds like dogma to me.
Indeed, yet you set out your stall with the single arbitrary claim that a foetus is a life and must be preserved, why? Especially if you are going to deny that right to a fully formed and sentient adult offspring?
That is not only nonsensical, it seems dogmatic and hypocritical.
Why can’t the law demand an 18 year old son receive a kidney to save his LIFE, and insist the father’s body be used against his will.
Childbirth is considerably more risky to the woman and the foetus that removing a kidney from a healthy adult man after all?
name one argument that has been offered to the contrary? So far it has been repeated vindication on that point, as i have only heard that very assertion repeated over and over again.
"Why shouldn’t a woman have absolute control over her body and reproductive cycle the same as a man? "
No one is dictating a women’s period, or advocating for a woman to be forced to carry. What do you define as absolute control? Is it an abortion regardless of the health of the fetus? Regardless of the feeling of the father?
"While ranting that pro choice argument are arbitrary and subjective, you use arbitrary and subjective claims to justify your attempt to enslave women and dictate to them how their bodies should be used. "
I do not know what thread you have been reading but if you can offer even ONE example of my “attempt to enslave women” and “dictate to them how their bodies should be used.”
I would love to see it, because so far you have gone so far off the mark that I do not believe you have even read any of my responses, and are arguing with some straw-man you invented.
"Why do you get to arbitrarily decide life starts at conception? "
It’s not arbitrary, it is the very beginning of the biological process that creates life. The conclusion that life begins at conception is only logically consistent with the empirical evidence available.
"Without interference a man could impregnate countless women, are you going to legalise rape?
What in the hell are you even talking about?
“Can I ask why you have adopted such an aggressive and pugnacious tone right from the start?”
“I think this topic is emotive enough without the rhetoric tbh”
Im sorry but your question is on legality, i am not interested in discussing legality because what is morally true or philosophically true, is not always legally true. I feel that before we can even get to the question of the law, which is force by definition… i would like to at least establish some foundation to distinguish between cases of abortion such as the one you proposed or the that i proposed. But just to give you some answer then, No. I do not think it should be illegal.
Nyarlathotep made an argument that to legislate how a woman’s body should be used against her will would enslave her.
Are you unfamiliar with word absolute? Why should the man’s desires matter beyond his choice to impregnate a woman? He doesn’t carry the foetus to through to childbirth, there is no risk to him. His body won’t be altered at all…
By arguing their right to determine how their bodies be used is wrong…
Thus it seeks to question a woman’s right to control her own body and how it is used.
Referring to the pregnant woman as mother, or the developing foetus as baby or child etc…subtle perhaps, but this is the kind of dishonest rhetoric I see in these types of debates all the time. They feed into our instinctive emotions on the subject, rather than employing objective detachment.
Well you were cagey in not disclosing the stage of the developing foetus, but clearly this would not be true for the majority of abortions. Though again I fail to see the significance of an insentient foetus experiencing an involuntary digestive spasm. [quote=“AlphaLogica157, post:45, topic:172”]
It’s not arbitrary, it is the very beginning of the biological process that creates life.
No it isn’t, sperm, and egg are viable, many religions hold these as sacred as a fully sentient human. Even the sexual act itself, all have broadly the potential that a blastocyst has to become a fully sentient human. Not that it matters to the debate, so what if the foetus is considered alive, people in permanent vegetative state after severe brain damage are alive, is it wrong for a loved one to decide their LIFE be terminated?
Ok. So first:
“Nyarlathotep made an argument that to legislate how a woman’s body should be used against her will would enslave her”
That is not an argument that validates the assertion of “her body her choice” it does not even attempt to address the very real distinction between the body of the mother and the child. And this is not 'dishonest rhetoric ", but the very words we use in the English language to describe the topic at hand. Now I do not know if Nyarlathotep’s response was even in regards to the assertion in question so I will leave it there.
“Why should the man’s desires matter beyond his choice to impregnate a woman? He doesn’t carry the foetus to through to childbirth, there is no risk to him. His body won’t be altered at all…”
Why should the father even care about the child at all? why should the father even pay child support? Asking why something should happen does not address anything at all.
The fact that it takes both a man and a woman to make a child, and that both the man and woman are expected to care for that child, and both are expected to raise that child, then both have a say in the child’s life, before and after birth. It is only consistent and fair.
“Thus it seeks to question a woman’s right to control her own body and how it is used.”
No, again you just assert on dogma that it is her body, but that has yet to even be demonstrated by anyone who has made the claim.We are not talking about a liver or spleen, we are talking about the biological process by which life is created. That this process takes place inside of a women’s body does not mean it is her body specifically that is the question.
“By arguing their right to determine how their bodies be used is wrong”
You have failed to even show that to be true let alone that my words were an “attempt to enslave women” and “dictate to them how their bodies should be used." You casually throw these words around with no regard for their meaning, you are being dishonest and only demonstrating that you cannot argue in good faith.
Now you have repeatedly made baseless accusations and have failed to back them up. My tone is my tone, If you are willing to actually engage in honest discussion with me then I will do the same, if you want to play games of snarky comments and sophistry then I can do that too. Oh, and you don’t know what irony means.
It certainly is unless you think enslavement is moral and should be legal.
That doesn’t remotely address the question now does it, and the word child is the rhetoric I pointed out, it’s a foetus until it is born. If a man doesn’t want to be responsible for a child when it is born, then he shouldn’t impregnate a woman.
Now again I ask, why should a man’s desires over how a woman decides to use her body matter at all? Let’s not forget you stated you would not insist a fathers body be used against his wishes to preserve the LIFE of his son. So why the double standard?
It is neither consistent nor fair, since only the woman carries the developing foetus and goes through childbirth.
Her body isn’t her body when it has a developing foetus in it? What a ludicrous claim. Whose body is a woman’s body when she becomes pregnant? The foetus is insentient, and cannot survive without the woman’s body. If it could then the termination of the pregnancy is called childbirth. Otherwise it’s called abortion.
Except you’re misrepresenting the facts again. As it is wholly dependent on her body, she’s not some physically detached observer, like the father. The process is happening to her, and you have yet to explain why a woman shouldn’t have the same autonomy over her body as any man?
You don’t think it’s TRUE women should be autonomous, and you can’t see that such an attitude would enslave them?
QED[quote=“AlphaLogica157, post:50, topic:172”]
You casually throw these words around with no regard for their meaning, you are being dishonest and only demonstrating that you cannot argue in good faith.
Enslave "cause (someone) to lose their freedom of choice or action"
Hmmm…[quote=“AlphaLogica157, post:50, topic:172”]
Now you have repeatedly made baseless accusations and have failed to back them up.
I disagree, in fact I think that is a baseless accusation you will need to backup. While you’re at it, backup your baseless claims that a woman’s body is not her own when impregnated, or that a man should have rights over how a womans body is used just because he’s had sex with her, does this extend to rapists who have impregnated women? If not why not?
Ok champ, if you say so. I think others here will recognise my use of reduction ad absurdum in that post as irony.
The day is coming that artificial wombs will be completely available. Then every woman who is making a decision to not be a “natural womb”
-for the cells within that womb that are dividing and multiplying and organizing
-that cannot “live” outside her body
MAYBE adopted ahead of “time” and raised by those that have decided this “life” needed to be allowed to develop to completion AND then nurture that life beyond the “womb” stage.
Cool, huh! More choices are coming - as a
Father to the growing embryo (perhaps once you have a DNA test done) you can use this option! Funny. Do you think a DNA test is necessary to “save” these lives??? How many “men” are going to step up and claim their “offspring” through this means?
Medical science works incredibly hard to ensure that when an embryo is wanted, it is “saved” - the technology and effort is amazing and appreciated by couples or individuals that look forward and desire parenthood.
These “artificial wombs” are in the works to allow for extreme premature and/or woman who cannot naturally carry a pregnancy the freedom to have their offspring.
BTW, personal decisions that I would make in any given situation has no bearing on the “freedom of choice” that should be afforded others.
A person. A female person of the human species.
So as a species “we” copy nature and push our “boundaries”.
We fly (airplanes), we swim underwater (scuba), live underwater (submarines), we look to extend our life spans, eat a variety of foods, run fast (vehicles), go into outer space etc.
As a female human “we” look at the male of the species and think, hey, why don’t “we” have the option of children beyond menopause or why be a “host” for our species when we don’t want to …push our “natural” limits [which is natural to our species thanks to our brains]
OK…no one has argued to limit a woman’s choice, in any of the pursuits you have mentioned. And a woman could simply choose not to get pregnant at all and thereby have no problem at all with any hobby or career she chooses. But again, none of that justifies the position of ‘her body, her choice’.
Yup - and a man could choose not to impregnate her.
Her “body” acts and evolved as a host for specie gestation. Perhaps “we” could have went the route of the penguin and laid an egg, which allows for both mates to participate in the gestation period or abandon it.
So yes, as it is her body that is the host, it is her choice.
You are suggesting a woman’s right to have absolute control over her body while pregnant isn’t right. So you either don’t know what enslavement means, or you don’t understand what it is you’ve been advocating here.
cause (someone) to lose their freedom of choice or action.
There is an issue in your response that I would like to address, namely:
“as it is her body that is the host, it is her choice.”
“Her “body” acts and evolved as a host for specie gestation.”
Her body did not evolve in a vacuum, but it did specifically evolve to become pregnant with the assistance of a male. This is a natural process that clearly begins at the point of insemination. But even considering all of that, just because it is found in nature does not make it correct.
So, at then end of the day, that the process of creating life takes place inside of a woman does not mean that is also to be considered a part her physical body. The child can experience events inside the womb independent of the mother, one example i gave that is common is hiccups. So since we can see one clear distinction between the body of the mother and the body of the child the claim ‘Her body, her choice’ is not sufficient.