DSenette wrote:all the window breaking analogies are cute and all, but they don't actually apply when you're talking about things occurring inside the human body, and especially when they are things that are occurring in SOMEONE ELSE'S body entirely.
Huh? I thought this was a discussion of when a woman's right to bodily autonomy would trump the rights of a fetus (if it has any rights) such that she may terminate the pregnancy. The "someone else" is a fetus that the woman created through consensual sex, up till now that fetus was not someone else, but if the law is passed it will become someone else. If it is passed and the fetus becomes a "someone else," we will have to weigh the rights of the woman against the rights of the fetus. I'm saying that's a bad situation for pro-choice defenders, because I believe (based on hypotheticals and the way rights are treated in unrelated areas of life) that the rights of the fetus will be given more weight than the rights of the woman.
here are SEVERAL problems with this paragraph:
1: consent to sex != consent to pregnancy. you can full well have consenting sex without desiring a baby and still get pregnant. hell you could even want to have a baby, and then change your mind.
2: why are the rights of the fetus automatically higher than the rights of the woman? what's the actual justification for that? the child is the invader in that situation. no matter how the invasion came to be, the fetus is always automatically the one infringing on autonomy. at the second of conception the woman's bodily autonomy has been infringed upon, it's her right to decide whether or not that infringement is to be allowed. just like i can temporarily give you permission to make decisions about my medical well being, but as long as i'm competent i can revoke that permission.
Arrian wrote:Why do you believe that we should treat a person's rights completely differently from anything else simply because that person exists within another person? Sure, there will be some differences, but the right to exist is, well, inalienable. It's certainly the status quo, and would require a tremendously persuasive argument to convince most people that one person's right to live is less important than another person's right to control their body for a limited period of time, especially since the former exists because of the latter's voluntary action.
we don't have a problem with that decision anywhere else. my right for you to NOT take my kidney always trumps your right to exist. always. you can't force me to give up my bodily autonomy in ANY situation EVER.
there has NEVER been a legal case where punitive medical procedures were the solution to the grievance. ever. so giving some hypothetical where you would ever have the right to remove part of my body to fix part of your house is a worthless hypothetical.
even if you're talking about a direct body to body hypothetical, like me purposefully damaging your kidney, the person causing the damage would still never be morally or legally required or expected to then physically supply their own kidney to replace yours.
Arrian wrote:I'm pro-choice, but when the debate is framed as one person's rights verses another person's rights, I cannot think of a persuasive argument that allows one person to end another person's life as a lifestyle choice. I can think of arguments for ending one person's life to save the another's, or even because the mother was raped and didn't willingly participate in the action that let to the creation of the fetus. But I cannot think of a convincing argument for why a woman could consent to the activity that created the fetus then refuse the responsibility of bearing the fetus once it was created, if that fetus is a person. I can't imagine a moral argument that would allow for that, much less a legal one.
because consenting to having sex != consenting to conception or consenting to bringing a baby to full term.
besides that, the amount of women who use abortion as a contraception method are so statistically insignificant that you really can't argue for anything that remotely limits abortion rights to combat that action