Irrelevant, and now you changed how the person was forced onto the land. Further, in your false analogy, you’re forcing something already there and with rights onto your property, so you’ve violated that person’s rights in the first place. And before the egg and sperm met in the womb, there wasn’t a “person”, so your analogy falls apart spectacularly in a boom of epic fail.
Still a false analogy, since there is no “person” before sperm and egg meet.
Or did you fail high school biology/sex ed?
So yes: it is a false analogy and strawman. You fail so badly that your argument should be a picture on failblog.org.
Saying that a woman has a right to take a baby out of her body, because it is her body, which results in the babies death is the same as saying that you have a right to push someone out of your car, because it is your car, when you are driving a hundred miles an hour, even if it results in his/her death.
You are going to have to provide a more in depth argument as to why that is a false analogy. From what I see both Abortion, as in removal of the fetus and Spideynw’s analogy to the car are both equal morally to eviction from one’s property.
Oh, and since you have said that we must only look at the present state of property rights, and not the events leading up to the violation of property rights nor the events after the eviction from said property, please explain why this is a false analogy.
You are the one claiming that it is not valid, as such, the burden on you is to show that it is not a valid analogy. Otherwise, anytime someone makes an analogy, one could just say it is not so, and how lame would that be?
This is the problem with people that know about argumentative fallacies, and even have some of the names memorized, but have no clue about their actual application.
Now then: show that the woman no longer owns her womb when she’s pregnant. Remember: it’s her womb. All of your emotive pleas will not get you anywhere. None of them have any semblance of rationality, but are merely knee-jerk conflations of aesthetics with morality. If the woman cannot have the fetus removed (in the sense of by law or morally), then she no longer owns her womb. Thus, she is a slave. Why is it that you fetophiles conveniently forget that?
I fail to see how your absolutely false analogy of throwing someone out of a car even works here. All you scream is that “it’s valid it’s valid it’svaliditsvalid!”. Well show it. You seem to be under the erroneous notion that the woman “invited” the fetus in by having sex. Let’s assume for the moment that she was trying to get pregnant. Fine. She can change her mind. It’s her body. If she cannot change her mind, then she is a SLAVE. Why do you fetophiles forget that? Why the desire to turn a woman into nothing more than a vessel? Why strip her of her humanity, as you say the pro-choice do for the fetus? Smacks of projection to me.
Actually, I have. I already mentioned that the person’s body is not a car. This is further backed up by noting the enslavement of the woman. Clearly, a car cannot be enslaved.
I’m still waiting for them to show that it’s a valid analogy. I really have no desire to humor them and disprove then unproven assertions.
No. You’re the same mistake I’ve already pointed out a couple of times. It is not the degree of rationality or how well one uses one’s capacity for rationality that is the criterion. It is the capacity for rationality itself. It is the actuality of that capacity.
Yet the owner of said car is wronged, just as much as the owner of the womb.
An improvement to the car scenario might be to have the trespasser be a rapist, rather than simply a passive passenger. Though, I don’t care much for these parasite analogies and the like as they are utterly dehumanizing. Though, oddly, that is sometimes exactly why they are used.
Max, I already showed you that this analogy is flawed, months ago. The only reason that someone has a claim to accountability is because they posess rights. But rights must exist PRIOR to the action that violates them in order to be violated. It’s simple tautology.
Your claim on accountability of the parent is an ex post facto one. If you believe that the created child gains rights AT conception, then it has no legal claim against actions prior to conception; copulation. In law, causality is only relevant to claims based on the violation of rights.
But that “capacity” is the same for a first trimester fetus as for a one-year old infant or, for that matter, a zygote. And the severely retarded don’t have that capacity. So your 24-week point is just an arbitrary spot along the continuum that doesn’t offend your admirable revulsion to infanticide or late-term abortion.