How is considering the uterus a home dehumanize the woman?
Again, I would rather think of it as that just because someone else is in YOUR car does not give you the right to throw them out of it if you are driving 100 mph.
False analogy.
Because it’s not a home! It’s part of a PERSON!
And you’ve proven my point that anti-abortion people seek to dehumanize and enslave the woman.
False opinion.
Denial of reality.
Not part of reality.
And yet it is.
If the fetus is not a human being, I’m interested in what exactly it is. If the child was born prematurely, and it is inside an incubator, and somebody killed it, they’d be charged with murder. But when a doctor kills it inside a womb, it’s perfectly acceptable. A popular method of abortion is when the fetus is injected with a chemical that stops the heart; yes, a beating heart is stopped. If that isn’t murder I’m not sure what you’d define it as. I’m wondering if those who support the murder of an unborn child have ever seen what an aborted baby looks like, I’m going to assume no because anybody that has seen such a horrific sight can not possibly condone it. Google it and see what you’re condoning, it’s a little human being bloody and murdered. You can make all your claims about what the womb is, about how it’s only an “opinion”, but in all honesty, let’s call a spade a spade: it’s ending the life of a human being. Read about the procedures, there are even more disgusting ones than what I’ve outlined, and look at the pictures if you can stomach it. After doing that, tell me that it’s ok and I will accept that you are just an evil person.
Emotive pleas need not apply.
And if the woman is not a human being, with all the attendant rights and such: what is she? Please do not de-humanize the woman. You are an evil person if you do.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
That more or less sums up my reaction.
-Jon
You answered your question. It’s a fetus.
Now the fetus stage is a stage in human life, just like the baby stage, child stage, and adult stage are stages in human life.
Yes, but it does not follow that such action should take place in the circumstances of abortion.
Only because the doctor has no other means of removing the child from the mother. The fetus does not have a right to reside in the mother, but it would have a right to be in incubation if the parents were patrons to the hospital.
(possibly NSFW)
It’s ending the life of an invading human being who is sapping the nutrients of the mother. It’s largely comparable to a parasite.
There’s a difference between saying “It’s okay” and saying “I won’t kill you if you do it”. If you think it’s okay to use violence against a mother who has had an abortion, I’ll accept that you are just an evil person.
This has been an interesting discussion to follow, but it seems to me as though everyone is ignoring the only truly relevant question, which I will attempt to illustrate below.
Say, for the purpose of discussion, that a person (we’ll call her “A”) becomes pregnant and subsequently has an abortion. Can you argue, on an objective and rational basis, that any coercive action you might propose to take against “A” in response is defensive in nature, justified on the basis of an aggressive action taken by “A” against you – or someone with whom you can claim an agent-principle relationship – and not itself an act of aggression against “A”?
There isn’t much point in arguing over subjective things like morality, rights and wrong, or the point at which life/reason “begin” (presuming they aren’t some sort of continuum). These positions cannot be derived from first principles or confirmed through shared experience and logic. A more useful question is “what actions can be justified in response?”
———————————
P.S. If abortion was wrong subject to the condition that there was an intent to harm the child, then the mother could simply argue that the intent was to eliminate the negative symptoms of pregnancy, and the effect on the child was merely an unintended byproduct. I don’t think that is what you intended.
P.P.S. Traditionally there are two aspects to justice: restitution and retribution. The former depends only on one’s actions, whereas the latter is based on intent. There is no retribution for unintentional harm, but one must pay restitution whether or not the harm was deliberate.
So, if someone was in your car, and you were driving a 100mph, do you have the right to push them out?
You have yet to provide evidence that the child is invited into the womb.
So, Herr Hegel, there was a “person” before the egg and sperm met?
You fail at biology.
If they refuse to leave, yes.
Personally, I’d much rather if it pregnant women could simply ask the baby to leave the uterus kindly.
I’m kind of on the fence on this one, but this idea does need to be unpacked. I would argue that in SOME cases the fetus IS invited in. If the woman intends to have a child and engages in sexual intercourse but after becoming pregnant decides she doesn’t want to follow through with it anymore (perhaps the father has left or some similar situation) is this different from becoming pregnant unwillfully and then wanting to abort the baby?
If I invite you onto my boat but during the course of the journey change my mind about sharing my limited resources with you and want to push you off into the water do I have the right to do so?
Please don’t take this to mean I don’t believe mothers own their bodies. I am just not sure what should be done in these situations depending on the specifics.
What if the seatbelt was wrapped around their neck and there is a 100% chance they will die if you push them out of the car and they are unable to untagle themselves from the seatbelt in time?
But it’s ridiculous to judge legality based on intent.