It is relevant because as your alter-ego said, that the moment before this the woman has no obligations and the moment after this she does. So when the woman goes to the doctor’s office we have to know whether we have reached that moment or not because would change the possibilities of options. See this basically defeats your woman owns the womb arguement because apparently after a certain point she can’t do whatever she wants.
And what if the cerebral cortex never fully develops? Then even after birth these people can be “aborted” according to your arguement. Not to mention how are you going to know if the cerebral cortex is developed in the baby? Your arguement just makes a generalization and since each case is specific we can’t generalize about when an abortion can be performed. you would have to be certain in each individual case.
Does she have obligations after birth?
Who gets to decide whether it causes considerable harm?
No, it isn’t. The moment life is created means absolutely nothing whatsoever. It’s a red herring designed to obfuscate the real issue: the ownership of the womb.
You’ve yet to figure out that if a woman owns her womb (which she does), then she can have the fetus removed from it. Period. End of story.
So, are you saying a human is not a human until that point?
Rights have to be balanced. If someone trespasses on your property, do you then have a right to kill them? If not, then a mother does not necessarily have the right to take the life of another human, just because it is on her property.
I sense a false analogy coming…
And there is it. Let me ask you this: if someone trespasses on your property, do you have the right to remove that person? Further, if you remove the trespasser and some gang comes by and kills the trespasser, are you to blame for the death of the trespasser? Do you have any moral responsibility? Of course not.
Hint: the death of the fetus is not the goal of the abortion; it is merely a side-effect at this time. The woman IS NOT taking the life of the fetus. Let me repeat that, so that all you fetophiles can grasp it: the woman IS NOT taking the life of the fetus. She is removing from her body something she doesn’t want. That the fetus will die at this juncture is not germane. I know you fetophiles firmly believe that the woman is merely a container when she’s pregnant (you must, or else you wouldn’t have any problem with abortion), but she has rights. Accept it.
Yes.
No.
I am not sure what you call this fallacy, but when you take a baby outside of a mother, it dies. When you kick someone off of your property, they do not automatically die.
Then it’s settled.
Then it’s settled.
Irrelevant and special pleading.
Not if by doing so you would kill them. Of course you conveniently left that out of your leading question.
Then you contradict yourself. Reconcile.
And you conveniently forget that you’re special pleading just so you won’t have to deal with the fact that the woman owns her womb.
Uh, let’s see, according to your logic, you can force someone into your car, drive a hundred miles an hour, and then shove them out, and if they die, oh well, not your fault, because you were just trying to get them off your property, which you forced them onto in the first place.
Strawman/false analogy.
Tell me: do you fetophiles have any non-fallacious arguments?
A couple of things:
Termination of an unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily mean killing the fetus. Today many fetuses who would be viable outside the womb are deliberately killed. Of course this can be attributed largely to government interventions in parenting and adoption.
And there is no reason why a fetus/baby should be treated any differently than any other cognitively lacking person: self owning to the extent that they demonstrate.
Please, explain how it is a strawman or a false analogy? Do you even understand fallacies?
Um, let’s see, the baby had no choice as to whether or not it was in the woman’s womb or not.
But since your argument lacks a solid premise, I can understand how you resort to fallacy labels instead of actually defending your position.
Who defines it in the case of trespass more generally? The same answer applies.
-Jon
Of course I do.
-
The fetus wasn’t forced into the womb.
-
The woman isn’t metaphorically pushing the fetus into the street.
-
Ergo, false analogy. And it’s a strawman because you’re claiming that’s my position.
Try again.
Look, I know your argument lacks a solid premise, but that’s your problem.
Could you please clarify?
1-The point is that the baby had no choice as to whether or not it was in the womb, just like if you forced someone into your car, they had no choice as to whether or not to be in your car (you hit them over the head, knocked them out, and put them in your car). So it is not about how one got there. It is about the fact that there was no choice about being there.
2-I changed the analogy, unfortunately, you had already responded before I could post it. I changed it to forcing someone into your car, driving a hundred miles an hour, and then shoving them out of your car, which results in their death.
3-So, not a false analogy. And it is not a strawman, because the analogy is valid, and so it is your position.