That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Yes, well when your mother said, “Don’t eat those paint chips!”, you should have listened.
How nice, but throwing a tantrum won’t help.
That doesn’t make sense. Once a fetus is inside a women it has to leave. It may be dead or alive when it does, and leave through the vagina or an incussion, but not giving birth is really not an option.
“Y’know, I don’t have to have been a meth addict to know that being a meth addict is generally a bad thing. Being an observer and evaluator with some detachment from the situation makes your views on it more, not less valid, if it has any effect at all.”
If you have never been a meth addict, how do you know whether you being one would or would not make you more qualified? I have been a parent and not a parent, I have also had experience with having a mentally challenged sibling and without. I think the more experience with the scope of the subject the better! For instance I would not tell a heart surgeon the best way to do a triple-bypass.
OK. Was she able to get that job all by herself? Does she exist totally independently? What would have happened to her if her family had not helped her (though it is nice to know they fulfilled their OBLIGATIONS).
So what, how many so called normal people are an island unto themselves? Who in this world has never had to rely on anyone else? Did you raise yourself? Was your family nice enough to fulfill their “obligations” to you? If their actions towards her are of their own volition, it is no concern of yours!
I would tend to think that the life and body of the alien, reptile, mock-intellectual or a green donkey should also be taken into consideration. I know you abortion-lovers just hate to consider these issues in any but the most self-serving manner, though…
I would consider myself more of an individuals rights lover then I do an abortion lover! But that is only if you consider that the fetus and it’s hosts private contract with each others symbiotic relationship is none of your business! I feel that whatever contract they have with each other is between them! If the host decides to renege on her contract and it has no affect on your rights and liberty- then it is none of your business!
Indeed! That is why I’m totally against anyone not already involved in the situation stepping in to stop a murder, robbery, or rape. Not your business. Right?
What, is she going to hold it? Oh, you mean murder, right. My bad.
Obviously your moral definition and mine on exactly what construes murder is different!! I do not consider a parasite having any individual rights to life until it has been severed from it’s host. until separation, the rights of the host takes precedence. As for the “robbery or rape” that is another debate.
“That doesn’t make sense. Once a fetus is inside a women it has to leave. It may be dead or alive when it does, and leave through the vagina or an incussion, but not giving birth is really not an option.”
So if I have my tonsils removed from my body, I am giving birth? The fetus is nothing more than tissue as far as I am concerned until it is separated from it’s host, it is no more then the possibility of life. The same as a mans sperm and a woman’s eggs have nothing more than the potentiality of life.
"I don’t think she said she was an expert. I do think though women generally tend to look at issues like that in a bit of a different way.
Neither one of us said they would support an abortion of a mentally/physically disabled child. "
Exactly!
I’m with BAAWA on this one - that doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Two people can’t have equal claim to the same property. The point of property rights is to eliminate conflict regarding the use of resources - this cannot be done if we accept the ridiculous position that property can be owned by more than one person. Ownership is the exclusive right of control. The owner gets to override everyone else with regard to decisions about how to use the property. That logically cannot be the case when more than one person “owns” the property.
I am not following that either. The mother owns her body “the property”, then there is the fetus (“visitor”/“guest”/“trespasser” - depending on whether the pregancy was planned) who is temporarily occupying the property. As the property owner the mother gets to decide whom and how long she allows the visitor to stay.
Well, you can have joint-ownership, such as with corporations or joint-banking accounts. But it is certainly impossible to see how the embryo/zygote/fetus could have any sort of ownership-stake in the woman. She owns herself, and owned herself before she became pregnant. So JC’s idea is muddle-headed at best.
So you and your spouse can’t have equal ownership of a house? People share ownership of things all the time.
Then, as many have asked over and over and over and over and over and over and over: how does the fetus have some ownership-stake in the woman, given that the woman existed first, homesteaded her body, and the fetus didn’t exist prior to conception?
Oh great, lets wade through a series of false analogies.
Tonsils, unlike a fetus, are not destined to leave your body. A person can very much choose to not remove their tonsils. No women can choose to “not give birth”. They can however choose to kill the fetus or remove it prematurely, but its going to leave her body.
I’m nothing more than tissue. Was there a point to that?
So a fetus is equivalent to a sperm, even though the two things have virtually nothing in common. But a fetus is not equivalent to a baby even though they are exactly the same thing, only existing in different places(Within or outside of the womb). Let me guess, you’re just repeating slogans.
Joint tenancy.
Sometimes not in the way you might think:
http://www.obgyn.net/medical.asp?page=/ENGLISH/PUBS/ARTICLES/Stone_Baby
Because the fetus wouldn’t be there but for the woman’s conscious choice to have it there, outside of a rape. We can quibble over birth control gone awry but that’s the basic principle.
So what? That doesn’t establish that the fetus has any ownership-stake in the woman.
Yes it does. I’m not saying I endorse his argument, but its clearly valid.
If the fetus is a part of the mother, rather than a separate individual(as ejectionism assumes), then it has claim on the body of the mother.
As Folsom said, we are responsible for the dependency we create in others. If I disable a person, I have to subsidize his or her disability. If I make a baby, I have to pay for that baby.
I love how all the anarchist tough talk about accepting the consequences of one’s own actions seems to evaporate when we get to this topic.
No it’s not. It’s the fallacy of division!