What I am trying to do is establish some area of common ground in our respective views of humanity and then we can see how and why they diverge. I have already stated the parallels of the boat scenario to the woman being pregnant. In the boat scenario we simply eliminate the issue of when human life begins and move to the issue of what reponsibility people have to invited guests.
I don’t think it unreasonable that a woman who willingly gets pregnant is inviting the child. That is the same as inviting another person on your boat…you have put someone else in a position on your property that if they were suddenly forced to leave would most likely result in their death or serious injury. That is the question we are trying to resolve.
I wanted to respond to this while my other account is being fixed.
This is what is happening.
You: Let’s talk about abortion…
Me: Ok
You: Ok now think of a boat…
Me:…
Sex and pregnancy are two different acts. Yes a women who willingly has sex…is willingly having sex. However, having sex does not invite pregnancy especially if one is using contraception. So if a woman has sex, then discovers that she became pregnant, she then has to make the choice of whether she wants to have it or not.
To really understand the issue we have to narrow it to circumstances when we both agree the woman is inviting the pregnancy. If there is no circumstance in your mind that a woman can be considered to be inviting the pregnancy then we have nothing to discuss. We are disagreeing on when invitation occurs so lets move to a point where there is no disagreement about invitation…ie in the boat scenario.
Hopefully you would agree, that if a woman invites the prgnancy then, she is from a rights point of view, no different than the boat owner inviting guests.
Your problem is you think your continual whine of "no it isn’t " is a substitute for discourse. Go ask your parents for some milk money, the adults are talking now.
I agree with the parallels. However, even here you are equating a voluntary action - invitation - with an involuntary action - egg implantation. My argument against this is simply:
Actions cannot be both voluntary and involuntary.
An invitation, in every case, is a voluntary act.
Egg implantation is an involuntary act.
Therefore, the implantation of the egg is not an invitation.
I believe #1 is self evident. You can attempt to refute it, but I doubt you’d get very far. So far, your attempts to refute #2 and #3 have been less than convincing. I’m interested, though. If 1-3 hold true, #4 is true.
Lets leave the egg implantation for a moment and move to what we should be able to agree is an invitation. A woman actively seeks to become pregnant, becomes pregnant and then carries the child for two months. Would this not constitute invitation by your definition, clearly a voluntary act. Now at 2 months she changes her mind and wants an abortion. This is the same scenario we are at on the boat. A person has invited one person aboard and now mid journey wishes to put them in a situation that almost certainly will cause their death. Is this an act of agression? I say yes.
Great, please tell me from your point of view under what circumstances invitation occurs with a pregnant woman. I have stated my position now let’s hear yours.
For about the fourth time let’s find a point where we can agree on invitation. I use the boat example because it seems a clear case of invitation. I am more than happy to use your point in pregnancy, if any , where you agree invitation occurs.
Clearly, invitation is a constantly tested state of being such as this: A woman discovers that she is pregnant, if she doesn’t want it, she no longer extends invitation towards the fetus/baby. If she wants it, then she does. However, by saying she invites it for now does not mean she needs to stick with that decision for the whole course of the pregnancy. Hypothetically speaking, say we meet in person and we have a great time and I say ‘well you should come to my house tonight, my wife is cooking [ insert your favorite food ] and we’d enjoy your presence’ and since its your favorite food you so ‘well ok’, so I invite you into my home and we start eating. However after I invite you into my home I come to realize that you are lacking in manners, lets say you throw my plates against the wall, make odd obscene noises and run around my house naked. Now I have two choices, I can just sit there and giggle and put up with it or I can resend my invitation I gave you to my house and throw you out onto the streets for your actions. You, yourself cannot challenge such a claim because it was not your house to begin with and you were here at my request. So you can’t say ‘No I can’t be thrown out! I still have to break all your vases and you have to put up with me until I am through.’
Can invitations be rescinded, sure. Is that universal, no. This is where the boat scenario is relevant, it provides a clear scenario where an invitation revoked will reasonably prove fatal for the invitee. Does the invitee have the right to expect that the inviter will not put them intentionally in some life threatening scenario upon revocation of the invitation. If you board a boat or a plane isn’t it implied as part of the invitation that you will not be intentionally put in harms way as a result of accepting the invitation.
In the case of a pregnant woman we have another person who was invited into the woman’s home and in fact is not even capable of refusing and then when the woman no longer wants the person faces a death sentence.
Just clearly state your position, is this permissable on the boat scenario and with the woman?
You have not had any meaningful contribution to this entire thread. Some of us are trying to move the discussion forward by a willingness to discuss our positions. Please either contribute or stop interfering.
Why can’t you answer the question? I have explained under what circumstances an invitation can not be rescinded from my perspective. Please explain your position giving the scenarios provided and then we will know exactly where you stand.
Depends on the laws of the society, as you’ve stated: for you rights are a legal claim. From a natural law point of view I would agree that implicit in the invitation that can be revoked at will is that physical harm will not come from the revoking.
You might have a case of invitation you might not. Mind and body aren’t seperate things, the mind is a manifestation of the body. Even though I have limbs for climbing, I don’t climb until my mind decides its time. To state otherwise is to say I don’t own myself. So to say the body can invite and the mind has no say is ludacris. Therefore rape is never acceptable and abortion is acceptable in that case. Furthermore in what way could you invite a thing that can’t reason? So certainly the fetus was not invited, and if you consider inviting a state of being like obesity or pregnancy, I don’t see why you couldn’t immediately revoke it. You can’t even really rely on the naturalistic fallacy because a womans body does perform abortions when the fetus probably won’t survive. Its not just obvious that abortion is wrong.
A woman cannot invite pregnancy, only take steps to increase or decrease its liklihood. The fertilization process is involuntary. The fetus is always a trespasser. Some women choose to let the trespassers stay; some are excited that they have them; and some evict them.
Even if we accept your logic here, then once the trespasser is permitted to stay they can no longer be considered a trespasser by definition. Either someone is on your property with your permission or they are not.
Also, your assetion that a woman maintaining her pregnancy is somehow unrelated to the woman is ridiculous.
Invito fertilization seems one obvious example of inviting the fetus.
Now why don’t you try answering the boat scenario.