4 ms·

> Deciding about one’s own body is. But deciding about an unborn child's body isn't. I really don't think your position is as incontrovertible as you're sugg

> Deciding about one’s own body is. But deciding about an unborn child's body isn't. I really don't think your position is as incontrovertible as you're suggesting, which is why this issue doesn't have any easy answers.

trasz 4y ago
Abortion isn’t deciding about fetus body, same way refusing to donate an organ for life-saving transplant isn’t deciding about transplant receiver body.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I would think fair compromise is to ban destructive abortions. That means it would have to be natural of c-section to remove the fetus. Then it is up to fetus to survive outside.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Would forcing people to donate only some non-critical parts of their body to save somebody else be a fair compromise to you?
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  There's a big difference between allowing someone with an illness to naturally die by not donating your organ to them, and deliberately carrying out an abortion with the intent to kill a developing child. The law (and the field of ethics) has always distinguished between acts of commission and acts of omission, and also taken into account the intent of the actor. If a stranger's house is broken into and their TV stolen, and you could have prevented that by sleeping over at their house, that doesn't mean you are an accomplice by sleeping in your own house. Anyway, I'm glad you're thinking about this, because it's a complicated issue and it needs multiple perspectives to sharpen our thinking.
  - trasz 4y ago
    In other words, if somebody is violating your bodily freedom, you don’t deserve the right to defend in a way that would harm them? Abortion isn’t a complicated issue. It’s a typical science/ethics vs alt right stupidity issue. The only thing complicated about it is the prevailing political correctness towards religion.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      > you don’t deserve the right to defend in a way that would harm them? If that's your strawman interpretation of what I said, then let me turn it around and infer your position: People's rights should be based on their ability to do harm to those trying to violate their bodily freedom. I don't think that actually is your position, but it is at least consistent with your view that vulnerable children should have no rights at all.
      - trasz 4y ago
        It's not a strawman, this is literally what you said above: that bodily freedom (in this case abortion) does not imply the right to actively defend against something/someone violating this freedom (in this case the foetus). Children of course do have rights, because they don't invade anyone's freedom, in particular they don't parasite on another person's body against that persons will. As opposed to unwanted pregnancies.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        > something/someone violating this freedom (in this case the foetus). Thank you for explaining your position, but I think it's an odd framing to say that a foetus is "violating the freedom" of the woman bearing it. If a woman decides to handcuff herself, and then accidentally loses the key, I suppose you could say that the handcuffs are "limiting her freedom", and she needs to "actively interfere with" the handcuffs by damaging them, but saying "violating" and "defend" makes it sound like the foetus has agency and is deliberately/knowingly acting against her wishes. I'm sure it isn't your intention to make the foetus seem like a person (which is why you call it a foetus and not a child, even though we could be talking about a fully formed human being, one day before their birth). In any case, I'm afraid your argument sounds completely circular, because you are defining "that bodily freedom" to specifically mean a supposed right to abortion. Of course if that right exists then the foetus/child may not violate it, but if there is no such right then no one may "actively defend against" the existence of that foetus/child.

trasz 4y ago

Abortion isn’t deciding about fetus body, same way refusing to donate an organ for life-saving transplant isn’t deciding about transplant receiver body.

Ekaros 4y ago
I would think fair compromise is to ban destructive abortions. That means it would have to be natural of c-section to remove the fetus. Then it is up to fetus to survive outside.
- trasz 4y ago
  Would forcing people to donate only some non-critical parts of their body to save somebody else be a fair compromise to you?
dane-pgp 4y ago
There's a big difference between allowing someone with an illness to naturally die by not donating your organ to them, and deliberately carrying out an abortion with the intent to kill a developing child. The law (and the field of ethics) has always distinguished between acts of commission and acts of omission, and also taken into account the intent of the actor. If a stranger's house is broken into and their TV stolen, and you could have prevented that by sleeping over at their house, that doesn't mean you are an accomplice by sleeping in your own house. Anyway, I'm glad you're thinking about this, because it's a complicated issue and it needs multiple perspectives to sharpen our thinking.
- trasz 4y ago
  In other words, if somebody is violating your bodily freedom, you don’t deserve the right to defend in a way that would harm them? Abortion isn’t a complicated issue. It’s a typical science/ethics vs alt right stupidity issue. The only thing complicated about it is the prevailing political correctness towards religion.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > you don’t deserve the right to defend in a way that would harm them? If that's your strawman interpretation of what I said, then let me turn it around and infer your position: People's rights should be based on their ability to do harm to those trying to violate their bodily freedom. I don't think that actually is your position, but it is at least consistent with your view that vulnerable children should have no rights at all.
    - trasz 4y ago
      It's not a strawman, this is literally what you said above: that bodily freedom (in this case abortion) does not imply the right to actively defend against something/someone violating this freedom (in this case the foetus). Children of course do have rights, because they don't invade anyone's freedom, in particular they don't parasite on another person's body against that persons will. As opposed to unwanted pregnancies.
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        > something/someone violating this freedom (in this case the foetus). Thank you for explaining your position, but I think it's an odd framing to say that a foetus is "violating the freedom" of the woman bearing it. If a woman decides to handcuff herself, and then accidentally loses the key, I suppose you could say that the handcuffs are "limiting her freedom", and she needs to "actively interfere with" the handcuffs by damaging them, but saying "violating" and "defend" makes it sound like the foetus has agency and is deliberately/knowingly acting against her wishes. I'm sure it isn't your intention to make the foetus seem like a person (which is why you call it a foetus and not a child, even though we could be talking about a fully formed human being, one day before their birth). In any case, I'm afraid your argument sounds completely circular, because you are defining "that bodily freedom" to specifically mean a supposed right to abortion. Of course if that right exists then the foetus/child may not violate it, but if there is no such right then no one may "actively defend against" the existence of that foetus/child.