4 ms·

> 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 foe

> 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
Are you trying to say the law should prohibit helping people who handcuffed themselves and then lost the key? Calling foetus a “child” suggests it’s a person, while in reality it almost never is, because it lacks the property defining a person: brain activity. It’s just a fundamentalist newspeak, invented to distort reality; kind of like “unborn child” or “civilization of life”. Why would anyone use terminology introduced by worlds leading child rapist association is beyond me. The very idea of bodily freedom implies the right to abortion.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > Are you trying to say the law should prohibit helping people who handcuffed themselves and then lost the key? No, because metal handcuffs are not (and will never be) people, so that's quite uncontroversial. A more instructive example would be a 7 year old child super-glueing their hands to the hands of their mother (as some kind of prank). I think we'd all agree that the law shouldn't permit anyone to "help" the mother by amputating the child's hands. > it lacks the property defining a person: brain activity. I'm not sure what counts as "brain activity" to you, but "Ultrasounds can reveal the embryo moving as early as 6 weeks after conception (or 8 pregnancy weeks), detecting the electrical impulses that govern movement and indicating that the brain is beginning to function."[0] > fundamentalist newspeak, invented to distort reality; kind of like “unborn child” The adjective "unborn" only became necessary because these were the specific subset of children whose right to life were being ignored. It's like how we didn't use the term "World War I" until there was a second one. If abortion were legal after the child is born but before they could feed themselves, we would need a name like "dependent child" to refer to them as a legal class of citizen. The very idea of bodily freedom implies the right to not be aborted. [0] https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/fetal-brain-development https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-developm...

trasz 4y ago

Are you trying to say the law should prohibit helping people who handcuffed themselves and then lost the key? Calling foetus a “child” suggests it’s a person, while in reality it almost never is, because it lacks the property defining a person: brain activity. It’s just a fundamentalist newspeak, invented to distort reality; kind of like “unborn child” or “civilization of life”. Why would anyone use terminology introduced by worlds leading child rapist association is beyond me. The very idea of bodily freedom implies the right to abortion.

dane-pgp 4y ago
> Are you trying to say the law should prohibit helping people who handcuffed themselves and then lost the key? No, because metal handcuffs are not (and will never be) people, so that's quite uncontroversial. A more instructive example would be a 7 year old child super-glueing their hands to the hands of their mother (as some kind of prank). I think we'd all agree that the law shouldn't permit anyone to "help" the mother by amputating the child's hands. > it lacks the property defining a person: brain activity. I'm not sure what counts as "brain activity" to you, but "Ultrasounds can reveal the embryo moving as early as 6 weeks after conception (or 8 pregnancy weeks), detecting the electrical impulses that govern movement and indicating that the brain is beginning to function."[0] > fundamentalist newspeak, invented to distort reality; kind of like “unborn child” The adjective "unborn" only became necessary because these were the specific subset of children whose right to life were being ignored. It's like how we didn't use the term "World War I" until there was a second one. If abortion were legal after the child is born but before they could feed themselves, we would need a name like "dependent child" to refer to them as a legal class of citizen. The very idea of bodily freedom implies the right to not be aborted. [0] https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/fetal-brain-development https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-developm...