One of the pro-choice arguments I have frequently come across in this forum is that the fetus is inside the woman, so therefore she has a right to get an abortion. Well here is just a little hypothetical, a thought experiment to take a look at this supposed logic from a different perspective. What if women gave birth from the inside out? For example, what if, hypothetically, there was some alien lifeform on another planet who's reproductive process took place from the inside out? Instead of their offspring growing inside the parent, the offspring would grow outside of and surrounding the parent. The mother would be physically inside her fetus, until the moment of "birth", when the mother would make an exit from out of the inside of her offspring's body. I know this may all sound kind of absurd, but it's trying to demonstrate something very simple. Does the fact that one party is inside of another party make a difference? If their positions happened to be switched around in reverse, would that change your perspective at all? (If not, then maybe one human being inside another human being is completely besides the point and not relevant in the abortion debate) If the fetus happened to be outside and surrounding the woman, would that give the fetus priority rights over the maternal parent inside it? The argument supposedly goes that the fetus is inside the woman's body, therefore the fetus is a part of her body. Well, if the woman was inside of the fetus's body, would that make the woman part of the fetus, according to that type of logic? It seems to me that the fact the fetus happens to be the one who is spatially inside the woman is completely irrelevant. In terms of how we decide to accord human rights, it should make no difference if the fetus happened to be growing around the woman, totally surrounding her, rather than inside of her body.
As usual, you have the wrong end of the stick. Abortion isn't legal because the fetus is inside the woman, it's legal because it is attached to the woman, a part of her body, and growing using her body. Stick to fuzzy wuzzy little panda bears....
Several members were arguing in another thread that being inside her body was one of the reasons why they claimed it was part of her body. I'm just refuting the obvious here. Glad you agree. Being inside her body isn't a logical argument for abortion.
I'm surprised you would ask that question, since you were one of the ones who clicked "like" on the post. Here's one of them, from the other thread:
""and that it is connected""" Now I explained the facts to you: """Abortion isn't legal because the fetus is inside the woman, it's legal because it is attached to the woman, a part of her body, and growing using her body.""" You now know the answer...try to remember it... ...and your "space cadet" scenarios are still ridiculous ......better stick to panda bear gestation Even that looks more relevant than this "outside her body " crap...
You said "several" members...that's one. AND it doesn't matter where the fetus is (even outside her body in your assinine scenario), if it's using the woman's body to sustain it's life she has every right to kill it. NO one has the right to use another's body to sustain their life.....The End It is amusing to watch an Anti-Choicer flail about trying so desperately to prove a point they don't have....from panda bears to science fiction, completely devoid of facts..
While we are making up impossible and silly scenarios to play pretend....What if Men has expanding penis walls and gave birth instead of women through the penis? What if an instant human adult came about the instant a sperm met an egg? What if Unicorns farted Helium and everyone floated away?
This is factually incorrect. Pro Choicers argue that the woman has the right to an abortion because she owns her body and the fetus is a part of her body. This is an awful hypothesis because it, first and foremost, is both theoretically- and practically impossible and also is it based on an amazing misinterpretation of the Pro Choice view. Their stance has nothing to do with "inside vs outside". Just like the finger(outside) is part of a woman's body, so is the fetus(inside), they argue. Pro Choicers focus on human beings only. Again, the debate has never been about "inside vs outside" but rather about "part of her body vs its own body" and "not a life vs a life".
When I attach a hose to my car to fill it with gas, that doesn't make the pump a part of the car, or my car a part of the pump.
But you will admit, it's not a part of her body just because it happens to be inside her. Being inside her isn't a logical reason for considering it to be part of her body.
I have discussed my position on this issue many, many times and my posts are available for all to read. As for now, I am not in the mood of getting strawmanned or accused for x and y by the radicals in here.
NO, it's part of her body because it is attached to her, grew from her and because of her. Then why do you keep saying it is?
I think we can cross that bridge if we come to it. It won't even be our bridge to cross, it would be the alien societies bridge. Hypotheticals like this don't do anything to address abortion as it pertains to human beings.
It demonstrates the absurdity of trying to claim the woman has a right over it just because it happens to be inside her. Not all pro-choicers make this argument but many of them do.
No, they don't....and if the fetus is outside of a woman's body like in your little science fiction irrelevant example as long as it's using her body to sustain it's life , SHE CAN KILL IT...
It depends on how you see the prenatal mother-child relationship. The fetus is a new life being brought into the world, and didn't have a choice which mother it would start growing in. No one "put" the fetus there... except the mother and her male sexual partner (who in all probablihood she very likely chose, although in rare instances that wasn't the case).
No, it doesn't depend on how you see it...it depends on laws and rights. So what? Totally irrelevant...that has nothing to do with a woman's right to her own body...
You're making the assumption that a woman has complete and total absolute rights to do whatever she wants with her body under all circumstances, no matter whether that could negatively impact someone else (and in a very direct way, I might add). Should a woman be allowed to drink behind the wheel of a car? Should women be allowed to put drugs into their own bodies?
Like grafting? If that could happen, then maybe Kazenatsu could get pregnant! Would he change his mind about "pruning" if someone grafted him in his sleep?