Some will say about abortion, "It's her business, not yours" But, consider this... Could you imagine if an abuser of a little child said that in any other situation? ... Now, some will immediately counter with "It's not a child". Okay then, if "it's not a child", then that would render the entire Pro-Life argument completely moot, wouldn't it? "It's not a child" is a totally DIFFERENT argument. It's a deflection from the actual issue. When you say that, you're not really defending the specific "It's her business, not yours" argument; you are trying to change the argument. (In other words, that sort of argument is only so good insofar as the unborn developing human is not a child, it does nothing to justify making it "only her business" if, or insofar as, it does constitute a child. Saying it's not something doesn't justify abortion if it is that something; that makes your argument there entirely dependent on whether it is that thing or not) If you truly believe it's not a child, why even bother making the argument that "It's her business, not yours" ? That seems totally superfluous, doesn't it? Unless you have some other good argument ready. Next, no doubt pro-choicers will pull out the "It's her body" argument. But Pro-Lifers have proved time and time again that it's not her body. You know this is a ridiculous absurd argument, but you have to try to use it anyway because you know that's one of the few things you have. (I mean, it's not like there are a lot of other strong logically convincing arguments)
This is hot competition for the "Most Ridiculous" award with the other ridiculous attempts at logic you've made. Yes, it IS the woman's business. It's her body. It is her privacy. It is her healthcare. This has NOTHING to do with pedophilia.
There's no such thing as an unborn baby, they're called fetuses. Medical schools can even use fetuses for surgical practice because they haven't been born yet.
Nope , not once, not ever. Right back atcha...You know this is a ridiculous absurd argument, but you have to try to use it anyway because you know that's one of the few things you have. (I mean, it's not like there are a lot of other strong logically convincing arguments)
Maybe in a literal and technical sense yes, but saying "It's her business not yours" implies that there is some reason it's not anyone else's business, besides from it not having any value as a human life. If I can give an example, it would be like some political issue where one side argues that something should be left up to individual choice. Sure, it might be that side also argues that making that choice doesn't result in the bad outcome that the other side says it does, but if that was all the whole argument boiled down to then they would just be saying that, and not bringing up the notion of individual choice. Or imagine if a pedophile argued that it should be their choice to have sex with children because it didn't result in harm to the children, with the argument that it should be their choice entirely contingent upon the proposition that children were not hurt by it. Well then, it would be kind of totally superfluous if such a person trying to make that argument went around saying it should be individual choice. That would not actually be getting to the point or the heart of the real issue. It would be a distraction, trying to insinuate something else that would be hard to logically justify. It's dishonest and pointless to be focusing on one argument if you're going to concede that argument entirely hinges on another more basic argument. Why not just talk about that more basic argument? Yet another example might be if you were going to inject me with something, and I was afraid there was a possibility that injection might contain a certain ingredient that could cause harm. You concede that you don't really know whether the injection contains that ingredient, but you insist that ingredient would not pose any harm if it was in there. If your main argument to me was that "There is nothing in this shot to be concerned about", that would be disingenuous because actually that claim of yours hinges on a more basic and specific claim, so why not just argue that?
Statements that apply in one situation don't have to apply in any others. Things are allowed to be specific and in context. Well...yes. The argument is made because it is a counter-argument. When one person criticizes something that another person is doing, that other person will usually create a rebuttal. That's how all debate works. Points and counter-points. Pro and Con. Pro-Lifers have provided no proof that the being that is ME, my intellect, personality, memory, and the body those things live in and are a result of, all it's connected parts and internal systems, everything that makes me ME, is NOT me. Of course it's my body. I would not exist without my body. If I had a different body, I would be a different person and that different person would not exist without that different body. It is literally impossible to prove that you and your body are somehow separate and therefore your body is not actually your body. So, Pro-Lifers have done no such thing.
, Well, fairy tales and your science fiction don't count Which has been explained Value is determined by the woman it's in.
There are such reasons. It's HER body. It's her decision regarding her own healthcare (such as whether to have chemo). It's her decision when questions concerning the fetus must be decided. She is the one who knows whether it was rape. The arguments for bodily autonomy, including at the USSC level, are clear. Pedophilia is an act perpetrated upon a person without consent. Its illegality isn't based on guesses concerning what the "outcome" might be. Your medical example doesn't work, because if you don't want an injection (or any other kind of healthcare) you can reject that care. You have bodily autonomy in healthcare. As we've seen, not even the health of the nation is important enough to override your bodily autonomy.
So is abortion. Unless there is no human being of any inherent value in there. In which case, this has all just become a circular argument now, and it proves my point. Now, you might argue that NOT allowing abortion is "an act perpetrated upon a person without consent." But the same is also true of pedophilia. Isn't it? (Yeah, maybe you need to think about that one for a moment) The difference is that one involves disputed interpretation of what the outcome is, whereas the other involves disputed interpretation of whether the victim exists. (And it's very clear that if a victim does exist, the picture is not so good)
The unborn developing child of very young gestational age can choose to reject the "care" (as you would euphemistically put it) the same as a young child who is sexually propositioned. One could even argue that in the case of abortion, the victim has less choice over it. Other than that, my medical example does work, because we all know there were many "pro-choicers" (when it comes to abortion) who wanted to force people to be injected. (During that coronavirus pandemic) And indeed did actually coerce people to be injected, in a way that came very close to "forcing". Maybe you are oblivious to what is going on in California right now (recently eliminating the very last exceptions on mandatory vaccinations of children). Well, you get the point. We've talked about the forced vaccination hypocrisy issue endlessly before in the Abortion section, so I won't bother derailing this thread or wasting anyone's time by talking about it in this thread.
Not the me that exists today, which is the result of all the time that has gone by since I was a little child. But yes, I was the me at whatever stage of life you're talking about. Who else would it be?
A fetus is NOT a person. Your comments about pedophilia are supremely, unconscionably disgusting. Contemplating that as an analogy requires you to see some BENEFIT in a pedophile attacking a person. What BENEFIT is THAT? There are clear reasons for abortion - reasons that must be evaluated by the woman. The woman is the only person who can make healthcare decisions concerning herself - which clearly includes a fetus if it exists.
You do not have to be vaccinated in CA. A person may reject any and all vaccines as well as other medical care. You can refuse specific parts as well. You may choose to refuse life saving blood transfusion, for example. I think what you mean is that if a child is not protected against certain diseases they form a risk to others in situations of close and constant contact - a risk to others that is evaluated and does affect some decisions concerning state services. You haven't described any hypocrisy.
You claimed my medical example didn't work. It does work, if we assume the hypothetical example of someone trying to force someone else. You seem to be claiming that is not realistic or too far-flung from reality because you claim that it does not exist in real life. I have referred to some examples where it does. I am not going to argue about whether it does or does not exist in this thread, or to what extent it exists. I think that would derail this thread too far off topic, without much point. Like I said before, this has been discussed before in other threads in the Abortion section of this forum.
Again, you don't see the parallel to abortion here? (Let's consider, for example, why the woman got pregnant in the first place)
I think you're dodging the root issue. You want laws written by government to limit women's healthcare decisions. And, that's not acceptable for the many reasons pointed out.
You don't want to go there. You know NOTHING about the circumstances surrounding a woman's impregnation. So ANYTHING you say is just flat out disgusting.
Remember the news story of Larry Nassar, a Michigan gymnastics coach who molested nearly a hundred young female gymnasts? He told them he was giving them a special "treatment". Hmm, now how do pro-choicers describe abortion, again? "Nassar pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting gymnasts and other athletes with his hands under the guise of medical treatment for hip and leg injuries." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/larry-nassar-loses-last-appeal-in-sexual-assault-scandal
WTF! Do you know ANY of the facts of those cases? I don't believe you do. You just weren't disgusting enough already???
Tell us why it's "our business" what Larry Nassar did. Those young girls went along with it, didn't they? Like a fetus, they didn't object at the time.
OK, you are WAY outside anything related to the OP or your understanding of the law. A fetus is NOT A PERSON. Those under a certain age do not have the power to consent. Any claims of consent are not given credence. Those girls were under care. That confers a serious responsibility. Similar charges may be filed against doctors, for example. You need to totally rethink your entire position. It's clearly based on your idea that a fetus is a person, a point of failure in all your arguments. And, you aren't even TRYING to address that central element.
