Why SHOULDN'T women have the same right to bodily autonomy as everyone else? Yes, we ALL do. Women are humans, too.... NOPE, there is NO "someone else". Having sex is not a crime and certainly shouldn't be punished by having a basic human right taken away. Here we go AGAIN.. a raped woman may be in no condition to decide quickly...she may be traumatized, may have been tortured, kidnapped, in surgery, in a coma, have life threatening injuries that need to be attended to FIRST... Your strange idea that women who are raped simply stand up afterwards, pull up their pants and call a taxi to take them to the hospital is naïve at best and blindingly stupid at worst. The fetus has NO RIGHTS. Please be the first to tell me what rights you want the fetus to have that do NOT interfere in the rights of the woman.
Either we have the right to bodily autonomy or we don't. If we don't then we can take the blood of anyone or any spare organs, or bone marrow, or whatever if it's being used to save a life. There is no difference. Either we have the full right to refuse or withdraw the use of our bodily resources, or they have to be given up upon need to maintain a life. Anything else is trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Because she is an actual, individual human being. Rights only apply to human beings and rights include freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. She does. But, not because she is a she. Gender is irrelevant to the matter. No, the fetus is not a someone, but rather a something. The only actual human being is the woman and there is thus no conflict. No, there is no "conflict between lives" because there is only one individual and one body. Yes, because they aren't - fetuses do not have rights.
It seems to me she is only as "individual" as the fetus; the two are connected. "Sharing" the same body, so to speak. See, even you concede they are one body. If there are two brains, it can't really be all the woman's body, can it?
You're going back to the "Violinist Analogy". I have posited there are several reasons why pregnancy is a special case, different from regular organ donation. I have done this in other threads. I don't see any reason to repeat the complicated argument here and derail this thread too much. I can quickly outline some of those reasons though: 1. completely natural biological process necessary to perpetuation of species 2. female obligation, in part due to engaging in activity that could result in pregnancy, in part due to it being her child, and in part due to special responsibility since no one else is available to save the life 3. no long-lasting effects, or any long-lasting effects unlikely and not comparable to something like organ donation.
Uh, you saying pregnancy is a "special case" does NOT make it one. NO one has the right to use another's body to support their life.....so even IF fetuses had rights ( which they DON'T) women would still be able to kill them.
What if you're the one who created the situation where that other person is now dependent on temporary use of your body for survival? To cause someone else a problem and then refuse them life-saving help to solve that problem is kind of like murder.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Uh, you saying pregnancy is a "special case" does NOT make it one. Uh, you saying pregnancy is a "special case" does NOT make it one.
YES, even then... But it isn't... and there is NO "someone else" involved in a woman's pregnancy , just her.
The fetus is connected to its mother in - as crude as it sounds - a very parasite-like way. Not only does it live inside of her, but also of her. Even if we assume the fetus is an indvidual (which it isn't) it is still doing something no indvidual has the right to do - I cannot chain myself to you and put a tube in you, putting you in a situation where you have to carry me around and eat and drink whatever you eat and drink. They are. A brain is not enough to be granted rights. Animals have brains too. Fufthermore, I am not sure how much of a brain a bloody zygote has.
It does not matter. If you choose smoke so much you get cancer, you can still pay to have the living, cancer cells removed, right? [QUOTR]To cause someone else a problem and then refuse them life-saving help to solve that problem is kind of like murder.[/QUOTE] What do you mean "kind of"? Either it is or it is not. And this is actually exactly why abortiom ought to be legal - Denying a woman an abortion by making it illegal is to cause her a problem and refuse to solve it.
Pregnancy is a problem that eventually resolves on its own. It's also not causing the woman a problem. There are two ways to view this: That problem is completely natural and a normal bodily function, or, she played a part in causing the problem. (Unless I am misunderstanding you. To what "problem" specifically are you referring to?)
So is cancer. It is if she does not want it. That is still not a valid reason to demand sacrificing the happiness of an actual human for that of a potential human. Abortion is perfectly rational. You were the one who first used that word. But, I used it for what it is - An unwanted pregnancy is, by definition, a problem. It is a burden on the woman and prevents her from doing what she wants. Forcing her to go through it can also, in extension, cause her child(ren) problems such has having an uninterested, involuntary mother and/or a mother who cannot afford them. Abortion is just a medical procedure and I am against healthcare regulations. I am also a principled advocate of individual rights.
Their are no hypothetical arguements to be made about abortion. It is a constitutional right. End of story.
That's such a disingenuous argument. For starters, it's not even in the Constitution. Your "argument" right there would totally fail to pass the mustard in a logics class.
