Bodily autonomy is the only right actually at play here. If someone (even a born person) lives in or off of my body, I have the right to evict. Not one of us has a right to use any body other than our own without consent.
No, an unfertilized egg is different from a fetus.
Having two full trimesters to abort and choosing to keep it is the consent. What you’re arguing for is the right to change your mind for any reason and at any time. Which is my question…is there truly no point where the “right to choose” has been exercised? Why not?
I take it you recognize the problem with your landlord analogies.I have already answered a derivation of this question and my answer remains the same: Abortion during pregancy is justifiable because of self-ownership.
we have a precedent for forcing people to keep their word after consent
Supporting absolute ownership rights at any time for any reason for abortion only is special pleading.
As I see it the real debate is when does a woman give consent to a pregnancy
Also, we have a deterrent against breaking the agreement. You certainly can't force landlord or tenant to do anything. You can make them sorry they didn't honor their word. But, again, there is no agreement or promise for an unwanted pregnancy
I think that having five solid months to abort and choosing not to is more than enough to give consent.
I haven’t seen any argument from you for why choosing not to abort a fetus for five, six, or seven months doesn’t qualify as consent to being pregnant
I’m not seeing a clear standard here
Plus, you are discounting the fact that consent can be withdrawn. A woman can consent to sex and change her mind during the act and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Consent is conditional, provisional, subject to change.
Moral questions are balancing acts, in the case of someone no longer wanting to have sex the other party doesn’t have a moral claim to sex.
Breaking a lease randomly and kicking a tenant out with zero notice is a harm to them, which is why something like that is regulated.
So the question becomes when has the right to choose been exercised?
Exodus 21:22 is, however, a part of the Bible that actually does mention the fetus. “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”This is fascinating because it outlines specific punishments for specific crimes. If a woman is hurt in a struggle and then has a miscarriage, the penalty is a fine, a mere financial payment. But, if there is further harm, likely meaning the woman has long-term and serious injuries or even dies, then the culprit could be killed. In other words, the life and well-being of the woman, the mother, is of much greater significance than those of her unborn child.
The Bible has no place in a secular government so it doesn't really matter what it says.
What fascinates me is how it is the left wing that is being so psychopathic and the right wing being so empathetic, considering that the mother's position is that of the merciless landlord's and fetus that of the helpless squatter in this analogy.
Exodus 21:22 is, however, a part of the Bible that actually does mention the fetus. “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”This is fascinating because it outlines specific punishments for specific crimes. If a woman is hurt in a struggle and then has a miscarriage, the penalty is a fine, a mere financial payment. But, if there is further harm, likely meaning the woman has long-term and serious injuries or even dies, then the culprit could be killed. In other words, the life and well-being of the woman, the mother, is of much greater significance than those of her unborn child.
well, except for the fact that nearly all elected officials in the united states claim to be "christian"
What fascinates me is how it is the left wing that is being so psychopathic and the right wing being so empathetic, considering that the mother's position is that of the merciless landlord's and fetus that of the helpless squatter in this analogy.
The Bible has no *legitimate* place in a secular government. Better?
Child mortality or the under-five mortality rate refers to the probability of a child dying between birth and exactly 5 years of age, expressed per 1,000 live births. In 2020, 5.0 million children under 5 years of age died. This translates to 13,800 children under the age of 5 dying every day in 2020.Yeah, I'm real worried about fetuses.
Out of curiosity how do you feel about mandating child support from fathers who want nothing to do with their child
It’s certainly something. The dehumanizing language like calling the fetus a parasite
or talking about killing it as an “eviction” definitely upsets me but it is what it is.
I don’t know if I could ever support abortion but I understand how someone could early on.
There’s this thing, it’s the size of a blueberry, it looks like an alien and isn’t conscious etc. But you can see what babies who are born at 30 weeks (who have a 99% chance of survival) look like, saying it’s okay to kill them because of the bodily autonomy of someone after months and months of not aborting is crazy to me
but in the US there really is a core group of advocates who won’t accept even the tiniest restriction. As evidenced by this thread
but in the US there really is a core group of advocates who won’t accept even the tiniest restriction.
You're not wrong, but I am hopeful killing Roe to satisfy religious sensibilities will bring a stronger advocacy to the separation of state and religion.
so it would certainly not be appropriate to have men skip while women have no choice.
