Your arm, so your choice.
Take note of the bolded words.
I believe entirely on people should have the right to whatever they want to there body, but a fetus/baby isn't part of the woman's body, therefore, its not her choice.
Your arm, so your choice.
I am making the point that when you are having sex with someone else, there is a probability that through biological processes, a baby could be conceived.
Sex is defined as a way to impregnate, or become pregnant, or a way to feel pleasure [...]
I believe entirely on people should have the right to whatever they want to there body, but a fetus/baby isn't part of the woman's body, therefore, its not her choice.
The womb belongs to the woman. Her womb, her choice, right?
I am making the point that when you have sex with someone else, there is a probability that through biological processes, a repeat performance could be conceived. The same overly broad definition which conflates consent to sex/consent to pregnancy distorts consent into a nonsensical and meaningless conception.
Even by this definition, pleasure and pregnancy are not tied together. Sex can be for pleasure, pregnancy, or both.
Yes, but were not talking about her womb. Were talking about the fetus/baby.
So do you believe that the autonomy of the instructor ought to trump to life of the kids and that they should be able to break the agreement to keep them safe, instead opting to drive off to leave them for death?
The womb belongs to the woman. Her womb, her choice, right?Yes, but were not talking about her womb. Were talking about the fetus/baby.
So, if someone latches on to your arm, that is effectively their arm now?
So, if someone latches on to your arm, that is effectively their arm now?
So, if someone latches on to your arm, that is effectively their arm now?No. And you can remove them from your arm without killing them.
Let's say you can't. Lets say you wake up in the morning to discover you were kidnapped in the middle of the night and someone was attached to your arm. You start to remove the tubes from your arm, but are told they will die without compounds in your blood. They should be independent in 9 months or so. What do you do?
Is the person who is attached to your arm, the one who kidnapped you?
Ok then. Another question. Has the person who is attached to your arm also been kidnapped?
Unknown.
Simple answer, you ask them.
Either way on what they say, it's not your decision if they die. It is the person who put you in that situation, who will be the real killer.
Another fact also. You didn't consent do being kidnaped.Again I at this point I am only arguing against abortions that have been done with consensual sex.
No. It is through Choice and Choice alone, that a repeat process could be conceived. It is through Biological processes that a pregnancy could occur.
Please clarify which week of pregnancy forward you are opposed to ending it.
Being pro choice for abortion and being against abortion is conflicting.
You're arguing pregnancy is biological but sexual desire is not? Ok. 😆
That goes against what you said earlier - that person is not your body. So is it 'my body, my choice' or not?
Consent to sex is consent to sex right now...not anything else; not pregnancy. That is simply a gross misunderstanding on your part.
it seems kind of like you are trying to end the conversation and have the last word.
Semantically killing a human being, sure.I don't understand the need to specify "semantically" - it's like if a Nazi were to say "were ok fine we are semantically killing people but...". Why oughn't we just accept that abortion kills a human period?
I've encountered a thought experiment I would be interested in having your feedback on.Suppose you are a camp instructor and you were bringing 3 kids onto a camping trip for 1 month. You sign the contract that you'll keep them safe, give them their resources and teach them about the wild life etc. In the fine prints, there is also the stipulation that in the case that an avalance occurs, you will be given access to a safehouse with food and resources, and you must sustain the lives of the children. This of course means you lose liberty (you cannot go away, you cannot leave the children, you eat and sleep bad, you are forced into certain acts of care etc). So do you believe that the autonomy of the instructor ought to trump to life of the kids and that they should be able to break the agreement to keep them safe, instead opting to drive off to leave them for death?