Ah heck.
Debalic wrote:
Not other bodies, their own bodies.
The action itself is performed with your own body though. You move your arm in a manner which causes your fist to strike another. We would never excuse the fact that you harmed someone else by declaring your right to move your arm as an absolute right, would we? That's the point I'm trying to get across. Abortion is no more a "right" than moving your arm (and no less). The question isn't whether you have a right to control your own body, but whether the result of that action causes harm to someone else that overrides that right of control.
Quote:
You can't rob, assault, murder and rape because you are performing an act upon another person.
Yes. It's the effect of the act on others that matters here. Which kinda makes the question of when a developing embryo/fetus should be considered a "person" with its own right not to be killed somewhat critical, right? Assuming we agree that the fetus has that right at 9 months, just minutes prior to being born (do we agree on this?), then where is the point prior to that where you think it does not have that right? That's the "question" of abortion, and it's absolutely not a solved and set in stone thing. Not remotely close.
Unless you're actually willing to state that elective abortion is an absolute right up to the moment of birth, then you already hold a position that a fetus has rights (or at least that there must be some right involved that should counter the woman's right to control her body). So it seems silly to go so far out of your way to avoid thinking about what that right is, where it comes from, and what method we should use to measure it relative to that woman's right. Doubly so when the same people engaged in this intellectual avoidance seem to be the ones most emotionally invested in the issue itself. It's like you're upset at anyone opposing "the right to choose", but you can't define that choice itself. Dunno. Just seems strange.
Edited, Nov 20th 2015 12:40pm by gbaji