Abortion is based on the theory of equivalence

Abortion is based on the theory of equivalence.

The idea behind abortion is that a woman has the right to control her own body.
Only, an abortion doesn't actually involve doing some to a woman's body (at least not directly); it involves doing something to the fetus.

The idea behind this is that, if a fetus were forcibly removed from a woman's body, it would not survive. The woman (presumably) having the right to separate herself from the fetus, she should then also have the right to kill the fetus, for the two both result in the same outcome: death to the fetus.

But this is a dangerous philosophy. Saying that I have the right to kill you, because I could have chosen something else (justifiably) that would result in you not being alive.

It goes against all deontological ethics.

So rather, abortion proponents must rely on consequentialist ethics, in this case. Consequentialist ethics is only concerned with the outcome. And since the two hypothetical outcomes are similar, they are seen as pragmatically equivalent, by this perspective.

The fetus being divided up into little pieces negates the woman's cervix from having to be pried open wider than it is in a standard abortion procedure. As such, it is much more convenient to her to just directly and intentionally kill the fetus first, rather than leaving it to die on its own after being removed.

Some will ask, what's the point of not tearing the fetus's body into smaller pieces?
It won't be alive long enough to benefit from not being torn apart. And meanwhile, a benefit accrues to the woman, by doing it that way.

Now let it be pointed out that a fetus has to come out of a woman sometime or another, after she gets pregnant. There is no way to avoid having an impact on her body.

The entire ethical concept seems to be that aborting the fetus inside the womb is morally/ethically equivalent to removing the fetus from the womb, and letting it die as an inevitable consequence of that.

But I will pose the question: is that really true?
Do you think the two are morally equivalent, exactly?
Are there any differences, even if subtle, from an ethical point of view?

 

The ZEF is part of the woman's body. It has no rights. Women do.

 

I realize the feeling behind it and even appreciate trying to stand up for those who can't defend themselves. Preventing government control over ones body is not just moral, it is our responsibility.

 

Until it is born, the zef is part of the woman's body. She has a right to remove anything she doesn't want there. Mind your own uterus, OP, and let me mind mine.

 

This argument would apply if that was not the case. Do you have a problem arguing contingencies?

Because I almost get the feeling that pro-choicers are constantly trying to change the argument. "It doesn't matter, because of this "


Just because the fact you place your entire argument hinging on the claim that the fetus is a part of the woman's body, does not mean every other pro-choicer does.
And besides, that argument has been addressed in the past here, multiple threads about it. So let's try to stay on topic...

 

LOL!
YUP, wild theories don't matter when FACTS enter.

There is NO "contingency" to women having the basic human right of bodily autonomy.

PS, YOU are the one trying to change the argument.

 

So that is your argument, and you don't feel your side needs to argue anything else?

Sorry, this thread is not about that. If you want to debate whether a woman has a right to an abortion for the reason of it being part of her body, you should start a new thread.

(And you can always just post a link to that thread here, if you want)

If you want to argue that the concept of bodily autonomy somehow applies in a way I did not cover in the opening post, then you should discuss that, and you should have provided more detail, because just screaming "bodily autonomy!" is pretty meaningless here.

 

LOL!
YUP, wild theories don't matter when FACTS enter.

There is NO "contingency" to women having the basic human right of bodily autonomy.

PS, YOU are the one trying to change the argument.

I don't speak for "my side".

That's the bottom line....everything else falls by the wayside...

Why do you always cherry pick my posts? Ya know, everyone can see what you are avoiding

 

Do you even understand what I meant by that?

I meant contingency, as in do you want to have another argument ready about something else in case your main leading front-line argument breaks apart or you end up losing that argument in another debate.

You basically seem to be saying "I'm not going to argue about that, because I'm right somewhere else, and since I'm right somewhere else, the thing you're talking about wouldn't matter."

 

I've noticed that in every thread I start, people change the topic to the claim of the fetus being part of the woman's body, and when I start a topic to discuss the claim of the fetus being a part of the woman's body, people change the topic to a fetus not being a person, and when I start a topic about the issue of the fetus being a person, they change the topic to a fetus not having any critical physical indicators of humanity, and when I start a topic about the physical indicators of humanity in a fetus, people then mostly just ignore that also and want to switch the discussion to the woman having a right to abort anyway, because it's part of her body. So we're back to the very beginning.
Seems like an intellectually dishonest way to have any discussion. Or at least a game of massive deflection and avoidance.

Maybe the people who do this are just not smart enough to win an argument with me? No matter which aspect of the debate they pick.

 

From your OP : ""The idea behind abortion is that a woman has the right to control her own body.""


Bodily autonomy...

No, it's just that you're wrong.

Pointing out facts is NOT changing the subject...... seems to be something you don't want to deal with..

 

Something you do not care to debate with me.

Abortion has multiple different aspects to it. I am just trying to focus on one here in this thread, but you seem to want to change the argument to being about another.

A little heads up: Not every thread in the Abortion section is about Abortion as a general topic.
I see this same problem in the Religion & Philosophy section. People who can't handle a discussion about something, so they have to change the discussion to be about something else.

 

What did you want to debate? We have debated every aspect of abortion and women's rights and you have lost every debate...

LOL! Ya, that's what an Abortion Forum is for...

 

Wrong out of the gate ...
The fetus IS part of the woman's body so abortion does something to the WOMAN'S body, it removes part....by very DIRECTLY going inside her body....that's quite direct...

 

Its very simple, if the woman doesn't want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death

 

So you're talking about the 1.5% of abortions that occur late in a pregnancy and usually because of medical problems when
you talk about "cutting up" the fetus. Since 91% of all abortions are done when the fetus is less than the size of your finger, no "cutting up" is required.

 

Again, you're changing the argument again. I have debated that aspect in other threads.

If it helps us move this discussion along, yes, hypothetically if the fetus were a part of the woman's body or a fetus had no humanity inherent to it, the entire opening post would be irrelevant and a moot point.
However, that is is not the discussion we are focusing on in this thread.

Are you incapable of having that discussion? Or do you not care to, because you rest assured that your other arguments are adequate enough to defend your side?

Or do you concede the point that if a fetus were a person, and were not part of the woman's body it is in (etc, absent any other argument concerning something else), that my argument in the opening post would be right?

 

If it were a person and inside her body she still has every right to have it taken out.

No person has the right to use another's body to sustain it's life...

 

And that's the argument you have so far refused to address.

 

Duh! That's the premise this entire thread is based upon!

My specific argument wasn't that the woman is obligated to sustain life, it was that maybe, even with that being the case, the woman doesn't have a right to kill it.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
If it were a person and inside her body she still has every right to have it taken out.

WHAT argument? I stated a fact ...

 

And that's ALL you have. Claims, but no arguments to back them up.


Plus, you are repeatedly being off-topic. Like I already stated, this thread isn't about that.

 

Then why didn't you just say that 20 posts ago.

The women has a right to kill it since it has no right to use her body to sustain it's life.

Everyone has a right to protect themselves from being harmed.

 

How does the one connect to the other?

That's what this thread is discussing.

 

So you're relying on the old "self-defense" analogy crutch...


It would cause her "harm" if it was taken out, therefore she has a right to kill. That way, when it is taken out (dead and in little pieces), it will cause her less harm.

That basically seems to be your argument.