There is only one valid reason. The person whose bodily functions are being used, has to consent to said use, and such consent can be withdrawn at any time. When there is lack of consent, then the other cannot use the one's bodily functions. As noted before, the duel is not actually equivalent to an abortion, because it is not a situation of one using the other's body against their will.
Pro-choicers sort of believe she did that when she got pregnant. Not any time. We all agree (or most of us do) that there should be some gestational limit, after which it is too late for her to change her mind. So we can agree that there are limits on consent. Are you familiar with the concept of implied consent? Or actions that are legally tantamount to consent? (You may not want something, but you did something knowing what the consequences could be) There's also one pro-life theory out there that a woman's bodily functions are not entirely "hers" during the pregnancy, from a standpoint of bioethics and natural rights. Oh for gosh sakes, we're talking about a mother and her developing child! At the very least, she as an obligation to finish giving life if she brought that new human being into existence.
Seems like more of a pro-lifer position to me. True, not at any time. First and foremost, it cannot be withdrawn after the event. And there are somethings that are "past the point of no return". Such as after being put under, but before the actual surgery (as an example, not intended to be directly comparable. Why yes. It's a common argument by rapists that by dressing a certain way a woman is consenting to sex, or that by being married that a spouse consents to sex at any time. Consequences are not necessarily consent. And I can see the logic that being pregnant is a consequence of other actions. Hopefully you hold for the exception of rape, regardless of rarity, since there was no consent there, implied or otherwise. But while some consequences cannot be gotten out of, such as jail time or fines, others can be such as a broken leg. It is that later that is the equivalent to pregnancy. I've heard it. But if the idea that another's life overrides one's right of bodily autonomy, then by the same logic, we can just take one's redundant organs (a kidney, a lung, skin grafts, blood) without consent of the one, in order to save the life of the other. Quite honestly, I would find that a more persuasive argument for the result of having sex without any form of birth control. But saying that a woman is required to give birth when birth control fails, is the same as saying that a person with a broken leg, is obligated to keep it because safety equipment failed. Sure she knew that it was possible to get pregnant even with BC, but he also knew it was possible for his leg to get broken even with the appropriate safety equipment.
I noted the fetus has less rights than the woman, those rights range next to none at fertilization to full human rights at birth. Human rights are subjective and assigned by society. If the woman did not "cause" the pregnancy is she free to abort? Would you have a woman give birth against her will even if she "caused" it? Whose rights would you be giving precedence to? The big picture is it is a cost benefit decision and 95% of women who have had an abortion think they made the right decision at the time. Can we agree the courts can convict the innocent? The same laws are used to convict the guilty and the innocent. In order not to kill the innocent ("pro-life") laws that could be used to do that should be repealed.
NO, they do NOT! That is a Anti-Choice position... There are no limits on consent , there are limits on elective abortions... And they would be, as usual, wrong. AGAIN, where is this "obligation law" ????? You have NEVER shown where there is a law that says women are obligated to gestate
How many times will you be asked to prove that women have an obligation to give birth before you produce proof that they do ? Why do you keep repeating it with no proof....are you paid to say it? You have no proof yet keep saying it....why is that ????
Here's some more INCONVENIENT questions to ignore : What is the group called that is against legalizing dueling? What action have they taken to prevent the legalization of dueling? What is the name of the "abortion supporter" that doesn't want to legalize dueling? What is the name of the group that wants to legalize dueling??? BTW, the term "abortion supporter" is simply emotional flamebait…. ..the true term for those who believe women have the same rights as everyone else is "Pro-Choice".
I've no doubt that any who would support duels in modern time would not see it as murder. Actually, I have no problems with duels, within the limits I described earlier, and would not consider the death a murder in those specific circumstances.
How many times will you be asked to prove that women have an obligation to give birth before you produce proof that they do ? Why do you keep repeating it with no proof....are you paid to say it? You have no proof yet keep saying it....why is that ???? Here's some more INCONVENIENT questions to ignore : What is the group called that is against legalizing dueling? What action have they taken to prevent the legalization of dueling? What is the name of the "abortion supporter" that doesn't want to legalize dueling? What is the name of the group that wants to legalize dueling??? BTW, the term "abortion supporter" is simply emotional flamebait…. ..the true term for those who believe women have the same rights as everyone else is "Pro-Choice". Funny how , when challenged with facts , OP disappears
Well, it's like this, the Anti-Choicers have no real or good argument to take away women's rights so they imagine all kinds of wierd scenarios in a vain attempt to prove a point that they never had
Of all the bullshit Twaddle trotted out to try and justify interfering in something that is really none of anyone else’s business this is the most pathetic
It shows that the pro-choice position relies on logic that is inconsistent. If you don't support legalization of dueling, then surely the argument about abortion that it is "none of anyone else's business" is a double standard. Why would you think that two persons willingly entering into a duel would be "anyone else's business"? Isn't that a blatant double standard? Your instincts and reason tell you that dueling should not be legal. But why can't you see how those same reasons apply to abortion? I'm asking you to identify the reasons why dueling should be illegal, so you can see those same reasons as they would apply to abortion. Surely you have to admit, many of the same reasons do apply. If you want to argue abortion should still be legal, due to other reasons, then fine. But I am just asking you not to use arguments for abortion when you know those type of arguments don't hold up when it comes to the issue of dueling (or many other issues). That's what analogies can do; they can allow you to see logic without bias associated with specific political issues.
Yet YOU can't show this alleged lack of logic using only the abortion issue …..you should be able to do that without bringing in something so hilarious as dueling. Dueling involves two people, abortion involves only one. Support of the right to bodily autonomy( the right to choose either abortion or gestation) does NOT hinge on it's "none of anyone's business". No, it isn't....legal dueling, like murder, would cause chaos in society....hence it's illegal. Abortion does not , and has not, created chaos in society. They don't ... See above. No. Maybe GOOD analogies do but the bad one here is too ridiculous...
So what? Even if hypothetically (and it is VERY hypothetical) that were true, how would that be relevant? You think one person can consent but not two?
Then maybe pro-choicers will be kind enough to stop using that argument. Huh, what? It didn't cause any chaos in society (well, not any more than abortion). Dueling went on for around a century in the early history of the US. Do you have some sort of complex historical argument why dueling created a destabilizing influence on the fabric of early American society?
This is the Abortion Forum, not the dueling forum.... In the case of abortion, the TOPIC, there is only one person , the pregnant one.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Support of the right to bodily autonomy( the right to choose either abortion or gestation) does NOT hinge on it's "none of anyone's business". I haven't seen it used as an "argument" but it IS a statement of FACT. Will you be kind enough to quit making up silly "arguments" about abortion that have nothing to do with abortion? No, because I never claimed dueling created a destabilizing influence on the fabric of early American society. But "murder for fun" does , legalized murder, does create chaos and that is why it's illegal. I see cherrypicking posts is still your way around inconvenient things
