Is a body inside your body...your body?

Nov 2018
4,225
2,215
Inner Space
....
* There is no problem with an abortion procedure, with the exception of one thing, which is the tearing the fetus up into pieces.

An abortion procedure seems to involve an extra, unnecessary, and hazardous step. What if an abortion procedure were simply carried out without tearing up the fetus? It would be one less step to deal with & that cuts down on the amount of time spent on the process; it would also be safer, since there isn't the risk of leaving behind baby pieces that'll fester & could kill a woman after having an abortion. Am I wrong? Is there something I'm missing? If tearing up the fetus is only being done for political reasons, because the abortionist has to jump through legal loopholes, then let's fix whatever it is about the legal system so that the end result is that the abortionist no longer has to tear up the fetus. I can't imagine why there would be a biological reason that makes it impossible to terminate a pregnancy without this step of tearing up the fetus, but since apparently you're the biology expert who knows everything that's involved here, maybe you can explain why it's "biologically" or "medically" needed - if this is the case.
I don't have time to comment on your entire diatribe. However, I will make a few arguments:

The central problem with your argument is the assertion that a fertilized egg is a human because a human starts as a fertilized egg. You could a well assert that a human is an egg and a sperm because a human starts from those two cells.
Furthermore, you seem to be implying that the pregnant female has no independent rights over her own body.
So from those assumptions, you have now tried to create a violent act against a human being.

Most medical procedures are considered repulsive to the average person. There are people who have extreme anxiety and fear from just SEEING a sharp instrument or needle. However you wish to characterize abortion, it is not any more dramatic than most other surgery and less than many.

Unfortunately, there is no discussion possible when your argument depends upon fundamentally flawed assumptions and assertions. I think most libertarians support women's bodily autonomy and right of pregnant women to choose what to do with her pregnancy. Extreme positions on abortions are just not compatible with biology and reasonable government. Pregnancy is a process. At one extreme is one or more cells that are alive but not autonomous and at the other is a viable human being.

So, unfortunately, decisions that are not going be correct at all stages of pregnancy need to be made depending upon the stage of pregnancy. The concept of bodily integrity (the right to make decisions about ones own body) argues that a women's right to choose should apply to most of pregnancy for any poorly developed fetus. However, a societal interest develops as the fetus achieves more and more viability in the final weeks of pregnancy because the woman is hosting a viable person and the societal interest would increase in that circumstance. A women's right to self-preservation should reasonably predominant, however, if there is a threat to her life at any point in pregnancy.

There will be the occasional pregnancy termination before about 26 weeks that might have produced a viable infant after a c-section and intensive care.
However, that remotely possible survival should not be the sole determinant of the medical choices made by the pregnancy woman. The unique circumstances of pregnancy (the woman's body supports the growing fetus completely), mean that the pregnant woman has unique authority over the circumstances in HER body until that stage of pregnancy where the fetus has achieved clear viability.

Pregnancy is a complex and changing process; it is not a single event that can be easily judged by a simple legal description or regulation.
 
Nov 2005
8,807
3,299
California
Let's think about the concept raised in the subject line and apply it to another situation...
Is a body inside your body...your body?
If a body is inside my house, does that make it "my body"?
Of course not, but that's not the point.

A body within my house, without my consent, is trespassing and culpable to being evicted.
Plain and simple.
 
Jun 2019
380
118
ROT
I've asked Progressives to define the unborn as parasites to justify ending their lives but they refuse.

Yet they still favor abortion

That should tell us all something about who they are.
Most won't call a fetus a parasite, but fetuses are "parasitic". They eat the calcium right off of their mother's bones to make their own. It's quite a little war they have going between the two of them...

Why pregnancy is a biological war between mother and baby | Aeon Essays
 
May 2019
337
47
Oklahoma
Let's think about the concept raised in the subject line and apply it to another situation...
Is a body inside your body...your body?
If a body is inside my house, does that make it "my body"?
Of course not, but that's not the point.

A body within my house, without my consent, is trespassing and culpable to being evicted.
Plain and simple.
Cool. So my exact argument towards illegal aliens.
 
Nov 2005
8,807
3,299
California
Cool. So my exact argument towards illegal aliens.
Since you see them as the same argument, what is your consistency?

Do you see the argument as valid for both illegal aliens and for abortion?
Or do you pick and choose which argument you want to apply it to?

For my own position, I do not agree with the more extreme views on the left on immigration.
Illegal immigrants can be removed from this country by the federal government. The country has the right to set a policy on that.
My consistency...
 
May 2018
3,970
2,939
USA
If she happens to survive the rape, what's the correct anti-choice answer? Charge her with premeditated murder after she has an abortion?
It is in Alabama. Hear about that case down there where the cops were going to file murder charges against the pregnant woman who was shot in the stomach (because the all-important fetus died)? Public outcry got so loud they dropped plans to file, but it shows how disgusting the southern Red States are.
 
Likes: Rescue Basket
Nov 2017
2,161
993
.
Let's think about the concept raised in the subject line and apply it to another situation...
Is a body inside your body...your body?
If a body is inside my house, does that make it "my body"?
Of course not, but that's not the point.

A body within my house, without my consent, is trespassing and culpable to being evicted.
Plain and simple.
That actually makes me think of an interesting thought experiment as a way to look at this. Suppose there are two individuals in your house, with your consent & one's a male and the other's a female; they proceed to engage in coitus, and as a result there is the union of a sperm cell with an egg which has spawned into a new life form. Is this new life form that spawned without your consent trespassing? Suppose you're renting your house to this couple for at least a year; your agreement is 2 people & after 9 months the 2 people turned into 3 people - what about that?

I agree that someone who's trespassing is culpable to being evicted; does that mean you can evict them by ripping their bodies apart into pieces and removing them in separated body parts?
 
Jul 2019
21
10
TX
It would have to be considered a parasite if not human. Without the male implanting the fetus it would never be there to begin with, meaning her body did not grow it. And if the woman does not want it, then it becomes an unwelcome guest, just like a parasite.
a male doesn't "implant a fetus" if they did that, they could just have the baby themselves.... imagine those labor pains...
 

Similar Discussions