The Forum > General Discussion > Remember your Abortionist with a Donation this Mother's Day
Remember your Abortionist with a Donation this Mother's Day
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
<<Only one person should hold decisions over the processes of an individuals body and that should be the person who occupies it.>>
According to your logic therefore, the only person who can decide over the processes of the foetus’ individual body is the foetus who occupies that body.
The fact that they are not able to make that decision is irrelevant because a one-day old child is equally incapable of making those decisions and hopefully you wouldn’t advocate the mother’s right to kill a one-day old child.
Sheltering behind arbitrary definitions which ascribe personhood only to the born is not valid either.
Otherwise we would have the absurd situation of identical twins where the first one out is a person
and the one remaining is a non-person.
You may then argue that the foetus is just part of the mother’s body but you yourself give the foetus autonomy by stating that “a fetus is a temporary occupant of a womans body”.
ie It is separate.
Then you say that the foetus can “expect to have only subordinate rights to those of the woman”
when in fact abortion is a total negation of rights.
To be truthful you would have to say that the foetus has zero in utero rights.
Yours would be absolute justification for abortion at any time for any reason.
I would disagree and argue that they have competing rights and that the severity of the situation should be the determinant of whose rights prevail.
eg, if a woman went to her doctor and said that she wanted an abortion because her 34 week old foetus made her look fat then her right to be vain would be subordinate to the foetus' right to life.
Your absolutist argument would invert those rights.
In contradistinction, where a mother's life was threatened by proceeding with a pregnancy the reverse argument might apply.
So while your homily may sound appealing to someone who is still trying to justify her decision of 22 years ago
(and no it wasn’t me at the clinic Jewely), it is internally inconsistent.