Originally posted by ilikecomics
What do you think of this ?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism
I think it solves the problem in a way that nods to your argument that the whole abortion debacle is choosing the least sucky option out of a bunch of sucky options.
Because so far I don't disagree with what you're saying, other than property rights not being absolute.
P.s. this is nuanced and agrees with your point on justifiable reactions to squatters.
I would actually say that I am closer to departurism than evictionism. 😛
Originally posted by Nibedicusit's physically attached!
Because our humanity is not dictated by what or who we depend on? That our needs do not dictate our life’s value? That being a provider does not give you the right to own someone? That this concept does not morally apply for basically everything else in this regard (being a provider giving you ownership/control/discretion over another person) but for some reason “biological” suddenly carries with it absolute power?
It'll die if removed prematurely!
That is not a civilian.
Originally posted by Blakemore
it's physically attached!It'll die if removed prematurely!
That is not a civilian.
Still not a criteria you can use to determine that you own another life.
Ever heard of premies? They survive when removed even at early stages. As medical science improves the success rate will keep going up and the point of extractio becomes earlier and earlier. The process of Abortion isn’t to remove the child but to kill then remove.
What’s not a civilian?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
Originally posted by NibedicusI've had enough. You believe if you don't want a woman to have an abortion, your opinion is more important than how she chooses to live her life. I'm done.
Still not a criteria you can use to determine that you own another life.Ever heard of premies? They survive when removed even at early stages. As medical science improves the success rate will keep going up and the point of extractio becomes earlier and earlier. The process of Abortion isn’t to remove the child but to kill then remove.
What’s not a civilian?
Pro-choice. I think it's chilling to suggest that if a person gets pregnant they lose control over their own body. I try to imagine what it would be like to have someone growing inside me and I'm horrified by the idea of rescinding control over that process my government.
I recently read about a story about a woman in Northern Ireland (where abortion used to be illegal) whose unborn baby was declared fatally ill, but she was not allowed to have an abortion. So she was forced to carry the dying foetus to term knowing that as soon as it was born it would die painfully.
There are huge ethical concerns involved in terms of having an abortion, yes, but that is a decision for the mother alone to make and to live with.
EDIT: I also think it's very easy for people without uteruses to have discussions about this knowing that they will never have to face this situation themselves.
Originally posted by cdtmI'm pretty sure that is already an option.
If you can save the child In removing, who wouldn't choose that?The point is the remove the occupancy, not kill the occupant.
That would be an entirely different argument, to choose death over an alternative that satisfies both sides.
Originally posted by Blakemore
I've had enough. You believe if you don't want a woman to have an abortion, your opinion is more important than how she chooses to live her life. I'm done.
I didn’t say that my opinion is more important, man. Let me clarify: it is about how I see the morality of it. I still will not impose it upon another person.
It was a good discussion. Thanks! 👆