Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis wouldn't be true in the case of rape.
"Woman's right to self-autonomy over the things in her body ceases at the instant of conception".
This is a corollary to the discussion on abortion happening over in spirituality, where everything is always groovy.
Halitose will be developing the argument stated above.
If someone plugged Bosse de Nage into my internal organs without my consent, such that he couldn't survive if I then detached him, I wouldn't be obliged to keep him plugged in. It would be nice of me to keep him plugged in, as a supererogatory favour, but certainly I would not be obliged to. What goes for Bosse de Nage goes for an unborn child in this instance.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThanks for the ride, Pinocchio.
If someone plugged Bosse de Nage into my internal organs without my consent, such that he couldn't survive if I then detached him, I wouldn't be obliged to keep him plugged in.
(We should wait for Halitose to make his deposition before anyone gets plugged in).
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's true.
"Woman's right to self-autonomy over the things in her body ceases at the instant of conception".
This is a corollary to the discussion on abortion happening over in spirituality, where everything is always groovy.
Halitose will be developing the argument stated above.
Imagine if the Blessed Virgin met Dr. Morgentaler.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSome say it ends the moment she puts on a short skirt.
"Woman's right to self-autonomy over the things in her body ceases at the instant of conception".
[Please forward my award for least appropriate gag to the mountains of Afghanistan, where I shall be in hiding.]
Perhaps the whole thread is based on a premise our right-wing and anti-abortion friends don't share. Maybe they don't believe that ANYONE has a right to self-autonomy; thus the State can legitimately ban whatever behavior they please with enforceable criminal penalties. If this is their position it would explain why none of them had anything to say in the thread concerning the Lockean foundation of the US system; they don't believe in it. Would any of the right-wingers and/or anti-abortionists here like to express the view that the Framers were wrong and no one has any "inalienable" rights at all?
Originally posted by no1marauderAuthoritarian extremists of both the left and right would prefer to deprive others of their autonomy (in different spheres); libertarian moderates of both the left and right would prefer to grant others their autonomy (in different spheres).
Perhaps the whole thread is based on a premise our right-wing and anti-abortion friends don't share. Maybe they don't believe that ANYONE has a right to self-autonomy; thus the State can legitimately ban whatever behavior they please with enforceable criminal penalties. If this is their position it would explain why none of them had anything to say in ...[text shortened]... o express the view that the Framers were wrong and no one has any "inalienable" rights at all?
I don't really understand why anti-abortionists whose objections are largely religious can't just come out and say "I believe in an immortal soul which is present, in some form, from the moment of conception". Rather they present bogus arguments against, or more often just make snide remarks about, perfectly reasonable liberal positions (e.g. bbarr's, based on achieved personhood).
It's as if they are ashamed to say it.
Originally posted by dottewellI agree. That argument is at least based on faith.
I don't really understand why anti-abortionists whose objections are largely religious can't just come out and say "I believe in an immortal soul which is present, in some form, from the moment of conception". Rather they present bogus arguments against, or more often just make snide remarks about, perfectly reasonable liberal positions (e.g. bbarr's, based on achieved personhood).
It's as if they are ashamed to say it.
Perhaps you will rattle the cage of a pro-lifer or two with your question.
Originally posted by wibAn argument based on premise is no better or worse then an argument based on faith.
I agree. That argument is at least based on faith.
Perhaps you will rattle the cage of a pro-lifer or two with your question.
An argument based on facts is better then both of these in my opinion.