Re: So, is miscarriage murder?
by
RalphS
07/10/2008, 11:47 PM
DBuss:
Remember saying “difficult choices” and “almost anything is worth it”? You’re engaged in a grand plan to take power away from women and give it to the State. Knowledge is power, so keeping women ignorant is strongly in your interests.
Same comment, and preventing informed medical decisions is the entire purpose of what you’re trying to do.
Really? You really think that's what it's all about? That people who oppose abortion are just doing it to be mean to women? No wonder your vision of a post-legal-abortion America is over-the-top. You're one of the most civil and fairminded pro-choice advocates I've argued with - and I think you've made some valuable points that have given me a lot to think about. But until you stop viewing people who oppose abortion as cartoonish bad guys and accept that protecting what we see as human life really is the motivation, you're not going to have a realistic picture of the politics of abortion.
DBuss:
If the person trespassing is threatening to kill you, and if their presence is Automatically going to result in fairly serious medical side effects on you, then you probably do. More to the point if we’re giving the government the power to force someone to use their body to the benefit of someone else, then the kidney example is more on point.
Kill, yes. Non-deadly medical side effects? I'm not so sure. If a tresspasser on your airplane has been dipped in something you're severely but not fatally allergic to, no, you can't legally throw them out of the plane without a parachute. The problem with your kidney example is that it involves the government actively putting someone in that situation. No one has a right to demand a kidney of me, but if it turns out that the status quo is that this person is already benefiting from my kidney due to no crime of their own, how can I justify denying it unless my life is in danger too?
DBuss: This implies an equality that isn’t present. The women doesn’t *need* the fetus, or benefit from the arrangement, and she *will* suffer health consequences up to and including a risk of death.
Say I'm a conjoined twin who does not need my brother or benefit from the arrangement and will suffer health consequences from the continued attachment, while my twin does depend on the attachment and will die without it. May I - perhaps citing the 13th Amendment - remove my twin?
