Welcome to Gaia! ::

Okay, look. Just because someone consents to sex does not mean that they consent to pregnancy, that is absolutely true. Otherwise, we would have to say that every time you have sex, you should -want- to get pregnant. And saying that, "Everything is connected" is bull, Erasmus, it's like saying that whenever I get in a car I'm looking to run someone down just because cars sometimes run into people or other cars.

However, just because you aren't consenting to pregnancy does not mean that you aren't responsible if you get pregnant. Pregnancy is a direct result of sex, simple as that. I believe that people who are having sex should know that pregnancy is a possible result, and accept the consequences if and when it happens. People who are having sex shouldn't be able to get away with killing another human being just because they took every precaution and don't want to be pregnant.

I do see bodily integrity as the only logical Pro-Choicer argument, as one should be in control of one's body. However, I agree that the bodily domain of the fetus should be protected as well, and since the fetus is within the woman's bodily domain by her actions, it's bodily domain + right to life trumps hers in this case.

How does rape/the killing of one's rapist not include another's life?

I didn't say that anything we did bore zero effect, please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I didn't say that you wouldn't/shouldn't get pregnant after having sex, merely that consenting to the action of having sex does not mean that you consent to becoming or remaining pregnant.

So you're not consenting to pregnancy, you're consenting to a risk of pregnancy.

Abortion is not about consenting to pregnancy, it's about deciding not to continue a pregnancy. You can't abort a pregnancy if you're not pregnant.

And "no man (or woman) is an island" does indeed apply here. Defending one's bodily domain is different when it comes at the expense of another's life. To spin an old argument, if I need a heart transplant, I can't protect my bodily domain by killing someone and taking their heart.

....is it different when I kill my rapist as he's raping me?

I don't like this 'bodily domain is fine so long as it only pertains to your own body' argument, as it completely rules out the fact that you can kill your rapist as he is raping you. confused

The bolded parts above are exactly why pro-lifers and pro-choicers are so vehemently opposed, I'm afraid. When I try to wrap my mind around such a point of view, I get almost physically ill. Either all blameless human life is sacred, or we're all just so many cockroaches and it doesn't matter who gets crushed underfoot.

I'm curious to know why birth equals person for you. I'm just wondering.

I mean, seriously, a baby is only a potential toddler. A toddler is only a potential teenager. A Teenager is only a potential adult. In the same manner, a fetus is only a potential baby. A baby is certainly not a completely developed human, but again, this is going with the assumption that you think a baby is a person, and if I'm mistaken and you are among those that do not believe a baby is a person, I apologize.

But the thing is, the life of the human organism that has the potential to be an adult begins in the womb. A fetus is not a potential human organism.

There are people who argue that babies aren't people. So to them, if they said that adopting a baby out and shooting a baby is morally equivalent because it ends with not being a parent anymore, it might disgust some people and yes, make them physically ill. It's the same thing here. I'll accept that your views aren't wrong only if nothing is wrong because everything depends on each person's point of view and we can each decide who is a person and who is not, based on random criteria decided by each individual. If you need to be a certain age, which is the case in the US right now, so be it. If you need to be a certain race, that's fine. Morals are relative, and we shouldn't feel ill when people are killed by the millions because the people doing the killing don't think the victims are people, they're subhuman.

My problem with your previous logic and, I would believe, Texas' problem with your logic, is that you are saying that having an abortion and not getting pregnant are equal.

The problem is that in one case, the life simply didn't exist. In the other, you exterminated it. How is that equal?

Now as for your argument against potential, you are the one defining higher brain function there. I would judge that a newborn infant has virtually no higher brain function, and a fetus right before birth has the same amount of higher brain function that it does right after birth. (Speaking of which, I don't know if you hold a cutoff date for abortion?) Further, I'd say that a one year old doesn't have much higher brain function either. At that age, they still don't have much more intelligence than a dog, say. Certainly they are not my equal mentally. It's been a while since I've dealt with a one year old, but I'm pretty sure they are still having trouble feeding themselves at that age. What makes them people when fetuses aren't?

And as for your calculations, I personally don't believe that personhood should be considered at all. The idea of a "person" has only ever been used to divide humanity into the people and the sub-people, as in the cases of slavery, genocide, many wars, etc. Personhood has never done humanity any good, so I argue that abortion is wrong because it is human.