Welcome to Gaia! ::

Let's say a weakling 5'5", 150 lb guy (who's obviously not too bright, either) attempts to rape a 6'5", 250 lb bodybuilder. I think the bodybuilder would have a considerably difficult time justifying killing the little guy in self-defense, since he could have easily stopped the guy without killing him. (At least, without intentionally killing him.)

This doesn't quite relate to abortion, though, since it's impossible to remove a month-old fetus from a uterus without killing it. But the point is, killing in self-defense still has to be proven to be in self-defense.

To you, what exactly is sentience? I ask because I was under the impression that most animals have sentience*, not just various Great Apes and dolphins. And when does sentience arise in humans?

*Here is an example of the kinds of statements that have given me the impression that many, many kinds of lifeforms have sentience:

Interesting, it seems sentience doesn't mean what I thought it meant. Or anyone else I've ever seen use the term. Hmm. It seems that what I mean might be sapience, but it's a little less than that actually. Maybe I do have to readjust my view on personhood then.

I judge animals as being equal to human life if they show the ability to learn to use tools and language, as I believe that these are the main building blocks in what I thought was sentience. Perhaps civilization is a better term?

Just a not on the cheek cell thing-

Well, feti ARE cells, yes. But so are full humans. So what gives a fully-dveloped clump of cells more value than a smaller clump of cells? The fact that it is more developed, as we have seen, is irrelevant to the value of the compilation. So what gives humans value? It is not their progrssion nor arrangment of cells- As cheek cells and fetal cells are equivalent in moral value... Is it the number of cells or size of the composition? Or is it the mental capacity of the composition? It is true, a fully-developed clump of cells will be able to compute much better than a smaller clump of cells, but cells the are just the same, made of the same material. In fact, it is not too much of a stretch to imply that the fetal composition will become just as mentally capable as a grown composition.

...Uweh? See, now I'm totally confused. Because in both of those cases, the killing is out of self defense, not because of bodily integrity. In both cases you -could- say your bodily integrity is being violated, but that is not the reason that you kill the rapist or the fetus. Self defense is.

Umm... Regardless, the whole situation is self defense because if you don't remove the tube, (in the act killing the fetus)? You die. Text book definition of self defense. And the purpose of the operation is not to kill the fetus but to save the mother, perhaps a slim difference but an important one.

Good post, divineseraph. To use your boxing analogy, that's just like a boxer trying to sue another boxer for getting a black eye. There's a assault, and then there's consensual assault.

I don't see why people attempt to stretch the "bodily domain" thing way past it's boundaries. People hate abortions; not choice, not autonomy, not compassion.

Once again I say, this is why I think a lot of pro-choice women have suffered from some kind of trauma...both on Gaia and in real life.

To a lesser extent, it could be due to just having a spoiled, its-always-about-me attitude, but I'm never surprised when pro-choice advocates have histories of rape, abuse, etc.

People always think I'm being horrible when I say that, but it's the truth. When women suffer from abuse and a kind of lack of control, some tend to act out in egregious ways to reclaim their independence and their bodies. That's why it's not uncommon for them to do things like get very obvious tattoos on (or near) very intimate parts of their bodies. It's not uncommon for them to get many piercings, or intimate piercings.

It's not uncommon for them to become very sexually active, promiscuously so, because it's a way to reclaim their bodies and reclaim something they feel they lost to their abusers.

This isn't uniformly how abused women act, but the whole "anything other than complete, full, and utter autonomy and rights and freedom is unacceptable and subordinating and malicious", no-middle-ground reaction to this, and many issues...even if the issue is a direct cause of the things they champion, is quite telling. That lack of perspective and presence of extremist individuality is one of the main "tells" of women who have suffered from abuse.

It wouldn't necessarily be worth less, but it would put those feelings into some context. Tensions tend to run high in this debate, and sometimes it's helpful to know whether or not people are getting emotional versus if they merely feel strongly about a logical opinion of theirs.

To be honest, there's little reason to try and reason with someone who is upset and arguing from their emotions. I think it's unfair and a losing battle on both sides: people who have an emotional stake in the debate tend to seek (even if it's not intentional) for their feelings to be validated. This is on both sides, and it puts the opposition in the position to babysit someone's past and their emotions rather than make their point.

Having too much at stake emotionally is ultimately detrimental to the overall point...especially when the issue maintains a certain amount of emotion heft in the first place.

Like I said, it's not the entirety of them, but it's either self-centeredness or abuse that fuels many of the pro-choice arguments I've seen. I do know many girls who feel this way and have suffered from abuse. I'd guess there are a fair amount of them on Gaia as well.

Pro-life can fall victim to the same stance, and it doesn't bode well for pro-choice advocates who might have a point to make. I just happen to agree with the pro-life side. Generally speaking, wielding your past like a weapon and daring people to shield themselves from it is a bad debate tactic regardless what side you're on.