Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
because the opponents of abortion know that if they even acknowledge the other frame of reference, they loose. they cannot argue their case on across the question of the right of women to control what happens to thier bodies.
|
Sure we can.
A woman normally has control over what happens to her body (excluding harming herself in certain situations, use of illicit drugs for example). But when there's another being relying on her for life support, it changes. A mountain climber shouldn't cut his rope to the climber below him on the basis that it's his rope, and a mother shouldn't cut life support on the basis that it's her body. (Not a great analogy, I know, but there is no good analogy for it.) It's an unfortunate fact in unwanted pregnancies - and especially in those unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape - that a human being is suddenly physically dependent on another human being. But once that unfortunate situation becomes reality, one shouldn't be able to remove that system of life support merely on the basis that "it's part of my body, my property, and I can do what I want with it, it's not relevant if someone's depending on it". Imagine if hospitals took that attitude with their artificial life support systems. No, that would never happen.
"Discriminates against men" is most certainly not the best we can come up with. You were either being ignorant or dishonest when you typed that.
For what it's worth, I've heard 100% pro-choicers agree with the "discriminates against men" argument and hold to the position that men should have both no say in an abortion and no obligation to pay child support. I'd take the complete opposite of that position, but the argument itself doesn't interest me much.