Timeline for Is arguing pro choice because "a woman has the right to control her body" invalid?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2019 at 14:36 | answer | added | Manu de Hanoi | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 18, 2019 at 0:14 | comment | added | rus9384 | @Conifold So, if you die, your twin sibling still can function. Therefore [s]he is not a part of your body. And vice versa. I don't see the problem here. But yes, othere might disagree on my concept of part/whole. But if you look in the world, wholes are always different than their parts divided. They function differently. A car with no tyres and tyres divided function very differently than a car with tyres. | |
| Jan 18, 2019 at 0:09 | comment | added | rus9384 | A test whether something is not a part of woman (and anything alive). If you cut it and it stops functioning, it is a part of woman. Cut an arm and it will not move. Abort a fetus on quite early stage and it will not move. The only counter-argument is what is the woman itself. If you cut the head, both parts (head and remaining body) stop functioning. But this only shows that a human is not simply in the head or in the remaining body. Also, you might argue some parasites (viruses, bacteria, etc.) are parts of our bodies then. So, indeed they are. And we choose to remove them from our bodies. | |
| Jan 17, 2019 at 23:23 | answer | added | David Thornley | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1085280627795156994 | ||
| Jan 15, 2019 at 13:09 | comment | added | user9166 | This is a straw man. The argument is actually never that the fetus is part of her body. It is that her uterus and her blood are. If I take up residence in your eyeball, I still can't reasonably claim to be part of your body. But you can evict me. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 7:35 | comment | added | christo183 | "...whether or not she keep a baby at whatever stage in her pregnancy" this would fall under a different legal principle from the women's right to control something in her body. At some point in pregnancy the baby becomes a living human, so the legality is then about the balance of the women's right to choose against the baby's right to live. | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 1:01 | answer | added | user9166 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 15, 2019 at 0:57 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 29, 2017 at 18:33 | answer | added | Guill | timeline score: -1 | |
| May 24, 2017 at 13:37 | answer | added | G-write | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 24, 2017 at 9:29 | answer | added | Franz | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 23, 2017 at 4:47 | comment | added | user25714 | @Conifold by 'own' I don't mean has a moral right to, but that it seems wrong to say that the woman's body just is the fetus', rather than something it depends upon for life. else why isn't the fetus her body? | |
| May 23, 2017 at 4:28 | comment | added | user25714 | @Conifold good point thanks. though I would at least suggest that conjoined twins do have a moral claim to sole ownership / control of their organs, just one that's often more ambiguous (who owns this liver more?), as well as countered. same as forced organ donation ? | |
| May 22, 2017 at 23:48 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | In my experience, most of the arguments on both sides of the abortion topic are not chosen because they are the basis of a sound logical debate, but rather because they can be screamed at the top of one's lungs. They are designed to silence the other side's arguments as quickly as possible so that the argument may be deployed by many who lack sufficient debate experience to actually discuss the real issue at hand. | |
| May 22, 2017 at 23:38 | comment | added | Conifold | Let's say we have conjoined twins and one of them strangles the other under the theory that "she has the right to control her body". One could say that whether the other twin was part of her body is just semantics, but it becomes substantive if we assume that the affirmative answer justifies the strangling (as is the assumption in the case of abortion debates). With this ellipsis the "right to control her body" argument is either circular or misses the point, depending on semantic conventions. | |
| May 22, 2017 at 23:08 | comment | added | user25714 | I suppose the reason it seems absurd is that it's not obvious how strangling someone to death is not any less "control" over the body than an abortion. But I'd imagine that with the latter the "control" is exerted differently: strangling someone does not normally mean your body is freed of their influence. | |
| May 22, 2017 at 22:26 | comment | added | user25714 | mind you, i agree that "guns don't kill people" is a bad argument. it seems to imply that only people can feature in rights and duties, because only they can do evil (here murder). | |
| May 22, 2017 at 22:18 | history | asked | user25714 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |