FireZs wrote:mother's skin is temporarily cut surgically to form a pouch
I honestly have no idea what this hypothetical is trying to convey; can you reexplain it?
FireZs wrote:Well, if it's not risky, but just invasive... Isn't that actually not justifiable? Shooting him in the head isn't a choice about continued use of your body (after all, he's getting unhooked one way or the other), it's about the manner in which he will be unhooked. Why is shooting him in the head a justifiable choice then?
For the bolded, I presume you're talking about the hypothetical wherein a human being is attached to me, and I am made 'uncomfortable'. According to your hypothetical, I can remain 'uncomfortable' and he lives, or I can unhook the machinery and become 'comfortable' and he dies. Right? This is the analogy?
In such a circumstance I would probably endeavor to keep the person alive. The difference is once the person is 'safe', he/she no longer requires my continued assistance/sustenance. That the person is already a human being, not a 'potential human being'. That the person maybe wants to live, consciously, due to life experiences, fears, etc.
This is why the analogy is sort of useless; a pregnancy/delivery is not just 'invasive', and it's certainly potentially more than just 'uncomfortable'. The reliant 'person' is not truly independent, often, barely even biologically so. The 'person' also has no memories, desires, wants.
The comparison isn't even remotely apples to apples. It's apples to Monday.
FireZs wrote:And I see that you're actually open to the idea of legalizing post-birth abortions.
I'm not sure I am at all actually, but I'm also extremely hesitant to draw lines through the matter and legislate things. I can totally understand circumstances where it is justified for a woman to kill her infant and is wholly legitimate, and I am also horrified at the idea of killing an infant. I think you really need to read a little more about things women do or are forced to do when you make getting an abortion difficult, or impossible; it makes me, more than anything, want to abolish any rules that make it harder for women to do what they need.
Morriswalters wrote:If you choose abortion you say that it is less valuable. Why is that true?
The thing I think you still don't understand, and I'm not sure if you're doing it deliberately or not, is that this is less a debate of whether or not a 1, 5, 9 month old fetus is worth more or less than a 1 month, two year, or college bound child, but a debate of whether or not a mothers right to choose what happens to her fetus/newborn supercedes the fetus' right to live. You keep looking at this in terms of value of life, and hoping to corner us pro-choicers with an uncomfortable moral calculus question, when you're missing the point. Allowing a woman to choose is not saying that one fetus is worth more than another, it's saying that we're allowing a woman to choose if her fetus is worth it to her or not.
This issue is less about deciding what whose worth more or less, and more about who we allow to choose what is worth more or less. Personally, I find the issue complex, and I don't even have a uterus. How can some law tell someone whose uterus is currently occupied by a child what the best outcome is for her life situation? But...
morriswalters wrote:If you can kill a child because they can because you don't want to saddle them with a child where does it stop? Quite a few people have caused me pain and suffering, can I shoot them?
You fail at analogies.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.