Kjetil Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 "Your body??? Your body does not have - 2 heads - 4 hands - 4 legs - 2 beating hearts - 2 different DNAs" What comeback would you suggest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Why are you even debating that question? Defenses of abortion shouldn't be based on claiming a fetus is 'part of someone's body' because its merely inside someone's body. Defend the right of bodily autonomy and argue against the notion of fetus rights. secondhander 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Check your premises. A woman can have two heads, when I add the context of a pregnancy. Or in other cases, a siamese twinship. A woman who grows a head in her womb can claim the head to be a part of her body. Its a "growth," like a cute wart which, until the day its removed, remains part of her. And a siamese twin could claim her sister as part of her body, even though they could be a few months away from detachment surgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Tell them a fetus has emergent properties... Reminds me of the joke. Two men enter a bar and bet the barman for free drinks if he answers their questions wrong: "How many arms do we have between us?" Uh, four. "No, three", and the one pulls of his prosthetic arm. "How many legs between us?" Uh, hm..three? "No, two"- as they each show a prosthetic leg. "And how many penises do we have?" Ah (getting smart now) - one! "No, two! - what do you take us for !!!?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecherry Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Transplants can result in a person with two sets of DNA too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjetil Posted January 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Why are you even debating that question? Defenses of abortion shouldn't be based on claiming a fetus is 'part of someone's body' because its merely inside someone's body. Defend the right of bodily autonomy and argue against the notion of fetus rights. He argues that as long as the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, abortion should be illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 He argues that as long as the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, abortion should be illegal. What does survive mean here? Survive with the help of modern technology, or survive like a regular baby? Does he look to current state, or does he look to potential state? For instance, he might think the fetus ought to have rights based on its current "independent" viability. Somewhere after 30 weeks -- the fetus's lungs develop enough that it can breath if it is premature. If a person is looking at state (as opposed to potential via the use of technology) he might say that such a fetus has reached a state where is should be considered at least enough of a legally-independent human being to warrant delivery rather than abortion. On the other hand, with modern technology some very premature babies survive. For arguments sake, let us suppose that at 28 weeks a fetus is judged unable to survive except with the use of modern technology. Would your friend say that abortion should be illegal because the fetus can be brought to a future "independent" viability where it will be able to breath and live without modern technology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjetil Posted January 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 What does survive mean here? Survive with the help of modern technology, or survive like a regular baby? Does he look to current state, or does he look to potential state? Like a regular baby. He looks at the current state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondhander Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 The pregnant woman has the right of autonomy and the right to her own body. Therefore, as long as the fetus/baby is part of her body, she continues to have rights over her body and everything attached to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) I have had this debate before. The fetus is not a "part" as parts are independent entities. The individual right to life applies only to individuals, which a fetus is not. A fetus is not merely touching the womb it is connected like a finger or arm. Edited January 5, 2014 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondhander Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) I have had this debate before. The fetus is not a "part" as parts are independent entities. The individual right to life applies only to individuals, which a fetus is not. A fetus is not merely touching the womb it is connected like a finger or arm. I meant "part" in the same way that a foot or an arm, etc., is a "part" of the body, so I think your argument is the same as mine aside from some semantics. Edited January 5, 2014 by secondhander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 Like a regular baby. He looks at the current state.So, to be clear, this is someone who says that abortions should be legal until at least around 28 weeks, give or take a couple. If so, his position, both theoretically and practically is little different from an Objectivists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) I meant "part" in the same way that a foot or an arm, etc., is a "part" of the body, so I think your argument is the same as mine aside from some semantics. One, my response was to the OP. Two, our arguments are the same because of semantics. We mean the same thing.... Edited January 5, 2014 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondhander Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) So clarified. Although you can imagine my confusion since your response was just after mine and I used the word "part" in mine. And I was using the popular definition of semantics, meaning that our argument is the same and we mean the same thing, as you said, but that we used different words to argue for the same thing. "It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics Edited January 5, 2014 by secondhander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) "Your body??? Your body does not have - 2 heads - 4 hands - 4 legs - 2 beating hearts - 2 different DNAs" What comeback would you suggest? That the specific choice of words doesn't matter. Whether an fetus is declared to be "part of" or just "inside" a woman's body, it doesn't affect the debate in the least. The issue still remains that of a rational, non-contradictory definition of political rights. And by such a definition, you don't have the right to dictate what a woman should do with anything inside her body. Edited January 6, 2014 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) The issue still remains that of a rational, non-contradictory definition of political rights. And by such a definition, you don't have the right to dictate what a woman should do with anything inside her body. Well I for one would like to make one , admittedly small, clarification here... Edited January 6, 2014 by softwareNerd Added quote tags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) So clarified. Although you can imagine my confusion since your response was just after mine and I used the word "part" in mine. And I was using the popular definition of semantics, meaning that our argument is the same and we mean the same thing, as you said, but that we used different words to argue for the same thing. "It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics I know the phrase "thats just semantics" is a popular bromide but quarreling about the words/symbols one is using is actually a syntactical argument not a semantic argument. Thats why dictionaries cant help determine another's intended reference apart from context. Asking for definitions help because they help to identity ones intentional states. Edited January 7, 2014 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.