The trouble is, Gu£st, that not everyone agrees with you that a foetus is a human being. Human - yes. A human being ie/ a person? No.

That's why your analogies don't work, I'm afraid.

"The trouble is, Gu£st, that not everyone agrees with you that a foetus is a human being. Human - yes. A human being ie/ a person? No"

This is not a philosophical debate on personhood, let someone else start that thread.

This debate only looks at the philosophy of the right to bodily attonomy of human beings... not personhood.

The philosophy is not nilistic in that it is based only on another philosophy but rather it is based on scientific fact that a human being is a human being from conception/fertalisation and has its own body.

Again this is not a philosophical debate on personhood, this philosophical debate on the right to bodily attonomy is based on biological fact not philosophy.

So lets discuss the philosphy of the right to bodily attonomy, not the philosophy of personhood.... we can come to that later.

No to all of the above except for the last two, though imprisonment would be appropriate for the tattooing offense.

As for siamese twins, one of them often dies: the mother often has to make a decision to have a separation operation. Though more successful today, it is common still for one of the babies to die.

"By means of nature" doesn't matter. We are natural and the things we do are due to our brain which evolved through nature. It is as natural for us to abort a 5 week embryo (if that is what the woman wants to do) as it is for a lion to kill all the cubs in a pride that are not his own.

There is more to abortion (in my opinion) than just "bodily autonomy". If that's all it were, I personally wouldn't be pro-choice. Yes I have a right to my body but then again, this is what happens when you have sex. My body is SUPPOSED to reproduce, it's hardwired to do so and doesn't like being mucked with. It's made to reproduce on the slimmest of chances. Our bodies are very versatile

However, there is the issue of consent. That's a major one for me, especially in cases where protection/contraception was being used. There is of course the issue of rape, and maternal danger, both of which relate to autonomy AND consent. There is the issue of looking forward in the potential child's life. Adoption doesn't always work, and there are too many babies born to poor mothers who can't care for themselves, much less a child. There is child abuse, etc.

"As for siamese twins, one of them often dies: the mother often has to make a decision to have a separation operation. Though more successful today, it is common still for one of the babies to die."

you evade the question, I said for example HEALTHY siamese twins

Guest- if you're trying to say that bodily autonomy and personhood are not linked, then this has no place on an abortion debate.

We agree with what you're saying. You shouldn't just go around and kill people. No one has the right to take someone else's life. The point is, many people don't feel that the fetus is a 'person' and therefore don't feel that it has bodily autonomy. Does that make sense?

We're concerned about the body of the mother. The body of the fetus does not yet matter, nor have any rights. Everybody defines the point at which a fetus becomes a person differently, you just define a lot earlier than most.

It is up to the parent if it is a child and it is up to the two twins if they are adults.

In other words... Not MY choice, THEIR choice.

Yes, THANK you.

HEALTHY siamese twins can be, and are often separated, even if one or both may die.

This because parents are often think about QUALITY OF LIFE, not just that LIFE is always a positive thing.

YES, one can be separated, even if it will die. EVEN if both are healthy.

Guest, let me ask you a question: If you knew you had a tape worm, would you treat it?

lol!

My body.. not yours. End of debate.

No.





If the victim kills the perp in self defense, yes. Meaning he/she kills to stop the person from continuing the assault (tattooing) and they reasonably felt this was the only way to stop them.


[quoteDo you Believe Human Being (B) Can kill human being (A) if human being (A) by means of nature happens to Share the body of Human Being (B) for the rest of human being (B)'s life..... if both are alive and healthy?

For example healthy siameese twins.[/quote]


Yes, I believe a healthy conjoined (they prefer to be called conjoined, not siamese) twin has the right to have his/her body separated from the other as long as the risks have been explained to him/her.





No human being has ever lived inside the body of another. However, if they did, then yes, absofrickinlutley.

the siamese twin fallacy doesnt hold water. the woman was an autonomous self to begin with unlike the siamese twins. she is a free standing individual unlike the fetus. and it doesnt matter that the fetus is "accidentally" inside of her. many differant organisms grow upon and inside of other organisms. but that doesnt give them the right to do so. to say that a fetus has a right to be inside a woman against her will is to condone a form of rape. there is no right to life at my physical expense. i have the right to fight off degradations of my body. it doesnt get anymore degrading than forced pregnancy. it violates my very person in the worst possible way.

"No human being has ever lived inside the body of another."


LOL!!!!!!

Weird statement. It sounds like we either did not come from the womb of a woman, or we hatched from a fetus rather than actually BEING that fetus!

I was not a person until I was born. I began my existence as being part of a human being.

Human being and person aren't actually always interchangeable terms.

How is it possible that a human being was never in a woman's body? I'm pretty sure I was a fetus.

You were a fetus. You are now a human being. Or are you?

You actually want to debate about a woman's right to bodily autonomy? Tell me you aren't serious. A man's right to choose not to allow someone else to use his body against his will isn't even up for debate yet somehow you believe because women are capable of becoming pregnant OUR right to the same thing should be curtailed?

I honestly don't care what you call the user...fetus, human, baby, savior or tapeworm. If it is in our body, using us against our will, we have the right to evict it. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and as a childfree woman, the last thing I'm interested in having when I share relations with my husband is a baby. Some of us have terrible genetic flaws that we simply do NOT want thrown back into the gene pool. Some of us also have health issues that make pregnancy a greater liability than we can physically, emotionally and monetarily afford.

I'd also like to add that the last time I checked, born children aren't physically attached to their parents and anyone can care for them if the parents aren't willing. The same can't be said for a Z/E/F and no name you could give it would make it any moral rights to use another person's body against their will to survive.

If you run over someone with your car and they need and immediate blood transplant to survive, you as the person that caused that condition are not legally compelled to donate a single drop of your blood to ensure that person's survival, even if you are the only source of a match available.

Criminals aren't forced by law to donate a single drop of blood or tissue to ensure the survival of others; this includes rapists, child molesters and killers.

CORPSES aren't even required by law to donate the use of organs to maintain the life of someone that needs it. We're talking DEAD PEOPLE here.

What on earth makes you believe that an entire population of people should be compelled by law to give their bodies over to another against their will, based purely on their gender?

If you believe women should be legally compelled to carry pregnancy to term then you must also support the right of these women to have the men who impregnated them forcibly neutered so that they can never endanger another woman's health, career or life again with their sperm. You must also support mandatory blood, tissue and organ donation.

You can't expect only one gender to bear the burden of mandatory use of their bodies against their will and claim to be anything less than a misogynist.

What do you think fetus means? We were a fetus, just like we were a neonate or infant. Fetus means "unborn offspring" and it is a stage of development in the human life cycle just like it is with other mammals.

I was an infant. But, I was a human being, too. I was a fetus, but why wasn't I a human in anyway? I was the same entity that was in the womb. My DNA didn't change. I kept the same body, limbs and organs that I developed in the womb (which all start very early on).