we will not agree on whether or not a viable-but-encysted fetus should get any consideration.
I simply oppose giving fetuses rights we don't give to born people. No born person is allowed to enslave another for purposes of hijacking her metabolism. No born person is allowed to decide that another person will have a hole cut in her belly big enough to pull a baby through. Not even if the life of the born person is at stake.
I see a strong urge in some people to extend extra rights to fetuses. It looks to me like this is contemplated because being impregnated against your will is something that can only happen to people who have sex while female, and both females and sex come in for more than their share of hostility. I don't share that hostility so I find it hard to muster any sympathy for this point of view.
I hold that reasonable people may argue that the benefits to the pre-person of requiring this degree of hardship outweigh harm to the woman.
(blink) So you'd be okay with requiring by law that you donate a kidney to someone who needed a kidney and had your tissue type? Since the benefit to the recipient would outweigh the harm to you? You're a generous soul. Or would that not count since the recipient would not be a fetus?
you probably have an even stronger argument that a woman's womb is not a place of public accommodation by any definition.
(boggling at the thought that a woman's womb could for one second be considered a place of public accomodation) You correctly anticipate my position.
On the other hand, if the invader in the womb was initially invited by the womb's owner, there may be a moral argument about evicting that guest for problems that are not willfully caused, at least until said no-longer-wanted guest has somewhere else to go.
Regarding the moral argument; if you have no problem, morally, with enslavement, I don't have enough common ground to offer a moral argument. However 1) those women who "invite" a fetus into their womb (by having sex for the specific purpose of conceiving a child) almost never choose abortion unless there are pressing health reasons to do so. Why would they? A baby is what they *wanted*.
And even supposing that we were talking about the unusual circumstance of a woman who deliberately conceived choosing to abort in the absence of health reasons, legally a person who invites another person onto her property is free to withdraw that invitation at any time and require that the former-invitee leave. She is allowed to get outside assistance to enforce her wishes. So I don't see the problem. Unless, of course, we're going to extend special legal rights to fetuses that born people don't get; in that case a woman who deliberately conceived might find her options more cramped.
A woman who was impregnated against her will, of course, didn't "invite" anything; that's like having a stranger force their way into your house when you opened the door to let the cat in.
And no, I don't see having sex as "inviting" a fetus, anymore than driving a car is "inviting" an accident or letting the cat in is "inviting" forced entry by someone or something else.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Strange how peer-reviewed studies are near non-existent
Date: 2009-03-20 02:55 pm (UTC)I simply oppose giving fetuses rights we don't give to born people. No born person is allowed to enslave another for purposes of hijacking her metabolism. No born person is allowed to decide that another person will have a hole cut in her belly big enough to pull a baby through. Not even if the life of the born person is at stake.
I see a strong urge in some people to extend extra rights to fetuses. It looks to me like this is contemplated because being impregnated against your will is something that can only happen to people who have sex while female, and both females and sex come in for more than their share of hostility. I don't share that hostility so I find it hard to muster any sympathy for this point of view.
I hold that reasonable people may argue that the benefits to the pre-person of requiring this degree of hardship outweigh harm to the woman.
(blink) So you'd be okay with requiring by law that you donate a kidney to someone who needed a kidney and had your tissue type? Since the benefit to the recipient would outweigh the harm to you? You're a generous soul. Or would that not count since the recipient would not be a fetus?
you probably have an even stronger argument that a woman's womb is not a place of public accommodation by any definition.
(boggling at the thought that a woman's womb could for one second be considered a place of public accomodation) You correctly anticipate my position.
On the other hand, if the invader in the womb was initially invited by the womb's owner, there may be a moral argument about evicting that guest for problems that are not willfully caused, at least until said no-longer-wanted guest has somewhere else to go.
Regarding the moral argument; if you have no problem, morally, with enslavement, I don't have enough common ground to offer a moral argument. However 1) those women who "invite" a fetus into their womb (by having sex for the specific purpose of conceiving a child) almost never choose abortion unless there are pressing health reasons to do so. Why would they? A baby is what they *wanted*.
And even supposing that we were talking about the unusual circumstance of a woman who deliberately conceived choosing to abort in the absence of health reasons, legally a person who invites another person onto her property is free to withdraw that invitation at any time and require that the former-invitee leave. She is allowed to get outside assistance to enforce her wishes. So I don't see the problem. Unless, of course, we're going to extend special legal rights to fetuses that born people don't get; in that case a woman who deliberately conceived might find her options more cramped.
A woman who was impregnated against her will, of course, didn't "invite" anything; that's like having a stranger force their way into your house when you opened the door to let the cat in.
And no, I don't see having sex as "inviting" a fetus, anymore than driving a car is "inviting" an accident or letting the cat in is "inviting" forced entry by someone or something else.