Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

volchitsa wrote: »

I am focusing on abortion though - one of the main reasons I think it has to be a woman's personal choice is because pregnancy is a form of temporary organ donation, and since we don't force people to donate their blood or the use of their kidneys, not even to keep their own child alive, I can't see why it should be acceptable to force a woman to do so.

I can quite see why you're keen to ignore that point, but unless you can give me a reason why it's not a valid comparison, there's no reason why I shouldn't point out that I've made a powerful argument for the right to terminate a pregnancy and you can admit that you can't counter it.

And then, if you wish, we can move on to the next stage.

So no then?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Perhaps we could not and just focus on abortion?

Don't really like these 'answer me yes or no's', but yes or no?

I am focusing on abortion though - one of the main reasons I think it has to be a woman's personal choice is because pregnancy is a form of temporary organ donation, and since we don't force people to donate their blood or the use of their kidneys, not even to keep their own child alive, I can't see why it should be acceptable to force a woman to do so.

I can quite see why you're keen to ignore that point, but unless you can give me a reason why it's not a valid comparison, there's no reason why I shouldn't point out that I've made a powerful argument for the right to terminate a pregnancy and you can admit that you can't counter it.

And then, if you wish, we can move on to the next stage.

EDIT : it's not that it's well rehearsed, it's that it's only at the basic stage of making assertion because you don't want to engage. If you recall I didn't make the analogy, someone else did, so you can hardly accuse me of bringing in well rehearsed arguments, only well known ones. Not quite the same thing.

volchitsa wrote: »

Ok.

It's exactly what I suggested, certainly what I meant to suggest anyway.
So now we've cleared up that misunderstanding, perhaps you could reply to the question of what exactly you think is wrong with the analogy?

Perhaps we could not and just focus on abortion?

Don't really like these 'answer me yes or no's', but yes or no?

Edit: I have to be 100% honest here your posts so far have not really left me with the impression you're willing to have an open discussion. They seem a bit like you have a very well rehearsed argument based around an analogy, an analogy I've said from the outset I don't really agree with and have stated why. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed and closing it off entirely, perhaps we could park it for now?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's about the thinking around where rights, I hesitate to use the word begin, but where rights overtake other rights. It was merely an attempt to illustrate a point. However, let's keep that discussion separate.

Ok.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That's patently not what you suggested.

It's exactly what I suggested, certainly what I meant to suggest anyway.
So now we've cleared up that misunderstanding, perhaps you could reply to the question of what exactly you think is wrong with the analogy?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You're attempting to do exactly what you accuse me of; so how about this? We continue the discussion without reference to infanticide or organ donation and focus on abortion?

The difference is that I've explained part of why I think your analogy fails, and I am capable of bringing in further reasons for discussion if you counter my first objection (which, to remind you, is that the law itself doesn't consider abortion to be anything like infanticide because it doesn't consider that a woman who has had an abortion is more of a danger to her existing or future children, whereas a woman who had killed her child would lose custody of all her children, even ones she hadn't yet attempted to harm. Also because a woman even suspected of trying to harm one child would similarly have all her children removed in case she tried to harm one of the others.)

So no, my analogy works unless you have some evidence that it doesn't (and you not believing it isn't evidence) whereas your analogy fails for several reasons, one of which I've just given you, and you haven't yet countered.

And I'm interested in the reasons why someone would disagree with the violinist analogy for abortion because I find it very powerful.

volchitsa wrote: »

Why? What's the relevance, since the original point was that however differently infanticide might be treated in our laws from other kinds of murder, the question of abortion is different from that again?

If some people make the comparisons between abortion and infanticide then I suggest you have that discussion with them.

It's about the thinking around where rights, I hesitate to use the word begin, but where rights overtake other rights. It was merely an attempt to illustrate a point. However, let's keep that discussion separate.

volchitsa wrote: »

You said you don't see why the analogy has any value, because your inrstanding of it may be flawed.

Me suggesting you could perhaps inform yourself rather than insist that everyone else discuss at the your level of lack of knowledge is not a cop out.

That's patently not what you suggested.

volchitsa wrote: »

Again, I literally do not understand how this is a reply to my point.

Can we sum up the situation here : I said that the analogy between organ donation and pregnancy is a well known one which works to a better extent than any other common analogy used in this issue, such as abortion and infanticide.

I explained why I disagreed with the abortion/infanticide comparison.

You disagreed with the organ donation analogy for pregnancy, but afaict have given no reasons whatsoever other than your own failure to understand it.
Based on your own lack of understanding of the issue, you wish to redefine the terms of the discussions into ones you are comfortable with.

Would that be a fair summing-up?

If not, where do you disagree?

You're attempting to do exactly what you accuse me of; so how about this? We continue the discussion without reference to infanticide or organ donation and focus on abortion?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Look at our infanticide laws.

Why? What's the relevance, since the original point was that however differently infanticide might be treated in our laws from other kinds of murder, the question of abortion is different from that again?

If some people make the comparisons between abortion and infanticide then I suggest you have that discussion with them.

However latter point taken. I'm asking for clarity of point so I will reciprocate.

That is an utter cop out and runs counter to your own point that you feel a week before birth is not acceptable in terms of abortion, some people in this debate consider birth to be the point of no return as it were, other's viability, other some other point.

You said you don't see why the analogy has any value, because your understanding of it may be flawed.

Me suggesting you could perhaps inform yourself rather than insist that everyone else discuss at the your level of lack of knowledge is not a cop out.

Because there are competing and hierarchical rights, some based on religious nonsense others not surrounding both points, some cross over, others do not. We both seem to want to focus on the abortion side, so lets.

Again, I literally do not understand how this is a reply to my point.

Can we sum up the situation here : I said that the analogy between organ donation and pregnancy is a well known one which works better than probably any other common analogy used in this issue, such as abortion and infanticide.

I explained why I disagreed with the abortion/infanticide comparison.

You disagreed with the organ donation analogy for pregnancy, but afaict have given no reasons whatsoever other than your own failure to understand it.

Based on your own lack of understanding of the issue, you wish to redefine the terms of the discussion into ones you are comfortable with.

Would that be a fair summing-up of where we're at?

If not, where do you disagree?

volchitsa wrote: »

That's how I'm using it too, and I'm saying that society does not accord fewer human rights to a child. It simply delegates the exercise of those human rights to the care givers, because it's felt that a child is unable to know what it's best interests are.

I don't see the relevance of your point here, can we limit the discussion to abortion for now? If you wish to discuss infanticide then you can start a thread on that.

Look at our infanticide laws. However latter point taken. I'm asking for clarity of point so I will reciprocate.

volchitsa wrote: »

If your understanding of the physiology of pregnancy is flawed, why don't you inform yourself and then come back and take up the issue again? Otherwise it's like someone wanting to discuss flying while repeatedly saying that they don't understand in what ways aeroplane flight is and is not similar to bird flight.

That is an utter cop out and runs counter to your own point that you feel a week before birth is not acceptable in terms of abortion, some people in this debate consider birth to be the point of no return as it were, other's viability, other some other point.

Edit: In case I'm mischaracterising your point.

volchitsa wrote: »

For instance take a baby on the point of being born : I think we can easily say that if it survives birth, its default rights are the same as any other human being, so that it's fairly easy to argue that one week before its birth, it's much the same being, and should have much the same rights.

volchitsa wrote: »

My question was why you think the comparison between pregnancy and organ donation is flawed. I'm puzzled as to how you think that can be detached from a discussion of pregnancy?

Because there are competing and hierarchical rights, some based on religious nonsense others not surrounding both points, some cross over, others do not. We both seem to want to focus on the abortion side, so lets.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, it is as absolute as every other human right.
It is still possible to violate this right and there are limits to it (where your right meets other people's rights).
You have not explained why is it not an absolute nor explained what relevance it has to any of my questions.

My question goes unanswered. You cannot explain why a woman should lose her right to bodily integrity in the case of pregnancy.

This is why I and others believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances and why a ban on abortion is akin to a government order demanding the harvesting of organs from unwilling people.

Yep think we're done. Thanks for the discussion.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I use the term 'we' as a society reflected in our laws. I don't accept it either personally.

That's how I'm using it too, and I'm saying that society does not accord fewer human rights to a child. It simply delegates the exercise of those human rights to the care givers, because it's felt that a child is unable to know what it's best interests are.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Well I think we run into an issue here - some people see infanticide as an extension of abortion. Clearly that's a bit bonkers (to me at least) so where do we draw the line. Birth?

I don't see the relevance of your point here, can we limit the discussion to abortion for now? If you wish to discuss infanticide then you can start a thread on that.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm not sure that's fair, but how about we stick to pregnancy and abortion as my understanding of the analogy is clearly flawed, mea culpa.

If your understanding of the physiology of pregnancy is flawed, why don't you inform yourself and then come back and take up the issue again? Otherwise it's like someone wanting to discuss flying while repeatedly saying that they don't understand in what ways aeroplane flight is and is not similar to bird flight.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

If you detach it from the above discussion on organ donation I'd be happy to.

My question was why you think the comparison between pregnancy and organ donation is flawed. I'm puzzled as to how you think that can be detached from a discussion of pregnancy?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Okay so King, BI is not absolute, is that right?

Yes, it is as absolute as every other human right.
It is still possible to violate this right and there are limits to it (where your right meets other people's rights).
You have not explained why is it not an absolute nor explained what relevance it has to any of my questions.

My question goes unanswered. You cannot explain why a woman should lose her right to bodily integrity in the case of pregnancy.

This is why I and others believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances and why a ban on abortion is akin to a government order demanding the harvesting of organs from unwilling people.

Okay so King, BI is not absolute, is that right?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Do you see the problem with that statement? If not let's do this - let's have a side discussion for a while on BI being absolute, if you're not willing to do that then we've nothing left to discuss.

To that end a little list of time BI is not absolute, nonexhaustive, off the top of my head.

- A minor child refusing medical treatment on religious grounds
- Torture in the ticking time bomb example
- Various decision involving things like water fluoridation
- force feeding of prisoners/protesters on hunger strike
- physical restraint during detainment and arrest

You seem to be confusing the matter. It's not about whether bodily integrity can be violated and is violated. It's about whether it should or not.

None of these examples are even close to comparable to abortion as the organ donation one is. You have yet to explain why you believe that analogy is not comparable.

And for reference,
1. That's straight a matter of bodily integrity. A person can refuse medical treatment if they want for whatever reason. The issue is if a child can make that decision, but that's a separate issue.
2. Torture is a violation of bodily integrity and it's unethical.
3. Water fluoridation is a very minor violation of bodily integrity and in an absolute perfect world, it shouldn't happen.
4. See 2.
5. Entirely different matter where the person is violating the law or posing a danger.

Again you haven't answered my question or gone anywhere near it.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

As above we have a chicken and egg issue there.

As you do with the second question. But we should focus on this one first.

Do you believe that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is a violation of her bodily integrity.

If you again avoid answering this question, then yea, we're done.

volchitsa wrote: »

No I absolutely don't think we do accept that. We consider that a young child isn't able to know what it's best interests are, so we delegate decisions to the parents. But we don't think the parents are entitled to harm the child because it has fewer rights than an older child.

I use the term 'we' as a society reflected in our laws. I don't accept it either personally.

volchitsa wrote: »

But since we're removing some of the woman's rights based on what seems to be no more than gut instinct, surely when you say that you don't want to impose your own opinions on other people, the logical conclusion is that you have no reason to prevent other people from having an abortion if they wish to?

Well I think we run into an issue here - some people see infanticide as an extension of abortion. Clearly that's a bit bonkers (to me at least) so where do we draw the line. Birth?

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't have a clue what any of this means TBH. You disagree with an analogy but you've given no reason for that other than that you'd never heard of such a comparison, when in fact temporary organ donation is physiologically much closer to what happens in pregnancy than anything else you care to name.

I'm not sure that's fair, but how about we stick to pregnancy and abortion as my understanding of the analogy is clearly flawed, mea culpa.

volchitsa wrote: »

So could you explain why you still think it's invalid, given that I've explained why your first reasons, eg "nature" are unconvincing and you haven't given any others?

If you detach it from the above discussion on organ donation I'd be happy to.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Absolutely and I'd be delighted to have this discussion in factual rather than abstract terms. My answers may be rather disappointing though! As I don't really know and hope to gain some enlightenment here.

We accept legally that even a new born does not have the same rights as a 'non-dependent' child. I use that term loosely, I refer to a new born that if left for any time would die.

No I absolutely don't think we do accept that. We consider that a young child isn't able to know what it's best interests are, so we delegate decisions to the parents. But we don't think the parents are entitled to harm the child because it has fewer rights than an older child.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I find that an interesting point and very difficult to get behind. If we go completely the other way - and I tend to see things in simple legal terms - anything prior to implantation is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

I'd really need some guidance after that as I'm fully aware my issues with late term abortion are not based on medical facts. Certainly there is a cut off in gestation at some point, is it viability, is it birth? Not really sure.

But since we're removing some of the woman's rights based on what seems to be no more than gut instinct, surely when you say that you don't want to impose your own opinions on other people, the logical conclusion is that you have no reason to prevent other people from having an abortion if they wish to?

But since we're removing some of the woman's rights based on this opinion I think I'm going to leave these points as they were in relation to scenario that I had trouble accepting was analogs. One one throws into the pot that BI is absolute, it makes it almost nonsensical, IMHO ofc.

Detached from that scenario I'm not adverse to discussing them. I suppose to facilitate that I'll check in that reproductive rights play a part here too, although a fairly minor point, secondary to the BI discussion.

I don't have a clue what any of this means TBH. You disagree with an analogy but you've given no reason for that other than that you'd never heard of such a comparison, when in fact temporary organ donation is physiologically much closer to what happens in pregnancy than anything else you care to name.

So could you explain why you still think it's invalid, given that I've explained why your first reasons, eg "nature" are unconvincing and you haven't given any others?

King Mob wrote: »

No, you're deflecting and avoiding the problem.

I'm perfectly willing to be shown that bodily integrity can be morally violated in some circumstances. Maybe you could demonstrate this by explaining why you think that it's ok to violate a woman's bodily integrity in the case of pregnancy.

Do you see the problem with that statement? If not let's do this - let's have a side discussion for a while on BI being absolute, if you're not willing to do that then we've nothing left to discuss.

To that end a little list of time BI is not absolute, nonexhaustive, off the top of my head.

- A minor child refusing medical treatment on religious grounds
- Torture in the ticking time bomb example
- Various decision involving things like water fluoridation
- force feeding of prisoners/protesters on hunger strike
- physical restraint during detainment and arrest

King Mob wrote: »

But first we have to establish if you believe that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is a violation of her bodily integrity.

Which is why I asked those questions.

As above we have a chicken and egg issue there.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not interested in long waffling posts where my questions are ignored or blown off, which is what you have been doing.

If you really are just looking for opinions and discussion, can you at least try to understand the argument we're making?

I'd argue you're at least as bad, but I'm willing put it down to genuine misunderstanding. However I will absolutely admit to an meandering and waffling style of posting. If you can't deal with that - absolutely fair enough.

On the boded point who is 'we'? And I'm really trying too :pac:

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry King I'm out. I'm here for a long term, opinion forming discussion. I've been trying to discuss BI with you, you're not willing to move off your point that it's absolute. You're entirely welcome to your opinion but it makes the discussion impossible. I've raised numerous points on BI you want it reduced to a Yes/no.

No, you're deflecting and avoiding the problem.

I'm perfectly willing to be shown that bodily integrity can be morally violated in some circumstances. Maybe you could demonstrate this by explaining why you think that it's ok to violate a woman's bodily integrity in the case of pregnancy.
But first we have to establish if you believe that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is a violation of her bodily integrity.

Which is why I asked those questions.

I'm not interested in long waffling posts where my questions are ignored or blown off, which is what you have been doing.

If you really are just looking for opinions and discussion, can you at least try to understand the argument we're making?

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is a violation of her bodily integrity?

Sure, if you cut the waffle and actually answer the question. Been nearly a page and you haven't even gotten started on explaining it.

Sorry King I'm out. I'm here for a long term, opinion forming discussion. I've been trying to discuss BI with you, you're not willing to move off your point that it's absolute. You're entirely welcome to your opinion but it makes the discussion impossible. I've raised numerous points on BI you want it reduced to a Yes/no.

volchitsa wrote: »

Given that a woman's rights are at stake here, could you try to pin that down a little by explaining what grounds you feel the fetus' BI rights stem from?

For instance take a baby on the point of being born : I think we can easily say that if it survives birth, its default rights are the same as any other human being, so that it's fairly easy to argue that one week before its birth, it's much the same being, and should have much the same rights.

It's harder to make that case for a fertilized egg or an embryo, even though the current religious view is fertilization, aka ensoulment.

So what sort of criteria are you thinking of when you say "at some point" it should have competing rights?

Absolutely and I'd be delighted to have this discussion in factual rather than abstract terms. My answers may be rather disappointing though! As I don't really know and hope to gain some enlightenment here.

We accept legally that even a new born does not have the same rights as a 'non-dependent' child. I use that term loosely, I refer to a new born that if left for any time would die. I find that an interesting point and very difficult to get behind. If we go completely the other way - and I tend to see things in simple legal terms - anything prior to implantation is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

I'd really need some guidance after that as I'm fully aware my issues with late term abortion are not based on medical facts. Certainly there is a cut off in gestation at some point, is it viability, is it birth? Not really sure.

volchitsa wrote: »

Could you explain here? What difference does sex make?
And why does something being "natural" make a difference to how acceptable it is? Contraception is unnatural. But so what? We intervene against nature all the time. Antibiotics are unnatural, and disease is perfectly natural. It was also natural for high numbers of women to die in childbirth. Now we have caesareans, which are entirely unnatural. You wouldn't claim that going against nature is necessarily wrong, would you?

I think I'm going to leave these points as they were in relation to scenario that I had trouble accepting was analogs. One one throws into the pot that BI is absolute, it makes it almost nonsensical, IMHO ofc.

Detached from that scenario I'm not adverse to discussing them. I suppose to facilitate that I'll check in that reproductive rights play a part here too, although a fairly minor point, secondary to the BI discussion.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Indeed it violates bodily integrity.

Do you think that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is a violation of her bodily integrity?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

We'd return to a nuanced discussion of BI not being absolute and not discussing in the abstract though - would that be okay?

Sure, if you cut the waffle and actually answer the question. Been nearly a page and you haven't even gotten started on explaining it.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Great.

Why do you think it is wrong? Because it violates a person's bodily integrity? Or...? [/qu8ote]

Indeed it violates bodily integrity. However so would torture in the 'ticking time bomb scenario' where I can see the merit. Also in the fluoridation of water, it violates BI but should the state supply a non-fluoridated supply? Not in my view. Meandering, possibly but trying to highlight to you that it's patently not a yes/no question.

It's also arguably theft, a frequent Law & Economics thought experiment is the rare book scenario. But again we're digressing.

How about we ignore the organ donation point, as it's one I said I had an issue with right from the outset and try and discuss abortion?

King Mob wrote: »

Why is then not wrong for a woman to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term?

We'd return to a nuanced discussion of BI not being absolute and not discussing in the abstract though - would that be okay?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

So I suppose a soundbite answer would be they are, at a certain point, two competing BI rights.

Given that a woman's rights are at stake here, could you try to pin that down a little by explaining what grounds you feel the fetus' BI rights stem from?

For instance take a baby on the point of being born : I think we can easily say that if it survives birth, its default rights are the same as any other human being, so that it's fairly easy to argue that one week before its birth, it's much the same being, and should have much the same rights.

It's harder to make that case for a fertilized egg or an embryo, even though the current religious view is fertilization, aka ensoulment.

So what sort of criteria are you thinking of when you say "at some point" it should have competing rights?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Edit: Which I suppose was the very point you were making! So in-comparison to forced organ donation I'd say the scenarios are too different to compare. No sex, no danger of death (in my analysis) natural process of biology etc.

Could you explain here? What difference does sex make?
And why does something being "natural" make a difference to how acceptable it is? Contraception is unnatural. But so what? We intervene against nature all the time. Antibiotics are unnatural, and disease is perfectly natural. It was also natural for high numbers of women to die in childbirth. Now we have caesareans, which are entirely unnatural. You wouldn't claim that going against nature is necessarily wrong, would you?

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

'Is it wrong to force an unwilling person to donate an organ to save another person?' Yes

Does that change anything in the BI discussion? No
.

Ok. Great.

Why do you think it is wrong? Because it violates a person's bodily integrity? Or...?

Why is then not wrong for a woman to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term?

King Mob wrote: »

I asked a simple and direct question. If you were stuck for time, maybe you should have answered that directly and simply.

So I'll rephrase it so we don't have to waffle and meander.

Is it wrong to force an unwilling person to donate an organ to save another person?
Yes or no?
I'm not asking a philosophical or legal question. I'm asking you directly and it's a yes or no question.

If yes, then I don't think there's much more to discuss, but it should be clearer to you why people are angry about people's bodily integrity.

If no, then please explain why you think that a pregnant woman is does not have the same right.

I'm not really stuck for time. I'm perfectly willing to return to discussion, my understanding was this is not really an IM system.

I do think we've reached the end of useful discussion though, sadly.

'Is it wrong to force an unwilling person to donate an organ to save another person?' Yes

Does that change anything in the BI discussion? No

Also you're still trying to put words in my mouth - angry - no problem with that as above.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

We're gonna get stuck here I'm afraid, as it patently is not, not morally in my opinion and demonstrably not legally. I have to go and do something - be back later.

Thank you for the discussion thus far!

I asked a simple and direct question. If you were stuck for time, maybe you should have answered that directly and simply.

So I'll rephrase it so we don't have to waffle and meander.

Is it wrong to force an unwilling person to donate an organ to save another person?
Yes or no?
I'm not asking a philosophical or legal question. I'm asking you directly and it's a yes or no question.

If yes, then I don't think there's much more to discuss, but it should be clearer to you why people are angry about people's bodily integrity.

If no, then please explain why you think that a pregnant woman is does not have the same right.

King Mob wrote: »

In all practical cases, bodily integrity is held as absolute.

We're gonna get stuck here I'm afraid, as it patently is not, not morally in my opinion and demonstrably not legally. I have to go and do something - be back later.

Thank you for the discussion thus far!

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Assuming it's discussion then - I can't respond to your above points directly as we seem to have missed the BI point. May we return to that?

Bodily Integrity, and indeed all rights, are not absolute.

For the sake of clarity - any points you want a address form above after sorting the BI part would you lind copy pasting to a response. Sorry not trying to back seat mod or cramp your style, just need to keep it clear in my own head. Many thanks in advance.

In all practical cases, bodily integrity is held as absolute.

Even if it wasn't it's a clear cut question still.

It's patently clear that it's wrong to violate a person's bodily integrity, even in the case of saving a life.

We've yet to see any reason at all to conclude that it's different in a pregnant woman's case.

So are you now suggesting that it's ok to violate bodily integrity?
If so, in what cases other than a pregnancy?

Assuming it's discussion then - I can't respond to your above points directly as we seem to have missed the BI point. May we return to that?

Bodily Integrity, and indeed all rights, are not absolute.

For the sake of clarity - any points you want a address form above after sorting the BI part would you lind copy pasting to a response. Sorry not trying to back seat mod or cramp your style, just need to keep it clear in my own head. Many thanks in advance.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They do indeed have and should have BI. The BI of the fetus should absolutely not trump or even be equal to the BI of the mother. However it should not be completely be denied BI either, at a certain point. That certain point is not for mr to say, I barely know anything about my own chosen field without trying to introduce science into it! (Grateful for some easy to follow material on same).

So I suppose a soundbite answer would be they are, at a certain point, two competing BI rights.

This does not work as the bodily integrity of another person cannot be violated even if another person's life in danger.
So even if we assume that a fetus is a person (which we don't) it's right to life does not mean that a woman's right to bodily integrity is void.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Edit: Which I suppose was the very point you were making! So in-comparison to forced organ donation I'd say the scenarios are too different to compare. No sex, no danger of death (in my analysis) natural process of biology etc.

Why would sex alter the argument?

There absolutely is a danger of death in all pregnancies.
Further this argument does not apply because:
1.) Organ donation is very safe, on the same level of danger as pregnancy itself.
2.) Pregnancy still results in massive changes to a person's body that are permanent and life changing.
3.) Bodily integrity is still not violated in the case of things like blood donations.
Again the analogy holds, you are not explaining why it doesn't by claiming it's different.

King Mob wrote: »

So we should block abortions and violate people's bodily integrity because of your personal distaste?
And you don't want to impose morals on people?

I'm here for a discussion as per the thread title, you're either here for the same or to score internet points. I'm more than happy to continue the discussion, even try and keep an open mind but I'm not willing to engage is the above ridiculousness. You've read my previous posts, you know what angle I'm approaching this from.

Your call.