Right, those were the arguments we came around for in dinner, really... which is why I became thoroughly curious. It seems like in a way they are a little incapable of co-existing, and to me the first, when used out of context, could be an argument for JUST Veganism... ee, again, sorry, I haven't been part of this community for a super long time, and my flist doesn't show tags on the layout I have.
But in the case of pregnancy in the instance of an existing human needing someone else's body, the someone else has already made a decision where they risked this situation occuring. They've given their consent. I'm not trying to argue that they should have to keep it, just pointing out that someone informed about birth control and chooses to use it has already accepted the possibility of pregnancy.
In order to have an abortion you have to be pregnant. I think you mean that they wouldn't be consenting to a full term pregnancy, which is correct but not the point. In the "what-if" the poster presented the person would not have to be coerced to allow a person to live off them because they already had. However, they would have to be coerced to not backout of their decision that resulted in allowing the existing human to live of off them. I think that that example is a better arguement for reproductive responsibility, not for abortion.
I didn't say pregnancy was guaranteed, but it is an actual risk. Like getting in an accident is a risk of driving. I think you should be able to sue like I think you should be able to have an abortion. My point was just that your first analogy doesn't seem like as good an argument for abortion as it does for reproductive responsibility.
And to answer you other comment, I meant that they had given their consent to the already existing human. Thats why I said, "in the case of the already existing human" ;)
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I'm not trying to argue that they should have to keep it, just pointing out that someone informed about birth control and chooses to use it has already accepted the possibility of pregnancy.
Reply
Reply
In the "what-if" the poster presented the person would not have to be coerced to allow a person to live off them because they already had. However, they would have to be coerced to not backout of their decision that resulted in allowing the existing human to live of off them.
I think that that example is a better arguement for reproductive responsibility, not for abortion.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Yeah, definitely not the best analogy unless your arguing a rape-induced pregnancy.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And to answer you other comment, I meant that they had given their consent to the already existing human. Thats why I said, "in the case of the already existing human" ;)
Reply
Leave a comment