"Fetus in a tank" counter-question for "pro-lifers"--

What is the difference to you between a hypothetical "gestation tank" that would grow a fetus...

and a woman?


Does the "tank" have any rights? Is it a "baby-making machine" that others can control?

Does a woman have any rights? Is she a "baby-making machine" that others can control?

 

There is none, other than the fact that the woman suffers inconvenience from a pregnancy, and sometimes health effects (though it is extremely rare for doctors ever to need to abort the fetus to save the life of the woman).

Yes, unfortunately the woman does constitute an "incubating machine" machine, or sorts. The fetus's life is dependent on her body.
Maybe if elective abortion was only allowed before a certain point, then I feel the woman could still have a fair chance of being able to terminate the pregnancy at a very early stage, which is more optimal than terminating later.

 

It's funny...I start off thinking you will DENY your misogyny when it is charged....

but then you actually admit it.

I suppose again, I should thank you for your honesty. And again, as noted on another thread, tell you that I would fight ....as hard as my grandfather did in Italy against the Axis....

against people like you if you ever somehow came to power.

 

It's the woman's bodily inconvenience versus a human life. Which one do you think should win out?

Even if pregnancy automatically killed 1 out of a 100 women, don't you think a 16-week-old fetus is still worth a little bit more than 1% of the woman's life?

 

Not if she doesn't want it.

 

Too bad. The fetus cannot consent to the medical procedure which she plans to make it to undergo.

 

By the way, here's another facet to view this from:
When a woman is pregnant, is it really all her body? I mean, if her body is physically attached and so intimately intertwined with another entity, is her body still all hers to do with as she wants, however she wants? Since there is another life temporarily wholly dependent on her for its survival. Maybe she should just wait the pregnancy out. Her loss of bodily autonomy and full measure of individual liberty is not a permanent one. Although if she gets pregnant over and over again, that could be very problematic...

 

And you would willingly give up your rights and bodily autonomy for as long as I want?


And, yes, when a woman is pregnant it is still her body.......it certainly isn't yours......

 

The woman.

No. And I'll bet if YOU could get pregnant, you'd agree with me.

 

The woman isn't being required to give up all her rights. She can still walk around wherever she chooses. (though that might be a little more difficult in the third trimester )

Why do you think it's okay for a woman to do whatever she wants to someone else (the fetus), but it's not okay for concerned members in society to impose their will on her (to prevent her from imposing her will on someone else, ironically )

This all reeks of the whole Slavery argument: "Leave us alone, mind your own business, don't interfere in our way of life!"
When ironically, Abolitionists were only interfering because they wanted Southern slaveowners to leave the slaves alone and stop controlling them. It was very hypocritical, to say the least, for slaveowners to want to be "left alone" from outside control.

 

I'll bet if you were trapped inside a womb and someone was thinking about aborting you, you'd agree with me.

 

""Why do you think it's okay for a woman to do whatever she wants to someone else (the fetus), ""


How many times do you have to be told: the fetus is NOT "someone else".

Why do YOU think it's OK to do whatever you want to women???


Why do you think they fetus should have more rights than woman?

 

Depends, does the tank get to decide whether or not to partake in an act that can result in pregnancy?

 

Yes, if the woman is an adult human being, and not some breeding animal who is incapable of controlling her own actions, then that makes ethically culpable for her past actions. She played a hand in bringing the fetus into existence.

 

So you consider being injured a mere " inconvenience"?

Elective abortion is only allowed before a certain point, currently it is before 24 weeks, and you do realise that there are women who do not even realise they are pregnant at ANY stage of the pregnancy don't you?

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong, its the woman being injured versus a human life.

No.

- - - Updated - - -

By your logic the rapist should have to consent to the victim defending themselves ...

 

What a strange idea, since when does a person lose the right to body autonomy based on the requirements of another person?

Seems to me you are saying that it is ok for a person to lose ~9 months of their right to autonomy, which apart from being a direct violation of your own Constitution begs the question would you agree to allow the state to enforce you giving up your right to autonomy regardless of the duration?

 

wow .. tell you what when you agree to be forced to give up some of your autonomy rights you might haver a point.

Why do you think it is ok for a person to kill another in self-defence .. answer that and you will have your answer to your own question.

Which is the real slave and master under your proposal, the person who loses their autonomy or the person who is forcing her to lose her autonomy?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually I wouldn't be able to agree or disagree with you based on the fact that as a fetus I wouldn't have the ability to agree or disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

sigh, the old debunked consent to sex = consent to pregnancy argument .. suggest you research consent laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Wholly irrelevant to the debate as consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

 

Sorry don't read multi quote abusers.

 

In other words you evade things you cannot answer, just like most other pro-lifers.

 

No other words at all. As I stated....very clearly I might add, I don't read multi quote abusers. I find the multi quote tactic is often used by people to say they answered something when they didn't and therefore I no longer will entertain these types of posts. If you want me to discuss your post I suggest to stop abusing the multi quote.

 

Considering the fact that I only replied to you once, all the other replies are to another poster and I have no control on how the forum software places those replies then yes you are evading .. but in the interest of debate here is the single response I posted to you.

 

Its completely relevant if you are comparing a tank to a human. The tank must have the same decision making skills as the woman. And no... consent to sex is acknowledgment that you may get pregnant as that is biologically how human beings reproduce.

 

I am not the one comparing a tank to a human.

So in reality then consent to sex is merely implied and/or informed consent to the risk of pregnancy, and no one is expected to suffer injury due to a risk they took, it cannot be explicit consent it can only be implied and/or informed consent, neither of which are binding, both become moot the second the person, by word or action, explicitly says "no"

 

You butted into my post that was to the OP, therefore you are now partaking in comparing a tank to a human. If you aren't then why did you butt in?
As far as the word salad at the end. Every single person who is adult enough to have sex understands the act may lead to pregnancy and the only 100% way to not get pregnant is to abstain. Do you understand having sex can lead to pregnancy? Or did you fail the sex ed health class?

 

I understand what I posted, you however fail to understand that the context of the OP is not saying that the tank is akin to the woman, but that the woman is akin to the tank ie having no rights as a person, therefore your question is irrelevant to the context of the OP.

Which is irrelevant to the legal standing of consent and how it applies, I'm sorry if it's a bit to intellectual for you.

I'll dumb it down for you .. The law recognizes in many ways how people can consent to factual, necessary causes of accidents and injuries imposed by other people without consenting to the legal causes of accidents. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113 - What this means is that just because normal consensual sexual intercourse usually precedes pregnancy does not mean that a woman has consented to pregnancy. ie consenting to sexual intercourse does not imply consenting to being injured by a another person which is what pro-lifers insist the fetus is. consenting to one person (a man) for one act (sexual intercourse) does not imply consenting to another person (the fetus) for another act (pregnancy).

It is the pro-life ideology of the fetus being a person that gives far more standing to elective abortion than anything Roe ever has.