One of the major assumptions on the Pro-Choice side is that if it doesn't have consciousness, it doesn't have rights. Pretty much the entire Pro-Choice argument rests on this premise. If human beings who don't have consciousness -- who definitely don't -- have rights, then much of the Pro-Choice argument falls apart like a house of cards. That's one of the two main pillars upon which the Pro-Choice position rests. Take that foundation away, and the whole position is close to toppling (certainly very precarious, at the very least). So, if one on the Pro-Choice side is to maintain consistency, they have to concede wholeheartedly that human beings who do not possess the capability for consciousness -- in any meaning of the term -- are not capable of being accorded their own rights. But this creates an interesting implication, if we take this reasoning to its logical conclusion... Necrophilia. If we argue that a fetus has no rights, how can we argue that a dead body has rights? I mean, at least a fetus is actually alive, and will (definitely) have consciousness at some point not too far off into the future. This cannot be said for a dead body. And if a dead body has rights because that person was alive in the past, then why couldn't the argument be made that a human fetus has rights because it will be a person at some point in the near future? Here's one proposal. How about any woman can get an abortion, but she has to register her name on a list. And then if some day a man is caught having sex with the remains of her body, he will not be liable to any punishment. Fair seems fair. Maybe for women who've gotten repeated multiple abortions, their deceased corpse can be rented out for creepy men to have their way with. The Pro-Choice side argues that women have the right to have sex however they see fit, that they have the right to use their body to do whatever they want (as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of another alive person), and they should not have to be held responsible for their choices, even if other people may disagree with their sexual decisions and actions.
Go ahead and legalize it, I highly doubt necrophilia being illegal is acting as a major deterrent. If you're someone that's in to that, the law is probably not changing your mind. Also, you might want to take a break from abortion discussion. This thread is a little...creepy.
Here's a little useful tool in logic and argumentative debate: If a line of reasoning can be taken to an inevitably absurd logical conclusion, then something about the original assumption or reasoning (i.e. "the pro-choice position") is probably flawed. Yes, the thinking might be a weird hypothetical, which seems on the surface to have little to deal with the issue at hand; but if your underlying logic and assumptions are completely sound, then they should be able to hold true in any type of situation. Using these hypothetical thought experiments can be kind of like a test to see if your argument really holds water; if the foundations of your argument are really sound and solid. It's pretty difficult, isn't it, to be able to try to argue that a dead human body should be accorded rights, but not a human fetus. What type of (realistic and solid) argument could you make with one that wouldn't apply to the other?
This reminds me of my cellmate in prison over 20 years ago ( now fortunately I am a reformed man and I have not been in trouble in almost 20 years.... But I digress ) He broke into a funeral home and tied up the attendant and he plucked an eyeball from a corpse and violated it. Thus causing me to give him the nickname " pluck ". Evidently his case caused Florida law to change because evidently no one expected anyone to do such a depraved thing. Obviously he must have got in some legal trouble over it. As disturbing as the thoughts discussed in the op might be..... At least she has a point about the consistency of the pro-choice crowd. Either a human body has rights only with consciousness or it doesn't.
if the government can force people to have babies... they can force them to abort is that what you want?
If a IVF lab got 100 women pregnant with Hitlers dna.... would the right demand they be forced to give birth?
Actually you're the one that bought up absurdities so if you want to continue I guess I'll just read it for entertainment
did you read the op? and post #3 also by the op? Referring to the post #1 "If a line of reasoning can be taken to an inevitably absurd logical conclusion, then something about the original assumption or reasoning... is probably flawed."
