Women have a responsibility to more than themselves

Not a flaw: as I said at the end of the first paragraph, if the fetus is not a person, this is all moot.

 

And I was referring to the first paragraph where the fetus was referred to as a child.



Addressed post #74 yet?

 

Even at the beginning of that paragraph, I referred to the claims made in conditional terms (if/then) - I even capitalized the IF. Hence, not a flaw (by definition). Example,

Premise 1: If you live in California, then you would be concerned about the water crisis. (If P then Q)
Premise 2: If you are concerned about the water crisis, then you are thinking about the environment. (If Q then R)
Conclusion: If you live in California, then you are thinking about the environment. (If P then R)

This is a logically valid argument: If P then Q, If Q then R, If P then R. Classic hypothetical syllogism. To see if it is sound - you would investigate the truth claims of each premise. If the premises are true then by definition (Valid inference) - the conclusion must be true. But evaluating a premise's truth claim, means looking at the if/then inference. You wouldn't respond by saying: I don't live in California. Or no one lives in California. You would evaluate the claim that being in California, entails thinking about the water crisis, or perhaps the claim that thinking about the water crisis entails thinking about the environment. In other words, even if you deny that P exists (the antecedent term here) and deny that Q is true (the consequent term) the truth value of the conditional term is still true.

Or to put it in a slightly different context:

Premise #1: If the fetus is a person, then the fetus has rights. (If P then Q)
Premise #2: The fetus has rights (Q)
Conclusion: The fetus is a person. (P)

Denying P in this case would not be a flaw: claiming that it is, is actually a fallacy (denying the antecedent). See the following:

Premise 1: If the fetus is a person, then the fetus has rights. (if P then Q)
Premise 2: The fetus is not a person (Not P)
Conclusion: Therefore, the fetus doesn't have rights. (Not Q)

To see why look at the following:

Premise 1: If you live in Chicago, then you live in the United States (If P then Q)
Premise 2: I don't live in Chicago (Not P)
Conclusion: Therefore I don't live in the United States (Not Q)

Obviously this is faulty logic. The form of the argument is invalid.

See the following truth table explanation: http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Logic/IfThen.html.

So just to clarify: not a flaw at all. Claiming it's a flaw is a logical fallacy. Or to put it another way, claiming it's a flaw is actually a flaw.

A response to #74 is coming - these posts and responses can be a bit time consuming.

 

But men don't. It's pretty cool that way.

 

The fetus is never a "child". Even IF it was deemed a "person", that does NOT change the FACT that scientifically and biologically and factually it is a fetus. It would be called a fetus with rights. It would be a baby or child at birth.


If you wish to call it a "child" then have at it....you will be wrong but that is your right. Using your reasoning why not call it an adult or a pre-teen or a toddler ?


These posts need not be time consuming if you just got to the point....

 

So you believe : """Women have a responsibility to more than just themselves, ""

Why?

 

I believe men AND women have responsibilities to more than just themselves.

 

Okay: Per Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Full Definition of child
plural children play \ˈchil-drən, -dərn\
1
a : an unborn or recently born person

And Dictionary.com:

4. a human fetus.

And American Heritage Dictionary:

2a: An unborn infant; a fetus.

And Collins English Dictionary:

3. an unborn baby.

Webster's New World College Dictionary:

2. an unborn human offspring; fetus

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=child
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/child

But please, by all means, continue.

 

Sorry, it was confusing because you said, ""Quote Originally Posted by Phoebe Bump View Post

But men don't. It's pretty cool that way.""

Women have no responsibility to gestate and give birth....and neither do men

 

I will. Those are "common usage" definitions.

Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

The fetus is never a "child". Even IF it was deemed a "person", that does NOT change the FACT that scientifically and biologically and factually it is a fetus. It would be called a fetus with rights. It would be a baby or child at birth.


If you wish to call it a "child" then have at it....you will be wrong but that is your right. Using your reasoning why not call it an adult or a pre-teen or a toddler ?

Call it anything you like...I've heard them called "Princess" and " pumpkin" and "buns"........but that can't change the fact that it is a fetus...

 

Abortions involving anesthetics do not cause pain to the fetus because it is anesthetized at the same time. Therefore a 3rd trimester abortion to save the life and/or health of the woman will not inflict pain.

 

Well child means fetus (and fetus is latin for "young in the womb"), so... you're giving me permission to call it what it is commonly called (sardonically), but objecting that I called it what it is commonly called? Got it.

Okay, to put this to rest - fetus it is (when it's not a zygote or blastocyst).

 

I've noticed some people using the term "zef" which I assume is shorthand for zygote/embryo/fetus.

I think the key is that we should use terminology that is precise enough to avoid confusion. If you see a six-year old playing in the backyard with a dog you could refer to the six-year old as a human, or child, or youngster to distinguish between the child and the dog. In a discussion about abortion, the only reason I can think of to apply the less precise term is to cloud the issue or pretend that there is no difference in the different stages of development.

 

Well of course all language is loaded with value implications/expectations, include those deemed to be more "precise." On this matter look at the work of Max Weber on disenchantment or Michel Foucault on discoursive power. We could of course break down the Mona Lisa into its subsequent parts/oils/structures, technical language to describe the piece, etc., the same is true of music into structural language, or a sub-saharan lion into more biologically precise terms, but doing so abstracts away from the whole, disenchants (under the scientism of the enlightenment) from the majesty of the individual thing itself. Until all that we have are more readily manipulated and controlled things, more efficient, and more ordered domination. The instrumentalization of life (reification) - all in service of our glorious dominance. So the desire for sterile reductive terms, has the tendency to rob things of their dynamic fluid lived contexts, and render them cold inert and dead. The love of all that is not living, is an exemplary representation of our contemporary age: it's the necrophilia of thought.

 

Okay. No objection here.

 

1) So this discussion emerges from a comment that you made concerning whether or not you worry about hurting someone who is hurting you. Well this trades on the implication of malevolent intent: if the hurt is intentional then one could be inclined not to care or even to relish in it. But given the fact that this was in response to whether or not the mother could ause alcohol while pregnant, this takes on a whole other dynamic – more about this in point #4 below. As for your response in post #74 – you limited the discussion to unintentional harm, which of course removes retributive acts, but raises other questions. I would hope that if you injured a person who was innocently harming you (i.e. not intentionally causing harm) in order to protect yourself, that you would feel some pang of remorse for the act (even if necessary) – such an act would be tragic would it not? To lack this empathy would be textbook pathology.

2) You claim here that my analogy fails for several reasons. You have provided no response to my argument. The analogy I am using here explores the means by which language masks prescriptive value designations as it relates to characterizations of the opposition. Using anti-choice as a characterization of the opposition’s identity commits the “poisoning the well” fallacy (whether or not the act of abortion is the same as the act of murder or abuse is quite beside the point – none of it is at all relevant to the analogy). So not only have not undermined the analogy, you haven’t even addressed it. My claim was a metalinguistic account concerning the structure of the conversation about abortion, not an analogy addressing the permissibility of abortion.

3) Your tendency to render everything in terms of legal analysis commits a category mistake. Does anyone deny that most abortions are legal in the US? No. That’s obvious. Roe v Wade, privacy and the 14th amendment. What people are actually arguing about is whether or not abortion ought to be something that is legally permitted – this is an ought claim – now obviously changes can be initiated via the legal system through statutory law or through constitutional amendment, but these are merely the applied practical means of instituting an ethical position. Your approach can offer no answer to the question of whether or not abortion should be the law of the land. To do other conflates the meaning of “is” and “ought” – and such commits the naturalistic fallacy.

4) That said, even among the legal issues, your position would seem to be far from absolute. For example, as I’m sure you well know the Supreme Court upheld governmental bans on intact dilation and extraction in Gonzales vs Carhardt (concerning the Partial-Birth abortion ban of 2003) –and since Constitutional statutory law supersedes common law – this is now law of the land – if you disagree with this, I would love to hear your reasons why.

5) Now concerning your claims of legal self-defense and the fetus, you continually refer to non-consensual use of the body. This would only seem to apply in cases of rape (which constitutes about 1% of all abortions, this is the high end estimate). The act of engaging in sexual intercourse knowing full well the consequences of that act seems to suggest an assumed responsibility, which of course carries with it, substantial legal obligations and is ubiquitous in law (see Maritime Law, Familial Obligations, Depue v Flatau, etc.). In 99% of the cases, the fetus is there because the mother helped to create the situation.

6) You argue that it doesn’t matter if the fetus is a person or not (actually you said it would be better if the fetus was a person) – this is perhaps the most bewildering statement yet. If the fetus is a person then you have two persons with equal rights (let’s assume that rights based theory of justice can be justified for the time-being – we’ll come back to this later). Both have the right to life, autonomy, the right not to be harmed. Whose rights are superior? In US law, self-defense claims are notoriously grey, given the complexities of context and the nebulous nature of US law. But you claim the threat of harm provides grounds. Does it? Numerous studies show that women report the vast majority of pregnancies to be positive experiences, with most women claiming only mild side effects. If this is correct, then the harm issue, which you seem to ground your self-defense claims on, would be seriously undermined. I know of no formulation of law that allows the endurance of mild side-effects, as a result of assumed responsibility, to support justifiable homicide. Does the fetus forfeit its right to life and the right not be harmed by virtue of innocently causing mild discomfort whose risk was assumed (in most cases – I’m not talking about critical health issues – and also please note the huge legal quagmire that is presumptive self-defense – you have to show real threat and danger and harm). This would be difficult for most pregnancies to demonstrate in week 6.

7) Also, key to your argument is that the woman has no other recourse. But this would only apply before the 23rd week (viability). You have to show why abortion after viability could be justified (in none life threatening or great harm situations). Seemingly then, if the fetus is a person, and in cases in which responsibility wasn’t assumed (rape), and only in cases where there is substantial harm, an abortion could only be performed before the 23rd week.

8.) Furthermore, it’s not clear that you have shown that individuals have rights but not duties. You seem to take a hard-line libertarian stance, but I don’t see a justification for that stance. You also seem to be a legal positivist. But that position entails numerous difficulties in trying to sort out conflicting legal claims – see Ronald Dworkin’s Taking Rights Seriously on conscientious objectors and the draft. Would it be unjust or impermissible for someone to prevent a woman from obtaining certain foods or goods for her children on the grounds that it would harm her or her children? Or her community? Do you think the government can promote the general good by compelling people to behave in certain ways –curfews, etc. If rights trump the good as you seem to argue – then I can only assume you believe the US government was unjust in its rationing of goods in WWII? Or its curfews? Or blackouts? There are other perspectives besides minimalist liberalism (and its elevating individual rights over the common good) - for example, communitarian perspectives. It would seem that in order to show your account of libertarianism in justified you would have to ground your foundational claims: Where do rights come from? How are they justified?

9) To return to your claim about not caring about mother’s heavy abuse of alcohol – do you have any thoughts on environmental sustainability and the obligations to future generations? Would love to hear your thoughts on those issues.

10) Of course, all of these difficulties with abortion are removed if the fetus is not a person. Hence, personhood is foundation, it’s not even conceivable as a red herring. That claim strains the very bounds of credulity.

 

That was a well articulated and thorough response, well done.

I have a very simple question that might cut through EVERYTHING.

Is it acceptable to remove the rights to someones body because personal opinion dictates you do?

 

I will address #6 as Fugazi will certainly take care of the rest.

You refer callously to pregnancy as "mild discomfort" and women claim only mild side effects(as if ALL women experience the same exact things in pregnancy ).

I doubt that many women are told of what pregnancy entails. The minute they're pregnant their blood pressure is altered and their immune system is compromised.


Just because pregnancy was deemed a "positive" experience for S O M E women doesn't mean, as you imply, that all women are on the level of cattle and think exactly the same or experience the exact same thing. It may be positive to the woman IF the pregnancy was a wanted pregnancy.



Consenting to sex (one act) is not consenting to any other act.

Consent may be with drawn at anytime.




Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
•exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
•altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
•nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
•heartburn and indigestion
•constipation
•weight gain
•dizziness and light-headedness
•bloating, swelling, fluid retention
•hemmorhoids
•abdominal cramps
•yeast infections
•congested, bloody nose
•acne and mild skin disorders
•skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
•mild to severe backache and strain
•increased headaches
•difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
•increased urination and incontinence
•bleeding gums
•pica
•breast pain and discharge
•swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
•difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
•inability to take regular medications
•shortness of breath
•higher blood pressure
•hair loss or increased facial/body hair
•tendency to anemia
•curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
•infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
•extreme pain on delivery
•hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
•continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)



Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
•stretch marks (worse in younger women)
•loose skin
•permanent weight gain or redistribution
•abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
•pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
•changes to breasts
•increased foot size
•varicose veins
•scarring from episiotomy or c-section
•other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
•increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
•loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
•higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
•newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)



Occasional complications and side effects:
•complications of episiotomy
•spousal/partner abuse
•hyperemesis gravidarum
•temporary and permanent injury to back
•severe scarring requiring later surgery
(especially after additional pregnancies)
•dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
•pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
•eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
•gestational diabetes
•placenta previa
•anemia (which can be life-threatening)
•thrombocytopenic purpura
•severe cramping
•embolism (blood clots)
•medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
•diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
•mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
•serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
•hormonal imbalance
•ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
•broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
•hemorrhage and
•numerous other complications of delivery
•refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
•aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
•severe post-partum depression and psychosis
•research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
•research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
•research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease




Less common (but serious) complications:

•peripartum cardiomyopathy
•cardiopulmonary arrest
•magnesium toxicity
•severe hypoxemia/acidosis
•massive embolism
•increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
•molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
(like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
•malignant arrhythmia
•circulatory collapse
•placental abruption
•obstetric fistula



More permanent side effects:
•future infertility
•permanent disability
•death.













To call that "mild discomfort " ""would be textbook pathology""

 

It seems to be extremely important to pro-lifers to establish that a woman is obligated to continue a pregnancy because she caused it by choosing to have sex. As always, the discussion comes down to punishment of a woman because she chose to have sex. While this argument may be made in combination with some proposal of the value of the zef, it seems the very basis of anti-abortion thought is punishment of the woman. Most women realize that a pregnancy may result from the choice to have sex, but it is up to the woman to choose what to do about an unwanted pregnancy, and any attempt to remove that choice is solely due to punishment thinking. Pro-choicers believe that producing and rearing a child is too important to be a matter of punishment, and that using an unwanted pregnancy to influence women's behavior is despicable.

 

Whether the person feels remorse or not is irrelevant, and no unintentional harm does not remove retributive acts.

I addressed your analogy as it was presented, if you wish to move the goalposts now then that invokes a different discussion.

yes abortion is something that ought to be legally permitted, anything other violates the fundamental foundation of self, and consent.
Abortion is ethical .. I find nothing ethically or morally wrong in a person refusing to allow another person to inure them without consent and defending themselves against such violation.

The ban on intact dilation and extraction is in my opinion unconstitutional, and the only reason the Supreme court got away with it was because the unborn are not legally deemed as full persons, if they were then the states "interest in preserving fetal life" would not be strong enough to over rule the females right to consent to injuries from a third party.

consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy, consent is not a transferable commodity unless the person who gave the consent agrees to the transfer. consent to one person (a man) for one act (sexual intercourse) is not consent to another person (the fetus) for another act (pregnancy), furthermore sexual intercourse merely produces a risk of pregnancy and no person is expected to suffer injury due to a risk taken. You could suggest that the consent is implied or informed, however implied or informed consent is only relevant until the person, by word or action, explicitly says "no".

Causality is one of the hardest things in law to determine. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence.
A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause.
Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred.

This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state.
In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task.
While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences.

You first error is the assumption that pregnancy does not constitute serious harm, where as it does, in fact pregnancy is already deemed as serious harm in some cases and is termed "wrongful pregnancy". The reality is that even under normal circumstances pregnancy increases hormones in the females body by up to 400%, increases blood pressure by up to 15%, re-routes the circulatory system, suppresses the local immune system and grows a new organ inside her body .. if any other person were to be subjected to these things they would be justified in using force to stop them happening .. do you disagree with that? if not then why should a female be restricted from using force to stop them happening to her, and no it would not be difficult to demonstrate even for before week 6 as these changes occur from the moment a fertilized ovum successfully implants into the uterine wall.

nope, the means and amount of intrusion the female agrees to is up to her, not anyone else, just as it is up to you the means and amount of intrusion you allow upon your body .. would you accept the state making the decision for you as to what means and amount of intrusion could be performed upon you?

Individuals do not really have duties or obligations to other people other than what they decide to have and as abortion has no detrimental effect on society as a whole, unlike some of the other things you have mentioned above, then there is no need for the state to impose it's view onto others. Laws are made for the common good ie an act can effect more than just the person involved, tell me who does a woman having abortion effect you or any other person?

Where rights come from and how they are justified is a whole different topic in itself.

That would be for another thread, no wish to go off topic here.

They are not issues even if the fetus is a person, hence personhood is nothing more than a red herring .. what is important is what the fetus does, not what it is.

 

1) this is a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. Intent of the arguer is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the argument itself- The argument is either right to wrong - intent does not change that. It is also a straw-man because, I view these obligations as tragic. I also happen to believe that we all have a duty to aid starving children, particularly citizens of affluent nations, I believe we have a moral obligation to prevent the starvation related deaths of over 30,000 children every day (that's 10 World Trade Centers full of children every day) - I believe our financial obligations are substantial - I believe we must make significant sacrifices to do this, I don't believe that requiring obligations of others entails a desire to get back at them, so no. It is possible to talk about obligations honestly without harboring a misogynistic intent. Even for those who are misogynistic thought, this wouldn't undermine the logic or rationality of their actual arguments. Again those must stand on their own (for example, a coat maker who argues that you shouldn't say out in sub-zero weather without a coat, may be trying to sell coats, but she wouldn't be wrong.
2) This is not a pro-life argument, since point #10 allows for the permissibility of abortion,if the fetus is not a person - hence this is an argument against certain types of pro-choice arguments. If the fetus is not a person, then none of these conflicts matter. Hence the importance of personhood. If it is a person,then there are obligations that logically/ethically must arise.

 

You have every right to believe you have obligations and every right to determine what they are.

But NO one has a right to force others to think they have the same obligations.


I don't believe I have an obligation to feed a starving child or have one.....no one does unless they decide for themselves that they do.

 

Legislating "moral obligations" hasn't been successful in the past. Why would it be any different in the future?

 

I 100% disagree, there are no logical/ethical (and you can add moral to that) obligation for one person to allow, against their will, another person to injure them and as you say the argument is either right or wrong, intent isn't relevant ie the intent or lack of- of the unborn is irrelevant to the argument as to whether it has a right to impose upon an unwilling third party (the woman). The circumstances of how it came to be in that situation is also irrelevant, unless you can show that the female had the intention of getting pregnant in the first place eg. If I leave my front door open does that show intent to allow a person to enter my house and even if it did does that allow the person to injure me without consent, or am I justified in defending myself up to and including deadly force if required. I would suggest the confines of ones body has a greater ownership right than even ones own house.

 

Language can also be used to mislead people. It is perfectly natural, when you learn you are pregnant, to talk about the developing zef as your "baby" because you are thinking about what it will become and what it means to you (assuming you want a baby). It is intellectually dishonest for pro-life groups like Operation Rescue to call it a "baby" or a "child" in the context of abortion because technically it is not, yet, a baby or a child. They are taking advantage of common misuse of the term to perform a bit of subliminal programming on the public.

For example, how often have you heard the phrase "we have a baby in the oven" over the years? Did you really believe somebody had placed an infant in the oven at home? No... You know it is a euphemism for pregnancy and it would be intellectually dishonest to announce "Mr and Mrs Jones are horrible people... they just confessed that they have a baby in an oven." That is what pro-life advocates are doing.

I believe pro-life advocates resort to this intellectual dishonesty (claiming pro-choice advocates are baby killers) because
(1) They cannot motivate much support by chanting "it is wrong for a woman to remove a zygote from her uterus."
(2) They cannot prove the unborn zygote/embryo/fetus qualifies as a person (self-aware entity) before birth.
(3) Even if they could, they would have to claim any person has the right to demand the services of another person without their consent.