Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Radar
Nobody on earth has any claim to our bodies but ourselves
|
Shouldn't that read noTHING, not noBODY?
So, let's do the math on this one
Premise: Nobody has any claim on another person’s body.
Premise: Carrying a fetus to term is an infringement on another person's body
Conclusion: The mother can end the infringement by removing the fetus in any way she deems appropriate.
I think that's a fairly accurate sketch of your argument. You hold premise 1 to be true, and premise 2 can go uncontested, we would all agree with that (certainly anyone whose carried a baby). If both are true, then the conclusion stands. But your first premise, if its an absolute, has some dangerous extensions.
Premise: Nobody has any claim on another person’s body
Premise: Taking care of a 6-month old is an infringement on the time, resources, and strength of the parent, and thus on the actions and fruits of that body
Conclusion: The mother can end the infringement by removing the 6-month old in any way she deems appropriate, including abandoning it on a freeway overpass, or placing it in the oven.
Any reason why the first one is right and the second is wrong? And don't say "because in the second one, it’s a human life” because that's a separate argument - your argument doesn't derive from the humanity of the fetus, but from the infringement on the parent. If your first premise is absolute, then the personhood or non-personhood of the infringement makes no difference.
Quote:
A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. …
This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.
|
No, that's not a scientific conclusion, it’s a philosophical conclusion drawn from an interpretation of the "Scientific fact". Science says, "It has no alpha brain waves." Philosophy says, "Alpha brain waves define life." The biggest problem scientists run into is when they presume to take up the task of philosophy under the guise of science.
-sm