... To an abortion if she is not pregnant? I'll admit up front that this is a prelude to another thread later, but this point has to be established first. Also, I am rather on the fence with this so your arguments could be what tip me one way or the other.
I am not talking about entitlement. A pregnant woman is not entitled to an abortion. She has a right to an abortion. Those are different things.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Why would a woman have an abortion if she wasn't pregnant? ALL women have a right to their own body. No. But to have an abortion one needs to be pregnant....maybe you should've worded your question differently.....it's seems a rather silly question anyway.... Did you have a point?
Not necessarily a point on this thread, but I did say at the beginning that this was a bulid up to a larger point and discussion. So to be clear, the right to an abortion is not dependant upon being pregnant?
Of course not, women always have the right to their own bodies, just like everyone else whether they're pregnant or not.. There is no "larger point"...
I think he's asking would a woman who's not pregnant have a hypothetical entitlement to get an abortion even though she doesn't need one. Like, if she just wanted to go in and get one for shits and giggles, would she be entitled to do that.
UhDUH, you can't abort something that isn't there …. goodgawd… ...and , NO, you can't have a heart bypass for shits and giggles either....so WTF are you talking about???
He's just asking does she have an entitlement to that procedure, in the hypothetical event she wanted it, if she was not pregnant. If it help's you answer the OP's question, just replace 'abortion' with 'a sucking out and scraping of her uterus'.
Yes Since the procedure is for more conditions than an unwanted pregnancy not only can she have one but she often must have one
No abortion is ending an unwanted pregnancy it’s by defenition a requirement to be pregnant. A persons right to their own body is the basis.
Are we not entitled to undergo necessary procedures? I am not making any distinction between the procedure and the act. The procedure is dilation and curettage or d&c and there are many indications for performing one besides unwanted pregnancy
I believe the OP was questioning whether women are not also entitled to undergo unnecessary procedures. He seemed to be asking it from a hypothetical standpoint (to set up something for his next argument, which he has not presented us with yet). If a woman, for some hypothetical reason, wanted to undergo a procedure that she had absolutely no rational reason to undergo, and where no fetus was terminated, would she still be entitled to that? The OP seems kind of bizarre but I guess he's trying to set up a premise and lay the foundation for his next argument.
Sounds more like a prelude to an attempted gotcha (it doesn’t matter whether it actually is your intention or not). Why don’t you just post the actual thread you’re referring to presenting any predicates like this as assumptions. If anyone disagrees with an assumption that can be discussed as an aside but if everyone is happy to work within the scope of the assumption, it doesn’t matter.
I think that she is, if not pregnant, as long as she is pregnant when aborting. What is she aborting if she is not pregnant?
Let.me.stop you right there. I am not asking if they are entitled. That implies that they are owed an abortion. A right, at least for the purpose of the thread, is simply that which cannot be made Illegal by government, nor denied you by a third party. We could go on a whole other thread on what a right actually is, and indeed there are already many such threads on debate sites all over. But for now let's just keep it simple.
