I thought up an argument that I think is convincing enough that it could start many pro-choicers on the road to the pro-life side. Pro-choicers say that a woman should never have to have the consent of someone else to get an abortion. But there is one case (although a rare one) where that is not true. Conjoined twins, where two women are sharing the same womb. If they fall pregnant, the consent of both twins is needed to choose abortion. You can't perform an abortion with the consent of only one of them, because that would be forcing the other to have an abortion against her will. So when two people are sharing the same body, the consent from both are needed to have an abortion. Once we can see that we can then start looking at the case of a woman sharing her body with her unborn developing baby. Those on the far Left support sharing everything else. Some of them even have a dream of no private property and everybody sharing everything. Why then are they so against a woman sharing her body?
Well ,that's not true so you are trying to base your case on a lie. The fact that you see women as "things", as "property" doesn't change my mind about anything.
let me think on this, if one wanted the baby and one didn't how would it be raised? how long before the one who didn't want the baby did something... this is academic, of course. this isn't going to happen any more than a girl gets pregnant from a ghost.
What has never happened ever? Conjoined twins sharing the same womb, or two conjoined twins getting into a disagreement about it?
That's an intriguing point. And, would that even have relevance to this? How about if the twin that wanted to have sex in the first place, and now is the same one who wants to get an abortion, isn't the twin who has feeling down there? Then the old argument "humans need to have sex" wouldn't apply here, would it? It would be more like a woman who got pregnant from an appointment at a sperm bank, and then wants to abort. And what if one of the twins has 55% of the innervation and feeling down there, and the other one has only 45%. Does she get the controlling share and decision-making power, or something like that? That would just seem silly. I know the twins Abby and Brittany Hensel were asked about that at one point, and they refused to talk about it and said it was an inappropriate question.
It has to be up to them. They have to live with the decision and each other. The government should not interfere.
So suppose one of them drags the other to the abortion clinic and one of the twins tells the doctor "No, I do not want this abortion!" If the doctor does it anyway, should he be prosecuted for medical assault? Does it become murder, because it was done without the consent of one of the mothers? (currently Roe v Wade does not stop someone from being charged with murder if they kill the fetus without the woman's permission) Suppose one twin hires a lawyer to seek a court-ordered injunction to stop the other twin from getting an abortion? Should the judge just ignore her?
If the other one wants to drive, they will have to agree to take a trip to England! Its the middle of the night, the baby is crying and twin 2 doesn't want to get out of bed. "I didn't want the baby in the first place" Im sure it will be a complicated case, but nowhere near as complicated as treating all Americans like conjoined twins.
Suppose one of the twins knocks the other out with chloroform and then gets in the car and drives to the abortion clinic. Should it be legal for them to do an abortion when one of the mothers is unconscious, and cannot give her consent?
I know many of you just want to brush this off. But the fact is, if there does exist a situation where the consent
I'm 100% sure we should not make something illegal because an incredibly rare and unlikely event such as this actually happens.
The fact that this is a rare situation is irrelevant, logically. My point was, there does exist a situation where the woman's own consent is not enough to get an abortion. That should make us all step back and think. A woman's personal choice is not so sacrosanct as we might think, if she is sharing her body with another. The real question is, is a developing baby/fetus really so different from the situation of a conjoined twin? One can view the situation of pregnancy as her sharing her body. Many pro-choicers keep saying there are not two separate bodies in pregnancy, that they are attached, and constitute only one body. Well if that's the case, it's not that far-fetched to say the woman is sharing her body. This situation, although rare, provides us with another way of viewing the situation of pregnancy. We know it's not an 'ordinary' situation when there are conjoined twins. Well, a pregnancy may not be such an ordinary situation either. Special rules come into play, that may not normally apply to individuals.
Besides how totally silly this is ... It must still be up to the women. The issue is whether the GOVERNMENT forces itself on the women. Beyond that, it would be quite reasonable to suspect that carrying a fetus to term could be dangerous for conjoined twins. Were YOU going to write that into your law that DEMANDS on pain of prosecution that YOUR rules are forced on these women by the government?
Hey, Kazenatsu, here's a topic for your next thread on this forum: How many angels can have abortions on the end of a pin?' It has about as much real world relevance as this thread does and I don't think the question has ever been asked before. You can run with it if you want, I'll claim no credit. And I'm out.
It has relevance because it is an analogy, and an example. Just because something is very abstract and will almost never happen, does not mean it does not have relevance. That specific situation doesn't have relevance directly, but the ideas it embodies does.
Since it isn't an axiom, it doesn't matter that it's possible for it to not hold in some case. Any, or almost any, right or duty could be overridden in extreme enough and strange enough circumstances. Is it wrong to kick a puppy? Sure. What about if someone is going to shoot the puppy unless you kick it? Well, then it's ok... Now you are making stuff up. It suggests that you are being disingenuous throughout.
If you have a case against, go for it. If you just want to mock because you have nothing to say, spare us.
