No analogy is perfect. When you change your mind about an invitee you have to expell them without life threatening force.
Also, consider the fact that when you start to rescue someone, you cannot stop unless the one in danger is delivered to a safe harbor.
The womb
is the safe harbor.
When it is impossible to save the tresspasser anyway
As long as that is factually true then abortion is no more evil than killing a first degree rights violator (a violent offender). I am not of the profession which naturally possesses the authority to do that rn. Are there ever times when the woman's life and or limb literally cannot be spared unless her pregnancy (which many if not most pregnant woman are welcoming with joy) is terminated? I do not know this because I haven't studied the Harvard, Stanford, etc. medical schools' textbooks yet. When I do, then I'll know and I'll be able to cite those books. All I'm really establishing is that or whether there are cases where the mother's life is literally in danger, and for which abortion is the only reasonable choice? The most ethical choice, in fact?
idk. Yet. But regardless I'll have all those citations to medical school textbooks that they're giving to Harvard and Standford medical school students today. That's a strong and valid appeal to authority. I'm not establishing as my thesis, it is just a premise.
Do you understand logic?
, then removal might be best accomplished by trying to minimize pain also factoring in methods that reduce risk to the landowner.
Of course the property we are referring to is a woman's body, the most personal of possessions. As such even greater reverence should be granted. Further
When you start talking about bodies as possessions ... even as your own ... you're tipping your hat to anarcho-libertarians, and their heroes.
These people have reified the notion of liberty and freedom, which literally comes from the word that meant a freed slave, or at any rate, a non-slave. There were back then, which this Latin word was used in common parlance, it meant that there were slaves, and then there were those who are not slaves, and that substantive word that means non-slave, is where we get our words Liberty, Liberal.
It's not some positive entity, it's only a concept, it's someone's attempt to condense down what America's founders and framers were grammatically expressing in their founding documents. Instead they should just be receiving those documents as the actual liberty, and the actually liberalism. They may and may not have conceived of liberty as a positive entity, which really exists in the world. All we know without any dispute, is that they wrote the documents they wrote.
So if you conceive of liberty as defined by those documents, then you become an American exceptionalist. Everyone else is in some way, shape, form or sense, doing it wrong. North Korea and Russia and China and Mexico on one side, and Western democracies on the other, and plenty of countries in between. But America is off the chart. It's like comparing a man to ants and fleas and microbes. That's what liberty means, really. It definitely doesn't mean that somehow, that a woman can kill her baby, just because it's her body.
It's also the baby's body. And that baby is already in a safe harbor. America's founders and framers would have agreed, that's beyond reasonable doubt.
And that's how you make an argument.
a fetus is using DNA to develop. People have a say over their likeness ... Ie how images of them may be used for profit. Don't you think someone has a right to stop use of their own DNA when no permission is granted.
If you were a materialist determinist you'd say the same thing. They believe in this reified (iow fake, phoney, fictional) concept of liberty: Above all, what you want to presuppose, is that being able to make your own choices is the most important thing in the world, and no matter what, there's nothing more valuable to protect that liberty, and if anything comes along and looks like it's a threat to liberty, then it must be neutralized and disabled or at least handicapped, if not destroyed significantly.
If you are a materialist determinist then you're an atheist, I think, if you look at the matter with precision. Or you're a Muslim. They kind of believe in the same concept. It's all in Allah's hands, which in the case of a materialist atheist, it's in the hands of mechanics. There are what are called random or uncaused behaviors. The determinist just thinks that us who believe in free will, are improperly interpreting this behavior as free will, free choice, and true (American) freedom, when in fact it's just randomness.
Prove that you're not a materialist determinist.
