If pro-choice has the confidence that the woman's right to body autonomy can SUCCESSFULLY stand alone before the Supreme Court - then, why the heck do they go doing all sorts of contortions in their attempt to dehumanize the fetus?
I think that you are, and maybe not intentionally, misconstruing the use of the word "dehumanize". Being human is irrelevant. Personhood is what counts. If we were to encounter a being with equal level intelligence and self awareness, then they too would be worthy of personhood. It doesn't matter the race/species. Just because they are a Telarite, doesn't mean they are not a person. The use of the term" dehumanize", as you are using it, means to deny the personhood in an individual. Now given that the only beings we currently know as being capable of personhood are humans, the use of the word thus is understandable. But no one is actually trying to claim that a ZEF of human progenitors is not human itself. Hence, the difference between human and human being, or human and person.
They don't have that confidence!
If the fetus is recognized by the Supreme Court as a human, deserving of all right like any other -
then, it could very well be a different ballgame.
Our rights end when it steps on the right of another - at least, that's what I think.
Otherwise, what's wrong about someone needing a kidney desperately, to just take a kidney from another?
You are correct in your assertion but not in its application. Any rights he ZEF possesses ends at the woman's body. They end when they step upon the right of the woman. Ultimately, no one has the right to any kind of life support. Once the ZEF is out of her body, regardless of labels, she no longer has the right to outright terminate it. It is no longer imposing upon her body not her rights.
Supreme Court decisions can be surprising.
I gave the case of the Christian baker about the SSM wedding cake. Who would've thought the Supreme Court would overturn the ruling of the lesser courts, and rule in favor of the baker?
The ruling was based on artistic expression!
IIRC, that specific case won, where other bakers' cases didn't, because the customer wanted specific gay wedding words and graphics on it. The others just wanted generic wedding cakes and we're refused when it was found out it was for a gay wedding. Mind you I am of the camp that a private business owner has the right to refuse anyone for any reason including race, religions or hair color. But that is a separate thread and section altogether. But the cases still.had distinct difference, thus different outcomes.
Furthermore.....
The irony of it all, the very argument pro-choice uses (woman's autonomy), could be used against her, right?
After all, if the woman has sole control of her body, then, how the heck did she allow another human being to be created inside her?
It doesn't matter that she took action to place it there, assume we are setting aside cases of rape since that makes the argument fall apart. Her bodily autonomy allows her to withdraw her consent to use of the body at anytime for any reason. Otherwise, she would not be able to withdraw consent during sex. She can also withdraw consent, at least right up to the time of removal, say for giving a kidney to a person who will die otherwise, because there will be no time left to get another. The only time bodily autonomy does not allow for withdrawal of consent is after the action is complete or no longer active. Thus once the ZEF is out of her body, she no longer has full control over what happens. One the act of sex is complete, she cannot withdraw permission. Those acts are over and done.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Don't you think a neurologist can tell the difference between advanced Alzheimer's and persistent vegetative state?
