Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (230011)	4/20/2005 3:39:58 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) of 1573902

The violinist argument is not new, I've heard it years ago, but it is one of the best pro-choice arguments out there. Its much stronger and more sophisticated than just "we have the right to do what we want with out bodies". If you say "I have the right to do what I want with my body", the pro-life side says "the unborn child has its own body and you have no right to harm it". Rather than just saying "no it does not", the violinist argument is an attempt to say that even if we accept this principle it doesn't matter. That even if a fetus is a human being with natural rights that doesn't mean we should not let his or her mother have an abortion. After all the violinist is also a human being with natural (and legal) rights. The analogy works fairly well when dealing with abortion when the pregnancy is the result of rape. The violinist may be innocent of any wrong doing in this situation, and the violinist is dependent on someone else's body, but many people, even many pro-life people would not agree that the person who the violinist is attached to should be required to support the violinist with their body for the next 9 months. Where the analogy breaks down is when you consider the fact that the vast majority of pregnancies ended by abortion where not the result of rape. If a woman willingly has sex she takes the risk that she might create a life that is dependent on her. It would be as if you gave the violinist the fatal kidney ailment. Then he would have a better claim on your support. I disagree. I think the violinist story is one of analogy. The violinist has no right to privacy and so has no right over his own body. That's what you all refuse to get. When you tell a woman she has no right to an abortion, you are telling all of us that we have no right to do with what we want with our bodies either. Our bodies are no long private......they are open to the public domain. If someone wants use my kidneys, I can't stop him. If a woman wants to abort, and she can't because a pro lifer says no......its the same thing. Its why rape is considered such a violent crime.......not only because of the physical abuse but because it forcibly takes away someone's right to their body. When you fully understand the concept of right to privacy, you will then understand the reasoning behind the judge's ruling. Its very fundamental to the independence and individuality of every human being. ted

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next