The Art of Persuasiveness
[Today’s guest post by Clinton Wilcox is part of our paid blogging program.]
Abortion is an injustice. Pro-life people are passionate about ending it. Those are good things. But they are no excuse for name-calling. Unfortunately, some pro-lifers make really mean and nasty comments toward pro-choice people. This needs to stop and I intend to show you why.
Consider a recent talk by atheist writer Phil Plait, colorfully titled “Don’t be a Dick.” Plait was speaking to atheists and telling them not to be jerks to religious people, but his message can be applied to any area of contention.
I believe the pro-life position is true. But at least as important, if not more so, than being true is being persuasive. What good is being right if you can’t persuade anyone to your point of view?
As Plait asked in his speech, when was the last time someone changed your mind by getting in your face and calling you a brain-damaged idiot? Conversely, how is it you expect to be able to change a pro-choice person’s mind by calling them an evil baby-killer?
No, we cannot and should not downplay the wrongness of abortion or ignore its victims. Having that conversation may be uncomfortable when talking to post-abortive people, but the hope is that they will come to the realization that what they did was wrong so they can get past it. How do you expect that to happen if you open the conversation by calling the person a murderer? The short answer is, it won’t.
Not all post-abortive women (and men) are murderers. There are any number of reasons people have abortions of varying moral culpability: Undoubtedly, many women do have abortions knowing full well what they are doing. But not all women are the same. Our society has failed them by providing false information about the unborn child, and abortion “counselors” have exacerbated that failure. Sometimes a young girl is pregnant and scared and thinks abortion is her only way out. Many women and girls are coerced into abortions by their boyfriends and/or parents. But whatever the situation, the key question is: what is the most persuasive? Is it more persuasive to call a pro-choice person a baby-killer, or to make your case as to why abortion is murder and help them realize what it is they are really supporting?
The old Biblical saying about “speaking the truth in love” seems to have given way to a new belief that the mere act of speaking the truth is loving in and of itself. But telling the truth can be loving or unloving, depending in large part on the speaker’s attitude. Ask yourself: are you truly interested in seeing the person in front of you reject a false belief and accept a true one? Or are you mainly concerned with being right? Love requires respect. It means taking the person seriously and trying to understand their position, even if you vehemently disagree or find their ideas to be ridiculous. Isn’t that how you would want a pro-choice person to treat you?
As pro-life people, we have much to gain—yet there is much to lose if we fail to concern ourselves with being persuasive. There are unborn children at stake. Shouldn’t we put our pride aside and engage in persuasive, productive conversations? We have science and philosophy on our side, but we also have intense stereotypes and caricatures to overcome. Name-calling only reinforces those caricatures and makes it more difficult to convince pro-choicers to drop their support of abortion.
[Editor’s note: for more information about persuasively making the pro-life case, visit the Equal Rights Institute.]
Is ignorance an excuse for murder? Genocide? Rape? Other crimes against humanity?
Definitely agree. One thing I struggle with is the best way to respond when the people you'd like to engage with are the ones who are doing the name-calling.
I've been saying this for years! Glad you brought it up.
That's a question I wonder about myself. I've heard it said that it's better to not engage with somebody if they are not receptive to discussion. But if the definition of not receptive is doing any name-calling at all we may find ourselves with very few people to engage with.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the article. Can you amplify a bit?
I find it's best not to respond in kind (which is easier said than done, of course). What we have to keep in mind is that how we react says a lot about us and about our position. If someone is being unruly and unreasonable and we keep our cool, then we may not convince the person we're talking to but *other* people will notice how calm and rational we're being.
It can be. While out on pro-life outreach I've encountered people who are not interested in conversation, they just want to vent and yell at the pro-lifers who are out there raising awareness of this issue. Sometimes you don't have to engage with everyone; people like this often need to get things off their chest, and by letting them do so they may be more receptive to talk to another pro-life advocate in the future.
Is it more persuasive to call a pro-choice person a baby-killer, or to
make your case as to why abortion is murder and help them realize what
it is they are really supporting?
Perhaps, instead of the Nurnberg trials, the allies should have kindly explained to the Nazis that what they did was wrong, and perhaps steered them towards counseling or somesuch to help them understand that they were merely brainwashed to believe that non-aryans did not qualify as people.
You seem to believe that because there are some parallels to the Holocaust that all the parallels hold. This isn't the case. There are some parallels to the Holocaust, such as the fact that innocent human beings are killed. However, that doesn't mean that all parallels hold. Women who get abortions are not comparable to Nazis (and the reason why is spelled out in the article), and those who support abortion are not the same as Nazi sympathizers.
I'm not exactly an expert on history, but didn't the Nuremberg trials only go after Nazi leaders (ie, those who were more like to be fully aware and culpable for what they were doing), and not the typical Nazi soldier (ie, those who were more likely to be "brainwashed" or "just following orders" or whatever)? The individual Nazi soldier is more like the typical woman looking to have an abortion: doesn't really understand the inherent wrongness of what they're doing, just listening to family/leadership/society. And, as far as I'm aware, the typical Nazi was not punished; they were forgiven on account of the society they were living in. Why shouldn't we do the same for women who have had abortions?
Well let me see..two standard pro life arguments..
Abortion is murder
Women dehumnize zygotes
Sure sounds like the Nazis to me.
Actually, it wasn't just the leaders who went to the gallows. Many soldiers who took part in the holocaust were also hung.
The typical woman having an abortion "doesn't really understand the inherent wrongness of what they're doing," because there is nothing wrong with what she is doing.
She is making a choice about her life and her body and it is her choice to make. No one else should be involved except maybe the man who got her pregnant.
Well, whenever a pro-lifer brings up Margaret Sanger's purported racism (which, incidentally, I think is a terrible argument), part of the pro-choice response is always "everyone was a racist eugenicist back then". So there's that to start with.
I think female genital mutilation is an inexcusable crime against humanity. Yet I don't think someone who practices it in Ethiopia (where it's almost universally accepted) is as morally culpable as someone who practices it in North America (where it's almost universally condemned) even though the action is equally evil and harmful no matter where it's carried out.
There is something wrong with it, in that she's taking an innocent life. She's not just making a decision about her body, she's also making a decision, unfairly, about the life and body of another. Just having the choice doesn't mean it's acceptable to make that choice.
Prenates are neither innocent nor guilty. They have no agency. They are however, a clear threat to a woman's overall health, life and wellbeing.
The right to bodily autonomy of a sentient/sapient individual overrides that of any person or mindless animal organism. A prenate is mindless, and does not qualify as a person.
She is not taking an innocent life. The zef has no self awareness and a woman has every right to decide she does not want to risk her health to be a host to the zef.
It is her body that is being invaded and she has the right to remove the unwanted invader if she feels it is right for her life.
The unborn child is innocent in the sense that he/she has done no wrongdoing deserving of being killed. The current presence of agency is irrelevant. And the unborn child does not pose a clear threat to the woman's overall health, life, and wellbeing. To justify abortion as self-defense, you would have to justify infanticide in the off chance the child will grow up to kill his/her parents.
The usual pregnancy does not pose a threat to the pregnant woman. Pregnancies are not easy, of course, but this does not justify killing the unborn child. And even in cases where the pregnancy becomes life-threatening, pregnancy is unlikely to prolong, much less save, her life.
An unborn child is not mindless. They are alive from fertilization and their brain develops by the sixth week. In all that time, the unborn child is active and by late in the pregnancy has been observed sucking their thumb, fighting with a twin, even dreaming.
Her body is not being invaded. It's easy to justify abortion if you divorce yourself from reality, but here in the real world pregnancies are a natural biological process, not a parasite invading a host.
** Pro-life people are passionate about ending it. **
Umm, no. If pro-life people REALLY wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they would do things like promoting birth control and taking unwanted children into THEIR houses (not some convenient 'social safety net' absolving them of any inconvenience). They don't give a shit about the 'tiny innocent babies'. Their only goal is to see people punished for having sex.
**There is something wrong with it, in that she's taking an innocent life.**
First of all, eating meat takes a 'life'. Secondly, your use of the term 'innocent' in this case is philosophically meaningless, as you are applying it to something without a brain. You might as well claim a rock is 'innocent'. Technically correct, but so what?
Excuse me? A parasite invading a host is ALSO a natural biological process. And if you think the embryo is not parasitical, then can I assume you'd have no problem with clamping off the blood supply going through the umbilical cord?
**The usual pregnancy does not pose a threat to the pregnant woman.**
Excuse me? The usual pregnancy was highly dangerous and often resulted in the death of the mother in childbrith until very recently. Even now, there are any number of dangers caused by being pregnant, including a prolapsed uterus and diabetes.
**Pregnancies are not easy, of course, but this does not justify killing the unborn child.**
So… I can go into your house, beat you with a baseball bat, inject various chemicals into you with a good chance of causing permanent health problems, and you would by no means try to kill me to stop me?
Hmmmm interesting but let's lean off the species membership here and debate into the future. I am waiting for when your movement wants to come out of the womb to debate into extraterrestrial life and or artificial intelligence like we should've been doing. Your movement wants to ban abortion so we have to take the position once again that only humans can be persons despite the fact that we have about 180 billion galaxies in our observable distance most likely then not containing other civilzations out there and the pro life movement is welling to write them off since they can't learn what words mean before entering into the abortion debate.
If you actually went through and read the facts on what the unborn human does inside the womb, it acts much more worse then a parasite. If I can squish a mosquito that is sucking my blood then why can't the women abort the unborn human who is dumping bio toxic waste into her body?
Yes the zef is an unwanted invader and the woman has a right to remove it. It can kind of be viewed as self defense if you want since the zef can cause horrible harm to the woman.
The zef is a very real threat to the woman's life, liberty, health and happiness.
And yes, prenates are mindless, due to the fact that you need a functional brain to have a mind.
It is an invader if she does not want it there.
And pregnancy, though natural, does not change the fact that the zef functions as a parasite. It is genetically programmed to suck the woman dry in order to create as big a fetus as possible.
Look at number 27# of this site.http://fightforsense.wordpress.com/
You may want to look up the health benefits of pregnancy. Doubt you will though
Women don't dehumanize pro-aborts like yourself do.
My goodness, what an enormous number of assumptions you make. But let us pass over the ones where you think one thing, and I another, and we both think we're right. Let's concentrate on the statement that abortion opponents "are passionate about ending" abortion. Because, no, you are not. You're passionate about ending access to safe abortion. That's something different.
Let me explain why I have reached that conclusion. If you were "passionate" about ending abortion, you'd work to end the need for abortion. You wouldn't be engaging strangers in "conversations" in which you accuse them of killing babies without actually saying you think they're baby killers. (That's a sticky wicket, indeed!)
You'd be agitating for accurate sex education of young people. You'd be handing contraceptives and information about their use out on street corners; making contraceptives freely available has been shown to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by 60%. 60%! (Translation: a whole lot of girls and women not having abortions, i.e., the ACTUAL ending of abortions!) You'd be the biggest supporters of Planned Parenthood around, since that
organization has prevented more abortions than the most passionate
anti-choice activist could dream of.
You'd be tackling poverty, especially that experienced by so many women and their children – you'd be fighting hard for a living wage and just labor conditions. You'd be fighting the culture of rape acceptance, and strongly advocating against domestic violence. Instead of passing laws to restrict access to safe abortions, you'd be passing laws to make caring for born children easier.
Instead, you're trying to figure out ways to make women feel guilty for making real world decisions about their actual lives without "offending" them.
If you think there's some "reasonable" way to tell a woman she's too stupid to know what being pregnant means; or there's some polite way to explain that she's murdering her own offspring; or there is some kind and caring way to shame her from here to next Sunday for being human, I have news for you. There isn't.
I dehumanize pro-aborts?
Really, do tell.
Why don't you tell me all about the numerous health benefits of pregnancy.
Just where do you think embryos gestate – magic incubators attached to no one, and nothing?
Pro lifers believe that all humans are persons with rights. It does not follow from this that only humans are persons with rights. An intelligent extraterrestrial or human-level artificial intelligence would be a non-human person and would be entitled to the same rights as a human person, IMHO.
Perhaps the reason that pro-lifers are generally not interested in debating about ETs or AIs is that we have not yet made contact with aliens or created human-level artificial intelligences and so the issue of how we should treat them is a hypothetical one, as opposed to the real world issue of abortion. I do not know of any human rights organisation that has taken a position on the rights of ETs or AIs. Do you think that Amnesty International, for example, needs to get over its fixation on the species Homo sapiens and take such a position?
Why should personhood be granted to hypothetical intelligent aliens?
Since aliens are hypothetical at the present time it doesn't really matter if we grant them personhood, but if aliens actually landed on Earth it would be a good idea to treat them the way we would want to be treated. A civilization capable of interstellar travel would be far superior to us technologically and they would have the power to determine what rights should be granted to or withheld from us. They would judge us by the way we treat them as well as by the way we treat our own kind and the other species with which we share our planet.
Any reasons besides those?
If they were beings with the capacity for rationality and self awareness then we would have a moral obligation to treat them as persons for the same reasons we have an obligation to treat other humans as persons.
I see what you did there 😉
Clinton if it is human parasite it is one they put there. BTW looks like many adult children remain parasites even as adults since they stay at home and leech of their parents. So one can be a moral person and human parasite at the same time.
Plus I bet many child support fathers think both the mother and the child are parasites.
See how easy it is to avoid responsibility if you start calling things parasites.
''Clinton if it is human parasite it is one they put there.''
I agree so if I were to purposely eat raw meat that contains tapeworms, I can't go to the doctor and have them killed or removed?
It can apply to the human fetus as well. The only difference is species membership.
THIS. 1000 times, THIS.
They demonize PP around here, and even accuse PP of selling overpriced BCP that does not work.
Its a functional parasite.
I have news for you. I don't have to use my body to further the life and body of another, no matter how innocent, no matter how defenseless, and no matter for your sad feelies about it. She IS making a decision about HER body. The zef is not entitled to it. Bringing life into the world is a beautiful gift, therefore I will not reduce it to an obligation for myself or any other woman.
Technically, it isn't a parasite because it's a member of the same species. However the zef behaves like a parasite, and "natural biological process" doesn't equal "safe" or "state of wellness." DYING is also a natural biological process. So is infection. Whenever possible, we try to prevent those "natural biological processes" and treat them when they occur.
She put it there. FALSE, but so what if it were true? Causing something doesn't create an obligation to keep things that way.
That's because there aren't any.
It's not about "wrongdoing" and "deserving of death." It's simply about this: NOBODY is entitled to the use of another person's body, EVER, no exceptions. Bodily donation is a wonderful and selfless gift, not an obligation.
''Do you think that Amnesty International, for example, needs to get over its fixation on the species Homo sapiens and take such a position?''
Yes they should get over there fixation of the species homo sapien. If they were to debate a pro choicer who wants to make the distinction, the audience already knowing beforehand that word is not a synonym for being a member of the human species then pro lifers will have a tough time arguing there position. Thanks though for agreeing with me somewhat.
I have quite a bit of notebooks here going into ET and AI's to mental characteristics to personal identity and yeah, species membership is not the answer in my mind.
Are you new here by any chance?
It's true but I'm not here to teach reproduction.
& sure ,if you are immoral there is no obligation. Cause a family to come to your house knowing a blizzard is on the way and you are obligated to allow them to stay until it is safe to leave.
Fair enough just like the Violinist. But he is still a person and if she acted in such a way that she effectively put him there she may have a right remove -him leading to his death- but she should still be held morally responsible for causing him to violate her
bodily sovereignty and then refuse the associated duty of care.
He doesn't need a right to use her body to have his rights violated.
Your stance is as absurd as a kidnapper accusing the victim of trespassing and wanting a right to shoot him via the violation of his property rights.
The violinist, by nature, is ill and needs her kidneys to survive. If she continues to help him, it is a favour, it is not a moral obligation. Just because she temporarily helps him does not mean that she is then morally obligated to continue to help him.
Your stance is as absurd as a kidnapper accusing the victim of
trespassing and wanting to shoot him via the violation of his property
Irrelevant. Kidnapping = a crime, period.
In my amended analogy he is healthy the surgery attaching him to her also causes him to be unable to live without assistance.
"Irrelevant. Kidnapping = a crime, period."
Not irrelevant and even if a crime if bodily sovereignty is still paramount even as an offender -just as in my bar analogy- she has a right to remove the violinist.
Fundamentally If you cause another moral person to violate your moral or legal rights you are now the ultimate offender even if you become a victim.
I am pro life. I am passionate about keeping reproductive health services low or no cost for women and their children. I support contraception and abortion.
'an innocent life.'
If in the course of a pregnancy and birth a Mother dies, can we think of the fetus as guilty?
And here in the real world nearly every woman will have an abortion, spontaneous or induced during her fertile years. One in three will have an induced abortion. Something that women do so regularly cannot be described as 'unnatural.' What is natural to humankind is what humankind does.
I think a Jain acknowledges that to survive you will take some lives, but one should avoid unnecessarily taking any lives or do the least amount of harm. I would have a person who killed my dog up for murder because she is essentially part of my family.
Would I extend that to a tapeworm?
On the face of it I should but I'm still looking into this.
I doubt even a Jain would argue that, but I have thought that morality if practiced 100% consistently is -practically speaking-impossible to live by.
No, actually I am NOT "obligated" to allow anyone to stay when there is a blizzard. I might if I liked them. and they would have to earn their keep. I'm nobody's maid and cook,
Well try it and you will go to jail. & since you don't seem to agree with duty of care at all I see no point in continuing on that subject.
BTW moral rights depends on what something is not where they are so if you think parents can pick and choose then don't object when some parents decide that infanticide is also an option.
No, I don't think I'll be going to jail anytime real soon. I'm not a criminal.
Well even if you own the property, and you throw people out into a blizzard with no other shelter, you will go to jail simple as that.
Well try it and you will go to jail.
No, she won't.
''& sure ,if you are immoral there is no obligation. Cause a family to come to your house knowing a blizzard is on the way and you are obligated to allow them to stay until it is safe to leave.''
Well, what if the family attached themselves to you and started dumping bio toxic waste into your body and addictive hormones so that you would like it?
I'm quite sure most can see the difference between doing this and going to mcdonalds to grab a cheeseburger to feed a 4 year old human.
This site here I think takes care of the pro life position in one go.
Um yes. I don't suggest you try it as you will find property rights don't allow to do that and get away with killing people especially ones you put there.
Then it would be a simply case of self defense.
Are you trying to link that to how a fetus changes the woman's body in a negative manner?
Fine argue that, but understand the difference between putting an innocent moral person in a position where they are an aggressor violating your bodily sovereignty and an offender who you had nothing to do with their actions.
What PC is trying to do is argue along the lines that a kidnapper could shoot her victim based on a claim that he is trespassing, which is absurd.
Oh but now the kidnap victim is attacking the kidnapper, therefore now the kidnapper is the victim and escapes all moral responsibility for killing the kidnap victim to save themselves?
Do you really want to argue that?
Or you reply 'but kidnapping isn't illegal'.
Yes but I'm not using it as a perfect analogy. Rather accentuating the point even more that you don't put another person in a position that you cause them to violate your rights and use that to violate their rights.
I also use a Bar analogy where a woman gives a man a super aphrodisiac which most of the time gives a super erection but 20% of the times causes the male to have uncontrollable rape urges.
Now just because she caused him to try to rape her doesn't mean he has a right to do so, and arguably she still has a right to use lethal force to stop him. But she will be held accountable for his death nonetheless.
She is BOTH a VICTIM and OFFENDER but she CAUSED the situation as the ULTIMATE CAUSE bares the moral responsibility for his death.
If Zef's aren't moral persons the argument collapses but if they are you are essentially arguing that if you put another moral person in a situation that automatically results in them violating your bodily sovereignty rights and that you have the right to kill them and escape moral responsibility for doing so.
Tell me you are ok with having that done to you or your family and the killer gets off scot free.
I've actually seen legal advice on this you are wrong. In my example she caused them to go there also knowing a blizzard was on the way. So the result was know in advance. Even if the owner acted in a indirect way -maybe took a sign down knowing that there was a 15 % chance the family would end up there- the owner would be morally and legally responsible.
But I bet you that even if that wasn't the case and it was a chance situation, one in which the family wouldn't threatening the existence of the cabin owner in any way there would be a duty of care nonetheless.
You're assuming that the other couple would be too dim to realize there was a blizzard on the way. No radio or TV, perhaps? I'd sure be interested in seeing the links to the legal advice you've gleaned and any actual instances where this has taken place. Do you have any?
Because actually, the only place I can find where 'duty of care' is involved during a blizzard is in maintaining your property–shoveling and de-icing your sidewalk and steps, which I whole-heartedly agree with.
Yes and I have been researching duty of care – foreseeable *harm* is a big part of it.
Well I'd imagine this would be a simple thing to check on.
Maybe if there was no other choice and a family in the US came across a cabin in a blizzard, US law allows you to turn them away and they freeze to death.
But again if you caused them to be there that is entirely different.
You have not "killed" anyone by showing them the front door. And YES, property rights DO function that way. Try "sheltering" yourself in a restaurant and tell them a blizzard is coming, and they have to put you up for a few days. See how that works out for you.
You made the assertion. Links where an event like this has happened should be fairly easy for you to find.
No not really there are some regions in the world where you can have sunny weather and a storm can be upon someone without them knowing.
Plus the point is to make the situation as close to pregnancy as possible that is why a blizzard is invoked. It doesn't matter about tv news etc the point is you caused them to be there and that creates duty of care obligations.
Notwithstanding your property rights you cannot just turn guests or strangers you caused to be there out to die.
Now sure property rights aren't as important as bodily sovereignty but I think what PL tries to argue is that if you put another moral person in a situation where they automatically violate another crucial moral/legal right you then cannot escape moral responsibility for harming them if you exercise your rights to the extreme.
It is similar- but not exactly so- to a kidnapper wanting to shoot the victim for trespassing and escaping responsibility for killing them.
Ask a lawyer. I've got a family law solicitor I want to contact but need do some reading of her work first. I've another legal contact and will ask them ask well.
I also would assume that the people venturing out on this journey would have the responsibility to check the weather report before travelling. Unless we're supposed to assume in your scenario that the other person was diabolical enough to steal their TV, car radio, phone and newspapers? Even as a plot on a soap it would be laughable.
And no, I don't need to ask a lawyer. I want a news report where a scenario like this has actually occurred.
Again, these people don't have access to media? No responsibility to check weather forecasts prior to travel? I'm sorry, but as a scenario this is really, really lame. If this was real life I'd be giving the travelers a Darwin award.
I did raise no alternatives. & I suppose in your country there is no compensation to assist citizens who have suffered financial loss during a disasters when helping fellow citizens?
But that is by and by because if you caused them to need your care that is entirely different.
What is the "ultimate cause" in this scenario? And the proximate too please.
Say one family was camping in tents and another in a cabin they own. They get news of a blizzard coming and know the family in the tent wont get out of the park before the blizzard hits. The 1st family invites the second to stay in the cabin. But during the storm the owner hates the other guys wife's voice and tells them they have to leave.
If you think property rights give you a right to kick them out to their death you are sadly mistaken.
& again don't bother replying to analogies if you aren't intellectually charitable to work with a hypothetical. It is often quite easy to pick at irrelevant practical points of an analogy, what is important are the underlying principles.
Use that one to be clear. Say the guy threw them out and they die. The proximate cause is exposure to cold via the blizzard. The ultimate cause is the decision to remove them from his property.
Sure the blizzard forced their hands and maybe their could have risked staying in their car and hope to ride out the blizzard.
But since he invited them and had duty of care HE is the ultimate cause of their death by wrongly invoking property rights.
So how old are you? & you never watch the news?
Ever heard of flash floods, freak storms, snap blizzards, sudden mini tornadoes that people know about or even the weather service didn't predict? I'm assuming you are in the US where your news is little more than infotainment but even there you have weather stories.
And what country are you from?
And yes, I watch the news and I know about freak weather that can spring up. But may I remind you of what you wrote earlier:
In my example she caused them to go there also knowing a blizzard was on the way. So the result was know in advance.
Is the homeowner psychic or are we going to make her have a magic weather machine now?
If they occupy your body and threaten you with death and torture, and the only method of escape is to throw them out, would you be within your rights to do so?
But during the storm the owner hates the other guys wife's voice and tells them they have to leave.
But surely that's when good neighbors become good friends. Yes?
LOL maybe, it is a thought experiment and the owner is X-man mutant. You still don't get that the general details aren't important it is whether the underlying principles are there.
Owner X caused guest Y to be in their cabin, a blizzard then restricts them to the cabin and if guest Y leave during the blizard he dies.
If you get the general principles of duty of care under those conditions you don't have a right to kick them out leading to their death.
Say we had microscopic alien persons and the invade your body live off and threaten your life then I would have thought it obvious that you have a right to self defense.
But if you kidnapped the alien ambassador and his family inject them into your body at which stage they in fact live off your body, but to remove them without special equipment will lead to their deaths, that is entirely different.
Now humans might argue they have a right to remove them via bodily sovereignty, but the fact you put them there means at the very least as innocent parties -even if offenders violating your bodily sovereignty – you owe them duty of care obligations until they can be removed safely.
Sure argue you should have the right to remove them this instant, but you should be held responsible for the deaths all the same.
What you and other PC's are arguing is similar -but not exactly so- for a kidnapper wanting to shoot their victim because they are now trespassing on their property which is absurd and immoral.
OFC if it isn't a person then the argument collapses.
The wife has one of those annoying high pitched nasal voices and won't shut up like Fran from The Nanny so its understandable;)
But with a little understanding, you can find the perfect blend.
I wish the whole world followed that principle.
Conception is not analagous to kidnappings.
Not perfectly no but it isn't supposed to be a perfect analogy. I only need there to be similarities of the ultimate cause agent causing the innocent aggressors to violate one of their own imporant moral rights and then claim a right to kill them for doing so.
If it is morally absurd for a kidnapper to do it, it is also absurd for a woman to cause a Zef to infringe on her rights and then claim a moral right to kill it.
Unless ofc it isn't a moral person; but if isn't, nor is a baby if one is relying on psychological personhood to ground full moral rights.
Kidnapping is a violation of the kidnappees rights.
By placing the kidnappee in a state of SED through kidnapping, the kidnapper has caused demonstrable harm. The *ultimate cause* = kidnapping. In the case of conception the *ultimate cause* of SED = sex.