Well written and well reasoned. Thanks for doing the tedious work of spelling it all out.
The problem we have is that it's not a matter of reason, but morality. The fact that the majority wish to obscure is that the meta-question "when do we allow killing, and why?" applies to the negotiation on when cellular excision becomes infanticide.
The entire "bodily autonomy" argument, as currently shrieked across all the public fora, appears to begin only after all accept that procreative activity is involuntary. Were it voluntary, the calculus of consequence would begin with a woman's right to abstain from procreation, full stop. The discussion and negotiation would then proceed with that a priori assumption.
What is retailed to the public does not appear to reflect the troubled reality of the negotiation. The majority seem to want a discussion that excludes open acknowledgement of the a prioi assumption of complete and utter incontinence. The few shout over the voices of the many, thereby abandoning any hope of using logic as one of several praxes with which to create a framework within which a middle path can be trodden.
So yes, it's mere sophistry to attempt a framing of logic or legality within which to negotiate this moral question.
Well written and well reasoned. Thanks for doing the tedious work of spelling it all out.
The problem we have is that it's not a matter of reason, but morality. The fact that the majority wish to obscure is that the meta-question "when do we allow killing, and why?" applies to the negotiation on when cellular excision becomes infanticide.
The entire "bodily autonomy" argument, as currently shrieked across all the public fora, appears to begin only after all accept that procreative activity is involuntary. Were it voluntary, the calculus of consequence would begin with a woman's right to abstain from procreation, full stop. The discussion and negotiation would then proceed with that a priori assumption.
What is retailed to the public does not appear to reflect the troubled reality of the negotiation. The majority seem to want a discussion that excludes open acknowledgement of the a prioi assumption of complete and utter incontinence. The few shout over the voices of the many, thereby abandoning any hope of using logic as one of several praxes with which to create a framework within which a middle path can be trodden.
So yes, it's mere sophistry to attempt a framing of logic or legality within which to negotiate this moral question.