How abortion does not kill any worldly being

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Thanks.

I suppose a similar common framing would be of 'personhood' and the rights (moral consideration) most see as accruing to persons. And then the debate becomes at what point does the egg/foetus/unborn baby acquire those rights of personhood. This creates the potential conflict of the 'right to life' of the egg/foetus/unborn baby, with the mother's rights of personhood regarding her 'bodily autonomy'.

In effect your claim would mean the rights of personhood come into effect when the baby leaves the mother's body. The other end of the spectrum would be at conception when the egg is fertilised.

(My own view is that such rights are meaningless to objects or organisms which aren't sentient and have interests (a stake) in what happens to them. Which is reflected in limits to the dates abortions are legal. But that leaves two uncomfortable blurry lines - one being confident we can know when sentience begins, and secondly the issue of aborting a 'potential' sentient person).

Gertie, if you decide that "personhood" only starts at birth, then yes, that angle bears similarity to my position. However, declaring that personhood begins at birth may not necessarily be understood by the fact that personhood is a worldly concept and therefore there is no such thing as pre-birth personhood. It's a bit like claiming that abortion kills babies. It kills featuses not babies. If you use an umbelical chord, you are a fetus. Saying that abortion kills babies is a lie or it is a euphemism; it's not acceptable to describe facts factually.

As you mention, some proponents of that similar theory may not agree with others as to where/when "personhood" begins. Because of this, this theory does not necessarily supports/justify abortionists. My theory points a finger at any abortion opponent as someone lacking worldly understanding or having an abusive agenda of male domination over women of some kind. In light of this, I think we can consider these two theories very dissimilar.

The acquisition of rights for a person does not necessarily have anything to do with the life stage that person has. Instead, it may have everything to do with the country that a person is born into. Not every country's constitution have a charter of rights for it's people. My theory doesn't complicate things with the need for a charter of rights. You just need to have a country that outlaws the killing of a worldly person by another person to appreciate that this protection begins when a person is of this world.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

The fetus isn't imaginary but its growing location is like the location of the woman's imagination, inside of her.

Two "inside of her" meanings: one is physical, a foetus, and the other is mental, imagination. The two are not the same thing.

Has this topic any purpose, except to present a personal position on abortion, and women's rights?

Pattern-chaser,

Would you mind to expend on your evaluation that "The two are not the same thing." ? I understand that some words have more than one meaning, and here I am not sure about how the meaning of "inside" differs; it's still means within, right?

'Within' me are a basic understanding of Newton's 'laws' of motion, and the remains of the toast I ate for breakfast. If you can't see a difference between the two things I have referred to, both of which are truly "within" me, then ... I don't know what to say.

Pattern-chaser, I do see what you mean but I'm still not sure what point it might be making since you appear not to dispute that either things, Newton's 'laws of motion and the toast you hate for breakfast are inside of you, in a worldly way and by that I mean that instruments can be used to remove either of these things from you: just use a scalpel in your brain for Newton's 'laws' of motion and a medical suction tube for the toast.

It's interesting to note that even fictive knowledge such as that of Sherlock Holmes is worldly set in our minds and so fiction remains fiction but there is no physical way to differentiate it from non-fiction knowledge (the type of knowledge that has a real foundation in the world). So, it can be quite easy to mix one for the other.

So, the killing of a fetus is the killing of a non-worldly being. Should we be concerned about this? Well, that question is certainly one of interest because many mass killers appear to train themselves on video games where those you blast off are like fetuses at the abortion clinic (unworldly). I am open to the idea of monitoring those of us who have an interest in engaging in such activities. I do think it would be ridiculous to outlaw the video game activity just as I think it is ridiculous to outlaw abortion. But I do think counseling and requiring that such people, who display aggressiveness towards unreal ones, open up publicly as to what is going on with them and what attracts them to the activities (including abortion and also slaughterhouse workers) is an idea that we would benefit from turning into reality. The killing of non-worldly individuals is too often such a prelude to killing real people that every worldly person has something at stake with the apparently harmless games. The non-worldly is somehow linked to the worldly and we should keep that in mind.