[Puffer Fish]

I thought up an argument that I think is convincing enough that it could start many pro-choicers on the road to the pro-life side.

Pro-choicers say that a woman should never have to have the consent of someone else to get an abortion. But there is one case (although a rare one) where that is not true.

Conjoined twins, where two women are sharing the same womb.
If they fall pregnant, the consent of both twins is needed to choose abortion. You can't perform an abortion with the consent of only one of them, because that would be forcing the other to have an abortion against her will.

So when two people are sharing the same body, the consent from both are needed to have an abortion.

Once we can see that we can then start looking at the case of a woman sharing her body with her unborn developing baby.

Especially for those on the Progressive Left, this concept of sharing should really resonate with you. Since there are all sorts of situations where you are willing to curtail individual rights on behalf of the good of the collective.

I know many of you just want to brush this off.
But the fact is, if there does exist a situation where the consent of one person is not enough to automatically justify whatever they want to do to their body.

The fact that this is a rare situation is irrelevant, logically.
My point was, there does exist a situation where the woman's own consent is not enough to get an abortion.
That should make us all step back and think.

A woman's personal choice is not so sacrosanct as we might think, if she is sharing her body with another.

The real question is, is a developing baby/fetus really so different from the situation of a conjoined twin?

One can view the situation of pregnancy as her sharing her body.

Many pro-choicers keep saying there are not two separate bodies in pregnancy, that they are attached, and constitute only one body. Well if that's the case, it's not that far-fetched to say the woman is sharing her body.

This situation, although rare, provides us with another way of viewing the situation of pregnancy.
We know it's not an 'ordinary' situation when there are conjoined twins. Well, a pregnancy may not be such an ordinary situation either. Special rules come into play, that may not normally apply to individuals.

[Crantag]

This thread makes my mind go all kinds of places. Twins conjoined at the womb?

Does that mean they have two sets of legs and two heads?

Or is it a two headed woman?

Either way, some dude would be needed to do the deed.

Does this mean that if the dude hits it from both sides the chance of impregnating is doubled?

What if there are two dudes present and they are having a foursome?

Then a DNA test would be needed to determine the father. What if it created an offspring of all four (I guess the twins being identical would contribute their DNA twice, and so the two dudes would contribute a quarter each).

Amazing possibilities.

[ness31]

Just, no.

[noemon]

[Patrickov]

What if it created an offspring of all four (I guess the twins being identical would contribute their DNA twice, and so the two dudes would contribute a quarter each).

Won't happen, because spermatozoa do not behave that way.

[Pants-of-dog]

I thought up an argument that I think is convincing enough that it could start many pro-choicers on the road to the pro-life side.

Pro-choicers say that a woman should never have to have the consent of someone else to get an abortion. But there is one case (although a rare one) where that is not true.

Conjoined twins, where two women are sharing the same womb.
If they fall pregnant, the consent of both twins is needed to choose abortion. You can't perform an abortion with the consent of only one of them, because that would be forcing the other to have an abortion against her will.

So when two people are sharing the same body, the consent from both are needed to have an abortion.

Once we can see that we can then start looking at the case of a woman sharing her body with her unborn developing baby.

Especially for those on the Progressive Left, this concept of sharing should really resonate with you. Since there are all sorts of situations where you are willing to curtail individual rights on behalf of the good of the collective.

I know many of you just want to brush this off.
But the fact is, if there does exist a situation where the consent of one person is not enough to automatically justify whatever they want to do to their body.

The fact that this is a rare situation is irrelevant, logically.
My point was, there does exist a situation where the woman's own consent is not enough to get an abortion.
That should make us all step back and think.

A woman's personal choice is not so sacrosanct as we might think, if she is sharing her body with another.

The real question is, is a developing baby/fetus really so different from the situation of a conjoined twin?

One can view the situation of pregnancy as her sharing her body.

Many pro-choicers keep saying there are not two separate bodies in pregnancy, that they are attached, and constitute only one body. Well if that's the case, it's not that far-fetched to say the woman is sharing her body.

This situation, although rare, provides us with another way of viewing the situation of pregnancy.
We know it's not an 'ordinary' situation when there are conjoined twins. Well, a pregnancy may not be such an ordinary situation either. Special rules come into play, that may not normally apply to individuals.

So, if you are having sex with a woman, you are sharing your body with her. Since you are already sharing. this means it would be fine for you if another man walked into the room and started having anal sex with you.

Sharing is caring, right?

[late]

I thought up an argument that I think is convincing enough that it could start many pro-choicers on the road to the pro-life side.

There isn't going to be applicable case law.

So, in this circumstance, you will need a judge. Ideally, you would have already searched case law to see if there is a precedent. That would make for an interesting case, one that reminded me of why I never wanted to be a judge. But, frankly, I doubt it. 2 people literally linked at the hip would have coping mechanisms to resolve conflicts.

Anyway, the law attempts to balance competing rights and interests.

In your hypothetical, both have equivalent claims. So you have to look elsewhere. The burden of parenting on a person like that would be extreme, and there could easily be health issues. IOW, if you are trying to establish which person would suffer the most, then (on the surface) it looks like the person that didn't want to become a parent would lose the most.

Either way, both would suffer emotionally. But becoming an unwilling parent would be a continuous strain, on their health, finances, time, it's not a short list.

I'm not a lawyer, I just find things like this interesting. While your analysis is ridiculous, it did make me think, and I thank you for that.

[Puffer Fish]

This thread makes my mind go all kinds of places. Twins conjoined at the womb?

Not that it really matters so much for the purposes of this thread, but I was envisioning a situation where there were basically two heads on a single body.

Look up Abby and Brittany Hensel. They are now working as teachers (or a teacher, I'm not sure what the proper grammar is to use here).
One of them has control over one side of the body, and the other has control over the other side.

[wat0n]

Don't doctors normally separate the twins even if that means killing one of them?

That doesn't seem like a convincing argument to be honest... A pregnancy is not comparable to conjoined twins.

An arguably stronger argument would be that abortion is unnecessary to separate the fetus from the mother since it will be delivered eventually, but that kind of misses the point of the pro-choice people.

Also, your point that certain people don't have issues trumping others' individual rights when it suits them is valid but that honestly goes both ways if you want to approach this from that angle and particularly if you're a libertarian. They can easily turn this idea against a good chunk of libertarian ideology.

Just as a disclaimer, I don't have a firm opinion about on-demand abortion. I don't think this is a question that has any sort of easy answer either way.

[Puffer Fish]

Anyway, the law attempts to balance competing rights and interests.

In your hypothetical, both have equivalent claims. So you have to look elsewhere. The burden of parenting on a person like that would be extreme, and there could easily be health issues. IOW, if you are trying to establish which person would suffer the most, then (on the surface) it looks like the person that didn't want to become a parent would lose the most.

Is it really all about which one of them suffers the most? Wouldn't the life of the baby also be a factor here?


(Maybe in normal circumstances you might not think the life of the baby matters, since you view it as being completely overshadowed by the woman's choice, but in this situation, there are competing aims from two different women, so the baby's life might be enough to tilt the scales)

[Red_Army]

I haven't read past the title, but this isn't a craigslist personal ad dude.

[late]

Wouldn't the life of the baby also be a factor here?

It's not a baby.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

So you would be all right with the uninvited sodomy then?

[Puffer Fish]

It's not a baby.

Okay, whatever you prefer to call it, but you still didn't answer the question.

[Pants-of-dog]

Okay, whatever you prefer to call it, but you still didn't answer the question.

Speaking of which, you have yet to answer my question.

[late]

Okay, whatever you prefer to call it, but you still didn't answer the question.

That question has already been answered, in court.

[Puffer Fish]

That question has already been answered, in court.

You already lost track of what we were talking about.

[late]

You already lost track of what we were talking about.

Thanks for the laugh.

I get the feeling you have yet to learn what we were talking about.

[Puffer Fish]

Thanks for the laugh.

I get the feeling you have yet to learn what we were talking about.

We were talking about the life of the baby possibly being a deciding factor when the two mothers were disagreeing.

You then answered "That question has already been answered, in court". Which would make the presumption that there has already been such a court case involving conjoined twins disagreeing about whether or not to have an abortion.

That was why I replied to you that you had lost track of what we were talking about.

[late]

We were talking about the life of the baby possibly being a deciding factor when the two mothers were disagreeing.

You then answered "That question has already been answered, in court". Which would make the presumption that there has already been such a court case involving conjoined twins disagreeing about whether or not to have an abortion.

That was why I replied to you that you had lost track of what we were talking about.

The problem starts with your lying, that's still not a baby.

We still have existing law concerning abortion. We still have judicial principles that seek to minimize harm, which suggests a judge would not rule against an abortion in your hypothetical.

Do you even realise you are trying to shove religious concerns into a secular legal system??