Politicians can only interfere in both or neither of those situations. They are not the same situation as selling vs donating organs.
What you stated is chimerism. Yes, you're right that it's possible as about one hundred people have been documented to have it. In general, distinct DNA is a factor but not the sole factor for what determines is a distinct biological organism. I listed multiple factors as to why a fetus is a biological organism, did I not? My position is that even if the fetus had the same DNA as the mother, it should still be considered a distinct biological organism because it has it's own development dictated by its genetic code and biological processes that's separate from the mother.
What are you talking about? Both tapeworms and the zooids that make up the Portuguese Man o' War are dependent organisms. If you were to sever all organic connections of a tapeworm and zooid, they too would die.
You didn't refute what I stated. If a tapeworm is displanted, it would die as well.
A zooid and tapeworm can't be removed and live independently either. Why are they distinct biological organisms?
Yes I can because the standard used to determine what is a biological organism should apply to all species. What rationale do you have to give different species different standards?
You argued it but failed to explain why implantation before sufficient development occurs should be used to determine whether or not it's a distinct biological organism.
Why would structural attachment determine whether or not something has a life (both philosophically and biologically)? Using your logic under the violinist thought experiment, the violinist and the person he attached to would have to be considered one person, living a single life, the moment the attachment is performed. However, this clearly makes no sense as both the violinist and the person remain distinct individuals with their own lives even though one depends entirely on the other for survival. The same principle applies to conjoined twins: their physical attachment do not turn them into one life. Physical attachment is not a merger of lives into one.
The commerce part is part of government's job, something they can control.
It does harm society, and we provided why it does that. It is very different than abortion. No one is controlling a woman's body, only the commerce aspect, which is within government power to do. The commerce part is separate from the medical part, bodily autonomy.
The only commerce part of abortion would be selling the remains. That's it. It wouldn't be the actual abortion itself. Selling the remains can be controlled. You can have body parts removed to provide to others, the same as you can have a fetus or embryo removed. Selling them to others is what is controlled.
They do not sell life saving organs, limited by how many people are able to match to highest bidder every day legally. You are misrepresenting every bit of argument made against you, cutting off key context.
Your example of tapeworms is misplaced because a tapeworm is an organism of a parasitic species that is parasitic on an organism of an un-parasitic species.
My entire argument is that, if you are physiologically dependent on the parental organism for development, you are physiologically part of that organism. It's not about structural integration. It's about the fact that it is literally physiologically or biologically dependent for survival on a parent organism and will die if detached.You argued it but failed to explain why implantation before sufficient development occurs should be used to determine whether or not it's a distinct biological organism.
If you're arguing that the fetus/tapeworm has structural integration with the host, yes they do.
My position is that the fetus is not biologically part of the mother’s organism, but is part of her structurally. I'm still confused by this statement that you made earlier:
Why would structural attachment determine whether or not something has a life (both philosophically and biologically)? Using your logic under the violinist thought experiment, the violinist and the person he attached to would have to be considered one person, living a single life, the moment the attachment is performed. However, this clearly makes no sense as both the violinist and the person remain distinct individuals with their own lives even though one depends entirely on the other for survival. The same principle applies to conjoined twins: their physical attachment do not turn them into one life. Physical attachment is not a merger of lives into one.
Furthermore, you also cannot argue that certain body parts belong to the violinist while others belong to the person he is attached to, because if they shared one life, there would be no meaningful distinction/ownership between their bodies.
This is one of those situations where, even if you think that there are two bads, oppressing a woman is far worse than aborting a blobular mess that can not live on its own outside the woman. It is frankly disgusting seeing people, and particularly men, try to control women. There is literally no justification for it.
If you're arguing that the fetus/tapeworm has structural integration with the host, yes they do.
My position is that the fetus is not biologically part of the mother’s organism, but is part of her structurally. I'm still confused by this statement that you made earlier:
Why would structural attachment determine whether or not something has a life (both philosophically and biologically)? Using your logic under the violinist thought experiment, the violinist and the person he attached to would have to be considered one person, living a single life, the moment the attachment is performed. However, this clearly makes no sense as both the violinist and the person remain distinct individuals with their own lives even though one depends entirely on the other for survival. The same principle applies to conjoined twins: their physical attachment do not turn them into one life. Physical attachment is not a merger of lives into one.
Furthermore, you also cannot argue that certain body parts belong to the violinist while others belong to the person he is attached to, because if they shared one life, there would be no meaningful distinction/ownership between their bodies.
She's not selling the embryo. Not even donating it. The government does not interfere with her getting rid of her appendix, or her diseased breast, or even a non-diseased part of her body. So why, except to make women purely incubators, should it interfere with any other part of her body WHICH CANNOT SURVIVE on its own in the first five to six months of development. The government needs to mind its own damn business. As do others who think then should be able to interfere in someone else's decisions.
I find these attempts to find reasons via terminology, to stop abortion pathetic and tedious. A woman should not have to explain anything or have to meet any criteria in order to have an abortion. Stay out of her life and get one of your own, I say to Anti-Choicers.
I certainly can't think of any good reason. Probably because there is none.
Indeed. It's no o e else's business or concern.
You may think it's pathetic, but it is attempting to explain to someone with a genuinely alien way of thinking that it is the woman's life. Stay out of her life is not understandable by people who don't understand that the life involved is hers and why that is the only appropriate apportionment.
You have what I am saying backwards... their attempts to use terminology to justify denying women's rights is what is pathetic.
Agreed. They are incapable of applying reasoning correctly in this case because they persist in imagining that embryos are what they aren't, and it's all about blurring potentiality and actuality. I'm so sick of it.
