The firearms example is an interesting one. I would say this is impractical at our current stage, unless we did something like law enforcement housed the training, and there were classes available around the clock. I would be for that, it would also build community, and there's lots of other logistical issues to get through, questions like how do you know who uses the guns in a house, to require the training of, etc.
As for pro-choice, it is great marketing but so is pro-life. Depending on which relative position you are standing in for - pro-life comes from the perspective of the unborn child, pro-choice comes from the stance of the woman. Both are marketing but neither is required to be opposite the other, in fact that's part of the marketing, right? The pro-lifers don't want to be anti-choice so they market their side one way that indicates the other side is pro-death, which the pro-choice folks don't want to be marketed against.
The argument, legally speaking, necessarily requires us to take the perspective of the woman until the unborn child is viable. At which point there are discussions to be had and more leeway to remove some choices from the choice table. I say this because in no other legal situation do we say that someone else has the right to use your body, not even for their own survival. Except, the circumstances of an unborn child. Not even a birthed child can demand your blood, organs, nothing. That's what is on the table, destroying bodily sovereignty.
Good article, examples are well chosen to spark thoughts and poking, but may not be the most open for people to accept due to their stances.
The firearms example is an interesting one. I would say this is impractical at our current stage, unless we did something like law enforcement housed the training, and there were classes available around the clock. I would be for that, it would also build community, and there's lots of other logistical issues to get through, questions like how do you know who uses the guns in a house, to require the training of, etc.
As for pro-choice, it is great marketing but so is pro-life. Depending on which relative position you are standing in for - pro-life comes from the perspective of the unborn child, pro-choice comes from the stance of the woman. Both are marketing but neither is required to be opposite the other, in fact that's part of the marketing, right? The pro-lifers don't want to be anti-choice so they market their side one way that indicates the other side is pro-death, which the pro-choice folks don't want to be marketed against.
The argument, legally speaking, necessarily requires us to take the perspective of the woman until the unborn child is viable. At which point there are discussions to be had and more leeway to remove some choices from the choice table. I say this because in no other legal situation do we say that someone else has the right to use your body, not even for their own survival. Except, the circumstances of an unborn child. Not even a birthed child can demand your blood, organs, nothing. That's what is on the table, destroying bodily sovereignty.
Good article, examples are well chosen to spark thoughts and poking, but may not be the most open for people to accept due to their stances.