The childish argument is the one YOU are making. No one said anything about some one being proximate to you. A fetus is NOT proximate to a woman. It is WITHIN the woman and in HER body. Not yours or anybody else's. YOU have no say over what anyone else does to their body. You also confuse a fetus with life. The fetus can NOT survive without the woman's consent. So please stop making childish arguments.
I wasn't aware that sharing the same space as someone isn't proximate to their location. Would you like to elucidate on that very strange notion?
An infant cannot survive without the woman's active participation and consent. So you're not really making a very strong case here. Children under age ~7 need their parents for food, shelter, etc. They will die otherwise. So, what is the ethical difference? Proximity. Not much of an ethics case you're making so far.
Yes, I do have a right to complain, because me explaining to you that you have no right to foist your ethics on some one else does not violate yours. OTOH, you would attempt to use your ethics to control some one else's body, to which YOU have no right to do.
If ethics are subjective--which was the case you were making--then mine are equally as valid as yours. If you think ethics are subjective, then mine can't be wrong. They're just different from yours. And if it's just a matter of taste, well "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.
You're not arguing in good faith Ynot. You don't believe ethics are subjective. No one does. This is sophistry used by people losing an argument. Let's test this: Is slavery unethical? By your previous statement:
"You can speak of ethics, all you want, but your ethics are your own. They are not all or some women's. We are all bound by our own code of ethics regardless. Each of us ultimately acts in what we consider our own best interests." Slavery must be fine, so long as it's your ethics
So, are ethics subjective? Is this a matter of taste to you? Or is this a matter of right and wrong, and you think I'm wrong? Which is it? It can't be both?
The very obvious difference in your absurd argument, is that those children were not dependent upon the consent of your neighbor for their continued existence. But I guess that is another FACT you choose to ignore in favor of your feeling or belief that abortion is murder.
Suppose my neighbor engages in a behavior that would draw children to his property, and then kills them for trespass? This would be murder, yes? And equivalent to what we are discussing. The woman engages in a behavior that she knows can/will result in children and then "oh my stars! I never expected this! Kill it! Trespass!" The woman is not an innocent victim, or at least does not appear to be, when you look at this dispassionately. In both cases, the fate of the child rests in the hands of their murderer.
At least the child, in my neighbor example, had a choice, and could have avoided his/her fate. The case of the child in abortion is one where they have no choice. You can't even try to argue that they are trespassing.
You are correct which is exactly why abortions are legal, because your feelings are not hte basis of law.
So, you admit you're not arguing in good faith, because you have no good, factual arguments? And yet you think that the law is based on facts? How do you reconcile this in your brain? Does it cause you headaches?
Nice try, but you aren't speaking of facts, you are the the one speaking of feelings. You feel that a fetus is life and because you feel that way, everyone else should act accordingly. But the FACT is that the fetus cannot survive without the consent of the woman. Whether you like it or not that is the FACT of how nature has made it.
And yet it's still infanticide if you kill the child after birth... how does that cognitive dissonance feel again?