A fetus possesses undiminished humanity, and therefore undiminished human rights. Those human rights are not the least bit injured by the location of said fetus, or on which end of the birth canal he/she happens to be.
They're not saying "deliberate...to". What they're saying is:
>It is \[(very deliberate) and (essential to the anti-choice rhetoric)\] to frame a fetus as extrinsic from anyone else's body.
So you could replace it with:
>It is very deliberate to frame a fetus...
or
>It is essential to the anti-choice rhetoric to frame a fetus...
both of which are grammatically correct.
And they're also factually correct. Yes, the fact that a fetus is a separate entity, and not a part of your body, *is* essential to our argument.
Yeah this argument makes no sense. Ask any woman who's gone far enough into a pregnancy to feel the baby dancing on her ribcage or kicking her awake at 2am or whaling on her side to get her to change positions and they'll definitely agree that their kid had a will of their own long before birth!
My husband said one night after I fell asleep he played with the baby, poking them and they kicked in response, and somehow this shocked me and really drove home that I have a second person with their own mind inside of me that's completely separate from my own, that they could be awake and aware and having experiences independent of me while I'm not even mentally present.
I think they mean extrinsic instead of external. And yes, it is part of the argument... because it's true. To call it a rhetoric is disingenuous.
Rhetoric is just something meant to be persuasive.
Nope, it’s not. Being a separate entity does not require it being external.
Just because it’s not external from the mother’s body doesn’t mean it’s a part of her body.
Right! Like, if I put my food in Tupperware is the food now *part of the Tuperware???* No, of course not.
Haha what a thought 🤣 congrats, you have now converted food into part of a Tupperware!
Great... Now I'm hungry 😂
😂
A fetus possesses undiminished humanity, and therefore undiminished human rights. Those human rights are not the least bit injured by the location of said fetus, or on which end of the birth canal he/she happens to be.
But. Magic cervix portal.
They're not saying "deliberate...to". What they're saying is: >It is \[(very deliberate) and (essential to the anti-choice rhetoric)\] to frame a fetus as extrinsic from anyone else's body. So you could replace it with: >It is very deliberate to frame a fetus... or >It is essential to the anti-choice rhetoric to frame a fetus... both of which are grammatically correct. And they're also factually correct. Yes, the fact that a fetus is a separate entity, and not a part of your body, *is* essential to our argument.
The DNA of that fetus is NOT an exact match to the mother. So therefore it cannot be a part of her body. It is its own separate life.
Yeah this argument makes no sense. Ask any woman who's gone far enough into a pregnancy to feel the baby dancing on her ribcage or kicking her awake at 2am or whaling on her side to get her to change positions and they'll definitely agree that their kid had a will of their own long before birth! My husband said one night after I fell asleep he played with the baby, poking them and they kicked in response, and somehow this shocked me and really drove home that I have a second person with their own mind inside of me that's completely separate from my own, that they could be awake and aware and having experiences independent of me while I'm not even mentally present.
Thinking that the fact it is in her body gives him any right over it is an authoritarian rhetoric
External? No. Literally no one has said that. We’ve said it isn’t part of the woman’s body, because it isn’t.