I did not say that the foetus is my body. I said that it is inside my body. Therefore I'm the one that has control over it, not society. If I wish to starve myself, I'm free to do so.
Suicide is a crime in many countries. Utlimately, your free to try, but if you fail society will make sure you get counceling.
Society can't stop me from doing so.
Your using society loosely. Sure, society can stop you. Maybe if you try to buy ciggarets, the cashier won't let you. Perhaps all cashiers won't. In theory, then, society may only creates a new law if the new law is enforcible. Just because a law doesn't exist doesn't mean society doesn't have the right to create a law.
You approach this argument from a Christian stand point.
Yes, but I don't see ownership has a feasable alternative to ethics. Yes, from a Christian perspective God might grant ownership to people, of some things; but to make any sense this principle must be extended well beyond what's typically meant by ownership, I think.
While the foetus is a different organism to me... it can't survive outside my body until it becomes viable (ie. it's organs are able to support it outside of the womb).
Every human being is entitled to certain rights. For instace, we're all entitled to rights, such as life, liberty, and happiness, even though these rights are dependent upon society. To have life, society must protect life. No baby, then, is viable in the sense your using it. All babies need food and shelter.
Your example about the eyes and miscarriage apply to some form of revenge or an eye for an eye. I can't take someone's eyesight because I'd be infringing on the body of another.
If they've taken your eyesight away, you'll be even if you take theirs.
But lets say I have eye cancer and am told that to prevent blindness, I must wear protective sunglasses. No one can force me to wear those glasses to save my own eyesight.
Any law to force you to wear sunglasses is impractical.
I can choose not to wear them and go blind. But if someone prevents me from wearing those glasses, then that becomes an offence and society steps in. Get it?
It depends. Society must enforce your right to happiness, and because any way of forcing you to wear them would break your right, society might step in. But I doubt forcing you to wear them as an abstract concept breaks any of your rights. In fact, you can't drive while using your cellphone in DC. You can't drive without your seatbelt on, too. Of course, the way the state enforces these laws is either within your rights or outside. If the state forced you to wear a seatbelt by installing a video camera in your car, what their doing is outside.
If you go into a jewellery store and swallow a gold trinket without having paid for it, it's not yours regardless of whether it's in your body or not. Would you like to know why? Because the trinket belongs to someone else and unless they consented to your swallowing it and keeping it, it's not yours.
No, it's not mine. My objection was mainly to show that just because something's within you, doesn't really mean you own it. So who owns the fetus? Because the biological material with from the mother and the father, shouldn't the mother and father have the same ownership? And what happends with the fetus becomes "viable" or born? Doesn't your beliefs, too, impose a belief that God doesn't own the fetus?
If you wish to use your house as a target zone, you can do so, so long as you don't infringe or disturb any of your neighbours. If you live on 100 hectares and you have a target zone in the middle of your property, away from anyone else bordering your property and you're not disturbing or harming your neighbours and their property, you're free to do so.
Prochoicers have disturbed quite a few prolifers, right? In some parts you might be able to use your property for target practicing, but in other parts the housing codes has banned this sort of thing.
