I removed the rest of your post since it is not relevant to the thread topic. Something I’m sure you’ll appreciate. My argument is that a fetus does not have rights because it is not a conscious being. A beings ability to experience pain and suffering is what we place value on and thus prescibe rights to. Whether someone admits it or not it’s the reason why we all determine whether something has the right to life or not. As for your argument: Premise 1: All three of these are completely different not the same. - It is a human being but we know that simply being a human being does not mean that it is always wrong to kill as there are many situations where it may be permissible to kill human beings. Unless you maintain the position it is always wrong to kill human beings regardless of the situation which would be consistent. - The fetus is not a person or a sentient being because it does not have consciousness. It does not have a personal identity or self because it does not have the capacity to do so. Premise 2: There’s no such thing as inherent value. Value is a prefrence given by something to another.
I would also suggest that even if it is determined that a fetus has rights. They are NOT greater than the rights of the mother to be her own autonomous person.
I would argu that post viability it has the right to life under certain circumstances. You can no longer kill it just because you want to
The 5th amendment states that life can not be denied without due process. Roe v Wade was due process.
My point is that you can not kill a viable fetus unless it is a threat to the mother or it has medical complications. That clearly implies a right of life to the fetus under those circumstances. Roe only deals with pre viability fetuses
Does a fetus have rights Let us just pretend it does, how will it defend or use them? If the reply is "Someone else will do it for them", then they are not really its rights are they?
Actually children have rights and are appointed lawyers to defend them even if they are to young to communicate
I know. But they still can not be killed post viability except under certain circumstances. That implies a right to life
First you need to understand and accept this: A fetus is not a child...see those different words, we use them for a reason.
No, the word "right" is different from the word "protections". The healthy viable fetus cannot be legally aborted because of protections. It has no rights. If the woman's life is in danger then the fetus loses it's protections.....if it had rights it couldn't "lose" them. IF it had rights it would also have restrictions, it could NOT use another's body to sustain it's life.
Not true. I have rights that can be removed under certain circumstances. The cops can kick in my door without a warrant if they feel someone is in danger. I lose my right under that circumstance
FoxHastings said: ↑ No, the word "right" is different from the word "protections". The healthy viable fetus cannot be legally aborted because of protections. It has no rights. If the woman's life is in danger then the fetus loses it's protections.....if it had rights it couldn't "lose" them. Yes, IF you commit a crime you lose rights. The fetus has not committed a crime.
Not at all. If someone is in danger in my house the cops can enter without a warrant even if I did not invite them in. No crime need to be committed. A person can simply be cying out in pain because they fell.
Your problem is that your using killing and abortion interchangeably. You can not. The 5th amendment says nothing about killing. If you want to have a salient discussion, you have to words correctly.
