Discussion in 'Abortion' started by pjohns, Jul 18, 2020.
He hasn't answered a lot of questions. He's glossed over whole posts of mine.
Not true. And partly because our rights are placed in broad categories. For example, the right of free speech. I can't make any speech that causes mass panic, or calls for the killing of someone. Such would conflict with their rights. My personal property rights can also come into conflict with other rights. Granted we could break down our rights into very specific rights, but we don't, this we have the situation where rights are limited and can come into conflict.
Both the artificial womb and the surrogate are examples of how the woman's rights only extend to her own pregnancy and not actually to the ZEF.
Yes, more than likely there would be a contract in place for surrogate use, and probably even for AW use in the future. That being said, not even a contract can force or prevent bodily autonomy choices. A woman cannot sign a contract to not abort and then legally be prevented from aborting. She will suffer no legal repercussions from the abortion itself. The legal repercussions from breech of contract are a separate issue. Likewise, a surrogate contract could neither force or prevent the surrogate in getting an abortion. Again breech of contract repercussions could occur, but such issues must be looked at separately.
I'm with you there. However, using bad arguments to try to secure that right does more to hurt that protection than aid it. Which is why I call out bad arguments. I question/counter your arguments, not your motives.
Which is pretty much what I said, it's a legal issue.
My arguments are just fine...maybe not in your opinion but they are correct.
A fetus has no rights and will not get them unless there is a total collapse of our government and judicial system..
I think I am going to rephrase here to make sure we are on the same page. If the only legal breach in having the abortion, is held by a contract signed in good faith, its only logical that the only legal penalty is going to be sitting in the application of contract law. If there is a separate legal breach in having the abortion that exists outside the contract in state or federal law, then two penalties may be sought, one based in contract law, and the other in a criminal code. But this is extraordinarily unlikely, unless it is a late pregnancy abortion that does not meet the legal standard, a really interested police and DA's office, and a misdomeanor or criminal charge is attached and the statute proscribes one.
Your right to free speech does not conflict with my right to free sperch. FoxHasting's right to life does not conflict with that of Katenatzu. My right not to vote does not conflict with your right to vote. Etc etc.
There can never be a conflict of rights.
We probably are on the same page, overall at least. I was trying to make the point that even a contract cannot force a woman to have or not have an abortion. Kinda of an CYA to those who would try to say abortions are a breech of implied contract, as well as to make the point that even contracts cannot violate bodily autonomy.
Faulty logic. Just because there isn't always rights in conflict, it doesn't follow that there never is. I already gave the examples of times when rights conflict and which take precedence over the other. Pointing out the examples that don't is either circular reasoning or strawman, take your pick.
Fetuses have no rights.
BORN people do.
See how simple that is ??????
You "forgot" to answer my question: Why do you make exception to abortion if the woman was raped?
The question is whether or a single human cell - aka "The Mighty Zygote" is a human - a person - with rights including the right to life - from a legal perspective. as in "God said so" is not a valid argument.
There is no consensus among subject matter experts that indeed the ZEF is a living human - Biology- Philosopy- Bioethics .. in fact there are 5 different "Scientific Perspectives" on where something that can be classified as "human" in the descriptive adjective sense - Metabolic, Genetic, embryological, neurological, ecological.
So the answer to the above question is "we don't know" "experts disagree"
So if we look at the zygote as while perhaps not a full person - try to attach some kind value potential personhood .. We are then faced with the legal question of competing rights .. and we have to balance these competing rights against each other on the scales of Justice.
On the side of the woman you have heavy weight .. constitutionally protected rights to her own body .. essential liberty - and so on.
On the other side we have what ? How to attached a value to "We don't know" ?
and I rest my case.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we're of a mind, save maybe the smaller details. But the above is one of the major reasons why I emphasize the difference between human and human being. Hell, I don't even assume that "being" can only be matched with humans.
This is why I often note that it's irrelevant as to whether or not the ZEF has any rights. They would not outweigh the woman's in the context of it being in her body. It is also why I point out that the woman doesn't have a right to just terminate the ZEF out of hand, and use the artificial womb and surrogate examples to back it up.
Lives matter to people who relate to life. Society relates to its maintenance, not life. Collectively, we make so many decisions of life and death that obsessing over abortion is hypocritical to say the least. We don't spend enough on healthcare yet spend historically stupendous treasure on "defense". What is being defended if life, health and well being are not secure?
Babies in the arms of their mothers in Hiroshima didn't matter on a scale necessary to act differently, and it didn't stop there. Our "defense" alone kills innocent people every day, while other policies, and lack of policies, kill unnoticed and uncounted people in obscure locations. Yet, we are supposed to concentrate on a mother's decision not to bear to term?
Well said, Bruce!
Why can't you answer these questions? :
Why do you make an exception for abortion if the pregnancy is due to rape?
Why do want a fetus to have more rights than anyone else?
It is important in this debate to understand the descriptive adjective use of the word "human" - "human cell, human heart, human feces" .. and the noun " A Human, a living human, a human being, a homo sapiens" Human-Being is an interesting one as as a compound word it means a human... which is more than the sum of the parts .. "a being which is human" (descriptive adjective)
So the cry - "Its a human life" in all its various forms - is fallacious nonsense .. as not all things which are both alive and human are "humans"
and in fact .. the term "Pro Life" itself is disingenuous and misleading. Do pro lifers not eat plants and animals ? The "ugly truth" is that humans have to kill life in order to survive.
Yes - exactly - even if one does not insist upon the zygote needing to be defacto "a human" in order to be ascribed rights - this entity can never usurp the rights of a born human from a legal perspective .. it is simply no contest.
For this reason I find it very strange that we are still having this debate - but perhaps stranger that the left does not focus on the above argument .. or the debate on whether or not it is a human -- nor point out some of the glaring logical fallacies.
Separate names with a comma.