Were you defining fallacy of ad populum for me? With an exception of possibly psychosis these are just your opinion that they are irrational. But as I said before, someone being irrational or not is irrelevant.
You can, then, continue with your pseudo-intellectual rationalizations of a reality that do not exist in the real world and an ethical sense that is at best suspect.
Thanks I will. When you actually pose a rebuttal that doesn’t contain unsubstantiated claims let me know.
That if God told me to kill anybody, I'd do it. Yeah, that too. But what's salient here is the inanity of the contention, which is exposed by noting the legitimacy of justifiable homicide, and that genocide is merely a multitude of homicides.
Don't you think it's quite egotistical to speak for the whole world? Ya, it is , and shows you have no argument because you need to claim the whole world as backup...
We have two people with hopefully unique philosophies. One believes it is ethical to allow a mentally ill person to harm herself. The other believes genocide can be justifiable homicide en masse and he would do it if he thought god told him to. What does this have to do with does a fetus have rights? Their opinions on fetal rights should be viewed through the lens of their "unique" philosophies.
The problem is, most of those on the side supporting abortion don't really believe that. (Certainly not when it comes to other things)
Same goes for the anti abortion conservatives who claim they believe in freedom but they don’t really believe in that either.
Matt22yuc said: ↑ If someone is acting irrationally so as to not benefit themselves and doesn’t directly affect someone else then they have that right. It’s not unethical to stop them from their own free choice. Prove it. Can't because you have no idea what Pro-Choicers believe...liberty and freedom don't seem to be understood by you... There are no "other things", this is the Abortion Forum...this is about women's right to their own bodies .
You chose two sentences that are contradictory and I had let it pass because I assumed it is not what he meant. The first sentence says a person has a right to act irrationally. The second says it is ethical to stop them from their free choice and the opposite of what he had been saying. That said, do not hold him to be the standard for people who are pro-choice as I said before I find his ethical sense questionable. Now you need to clarify....free choice and irrational acts are two different things and polar opposites.
But you do believe it's ethical to criminalize a woman killing her newborn baby. Could you expound a bit more upon the difference? Is it ethical for one conjoined twin to kill the other twin? How about if a woman kills her newborn baby but it was born very premature? Now, what are the particular features about abortion that make it so different?
The reason why not is that there are two different categories of "rights". One is according to law, and in this case a fetus doesn't have any lawful rights. And the other is according to human perception and agreement. And as far as I know, consensus of opinion is that a fetus has no rights as well.
You haven't presented any PROOF that they do have rights....you have NEVER stated what those alleged rights are.....and why they have more rights than the woman they are in. They do NOT have rights because they are not born. They cannot have rights while they are part of another's body.
All "rights" are subjective to time, place and culture, but when a society perceives a right that is violated to be serious enough social strictures or laws are enacted. There are restrictions on abortion once the fetus is viable and feticide laws. The fetus may have a right not to be abused but there are no laws against a woman giving birth to an baby with fetal alcohol syndrome and I'm not saying there should be.
FoxHastings said: ↑ You haven't presented any PROOF that they do have rights... and why they have more rights than the woman they are in. They don't, and even if they had equal rights they are infringing on the rights of the woman they're in and she still would have the right to kill it. Fetuses have NO rights.
They may but , as you've been told a couple of thousand times, the fetus has no rights. Just because Anti-Choicers are illogical doesn't make them right If you didn't cherry pick every post you would have seen the answer: """"""They don't, and even if they had equal rights they are infringing on the rights of the woman they're in and she still would have the right to kill it. Fetuses have NO rights. """"""""