Whos rights are greater. The woman or the fetus?

So, regardless of weather or not you think that life begins at conception, we can all agree this is about human rights in some form or another. Rights for the mother. Rights for the fetus. So on and so forth.


My viewpoint is that it is impossible to have this debate without recognizing that one persons rights are trampling on another no matter what.

If a woman who doesnt want to have a child, is force to carry to term, the babies rights have trampled on the mothers.
If a woman has an abortion, her rights have just trampled on the Fetus.

So for me, the real question comes down to. Whos rights are greater? A distinction must be made here.

Personally, I would always assign the greater rights to the mother. In my mind, the womb belongs to her, and not the fetus. The fetus is just a parasite ( I do not mean that in a derrogative term, thats just the scientific nature of the relationship at that point in time ) So the mother should have greater rights than the fetus, if she wishes to terminate her pregnancy.

 

I dont think midless life has any rights, so woman's rights are always greater, because any number is greater than zero.

 

I believe rights come from some sense of personhood, you could argue that it's a life but the point still stands is it a person. Until this can be actually proven or demonstrated then the rights of the mother outweigh the fetus.

I don't know if people have heard this philosophical scenario so I'll put it into this threads context.

If you were in a hospital and it was burning down and you saw 5 petri dishes and a woman unconscious on the ground and could only save the 5 petri dishes with fertilized eggs or the woman who would you choose. I think I know who most sane people would pick so if you chose the woman congratulations you put the life of one person ahead of five unborn children as the pro-life people like to call a zygot.

 

I don’t think the fetus has rights. Human rights (the name needs work) belong to people who may not always even be human. I don’t consider a human fetus a person though I consider it alive and human

 

The woman's rights until the child is born.

 

The child has no rights until the baby is born. The only weird thing for me is when someone heinously attempts to murder the fetus against the mother's will. I believe that should be considered the same as murdering a person.

 

just the line or the force choking to?

 

Just the line haha. If religious people actually could force choke you, Neutral would be on a crusade against atheists as we speak.

 

Welp. So far I can see that everyone agrees then that abortion should be legal.

 

The woman has a developed nervous system. She is conscience. She can think, feel, act, speak, she demonstrates cognitive abilities.

The fetus is none of those things.

The rights of the developed nervous system trumps those of the undeveloped nervous system.

 

Suppose the woman's rights are equal to the fetus. Well then, just how many abortions should one woman be allowed?

 

no reason to suppose that

 

This all depends on the maturity level of the Woman.

If she has a bloodlust for killing the baby, then she's not a woman, she's still a child. a mental fetus.

If she thinks to prevent the pregnancy before conception, then she is truly a wise Woman.

 

And if she attempted to prevent the pregnancy beforehand (birth control/condoms/etc.) and still came out pregnant and sought an abortion, then what is she?

 

An outpatient or a Mother. take your pick

 

Haha, I really was just curious how you would label someone like that considering your other labels of women based on their personal choices.

 

This is the wrong question. The fetus has no rights so there is no conflict to resolve. The very nature of rights precludes there being any conflict. Rights refer to freedom of (independent) action which is impossible to a fetus because of it's total dependency on the woman.

 

if someone on dialysis was going to die unless you were to let them have a direct connection to you blood supply, who's rights are greater, yours or the person you wont let have that direct connection to you blood supply?

if you want to give blood to help someone else, that is a choice, the government can't force you too

in the above instance are you pro-choice, or pro-gov making the choice?

.

 

That's because you don't understand what natural/unalienable rights are. If you did, you'd recognize that the idea of one person's natural rights trampling those of another is as nonsensical as the idea of ice or steam being at enmity with water.

 

I would say that both, the mother and the fetus have the right of life.

 

OP: to what manner of rights are you referring?

 

And what percentage of women who get abortions is this exactly? Do tell.

Condoms, especially combined with birth control pills, are an extremely effective way to prevent pregnancy. Combine with a diaphragm and the risk goes down to almost zero.

I think women should have to take a lie detector test about whether or not they used contraceptives before they can get an abortion.

 

I too like wasting taxpayer money.

 

Then you should've been aborted since YOU had no rights either because your ignorance is profound and should not be afforded the gift of life.

 

A child of two human parents will always be a human if the child reaches term and is born even if it was a more advanced human so I would say the rights are equal the only need for abortion should be to protect the life that is already here but I'm also willing to add the rare cases of incest and rape as legal reasons as well. But there is birth control if a woman decides to have sex and not use it and ends up pregnant that is no reason to kill the child in her belly.

And since we do not know when life begins then its in my mind vital to take this test as at conception when the genetic potential to be a human is there.