You cant have both. The mother DOES NOT WANT TO give birth. So. SOMEONES rights have to trump the other. whos is it? The mothers right to control her own body? Or the fetus's rights to force the mother to provide sustenance and birth? Cause you have to pick one. Igf you say the mother, she has an abortion,. If you say the fetus. then you must REQUIRE that mother to give birth AGAINST her will. You cant have it both ways.
You don't seem to understand the debate, it's not whether it's a life or human it is, it is by all means of the scientific term a life. The argument is whether it's a person which is debatable though the science pretty much speaks for itself on the issue. Personhood has always been derived from the ability of cognitive thought a fetus or what you are proposing a zygot is equal to a baby or child which you might as well call when a doctor drops a petri dish with a fertilized egg manslaughter. Though on the original issue a fetus before a certain point does not have the ability of cognitive thought, you can look at what most professionals in the field say for when that is instead of me just saying a date. Though if you're willing to make exceptions how can you claim it's a life? Name another case where you would be willing to kill an actual baby because it was the product of rape? Also sure it would be nice if every pregnancy that is going to end up aborted didn't happen in the first place, as humans we make stupid decisions all the time and are prone to error also that sometimes contraceptives don't work. My beliefs are that a woman's body is hers to choose what medical procedures she wants for it and for as long as possible she should have the ability to have an abortion in a safe environment. You could make a better case for personhood when the fetus is viable but most pro-choice advocates actually stand on this position.
Your missing the point. Assume for the purpose of this poll, that the woman in question, has a healthy viable baby boy in her womb. She has decided that she does NOT want to carry the baby to term, and wants an abortion. The question is, whos rights are greater here? You CANNOT have equal rights because those rights are in direct conflict with each other. The woman DOES NOT want to give birth. So at this point. Make a choice. Does the right of the mother to control her own body ( her womb her body imo ) TRUMP the rights of the babies rights to gow and be born? OR Are the rights of the baby to grow and be born GREATER than that of the mother, and in that case, would a mother who wants to abort be denied that in lui of the rights of the fetus, and should she be forced to carry the baby to term, and give birth against her wishes?
Whose rights to property are greater, a father's or the rights of the child he is forced to pay support for? The debate is the same. By getting a woman pregnant, a man commits to provide support for the results of that union. If a man's right to property can be revoked for getting a woman pregnant, a woman's right to control her body can be revoked for the same reason.
You can't have both? You mean one has to die? Your question wasn't framed right. You asked---who has more rights. But abortion isn't about the quantity of rights a person can have---its about whether the fetus can be killed at will by the mother. And no matter the laws a society has---a fetus has the right to life. A newborn has the right to life. And women have the right to life. You might note...that even today in some societies both women and newborns are disposable. A law might make something legal but it doesn't make it ethical or right. Even if a fetus is legally killed...it had a right to life but someone wrongfully killed it.
So, regardless of weather or not you think that black people are humans, we can all agree this is about human rights in some form or another. Rights for the slave owner. Rights for the slave. 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 white slave owner inherits his black slaves from his father, and is forced to feed and provide for them, the slave's rights have trampled on the owner's. If a slave owner has his slave killed, hisr rights have just trampled on the slave. 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 slave owner. In my mind, his property belongs to him, and not the slave. The slave is just a parasite ( I do not mean that in a derrogative term, thats just the nature of the relationship at that point in time, seeing as the slave is dependent on him for food and shelter) So the slave owner should have greater rights than the slave, if he wishes to take him out and shoot him.
why is it wrong to kill it? Not sure about new borns but women can think as well as men can so I can see why its wrong to treat them worse than men. a fetus not so mutch
It isn't. A white slave master has every right to shoot his black slave - it's just a parasite, and can only survive because it's dependent on him, and the food and shelter he gives it while it picks cotton for him on his plantation. He has every right to shoot that useless n- in the head. He can just buy a new one anyway. Plus he didn't choose to own it - he inherited it from his deceased father - so his right to choice trumps the black slave's right to life.
no a black person could survive without being owned and the slave owner never had a right to have slaves in the 1st place neither did nay of his ancestors and has to pretend his slaves are not people a fetus actually is not a person yet
Because it is---just like you. An individual human life. I know its hard for most pro-abortion people to think outside their own...interests. Caring about a human life---even if it can't coo and do cute things---is too hard for some people. But we aren't a healthy society if we can't protect the most vulnerable.
Even people who are not cute should have rights so I don’t understand what the hell you’re brining that quality up for But a fetus doesn’t seem like a person to me it’s a potential person a human animal on its way to developing into a person but not yet a person and as expendable as any other unwanted animal The only way to protect people when it comes to abortion is to be pro legal abortion Trying to prevent abortions by offering adoptions as a choice and convincing mothers not to have one is fine advocating the use of contraceptives to prevent abortion is fine But saying a fetus is as human as anyone else and deserving of all human rights seems wrong as dose equating abortion with murder Looking out for vulnerable people seems good not letting people do whatever they want to animals seems good to though I don’t think that gives all creatures a right to life but abortion is not mutely exclusive with that
It is not "just like you." Starting with "individual." "Individuals" are separate, zefs are not. Society cannot protect zefs, only an individual pregnant woman can do that. Heck, society cannot even force pregnant women to do that, they tried it before and it didn't work.
Yes, a fetus is an individual human...just like you. What you are doing is deciding what human individuals can be killed based on narrow, bias and self-serving criteria. Just like Hitler used a certain criteria to denote some humans---as disposable. Its not different. You have to admit---that by your own standard of "not human individual because not separate and thus disposable"--a 9 month gestation baby can be ethically and rightfully killed minutes prior to birth and while still attached to the placenta. Hey....thats disgusting and horrible.
A fetus is not an "individual" and I am. As long as it is attached it is not individual. A normal nine month fetus however could survive detachment, and detachment preserving life if possible would be the preferred treatment. I am deciding that human individuals, i.e. women, do not have to have a biologically dependent being attached to them if they choose not to. You're right, that's narrow....so let's expand it to include men, now men also do not have to have a biologically dependent being attached to them if they choose not to.
Your problem is ....that men and women are different. Angry women willing to kill an individual human life to make them the same as a man. Yes...when the sperm and egg meet and mesh, even at the Zygote stage---an individual that can never be replicated, or reborn is created. And when it is destroyed, that individual will be gone forever. It can't survive on air yet...but whether it survives outside the womb or not has nothing to do with what an individual human life is. With the technology of the future---it won't be long before your definition is mute. Plus----what I am hearing from you is that it is ethical for a woman to kill her 9 month gestation baby because men don't have to be concerned about 9 month gestation babies in their body.
What even remotely makes you think that women who have abortions are angry or doing it because they want to be a man? Often times women feel pushed into having an abortion due to financial constraints. It is not a happy time for her to have to go out and get an abortion. No woman wants that and most biologically born women are not trying to be men either.
Actually---its the angry women activists that propose destroying human life to create a weird sort of "equality".
Hmmmm - Would you prefer that we ask for true equality and demand that if men want to "save" the pregnancy that it is transplanted into their bodies?
I would prefer activists didn't worship men to the point of advocating killing human life to be like them.
