That is correct. It’s all apples to oranges.
You can absolutely believe it. But don’t shame the concept of logic by acting like you have legs to stand on and/or it’s difficult to argue against.
Fwiw, people that argue for choice post viability do so through claiming the fetus doesn’t have rights until birth. That’s how you discredit the fetus’ right to life, not by claiming it stalemates with property.
Logically it is difficult argue against, because there is nothing to compare it to.
I’m sayi[quote=“pfury, post:121, topic:256646”]
Fwiw, people that argue for choice post viability do so through claiming the fetus doesn’t have rights until birth. That’s how you discredit the fetus’ right to life, not by claiming it stalemates with property
[/quote]
I’m not the first to use this argument BTW. It is becoming a common argument that I’ve probably heard a few times in the last month.
Arguing the fetus doesn’t have rights will also end in stalemates with pro lifers BTW.
You have given weighting to the concept that life and property stalemate because it happens in the woman’s body. Given no comparison can logically exist, it’s a useless modifier to add unless the goal is to shut down critical thinking.
I’m aware. Seeing an argument doesn’t make it logical. Anti vaxxers scream all the time. Doesn’t mean their logic holds up.
If you want to argue the fetus has no rights at all until born, that’s fine. But if that’s what you’re saying a stalemate doesn’t exist. Just the property rights. Nothing to stalemate against.
Because they draw the line at a different point than that argument, hence a fundamental disagreement. That’s absolutely not the same as stalemating over property~=life.
Can children actually enter into contractual agreements,?
A woman does not force a fetus to be conceived. If that were the case then it wouldn’t be as difficult to conceive as it is for many women.
Saying that a fetus’ choice has been violated ignores the fact that there are stages prior to the fetus’ development. Thus, there was no fetus who could have chosen one way or another. How can a fetus complain about its right to choose being violated if it didn’t exist at the time?
I wouldn’t say so, but I don’t argue abortion from a property perspective. It doesn’t come close to clicking with me
It absolutely is. Don’t be silly.
The ease that some women are able to get pregnant has absolutely no bearing over whether or not it’s forced on the child. All life is forced on us, because we didn’t exist to consent
It cant literally complain anything, it’s a fetus. But I would imagine the fetus argument would be that it’s right to life, if it exists, wins over the mothers right to property.
Just to be clear, my argument is that the fetus has no rights of property over the mother, not the other way around. I think this has been confused. The mother had the right to remove the fetus, because the fetus does not have rights over the mother, NOT that the mother has property rights over the fetus, therefore she can remove the fetus.
No, it isn’t - because rights don’t exist in a vacuum. A right, at base, is claim as against another person. But every right is bound to go into conflict with another - think of the classic line of “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose”. A person has a right to swing their fists all day, but it’s not unlimited - it yields to the right not to be punched .
Abortion is the same scenario - a woman most certainly has a right to her body, but at some point that right comes into conflict with another right: the right of a child not to be harmed.
You can’t simply declare a right and say that’s the end of it. You have to examine and see if another of it has to yield to another. And the idea that a woman has a right to terminate a child, say, while she is in labor but not seconds after the child is born is simply absurd - because there’s no rational reason to treat that child and its rights differently based on the timing of that situation.
But this is not true. A woman cannot legally smoke in her car with her children present but a pregnant woman can smoke all she wants. Reckless endangerment of a minor does not apply to pregnant women.
Does the woman not have the right not to be harmed? You can’t have it both ways. If the woman is concerned that her body may be harmed, then she had the right to end that threat.
A female police officer cannot bring her kid to work with her for a variety if reasons, one being it’s dangerous, yet a pregnant police officer can still bring her “baby” to work. So do we tell women to stop working for the entire nine months of pregnancy and…do we still pay them?
What this equates to is that the fetus has no rights period until born. Which is fine, because that’s when the argument actually holds up. That is absolutely NOT to say there is a stalemate between life and property.
At the point the mothers life is in danger we’re back to life&property>life.
So a woman just needs to be in fear for her health?
How do we evaluate danger? Doctor’s are incorrect at a rate that should exclude their opinions from consideration.
I’d say a woman’s life needs to be in danger sufficient to qualify as self defense. If no threat to your life exists you can’t argue from the stance.
If you think someone is about to mug you and you shoot him, but he was really just walking by, you don’t get to claim self defense just because you felt like you were in danger in the moment.
Are you able to cite a more accurate resource?
Just personal experience. My own mother would be dead if she listened to doctors and went home, instead of insisting that there was something wrong with her. I don’t think this was a one off thing.
Really if 1 doctor gets it wrong and a woman dies, that is enough that they should not hold the final decision.
But that makes her an arbitrary arbiter of whether a person with the right to live lives or dies. That negates the entire right to live if she is able to do that.
We don’t permit that - because people aren’t property.
Welcome to the anti vaxxer argument. The inability to reach a pure 0% risk level.
Bowing out. Abortion debates are garbage and boring. I only got baited in because of how absurd the rights stalemate comment was
I believe people have the right to be anti vax. I don’t agree with them, but they have the right!
I never said people don’t have the right to be stupid. That doesn’t mean they have the right to be right.
Do do you believe the doctor should get the final call on danger to the woman?
I would fear politicians making the standard for fear to be much to high. I think the assessment of danger has to come from the woman. The doctor may suggest danger, but should not be the deciding factor.
I think reasonable people can set a reasonable threshold on what the likelihood of the mother dying due to certain conditions would be, considering how rarely it happens and requires an abortion instead of delivery.
Abortions are done for non life threatening reasons in nearly all cases. Reality shows an exception can be made, instead of being forced to leave the floodgates open for fairness
My wife has thought she was having a stroke 2-3 times this past week.
She’s fine, btw. Putting it at the discretion of the woman is the same as there being no need for life threatening reasons.