Zone1 Embryos and Personhood

[forkup]

So pleading guilty to manslaughter is infringing upon one's rights?

Yes, if you're forced to plead that way under duress.

 

[ding]

I only care that you can defend your opinion.

I don't think you can

I most certainly have already done so. I'm surprised you couldn't follow it.

 

[forkup]

Actually I am arguing the woman's rights outweigh the child's rights. I'm surprised you couldn't see that.

FORCING a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is saying a woman has more rights then the child???

Go right ahead, that's an argument I've got to see.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It's paying her debt to society for doing a wrong.

The sperm donator incurs no debt to society In Roman Catholic Dingland even though the male most times gains much more pleasure from vaginal sex than the female.

Male Dominated Catholicism should become a religion of the past. It had no useful purpose in a society committed to equal opportunity and rights to all its members. Saint Ding sacrifices equal justuce under the law for a male dominated culture that keeps women subservient to men.


Embryos and Personhood 240229 {post•50} JohnDB Feb’24 Seapyz: Conservative Christians do not support abortions. jvhndb 240239 Seapyz00050


Then don’t be Herschel Walker and cause one.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Actually I am arguing the woman's rights outweigh the child's rights.

in the practical world, your argument deprives women of reasonable access to safe abortion procedures in state where a white Christian nationalist majority can establish laws that regulate the medical profession. Women have no reproductive rights in Dingland when the rubber meets the road. And you give superior rights to baby fetus in your support of the saving baby fetus cult that is emotionally led by Catholics in this country.

 

[forkup]

Don't you think it is hypocritical for you to take this position and support gun control?

Not at all.

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Your arms will not fall off for lack of having an AR-15.

Nor is wanting regulations that would force people to show they are mentally and intellectually capable of bearing those arms safely a matter of bodily autonomy.

Society recognizes that in order to ensure public safety and general order, certain laws and regulations should be enforced.

Abortion though is not one of those things.

Precisely because it's about competing rights. In this case the whole idea that you can compel a person to give the use of their body to someone else is an idea that almost everyone would reject in any other context but abortion.

This IF you recognize the premise that their is no functional difference between a fetus and a living breathing fully formed human being. A premise that most people reject for at least a part of human fetal development.

 

[ding]

Yes, if you're forced to plead that way under duress.

It's a consequence of a conviction. Happens all the time.

 

[ding]

Not at all.

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Your arms will not fall off for lack of having an AR-15.

Nor is wanting regulations that would force people to show they are mentally and intellectually capable of bearing those arms safely a matter of bodily autonomy.

Society recognizes that in order to ensure public safety and general order, certain laws and regulations should be enforced.

Abortion though is not one of those things.

Precisely because it's about competing rights. In this case the whole idea that you can compel a person to give the use of their body to someone else is an idea that almost everyone would reject in any other context but abortion.

This IF you recognize the premise that their is no functional difference between a fetus and a living breathing fully formed human being. A premise that most people reject for at least a part of human fetal development.

I think you are being totally hypocritical.

 

[ding]

in the practical world, your argument deprives women of reasonable access to safe abortion procedures in state where a white Christian nationalist majority can establish laws that regulate the medical profession. Women have no reproductive rights in Dingland when the rubber meets the road. And you give superior rights to baby fetus in your support of the saving baby fetus cult that is emotionally led by Catholics in this country.

Not at all. What I have proposed is an equitable settlement. They can still abort their babies.

 

[ding]

Again... What you guys are really arguing for is that the child has zero rights and is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. That's messed up.

 

[ding]

FORCING a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will

But I'm not suggesting that. She can abort her baby. A misdemeanor is a small price for her to pay. It's like a traffic ticket.

 

[forkup]

I think you are being totally hypocritical.

Opinions are like.... Yadda yadda yadda.

Asserting something without supporting that assertion.

 

[forkup]

It's a consequence of a conviction. Happens all the time.

Lol. No it isn't. A conviction happens AFTER a plea.

It's also a red herring. So you can get out of actually having to discuss what "competing rights" in your opinion a woman has.

So I'll try again. You claim that a woman somehow has more rights then a child. Although you are compelling that woman to share here body against her will.

Make that argument.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I am saying ending a human life is wrong and there has to be some consequence. You arguing there should be no consequence is illogical.

Ending or harming a human life that has met a live birth requirement is criminal and thus immoral unless committed in self defense. Penalties must be severe and act as a deterrent for promotion of peace, security snd public safety,

When a woman ends the human life that is being sustained inside her body prior to the development of separate consciousness in that life there is FACTOR ONE; NO PERSON is BEING KILLED plus FACTOR TWO: ASSUMING THE RISK OF GIVING BIRTH LIES WITHIN THE AUTONOMY OF THE WOULD BE MOTHER.

 

[ding]

Opinions are like.... Yadda yadda yadda.

Asserting something without supporting that assertion.

It was self evident despite your rationalization.

 

[ding]

Lol. No it isn't. A conviction happens AFTER a plea.

It's also a red herring. So you can get out of actually having to discuss what "competing rights" in your opinion a woman has.

So I'll try again. You claim that a woman somehow has more rights then a child. Although you are compelling that woman to share here body against her will.

Make that argument.

Same thing can happen here. It seems you want to totally ignore the rights of the child.

 

[ding]

Ending or harming a human life that has met a live birth requirement is criminal and thus immoral unless committed in self defense. Penalties must be severe and act as a deterrent for promotion of peace, security snd public safety,

When a woman ends the human life that is being sustained inside her body prior to the development of separate consciousness in that life there is FACTOR ONE; NO PERSON is BEING KILLED plus FACTOR TWO: ASSUMING THE RISK OF GIVING BIRTH LIES WITHIN THE AUTONOMY OF THE WOULD BE MOTHER.

Not really seeing the problem with abortion being a misdemeanor.

 

[forkup]

Same thing can happen here. It seems you want to totally ignore the rights of the child.

Still not trying to support your own assertion.

How does a woman have more rights then the child when you are compelling that woman to give up her bodily autonomy?


Just so you can't keep on trying to make an appeal to hypocrisy. I already gave you my position on the rights of the child.

If I'm asked to donate a kidney to, let's say my child to make the analogy close, and I refuse, would you come to that same conclusion or would you recognize that me making the selfish choice to preserve myself is an inherent right?

In other words. The rights of the "child" (although it's not a child really. It's a zygote, and then an embryo and then a fetus) simply are less important than that of the woman, and as such for practical, (and legal) purposes it has no rights.

Just like when that child when it actually IS a child and more importantly a legal person wouldn't have a right to my kidney.

Just to be clear, if my daughter would need my kidney to survive I would gladly give it. But it would be my choice. You are suggesting it would be a legal obligation by your logic.




That's the difference between your assertion that you believe the woman has more rights then the child without backing up the assertion. And the logical conclusion of that position.

 

[forkup]

Not really seeing the problem with abortion being a misdemeanor.

You don't see a problem with being obligated to admit to a crime as a condition of getting an abortion? That's a you problem. I imagine most women would have a problem with that position.

By the way a misdemeanor can carry fines, and even jail time. Not to mention opening you up to civil suits.

 

[Curried Goats]

Again... What you guys are really arguing for is that the child has zero rights and is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. That's messed up.

What's messed up about it?