Why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

How narrowly? Why do you get to tell her how much of a risk she must take?

 

There are many times when rights conflict, and one has to take precedence over the other. You have a right to go where you want, but my private property rights can prevent you from going on my property. You have freedom of speech, but you still are not allowed slander or libel. When the exercise of one right violates another right, then the former does not get enforce.

 

Because it’s my opinion and I think she’s making a mistake. The killing of babies in the womb is a moral issue for all of us. She can take opinion and think about it, or she can choose to ignore it. I hope she thinks about it.

 

the sad part about all this, is that you can have our commercial courts judge anything if you claim yourself under the state and authorize them to judge the case. Any time you sue someone you have add to your complaint that you in essence want it bought under the state and acknowledge its jurisdiction in the matter.

We the people have no courts to adjudicate morals but our commercial courts, they just sort of forgot all about that section of our rights and jammed it all under equity and law and there is no guidelines how to work with it, they slide it under one or the other at will even if your complaint specifies the court.

 

well no...
I have the right to travel, it ends there. I can still trespass on your property, and with or without the law you have to sue me to obtain remedy. The states are what called interlopers between us an law. They skim off the top. The more we rock the boat the more money they make.

Same with speech, nothing stopping me from slandering you, you still have to prove slander in court.

If I exercise my right to free speech in violation of your rights, you file a complaint for remedy.

If the fetus is property then it is shared property, since it required 2 parties to create it. Having sex creates that contract and with that contract comes moral obligations.
If the fetus is a human being, and by definition we know that it is, then it has at a minimum a right to life.

 

Exactly, and that right is limited by other's rights, where your right interferes with theirs, just as theirs is limited when their rights interferes with yours.

I am working under the context of what is and isn't allowed by law, as opposed to noting that people can violate the law, and rights and such.

I fully agree as written. I do not agree that red is true in and of itself, but if red is true, then green has to be true because of blue.

I do not agree with the contract aspect, but yes both parents have a responsibility to any born children.

No we do not, because there is no actual agreement as to what constitutes a human being, especially in the womb. However, just like any other human being with a right to life, the offspring does not have a right to use other human being's bodily resources without their consent, exactly the same as all other human beings. With that said, due to the right to life, if the offspring can be made to end that use without it being terminated, then it needs to be done as such. So say at 8 months, the woman no longer wants it in her, she can have an induced labor. That satisfies her right, and because the offspring is past viability, it satisfies its rights. However, if there can be no other outcome then such has to be the case. It is one of the reasons I point out how the outcome of the woman's exercise of her bodily autonomy rights would differ from today if artificial womb and/or ZEF transplant technology/knowledge were to be feasible.

 

That's the central point in an abortion debate: when does the law recognize a human being as a human being? Today, this definition is purely arbitrary.

Abortionists are trying to push this point forward while anti-abortionists are trying to stop them.

 

Pregnancy and childbirth have always violated women's rights since mankind exists. Do you want to criminalize human reproduction? Stop joking, bro.

 

.

How?

Uh, no, it's the Anti-Choicers who want to criminalize pregnancy.

 

Answer to your question is your own comment: “Sorry, those rights interfere with the rights of the women it’s in.”

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
.

How?


Uh, no, it's the Anti-Choicers who want to criminalize pregnancy.

Sorry, I don't see how that's relevant to my post or what we were discussing.....

 

Then why did you ask the question?

 

A woman's body no longer belongs to her alone while she is pregnant. She has to share it with her child. That's an infringement of woman's rights by nature.

Would you like to sue nature? Just try it. I'm curious about the result.

 

that is an excellent point!

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
.

How?


Uh, no, it's the Anti-Choicers who want to criminalize pregnancy.


Sorry, I don't see how that's relevant to my post or what we were discussing.....

What TF are you talking about?

I ask a question of another poster....you're obviously confused.

 

Wrong, a woman's body is always hers , unless sickos take the right to bodily autonomy away from her.

She only has to share it if she consents to share it .
She does NOT have to share it if she doesn't want to...

Silly question....

 

Not really. It's at the moment of birth. That is the point when the law sees the offspring as a separate and individual human being.

 

Given that the idea is to given women the choice, including the choice to have the offspring, which the vast majority of women choose to do, how is abortion being legal criminalizing human reproduction?

 

In pure terms of evolution, women exist to give birth to as many as possible new specimens of the human race, just as men exist to impregnate as many women as possible.

Everything else follows from that. Abortion never belongs in this concept. Abortion breaks the laws of human evolution and the laws of nature in relation to our offspring.

 

A woman always has the option of killing her child. Luckily, God puts love between the two, so that child murders don't happen often.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
, a woman's body is always hers , unless sickos take the right to bodily autonomy away from her.

We aren't discussing evolution....we're discussing rights and abortion.... humans have evolved beyond just breeding...

Funny, then, how humans have natural abortions, miscarriages...

The mythical "laws of nature" aren't yours to interpret....and humans have been interfering with nature form the beginning...we no longer live in caves .

 

Nope, we just mantle some BS around it, but we did never disconnect from our past.

These are accidents, happened to very few. They are in no way suitable to refute the normal case.

 

LOL, so the Great God, Nature, has accidents ?

No wonder humans have worked so hard to thwart
nature...AND SUCCEEDED...


Yes, most ( )humans HAVE disconnected from their past....we no longer grunt to communicate and now we use science and don't make up silly things like "laws of nature"

 

Humans have evolved...?

Returning to the ritual of child sacrifice looks like some have taken a few steps backwards.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
, a woman's body is always hers , unless sickos take the right to bodily autonomy away from her.




We aren't discussing evolution....we're discussing rights and abortion.... humans have evolved beyond just breeding...



Funny, then, how humans have natural abortions, miscarriages...






The mythical "laws of nature" aren't yours to interpret....and humans have been interfering with nature form the beginning...we no longer live in caves .

Except no one has.

Backwards is trying to deny people their rights...