There is no concrete time when a fetus is viable. It varies from fetus to fetus. This shows that viability is based on randomness in nature which is impossible to give rights too because it is arbitrary.
That’s fine but then the states are wrong.You’re arguing about the way things are I’m arguing about ought.
FoxHastings said: ↑ FoxHastings said: ↑ No, the word "right" is different from the word "protections". The healthy viable fetus cannot be legally aborted because of protections. It has no rights. If the woman's life is in danger then the fetus loses it's protections.....if it had rights it couldn't "lose" them. Yes, IF you commit a crime you lose rights. The fetus has not committed a crime. You are talking about BORN people who have rights. The unborn do not have rights. IF a fetus had the same rights s BORN people it would also have the same RESTRICTIONS, that is , it could NOT use another's body to sustain it's life....so that would simply nullify any "rights'" you perceive it has.
Yes, but it is generally acknowledged that viability occurs at 23-24 weeks. It doesn't vary greatly from fetus to fetus.
You keep saying that a right is different from a protection. I believe that is simple sematics. A fetus does NOT have the same rights as a born child. A child does not have the same rights as an adult. But a viable fetus does have a right to life barring some exceptions. You can call it a protection if it makes you feel better.....it is the same thing
NO, states cannot declare when viability exists. It exists at 23-24 weeks. States CAN make elective abortion illegal after that.
No, they are two different words with two different meanings. NO one , no state, can give fetuses rights. They CAN protect them from elective abortions after 23 weeks (viability).
They did NOT make a fetuses viability be 19 weeks, that is not scientifically possible.….they overstepped in their effort to etch away at women's right to their own bodies with a restrictive law. A state could attempt to restrict abortion to 12 weeks but they cannot change actual viability. Women's right to their own bodies actually makes meaningless whether fetuses have rights or not...
FoxHastings said: ↑ No, they are two different words with two different meanings. NO one , no state, can give fetuses rights. They CAN protect them from elective abortions after 23 weeks (viability). DO please show me where fetuses have been given rights. What "rights" are these? The right to use another's body to sustain their life even though YOU don't have that right? The right to kill and/or injure a woman ?
They have been given the right to life after they are viable barring some exceptions. Almost all rights have exceptions. You are playing semantics. Here is your sentence in your format A protection to kill and/or injure a woman ?
Shouldn't doctors or parents be prosecuted for man slaughter in the case of still birth? So many callous still birth deaths every year and yet no one prosecuted.. it is a disgrace
Sources: March of Dimes, Quint Boenker Preemie Survival Foundation Babies born at 23 weeks have a 17% chance of survival Babies born at 24 weeks have a 39% chance of survival Babies born at 25 weeks have a 50% chance of survival From 32 weeks onwards, most babies are able to survive with the help of medical Technology [EPICure data] These are just the percentages showing that it in fact does vary greatly.
Miscarriage legislation is also needed, as well as the obviously required Vaginal inspection force for verification. We will also need a new court system and sentencing guidelines for the prosecution of those women found guilty of these artificial stillbirth/miscarriage cases.
Well, we will never know what fetuses dream about. Now you're playing with moral relativism. Besides, what exactly gives the woman rights that doesn't give the fetus rights? What ethical system are you basing this on that gives rights to one and not the other? (Keep in mind we are only talking about for the purposes of considering the validity of Premise 2 here) As I was explaining in the other thread, these first two you listed are separate but can overlap. You have listed three different lines of argument. Typically I prefer to focus on just one category of argument per thread. It makes the discussion more focused, without clouding the argument. (I mean clouding any of the particular lines of arguments)
