Why Does a Corpse Have More Rights than an Unborn Child?

A corpse is a dead PERSON and thus the body is in the care of it's living family....protected by law.

A zygote was never a PERSON and is in the care of it's living family regardless....they are protected by law.



Not difficult to understand unless one is simply trying not to.

 

like, oh say the father ?

 

Yes...I'm sure the Father is part of the equation.

The Zygote does not yet have a father, it has a man who had sex with the woman who carries it.

When he becomes a Father it will no longer be a zygote...it will be a baby because it is born.

 

A corpse is a person yet the unborn are not persons?

The dead is a person but the living is not?

 

That is correct...a PERSON is a product of the society it lives IN. A zygote has yet to be born into it.

Any society it has exists in the body of another member of said society, who is considered a PERSON.


Babies become a part of society when born and thus are considered people.

 

A dead body no longer is a person.

The unborn is welcomed by most mothers as her person.

 

You got it...the corpse WAS a person and is now a dead one in the care of family members. The unborn is welcomed by most mothers as soon as it is born, until then she cannot welcome it at all because it is still inside her....hard to welcome someone who is yourself.

 

WAS

You said the correct word.

I have children. They were welcomed prior to birth by both the mothers.

And our girls were not the mother.

 

Interesting....How exactly did you welcome them? I know for my daughters we had to wait until we could hold them.

 

Yes, and your "argument" is as ridiculous now as it was then when it got slammed into the dirt.

A woman doesn't steal a fetus.

 

The term "offspring" refers to the child (or children), a person, after birth and the father can earn custodial rights to their offspring but those rights are not inherent and don't apply to the preborn. Let me provide an analogy based upon the construction of a boat.

Two people each contribute 1/2 of the blueprint to build the boat (i.e. the fertilized egg) but only one person actually builds the boat (i.e. the woman) and she has sole ownership of the actual boat during construction based upon her labor and her financial investment. Of course after the boat is complete (I.e. the child is born) the second partner (i.e. father) can establish certain rights based upon financial investment and labor related to the care, storage, and maintenance of the boat (i.e. child). Of course no one can own a child. That would violate the 13th Amendment but they can become the voluntary lawful guardian(s) of the child, assuming full responsibility for the care of the child, regardless of whether their the parents or not.

Based upon the existing legal precedent established throughout recorded history the preborn is a part of the woman's body and is rightfully her property. As noted above in the analogy of the boat the father would have virtually no "right of property" because all the father provided was 1/2 of the "blueprint" and the father literally has millions of copies of the same 1/2 blueprint.

But the Legal precedent in the United States can be changed by a Constitutional Amendment but what happens then?

As a "person" the preborn is either an invited guest or unwanted guest in the woman's body. Obviously the invited guest is allowed to stay but the woman has a right to have the unwanted guest removed so long as no act of aggression is committed against it and that's very possible. Surgical removal "unharmed and intact" of the preborn doesn't commit any act of aggression against the preborn. Once removed from the woman's body the "preborn" is on it's own when it comes to survival and it's no longer the woman's responsibility because they're separate "persons" under the Constitution. If it survives fine, if not then that's also fine because once removed from the woman's body she's no longer responsible.

Of course surgical removal "unharmed and intact" is more costly than the vast majority of abortions today and if removed before viability the fetus is going to die of natural causes. We could impose that requirement but it's fundamentally illogical to impose a cost where no benefit is obtained.

Ultimately not much changes from the Roe v Wade decision that recognized limited rights for the preborn at viability based upon potential personhood if we change that to legal recognition of personhood of the preborn based upon a Constitutional Amendment.

 

why does a sperm and egg have less rights then a Corpse? really?

what are we gonna do, ban birth control cause a unborn potential child is prevented from being born?

.

 

I like the overall explanation here .. however .. I'd like to question the part about ".. the woman has a right to have the unwanted guest removed so long as no act of aggression is committed against it .." I do not believe this is correct, the fetus is not just an unwanted guest, it is an unwanted guest that is causing her injury and as such she has the right to use as much force as required to stop those injuries occurring, including deadly force .. she does not have to submit to further injuries (surgery) in order to ensure that the fetus is removed "unharmed and intact".

 

Yes, but we are referring to the child inside the womb. You claimed the woman had a right over it and implied that the fetus was like her property. (post #21 )

So according to you, the parent's custodial rights are wholly dependent upon how much investment that parent put into the child. If we take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, that would mean the father would have NO custodial rights immediately after the child came out, and the woman could run away with the baby and never let the father see his offspring.

So your argument either seems very questionable, or is inconsistent.
Points for creativity though.