Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga
Sure, okay... so the prochoice don't see a fetus as a viable life.
|
More importantly, do you see a sperm or an egg as life? If not, is a zygote a miraculous creation of life from non-life?
Quote:
|
By viable, I mean "it has rights, cause it thinks and feels" viable.
|
"Viable" usually just means "capable of living".
Quote:
|
They see a fetus as a plant, a plant doesn't feel or think, it just is. That's bassicaly how a choicer sees a fetus.
|
A plant doesn't think or feel as far as we know, but it is very much alive. Do you think otherwise`
Quote:
|
Now, whether or not that is correct is irrelevant, sense unlike a plant, a fetus will become viable, even if it isn't viable right now.
|
No idea what you mean. Could you try and explain better?
Quote:
By the same token, if choicers think people only have rights in the now, then an intoxciated woman should be able to be raped. Because she's at a less viable state, thus her basic rights are lowerd to a more suitable standard correct?
When she awakens, then she has a right not to be raped. But untill then, she is more like a doll. Completely unaware of her sorroundings. You would then have to argue if we had a right to put people into that state. (Such as roofies)
But that would not protect the woman from being raped now would it?
|
I don't understand what you are trying to get6 at. A woman is never in some state where it is alright to rape her.
Quote:
The question should be not when life begins, but when do rights begin, what kind of rights, and to what extent they have to practice these rights.
Do people have a right to create life?
Do people have right to destroy life?
What gives them these rights? How did they earn them? And if they are inherited, shouldn't a child, regardless of it's stage of development earn that most basic right which is life too?
Life is the first right, period. You cannot have rights unless you're alive to have them.
|
The question is indeed when should rights be given to a given lump of cells.
Quote:
So we can pretty much say if a fetus can die, then a fetus has no rights.
What grants women such a right to have an abortion? And when you can define where that right is, shouldn't then her right be based on circumstance?
I'm told all the time about how I think in absolutes, and yet all I ever hear is "my body; my choice". How immature and reactionary...
Because if it wasn't your choice to have sex, then what makes it your choice to have an abortion? (Thus the rape case is debunked)
If it is your choice to have an abortion, then why don't we get to abort other non-viable people? Why stop at fetuses? Why not disabled people or the elderly?
Most importantly, what do you think is the worst that could happen if abortion was banned?
All I ever hear is clothshanger deaths. How many deaths? Considering if abortion remains legal the death ratio is 1:1+X IE: the tradeoff is the mother vs whatever offspring she feels like abortion.
I couldn't tell you how large the sum of X is, but I can tell you this: More people die from legal abortions then illegal abortions. Your only argument is that more viable people die from illegal abortions.
But by that time all those inviables are now viable. Making the argument null and void. A fetus is not a thing, it's a person, and a person has a right to grow and develop inside the mother's womb. The mother made a binding contract with her child the moment she had sex, that she would take on the natural responsibilities asscosiated with motherhood.
If she cannot take on these responsibilities, then she's apparently not a human being. Dogs are the ones we spaye and neuder because we cannot rely on them to control themselves. Are the prochoice telling me they have no control over their actions and need to be treated like pets?
|
It is always a woman's right to kill or not kilto l the offspring currently in her body.