You are the one who claimed Trump committed "crimes against babies", so actually the onus is on you. Since neither of us is going to go to the trouble of proving this here, I guess the argument is over.
ONUS constantly remains on YOU to substantiate ALL of your utterly BOGUS allegations that BLAME the VICTIMS.
HERE is plenty of CREDIBLE nonpartisan substantiation that YOUR biggest LOSER*-in-Chief ABDUCTED babies from their Asylum seeking parents. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/20/trump-family-separation-policy-texas-el-paso https://www.peoplesworld.org/articl...for-545-of-trumps-kidnapped-migrant-children/
Interesting that you bring up the unrelated topic of women's rights. This is not a woman's rights issue. Legal homicide is a societal issue that is NOT gender specific!
It's in the Abortion Forum...it's a woman's matter in light of the fact that only women have abortions. HOWEVER, it really is a rights issue...as in , even women have the right to bodily autonomy just like everyone else.
When there is a conflict of rights, as there is here with a child in utero and a woman claiming her rights conflict with the child's basic right to life, why would we side with the person whose decisions created the situation at hand over the voiceless powerless child? Is that who we want to be as a society? Never said it isn't a rights issue, I simply pointed out is isn't a gender specific rights issue! Are you alleging men play no part in the conception of a child?
This seems to reaffirm my thought that Anti-Choicers wish to punish women for having sex. There is NO conflict of rights since a ZEF has no rights. It isn't born, it isn't a legal person. The Abortion Forum is about abortion....not conception.
There is in fact no "conflict of rights" here since rights do not apply to potentials. Only the unwillingly pregnant woman has rights in this equation and demanding her to sacrifice her rights for that which cannot have rights is truly and utterly monstrous. The woman did not give permision to the fetus to inhabit her womb because you cannot grant permission to something that does not exist. It now just happens to be that it is women who get pregnant, but the argument would not change had it been men who got pregnant.
I agree that rights do not exist merely on the basis of potentiality (although that has to be seen as a factor here). But the fetus is not only just pure potential. That would apply to sperm and an egg, but not to a fetus. By the time it is a fetus, there is some (although we will disagree on how much) of that potential that has already manifest. The real question then has to become "Potential to what?" What exactly is it? "Capability", or function? How do we define capability? I see "function" as kind of philosophically meaningless, since we agree that something can have function in the future, and still not be that thing in the present, and we agree that merely function in the past doesn't prove anything (you could be dead or brain dead), and lastly, the present is a fleeting moment between the past and the future, that doesn't really exist long enough for anyone to actually grasp it. So the question is exactly what is the fetus "capable" of, how do we define that capability (very important), and how does that compare to what is important in giving a human being innate value? We are probably talking about brain functionality/capability. And let's remember, a car can still be "capable" of running, in some sense, even if the key is missing and it cannot be turned on. I think existence of neural networks may be more important than those networks actually being turned on and running, but that's just my philosophical perspective. And as far as I'm concerned, the fetus doesn't have to know anything yet to be worthy of personhood. A baby doesn't really know much either.
So I guess you feel that adult females should be able to indulge any passing urge, and not have to contend with the consequences? You want to 'toddlerise' women? What's the pay off for you, in wanting that? Is it the same momentary satisfaction you get from shutting your toddler up by indulging his demand for candy?
Well, in fact they don't. They contribute genetic material, but only because SHE requested it. They have no other power or responsibility for how that material reacts to her fecundity on the occasion. The woman has ALL the say - outside of rape. One hundred percent bodily autonomy and power to decide whether she'll expose herself to that genetic material, or not. It's the same in almost all female mammals.
You have to agree that an unborn's life does matter, but you just think the woman's choice is more important than the unborn life. (I could prove this to you, if you really don't believe me. Most people would feel very uncomfortable violating the rights of the fetus in other ways, even if they think it's okay to kill it so the woman can get her abortion)
FoxHastings said: ↑ This seems to reaffirm my thought that Anti-Choicers wish to punish women for having sex. "females" should be allowed to act anyway any other humans act...and not punished ( OUT OF OTHER'S JEALOUSY ) for doing what humans do ... I NEVER said women shouldn't have to deal with the consequences, they do,...they either gestate or abort.. Anti-Choicers want to punish women for enjoying sex by forcing them to gestate as if they are cattle which is quite sick...
But it's okay for her to get impregnated like cattle, and that really isn't her choice, right? You all keep going off topic. This thread isn't about that. "Baby lives matter" shouldn't be about the woman's culpability. We are talking about the value of the fetus here. Not her rights, except for how her rights might relate to that.
, It's OK for her to get pregnant anyway she chooses and I do note how you AS ALWAYS COMPARE WOMEN TO CATTLE. YES. If it's only about "babies" then it shouldn't be in the ABORTION Forum at all...
I KNOW that when you're stumped for an answer you start blathering "Semantics! Screech! Semantics! ""
Not if she's planning on getting an abortion. I don't think you can separate those two choices from each other. They are inextricably linked, in a moral/ethics way. (The same way that choosing not to get an abortion is linked to the choice of getting an abortion of that same pregnancy at a much later date)
FoxHastings said: ↑ It's OK for her to get pregnant anyway she chooses That has nothing to do with HOW she gets pregnant. Maybe to YOU but maybe not to the IMPORTANT one , the ONLY one that counts, the woman.
I disagree, if how she gets pregnant has to do with the chances of getting a pregnant, and the chances of a subsequent abortion. For example, I don't believe a woman has the (moral) right to go to a sperm bank to get pregnant via artificial insemination, if she knows there's a high chance she may later change her mind about wanting a baby and abort it. That would just be totally irresponsible to the life of her future developing baby.
Yes, the reason many women give for their abortion is "it's not the right man". Really?? reminds me of that Seinfeld episode "The Sponge"