Right, first few responses here. Due to the amount of people I'm trying to respond to, if you aren't quoted by me and respond to something I've said, don't get upset if I ignore your response. If you raise an interesting point, I might get around to it eventually, but for now I'll try to focus on the people who responded to me earlier in the thread.
Ok, I understand that's your belief, but what's the argument to back it up? You just saying so doesn't make it true. My argument is the fetus is a human being (can be proved genetically), inhabiting the woman in a completely natural way (fetuses grow inside women's wombs because that is the way humans reproduce), and whilst the fetus might have been placed there against the will of the woman, it didn't do anything itself to violate the woman's rights. The fetus is an innocent party in most cases (excluding the scenarios where the fetus is harming the woman), so why does not it not have a right to life, a right to inhabit the woman (which is the only way it can fulfill its right to life at this point).
Yes, reproductive rights certainly belong to the woman, and women should be able to refuse to have children with their partners if they want. It is certainly a violation of a woman's rights if they are forced to get pregnant. However, after pregnancy occurs, you have the rights of the fetus that should come into the equation. As I've said before, in my opinion, the right to life (the most important right) trumps all others, and that includes the mother's right to do what she wants with her own body.
Well, firstly I don't think most rapists are actively trying to get their victims pregnant; rape seems to be more about power than about procreation. Otherwise, yes, I think that rape victims who become pregnant have to "accept their fate", but only because once pregnant, I believe that the conflict in rights ultimately has to side with the right to life of the fetus. Rights are not black and white, they can come into conflict with each other, and this is one of those instances. On the one hand, you have the right of the mother to do what she wants with her own body, but on the other, you have the right to life of the fetus. Either way, someone's right is going to have to be violated, and in my opinion, when one of those rights is the right to life, the only logical and ethical resolution is to violate the other right. Simply put, if you have a choice where either two people live (or at least have a chance to live), or one definitely dies, the only logical and ethical choice is to let both people have a chance to live.
Why though? You're falling into the same problem as before. If you think that, fine, but if you can't actually reason why, your words are meaningless, even if everyone agrees with you. You say no human has the right to use another human's body for the purpose of sustaining it's life, but that's exactly how reproduction works, and has always worked (for humans). If you don't think that's a right, then you are effectively saying that the only reason a fetus is allowed to be sustained in the womb is because the mother allows it, so at what point during pregnancy does a fetus actually gain the same right to life as other humans, and more importantly, why does it happen at this point? Where do we draw the line, and why should it be drawn there?
(November 29, 2015 at 1:08 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Actually it doesn't have the right to use a woman's body, reproductive rights belong to the woman, after all it is her body. Just because the fetus needs the woman's body to survive does not mean that it has a right to it.
Ok, I understand that's your belief, but what's the argument to back it up? You just saying so doesn't make it true. My argument is the fetus is a human being (can be proved genetically), inhabiting the woman in a completely natural way (fetuses grow inside women's wombs because that is the way humans reproduce), and whilst the fetus might have been placed there against the will of the woman, it didn't do anything itself to violate the woman's rights. The fetus is an innocent party in most cases (excluding the scenarios where the fetus is harming the woman), so why does not it not have a right to life, a right to inhabit the woman (which is the only way it can fulfill its right to life at this point).
Yes, reproductive rights certainly belong to the woman, and women should be able to refuse to have children with their partners if they want. It is certainly a violation of a woman's rights if they are forced to get pregnant. However, after pregnancy occurs, you have the rights of the fetus that should come into the equation. As I've said before, in my opinion, the right to life (the most important right) trumps all others, and that includes the mother's right to do what she wants with her own body.
(November 29, 2015 at 1:12 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: But you seem to be arguing that a woman should have no more say over what goes on in her body than the rapist that knocks her up. So long as the rapist successfully scores the goal, according to you she should accept her fate for the next 9 months. I completely disagree. It must be her decision that counts.
Well, firstly I don't think most rapists are actively trying to get their victims pregnant; rape seems to be more about power than about procreation. Otherwise, yes, I think that rape victims who become pregnant have to "accept their fate", but only because once pregnant, I believe that the conflict in rights ultimately has to side with the right to life of the fetus. Rights are not black and white, they can come into conflict with each other, and this is one of those instances. On the one hand, you have the right of the mother to do what she wants with her own body, but on the other, you have the right to life of the fetus. Either way, someone's right is going to have to be violated, and in my opinion, when one of those rights is the right to life, the only logical and ethical resolution is to violate the other right. Simply put, if you have a choice where either two people live (or at least have a chance to live), or one definitely dies, the only logical and ethical choice is to let both people have a chance to live.
(November 29, 2015 at 1:13 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: The abortion argument for me boils down to bodily rights, it doesn't matter to me if you consider the fetus a human being or not. No human has the right to use another humans body for the purpose of sustaining it's life and that goes the same for a fetus.
Why though? You're falling into the same problem as before. If you think that, fine, but if you can't actually reason why, your words are meaningless, even if everyone agrees with you. You say no human has the right to use another human's body for the purpose of sustaining it's life, but that's exactly how reproduction works, and has always worked (for humans). If you don't think that's a right, then you are effectively saying that the only reason a fetus is allowed to be sustained in the womb is because the mother allows it, so at what point during pregnancy does a fetus actually gain the same right to life as other humans, and more importantly, why does it happen at this point? Where do we draw the line, and why should it be drawn there?
