If only, that pro-lifer, pulled out a gun and shot that person, quoting laws for self defense and the right to hold peaceful demonstrations. Pro-life for babies, doesn't mean pro-life for scunts. - And that goes for anyone, if anyone is going to get physical and throw punches over someone else's right to protest then they better be prepared to face death. Otherwise, next time people riot in big cities other citizens can just start shooting them all for protesting. You want people to play by the rules then you should too. Starting physical fights over this isn't the answer. Really sorry that Roe v. Wade just got turned down by the supreme court twice in the past 3 years. Have a nice time in this new America we are about to live in.
Also just because something has the "potential" to become a human, doesn't mean it automatically has human rights. A child has the "potential" to be an adult, but different laws are applied to the child, because guess what ? It is not an adult and doesn't have the same rights as an adult. Therefore a fetus which is a "potential human " does not get thr rights of human, therefore *drum roll* IT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND IS A HOST IN THE WOMAN'S BODY TIL IT IS BORN
Your arguement has no factual information, and is based on your own opinion, and unfortunately for you laws are not based on your opinions. Therefore woman can have abortions and you can have whatever opinion you want on the matter, but this does not allow you to harass or enforce your opinion on women who choose to have an abortion. But let's say I humour you and see a fetus as a human and it has a right to life, this right doesn't automatically overrule a woman's right to choose, which can be argued to have a higher moral value under the circumstances. The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term.
Can we stop comparing a fetus to animals or animal rights, the two are not mutually exclusive. Again, anyone can look after a baby. A fetus ( not a human, as it only hits 1/5 of the requirements of person) depends on the womans body for survival. The rights over her body outweighs the right of the fetus's life. Abortion is not murder it is a termination of pregnancy , if abortion was considered murder, first of all I would be prosecuted and secondly then removing parasites should be considered murder as well (which we all can agree is quite ridiculous). In fact, the biological definition of "parasite" fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman's body, just like a parasite does to its host. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent.
An individual capable of living and independent existence sounds more of a definition of an adult than a life. Also we're all dependent on someone for our existence (our parents), we can't come into existence by ourselves. We "get a life" upon conception, it's why the eggs and babies of endangered species are protected and likewise a fetus should be protected. Everyone has a right to life, murdering takes that away and cannot be reversed.
Also, I looked up the NYC law as it seemed not quite right. Apparently "New York passes law allowing abortions at any time if mother's health is at risk" is are more whole story. You say that abortions are more dangerous than pregnancy however if the mother's health is at risk, you would assume that abortion becomes the less risky option. In which case, making that abortion illegal means you are exchanging the babies life for the mothers?
Is murder the worst thing you could do to someone? Do we value each life equally, no matter how fragile, how painful or how negative their influence is?
I do not understand why this is a discussion to be exact, because ultimately though, to have a "right to life" requires that one be an individual capable of living an independent existence. One must "get a life" before one has a "right to life." A fetus is not a separate individual—it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth. End of
You missed the point completely. I was arguing on why you shouldn't make laws simply based on morals, not whether or not the action in itself were moral or not(I did however have a separate discussion regarding a biological argument). I think you need to read again from the start if you actually wish to understand it.
deletedalmost 6 years
You say that morally animals should have rights but in the law they don't, while morally pro-abortion is correct and the law should reflect that, and then state that the law should reflect morality (abortion being legal) in one and not the other (animals having limited rights) despite providing no objective justification.
The only reasoning I can gather from your comments is that animals don't have the same rights as humans; which has been established in law, and is not a given truth.
Uh, I was talking about the differences between law and morality. I never justified animal abuse / the act of killing animals as a moral thing to do. You will have to elaborate what you mean here if you want me to respond properly.
deletedalmost 6 years
Best comment pair. : )
deletedalmost 6 years
Directed at you and BSM. You're emphasising a disconnect in your reasoning between animal rights and abortion when one only exists in the law. Objectivity doesn't care about the law. Then you use the law to justify the disconnect.
