Does a woman's right to sex outweigh the right of a fetus?

As one creates the situation where they break bones by skiing. As noted, that does not obligated them to remain in that condition.

 

More likely as a correction to where prior attempts at birth control failed.

 

You need to come up with some supporting statistics to show that more women are planning abortion long before they even have sex.

 

Actually since the woman is not the mother, she holds no right to destroy it at all since it is not in her and not doing damage to her.

 

Your op has nothing in it where she is responsible for the situation, especially since you clarified that she was put there against her will by another.

 

Not within your scenario.

 

See previous post

 

Yes it is. It's keeping her from having sex. Not its fault but not hers either

 

I disagree.

She chose to enter into that specific situation.

Even though she was put into the situation of being at the resort (and not getting free access to sex) against her will.

That's sort of just like reality though, because if she goes around having vaginal intercourse, she's going to be faced with a dilemma.

 

According to Kazenatsu women are truly prisoners of their own physiology

 

And the only way out is to kill a fetus. Make that sacrifice on the alter of "women's modern rights".

 

A woman knows that there is a chance her birth control may not work, and then she may be faced with that dilemma.

 

All these rights are so pesky, no wonder Republicans have so little use for them. Especially for women who should all be locked up unless they get their tubes tied. (and what of the poor innocent eggs if we allow these jezebels their sinful ways?)

 

Or human fetuses, in the case of Progressives

Sorry to interfere with you unabashed right to have sex with absolutely zero chance of having to deal with a pregnancy

 

Generally our rights are what we have always been told we should be willing to die for. But for women it seems pregnancy is more important.

 

No it is not. The person who put the woman in the situation is the one who is preventing the woman from having sex. The situation would be no different than if you were the one in place of the fetus and the woman had to kill you to have sex. You aren't the one stopping her. You, and the fetus in the OP are the conditions given by the one stopping her.

 

Nothing in your OP shows that she choose to enter into that situation. You didn't even include a premise that she went to a club knowing the possibility of her getting kidnapped and being told to chose between sex and leaving the fetus in AW alone. Your whole thought experiment was based on false premises from the start. Or maybe false equivalency. Either way, you failed with you op to set up anything near a parallel.

 

Since a woman can still go on to enjoy having sex while pregnant, it's a false equivalency to say she needs the abortion to have sex. There is nothing to tie whether one has sex or not to whether one has an abortion or not.

 

A person knows that there is a chance their safety equipment may not work, and then they may be faced with the dilemma of not being able to correct the damage.

 

OIC

 

I argued that in real life the corollary of that would not be a person but just natural reality. Reality forces her to choose between continuing the pregnancy or killing the fetus.

It is not a person who is holding this woman in the retreat, it is nature.

So as you can see, I believe that part of the analogy is not legitimately relevant to the point.

 

Who or what is this "nature" that you deem the Ruler of Women?

Is it you and your opinion ?

Because humans have been defying nature since day one....if you break your leg are you defying nature if you have it cared for?

 

Does that really have to be explained?
Sure, if she can figure out a way to have sex without ever having to kill a fetus, then go ahead, knock yourself out.

Nature puts her in the position where if she has sex, she risks pregnancy, and is then faced with the dilemma between abortion (murder) or continuing on with the pregnancy (and whatever inconvenience or health issues might come along with it).

 

Go ahead, defy nature, figure out a way that she can have sex without her having to risk killing a fetus.

 

THE UNCHERRY PICKED POST :
Who or what is this "nature" that you deem the Ruler of Women?

Is it you and your opinion ?

Because humans have been defying nature since day one....if you break your leg are you defying nature if you have it cared for?



]

WHY would she have to do that????

Who or what is this "nature" that you deem the Ruler of Women?

Is it you and your opinion ?

Because humans have been defying nature since day one....if you break your leg are you defying nature if you have it cared for?