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

It's telling that when I listed three very clear physical traites that something needs to have for me to qualify whether or not it's a person and you singled out only one and try to make your case on that Hill.

That should be where you should know that your case holds no water logically.

But then you followed it up with something completely ridiculous stating that unless it qualifies for an SSN were census as if those have been around since the dawn of time for nature to know when something is a person or not.

It's a person. you've created person. it at it's very earliest stage of development but that's what it is.

 

Why do you equate this to conservatism? There is no ideological underpinning to any of it. It's entirely pragmatic, with a side of universal morality (don't kill).

 

Well I'm glad for you that you've discovered that, Ritter .. but what does it have to do with this thread?

 

Right, and the choice to risk conception is made before conception.

 

So you're for complete amorality? Or do you hold double standards?

 

The words used were to the effect that women are 'forced' to be pregnant.

 

It's the opposite. We're saying women hold ALL THE POWER.

Who do YOU think has the power in the conception dynamic?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NO WHERE did that poster say it wasn't alive....


AND YOU CLAIMED THEY DID





Like misquoting what others say..



When it can get a SSN....or be counted in the census...ALL when it becomes separate from the woman....and only then..

The key word that destroys any argument for you is "me" in that sentence.....YOU don't determine when personhood is bestowed...




That should be where you should know that your case holds no water logically.

Uh, what does that mean?

"Dawn of time" doesn't matter....you aren't counted in the census or get a SSN unless you are a person

Only your opinion....and most people are ignoring it

 

Weird that you even thought you had to say that.

and

No women IS forced to be pregnant ... unless she's raped.

 

That's what humans do....and contrary to what you think women, who are humans, do it, too.....

There is no reason all women have to be saints to satisfy YOU....what a silly idea!!

 

You apologise profusely for being such a lousy parent that she thought sex at age 15 was reasonable.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
What choice is that? Which car to buy ? What to have for dinner?

Sorry, but those questions should go in the What Car to Buy Forum or the What to have for Dinner Forum.

This is the Abortion Forum and the "choice" is whether to have an abortion or continue pregnancy.

UGGA DUH, ya.....and so what?

 

doesn't change what I said

 

so, people are free to have sex for pleasure, they do not have to have a baby cause they had sex, this is the year 2022

 

we are though, were talking about abortion being legal for everyone, including rape victims

 

she knows that legally she does not have to have a baby

 

it is weird, but some on the right forget that, it needs to be said

 

You are aware that unless we are talking women getting their tubes tied off or men getting snipped. Birth control is not 100 percent? That you are playing the odds at that point.

 

Throughout most of human history, a person was not recognized until the first breath. In some cultures, where more than half of the births did not survive beyond the 3rd year, some cultures did not even name a baby until it was old enough where the survival of said infant could be reasonably predicted. So please, don't cloud the issue with your deeply held emotional ignorance as a defense to a topic you haven't even thought through.

 

I can modify your analogy. Suppose there is another person who also got into an accident and the ambulance has to choose which person it will help. They don't know which person's life to save, they can only save one, but the bystander who phoned in for help told them that woman had not been wearing a seatbelt.

With no way to determine whose life to save, the ambulance driver might decide it is preferable to save the life of the other person, rather than the woman who was not wearing a seatbelt.

The fetus is like that other person's life who needs help.

 

And right there, you have just made the argument that the woman should have the right to abort because she has the right to have sex without having a baby.

That is entirely what this thread is about.

Then you believe a woman has the right to kill a fetus if she needs to to have sex.

Even if that fetus was not inside her.

 

But that is a different argument, you see that don't you?

See, in my analogy here I have rendered the point moot whether the woman needs to be abort because of how it will affect her.

So the only other component of that argument of yours is that a woman has the right to abort simply because the fetus is inside her.

(And that argument has already been addressed in other previous threads: Mathematicians say that the inside is the same as the outside )

It's a much more difficult argument for you to logically try to make.


To repeat again, just in case you're having any trouble following, there are really TWO separate components within your argument that "a woman should have the right to abort because it is inside her". One of them is because of how continuing the pregnancy will affect her (which is what this entire thread is about), and the other is simply because it is inside her body.

If a woman does not have the right to kill a fetus for sex (even if that fetus is outside the womb), then the only argument you have left is that she has the right to kill it for only the simple reason of it being inside her body.

Not that she needed to kill the fetus to prevent anything bad happening to her.

 

Having an abortion is also the result of thinking about the possible consequences of having sex - Do I want sex enough to have to later choose between having a pregnancy or killing a fetus?

Now tell us, do you believe a woman has the right to kill a fetus if she needs to to have sex?

 

Then you believe it is okay for the woman to kill that fetus, even if it were hypothetically not growing inside her womb.

(The analogy in the opening post of this thread)

 

Are you implying there should be an age limit on abortion?
Because your argument there seems like it would only apply to teens.

Your argument here is that a young woman is not logical enough to see what she is doing.
That what she is doing IS actually equivalent to the analogy in the opening post, but we should just be merciful and forgive her because she is not seeing it at the time she makes those choices.

In other words, killing the fetus before she has sex is wrong, but having to kill the fetus after she has sex is acceptable, because such a young girl could not have fully foreseen those future consequences.