The significance of rights.

Pro-lifers argue that abortion should be illegal, because the fetus's right to life overrides the woman's bodily autonomy. Pro-choicers argue that the woman's right to bodily autonomy overrides even the fetus's right to life. The question is this.

Why are the woman's rights more important than the fetus's rights?

 

Why do you think the fetus's rights are more important than the womans'?

 

A single spot light on a single issue of the whole abortion debate isn't going to change anybodies ideas on either side.

You are assuming the premise for a start, you are assuming that anyone has a right to life, let alone a fetus. So let us get the basics out of the way first.

Please provide your evidence to support that anyone has a right to life.

 

Because the fetus's life is more important than the woman's desire to not spend money on raising a child.

- - - Updated - - -

Murder is illegal.

And yes, some forms of killing, such as war, are justified, but simply stating that fact has nothing to do with whether or not the act of abortion is justified. War is a totally separate issue from abortion.

 

Erm no that isn't evidence to the right to life -

I've already given you lots of evidence why there is no such thing as a right to life.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=329575

now if you want to discuss your OP please provide evidence to dispute the above topic.

 

Your thread only restates what I mentioned in the OP. It's irrelevant for me to read it.

 

does it . .really, lol you obviously haven't read it then.

The topic I presented gives a logic view as to why there is no such thing as a right to life, yet you are stating that a fetuses HAS the right to life . .so please do explain how my "thread only restates what I mentioned in the OP."

 

Sam in any of the arguments you've made about banning abortion and controlling "certain" women to prevent them from having abortions....

have you EVER come up with a plan to pay for the woman's pre-natal medical expenses??? Not post-partum...when (as I'm sure you'll note she can put it up for adoption)....but her expenses incurred WHILE she's pregnant?

Or more directly.....Would you favor the Government GIVING MONEY to women to stop them from having abortions?

WHO decides if a war is justified, Sam?

 

Yes, I would.

Irrelevant.

 

What???? You know what it says but you haven't read it???

No wonder it's hard to reason with you...

 

1. Then you'll never make it as a "conservative", Sam. Like my Israel challenge, go ask your family and friends who are conservative....if they'd agree to GOVERNMENT MONEY being given to women to NOT have an abortion?


2. YOU brought up the subject of "justified killing, i.e. war"......answer my question...

WHO decides if a war is justified?

 

i only mentioned that because of the thread that fugazi started.

 

Well I wouldn't be in favor of giving money to women to have babies....!!!!


YOU want all those babies YOU pay for them! And ONE kid costs about $250,000.00 to raise ...got deep pockets??!!

 

Which has nothing to do with your evidence to dispute that there is no right to life . .your premise of a fetuses right to life is there in the OP that you then use to make an assumption .. ie you are assuming the premise.

Put forward why you feel that a fetus has a right to life .. it should start something like

The fetus has a right to life .. BECAUSE ...

 

The fetus has a right to life because of the simple fact that size and location doesn't determine personhood.

 

Never said it did, though is does have a bearing on it, and neither of those are main issues when it comes to the right to life.

Location is a small factor, one of the definitions of personhood is as follows - the quality or condition of being an individual person: -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/personhood

Notice how the definition states an "individual" person, individual means - single; separate: - a zef does not meet that definition, it is not separate.

 

What are the main issues when it comes to the right of life?

 

First you have to prove there is actually a right to life.

 

Personhood isn't real. It's an abstract concept invented by people. So is the right to life. So what determines personhood is honestly whatever people decide determines it. There is nothing set in stone. There are no universal laws. There is no rulebook. There is no default way of doing things that we're somehow getting away from. Life is not laid out nice and neatly for you.

Humans make the rules. Not because we're entitled, or because we were chosen, but simply because we're the dominant species on this planet. One day, that won't be true. When that day comes, there is no more personhood once again. The right to life will have gone right to bed.

So when you say size and location don't determine personhood, I want to know how you can actually say that and have it be real outside of your own head. What makes it true?

 

Because she has legal rights and is an autonomous person.

Why do you think a fetus's rights are cardinal to the right's of a woman's husband and previous two children?

 

Because she pays taxes.

But philosophically, it's because a woman is not dependent upon the consent of the fetus for survival, she is autonomous. Where that is not true the other way around. A fetus is a part of a woman and has zero autonomy. A woman is not a part of a fetus. You can enforce her servitude to carry the pregnancy to term through shame or threat of violence, but that is totalitarianism and destructive to the fabric of a free society.

 

Rights are an attempt to objectify values. The universe doesn't care about our ambitions - normative propositions are subjective in nature. You might value life - you might even value it enough to imprison/execute those who transgress it. That's fine. That doesn't make your values objective.

 

The woman has responsibility for her actions-the fetus does not. She could have made a conscious decision to avoid having sex and getting pregnant, but the fetus did not choose to enter the woman's body. It's innocent. I'm NOT saying that having sex makes a woman "guilty", but the simple fact that the woman could have made a choice to avoid pregnancy, but the fetus cannot, shows that the woman bears far more responsibility than the fetus does.

That's the reason why I believe the fetus's rights should override the woman's rights.

 

The fact that someone bears a responsibility does not mean they have to accept that responsibility.

You keep on about this innocent thing, you do realize that this has no relevance to what the pregnancy does to a woman.

 

1-Yes it does.

2-You keep bringing up how pregnancy is an injury, without realizing the reasons why women have abortions.