The Bible is their guide. No children were ever killed by God or any of the Israelites.
Doesn’t the Bible says if a woman gets pregnant from adultery, that the fetus should be killed?
But yeah, the god of the Bible was all for genocide and slavery. But he loves everyone.
Shoot for what amounts to total bands; and when the dust settles from what most certainly will be legal and ethical warfare; come out of it all with not total restrictions…but certainly greater ones?
Someone has to speak for those without a voice. Wouldn’t you rather be aborted than forced to live a full life in Alabama?
You would avoid having to ask, “should I call you Dad or grampa?”
I would agree with you for sure
You keep saying this, but you’re forced to not actually use logic in your analogy. Unless someone genuinely doesn’t know where babies come from (in which case, I’d hope they aren’t having sex), they understand the implicit cause and effect of conceiving a child that didn’t ask to be created.
Carrying a child can’t be seen as having a stake of ownership unless the fetus has rights and is eligible for ownership. If it’s eligible for ownership, it must have base rights. The right to life outranks the right to ownership, therefore no living thing can have the right to ownership without also having the right to life.
You endorse the killing of fully viable children. Drawing the distinction at ‘infants’ is nit picky
I’m not sure I follow you here. My argument in no way involved the mother having ownership rights over the fetus. My point is that one should have full control of what is within their body, and that if another being is within those confines, that being doesn’t get rights above the being containing them.
Then you’re back to the implicit contract associated with forcing a child to be conceived. The mother has already violated the choice of the fetus and would be required to maintain the contract after such a time that the fetus can live and choose for itself.
Fwiw, looking at it as ownership rights seems strange, considering you can find no comparison on the planet to this style of ‘ownership’.
My argument is hard to argue against IMO. It may end in stalemates. Morally, I’m not for what I think should be legal, BTW.
I see your point after clarification, but disagree that the mother should be considered in a binding contract with a fetus because of sex. Again my position is that control of your body supercedes anyone else’s rights when inside of your body.
Nah it’s really not. That’s why the anti abortion argument is so easy. They’re almost always the one fighting for life. The counter ends up screamin about mah propty.
Fwiw, I’m pro choice before realistic viability of the fetus. But all logic falls apart after that time.
The mother isn’t in a legally binding contract because of sex, but because the act of sex forced the fetus to exist against it’s ability to choose. It also forced the fetus into a life and death situation with the mother.
If you knowingly choose to dangle a kid over a building edge, you’re not exercising your right to your hand by letting it go. You’ve forced the kid into a life and death situation where you have an expectation of not killing it without good cause. MAH PROPTY doesn’t hold up.
Well, it has ended in stalemates every time. It’s obviously easy to argue against, but not to defeat. Your examples are apples to oranges. I get your point, but we are generally arguing about separate things. My point is that nobody has argued against my point directly, because of that stalemate.
As are every one of yours. Hence why it’s so weird to argue from a property rights perspective.
Did I not just do that above?
Not at all applicable, because the child is outside your body. Now if a pregnant mother is dangling off of the bridge, that would be similar. I think the right to death should be allowed, and in this case the pregnant mother should be allowed the right to death.
Do you not agree that the woman’s right to control their body, vs the fetus’s right to live arguments end in stalemates? I’m saying each argument doesn’t address the other.
We end up arguing which one is more important, which is opinion, and it’s generally hard to win an argument with opinion.
Do I think someone claiming right to property is equal to someone claiming right to life? Of course not. That’s absurd.
Does my dangling a child scenario end in a stalemate?
Can you give an example in which right to property can stalemate with someone’s right to life?
In the case of someone robbing another’s house, the owner of the house is often considered in the right for killing the robber.
Because the robber has no property claim over the place in which he has forced himself. That situation is self defense in clash rights to life, where the addition of property rights is what tips the scale.
States that don’t have the castle doctrine, for example, have said breaking into a home does not alone constitute a threat to life, so you lose the ability to legally shoot the intruder because his right to life beats your right to property
Do you have a real example?
Do you have an example the right to life superceding property rights? Specifically, within the confines of another person’s body?
Absolutely. The above scenario you gave in states without the castle doctrine.
The inability to shoot people that walk into your yard.
Oh of course not. As explained to you above, there is no equivalent for the process by which people literally create life.
Your concept of a stalemate between life and property is absurd on it’s face. It has no basis in reality.