Zone1 Embryos and Personhood

[ding]

Still not trying to support your own assertion.

How does a woman have more rights then the child when you are compelling that woman to give up her bodily autonomy?


Just so you can't keep on trying to make an appeal to hypocrisy. I already gave you my position on the rights of the child.


In other words. The rights of the "child" (although it's not a child really. It's a zygote, and then an embryo and then a fetus) simply are less important than that of the woman, and as such for practical, (and legal) purposes it has no rights.

Just like when that child when it actually IS a child and more importantly a legal person wouldn't have a right to my kidney.

Just to be clear, if my daughter would need my kidney to survive I would gladly give it. But it would be my choice. You are suggesting it would be a legal obligation by your logic.




That's the difference between your assertion that you believe the woman has more rights then the child without backing up the assertion. And the logical conclusion of that position.

It should have been clear that the child being aborted and the woman only getting a misdemeanor showed the woman's rights outweighed the child's rights.

 

[ding]

What's messed up about it?

That's what SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott. That some human beings are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

 

[Curried Goats]

That's what SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott. That some human beings are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

Do you not recognize any differences between individuals living independent lives and embryos, gestating inside a womb?

 

[ding]

Do you not recognize any differences between individuals living independent lives and embryos, gestating inside a womb?

I only see human beings and competing natural rights. You seem to want to dismiss the child's rights and treat them as property. I'll never ever agree with that.

 

[Curried Goats]

I only see human beings and competing natural rights. You seem to want to dismiss the child's rights and treat them as property. I'll never ever agree with that.

What natural rights? Do they even exist, objectively?

 

[ding]

What natural rights? Do they even exist, objectively?

Do you objectively have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[Curried Goats]

Do you objectively have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Sure. Objectively I have a legal right to those things. That is forged through law and government. Natural rights however don't actually exist.

 

[ding]

Sure. Objectively I have a legal right to those things. That is forged through law and government. Natural rights however don't actually exist.

Legal rights are based upon natural rights. Learn some history.

But whether you call them legal rights or natural rights they are rights all human beings possess by virtue of their humanness.

 

[ding]

Sure. Objectively I have a legal right to those things. That is forged through law and government. Natural rights however don't actually exist.

Be very careful with your legal rights argument because legal rights could enslave the black man again. Whereas natural rights couldn't.

 

[Curried Goats]

Legal rights are based upon natural rights. Learn some history.

Telling me to learn some history isn't a rational argument, it's a pejorative. The Slaver Founders might of based legal rights in their belief of natural rights (for white people) that still doesn't mean they objectively exist. Legal rights do so long as there is an entity (government) to enforce them. If that entity went away so would legal rights.

But whether you call them legal rights or natural rights they are rights all human beings possess by virtue of their humanness.

No. Legal rights are things we possess through government and government is a negotiation.

 

[Curried Goats]

Be very careful with your legal rights argument because legal rights could enslave the black man again. Whereas natural rights couldn't.

Is the wink because you know your argument is pretend and make believe?

The Founders who believed in natural rights and brought the concept to the American continent also brought with them black slaves. Words are meaningless next to your actions.

 

[ding]

Telling me to learn some history isn't a rational argument, it's a pejorative. The Slaver Founders might of based legal rights in their belief of natural rights (for white people) that still doesn't mean they objectively exist. Legal rights do so long as there is an entity (government) to enforce them. If that entity went away so would legal rights.

No. Legal rights are things we possess through government and government is a negotiation.

You should also learn some history of the various ways slavery was justified. The Greeks believed that slavery was justified on moral superiority. The Romans believed slavery was against the moral law but justified it on state supremacy, the founding Fathers believed slavery was against the natural law, knew not how to end it and found the nation but intended for it to perish. The Confederate states justified slavery the same as the Greeks; that they were morally superior to the blacks.

Learning history is not an argument. It is a necessary step to gain context.

I think your definition of legal rights is dangerous to liberty and freedom.

 

[ding]

Is the wink because you know your argument is pretend and make believe?

The Founders who believed in natural rights and brought the concept to the American continent also brought with them black slaves. Words are meaningless next to your actions.

No, it's intended to convey the slippery slope you are walking. According to you women could be forced to abort children or forced to become impregnated by the state.

 

[Curried Goats]

You should also learn some history of the various ways slavery was justified. The Greeks believed that slavery was justified on moral superiority. The Romans believed slavery was against the moral law but justified it on state supremacy, the founding Fathers believed slavery was against the natural law, knew not how to end it and found the nation but intended for it to perish. The Confederate states justified slavery the same as the Greeks; that they were morally superior to the blacks.

Learning history is not an argument. It is a necessary step to gain context.

I think your definition of legal rights is dangerous to liberty and freedom.

What do you mean the Founders didn't know how to end it? You know how you end slavery? By not engaging in it. That's not a real argument, at least not one I'm going to take seriously. Some Founders might of liked to have ended slavery (41 out of the 56 people who signed the declaration of independence owned slaves) but what they didn't know how to do was secure their own independence without cooperating and working with slavers.

No, it's intended to convey the slippery slope you are walking. According to you women could be forced to abort children or forced to become impregnated by the state.

They could be. We've seen that in other oppressive states. We've seen that in this oppressive State with the forced pregnancies of enslaved women. You're confusing capability with culpability. Just because the State is capable of these atrocities doesn't mean I agree with them and I don't need to believe in magical natural rights to believe that legal rights should respect the lives and liberty of independent human lives.

 

[ding]

What do you mean the Founders didn't know how to end it? You know how you end slavery? By not engaging in it. That's not a real argument, at least not one I'm going to take seriously. Some Founders might of liked to have ended slavery (41 out of the 56 people who signed the declaration of independence owned slaves) but what they didn't know how to do was secure their own independence without cooperating and working with slavers.

They could be. We've seen that in other oppressive states. We've seen that in this oppressive State with the forced pregnancies of enslaved women. You're confusing capability with culpability. Just because the State is capable of these atrocities doesn't mean I agree with them and I don't need to believe in magical natural rights to believe that legal rights should respect the lives and liberty of independent human lives.

I'd be happy to discuss the founders intent and actions toward slavery in the bull ring. There's history you apparently don't know.

Whether or not you agree with the actions of oppressive states is irrelevant. The point is your "definition" of legal rights opens the door for oppression.

In fact, your denial of rights for human life in the womb is a perfect example of that.

 

[forkup]

It should have been clear that the child being aborted and the woman only getting a misdemeanor showed the woman's rights outweighed the child's rights.

Only by your warped logic.

I gave you a very clear example of the limits of the rights of one person to compel another person to give up their bodily autonomy. An example that avoids the context of abortion, and the whole person question altogether. Something that should make it easier to make the argument that you can do so.

If my daughter who's undoubtedly a person and clearly has all the rights that I do needs a kidney to survive. And I'm the only available donor. Would refusing to give it up be a crime in your opinion.

 

[ding]

Only by your warped logic.

I gave you a very clear example of the limits of the rights of one person to compel another person to give up their bodily autonomy. An example that avoids the context of abortion, and the whole person question altogether. Something that should make it easier to make the argument that you can do so.

If my daughter who's undoubtedly a person and clearly has all the rights that I do needs a kidney to survive. And me being the only available donor asks for my kidney and I refuse to give it to her. Would you state that I committed a crime?

One is dead. The other got a ticket and a fine.

 

[forkup]

One is dead. The other got a ticket and a fine.

Answer the bolded question please.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'd be happy to discuss the founders intent and actions toward slavery in the bull ring. There's history you apparently don't know.

I don't know what a bull ring is in this context and you keep alluding to this history that I don't know but that's just another ad hominem as you run out of arguments.

Whether or not you agree with the actions of oppressive states is irrelevant. The point is your "definition" of legal rights opens the door for oppression.

The threat of oppressive force always exists. There is no magical shield against it, not even natural rights.

In fact, your denial of rights for human life in the womb is a perfect example of that.

Embryos can't be oppressed. They're gestating beings.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Embryos and Personhood 240326 {post•243}

forkup Mar’24 Veapyz challenges Saint Ding’s irrational argument : “FORCING a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is saying a woman has more rights then the child???” frkp 240326 Veapyz00243


Embryos and Personhood 240327 {post•280}

A fetus’s right to life has to be subordinate to the rights of a secular pregnant woman. And in America every pregnant woman must be assumed to be “secular” unless she chooses to profess one religion from any number of voluntary religions.

Saint Ding asserts that every fetus and every pregnant woman have an equal right to life based on each having a unique DNA code. But Saint Ding must ignore a specific reality to arrive at his illogical conclusion.

Three out of every hundred thousand women will die while giving birth to a child.

Modern medicine gives a pregnant woman a chance to eliminate the potential harm to her body or death when she finds out she is pregnant.

Saint Ding’s political machine the, Republican Party, says a woman cannot opt out of giving birth to her baby fetus unless she is on death’s door as decydef by white Christian male dominated government. And only then baby fetus loses its competition of rights it has with its mother.

However Baby fetus never has a competition of rights with its mother. Baby Fetus loses said competition from the beginning due to the maternal death rate.

The fetus’s right to life is subordinate and is subjective to only one other human being: its potential birth mother.

Every other human being on the planet has an equal right to life with a fetus and vice verse.

Every other human being cannot justify doing harm to the mother or to the fetus in any way, unless of course being attacked by a pregnant woman and acting in self defense while having no other option.

nfbw 240327 Veapyz00280 to Veapyz00243