glassjester
Well-known member
Why should an infant have rights that a fetus doesn't?
Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
Why should an infant have rights that a fetus doesn't?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
For the same reason you and I are protected from murder, violence...etc.
A better question: Why should the fetus retain rights at the cost of its host's rights?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
glassjester
Well-known member
Big contradiction, here.
Quip says we must not protect the right to life of a fetus, because doing so would imperil the rights of the mother.
Yet, Quip justifies imperiling the rights of a mother, in order to protect the life of an infant.
Either "imperiling the rights of a mother" is sufficient cause to disregard another human life, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
glassjester
Well-known member
And that reason is?
It is....from third party action.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
quip doesn't recognize the unborn as human life - remember?
it's why i tried nailing him down on that particular point last year
he's like jello
You're not imperiling the rights of the mother by protecting the vested rights of the infant.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
murder, violence, etc is ok if it's caused by the mother?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
sure you are - her right to "Privacy... from government intrusion/obtrusion"
The determining factor appears to be in which rights. Direct attachment to the woman's body is the line?
You have the right to be protected by the state. You agree?
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes. But why?
glassjester
Well-known member
I thought he did agree with you on that point. :think:
A safe populace is a productive one; the state has a moral duty to protect its citizen from foreign and domestic threat.
Any more you can think of?
I did...he's just playing troll
glassjester
Well-known member
I think my right to life is unalienable. It does not depend on my being productive. Does it?