You do, but you don’t get to send your infectious brat to public school, and you might not get to drag your infectious ass into somebody else’s private property, like for example the place where you work, or into a regulated public space such as a government office. But you will not be held down and vaccinated against your will. 'kay?
Setting up a Sophie’s Choice does not support what you think you’re saying. If I crafted some extreme consequence for choosing to have an abortion-- while still allowing it, would you support that?
The underlying presumption with “my body, my choice” is that there aren’t applied consequences for making the choice, no?
Clearly, even with the risk of death, people still have abortions, because they are a NECESSARY option. So, yeah it’s already supported. All of that aside, why do you feel a need to punish women for nothing?
We have all heard of the “coat hanger abortions” performed everywhere. There are PLENTY of complications, namely death that arise from them, and yet, there are plenty of them happening daily.
I am not, nor have I ever, been arguing against choice. Perhaps I confused you with some unclear wording somewhere. I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” doesn’t necessarily mean society, or the law, shouldn’t care what happens to it.
Society absolutely shouldn’t care what happens to it, until it can function outside of the mother by itself.
The caveat is intent though. If the mother INTENDS to keep the pregnancy to term, then yes, there should be some limitations on what she does to it. Eg no drinking while pregnant or other SCIENTIFICALLY backed things that can damage the potential baby.
That’s a cop out that tells me you can’t explain or back up your assertion.
Let me add more for you to work with: Society grants rights to corporations-- things that are abstract ideas and do not exist in the physical world at all-- so clearly society can grants rights to a zygote, if it deems it prudent. You are arguing that they should not do that. Now, explain why.
eh. I’d have to accept your assumption that a person is harmed by an abortion, as in a fetus is a person with rights. I don’t. Given that, as there is no other person harmed by an abortion there is no equivalence, unless of course you think that vaccines don’t work, are more risky than the disease they (don’t) prevent, or other anti-vac bullshit. Public policy cannot always accommodate idiotic beliefs alongside evidence based scientifically valid information when the idiotic beliefs can and almost certainly will cause harm to other people with rights. That is why it is acceptable to ban smoking where others will inhale your smoke, why it is acceptable to strictly enforce impaired driving laws, and why enforcing vaccination requirements is good public policy.
Well, I suppose you’re at least consistent. Most people agree that terminating a pregnant person’s pregnancy against her will should be a murder charge, myself included.
Does that mean a woman can sell her zygote? I’m working through the implications.
You know, it’s far simpler just to say “yeah, it has rights but in these circumstance this other person who also has rights has precedence.”
You do, but you don’t get to send your infectious brat to public school, and you might not get to drag your infectious ass into somebody else’s private property, like for example the place where you work, or into a regulated public space such as a government office. But you will not be held down and vaccinated against your will. 'kay?
Setting up a Sophie’s Choice does not support what you think you’re saying. If I crafted some extreme consequence for choosing to have an abortion-- while still allowing it, would you support that?
The underlying presumption with “my body, my choice” is that there aren’t applied consequences for making the choice, no?
Clearly, even with the risk of death, people still have abortions, because they are a NECESSARY option. So, yeah it’s already supported. All of that aside, why do you feel a need to punish women for nothing?
We have all heard of the “coat hanger abortions” performed everywhere. There are PLENTY of complications, namely death that arise from them, and yet, there are plenty of them happening daily.
I am not, nor have I ever, been arguing against choice. Perhaps I confused you with some unclear wording somewhere. I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” doesn’t necessarily mean society, or the law, shouldn’t care what happens to it.
Society absolutely shouldn’t care what happens to it, until it can function outside of the mother by itself.
The caveat is intent though. If the mother INTENDS to keep the pregnancy to term, then yes, there should be some limitations on what she does to it. Eg no drinking while pregnant or other SCIENTIFICALLY backed things that can damage the potential baby.
Yes, that is an assertion, but why do you think this?
I mean, if you don’t understand that fundamental concept, there’s no helping you.
That’s a cop out that tells me you can’t explain or back up your assertion.
Let me add more for you to work with: Society grants rights to corporations-- things that are abstract ideas and do not exist in the physical world at all-- so clearly society can grants rights to a zygote, if it deems it prudent. You are arguing that they should not do that. Now, explain why.
eh. I’d have to accept your assumption that a person is harmed by an abortion, as in a fetus is a person with rights. I don’t. Given that, as there is no other person harmed by an abortion there is no equivalence, unless of course you think that vaccines don’t work, are more risky than the disease they (don’t) prevent, or other anti-vac bullshit. Public policy cannot always accommodate idiotic beliefs alongside evidence based scientifically valid information when the idiotic beliefs can and almost certainly will cause harm to other people with rights. That is why it is acceptable to ban smoking where others will inhale your smoke, why it is acceptable to strictly enforce impaired driving laws, and why enforcing vaccination requirements is good public policy.
So if a pregnant person gets attacked and it causes a miscarriage, it shouldn’t be considered some form of murder or manslaughter?
no. next. on edit: the woman is the one harmed and her tort is what needs to be made right.
Well, I suppose you’re at least consistent. Most people agree that terminating a pregnant person’s pregnancy against her will should be a murder charge, myself included.
Does that mean a woman can sell her zygote? I’m working through the implications.
You know, it’s far simpler just to say “yeah, it has rights but in these circumstance this other person who also has rights has precedence.”
Women already ‘sell their zygotes’, its called a surrogate mother. We just pretend that is somehow different.
Isn’t that closer to renting ones uterus?
Perhaps research surrogates? In some cases the mother is transferring ownership of her half of the ‘zygote’ to another party.