And your hypothetical uses right wing talking points to justify your position, and turns carrying a child to term into a moral obligation in the process.
Can you do me a solid and quote the exact place where I did this? It wasn’t my intent and I want to take care not to make the same error in the future.
People disagreeing with you are pointing out that you’re comparing the rights of actual living people to the rights of ‘potential people’.
Yes, I am saying that you can still be pro-choice while believing that a zygote has rights.
I’m not sure how there’s a discussion when you’re pitting a real-life person against a hypothetical future person. Your other examples (eg climate change) affect society as a whole. There is no hypothetical about it.
You replied to this with a hypothetical about landmines while ignoring that this comment is talking about the right of the mother to bodily autonomy vs. the rights of a potential person to life. Your hypothetical doesn’t address this because not leaving dangerous things around for others to find is a responsibility, not a right. In other words, you pitted your responsibilities vs. a future person’s right to live and that’s a much different debate than pitting rights against one another.
As to your last comment, you’re basically saying you’re not pro-choice if you believe a zygote has the same right to life that a mother has to her bodily autonomy. Because this is the exact argument pro-birthers are using to justify incest and rape births.
You replied to this with a hypothetical about landmines while ignoring that this comment is talking about the right of the mother to bodily autonomy vs. the rights of a potential person to life.
That hypothetical was to show that we do concern ourselves with the consequences of our actions, even if those consequences affect people who have not yet been born. And it’s true. We do this. So saying “the zygote hasn’t been born-- it doesn’t matter what happens to it” (paraphrasing) is not a given statement-- it must be shown why we shouldn’t care about what happens to it, when we do care about unborn or future people in other instances.
you’re basically saying you’re not pro-choice if you believe a zygote has the same right to life that a mother has to bodily autonomy.
This can’t be further from the truth. We make nuanced decisions about this all the time-- you’re not allowed to kill someone, but if they’re trying to kill you, you are then allowed to kill them to defend yourself. A person that punches a pregnant person in the stomach and causes them to miscarry can be charged with murder. It doesn’t matter if the pregnant person was punched on the way to an abortion. The question isn’t really (and never should have been) whether a zygote has rights. The question is defending why a pregnant person’s rights should supersede the rights of the zygote.
I saw what you did. I’ve been saying over and over again that I am pro choice. I don’t think the rights of a zygote supersede the rights of a pregnant person, without qualifier.
I did find the original zygote comment pretty bad too btw.
I’m unsure what you’re referencing. Is it something I said? If so, can you point it out directly? I want to improve myself if I’m saying something that’s causing confusion.
I mean the one you initially replied too. Dismissing zygotes as clumps of cells.
I initially was agreeing with your reply to it when I read it but my anger over roe vs wade being overturned I think clouded my understanding of your position.
It sounds like you’re taking the pregnant person out of the equation as a thought experiment and then stating that this clump of cells that has the potential to become a person should have rights of its own. Even then it’s a little hard to argue since “potential” is abstract. And what is the value of potential? It’s human, so does that give it rights? Does it get rights as soon as an egg is fertilized? Or does its rights grow as it starts getting more human-like? Why should this clump of cells have more rights than, say, a full-fledged penguin? I don’t think this thought experiment is very useful to anyone without a religious belief in the specialness of human embryos.
As I’ve said, many, many, many times already, we already have a system in place to say that two people both have rights, but in some instances, one of those person’s rights take precedence over another person’s rights-- like in cases of killing in self-defense.
And we do give rights to animals. Just not the same we give to humans.
You know rights are just something humans made up, right?
I don’t think there needs to be a line at all. What pregnant person is waiting 4 months to decide to carry to term? If it’s happening that late, it’s because they’ve been forced to by medical circumstance, not idle fancy. Adding the line just makes it so there are edge cases where injustice can still occur. I suppose it would be just as effective to leave the late term stuff as “for medical purposes only” but I honestly don’t think it’s required.
Can you do me a solid and quote the exact place where I did this? It wasn’t my intent and I want to take care not to make the same error in the future.
Yes, I am saying that you can still be pro-choice while believing that a zygote has rights.
You replied to this with a hypothetical about landmines while ignoring that this comment is talking about the right of the mother to bodily autonomy vs. the rights of a potential person to life. Your hypothetical doesn’t address this because not leaving dangerous things around for others to find is a responsibility, not a right. In other words, you pitted your responsibilities vs. a future person’s right to live and that’s a much different debate than pitting rights against one another.
As to your last comment, you’re basically saying you’re not pro-choice if you believe a zygote has the same right to life that a mother has to her bodily autonomy. Because this is the exact argument pro-birthers are using to justify incest and rape births.
That hypothetical was to show that we do concern ourselves with the consequences of our actions, even if those consequences affect people who have not yet been born. And it’s true. We do this. So saying “the zygote hasn’t been born-- it doesn’t matter what happens to it” (paraphrasing) is not a given statement-- it must be shown why we shouldn’t care about what happens to it, when we do care about unborn or future people in other instances.
This can’t be further from the truth. We make nuanced decisions about this all the time-- you’re not allowed to kill someone, but if they’re trying to kill you, you are then allowed to kill them to defend yourself. A person that punches a pregnant person in the stomach and causes them to miscarry can be charged with murder. It doesn’t matter if the pregnant person was punched on the way to an abortion. The question isn’t really (and never should have been) whether a zygote has rights. The question is defending why a pregnant person’s rights should supersede the rights of the zygote.
I’ll flip it to help you out.
Why does a zygote’s rights supercede the rights of a rape victim?
I don’t think a zygotes rights supersede the rights of any pregnant person. I’m pro choice with no qualifiers.
Go reread the last sentence of your last post.
I moved two concepts and gave your argument back to you so you can hopefully see what position you’re arguing.
I saw what you did. I’ve been saying over and over again that I am pro choice. I don’t think the rights of a zygote supersede the rights of a pregnant person, without qualifier.
Actually nm I got what you’re saying. Just that it needs to be a conversation and I think most of us agree it’s just such a defensive issue right now.
Both have rights. We favor the mom 100% until 16 weeks (or did). Then still the mom if things get complicated.
I did find the original zygote comment pretty bad too btw.
I’m unsure what you’re referencing. Is it something I said? If so, can you point it out directly? I want to improve myself if I’m saying something that’s causing confusion.
I mean the one you initially replied too. Dismissing zygotes as clumps of cells.
I initially was agreeing with your reply to it when I read it but my anger over roe vs wade being overturned I think clouded my understanding of your position.
It sounds like you’re taking the pregnant person out of the equation as a thought experiment and then stating that this clump of cells that has the potential to become a person should have rights of its own. Even then it’s a little hard to argue since “potential” is abstract. And what is the value of potential? It’s human, so does that give it rights? Does it get rights as soon as an egg is fertilized? Or does its rights grow as it starts getting more human-like? Why should this clump of cells have more rights than, say, a full-fledged penguin? I don’t think this thought experiment is very useful to anyone without a religious belief in the specialness of human embryos.
As I’ve said, many, many, many times already, we already have a system in place to say that two people both have rights, but in some instances, one of those person’s rights take precedence over another person’s rights-- like in cases of killing in self-defense.
And we do give rights to animals. Just not the same we give to humans.
You know rights are just something humans made up, right?
Ahh, nm. I see the point you’re making. Yes, zygotes should have rights. But the mom’s come first. We do agree.
Yeah, 16 weeks seemed a good place to draw the line. With difficulties still leaning towards the mother.
I don’t think there needs to be a line at all. What pregnant person is waiting 4 months to decide to carry to term? If it’s happening that late, it’s because they’ve been forced to by medical circumstance, not idle fancy. Adding the line just makes it so there are edge cases where injustice can still occur. I suppose it would be just as effective to leave the late term stuff as “for medical purposes only” but I honestly don’t think it’s required.
Fair enough. Sorry for misunderstanding your position.
And we’re saying that you can make the point without dog-whistling your republican friends.