It's extreme cuz a non-sentient being should not have the right to claim usage to a woman's body without her consent.
Human life does not have rights, persons have rights, and the reason why we have rights is because of what's in our heads.
Pro-lifers ascribe mythical properties to human DNA, as if a blueprint of a house is the exact same as a house that's been built.
Talk to me when the fetus reaches 4-5 months, and I'll agree with you there that there should be restrictions.
1. Sentience.
Well now you're kind of considering sentience a "magical" person hood sticker".
Sentient sen·tient | \ ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt , ˈsen-tē-ənt\
Definition of sentient
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions sentient beings.
2: AWARE
3: Finely sensitive in perception or feeling
A) Stimuli reception.
The baby feels pain at around 24 weeks. The majority of the scientific literature on the subject finds that the brain connections required to feel pain are not formed until at least 24 weeks. At 20 weeks the baby can respond to stimuli and stress.
B) Some people don't feel pain.
Turncoat is one of these people who does not feel pain.
C) Some people don't feel emotions.
Certain conditions.
2. Consent.
This case is a bit more like conjoined twins. The baby was born forming in the womb not outside. In most cases they let the twin develop until they can safely remove them without injuries. Conjoined twins capable of surviving without each other are typically separated as soon as it is safe. We would not allow a conjoined twin to claim body autonomy and be separated from their sibling if it would cause the death of that sibling.
Princeton Journal: In all of these non-urgent cases, it is morally incorrect to perform the surgery. The first of these classes of non-emergency cases involves conducting a separation surgery in situations in which medical personnel have determined that it is likely that one of the twins will be saved at the expense of the life of the other twin.
By the way anyone who believes in circumcisions is actually against "my body my choice". Not that your own body has a separate set of DNA. If I ever have sex I should castrate the man because it's "my body" when he enters the womb area? Maybe I'd be forgiven if it was rape but I'd still be prosecuted. I actually think men who rape deserve to be castrated (at least it's not as bad as death).
3. Rights in our head?
Then all that matters is if the majority decide babies in the womb have right. It's just another "illusion of rights" to add to law. Pro lifers are having big wins in recent time so as long as people want babies to have rights they will. It shouldn't matter if the majority of people vote if that's the right the people want for babies.
This kind of dismantles the "consent" right.
4. DNA does not described person hood?
The problem with that is it has to apply to everyone. People in comas in which they are very likely to wake up soon lose sentience temporarily. Should they be immediately killed? You kind of answered some of these questions so I will set up a picture. If a case arises where a person temporarily becomes a burden or loses sentience should they be killed? Not just left alone but killed.
This only gives value to people who are valuable to society and not a "burden". Reminds me of how Hitler would kill the disabled instead of trying to heal them. I'm sorry I just don't see "cognitive capacity" and "usefulness" as the basis for the right to live.
5. Certain months.
I'm glad you believe in restrictions but this removes the whole "consent argument" once again. Many women still want an abortion and still don't consent months later.
“Guttmacher found that 1.3 percent of abortions took place at or over 21 weeks out of a total of 926,200 abortions in 2014. ‘Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion’ and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize,’ the report stated. Foster and Kimport described five “profiles” of women in the study: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and [experiencing their first pregnancy].” The Washington Post.
Trees grow from seeds. The embrios are the human equivalent of the fruits of the tree.
Eating an apple is not the same as cutting an apple tree.
I actually don't care about trees just humans.
First thing is first. Trees want us to eat their fruit to expose the seeds to help them grow. It's a co-dependent relationship. We need fruit and they need animals (like flowers need bees). We are helping them give life not stopping it. The seeds aren't guaranteed to make it where it needs to grow (womb like area) so it be more like a miscarriage. By the way even pooping the seeds helps them a lot!!! Get those seeds into the ground and fertilize them. So this is a bad example since this helps life rather than destroying it.
I would like to mention plants have pollen (sperm) and ovaries. Trees are not as clear cut but they do need a pollinizer (so without a pollnnizer there's no life). Kind of makes pollen allergies a bit creepier...
Fertilizing apple trees. There isn't always a simple "male and female" when fertilizing trees. "When growing your own apples, the concern does not center around whether you need male and female trees but which variety of apple tree can pollinate your trees. Apple trees are considered self-incompatible, which means they need at least one other variety of apple tree to help them achieve pollination. Growers should select a variety to use as a pollinizer that has the same bloom time as their primary choice of apple tree".
last edit on
5/23/2019 5:14:27 PM