Turn on thread page Beta

The Rights of two people standing in opposition. watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by floydpca)
    Your response is well written but that is all,
    Damned by faint praise. I'll take it as a compliment, anyway.

    (Original post by floydpca)
    your attitude falls well short of standards that apply to humans, abortion has no place in a civilized society.
    This is merely your opinion - so don't have an abortion. Let others make their own choices. Clearly you think otherwise but that is not the majority opinion in our society. Make of that what you will.

    In some countries the death penalty is legal - in my opinion that is a far greater crime against humanity and you would be far better off expending all this excess energy you seem to have into a more worthwhile channel such as campaigning to end capital punishment. After all, there is no dispute as to whether an adult is a person or a human or whatever. Go for it.

    (Original post by floydpca)
    Look at what you are doing; you are making decisions on whether people live or not, and this decision is subject to them having working body parts, or the capacity to live unaided.
    I am not making such decisions. And anyway, you are yet to prove that foetuses are people. Babies are people, children are people, adults are people - foetuses are not people.

    (Original post by floydpca)
    Since when have doctors used someone’s weakness against them? The fact that foetuses have these weaknesses is a reason for you to ensure greater protection.
    Since foetuses are demonstrably not people, doctors are not using "someone’s weakness against them". The mother has the right to do with her body what she wishes. This is respect for bodily autonomy. Until a rather late stage of pregnancy, the foetus is just another part of the woman's body, like an organ, limb, tumour or cyst. Women can choose to continue a pregnancy or terminate it. It really is as simple as that. Get over it, move on. Nothing to see here.

    (Original post by floydpca)
    You have to concede that a human prior to 16 weeks has never been proven not to be human.
    I do not concede that at all. A foetus is not a human. There, I said it.

    (Original post by floydpca)
    We know it is not a sperm or a human egg, and we know the foetus is not a species other then human. So it doesn't take a great mind to realize that the foetus is human.
    By your logic, human tissues culture cells in a dish are also human, since they are living cells that can be proven to be human - would you extend them the rights of personhood? Or for that matter, why is a foetus a human but not a sperm or an egg? Are you denying the right to life to a human, just because they only have 23 chromosomes?

    At least we seem seem to agree that a zygote and an embryo are not regarded as human - so presumably you are not against abortion before 14 weeks?

    (Original post by floydpca)
    Therefore, in the act of abortion, you are killing a human. You perceive personhood in such a way so as to suit your own agenda.
    The conclusion only works if I agree with your original premise, which I do not, so you haven't convinced me. Sorry. Don't get so hung up on this issue, though. Really, there are plenty of other things to get worked up about but I don't think you've ever posted about any other subject. Let's just agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

    I've got my agenda to work on.

    Edit: oh, didn't notice he was banned yet again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by floydpca)
    Any time the rights of two people stand in opposition to each other, the government must protect the more fundamental right. Let's consider crosswalks. A car is driving down the street while a person is crossing the street. The law requires the driver of that car to slow down and stop (giving up their right to drive where they want, when they want, and at what speed they want) so that the pedestrian may cross the street in front of him. Why? Why must the driver temporarily give up his right to drive down the street just because someone else is walking across the street? Why is the right of the man on foot upheld while the right of the man in the car is denied? It is not because the pedestrian is more valuable than the driver but rather because, if the driver doesn't stop, the pedestrian will likely be killed. In order for the driver to proceed down the street at full speed, at that moment, it will cost the pedestrian his life. In order for the pedestrian to finish crossing the street, at that moment, it will cost the driver a few minutes of drive time.

    Do you agree with this?

    I'd say a right to life supercedes any right to free movement.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have a role model?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.