I didn't say that it does. I only said that it is an unusual situation. I cannot protect or infringe upon the rights of the person inside without protecting or infringing upon the rights of the person outside. I know of no other situation like this and no way around it.

It's a unique situation but a beautiful one and it's specialness doesn't grant women rights to stop the life of their unborn

Living inside someone doesn't mean less rights. — Gregory

If I live in your house you have to provide me with utilities? C'mon!

It's a unique situation but a beautiful one and it's specialness doesn't grant women rights to stop the life of their unborn — Gregory

But in your argument, what obliges a woman to maintain that life?

I said a woman has rights over her body not someone else's. Also, where is you infallible argument that proves when life rights begin? I show respect for life on this. You're willing to say "maybe in some reality it's not human so I'll kill it"

I said a woman has rights over her body not someone else's. — Gregory

And if in the exercise of that right her fetus dies, what's that to you?

Also, where is you infallible argument that proves when life rights begin? — Gregory

Right here. Life does not begin in the womb. Therefore on that argument, no "life rights" begin in the womb.

I show respect for life on this. — Gregory

Actually, in your ignorance, you don't, not least because you don't know what you're talking about.

You're willing to say "maybe in some reality it's not human so I'll kill it" — Gregory

For an anti-sophist, you aspire a lot. I've never even thought such a thing.

Since reason is beyond you, try for a simple relevant fact. Can you do that? Just a single, simple, relevant fact.

There are many more unwanted pregnancies than can be explained by failure of contraception. Irresponsible, lazy, careless, idiotic, heartless men...and women!

So birth gives rights. Prove it

So birth gives rights. Prove it — Gregory

Nothing to prove. I think everyone agrees. And "since time immemorial," always has agreed.

Hell no they don't.

Who differs?

You're saying that before birth you can take the life and after you can't. Why does the birth grant rights?

when dies it become a body, — tim wood

Huh?

You're saying that before birth you can take the life and after you can't. Why does the birth grant rights? — Gregory

I wish the f**k you were a responsible interlocutor and not the ignorant clown that you are. Even allowing for your shortcomings you're annoying. I never, ever said this.

Nor did I ever say that birth grants rights. i simply acknowledged that (to my knowledge), all responsible persons pretty much anywhere anytime have agreed upon and accepted that standard. Try to pay attention to the conversation and what is actually said.

If I live in your house you have to provide me with utilities? — tim wood

Horrible

what obliges a woman to maintain that life? — tim wood

Horrible

Life does not begin in the womb. — tim wood

Do you admit you have no proof of this?

Who differs? — tim wood

Some say only their race have rights

My bad. Should be, "Wnen does it become a body."

it's specialness doesn't grant women rights to stop the life of their unborn — Gregory

That's plausible, but you're forgetting that the situation is unique. Maybe it does grant a unique right. Maybe not. But now at least it's clear that if the state wishes to protect or infringe upon some right, this would be the one, if it exists.

What I mean is, this is the clearer option, so we don't have to deal with the conundrum of the rights of a person only accessible to state action literally through another person. Under this approach, the rights of a person inside another and dependent upon them only come into it insofar as the outer person may, or may not, have the power of life and death over them. (What's that called in Roman law, @Ciceronianus?) Only as a limit, or the absence of a limit, on the behavior of a person who has a person living inside them and dependent on them.

And then that's what we'd have to decide, whether the outer person has such a right, and whether it is limited. How do we go about that?

I wish the f**k you were a responsible interlocutor and not the ignorant clown that you are. Even allowing for your shortcomings you're annoying. I never, ever said this.

Nor did I ever say that birth grants rights. i simply acknowledged that (to my knowledge), all responsible persons pretty much anywhere anytime have agreed upon and accepted that standard. Try to pay attention to the conversation and what is actually said. — tim wood

No YOU are being dishonest. You say the unborn have no rights. You have no evidence. But you ask me to prove the contrary. I said we must assume rights unless proven otherwise. That's the natural human way of looking on this. You say a mother has no obligation to the unborn? What world do you live in

"Wnen does it become a body." — tim wood

You need to come down.

Life does not begin in the womb.
— tim wood

Do you admit you have no proof of this? — Gregory

You really don't understand, do you. No life begins in the body. Think about it for a t least a second or two. If life began in the body, from what is it emerging?

And then that's what we'd have to decide, whether the outer person has such a right, and whether it is limited. How do we go about that? — Srap Tasmaner

You are not talking about a right to life of the mother but the "right" of her to take the rights of the unborn

No life begins in the body. Think about it for a t least a second or two. If life began in the body, from what is it emerging? — tim wood

It's a human inside a human. duh

Horrible — Gregory

Horrible — Gregory

You need to come down. — Gregory

I task you with reason and not to be both ignorant and stupid, and you cannot do any of it! You want horrible? Look in a mirror!

You want horrible? Look in a mirror! — tim wood

Well read over my responses, I'll read over yours, and have good day and come down

No YOU are being dishonest. You say the unborn have no rights. — Gregory

Never did I say that. You are very confused.

You say a mother has no obligation to the unborn? — Gregory

Never did I say this either.

Where I come from it's bad form to tell people what they said, if they didn't say it.

You are not talking about a right to life of the mother but the "right" of her to take the rights of the unborn — Gregory

That is correct. She may, or may not, have exactly such a right and it may, or may not, be limited. Pregnant women are unique in a way we cannot pretend not to notice, just as the people -- granting your claim that a fertilized egg is a person, for the moment -- inside them are in a unique position.

But in your argument, what obliges a woman to maintain that life? — tim wood

Rights come from humanity

It's a human inside a human. duh — Gregory

Th "duh" would appear to be the apex of your intellectual achievement. You appear to be arguing that life begins in the womb. What life would that be and from what did it come?