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. — Srap Tasmaner
And why would the rights of anyone outside be diminished even if someone were inside them? — tim wood
Why would rights of anyone be diminished because it is inside someone else? — Gregory
And my real question was how shall we determine whether a woman has such a "matria potestas"? — Srap Tasmaner
I have only attended to the words you use and how you use them — tim wood
Because you are juxtaposing the right to life of one being with the "right" to kill it on the other. There is no symmetry there — Gregory
Because it grows into a formed person. The formation has started at conception. — Gregory
Are you for saying that it's not a person before birth but is after? That's arbitrary. — Gregory
Perhaps the mother of an unborn child does indeed have a unique right to kill that child, even supposing that what is inside her is a person. — Srap Tasmaner
Do you believe in a soul Gregory? — DingoJones
Why would rights be different because of dependency? Do you have an argument for this? No rights of the mother are violated by the anti-abortion stance. I am saying she doesn't have an addition right over someone else, dependent in body or in need to be raised as with post-born children — Gregory
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.