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

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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"

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Hell no they don't.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.