The rapist who violated her rights has been punished, justice is served.
@Zero Day Defense you owe me ten bucks
I am not prioritizing their welfare. I do not care about their welfare. Their welfare has no place on my list of priorities. I literally do not think about it at all. I bet 10 dollars that after one interaction you will forget I said this and then continue to accuse me of caring about the fetus' welfare more than the mother's.
Because it's murder. I am not concerned about their welfare, I am concerned about their rights.
No I don't? What are you talking about?
If rights are your primary concern, I'd be interested to see if you can think of a scenario outside of abortion where a person's right to life trump's another person's right to bodily autonomy.
Your question is loaded with a few fundamental flaws. A right to life means that no human being may take your life from you unless you have waved ownership of it. It does not entitle you to kidneys if you need kidneys, no more than it entitles you to bread. It does not mean that anything you need to maintain your life is by rights yours, nor it is a guarantee of perpetual life. It merely means that your life belongs to you. The right to life in no way justifies stealing someone's kidneys. There is no conflict in your scenario between someone's right to life and someone's right to bodily autonomy. Neither right is being violated.
None of that is relevant.
You believe that a 12 year old rape victim should be forced to carry her incest baby to term. That is punishing her. Why do you believe that the embryo has more rights than her?
No it isn't. Is someone doing something to her to punish her for something she did? No.
I'm starting to think that you're being this obtuse on purpose.
I'm not being obtuse at all. I'm stating what I think as clearly as possible. It is literally not a punishment. You cannot attribute the view that it is a punishment to me when I do not hold it, and then accuse me of wanting to punish people. I literally don't.
I don't. I have zero opinion on what she should do, only on what she shouldn't.
A woman's bodily autonomy is absolutely being violated if she is being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. It is her body upon which the pregnancy depends, and if she is not able to govern it, she has no autonomy in the situation.
Maybe not to you, but to me, if you can't demonstrate that the fetus is a person, then there is no way you can say that abortion is murder, even discounting any consideration of the mother's rights.
Forced by whom, and how? Who impregnated her against her will? Not me.
Cancer does not violate your bodily autonomy by being there when you don't want it. Only the actions of human beings have moral value and can violate rights. A hurricane cannot violate your rights. Your body naturally performing its reproductive process is not a violation of your rights. If someone literally forcefully impregnated you via rape, your rights were violated. Barring something like that, they werent.
Are you not entitled to your mother's breast milk? Do you see no difference between your baby and a stranger?
Forced by society, by refusing her a medical procedure that she is asking for; a medical procedure that she is clearly entitled to, if her autonomy is of any consideration.
I'm talking about autonomy, the definition of which is government of oneself.
I don't believe that a baby is entitled to it's mother's milk, although I do think that breastfeeding is advisable for the various medical benefits. I'm not quite sure what relevance this has to abortion though. Being a parent is an elective responsibility, and can be rescinded through adoption if the parent is unfit; the only way to terminate a pregnancy is through abortion.
Her pregnancy continues on its own. No one is forcing it to happen. Saying "No, you can't stop that from happening by murdering people," is not the same as forcing it to happen. I bear no causal responsibility for it happening.
I do.
Not once you're already a parent. There's no re-corking that bottle. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Your baby is your baby.
People who abandon their children are doing something immoral.
Lots of things continue on their own. That doesn't mean that you can't take charge of your life and prevent it from happening. If a cavity forms in one of your teeth, you can go to a dentist to get it fixed; if a woman ends up with an unwanted pregnancy, she can go to a doctor to have it terminated. There is no logical reason why somebody needs to surrender themselves to circumstances which nature has set in motion. A big part of what defines our existence as humans is our ability to overcome our natural limitations.
Only up to a certain point. Being a parent comes with various rights and responsibilities, and none of these are without conditions. Being a parent is elective in the sense that there are ways that one can surrender their parental responsibilities, either willingly: by giving their child up for adoption; or unwillingly: by neglecting or abusing the child sufficiently to warrant them being taken away by the state.
I'm inclined to agree, but if you really want to prevent childhood abandonment, criminalizing abortion would be incredibly counterproductive.
It does mean you can't blame me personally for them.
Not if your dentist has to murder someone to fix it you can't.
The logical reason is morality. Murder is wrong, do not commit murder.
Its humanity is not up for discussion. It is an objective fact that it is a human being. Its species is human, its genome is unique and not its mother's or its father's. It is a thing unto itself, and the type of thing that it is is human. There is no room for argument on this. I will not entertain any. It's murder. At no point will any of my arguments call it anything else or acknowledge any euphemism for it. Any argument that does not acknowledge it as murder will get the same reaction from me and most of the other anti-abortion posters in this thread: You can't even acknowledge the most basic fact of the situation, you've just proved bad faith, why should we listen to you?
Preventing people from committing murder is not a violation of any right.
It's not an equivocation and it's not an analogy. Abortion is literally murder.
No.
All are without conditions.
How many times do I have to say I'm not a utilitarian? I don't want to prevent anything. I do not care about the social outcome, I care only about morals. I do not want to manage society at all. There is not a single person in this situation whose wellbeing I personally care about.
People - such as you - who believe that 12 year old rape victims should carry to term are immoral too.
Are you even reading my posts anymore?
