Then nearly every 'pro-lifer' has failed to intellectually engage with the dilemma.
I doubt it.
Permitting an exception for rape retains the leftist framework that the desires of the woman are more important than the right of the child to live.
The woman did not ask for it. It's pretty monstrous to force a woman to give birth to a child that is 50% related to her rapist.
You have no right to live if it infringes on someone else's liberty. If there is someone dying because he doesn't have enough blood, does the government have the right to restrain me and take my blood? No.
It's pretty monstrous to force a woman to give birth to a child that is 50% related to her rapist.
The child is 50% hers, as are all of her children. More importantly, though, is the fact that the child remains 0% culpable for his or her own existence.
You have no right to live if it infringes on someone else's liberty.
Life, Liberty, Property (sugar-dusted to 'Pursuit of Happiness' in later drafts) in that order. I absolutely have a right to life at the expense of someone else's liberty - otherwise, we could not lock people up for attempted murder, only successful murders.
If there is someone dying because he doesn't have enough blood, does the government have the right to restrain me and take my blood? No.
Shit argument. Try harder.
Here's a better one: If conjoined twins share a vascular system and several organs, but have distinct brains and personalities, is it moral for one of them to declare he's tired of this shit and shoot the other in the head, to solidify his claim on the organs held in common?
The child is 50% hers, as are all of her children. More importantly, though, is the fact that the child remains 0% culpable for his or her own existence.
And so what? It's 50% that of her rapist, which is why it is inexcuable and monstrous to force her to have that child.
Moreover, I don't want a rapist's genes around. That only encourages rape as a reproductive strategy for men who cannot get mates.
Life, Liberty, Property (sugar-dusted to 'Pursuit of Happiness' in later drafts) in that order. I absolutely have a right to life at the expense of someone else's liberty - otherwise, we could not lock people up for attempted murder, only successful murders.
Not sure what legal theory you have for this, but it makes no sense.
Shit argument. Try harder.
Actually, great argument, because you're demanding the right to commandeer someone's body in order to 'save' the life of, let's be honest, a clump of cells.
So why may the government not tie me down and forcibly take my blood to save someone's life? RIGHT TO LIFE and all that!
Here's a better one: If conjoined twins share a vascular system and several organs, but have distinct brains and personalities, is it moral for one of them to declare he's tired of this shit and shoot the other in the head, to solidify his claim on the organs held in common?
It's nice that you mentioned 'personalities'. Because obviously, a fetus has none.
I don't want a rapist's genes around. That only encourages rape as a reproductive strategy for men who cannot get mates.
I don't want rapist's memes around. I've seen no definitive proof that there is a genetic link between any particular chromosomal expression and propensity to rape.
let's be honest, a clump of cells.
That's a funny way to spell a completely unique lifeform with its own heartbeat, fingerprints, and all the bits and bobs the rest of us have, just under-developed.
It's nice that you mentioned 'personalities'. Because obviously, a fetus has none.
And here's where you demonstrate that you're neither a parent, nor particularly close with anyone who is. Any woman who's had multiple children will tell you they all have their own personalities as infants, and even in utero. They're awake at different hours, they're more or less active, they respond to different stimuli (music, voices, etc.).
You know, I've lost a fair bit of respect for you during this argument. I think it's best if we leave it here.
Then nearly every 'pro-lifer' has failed to intellectually engage with the dilemma.
Permitting an exception for rape retains the leftist framework that the desires of the woman are more important than the right of the child to live.
Permitting an exception for 'defective' children accepts the core of the eugenicist argument.
Neither "exception" is logically consistent.
I doubt it.
The woman did not ask for it. It's pretty monstrous to force a woman to give birth to a child that is 50% related to her rapist.
You have no right to live if it infringes on someone else's liberty. If there is someone dying because he doesn't have enough blood, does the government have the right to restrain me and take my blood? No.
The child is 50% hers, as are all of her children. More importantly, though, is the fact that the child remains 0% culpable for his or her own existence.
Life, Liberty, Property (sugar-dusted to 'Pursuit of Happiness' in later drafts) in that order. I absolutely have a right to life at the expense of someone else's liberty - otherwise, we could not lock people up for attempted murder, only successful murders.
Shit argument. Try harder.
Here's a better one: If conjoined twins share a vascular system and several organs, but have distinct brains and personalities, is it moral for one of them to declare he's tired of this shit and shoot the other in the head, to solidify his claim on the organs held in common?
And so what? It's 50% that of her rapist, which is why it is inexcuable and monstrous to force her to have that child.
Moreover, I don't want a rapist's genes around. That only encourages rape as a reproductive strategy for men who cannot get mates.
Not sure what legal theory you have for this, but it makes no sense.
Actually, great argument, because you're demanding the right to commandeer someone's body in order to 'save' the life of, let's be honest, a clump of cells.
So why may the government not tie me down and forcibly take my blood to save someone's life? RIGHT TO LIFE and all that!
It's nice that you mentioned 'personalities'. Because obviously, a fetus has none.
I don't want rapist's memes around. I've seen no definitive proof that there is a genetic link between any particular chromosomal expression and propensity to rape.
That's a funny way to spell a completely unique lifeform with its own heartbeat, fingerprints, and all the bits and bobs the rest of us have, just under-developed.
And here's where you demonstrate that you're neither a parent, nor particularly close with anyone who is. Any woman who's had multiple children will tell you they all have their own personalities as infants, and even in utero. They're awake at different hours, they're more or less active, they respond to different stimuli (music, voices, etc.).
You know, I've lost a fair bit of respect for you during this argument. I think it's best if we leave it here.