Quote:
|
either analogy you choose though, you have only two options. either let the perpetrator go scot free or throw him overboard/out in the cold. and since a fetus has no rights, nor in my opinion should it, and the woman does, choosing to 'throw it overboard' seems like an acceptable solution.
|
I'm wondering if our only disagreement here is whether the fetus has rights.
IF you agreed that the fetus has rights, would you still view ejection as an acceptable option? Are we only disagreeing on the rights part?
Quote:
|
livilyhood is just as important, if not more important, than life itself.
|
Livelihood is not possible without life itself. It cannot be more important or equally important.
Quote:
|
i'm not lying. and i understand your position. how else would you say it? you've made your position clear a few times and each time it boils down to you believing that the z/e/f should have rights over the mother. "It's not giving preference to the z/e/f, it's giving preference to a right with higher priority. Your inability to understand my position does not change it to an easier-to-understand, easier-to-attack position." it's pretty clear. the z/e/f's rights should supercede the mothers. if you're really not saying that, then right here, right now, just quote this paragraph and underneath it, in plain english, state your position.
|
The z/e/f's
right to life should supercede the mother's
right to an empty womb. Changing "right to life" and "right to an empty womb" to " rights" is a distortion on your part.
I am not saying that the z/e/f's rights are more important than the mother's. I am saying that the z/e/f's right to life is more important than the mother's other rights besides the right to life. Similarly, the mother's right to life is also more important than the z/e/f's other rights.
It's not z/e/f > mother, it's right to life > all other rights.
I don't think I can put it any simpler. I'm not sure what to suspect here if it isn't a matter of density or dishonesty.