The fetus is growing exclusively within the body of the mother.
Does being inside the pregnant person matter? If so, why? You’re trying to convince me that a zygote deserves no legal rights (remember, my stance is that this argument is nonsense and that pro-choice is 100% compatible with also giving a zygote rights). Corporations have rights, and they don’t even exist anywhere. So clearly society can give rights to whatever it decides to-- why should a zygote be one of those things?
If being inside the person did not matter, then remove the fetus and bring them to term outside the body as this question seem to imply this to be a possibility. If you do that, then everyone will apparently be happy as the mother would not risk body harm and those to whom the fetus has no relation but seems to choose to stick their business in anyway can be happy in the fact that all fetuses will come to term in absolute safety.
Not possible then? Ok. Then it remains the mothers sole discretion.
Corporations are not people. They are neither born nor live in the same sense as a human being, The legal rights of a corporation have no bearing on a mothers right for bodily autonomy.
If being inside the person did not matter, then remove the fetus and bring them to term outside the body as this question seem to imply this to be a possibility.
You know, being pro choice myself, I am aghast at how terrible arguments from the seemingly informed and educated people in this thread are. Truly, it’s been cringe-worthy for a while now.
We are discussing who or what society can give rights to. I pointed out that clearly a zygote is within the realm of possibility, because whether you like it or not, a corporation has rights. (note; this does not make a corporation a “person”). So, society can give a zygote rights-- the question becomes if they should. I don’t see how this question can be addressed by the physical location of any given zygote. You seem to disagree-- so explain why. Why is a zygote off-limits for having rights?
I have explained exactly why. The fact that you continue moving your own goal post and somehow are attempting to shoehorn in Corporate rights is a problem with yourself more than it is with “terrible arguments from the seemingly informed and educated people”.
You have explained nothing. You’ve asserted some stuff. Why can’t a zygote have rights? I brought up the example of granting corporations rights only to hold your hand down the path of acknowledging that there are no rules about what any given society can grant rights.
If if it’s possible, and it is possible, to grant a zygote rights, then you need to explain to me why we shouldn’t. You seem to be under the impression that still being in-utero means that society can’t (shouldn’t?) give rights to a zygote, but why? Don’t just make an assertion; back it up with reasoning.
If someone attacks a pregnant person and the attack results in a miscarriage, should that be considered murder? (or some form of it, e.g., manslaughter)
Does being inside the pregnant person matter? If so, why? You’re trying to convince me that a zygote deserves no legal rights (remember, my stance is that this argument is nonsense and that pro-choice is 100% compatible with also giving a zygote rights). Corporations have rights, and they don’t even exist anywhere. So clearly society can give rights to whatever it decides to-- why should a zygote be one of those things?
If being inside the person did not matter, then remove the fetus and bring them to term outside the body as this question seem to imply this to be a possibility. If you do that, then everyone will apparently be happy as the mother would not risk body harm and those to whom the fetus has no relation but seems to choose to stick their business in anyway can be happy in the fact that all fetuses will come to term in absolute safety.
Not possible then? Ok. Then it remains the mothers sole discretion.
Corporations are not people. They are neither born nor live in the same sense as a human being, The legal rights of a corporation have no bearing on a mothers right for bodily autonomy.
You know, being pro choice myself, I am aghast at how terrible arguments from the seemingly informed and educated people in this thread are. Truly, it’s been cringe-worthy for a while now.
We are discussing who or what society can give rights to. I pointed out that clearly a zygote is within the realm of possibility, because whether you like it or not, a corporation has rights. (note; this does not make a corporation a “person”). So, society can give a zygote rights-- the question becomes if they should. I don’t see how this question can be addressed by the physical location of any given zygote. You seem to disagree-- so explain why. Why is a zygote off-limits for having rights?
I have explained exactly why. The fact that you continue moving your own goal post and somehow are attempting to shoehorn in Corporate rights is a problem with yourself more than it is with “terrible arguments from the seemingly informed and educated people”.
You have explained nothing. You’ve asserted some stuff. Why can’t a zygote have rights? I brought up the example of granting corporations rights only to hold your hand down the path of acknowledging that there are no rules about what any given society can grant rights.
If if it’s possible, and it is possible, to grant a zygote rights, then you need to explain to me why we shouldn’t. You seem to be under the impression that still being in-utero means that society can’t (shouldn’t?) give rights to a zygote, but why? Don’t just make an assertion; back it up with reasoning.
If someone attacks a pregnant person and the attack results in a miscarriage, should that be considered murder? (or some form of it, e.g., manslaughter)