Abortion

[payb.tc]

And if I bump into you in the street because I am talking on my cell phone and not paying attention?  Can you sue me for aggression?  Is it the intent that matters, the action or the result of the action?

I can sue you for damages. If I have brittle bones and your bumping into me causes me a six week hospital stay then the damages would be steep.

Bitcoin2cash throws common sense out the window again. No surprise though.

You would have no case here as it's obvious you're the one who is aware of both your condition and the general conditions of what sidewalks are like. The world does not work the way you think it does. Sorry.

apply the analogy to cars then.

you are driving and some other driver is talking on his cellphone and not paying attention... he bumps into your car and puts a scratch in it... it's completely an accident and you should be aware of the fragile state of your paint job and the general conditions of what roads are like.

you most certainly can sue the other driver for damages.

[FirstAscent]

apply the analogy to cars then.

No. There is no reason to apply the analogy to cars. Cars are not people. Standing and walking bodies on sidewalks are not cars. Go suggest another analogy or accept the fact that people on sidewalks are not cars in motion.

[payb.tc]

apply the analogy to cars then.

No. There is no reason to apply the analogy to cars. Cars are not people. Standing and walking bodies on sidewalks are not cars. Go suggest another analogy or accept the fact that people on sidewalks are not cars in motion.

well, in australia at least, people can be sued for damages even if accidentally harming another person.

pay attention, and don't run into anyone on the footpath, because they might just sue you.

[FirstAscent]

well, in australia at least, people can be sued for damages even if accidentally harming another person.

And?

[Bind]

She has the right to control her own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what she does with her body.

what?

surely you can not be serious.

Hard to believe someone actually typed that, let alone believes that.

You may not infringe on anyone elses rights while exercising your own.

I do not have the right to shoot my gun when you are in its sights.

I do not have a right to drive my car when people are standing at my front and back bumpers, unles they are attacking me or my car.

I do not have the right to burn my land when your land is right beside it, unless I can stop stop the fire before it reaches your land.

Life begins at conception. It isnt religion-based. It's simple common sense. People that say life does not begin at conception are just setting you up to justify themselves and the bad deeds they wish to engage in. Why are pregnant women protected and cared for during pregnancy? To protect the LIFE inside them.

[NghtRppr]

You may not infringe on anyone elses rights while exercising your own.

I agree. You have the right not to be shot. You have the right not to be ran over. You have the right not to have your property destroyed. You don't have the right to live inside someone else's body.

Life begins at conception.

I agree. That changes nothing though.

[Bind]

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

A fetus has not developed, has no rational though processes, and can not choose for itself, therefore it is not possible for it to make an informed decision on where to live and can not exercise any rights it has.

This makes the parents the responsible parties until that child can make those decisions for itself or the parents decide to give that right to someone else through adoption.

It is my hope that some day a technology will be invented that can safely remove a fetus from a woman who does not want the baby so that it may develop through the gestation period, for the life of the child to give it a chance at being adopted while giving the woman the right to get rid of it if she so chooses.

[NghtRppr]

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No.

[Hawker]

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No.

So in your world, can a newborn baby can be put out in the snow by its mother and left to fend for itself?  And the mother who put it out has no questions to answer?

[NghtRppr]

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No.

So in your world, can a newborn baby can be put out in the snow by its mother and left to fend for itself?  And the mother who put it out has no questions to answer?

No, the mother has to give up the baby publicly i.e. it can't be done in a way where nobody knows about it.

[Hawker]

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No.

So in your world, can a newborn baby can be put out in the snow by its mother and left to fend for itself?  And the mother who put it out has no questions to answer?

No, the mother has to give up the baby publicly i.e. it can't be done in a way where nobody knows about it.

Where does that rule come from? 

[NghtRppr]

By default of nature, a pregnant woman is responsible for the child inside her because she gave it life.

No.

So in your world, can a newborn baby can be put out in the snow by its mother and left to fend for itself?  And the mother who put it out has no questions to answer?

No, the mother has to give up the baby publicly i.e. it can't be done in a way where nobody knows about it.

Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

[Hawker]

Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

[Gabi]

That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

Troll detected

I didn't know that the person you are stabbing is inside your body 

[NghtRppr]

Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

You can remove another person from your body whether or not it will result in their death.

[Hawker]

That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

Troll detected

I didn't know that the person you are stabbing is inside your body 

Um, thats how abortion works.  You stick something into the body of the unborn person, inject saline solution to kill her and then suck it out with a kind of a vacuum device.

[Hawker]

Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

You can remove another person from your body whether or not it will result in their death.

But once they are born you have to make sure they are looked after?  That seems arbitrary.

[NghtRppr]

Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

You can remove another person from your body whether or not it will result in their death.

But once they are born you have to make sure they are looked after?  That seems arbitrary.

No, you don't have to make sure they are looked after if you give them up, much like you are giving up the fetus.

[Hawker]

Where does that rule come from? 

You are responsible for your children until you give them up. You aren't giving them up if nobody knows about it.

So you can kill them up to a certain point before birth and then you can't.  Once they are born you have a duty to make sure they survive.

My question is what is the basis of deciding at what point you can no longer kill the child/foetus.

You can remove another person from your body whether or not it will result in their death.

But once they are born you have to make sure they are looked after?  That seems arbitrary.

No, you don't have to make sure they are looked after if you give them up, much like you are giving up the fetus.

The difference is that you can actively kill the unborn child.  That's how abortion works; kill it and suck it out.

[NghtRppr]

The difference is that you can actively kill the unborn child.  That's how abortion works; kill it and suck it out.

If I want to remove someone from my house then the first resort must be to remove them without harming them. Only as a last resort can I kill them. Is there a way to remove the fetus without first killing it? If so, that must be tried first and all other methods left as a last resort. If not, only then are other methods justified as a first resort.