I don’t think a zygotes rights supersede the rights of any pregnant person. I’m pro choice with no qualifiers.
Ahh, nm. I see the point you’re making. Yes, zygotes should have rights. But the mom’s come first. We do agree.
Yeah, 16 weeks seemed a good place to draw the line. With difficulties still leaning towards the mother.
I don’t think there needs to be a line at all. What pregnant person is waiting 4 months to decide to carry to term? If it’s happening that late, it’s because they’ve been forced to by medical circumstance, not idle fancy. Adding the line just makes it so there are edge cases where injustice can still occur. I suppose it would be just as effective to leave the late term stuff as “for medical purposes only” but I honestly don’t think it’s required.
Actually nm I got what you’re saying. Just that it needs to be a conversation and I think most of us agree it’s just such a defensive issue right now.
Both have rights. We favor the mom 100% until 16 weeks (or did). Then still the mom if things get complicated.
I did find the original zygote comment pretty bad too btw.
I did find the original zygote comment pretty bad too btw.
I’m unsure what you’re referencing. Is it something I said? If so, can you point it out directly? I want to improve myself if I’m saying something that’s causing confusion.
It sounds like you’re taking the pregnant person out of the equation as a thought experiment and then stating that this clump of cells that has the potential to become a person should have rights of its own. Even then it’s a little hard to argue since “potential” is abstract. And what is the value of potential? It’s human, so does that give it rights? Does it get rights as soon as an egg is fertilized? Or does its rights grow as it starts getting more human-like? Why should this clump of cells have more rights than, say, a full-fledged penguin? I don’t think this thought experiment is very useful to anyone without a religious belief in the specialness of human embryos.
As I’ve said, many, many, many times already, we already have a system in place to say that two people both have rights, but in some instances, one of those person’s rights take precedence over another person’s rights-- like in cases of killing in self-defense.
And we do give rights to animals. Just not the same we give to humans.
You know rights are just something humans made up, right?
Go reread the last sentence of your last post.
I moved two concepts and gave your argument back to you so you can hopefully see what position you’re arguing.
