no this is TOTALLY different because of where the ZEF resides and how it comes to viability and its impact on the mother.
Not even close to the same as a 5yr old who is already a born, human being, citizen. I dont see them the same at all. Now I understand how some might draw some parrallels but its a very bad example in my case because again of my first sentence.
And there's the key. Those things you state rise to the levle that for you presonally, it doesn't seem the same thing in terms of being worthy of rights. That's how
YOU feel. That's not a universal truth though, and it's not unreasonable to feel that simply because it's not born doesn't mean it deserves less. It largely comes down to ones own opinions and views on this issue because utlimately there is no universal light hanging over our heads that pops on when we suddenly hit the point where we should have rights.
this is false and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
What I actually do is place more value on the woman because she is already a born viable human being who is a citzen and already has rights.
Correct, and that's your bias. You feel that being born and "viable" is more important and thus you base your assumptions and statements based on that as if your opinion of it is concrete fact. The fact that hse is born and viable is does not mean its a FACT she should have more rights or that she does have more rights in a natural or inherent sense.
If you have the OPINION that my views are bias because I dont see a zygote as a womans equal you would be correct because I do not see them as equals. Now as the zygote grows and the woman made a choice to bare the future child and it becomes viable etc then the inequality cure changes quite a bit bringing them closer together.
I don't have an opinion that your view is biased because you view it in that fashion. I had an opinion that your view was biased because it appeared you'd statied things that offshoot from the basic premise...that the two can't always be exactly equal...as if they were facts when in reality it'd simply be your opinoin. However, looking back, it appears I misread what you were stating potentially...as it seemed like you were suggesting that those who are in favor of personhood type laws AUTOMATICALLY, in ALL SITUATIONS, must be suggesting that the fetus always has the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rights in all situations. Such a suggestion would be based off bias and stereotyping of the other side, as it'd be factually incorrect. However, rereading your posts I see it was not quite that clear cut from you.
This I agree with not all people that want personhood at birth fit into the same category I apologize if I suggested that but the issue is that once thats where the law starts all the other little special cases and scenarios etc become very tricky and its just my views the there should be very minute situations where the ZEF comes over the woman as long as its early in ZEF development.
Good post btw
Gotcha. And I understand your point. I'm a weird one in that I don't fall fully in the pro-life category, but I don't go to the lengths the typical pro-lifer is, and my thought process varies from both. In general, I do view a conceived child as a child on a personal level. However, I also fully recognize that it's not a clear cut situation and ultimately is one that comes down to societal agreement and concensus to give a definition to the notion of when one deserves rights and, more importantly, at what point those rights override the rights of others. I do think the comparison to laws regarding born children is apt, but not as a strict 1:1 but more as a generalized template. The constitutional side of me would ultimately like this to go to a state by state issue. The pragmatic side of me relaizes that's unlikely. As such, ultimately, recognizing that you're unlikely to get a sigificant and worth while concensus into when a the rights should begin, I view it as a sort of balancing beam due to uncertainty.
In almost all cases, in the first trimester, I would err on the side of the rights of the mother. By the second trimester, I would begin to more strongly err on the side of the child, limiting it to only in situations where there's significant harm to the womans physical health, reported rape, or incest. By third trimester, I fully would err on the side of the child, limiting it only to situations where the womens LIFE is decidingly at risk (not just health). Federal funding should not be provided save for instances of reported rape or incest (primarily aimed at younger individuals who experience those things without financial means of undertaking the action themselves but who don't have parents who would support it [or hell, may be the individuals doing it]).
