The unborn are not recognized as having rights, and the govt still must protect women's rights. It has no such obligation for the unborn.
I believe government has a moral obligation to protect the unborn, just not a legal one. Obviously, an argument from legality is inferior to an argument from morality, because no one wants to follow laws that are found to be immoral. Nazi Germany did not recognize Jews as equal, nor as having rights. Therefore, Nazi Germany had no legal obligation to protect the lives of Jews. See, an argument from legality just doesn't mean much. Now, if you convince others that your side is the
moral one, then people will agree with you regardless of what the law says.
Now you see why I'm not concerned about legal arguments at all. They mean little in getting to the truth, so for me, i consider such legalism to be a waste of time.
And we've clearly seen and you agree: the unborn are not equal.
Indeed, they are not. There are differences and similarities that have to be taken into account.
Since the unborn are not equal...and that means philosophically as well because I pointed out reasons why the unborn is not equal to women...
Yes, both physically and philosophically.
how do you justify using force to make women remain pregnant against our will? That's what making elective abortion illegal means. If you make the laws, you have to enforce them.
Oh? Do you know how many laws are not enforced? I've been around the world, so i've seen many countries take legal stances on issues, without using any resources on actually enforcing laws. You don't have to look very far either, New Mexico has laws decriminalizing Marijauna. They still have laws against it, they're just smart enough to know they couldn't possibly put everyone in jail for it. So they decriminalize it.
I think, at this current time, If I were in control of the political system hypothetically, I would ban abortions in principle, but not enforce any laws until more studies on the causes and issues concerning the abortion rate. Afterwords, then make laws based on all the information. I think it's very important for the government to take less rigid stances, and more practical stances. We know so little on the causes of abortion, and what makes them increase or decrease, that to enforce anything could actually cause harm in the long term.
So...and I've asked this many times...how do you morally justify violating the bodily sovereignty and self-determination, even the life, of women using govt force to make us remain pregnant against our will? The idea and the consequences to women as equals in our society is horrific.
How do I morally justify shooting through a bystander's arm, to kill a terrorist? Sure, I "violated" his body, but I killed a terrorist and possibly saved the lives of countless people.
The fetus has a right to life, barring any extreme circumstance, because you chose to become pregnant with whoever your boyfriend is. No one forced you to have sex with your boyfriend, you chose to do that on your own because you wanted to have fun, and didn't even bother thinking that it could lead to pregnancy. Well, you know.....be responsible with your body. All of us have to be, including myself. No one is exempt from that, neither men or women, so don't think a man is exempt just because he can't get pregnant. He has absolutely no right to abandon a child, or terminate a pregnancy or any such things, and he is tied down to always take care of the family financially, should she have it.
at least, that's what I believe, personally. Obviously, i do not expect the government to actually do anything about it, and I'm familiar with how corrupt the family court system is.
It's a simple matter for me, as for you, you have to justify the difference between a 10 min old baby, and a baby 10 min before birth. You and I both know that a baby feels pain before it's born. All you have to do is poke it while 9 months pregnant and feel how hard he kicks back.
