eh. I’d have to accept your assumption that a person is harmed by an abortion, as in a fetus is a person with rights. I don’t. Given that, as there is no other person harmed by an abortion there is no equivalence, unless of course you think that vaccines don’t work, are more risky than the disease they (don’t) prevent, or other anti-vac bullshit. Public policy cannot always accommodate idiotic beliefs alongside evidence based scientifically valid information when the idiotic beliefs can and almost certainly will cause harm to other people with rights. That is why it is acceptable to ban smoking where others will inhale your smoke, why it is acceptable to strictly enforce impaired driving laws, and why enforcing vaccination requirements is good public policy.
Well, I suppose you’re at least consistent. Most people agree that terminating a pregnant person’s pregnancy against her will should be a murder charge, myself included.
Does that mean a woman can sell her zygote? I’m working through the implications.
You know, it’s far simpler just to say “yeah, it has rights but in these circumstance this other person who also has rights has precedence.”
eh. I’d have to accept your assumption that a person is harmed by an abortion, as in a fetus is a person with rights. I don’t. Given that, as there is no other person harmed by an abortion there is no equivalence, unless of course you think that vaccines don’t work, are more risky than the disease they (don’t) prevent, or other anti-vac bullshit. Public policy cannot always accommodate idiotic beliefs alongside evidence based scientifically valid information when the idiotic beliefs can and almost certainly will cause harm to other people with rights. That is why it is acceptable to ban smoking where others will inhale your smoke, why it is acceptable to strictly enforce impaired driving laws, and why enforcing vaccination requirements is good public policy.
So if a pregnant person gets attacked and it causes a miscarriage, it shouldn’t be considered some form of murder or manslaughter?
no. next. on edit: the woman is the one harmed and her tort is what needs to be made right.
Well, I suppose you’re at least consistent. Most people agree that terminating a pregnant person’s pregnancy against her will should be a murder charge, myself included.
Does that mean a woman can sell her zygote? I’m working through the implications.
You know, it’s far simpler just to say “yeah, it has rights but in these circumstance this other person who also has rights has precedence.”
Women already ‘sell their zygotes’, its called a surrogate mother. We just pretend that is somehow different.
Isn’t that closer to renting ones uterus?
Perhaps research surrogates? In some cases the mother is transferring ownership of her half of the ‘zygote’ to another party.
Her… half of the zygote? This is some tortured logic haha
Her egg, somebody else’s sperm.