So you would force a doctor to perform a procedure he doesn't agree with just because he's a doctor. Where does it end? Did you pay for his medical schooling? Did you put in all the long hours studying for him and doing his internship? If not, what gives you the right to decide that he must do something that he feels is morally and ethically wrong? And btw, nowhere does the Hippocratic Oath say that he must perform abortions and the original oath explicitly states that he WON'T perform them.

As for not understanding the ramifications of an unwanted pregnancy, maybe not since I was intelligent enough not to get myself in that position. One of the side effects of sex is pregnancy and since I chose to have sex, I protected myself from this side effect. If I hadn't been willing to take the risk of getting pregnant even with contraceptives, I wouldn't have had sex. Simple as that. Deciding whether or not to have sex is the choice a woman makes and if she chooses to have sex, then she should also be prepared to bear the consequences of that choice.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Right, then compare this with the identical right to sit your body wherever you please (unless, of course, you violate the right of another person) except that the mere act of sitting your body down does in fact violate the rights of another person, regardless of any other person in sight. Where does that leave your original right to sit your body wherever you please?

What messes with your rights is not the rights of another but your violation of the rights of another.

Defining a legal person has everything to do with the nature of the individual. If it didn't, I'm pretty sure there could be no discussion as to whether or not a legal person should be defined at the moment of conception.

Yes, you probably misread me. I said when the rights conflict, not if the rights conflict

Regardless of any other person in sight?
The presence of the other person is the key factor in both cases, whether its the infant on the sofa or the baby in the womb. If there were no person there, the act would be perfectly acceptable; if there is another person there, then the act is not acceptable while that other person remains.

Of course defining a legal person is key here. I'm merely suggesting that basing the definition of legal personhood on an individual's current location is a bizarre and illogical way to go about it.

Naturally rights granted to the unborn will conflict with the rights of the mother; the rights of people conflict every day. My right to act conflicts with your right not to be acted on, and thus my actions are limited to those that do no violate your rights. It's the same situation here between mother and unborn.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

The key factor is that the right to sit your body down is rendered useless. It's like granting you the right to sit but only in the case that you can't actually sit. Anywhere. Anytime.

Dilettante, you are the one inferring location, such as a man located at the end of your fist or babies located on sofas. I've already named the nature of the condition, both as a union and as a physical attachment. Your description of location is irrelevant since it's out of context.

Rights don't conflict as long as they are equal and granted by the same power. Then they only risk being violated.

Since you didn't grant me my rights, you can't invalidate them. You're only in a position to violate them.

For example, if I'm granted a right not to be acted on and you are granted a right to act then you will be violating my right by 'acting on me' (is that proper English? It sounds kinky). But that doesn't mean you can't exercise your right without violating my rights. You can go somewhere else and act, or act for yourself or what have you. If we were siamese twins, however, then you could not ever exercise your right without also violating my right. Thus, the right of one of us would have to yield. That's a conflict and it stems from an invalidation, not from a violation.

A right is not guaranteed from violation, it's only guaranteed to be valid.

I don't see where the "Anywhere. Anytime" applies here. I can sit where I please so long as I don't violate the rights of another. The woman can do what she wants with her body so long as she doesn't violate the rights of another. It's the same principle.
If an infant is on the sofa, I can't sit on the sofa. If a person is in the womb, then the women can't engage in an act that would kill it. I'm free to sit on the floor instead, provided that doing so won't kill anyone. The woman is free to do other things with her body, provided that those things don't kill anyone.
When the infant is moved off the sofa, I can sit there again; when the baby is born, the women can engage in an abortion procedure if she wants to (though that would be a fairly odd decision).

You seem to be losing sight of the fact that pregnancy is a temporary condition. "Anytime" isn't applicable here at all.

And I still find the notion that physical attachment necessitates the total "legal voidance" of one party to be absurd. If the only reason a woman can choose to kill an unborn is because they are "attached," shouldn't women be able to glue infants to their torsos and then kill them, since they would also be "attached."

Or, better yet, let's say some devious soul sneaks up behind me and glues an infant to my rear end. Suddenly I'm in a situation where no matter where I sit I will be violating the rights of another person by killing him/her. My right to perform the act of sitting (assuming I had such a right) has been invalidated. Are you suggesting that I should then be allowed to turn around and kill the infant, simply because we're attached?

Well, I'd be curious to know if you think one Siamese twin should be able to freely kill the other if they decide they don't like having them around. Wouldn't that be the parallel to abortion? The rights of one invalidate the rights of the other because they are attached, therefore one party can terminate the life of the other if they so choose?
Only in this case we're talking about Siamese twins which will be safely separated in a few months. Again, if one of the two decides they'd rather not wait, and that they don't really want to have a sibling anyway, can he just kill his twin and claim, as a defense, "we were attached"?

Being attached to someone else may be inconvenient, and it will almost certainly lead to a conflict of rights between you and the person you're attached to. But to suggest that, therefore, one of the parties should be free to execute the other strikes me as ludicrous.
How is that not the argument you're making: that attachment -> conflict of rights -> one party should be allowed kill the other?

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

Krikey. Anytime of course means anytime while being pregnant, i.e. while the fetus is inside her.

I'm of course not suggesting that a pregnant woman can't sit. I only went along with your 'sitting' analogy by pretending that she couldn't sit without violating any right that may have been granted to the fetus.

Let's just for a moment pretend - for the sake of an otherwise poor analogy - that a woman can't sit without violating the rights of, 1. infants on her sofa, and, 2., a fetus in her womb. Heck, let's pretend that an X-ray showed the umbellical cord to be wrapped around its neck. Whatever. Doesn't matter.

In the first case, it's not because she can't ever sit without violating the right of another person. As you said yourself, she can sit when an infant is removed or has crawled away from the couch. Or she can sit on the floor. Or on her lawn. Or in her neighbors house or on the bus or on a fence or .. well, you get the picture.

In the second case, she can't ever sit while the fetus is inside her without violating the rights of another person. Not on the floor, not on the lawn, not on the bus, not anywhere. Not at anytime while the fetus is inside her.

Thus, her right to sit is essentially put out of business. It's become invalid. Unlike the first situation.

Her right to sit is the same as it has always been; she is not allowed to sit at any time or place where/when doing so will directly kill another person. It is exactly the same prohibition that I experience with the baby on the sofa.
Now I will probably be able to find another place to sit where doing does not kill anyone. In the meantime I shall have to stand, or do something else that doesn't kill anyone.
She, likewise, will eventually come to a time when she can sit without killing anyone. In the meantime she can stand, lie down, to take a bath or whatever else she wants, so long as it doesn't kill anyone.
The only difference here is the degree of inconvenience; we will both come to a time and place where we can sit. In the meantime, our desire to sit does not entitle us to start killing people in order to do so right now.

This all boils down to a scenario in which one person's acts will, if performed during a certain period of time and place, directly kill someone else.

But I'd still like to hear how you'd handle the Siamese twins if one twin decided to just up and execute the other because he was tired of having him around.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

It is indeed an interesting dilemma between the state and the siamese twins. And no, it's not parallel to abortion per se, because both twins have already been recognized as legal entities and have therefore been granted rights accordingly (this is one thing you continue to ignore).

As far as the twins are concerned, they can only violate the rights of each other. If one kills the other then it's a violation. Since they did not grant each other their rights, any invalidation falls back on the body that granted them their rights. The violation belongs with the twins, the conflict belongs with the rights-granting body.

As for defense in the situation you suggest (and I repeat: They are not free to violate the right of each other since they both have already been granted rights), I wonder if the state would admit to its problem if the remaining twin succeeds in removing all reasonable doubt that he could do nothing else.

You're missing the point. I'm suggesting the solution not to grant the fetus any right before there can be no conflict with the already granted rights of the woman. It's not the solution that you continuously confuse it with, namely removing the rights of a person who has already been granted rights.

That's the situation to avoid, not the situation to strive for.

So, your reason for not granting rights to the unborn is that doing so would generate a conflict of rights with the woman (in that she won't be able to perform certain acts that would terminate the unborns life)? I don't think that's a principle we can take very far.

You're essentially tying the decision of whether or not to grant someone personhood (and its associated rights) to whether or not it will inconvience someone else: we can't grant personhood to the unborn because then the mother wouldn't be able do things that would kill the unborn, thus infringing her rights to act as she pleases. Perhaps we shouldn't grant rights to new born infants since doing so means we can't do things those kill infants, thus infringing our rights to act as we please.

You're making the one party's freedom to act the determining factor of whether or not the other party has the right to live.
I suggest it would be more sensible and consistant to make the second party's right to live (IF such a right is granted) the determining factor on what acts the first party was free to perform; my right to a safe nose means you can't punch me, rather than you're right to punch where and when you want determining whether or not my nose was granted safety.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

It has taken your country so far as to legalize abortion.

A matter of conflicting rights is not an inconvience. It's a fundamental impediment of a justice system.

So you don't think your fellow citizens should have the right to determine matters concerning their own bodies because you think that such a right is equal to a citizen's right to do as he or she pleases?

Dilettante, how can a right to your own body become a right to your own body AND everything else? Please keep the strawmen out.

No, I'm preserving the integrity of rights already granted.

Again, imagine your nose being an entity integral with my fist. Then I can't punch anywhere without punching you on the nose. Although nonsensical, that's the only punch-in-the-nose analogy comparable to the, by anti-choice sentiment, suggested restrictions of a woman's rights during pregnancy.

I can think I can work with that analogy, if you prefer it.

I would only add that while my nose it attached to your fist, you can't punch anywhere. But, if this is an analogy for pregnancy, my nose and your fist will soon be separated.

Perhaps you'll accept this analogy as well: if I own a house, I have the right to do what I want to it. Since it is my property, I have the right to burn it down. However, if I set the house on fire, knowing that there is at that moment an infant sleeping inside, then I should go to jail for manslaughter. If I want to burn my house down, that's fine. But I must wait until the infant is removed.
In a sense, then my rights regarding my own property are restricted while the infant is in my house; but I can't say I'd use that as an argument against granting rights to infants.
In exactly the same way, the rights of a woman regarding her body are restricted while the baby is in her body; but that (in and of itself) isn't a terribly persuasive argument against granting the infant rights.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt