She isn't "void of rights;" she has all the rights she always did. She merely can't exercise them in such a way that results in the death of another person. It's merely a question of whether or not there is one more person to consider.

(Though I should mention that I'm not terribly interested in granting rights to a zygote at all; nor would I advocate granting any unborn a full set of rights comparable with those of an adult. Here we're merely looking at the basic right not to be intentionally killed).

SMadsen, I fail to see the distinction you're making here, unless you're thinking of the "pregnant woman" as some sort of species unto itself, instead of thinking of women as individuals who occasionally and temporarily may be pregnant.

You said that the man can't burn down his house "IF doing so violates the rights of another person." I suggest the same standard apply to women having particular things down to their bodies: they can't do so "IF doing so violates the rights of another person."
There is not always an infant in my house; there are not always babies in a woman's womb. But, while there IS an infant in my house, I can't burn the house; while there IS a baby in the womb, the woman can't just kill it.

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

Thanks for casting a vote, Traveler. Any impressions from you on the questions in post 261?

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

Occasionally and temporarily doesn't matter. If you are granted a right then you are granted a right. You are not granted a right if and when it fits any particular situation. The justice system would collapse if rights were granted on such a random basis. The ONLY time a once granted right can be withdrawn from you is when you violate the rights of another person. That's it.

There is no way you should be granted a right where exercising the right violates the right of another person. That's a withdrawal where there can be no withdrawal. It has no justification within the justice system.

So do I, or do I not have the right to swing my fists about? If I do, what happens when I'm in a crowded room, where doing so will necessarily violate the rights of someone else?
My rights aren't "withdrawn"; I still have them. I just can't exercise them at that particular point in time without violating the rights of someone else.

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

Good poll and great thread.

I was away for a while and the thread continued on and i missed quite a few replies, i'll go back and reply to them later at some point but i am headed out to a wedding this weekend so again i'll be away for a fair few days. I dunno if i'll get time to reply before i leave the screen but if not expect a bump in the thread in about a week or so.

Also some other points about different state/federal laws and problems with it i wanna address at some point too.

You're not obligated to exercise a right. The body that grants you a right, however, is obligated to ensure its validity. Otherwise, it can't ensure a protection of your right. And a right is invalidated when it can't possibly be exercised without violating the right of another.

Again, you can step out of the crowded room to avoid violating someone's right while exercising your rights. You can't step out of your body to avoid violating any right that may have been granted someone inside your body.

Dilettante, I can see from our endless iterations of a singular issue that I haven't been able to explain it in an adequate way. In Danish, a conflict means that two or more issues or subjects work against each other. If there is just a single way - just one possible way - not to work against each other then a conflict solely arises if it's intentional. That's exactly how your right to swing your fist around works with a crowded room. You can simply swing it around somewhere else if you like. Unless your intention is not merely to exercise your rights but to violate the rights of another.

Now, take the intention away and you're either left with a way not to work against each other or you're left with a conflict. Since, as mentioned, you can't possibly step out of your body and exercise your right somewhere else, the only way for your rights not to work against the rights of an entity inside your body is to make one set of rights subordinate to the other. If that's possible then I totally agree with you that there is no conflict. However, rights must remain equal in order to be valid. Your rights can't be protected if they are considered subordinate to the rights of someone else. It's simply not possible.

All this may not have an effect on 99% of all people since living a life one day after the other is a constant mishmash of compromises. Pregnant or not pregnant. But the formal relationship between you and the state is without compromise and the only stronghold you have in that relationship is your rights.

I don't know how to explain it better in English. And I don't think I'll continue to try. Everything in the last many posts have been mere repetitions of something previously said.

We do seem to be going around in circles, and I don't think your English is at fault here; we often seem to come to these impasses where neither of us can persuade the other, and that's fine. I generally enjoy the chance to test and explore my own views, even if I can't convince you of their merits, and such has been the case this time.

I will say that I've found this particular line of argument novel and intriguing, since the more common debate over the legality of abortion centers on whether the unborn qualifies as a "person" enough to deserve rights, rather than on what the legal consequences of granting such rights would be.

It seems to me that the arguments you've advance, wrt to the validity of rights and attached individuals, take no account of the nature of the individuals involved. That is to say, if this is a solid argument for abortion at conception or the 26th week of development, then it is just as solid an argument for an abortion the day (or the hour) before the baby is to be born. Indeed, it entirely disregards the development of the unborn and argues against granting him/her any rights no matter how developed, conscious, intelligent, or self-aware he/she may be. It could be used with equal effect by a women in the first trimester who's life was endangered by pregnancy and by a women in the last days of pregnancy who suddenly decided she didn't like the gender of her child.

Similarly, though we have touched on this briefly, it seems to me that any argument against granting rights based on physical attachment (and the invalidation of rights involved) would also argue for the nullification of rights based on physical attachment, since it creates exactly the same situation with the rights of one supposedly invalidating the rights of the other. If we cannot allow two attached individuals to both be granted rights, then logically we cannot allow two attached individuals to retain their rights, since both scenarios lead us to the same problem.
If, however, we have found a way to allow two temporarily attached people to retain at least some of their rights (and presumably we have since I'm pretty sure "he was stuck to me" is not, by itself, a sufficient excuse for killing someone) then it seems logical that we could find a way to grant at least some rights to temporarily attached people.

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

That is correct. I stated as much back in post #265.

This is indeed what appears to be a natural consequence of the argument.

Just as a matter of curiosity, though, would you consider all cases of conjoined twins to be clear as far as granting rights are concerned? For example, a special case of conjoined twins is the parasitic twin, where one twin develops at a different rate than the other. Would you consider all cases of such twins to be eligible for equal rights?

Without knowing the answer, I'll venture into guessing that it will come close to the issue that, as you also mention, is normally predominant in abortion debates, namely the definition of a human being.

Thing is that, while rights define your legal position within society (what I previously called the formal relationship with the state), they don't define your relationship with society and other people alone. Society has a natural interest in all of the actions that affect society. If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy it affects parts of society and those parts will necessarily have to relate to the decision in one way or another. So I'm not saying that a decision to terminate a pregnancy is solely based on a matter of rights. Various interests are very much in play. I'm merely saying that the right itself to make the decision is based on the necessity that rights must remain equal. IF such a right has been granted.

Personally, I think it should be mandatory under certain circumstances.

If a pregnant woman's in prison for child abuse, let's say, I can't help but think it a good idea all round.

Please tell me that this is tongue in cheek...

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

missed one option, should be banned, no exceptions.

Is that your position on the topic? If so why?

Actually there was an earlier poll in which that option was universally rejected (everyone desired an exception for saving the mother's life), so I didn't bother with it.

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

well if that situation witht he prison happens then couldn't the child be taken away by social services and adopted or something