Yes when you’re talking about the formation of something. Like, you’re not gonna talk me into a corner with this kind of argument man. something not even having developed any kind of perception of reality, and that is actually just a clump of cells that might reproduce if left alone into a human is NOT the same as a person. It just isn’t, and it’s not an atrocity to stop that thing from becoming a human if it is going to damage the lives of others.
Yeah but rights SHOULDN’T just be granted to anything, because that’s idiotic. Your whole original statement was about how nuance is important and you’re intentionally trying to take nuance out of this decision making process with your weird absolutes.
This is what I am saying. Convinced me that a zygote should not have rights. Note that talking about consciousness or the relative size of the zygote aren’t relevant to whether a zygote is granted rights.
I think that if we want to charge people for murder if they attack a pregnant person and cause a miscarriage, then we naturally have to grant a zygote the right to life. However, just because we do this does not mean that right to life cannot be infringed. Human adults have a right to life until they attempt to kill someone, for example, at which point we say that their right to life is no longer as important as the other person’s right to defend themselves.
I see no issues granting a zygote rights and still granting a pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy.
The same way I can say “humans have a right to life” and “humans are allowed to kill someone in self defense”. No rights are absolute, especially when they come into conflict with other rights.
Do you not understand how the process works? A zygote is a future person. Sperm is only half the equation.
Which is irrelevant when we’re still just talking about things that wouldn’t be called “human” and have no consciousness to speak of.
Is consciousness a requirement for having rights?
Yes when you’re talking about the formation of something. Like, you’re not gonna talk me into a corner with this kind of argument man. something not even having developed any kind of perception of reality, and that is actually just a clump of cells that might reproduce if left alone into a human is NOT the same as a person. It just isn’t, and it’s not an atrocity to stop that thing from becoming a human if it is going to damage the lives of others.
I don’t recall saying it was a person. I said it had rights. You know that rights can be granted to anything, right? Including a clump of cells.
Yeah but rights SHOULDN’T just be granted to anything, because that’s idiotic. Your whole original statement was about how nuance is important and you’re intentionally trying to take nuance out of this decision making process with your weird absolutes.
This is what I am saying. Convinced me that a zygote should not have rights. Note that talking about consciousness or the relative size of the zygote aren’t relevant to whether a zygote is granted rights.
I think that if we want to charge people for murder if they attack a pregnant person and cause a miscarriage, then we naturally have to grant a zygote the right to life. However, just because we do this does not mean that right to life cannot be infringed. Human adults have a right to life until they attempt to kill someone, for example, at which point we say that their right to life is no longer as important as the other person’s right to defend themselves.
I see no issues granting a zygote rights and still granting a pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy.
How do you not see those things as diametrically opposed to each other?
The same way I can say “humans have a right to life” and “humans are allowed to kill someone in self defense”. No rights are absolute, especially when they come into conflict with other rights.