Woman dies in Ireland for want of an abortion

[Mavorpen]

Even if it did have bodily sovereignty, it loses that sovereignty as soon as the mother does not want it.

Does the person on life support lose sovereignty as soon as society does not want it?

Actually, it then goes over to the immediate family.

[Brekka]

Again, see the part below that. In my quote, not yours.




Ah, here we go. Something vaguely important! (And Free South Califas, I totally meant to reply to you. My computer is a jerk, though)

Now, I would respond by pointing out that the rights to bodily integrity held by a fetus would themselves be violated by killing it, since that requires bodily alterations pretty universally.

Rights are something a person has. A foetus is not a person.

An animal is not a person, why does it get rights?

[Mavorpen]

Rights are something a person has. A foetus is not a person.

An animal is not a person, why does it get rights?

Non-human animals are significantly more sentient than a fetus is.

[CVT Temp]

Rights are something a person has. A foetus is not a person.

I don't really consider newborn infants to be persons either. A person has to be self-aware and capable of valuating its existence.

[Brekka]

Does the person on life support lose sovereignty as soon as society does not want it?

Actually, it then goes over to the immediate family.

So then what if the immediate family doesn't want to take care of it either? They die?

[Mavorpen]

Rights are something a person has. A foetus is not a person.

I don't really consider newborn infants to be persons either. A person has to be self-aware and capable of valuating its existence.

Yeah, newborn infants really aren't persons. Then again, our stance has little to do with the personhood argument anyway. Even a person does not have a right that they want fetuses to have.

[Dyakovo]

Even if it did have bodily sovereignty, it loses that sovereignty as soon as the mother does not want it.

Does the person on life support lose sovereignty as soon as society does not want it?

A person on life support is a person. A foetus is not.

[Condunum]

Actually, it then goes over to the immediate family.

So then what if the immediate family doesn't want to take care of it either? They die?

Yes.

[Mavorpen]

Actually, it then goes over to the immediate family.

So then what if the immediate family doesn't want to take care of it either? They die?

What? No. I mean it's up to the immediate family if the plug is pulled.

[Dyakovo]

Rights are something a person has. A foetus is not a person.

An animal is not a person, why does it get rights?

They don't. Unless it is an animal that is a person.

[Dyakovo]

Actually, it then goes over to the immediate family.

So then what if the immediate family doesn't want to take care of it either? They die?

Sure.

[Ostroeuropa]

/Clearly better than protestantism and the anglicans.
I'm unsuprised as usual by irelands ability to find theocratic ways to oppress it's citizens.

[Brekka]

So then what if the immediate family doesn't want to take care of it either? They die?

Sure.

What a great world, you only get to live as long as you are wanted. Warms my heart it does.

[Dyakovo]

I don't really consider newborn infants to be persons either. A person has to be self-aware and capable of valuating its existence.

Yeah, newborn infants really aren't persons. Then again, our stance has little to do with the personhood argument anyway. Even a person does not have a right that they want fetuses to have.

Indeed. The question of personhood is secondary to the matter of bodily integrity.
Even if a foetus was a person it would not have the right to use the woman's body against her will.

[Mavorpen]

An animal is not a person, why does it get rights?

They don't. Unless it is an animal that is a person.

I think it's hilarious that dictionaries seem to explicitly limit personhood to humans, despite a significant number of animals being self-conscious.

[CVT Temp]

A person on life support is a person.

That depends on whether their higher brain functions still exist. The law considers a human in a persistent vegetative state to be a person, but I don't really think this view is rationally supported.

[Brekka]

An animal is not a person, why does it get rights?

They don't. Unless it is an animal that is a person.

Then what's with people getting arrested for abusing animals? You shouldn't be arrested for hurting something that has no rights.

[Condunum]

Sure.

What a great world, you only get to live as long as you are wanted. Warms my heart it does.

I'm sorry, did you expect like to be rainbows and cake? Cry some more. The reason we do this is because the next of kin are considered to have the best interests of the victim in mind, and it usually works out that way.

[Dyakovo]

Sure.

What a great world, you only get to live as long as you are wanted. Warms my heart it does.

If someone else decides they want to step up and care for the person the are free to do so...
I suggest that since you're so concerned about it that you do it.

[Mavorpen]

What a great world, you only get to live as long as you are wanted. Warms my heart it does.

If someone else decides they want to step up and care for the person the are free to do so...
I suggest that since you're so concerned about it that you do it.

This brings up another point. Why is it that pro-lifers rarely volunteer to take care of the unwanted fetus? Why is it that once you're born, you're fucked.

[Condunum]

They don't. Unless it is an animal that is a person.

Then what's with people getting arrested for abusing animals? You shouldn't be arrested for hurting something that has no rights.

Because we have animal rights, which are separate from human rights. Dyakovo was wrong to say Animals have no rights, but he would not be wrong to say they do not have the rights a human does.

[Dyakovo]

They don't. Unless it is an animal that is a person.

I think it's hilarious that dictionaries seem to explicitly limit personhood to humans, despite a significant number of animals being self-conscious.

Yup...
But then most definitions of personhood have been designed to only describe humans as people...

[Brekka]

What a great world, you only get to live as long as you are wanted. Warms my heart it does.

I'm sorry, did you expect like to be rainbows and cake? Cry some more. The reason we do this is because the next of kin are considered to have the best interests of the victim in mind, and it usually works out that way.

So I'm a crybaby for protesting murder? Alright, alright. I should remember that first line of yours next time I see a leftist saying life's unfair for gays, see how that goes over.

[Condunum]

I'm sorry, did you expect like to be rainbows and cake? Cry some more. The reason we do this is because the next of kin are considered to have the best interests of the victim in mind, and it usually works out that way.

So I'm a crybaby for protesting murder? Alright, alright. I should remember that first line of yours next time I see a leftist saying life's unfair for gays, see how that goes over.

Murder? It's not murder. Unless it's legally defined as murder, it's not murder, and that's not.

Nice try, but your argument sucks.

[Mavorpen]

I think it's hilarious that dictionaries seem to explicitly limit personhood to humans, despite a significant number of animals being self-conscious.

Yup...
But then most definitions of personhood have been designed to only describe humans as people...

It irks me to a certain extent, the same that "sapient" irks me. When someone uses a word that was designed to only be applied to humans, it's kind of silly to use it to try to prove you aren't being hypocritical by wanting to protect a fetus and not a chimpanzee.