Thank you for the compliment. I try to think about this topic as logically as possible. I didn't use to be that way.
Everyone has responsibilities in their lives that take away from 100% freedom in doing anything you want. That might be children, your career, your parents, your siblings, your financial status, your health, etc. A ZEF should have the basic right to not be killed just as any child or adult has that right. Killing them would take them down to 0% life. Allowing them to live doesn't take the mother down to 0% life (unless, of course, extreme emergency situations which I already discussed). I don't see justification in killing a human just because you don't want a child, don't have enough money, etc. That's not the child's fault -- he/she should have that basic right to just live.
In terms of it being the woman's body and she can do what she wants with it --- yes, I agree. You should be able to do whatever you want with your own body. However, when you're pregnant, you have another human body inside of you. That human isn't you, that body isn't yours -- it's their own unique individual body.
Why should that unborn human not get the same protection that a newborn would get?
you're welcome
and great, thank you for the explanation, that's interesting . .
and to answer your question that's easy for "me" and my view . .
I agree with what you say in the basic premise but the part that's greatly different for me is because of where the ZEF is and what it is before its born
it doesn't get the same protections because: first and foremost it factually cant without taking away from the woman. Secondly, because its inside another and its existence alone is a risk of health and life. sometimes that risk is minuscule, sometimes its monumental but risk nonetheless. That is what makes the abortion its own topic and not like any other issues.
And while unique there's other examples of the law and rights that already represent that, the saying you are free to swing your fist until it hits my face, or the situation of an unwanted person in your house, or even on your property Those are examples of where rights are not equal because of one imposing on another based on self-defense, or location etc
I simply cant see an unknown entity, that's not born, that's not viable, not a citizen and that may even abort itself as equal or, in this case i would have to see it as greater than the already born, viable, woman who is a citizen. I just cant support that in law. I would never support the law holding the unborn as higher and making the woman second class and violating her current legal, vicil and human rights.
If we were talking about two lives in a room, sure but since one is inside the other thats just how it is for me.
Over time this view has changed and been molded by views like yours and others here and there but I dont see it ever changing because personally i just can justify violating the woman rights like that at the moment of conception. Nothing about that seems logical or even close to balanced to me.
Now I most certainly wish there was a way to treat them equal, that would be awesome, it just doesn't exist unlt we invent teleportation and an artificial womb and that poses no risk to the mother
again thanks for that answer!
and I liked the percentage response back . . only the most honest of posters from either side admit that they value one life over the other and would grant rights greater . . .the only differences are why and when and circumstances
www.wired.com
