Of course it is the right place. If a fetus/baby does not have rights, then there is nothing criminal about killing one. The whole point of this thread is trying to determine if it is criminal to snuff out the life of an unborn baby.
@ LogisticEarth
It’s a cool analogy but in the end I’d say yes, you have the right. I’d say anyone who took that route is a prick and I’d do my best to avoid such people, but I can’t deny them the right. There’s also a flaw though: your guy can negotiate for himself. Better he gets transported on in a state of coma or something.
Negotiation is kind of moot, as you either have the right to kick him off or not. If he negotiates for himself and you have the right, then he’s just improving his chances, not changing the basic morality of the situation. If he negotiates and you don’t have the right, then any proceeds you gain from those negotiations are akin to robbery.
Nevertheless, you say they have the right, care to explain your rationale a little more in depth?
I gave a most accurate example with an acorn and oak. Acorn is fetus. Oak is a child. I think these words have different meaning for a reason.
What about when it first sprouts its roots. Has it become an oak at that point or is it a seedling? Does the sprout have to break the surface of the soil to become an oak or is it only a sprout? Is a sapling an oak? Or is everything after the acorn an oak, just at a different level of development? Kinda the same continuum problem with defining when an it becomes a person.
When people see a pregnant woman, they say “she is gonna have a baby”, but not "she is carrying a baby
In all fairness it is common for people to say a pregnant woman is “carrying a baby” or is “with baby”.
When it’s born.
From scientific point of view it is also obvious, that fetus, if extracted, wouldn’t probably survive, because it is not fully evolved. When the evolution in a womb winishes (and baby is born) only then it could be said, that it is human (have pretty much all attributes), and not just unevolved “collection of cells”.
But there is no scientific or biological difference between a baby born today and the same baby 5 minutes prior to it being born. Also babies are viable if they are born or removed months prematurely.
If I was forced to pick a point at which it becomes a human is when it is viable outside the mothers body.
Nice name. You’ve erected a strawman though.
Try again… this time without the ignorance.
You are literally no fun.
I don’t think the eviction agrument is applicable. Didn’t the unborn child homestead the womb?
"I gave a most accurate example with an acorn and oak. Acorn is fetus. Oak is a child. I think these words have different meaning for a reason. When people see a pregnant woman, they say “she is gonna have a baby”, but not “she is carrying a baby”. From scientific point of view it is also obvious, that fetus, if extracted, wouldn’t probably survive, because it is not fully evolved. When the evolution in a womb winishes (and baby is born) only then it could be said, that it is human (have pretty much all attributes), and not just unevolved “collection of cells.” - MaikU
Nonsense. The ‘fetus’ is perfectly capable of surviving and developing five minutes before birth, the simpel fact that it hasn’t passed through the birth canal and out into the open is irrelevant. Birth is just as artificial a construct to enforce upon this issue as is conception. No one knows when a fetus becomes a child, or a human being, capable of thought and feeling. Date, time and place of birth are legalisms, not truth.
“Nevertheless, you say they have the right, care to explain your rationale a little more in depth?” - LogisticEarth
Not really, it’s their property, plain and simple.
Not really, it’s their property, plain and simple.
But why does thier property right superceed the property right of the other. There are two parties. Both with rights which are in conflict. If you are on my property without the ability to remove yourself immediately. Why would I now have the right to kill you to expidite the process?
For example, I am hiking through the mountains and you find me in the middle of your property. You tell me this is your property and you want me gone. So I turn around and start hiking back out. But your property is enormous and it tooks weeks to hike in. And its going to take me weeks to hike back out. The problem is that you want me out NOW! Does that give you the right to tie a rope around my neck and air lift me out, killing me in the process?
Both will require something from the victim of the tresspassing. If you let me hike out over the next couple of weeks, you are allowing me use of your property. I could potentially harm your property, or consume some of what it has to offer. If you are going to drag me out by my neck behind a helicopter, Well youve had to give up something there too. Use of a helicopter, fuel, and time.
Why is it ok to kill me when there are non lethal alternatives, in particular when they both the lethal and nonlethal options require some sacrifice from the property owner?
If a fetus/baby does not have rights, then there is nothing criminal about killing one.
Which everyone agrees with. We have moved past this because there in no disagreement and no need to discuss.
The whole point of this thread is trying to determine if it is criminal to snuff out the life of an unborn baby.
Add to the end of the sentance “if they have rights”. That is where this discussion is now. You want to debate the If babys/children have rights.
I just feel thats a diffrent discussion.