Fallacy of division. Only the whole has a claim. A finger has no claim, for example. A single cell has no claim. Only the whole does.
You fail at basic reasoning.
With whom was this contract made? Please explain how she has this obligation which no one has ever before been able to demonstrate.
The finger has no claim, but the person who has the claim includes the finger. The person who has the claim includes the egg. Upon fertilization, there are now two people, neither of whom is the entirety of the person of whom the egg was a part, but both of whom are a continuation of that same person. The part that is the egg cannot make exclusive claim on the body, but neither can the part that is not the egg.
One person became two people occupying the same body. There is no reason to place primacy on one or the other. If the egg is a part of the whole person and has no claim, than the part that is not the egg is also a part that has no claim. Your reasoning is a joke.
You can play dumb all you want. It is no different from the contractual obligation parents have to provide for and raise their children until they can provide for themselves. But maybe you want to play dumb about that one as well?
No, it’s entirely different. The children exist. For your idea to be valid, the fetus has to exist before the egg was fertilized. And that just goes against everything we know about biology.
But perhaps you failed both biology and sex ed.
Then you repudiate this:
Thank you.
So the woman cannot make exclusive claim upon her body?
Communist.
What? How about for your idea to be valid children have to exist before the egg was fertilised? Talk about pulling stuff out of your arse. The fetus does not need to exist before the egg was fertilised because it was in woman`s power to avoid fertalisation.
Perhaps you spent too much time in statist schools.
I assume you mean to say “it is not the same personhood as the mother has,” if this is not the case, then disregard the following.
First, I reject the premise that more than one “kind of personhood” exists. Either you are a person and are entitled to full rights as such or you are not a person and not entitled to rights (defining “person” here to be inclusive of other species possible of rational action in the Misesian sense).
But, ignoring from the above point, I would still contend that your thinking is quite befuddled here. If it is true that “you have a right to destroy an unfertilized egg because it’s you” then you are denying that the unfertilized egg is its own person. It does not become a separate being (something of a prerequisite for personhood, I would think) until it is fertilized, thus its claims to being the first-user are unfounded. If the egg is “part of you” up until the point of fertilization, then it has taken no steps to engage in homesteading up until that point - only you have.
What what? It’s the basis of your claim.
Not at all. The children do, in fact, exist.
Non sequitur.
Mmmhmmm.
And yet every biologist on the planet agrees with me.
How a bunch of cells qualifies as ‘people’ beats me…
Yes. Should need no explanation.
The child has no faculty to claim otherwise.
If by chance the child does reguard it as unfair, then it can kill itself.
Aha, the fetus on the other hand is a fiction of imagination? That clears it up. You are on drugs.
Every biologist on the planet is pro-choice? What planet would that be?
No, that the fetus existed before the fetus existed is, though.
No. Every biologist agrees that the fetus doesn’t exist until fertilization (and even then it’s properly a fertilized egg and then a zygote).
Yeah, tell me about it Sherlock. And so what?
Where do I say the fetus exists before conception??
Fetus does not exists before conception. It can bey brought into existance with an act of sexual intercourse and subsequent potential fertalisation. The woman being part of that intercourse and having participated in it out of her own will thus through her own action brings the fetus into existance. Therefore as its “creator” she has certain obligations towards it.
This is not against “women`s rights” because the fetus came into existance only as an intended or unintended result of her own voluntary actions. You could say she “brought the pregnancy upon herself” and should therefore take responsibility for her actions.
Children on the other hand exists before they exist??
You are getting caught in your own riddles.
You implied it by saying a woman has a duty to care for her unwanted child. The only time one ought to be obligated towards another is in the case of atonement for an act against their will; a violation of another’s rights. Otherwise you posit that slavery is legitimate.
The child would have to have existed before conception in order to make any ethical or legal claim against the mother that would obligate her to care for it. And since it didn’t exist, any claim it could make is ex post facto.
You can’t have that contract unless the fetus already existed. It’s just not possible.
Ipse dixit.
And how is it that you can re-define “responsibility” to not include abortion?
Nope. You’re getting caught in your own strawmen.
So, a person will probably have to live an unpleasant life because her mother felt like having a child ? Doesn’t sound especially fair to me.
It is extremely easy to end this “unpleasant life” the moment you find it to be unpleasant.
No, I wrote precisely what I meant. The egg shares the same personhood with the mother, as one being, until fertilization, when one being becomes two, both with a claim to the body of which they are both a part.