To: Hajman
You wouldn't understand it in that context I don't understand it in any context. You can't have "sort of" absolute rights. Either a thing is or it isn't.
If a fetus has absolute rights to life, then it bulldozes the mother's rights, if it doesn't, than the mother's rights are on the table, and lacking devine intervention, her rights are obviously quite a bit stronger than a fetus's rights. It is devine intervention, or sentimental intervention that supports the argument otherwise, no matter how well wrapped up in spurious claims of logic parsing.
111 posted on
03/12/2002 2:58:24 PM PST by
donh
To: donh
I don't understand it in any context. You can't have "sort of" absolute rights. Either a thing is or it isn't.
Apparently your problem is understanding what these rights are in the first place.
If a fetus has absolute rights to life, then it bulldozes the mother's rights, if it doesn't, than the mother's rights are on the table, and lacking devine intervention, her rights are obviously quite a bit stronger than a fetus's rights. It is devine intervention, or sentimental intervention that supports the argument otherwise, no matter how well wrapped up in spurious claims of logic parsing.
The mother has no rights to be trumped by the unborn baby's right to life. If you think she does, then tell us what they are. Don't just say she does. What rights of the mother are specifically trampled by the unborn's right to life? Specifically.
-The Hajman-
118 posted on
03/12/2002 3:06:35 PM PST by
Hajman
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson