This is an error in framing. For one, the situation automatically assumes that the child bearer was in no way responsible for the babies conception. The mother did have sex and by proxy is the party accountable. Of course, there are specific situations in which this logic doesn't apply. But let me create a more accurate thought experiment. You run over a person with a car. Are you responsible for paying their medical bills? The answer would be a yes. You chose to drive the car, and you decided to drive recklessly.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
Poe's example was the same as yours and yet all of the sudden there is something wrong with it, figures.
But no, a right isn't conditional. You can't exempt a person of their bodily autonomy because "they had sex" anymore than you can deny a criminal humane treatment because they committed a crime. Whether or not they are "responsible" for their situation doesn't matter.
And paying someone's medical bills doesn't involve an infringement on any kind of comparable right, pretty irrelevant. On the other hand would the victim be entitled to blood payment, or medieval style punishment? Nah.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Jul 14th, 2018 at 10:25 PM
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
It pertains to what's going on inside her body, yeah, and the foetus doesn't have the right to live of another person any more than the violinist in Adam's example.
Beni actually take a second to think before you type. In Adam's example, the person giving the blood type isn't responsible for the kidney failure. In my case, the person driving the car is responsible for hitting the pedestrian. I am not sure this is an error in reading comprehension or worse an inability to read. By admitting that they should pay the medical bills you concede that rights are conditional. Since the mother, is responsible for Baby's creation, she, therefore, must take care of it. Thereby the right to the baby's life supersedes the right to personal autonomy. Let me give you a more specific example, to illustrate my point. You accidentally stab someone with a knife. They are slowly dying due to blood loss. You are the only person whose blood type aligns with the victim. Should be you be forced to give him your blood?
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
No, that was your second. This was your first.
Stop being wilfully obtuse.
They don't have a right to drive their car into other people. You're right to drive a car or personal autonomy extends to doing so without infringing on the rights of others.
Not by giving them blood. That's literally illegal, christ. Should tell you something about the state of your argument if this is the best example you can come up with.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Jul 15th, 2018 at 12:02 AM
If rights come in to conflict with each other one has to give yes. As I said already a foetus doesn't have the right to live off another person so that isn't the case here.
I answered you're question, the answer was no. Now you're trying to change your question so it doesn't appear so idiotic.
Honestly, I don't know who's winning this back and forth between you two because it ended up being a banal word game.
One of you, probably DS0, re-frame the original arguments and pick up from the beginning.
Here's my original argument:
Premise 1: Couple, who is religious and does not believe in modern medicine, has a newborn infant die due to medical complications.
Premise 2: An adult is criminally liable for the medical neglect of their infant which can result in a Murder 2-manslaughter conviction.
Premise 3: You can abort a baby and kill it knowingly and directly.
Conclusion: There is a logical consistency issue between premises 1+2 and 3.
Going back from newborn infant, leftists thinking indirectly killing a baby due to religious belief is wrong but directly killing a baby through abortion is not wrong and not worthy of a murder 2 conviction.
They justify this with a timeline of development stating that at some very much arbitrary point, it is now a murder 2 charge instead of an okay thing to do.
It's like this in their mind:
1 day gestation: kill it if you want
1 month gestation: kill it if you want
3 month gestation: kill it if you want
Late term abortion: kill it if you want
Partial birth abortion: kill it if you want
Born but your religion is opposed to modern medicine and your babies: HOLY F*CKING SHIT! YOU MURDERER!
Note: that is NOT Robtard's position. He has the same opinion as I do: 5 months, no more. If science allows us to mature babies outside the womb even earlier, then I'll keep adjusting that date. It's based on science, not feelings or God. I think as soon as the zygote is formed, it's unique enough to have minimal pershonhood rights to not be aborted but the life or desires of the mother supersedes the pershonhood rights.
Not sure that's a fair assessment, those same "lefttist" would probably also have a problem if a couple wanted to abort their perfectly healthy/normal pregnancy unborn baby at say 8 months due to religious reasons, but couldn't care less if it was at 20 weeks or less.
So the real point of contention seems to go back to what all abortion talks goes back to: "when does 'it' become a baby/person". A newborn (as in your story) is clearly a person.