I wish I disagreed with this. But she is. And they do.sleeper;1813925 wrote:GOP deserves to lose this election to the most corrupt US politician in history.
This is true, but that care does not extend to giving the child rights to the mother's body over the mother's objection.Con_Alma;1813929 wrote:If you are assuming personhood at conception there are other legal "duties" in place on the parent including but not limited to basic care. Failing to provide such care can lead to neglect and or abuse in most States.
For example, if a newborn needed a bone marrow transplant, the mother would not be legally obligated to donate in order to avoid imprisonment.
I wasn't really assuming it for that purpose. I used it more as a "for instance," because at the end of the day, I don't think it matters whether or not it is a person anyway.Con_Alma;1813929 wrote:I don't think assuming personhood at conception is the right approach to take with regard to justifying abortion based on not having rights to one's body....
For the record, I don't think a zygote is a person. Zygotes reproduce through mitosis. As such, if the one zygote is a person, and that person engages in mitosis, then the person has reproduced. Does that make the two cells two persons? If one is one person, and that person reproduces asexually, it would stand to reason that the subsequent cells are all persons.
This is, of course, absurd.
