- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do liberals get so upset over abortion?
Posted on 5/3/22 at 12:13 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 5/3/22 at 12:13 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I am not going to call you "evil" for thinking that such a right would vest at a later point in fetal development than I think appropriate ... OR at an earlier point.
So if it is decided that such a right shouldn’t vest for 1 month after birth, you aren’t going to think of that as evil?
1
Posted on 5/3/22 at 12:29 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:I would disagree with vesting that right (in a human organism) at such a late date for a variety of reasons that I believe to be sound. "Good" and "evil" play no role in my analysis.
So if it is decided that such a right shouldn’t vest for 1 month after birth, you aren’t going to think of that as evil?
Primarily, I think that the vesting of ANY legal right should be contingent upon the beneficiary being a sapient organism. Legal rights should not vest in trees, garden slugs, field mice or human embryos, because none of those organisms are sapient. (No, I am NOT saying that a human embryo is "the same as" a tree. But they do share the characteristic of being non-sapient.)
Is a one-month newborn "sapient?" Probably not, but some developmental experts would argue otherwise.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News