@vivify saidAccording to your OP, only "for the purposes of punishment".
Those rights are in the form of legal protection. Arizona treats the unborn as minors.
That's not much of a "legal protection", is it? It's more logical and consistent with Roe to treat that law as protecting a women's reproductive choice rather than elevating a fetus to personhood (a strange type of "personhood" considering its mother can "kill" it at any time prior to viability).
Here's the Arizona First Degree Murder statute as it applies to the unborn:
C. An offense under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section applies to an unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development. A person shall not be prosecuted under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section if any of the following applies:
1. The person was performing an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on the pregnant woman's behalf, has been obtained or for which the consent was implied or authorized by law.
2. The person was performing medical treatment on the pregnant woman or the pregnant woman's unborn child.
3. The person was the unborn child's mother.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01105.htm
Please explain why this law doesn't violate the Natural Rights of the supposed "person" in the womb.
@no1marauder saidYou could say the same for the death penalty or people in vegetative states. These are examples of people who have been legally allowed to be killed; so a legal precedent exists for killing human beings.
Would a law that stated "No human being can be killed except by their mother" be permissible according to you? Or would it run afoul of human beings' Natural Right to life?
The difference from your example is the human in question is affecting the woman's body. This makes it a completely different issue from a mother killing someone who has already been born. People have a natural right to decide what happens with their own body.
@no1marauder saidHow else do you protect people other than by punishing wrongs against them? What if there was no punishment for murder?
According to your OP, only "for the purposes of punishment".
That's not much of a "legal protection", is it? It's more logical and consistent with Roe to treat that law as protecting a women's reproductive choice rather than elevating a fetus to personhood (a strange type of "personhood" considering its mother can "kill" it at any time prior to viability).
This is just a semantic game from you.
@vivify saidNo, there is a huge philosophical difference between a law protecting reproductive choice and a law establishing "personhood" for the unborn.
How else do you protect people than by punishing wrongs against them? What if there was no punishment for murder?
This is just a semantic game from you.
I have no problem with the first law.
I reject entirely the second.
@no1marauder saidThe pure arrogance of this stayement is so telling.
No, there is a huge philosophical difference between a law protecting reproductive choice and a law establishing "personhood" for the unborn.
I have no problem with the first law.
I reject entirely the second.
You have no interest in discussion, simply to dictate to others how things are to be simply based on your will.
@no1marauder
Lol, the difference is that you like to pretend you are debating. You have been exposed.
I look forward to the day when, in Amerika, a woman will have to accuse her unborn , totally a person, child of trespassing just to get an abortion (i mean eviction, totally)
When a pregnant woman that tries to commit suicide will go to jail for attempted murder.
How about when women declare themselves renting spaces, have the child because they would get the death penalty if they abort it, but then abandon the child and send the government the bill for the 9 months of rent the child owes.
Handmaid's tale dystopia can't happen however, that would be preposterous. There is nothing whatsoever to hint that's the direction you're going in
@no1marauder saidWhat about a woman in her 9th month of pregnancy, who can deliver a healthy child any day? Is the life in her a person? Or does it magically only become a person if it's born a few days later? Does a woman have a right to change her mind a terminate the pregnancy, even if there's no risk to her health?
No, there is a huge philosophical difference between a law protecting reproductive choice and a law establishing "personhood" for the unborn.
Or is the philosophical difference too huge?
What if she's in her eighth month? The child can still be delivered and be healthy. Is the child a person, or does the magical transition only happen if that baby is delivered? If there's no risk to mother, should it be okay to terminate an abortion in the 8th month other for no other reason than the woman changed her mind?
Or is the philosophical difference too "huge"?