You are comparing the potential for a human being (zygote) as being the same as an actual born human being in charge of their own body?
You lost any moral high ground when you decided to use the 'black man' argument.. It is not the same.
Again.. A woman has more rights over her own body than anyone else, including the potential human being she may be carrying. That potential human being will never be seen has having equal rights to her body unless she permits it.
Not for me to have a problem with it. It is not my body and thus, not my place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with any other entity inhabiting her body.
Do you understand that part?
Employees do not inhabit the physical bodies of their employers. And a woman's body is hardly like that of an employer. The potential child is not an employee but is an entity inhabiting the physical body of another human being. That other human being has rights over their body and what they allow in said body. An employer is an artificial entity that by law, has rights to protect itself from others and can fire employees when the need arises (ie, abort their terms of employment). An employee can be dependent on an employer for a paycheck and a place of employment so long as the employer allows them.
Unless of course you are now saying that employers should never be given the right to terminate anyone's employment? You wouldn't suggest that but you would suggest that a human being be denied any rights over their own bodies to allow a potential human being to inhabit it, sometimes to the mother's detriment and possible death? Why does the mother's rights over her own body not exist? Why does a woman not have rights over her body LG?
An employee has rights because they are human beings and thus, have rights over their own bodies. No other human being or entity has rights over their bodies. Yet you seem to think that a potential human being should have more rights (not even equal rights) over that of the mother's and that their rights somehow trumps that of the mother's? Why? Why does a woman not have rights over her body?
If we were to employ your maxim or your beliefs, then a woman would never have any rights over her own body (which leaves the door open to many legal issues) because you seem to feel that even a potential human being should have more rights over that of a woman's body than the woman should have over her own. So if a potential human being's rights trumps that of a woman's rights over her body, what about other human beings rights over her body? Do you see the potential dangers of this?
The woman is already in power over her own body. Her rights over her body trumps that of any other, including any potential human being she may be carrying. Therefore, it would be unlawful and immoral to demand that she have no rights over her own body because to do so would mean that she has no basic human rights, which leaves the door open to things you don't even want to consider. A third party will never have more rights over your body unless you expressly give them the right to do so, and as an individual person, you can withdraw those rights when you choose to (ie you can demand to not be treated for something and you can even demand a DNR on yourself).. Understand why? Because it is your body and no other entity has rights over your body unless you expressly allow them to. This means you are protected from rape for example. Yet you seem to believe that a woman should not be given rights over her body against any other entity if that entity has the potential to be a human being if it develops..
