Pregnant women are unique in a way we cannot pretend not to notice, just as the people -- granting your claim that a fertilized egg is a person, for the moment -- inside them are in a unique position. — Srap Tasmaner

Why would rights of anyone be diminished because it is inside someone else?

You appear to be arguing that life begins in the womb. What life would that be and from what did it come? — tim wood

I appear to be? Wow. Where did it come from? Conception

But in your argument, what obliges a woman to maintain that life? — tim wood

That's right. Question pending, you haven't answered it, and there seems evidence you do not even understand it.

Why would rights of anyone be diminished because it is inside someone else? — Gregory

And why would the rights of anyone outside be diminished even if someone were inside them?

Do you have any thoughts of your own on this topic, because you seem to be repeating nonsense you do not understand.

I appear to be? Wow. Where did it come from? Conception — Gregory

From what dead matter, fool, you having disqualified a live source?

And why would the rights of anyone outside be diminished even if someone were inside them? — tim wood

So you think, without evidence, that life begins at birth and that before birth the rights are given by the mother to the not-human entity? You have no evidence and why not respect all life instead?

So you think, without evidence, that life begins at birth — Gregory

No. Where did you get this. You're the one who clams life begins in the womb, not me. And it certainly does not begin at birth. Is English your first language?

Why would rights of anyone be diminished because it is inside someone else? — Gregory

That was not my question. My question was whether a mother might indeed have something like the patria potestas, absolute authority including the power of life and death, (never mind, @Ciceronianus, I looked it up) over her unborn child. If the mother has no such right, we have to deal with the mess I indicated above. If she does, we need only think of the unborn child's rights negatively, as a limit or the absence of a limit on the mother's unique right as the mother of an unborn child, and this is simpler. And my real question was how shall we determine whether a woman has such a "matria potestas"?

And it certainly does not begin at birth. I — tim wood

When does someone become a human?

and that before birth the rights are given by the mother to the not-human entity? — Gregory

Rights given by the mother? What does that mean?

And my real question was how shall we determine whether a woman has such a "matria potestas"? — Srap Tasmaner

Because you are juxtaposing the right to life of one being with the "right" to kill it on the other. There is no symmetry there

Rights given by the mother? What does that mean? — tim wood

When does someone become a human?

When does someone become a human? — Gregory

I asked that twice long above. Human what?

I asked that twice long above. Human what? — tim wood

Well you have no concept of humanity or rights.

Summary. Gregory, you're incoherent, ignorant, and stupidly so. I do not believe that is your natural state, but appears part of this topic. I have only attended to the words you use and how you use them, and you don't make sense. And I suspect it's because you've uncritically (very uncritically) bought and swallowed a bunch of nonsense, and having done that, cannot or will not recognize the nonsense for what it is.

Well you have no concept of humanity or rights. — Gregory

Thrice asked, answered zero. I doubt there's any use in asking a fourth time.

A human is a human and it begins at conception. You wonder what a human is and so will say absolute rights start at birth but don't know what rights are or what humanity is. The problem is that you are obsessed with language instead of philosophy, as in :

I have only attended to the words you use and how you use them — tim wood

I human is a human and it begins at conception. You wonder what a human is and so will say absolute rights start at birth but don't know what rights are humanity is. The problem is that you are obsessed with language instead of philosophy, as in : — Gregory

You keep telling me what I'm saying and even thinking. And you're wrong and wrong. And I did not ask when a human. You used "human" as an adjective, and I want to know what the noun is. A human what?

And philosophy does not come from nonsense. You apparently do not know the meanings of the words you're using, thus non-sense. No philosophy from that!

Way above i acknowledged that you have beliefs, noting that if you wanted to impose them, or expected others to act in accordance with your beliefs, you had a case to make. You have not even started to make it. I think you do not know how.

Because you are juxtaposing the right to life of one being with the "right" to kill it on the other. There is no symmetry there — Gregory

That is correct. Perhaps the mother of an unborn child does indeed have a unique right to kill that child, even supposing that what is inside her is a person. Roman law recognized such an authority of a father over his children (and theirs), and separately -- I had forgotten these were different -- the power of a husband over his wife (the manus). It is not inconceivable that we could recognize the mother of an unborn child to have such a right. Since the other person (again, granting that something inside her counts as another person) is actually inside her and entirely dependent on her, it would seem she has a stronger case for having such a right than either of the privileges recognized in Roman law.

You're proving one of my points. Once you don't respect all life other's rights will be violated. Why would rights be different because of dependency? Do you have an argument for this? No rights of the mother are violated by the anti-abortion stance. I am saying she doesn't have an addition right over someone else, dependent in body or in need to be raised as with post-born children

A couple months in, a fetus is a lump of cells about the size of a cherry, something like that, I think.

Because it grows into a formed person. The formation has started at conception. — Gregory

Sure, yet egg + sperm isn't a person.

Are you for saying that it's not a person before birth but is after? That's arbitrary. — Gregory

It's not a person a couple months in. That's not an arbitrary assessment. I guess various legislations set various timeframes, like 3 months or a bit more, after which abortion requires extraordinary conditions.

How's this? Males that don't express they want children get a reversible vasectomy or something to that effect?
Yes yes, there'd be more to work out about this, but before we even start putting it all on the females I want both parents sharing responsibility here, so it's just the humble beginning of taking such a path. Males don't get to paw it all off to females and decide for them.

Perhaps the mother of an unborn child does indeed have a unique right to kill that child, even supposing that what is inside her is a person. — Srap Tasmaner

What rational person would say this with a straight face?

It's not a person a couple months in. That's not an arbitrary assessment. — jorndoe

Yes it is. Why not rights just after birth then? We have to presume all human life has rights

Do you believe in a soul Gregory?

Yes it is. — Gregory

Nah, it ain't.

A lump of cells the size of a cherry ain't a person. My neighbor's kid is.
Deciding what a person is (under the law, such a law), may be (somewhat) arbitrary, but not wholly arbitrary.

Do you believe in a soul Gregory? — DingoJones

Yes. Matter formed at conception is the soul. I don't subscribe to dualism. Humanity is the form but it is not separate from matter. The soul is all through the body and the body is all through the soul. We speak of them as two and must but I think they are really one.

On abortion, people are arguing, "first it must have a heart", "no a brain and a heart", "no kidneys too", "no it must be born". All these arguments are random. The form is there at conception and blossoms into different shapes of that form throughout life

We are all lumps of cells

Why would rights be different because of dependency? Do you have an argument for this? No rights of the mother are violated by the anti-abortion stance. I am saying she doesn't have an addition right over someone else, dependent in body or in need to be raised as with post-born children — Gregory

Rights might be different because the situation is unique. You do not have a general right to take another's life, or even a lesser right to harm them, attempt to harm them, or even menace them. Unless they are threatening to harm you or take your life, or you even believe they are; then, and only then, and only while you are in fear for your life or your person, we grant you a right of self-defense. Things you are otherwise forbidden to do, even waving a gun at someone else, are suddenly your right. (But it is limited; you cannot escape, go home and get your gun, and then go back and get the bastard.)

So I think it is not inconceivable that we would recognize that a pregnant woman is in a unique situation and grant her a unique right. If you do not recognize that right, of course you don't see it being infringed upon. As to whether any other right of the mother is infringed upon, it seems clear that you have taken her liberty, that you have asserted the authority to have some control over her actions for the furtherance of the state's interest in the life of her child. I'm not here to have that argument.

I am only asking why the mother does or does not have such a matria potestas over her unborn children, and whether that right, if it exists, might be limited. I don't have an argument either way. The idea only just occurred to me a little while ago. Do you have an argument for why we should not recognize such a right? An argument, mind you, not just astonishment at the idea.

We are all lumps of cells — Gregory

A lump of cells the size of a cherry ain't a person. My neighbor's kid is. — jorndoe

Well, if you can't differentiate ↑ then so be it. Others can.

We should never recognize the right of one person to take the innocent life of another. If your philosophy says otherwise there is something wrong with your philosophy