Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
It is equal in the only way that matters - it is just as much an individual as any later stage. That you continue to use imprecise terms to score cheap rhetorical points (failing most miserably in the process) is clear evidence that you are the one who is using emotional arguments.
It's the same concept. The unborn was classified "as if they were already born" when it came to matters of its interest, like inheritance. Were the "insensate fetus" not considered a person by English Common Law, then it would have no inheritance rights. But it was, thus your claim that Common Law didn't see them as a person is demonstrably false, yet again.
So what? Since when is truth a matter of popularity?
Actually, your side is. They claim that the woman has absolute dominion to override the absolute dominion the unborn should have.
That's what I said. The mother's absolute dominion overrides the absolute dominion of the fetus, which is morally wrong. No one should EVER have their absolute dominion overridden unless they forfeit it through egregious criminal activity.
But it shouldn't.
But not when it comes to absolute dominion. The trust dominion the mother has should negate her ability to override the absolute dominion of the unborn, just as it does for the born. No one who is in custody of another should be allowed to kill them unless saving another life is paramount.
Comment