The mistake most people make on both sides of this debate is to assert that one party or another has all the rights, while the converse party has no rights.
Your decide for your own body. There is no middle ground to this reality. one has all the rights about oneself. Is that simple. Nobody can decide even one thing for you.
Never in the course of human interaction is that correct.
Up to last century slavery was de-facto legal. Never say never. Not an argument.
The mother has some rights, the child has some rights.
The unborn child has no rights other than the ones the mother dictates. Those "rights" you speak of come from the opinion of other people. Other people shouldn't have a say about your body.
The question is how do we mediate those rights in a civilized way?
Let others be with their own body. As simple as that.
With all other conflicts of rights, we appoint a judge to oversee the process, in clear cases, we simply have a clerk of the court sign off on it, in unclear cases both parties bring their arguments to court. In this case, since the child cannot speak for itself, the Judge must advocate for them.
Absolutely unecceptable. The judge does not have a parasite threatening his livelihood. Also you cannot call it an unborn fetus a child. That's your perception. It does not apply to everyone.
But we can never do that, because some people say the mother has all the rights, others say the child has all the rights. Stalemate.
Not really. I just demostrated to you how simple the issue is. The problem is only one. People believe that just because they have larger numbers and decide to establish ethics, religions, courts etc that allows them to dictate what others should do with their own bodies.
The case is crystal clear.
You just demonstrated the one side of my observation. Thanks.
BTW, you can't argue for "natural rights" while devaluing the rights of others to societal privileges. And I can too call a child a child, that's my right, or are you telling me what to do with my own fingers on my own keyboard?
No I demonstrated both. Your "other side" is irrelevant.
When one life depends on the other and the second acts like a parasite, the one providing life can decide for the other—especially when the second can kill at any moment kill the first.
I am telling you that your perception of the unborn fetus as a child rewards my argument. You can say whatever you want. You cannot by any means dictate to others what they should do a how they can perceive a clump of cells within a host.
Yep, this is the problem alright. People who don't understand mediate rights and want to polarize the issue as much as possible. Both sides are just as bad. Thanks for playing.
Its your body. There are no "both sides are bad". Don't try to play it intellectually superior by calling everyone wrong. It's idiotic and you don't even make an argument.
If I call somebody to decide upon your health you will see how cut and clear the issue is.