Message from @Cody
Discord ID: 507948495085502475
It's like you cant just assume the baby's take on the situation when it cant consent
The baby already exists
well that is the argument isn't it. what is human life that has full rights. and we know your definition
which puts a vegetative person on the same level, which is fine. at least its consistent
although, rape is still a bit of an issue
Yes I'm still like :/
guess lack of consent on the mothers part nulls the contract
On it
Imagine you're going hang gliding.
therefore she can decide
You're cut loose and allowed to fly on your own.
So you're flying around
Like I get the argument that its life, but at the same time idk
Frequently
No, BTW.
Now one day, you've got a harness problem. Either you weren't prepared, or it was shit luck.
@Cody you could argue, if you go with your contract premise, that the mother did not make the choice of sex willingly, making the contract forced, making it null. therefore she is no responsible for the childs life.
but that still ends up being a position of her making the choice to kill
Well that much is a given
You still made conscious decisions that put you in that position
There were risks involved that were ignored
My only concern is, is abortion still wrong :/
like i said, lets just dump money into science so we can just transplant developing babies.
Frequently.
whole problem avoided
I agree, but that's basically a contract
In a sense
Saying contract, is just an easier way to explain it
No, it's not
Atleast to me
A contract is a legal structure.
Yes, but unless your intentionally dodging my point than I dont see how you dont see it
I don't like referring to moral philosophical concepts in legislative terms
I'm not saying it's a legally binding contract
Because laws can be changed
I'm saying it similar to signing one
And laws can be wrong.
It very well may be but that's irrelevant.
You can address the matter in a more root way.
I mean I can see why you would think that, I'm just using a easier way for me to explain it