Originally posted by uzlessThat doesn't seem consistent with this:
Who's rights were taken away by freeing the slaves?
The right, as quoted in the bible, to own slaves? Is that what you are referring to?
There is an obvious difference in that the right has to be a legitmate right in the first place.
"A woman will always and should always have control over her own body...unless some country elects a religous hardliner that removes this basic right from women. I don't see this happening in any modern civiilization."
Do you or do you not think it possible to elect rights away?
Originally posted by PinkFloydThis is still way too invasive. A doctor has the authority to demand an investigation into whether a woman's miscarriage involved foul play? That's horrible.
No. The doctors would be given the authority to determine if such measures were needed. The doctor would know his patient well enough to determine intent. In the event of someone without a personal physician who just appears at the ER, again, the doctor on duty makes the call.
Originally posted by mrjonesvich321false analogy. The siamese twin and the person stabbed are capable of making claims on their own rights while a fetus is not. This definately makes a difference under the standard reading of rights theory -- it's a big part of the reason why animals and trees don't have rights. You could reject rights theory if you want, but either way, your analogy is flawed.
[b]Would you let one siamese twin order a doctor to kill the other one? The woman can do whatever whe wants with her own body, but not if it results in the death of another body. It's like giving someone the right to stab someone else because they're using their own arm to stab the person.
...[text shortened]...