Philosophy In Utero

This is a common argument that I see, that if a right conflicts with another right, we have to tie break those rights essentially. But there is no tie breaking needed because human rights don't conflict with one another. You have a right to life, so long as it does not require violating someone else's rights. So for example, a person trying to rape someone else does not "forfeit" their right or conflict with the rights of their victim. They actually just don't have the right to life in the act of raping someone because it required them to violate someone else's rights in order to carry out the act of rape. Their RTL extends until they violate the rights of someone else. Their RTL does not extend into areas that violate someone else's rights. And this is different than saying "They have the RTL and that right is violated for the greater cause of ending a rape." This "Youth for Human Rights" website breaks down human rights in simple bul

Prolife argument: "The womb is designed precisely to keep the fetus alive. When there's a fetus inside the womb, the womb is serving its bodily function." Response: Sure. And the vagina is "designed" to be a sheath for a penis. You are violating it if the person to whom the vagina belongs does not wish for a penis to be inside it. Likewise with a uterus. The "Ordinary vs Extraordinary Care" argument is not only faulty, but repulsive. It perpetuates the notion that the female body was meant to be used by others. That parts of her were "designed" for someone else & that that somehow makes it that "someone else's" property.  Her body was meant for her utilization for when she sees fit. When she wishes for a penis to be in her vagina, she then utilizes her vagina's function by allowing someone inside it. When she wishes for a fetus to be in her womb, she then utilizes her womb's function by allowing for someone to gesta