Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you provided a link but did not quote from said link.
Provide the quoted text now.
As for your claim about the percentage of voters who wanted to make abortion illegal in 1880, that claim is dismissed as an argument from ignorance, since it is apparently impossible for you to know that with any certainty.
Finally, you have not supported your claim about abortion contradicting the Hippocratic oath at all.
This is my final request for support for this argument, or it will also be dismissed.
I already addressed all those claims. I even explained how the Hippocratic Oath can be respected in both situations by redefining the concept of "pregnancy", and by extension redefining the concept of "abortion", which were clearly not the same in the early 19th century as it was in the late 19th century. If you want to make some other claim on the matter, you back it up.
And it would be great if you could provide a quote from the Canadian Supreme Court ruling on abortion, just so we can see what it says about a fetus' personhood or if it matters with regards to abortion. I have no idea and don't have the time to read it - it's up to you to share it and see how different jurisdictions deal with this matter. At least in the US, fetuses are not legally persons and this is what allows us to have this debate according to Roe v Wade - if they were, states could perfectly ban on-demand abortion.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Finally, provide a moral argument for referendums about taking away the rights of others. Thanks.
Also, again, I thought you believed natural rights do not exist? Why would it be immoral to vote to decide our rights if you believe people do not have any natural rights?
This is a contradictory position: If you assume rights are not inherent, then of course rights can be both granted and taken away.
If a new right is granted or recognized, it will almost always mean at least restricting other rights (sometimes denying them altogether), which is clearly different from simply taking rights away. So to answer your question: If the cessation of a right is due to the granting or recognition of new one, then it would depend a lot on the specifics and also if there would be a fair compensation for those who are affected by the loss of that right if it entailed a material loss. If the cessation of a right is not due to the granting or recognition of a new right, and those who are losing this right are not being fairly compensated by their material loss, then I don't think it's moral to put this for a referendum or to do this at all.
In the case of a referendum on abortion, be it to ban it or to legalize it, I think it's clear the cessation of the rights involved under each scenario would entail the granting of a new right - given that in the former scenario, fetuses would be seen as persons -, and I also think it's clear there's no obvious material loss as long as, if abortion were banned by referendum, the new regulation would only apply to women who became pregnant before the vote by in dubio pro reo. So I don't see an obvious immorality in this case.