Pants-of-dog wrote:The ones that respect a person’s right to bodily autonomy and personal integrity, as well as provide decent access to medical care, and support for parents.
So which specific countries would those be, and how do they regulate abortion?
No. I want to understand which countries "respect a person’s right to bodily autonomy and personal integrity, as well as provide decent access to medical care, and support for parents", given most countries provide less freedom for women to abort on-demand than the US currently does.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Your illogical assumption (that I need to believe in natural rights) is the problem.
Once you give up this assumption that you are incorrectly attributing to me, the logical contradictions that you are imagining will cease to exist.
So why would it be wrong for a referendum to determine what will our rights be if you do not believe in the existence of inherent rights?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Regardless of what I believe, it is a fact that you are arguing that the majority can arbitrarily take
away the rights from a minority.
This is why many courts make it illegal to make laws that are against whatever bill of rights that a country has.
So if voters decide to grant a new right that inevitably limits other rights, this would be immoral to you?
If voters decide there's a right to universal healthcare funded through social security taxes, would this be immoral to you? After all, the concept limits my right to choose, and also limits my right to use my money as I wish. That's logically true even if I now have the right to use this publicly funded healthcare.