"Right Wing"

[MisterChester]

There is a lot of gray area here. "Birth" surely can't be the line, as the baby could live if extracted from the mother quite a bit earlier. The word "right" is misleading in some respects, as people think of rights as inviolable. That's just not so. Your right to liberty can be circumscribed if you break society's rules, and so forth. A woman's right to control over her body also comes with limits. As far as I know, assisted suicide is still illegal, and you don't have the right to ingest cocaine.

At what point is the fetus' right to exist greater than the mother's right to be free of it? If science could transplant a second trimester fetus to an alternate uterus, artificial or not, without harm to the mother, would that constitute an acceptable abortion? Or is the mother's right to an abortion because it is her body also the right for the issue of her body to not exist?

I don't think it's illegal to ingest cocaine, it's majorly illegal to possess it, but I'm not a lawyer. I understand there are limits to basically every right, can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater for an example. Assisted suicide I believe should be legal if all parties consent to it.
I haven't made it clear that abortion as I see it should be an option of last resort. if they can figure out how to do what you described then it no longer becomes the property of the mother once it leaves the body.

 

[MisterChester]

Not even the Supreme Court, in 1973, saw it that way.

Sure, but we here are not in the business of agreeing with the SCOTUS on everything. The Dred Scott decision was extremely misguided, but it's what they ruled regardless.

 

[HoughMade]

The line is birth. Once you're born, you get rights and privileges as a citizen. If unborn, you are property of the mother the same way an organ belongs to her.

Why?

I'm not sure, ask the people that made the citizenship at birth rule.

Is it legal to murder non citizens?

 

[chipbennett]

The line is birth. Once you're born, you get rights and privileges as a citizen. If unborn, you are property of the mother the same way an organ belongs to her.

Such a view, while (arguably) the current legal stance, flies in the face of even basic understanding of biology, physiology, and genetics.

And at no point is an unborn child in any way analogous - moral, physical, legal, or otherwise - to an organ.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't think it's illegal to ingest cocaine, it's majorly illegal to possess it, but I'm not a lawyer. I understand there are limits to basically every right, can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater for an example. Assisted suicide I believe should be legal if all parties consent to it.
I haven't made it clear that abortion as I see it should be an option of last resort. if they can figure out how to do what you described then it no longer becomes the property of the mother once it leaves the body.

Approximately 98% of all abortions are purely elective. Some number under 2% of abortions are for rape or incest. A fraction of a percent of abortions are for medical necessity (life of the mother).

I believe that abortion should only be legal when done due to bona fide risk to life of the mother - because it is at that point that no one has the right to tell the mother that she must risk her own life for the life of another.

To round this back to the question of sanctity of life/right-wing vs left-wing:

1. All elective abortion should be illegal
2. Abortion due to bona fide risk to the life of the mother should be legal
3. I'm willing to compromise the legality of abortion in the case of rape and incest, in exchange for #1 (though I believe it should be illegal)
4. I'm willing to compromise the elimination of the death penalty, in exchange for #1 (though I believe that capital punishment is legally and morally justifiable)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, let's say any fetus is consider a "person," should a mother be charged for providing alcohol to minor if she drinks alcohol, at any time during her pregnancy? Hell, why no even charge people with child molestation, if they have sex while knowingly pregnant. If you want to be ideologically consistent, then shouldn't these be crimes also?

 

[chipbennett]

Ok, let's say any fetus is consider a "person," should a mother be charged for providing alcohol to minor if she drinks alcohol, at any time during her pregnancy? Hell, why no even charge people with child molestation, if they have sex while knowingly pregnant. If you want to be ideologically consistent, then shouldn't these be crimes also?

Regarding alcohol and drugs: if you can prove harm, and prove that the harm was caused by pre-natal alcohol/drug use? Then yes.

But "serving alcohol to a minor" and molestation? Reductio ad absurdum. The unborn child does not consume alcohol, nor does the unborn child witness or participate in sex.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Regarding alcohol and drugs: if you can prove harm, and prove that the harm was caused by pre-natal alcohol/drug use? Then yes.

But "serving alcohol to a minor" and molestation? Reductio ad absurdum. The unborn child does not consume alcohol, nor does the unborn child witness or participate in sex.

The unborn does not consume the alcohol the mother consumes??? Who says the little human participates in sex. Most sexually abused childen, I doubt, are willingly participating. And what do you mean by witnessing? Would you be ok if a stranger was putting his sexual organs anywhere near your child, rather they witnessed it or not?

 

[chipbennett]

The unborn does not consume the alcohol the mother consumes??? Who says the little human participates in sex. Most sexually abused childen, I doubt, are willingly participating. And what do you mean by witnessing? Would you be ok if a stranger was putting his sexual organs anywhere near your child, rather they witnessed it or not?

No, the unborn child does not consume alcohol. There is a blood exchange across the blood barrier, and the child's blood is infused with whatever is in the mother's blood.

Consume:

con·sume
kənˈso͞om/
verb
[COLOR=#878787 !important]

• eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink).
  
  
  

[/COLOR]

And molestation requires participation of some form or another, whether willing or otherwise. Actually, molestation implies either a lack of willingness, a legal inability to consent, or both. So all molestation is a matter of unwilling participation.

Perhaps a lesson in female anatomy is in order regarding the matter of the unborn child being aware of the presence of a penis during sex?

Have we had enough of the reductio ad absurdum, or must we go on with more?

 

[jamil]

See? It's a grey area and why there's so much disagreement. We can't agree on when a person becomes a person.

And, I'm fascinated why every debate about "right wing" must include a discussion about abortion.

So if someone doesn't think a different group of people (let's say black people, for example) are real human beings, you would not question their morals if they killed one? They could still claim to value "life"?

There is no grey area about whether black people are human beings, except the same grey area that exists for white people about at which point in development do they become human beings. Steve, you should know better than to argue that.

No, you'd question their sanity.

Yep. Pretty much that.

The line is birth. Once you're born, you get rights and privileges as a citizen. If unborn, you are property of the mother the same way an organ belongs to her.

Wow. I'm going to borrow a common line from Steve when someone posts one of those "wow" statements:

Source?

Actually I strongly suspect that you say this only because it's the only consistent moral position a person who supports all abortions can have.

Why?

Yep. Pretty much that.

There is a lot of gray area here. "Birth" surely can't be the line, as the baby could live if extracted from the mother quite a bit earlier. The word "right" is misleading in some respects, as people think of rights as inviolable. That's just not so. Your right to liberty can be circumscribed if you break society's rules, and so forth. A woman's right to control over her body also comes with limits. As far as I know, assisted suicide is still illegal, and you don't have the right to ingest cocaine.

At what point is the fetus' right to exist greater than the mother's right to be free of it? If science could transplant a second trimester fetus to an alternate uterus, artificial or not, without harm to the mother, would that constitute an acceptable abortion? Or is the mother's right to an abortion because it is her body also the right for the issue of her body to not exist?

Yep. Pretty much that.

 

[JS1911]

And with that statement, pro-abortionists wonder why people such as myself do a

Allow me to clarify my position if I may. I support the death penalty for murderers. The ONLY way I would ever support it's abolition is if murderers got shipped to Leavenworth to spend the rest of their lives doing back-breaking labor. Of course, that will never happen. Also, I'm not much of a pro-abortionist, I simply recognize it as a necessary evil. For someone like me who considers generational theft to be immoral, I shudder to think what our current tax burdens would look like without abortions. Paying for all of those kids from cradle to grave would be absolutely nightmarish.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Nope, a mother is no longer required when a fetus is viable. A full term child could be taken care of by a trained chimp. Unlike a non-viable fetus which is completely dependent on one person, the mother.
Just some I'm clear, you guys are calling any abortion, "murder" in the legal sense? (IE should be a criminal act)

I'll say that the vast majority of abortions are murder: e.g. done for the convenience of the mother, rather than by medical necessity. Would "manslaughter" be more appropriate in your opinion?

 

[MisterChester]

Such a view, while (arguably) the current legal stance, flies in the face of even basic understanding of biology, physiology, and genetics.

And at no point is an unborn child in any way analogous - moral, physical, legal, or otherwise - to an organ.

It's not technically an organ, I'll give you that much.

 

[MisterChester]

Approximately 98% of all abortions are purely elective. Some number under 2% of abortions are for rape or incest. A fraction of a percent of abortions are for medical necessity (life of the mother).

I believe that abortion should only be legal when done due to bona fide risk to life of the mother - because it is at that point that no one has the right to tell the mother that she must risk her own life for the life of another.

To round this back to the question of sanctity of life/right-wing vs left-wing:

1. All elective abortion should be illegal
2. Abortion due to bona fide risk to the life of the mother should be legal
3. I'm willing to compromise the legality of abortion in the case of rape and incest, in exchange for #1 (though I believe it should be illegal)
4. I'm willing to compromise the elimination of the death penalty, in exchange for #1 (though I believe that capital punishment is legally and morally justifiable)

I just don't see the point in this. So what if it's elective or a medical necessity? Get the government's hands off our bodies.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I just don't see the point in this. So what if it's elective or a medical necessity? Get the government's hands off our bodies.

Yet, keep people's hands out of killing infant bodies. Where's the balance?

 

[jamil]

I just don't see the point in this. So what if it's elective or a medical necessity? Get the government's hands off our bodies.

Government makes killing people illegal. But you don't think it's overstepping its authority to do that. People who oppose abortion believe that it's killing a human being that has as much right to live as you do. They can't make the moral leap that you do by saying that until the baby leaves the womb it is the mother's property.

 

[chipbennett]

I just don't see the point in this. So what if it's elective or a medical necessity? Get the government's hands off our bodies.

Abortion has zip to do with the body of the mother, and everything to do with murder of the completely separate body of the unborn child. So, yes: keep the government's hands off of ALL bodies, including the body of the innocent unborn.

 

[chipbennett]

Government makes killing people illegal. But you don't think it's overstepping its authority to do that. People who oppose abortion believe that it's killing a human being that has as much right to live as you do. They can't make the moral leap that you do by saying that until the baby leaves the womb it is the mother's property.

In fact, that moral leap has zero basis in anything. People who support abortion are required to ignore basic science in order to avoid the fact that abortion is homicide.

 

[2A_Tom]

Heck with wings - I'd rather have thighs. Both right and left. And whatever's in between.

Do you kiss your avatar with that mouth?

Phillipians 4:8-10

 

[MisterChester]

In fact, that moral leap has zero basis in anything. People who support abortion are required to ignore basic science in order to avoid the fact that abortion is homicide.

Ignore basic science? What does that even mean? Explain.