The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[AndreusMaximus]

To me a person that has an absolute belief in a right to life would not take another life, period. That person would literally allow someone else to kill them before they would kill that other person. Anything less is not absolute. The rest of us believe in a right to life, but we all have our exceptions.

I don't really see how that adds up. Believing in a right to life means protecting innocent life. To me, a person who refuses to kill under any circumstances doesn't really believe in an absolute right to life, they just believe in an absolute prohibition on violence, even when inaction leads to more lives being lost.

And the end of the day, it's just an issue of terminology, though. I didn't write the dictionary, so I don't really know which way of describing it is accurate, and which isn't. I'm just wording it the way that makes sense to me.

 

[Tombs]

What is your stance on capital punishment?

I'm not really a fan of it, a few cases might call for it.

The difference lies in the checks and balances applied by a jury and a judge.

Now if an abortion could only be conducted after review by a judge and jury, I don't think any of us would be having this conversation.
Which legally speaking that's what would be the correct remediation. Practically, it would have issues though.

 

[Tombs]

This is a difficult discussion to have without getting into the weeds about what rights really are.

A their root, rights are social permissions built into the framework of a shared culture.

Rights are a purely social construct, a concept only applicable within a functioning social framework. Rights are necessarily a work of consensus. A single person living alone in a wilderness has no need for rights…we cannot infringe our own rights, and who else is there infringe upon them?

No right is absolute, and no right is unabridged.

As a practical basis, rights must be considered in a near religious context of being truly absolute and unquestionable.
Otherwise they have no inherent value and are subject to the whims of idiots.

There is a process for removing one's rights, and it involves a judge and a jury. That process is another right in and of its self. Other than that, you're deep into sketchy territory to revoke agency or the rights of another individual.

There's a reason for things being the way they are. It's to save people from their own hubris, that is blinding them from seeing the consequences of their actions. And yes we can absolutely infringe on our own rights. People leveraging the right to freedom of speech to call for its censure are doing just that.

 

[loudgroove]

I don't really see how that adds up. Believing in a right to life means protecting innocent life. To me, a person who refuses to kill under any circumstances doesn't really believe in an absolute right to life, they just believe in an absolute prohibition on violence, even when inaction leads to more lives being lost.

And the end of the day, it's just an issue of terminology, though. I didn't write the dictionary, so I don't really know which way of describing it is accurate, and which isn't. I'm just wording it the way that makes sense to me.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. Life is absolute till a person does something dire to forfeit that right. Is that what you are trying to say?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I think I understand what you are trying to say. Life is absolute till a person does something dire to forfeit that right. Is that what you are trying to say?

No, I'm trying to say that the right to life cannot be forfeited. Even a person who commits murder doesn't forfeit their right to life.

The only case where I think it is moral to kill a person, is when that is literally the only way to stop them from their current, ongoing action of taking more innocent lives, because in that situation your the action of killing them is being done with the intent and effect of saving innocent people, who also have an absolute right to life, therefore you are not violating the principle.

The reason this is different than saying that a person who commits murder forfeits their right to life, is because if that were the case, than it would be moral to kill someone at any point after they had committed murder. But I don't believe in revenge killing, or in capital punishment used punitively. Since even a murderer has a right to life, the second someone is no longer in the process of taking innocent lives at this exact moment, killing them is again immoral, in my book.

 

[loudgroove]

No, I'm trying to say that the right to life cannot be forfeited. Even a person who commits murder doesn't forfeit their right to life.

The only case where I think it is moral to kill a person, is when that is literally the only way to stop them from their current, ongoing action of taking more innocent lives, because in that situation your the action of killing them is being done with the intent and effect of saving innocent people, who also have an absolute right to life, therefore you are not violating the principle.

The reason this is different than saying that a person who commits murder forfeits their right to life, is because if that were the case, than it would be moral to kill someone at any point after they had committed murder. But I don't believe in revenge killing, or in capital punishment used punitively. Since even a murderer has a right to life, the second someone is no longer in the process of taking innocent lives at this exact moment, killing them is again immoral, in my book.

I agree, But in the moment in self-defense. Thats what I would call a forfeit the right to life. Since death is the only way to stop them in the moment. I also don't believe in capital punishment. But only due to the fact that no one has the right to judge that a person has to die. Obviously, the murder made that judgment. but as the saying goes. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[HoosierLife]

You specifically gave an example of where you approve of killing someone. How then can you claim think the right to life is absolute? It's pretty clear logic. Absolute means no exceptions.

This is what happens when folks reject God’s Word on topics like this.

They start to believe in anything and think being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment are contradictory.

It’s very simple. Man is created in God’s Image, so they are of inestimable worth. To kill someone made in God’s Image is deserving of the death penalty.

Human Government was created to administer this punishment.

Human Government was also created to protect those under their jurisdiction.

Wield the sword and protect the weak.

Easy peezy.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

 

[loudgroove]

This is what happens when folks reject God’s Word on topics like this.

They start to believe in anything and think being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment are contradictory.

It’s very simple. Man is created in God’s Image, so they are of inestimable worth. To kill someone made in God’s Image is deserving of the death penalty.

Human Government was created to administer this punishment.

Human Government was also created to protect those under their jurisdiction.

Wield the sword and protect the weak.

Easy peezy.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Doesn't the bible also say that "judgment is mine". As in only God is the only judge.

 

[KLB]

This is what happens when folks reject God’s Word on topics like this.

They start to believe in anything and think being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment are contradictory.

It’s very simple. Man is created in God’s Image, so they are of inestimable worth. To kill someone made in God’s Image is deserving of the death penalty.

Human Government was created to administer this punishment.

Human Government was also created to protect those under their jurisdiction.

Wield the sword and protect the weak.

Easy peezy.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Your interpretation of that book. Others have a very different interpretation.

Plus, no one equated the two, that is all you. We were discussing his belief in an absolute right to life.

 

[KLB]

I don't really see how that adds up. Believing in a right to life means protecting innocent life. To me, a person who refuses to kill under any circumstances doesn't really believe in an absolute right to life, they just believe in an absolute prohibition on violence, even when inaction leads to more lives being lost.

And the end of the day, it's just an issue of terminology, though. I didn't write the dictionary, so I don't really know which way of describing it is accurate, and which isn't. I'm just wording it the way that makes sense to me.

You are the only one I have ever heard describe a right to life in that way. I wouldn't say there is a right or wrong way. I was just wondering what your reasoning was based upon what you said.

 

[KLB]

I'm not really a fan of it, a few cases might call for it.

The difference lies in the checks and balances applied by a jury and a judge.

Now if an abortion could only be conducted after review by a judge and jury, I don't think any of us would be having this conversation.
Which legally speaking that's what would be the correct remediation. Practically, it would have issues though.

Interesting point and idea.

 

[KLB]

I agree, But in the moment in self-defense. Thats what I would call a forfeit the right to life. Since death is the only way to stop them in the moment. I also don't believe in capital punishment. But only due to the fact that no one has the right to judge that a person has to die. Obviously, the murder made that judgment. but as the saying goes. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I have serious issues with capital punishment, EXCEPT in cases where there is truly no doubt and the crimes were truly heinous. People like Dahmer and Gacy come to mind. I see no reason why they should have been allowed to live in prison.

 

[BugI02]

To me a person that has an absolute belief in a right to life would not take another life, period. That person would literally allow someone else to kill them before they would kill that other person. Anything less is not absolute. The rest of us believe in a right to life, but we all have our exceptions.

This is specious. MY right to life is absolute and for me takes precedence when in conflict with that of another. In an existential situation, there can be only one

 

[loudgroove]

I have serious issues with capital punishment, EXCEPT in cases where there is truly no doubt and the crimes were truly heinous. People like Dahmer and Gacy come to mind. I see no reason why they should have been allowed to live in prison.

I don't like the idea that tax payers pay for their upkeep. We really need some kind of exile procedure.

 

[BugI02]

Doesn't the bible also say that "judgment is mine". As in only God is the only judge.

I believe you are thinking of:

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." - Romans 12:19 KJV

 

[LeftyGunner]

Inalienable rights are just that, inalienable…

When it comes to human rights, though, inalienability is a conceptual ideal…not a factual descriptor.

Gravity is demonstrably inalienable…it simply cannot be ignored or denied.

It stretches credulity to describe something that gets ignored and denied as often as human rights as inalienable.

 

[HoosierLife]

Doesn't the bible also say that "judgment is mine". As in only God is the only judge.

Sure. If you want to take bits and pieces out of context to apply silliness to your life.

It also says to “judge righteous judgment.”

 

[Ingomike]

When it comes to human rights, though, inalienability is a conceptual ideal…not a factual descriptor.

Gravity is demonstrably inalienable…it simply cannot be ignored or denied.

It stretches credulity to describe something that gets ignored and denied as often as human rights as inalienable.

The ignoring and denial of inalienable rights does not mean they cease to exist as inalienable rights, just that the inalienable rights are being violated…

 

[HoosierLife]

I believe you are thinking of:

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." - Romans 12:19 KJV

Which precedes the verses I quoted above from Romans 13. See what happens when you put things in context?

Don’t avenge yourself on other. Don’t worry, God will right every wrong eventually. Oh and God also set up Human Government to reward those that do good and recompense those that do evil.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Well.

I don't really have much left to say.

In general, a discussion about moral principles has to have some point of agreement to start from. It looks like we've finally dug down to the very core of what the two of us believe regarding human life and human rights, and we just have a fundamental difference in the premises we start with.

I guess from your standpoint, starting with the premise that no human being has any rights to begin with, and a human's rights are just social constructs conferred by the consensus of their fellow human beings, then I can't really argue against abortion from that premise.

There is one logical inconsistency in your post, though:


I'm going to guess, though, that this isn't so much an underlying inconsistency in your position, but just a mistaken bit of wording.

For instance, you obviously don't believe that an unborn child has absolute authority over their own body.

It seems to me like the whole argument over the extent of a woman's bodily autonomy is secondary: the real point of disagreement between us is that you don't believe in absolute rights, while I do. You believe that a person's right to life, liberty, or anything else, may be contingent on who they rely on for survival, how much ability they have to communicate or make their own decisions, etc. So from that standpoint, of course you could say that a fetus has no rights, because of its dependence on the mother and its location within her body.

The scary part to me is that you actually do follow through with logical consistency based on your starting premise.

Honestly, the more I think about this conversation, the more it scares me. I'm glad we've been able to discuss this civilly, I think, for the most part (or at least I've tried to be, my apologies for my failures.) I've had lots of discussion with people where we disagreed vehemently, but at the end of the day I always felt like we were talking past each other in some way, and probably had something fundamental in common that we just couldn't get to. This is one of the rare occasions where I don't feel that way. I don't like to call any human being my enemy, but it sounds like you and I have such fundamentally opposed beliefs on the most basic questions of human morals, that we are probably going to spend our entire lives struggling for completely opposite goals when it comes to our laws and our society, and the framework they should be built upon.

I'd hate to end our discussion on such a sour note, but I really don't know what else there is to add?

(Edit: well, one thing I would normally add when I don't see further discussion as getting anywhere, is that I'll pray for you. I've kind of stopped saying that, though, because I've found it sounds like a passive-aggressive way of saying "Oh boy, you're really a lost cause, only God can help you now." Which I don't mean to say. But honestly, I bear you no ill-will, and I will say a prayer for you in good faith. Sadly, it just doesn't sound like our fundamental differences are reconcilable.)

I hope you don’t view me as your enemy simply because we view the world so differently. Enemies want to destroy each other. I want to be free to live a life consistent with my values, and I imagine you want much the same.