Originally posted by whodeyYour arguments as to the source of rights is flawed. Rights flow from the nature of the human race and that is "irrevocable and unchangeable" (at least so far as we know).
A right is simply something that has been afforded you by some other power or the power that you yourself have. Therefore, to say that your rights are irrevocable would be to assume that the power in question is irrevocable and unchangable.
Now if you invited me into you house would you have the right to kill me?
A more proper analogy would be if you left your door unlocked and someone went into your house. Are you morally obligated to let them stay there because you were careless about locking the door?
Originally posted by bbarrWhy? The bible is a book full of analogy and allegory yet they insist on taking it literal....
I find it fascinating that it is generally the religious folk who are incapable of understanding arguments by analogy.
Is it really suprising then that they do the same in their day to day lives?
Originally posted by bbarr🙂
I do think that fetuses are human beings, but I do not think that they have any rights at all until late in their gestation. But, even if I did think they had all the rights of persons, I still think abortion would be permissible. Here is a famous thought experiment by Judith Thompson, from her article A Defense of Abortion:
You wake up in the morn ...[text shortened]... both cases an innocent dies, but in neither case is this a violation of their rights.
Originally posted by bbarr🙂
I do think that fetuses are human beings, but I do not think that they have any rights at all until late in their gestation. But, even if I did think they had all the rights of persons, I still think abortion would be permissible. Here is a famous thought experiment by Judith Thompson, from her article A Defense of Abortion:
You wake up in the morn ...[text shortened]... both cases an innocent dies, but in neither case is this a violation of their rights.
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for asking the question...I don't like what I said...Do I believe a woman should get the death penalty for killing her unborn baby? I am not sure. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. As to the punishment by law for a woman who has an abortion, I will defer to the "laws on the books" in the states who were against abortion before Roe.
Women who have abortions should get the death penalty?
1 edit
Originally posted by rhemalogosWhy? You consider it murder, why should the law treat the "murder" of a fetus more lightly than the murder of a one month old baby? Child murder is considered a particularly heinous crime.
Thanks for asking the question...I don't like what I said...Do I believe a woman should get the death penalty for killing her unborn baby? I am not sure. I believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. As to the punishment by law for a woman who has an abortion, I will defer to the "laws on the books" in the states who were against abortion before Roe.
The laws pre-Roe v. Wade generally considered abortion a lower level felony with a maximum sentence of five years, but those laws, unlike your beliefs, were not based on the idea that a fetus was a full fledged human being.
Originally posted by no1marauderFair enough question. I already believe abortion should be a crime, unless done to save a mother's life. I may decide in some cases abortion is a capital crime. Mens rea is a big concern here. I want more information before I decide. When I decide, if I am still on this thread, which may not happen, I will let you know.
Why? You consider it murder, why should the law treat the "murder" of a fetus more lightly than the murder of a one month old baby? Child murder is considered a particularly heinous crime.
The laws pre-Roe v. Wade generally considered abortion a lower level felony with a maximum sentence of five years, but those laws, unlike your beliefs, were not based on the idea that a fetus was a full fledged human being.
If I end up disagreeing with legislatures, it won't be the first time and I will have my reasons.
"Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell someone what they don't want to hear."
Originally posted by rhemalogosI have to ask...
Fair enough question. I already believe abortion should be a crime, unless done to save a mother's life. I may decide in some cases abortion is a capital crime. Mens rea is a big concern here. I want more information before I decide. When I decide, if I am still on this thread, which may not happen, I will let you know.
If I end up disagreeing with leg ...[text shortened]... "Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell someone what they don't want to hear."
If, according to you, abortion is murder - does that means that miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter (by neglect, recklessness, ect.) ?
Originally posted by rhemalogos"Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell someone what they don't want to hear."
Fair enough question. I already believe abortion should be a crime, unless done to save a mother's life. I may decide in some cases abortion is a capital crime. Mens rea is a big concern here. I want more information before I decide. When I decide, if I am still on this thread, which may not happen, I will let you know.
If I end up disagreeing with leg ...[text shortened]... "Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell someone what they don't want to hear."
This is an extremely ironic quote from someone proposing that women who exercise self-autonomy over their bodies might be eligible for execution, don't you think?
Mens rea is simple in this case; a woman who would have an abortion would be deliberately "killing" her "baby". That would seem to warrant the severest penalty the law allows.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderJust out of curiosity, even though you claim women should have the right to have an abortion, I wonder if you think it is a moral choice to do so? This question stands assuming the unborn is as insignificant in compariosn to those who have been born as you say they are. Is there then nothing morally wrong with abortion in any circmstance in your opinion?
"Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell someone what they don't want to hear."
This is an extremely ironic quote from someone proposing that women who exercise self-autonomy over their bodies might be eligible for execution, don't you think?
Mens rea is simple in this case; a woman who would have an abortion would b ...[text shortened]... ly "killing" her "baby". That would seem to warrant the severest penalty the law allows.
I think your argument stems from the perspective that women should have the right to do whatever they wish to do so long as they do not "harm" other people. Am I correct? If that is the case, then I suppose you would be in favor of legalized prostitution as well?
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr"The victim of rape is justifiably angry, but the proper object of that anger is not the child in her womb.
Aborting the fetus does not solve the problem of rape, but it does the solve the problem of being pregnant as a result of rape. To force her to carry such a fetus to term is to treat her as chattel. It is simply religiously based misogyny.
To abort because of rape is to inflict a death dealing injury on another in hoping doing so will relieve th emotional distress of the victim. One victim is changed to two. We should not punish the innocent with the guilty. Inspite of this we face a deep challenge with the rape victim." The aforegoing in "" is a quote which said what I wanted to say so well, I used it.