Abortion Violates The Unalienable Right To Life?

The OP was about the legal standing of the woman and the fetus, not ethics.

To deflect to ethics and then use the Godwin slur strawman merely exposes the complete and utter lack of any legitimate basis for the opposition to abortion.

In summary there is no legal, scientific or ethical basis for forcing a woman to undergo an unwanted pregnancy.

 

Again, while people are debating the issue of abortion and our Founding Fathers, it must be understood that abortion was LEGAL under the Anglo Saxon common law.

 

Abortion has been legal throughout most of documented history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion_law_debate

 

Actually if you had bothered to read the OP you would have seen that nowhere do I actually state there are no natural rights, I say it is unlikely there are - "Hence, one must conclude that it is likely there is nothing ‘natural’ about ‘Natural Rights’ but there may be", what the female has is man made rights that allow her to consent or not to injuries to her person inflicted by another person, so again you are attempting to misrepresent what I said by alluring to a natural right to terminate a pregnancy, no where have I even mentioned a natural right to do that.

All the rights we have are man made, nothing more nothing less .. they are unlikely to be "god" given or natural.

BTW the topic is not ethics, and I would also suggest you do some actual research on reproductive rights under the Nazi rule, you will find the pro-life stance has more in common with them than the pro-choice stance.

Nazi Germany determined that the woman's reproductive status fell under the jurisdiction of the state ie the state had the power to force a female to either abort or remain pregnant, the second one of these is exactly what pro-lifers are attempting to do, where as pro-choices do not believe any person has the right to force a woman to have an abortion OR to remain pregnant.

Which is closer to the Nazi Ideology?

 

True. While many on this forum pretend that our Founding Fathers intended to end abortion, they did not. There simply is no historical evidence to support that claim. Mind you, I am a pro lifer. But I have to be honest about this history which is something the right wingers are not willing to be.

 

People are still crying about aborted foetuses? In a free society, women have control over their bodies, hence over their fertility. Accept it and move on, people. Late-term abortions are already highly regulated, and arguably rightly so.

 

Two points:

1) Inalienable rights as per the "DOI" do not necessarily rely on a "Supreme Being". "The Creator" , and this word was chosen to be ambiguous, could be any kind of creative force.

Just as the term "men" - "all men are created equal" can be said to include women. "Creator" can include any creative force.

Your point on law is a good one. The point of the DOI was to say that the "Gov't" had no authority to mess with individual rights and freedoms. This was put beyond its legitimate authority as per the "Social Contract"

"We the People" on the other hand do have that authority. In other words, if the Govt wants to make law that abridges individual rights and freedoms it must appeal to change the social contract. Such a change requires not (50+1) but an overwhelming majority. This is to prevent what was referred to as "Tyranny of the Majority" - to stop some group from getting power and messing with individual rights and freedoms.

2) Understanding this principle we can see that messing with a woman's right to choose is clearly beyond the legitimate purview of Government.

It is absurd to claim that the Gov't could get "overwhelming approval" which is what is supposed to be required for the authority to make a law taking away such a right.

As we can see, the bar the Gov't must pass is a high one.

In the case of abortion we have "competing rights" .... the rights of the single human cell at conception vs the rights of a women.

The rights of the women are well established and highly valued (for any that respect or claim to respect the DOI)

In order to abridge these rights the Gov't must show - at minimum- that the value of the rights of the zygote outweigh the rights of the woman.

The first problem is that we can not show that a zygote is entitled to rights at all as it is does not fit within the definition of "all men". In terms of law "We the People" = citizens that were able to vote so forget that.

In terms of science a zygote is not a "Homo Sapiens" lacking the requisite characteristics required for membership in that club.

How then can the Gov't "value" the rights of the zygote which it is required to do (and get agreement from an overwhelming majority) that these outweigh the rights of a woman?

It is a really difficult thing to do - and it is supposed to be difficult for the Gov't to mess with individual right and freedoms.

For the sake of argument, lets grant (and I don't grant this but hypothetically) that we can get to the position of "Experts Disagree". I will include all arguments from science, bioethics and philosophy in the term "Experts"

In general I have found that the majority of "experts" do not favor rights to the zygote but it matters not.

"Experts Disagree" is the best place that Gov't can get to which is the equivalent of saying " We don't know".

It is a rejection of pretty much every "civilized - non theocracy based" legal system on the planet to claim that "We don't know or I don't know" outweighs the rights of a woman.

Clearly the value/weight on the scales of justice of "I Don't Know" fails to outweigh the rights of the woman.

Can you imagine if it did ? For lifers that disagree - and since we are talking about forcing someone to squeeze a large object through a small orifice- I suggest that the Government has "Bob the Sodomizer" visit them once a week on the basis that " We don't know that it will not help this person ".

In fact, I would suggest that said lifer would be helped ! as they would quickly understand why " We don't Know" is an absolutely horrible justification for law.

 

"Abortion Violates The Unalienable Right To Life? "

no one has the right to use another like a parasite to stay alive, so if you want to treat them the same as a born person, then they have no right to force the women to be their life support system

now the women can volunteer to be such.. but that is her choice.....

.

 

This is the "right to occupancy" argument put forth by the Philosopher, Joel Feinburg. I did a Philosophy class where we spend a month arguing both sides of the abortion debate and this was one of the arguments covered.

He looks at things from a land/apartment owners perspective. That there is not right of a person to squat on someone else's property.

This is an interesting argument but, there are also some interesting counter arguments. In the case of a land owner, the law states that you can not immediately throw someone out of an apartment .. say in the middle of winter where their life is in jeopardy.

It all comes down to what value we place on the zygote and how that value can be justified.

 

agree, when it comes to the body, things are not the same as land ownership

if I need a kidney, I can not force you to give me yours

if I need blood, I can not force you to give me yours

.

 

Or force you to pass a large object through a small orifice on the basis of "We don't know"

 

So the OPer wants the government to eliminate clear "liberty" - but ONLY in relation to women - on behalf of ideological/religious belief on the definition of "life."

 

What liberty is being eliminate in the OP ?

 

1. I didn't say it did

2. 100% agree

The purpose of the topic was to dispel the pro-life argument of the "God" given right to life, which I believe I did.

- - - Updated - - -

The title is posed as a question, which I then went on to show is wrong.

 

The right to occupancy and the legal restrictions of the land owner to throw squatters of his/her land - does that still apply if the squatters are injuring the land owner without his/her consent?

 

I suggest you re-read the OP, for one it deals with far more than religious or ideological belief, for another no where do I say anything about eliminating liberty, far to much projection on your part.

 

The PETA people tell me the same thing. I don't pay any attention to their absurd claims either.

I find it difficult to distinguish PETA from the pro-life movement, since they use the same basic tactic. You know, declare that something which has never been thought of as a person is really a person, and that anyone who doesn't agree with the new revisionist definition is a murderer.

 

That is a good counter argument. Good one. Very difficult to counter that one.