Abortion violates the inalienable right to life.

[Technosoul]

I think it should not be called "a right to life" but rather a "right to be born".

I think each child has the right to be born into an environment where it's needs are met. A place where it can get attention from a mother, where it does not have to live in poverty, in a place where it is not unwanted or where the mother is not seen as a whore by some local church. The right to live means it has what it needs to live a decent life as an infant.

You should first worry about what happens to the baby after it is born.

First end poverty. Get a decent healthcare system for all children and mothers. Fix the horrible adoption and foster care system.

If you ban abortion and dump a new born into a drug invested poverty zone, you might as well toss it into a trash can. So go and fix it so we have a decent place for the new-borns to come into. After that we can talk about changing the law.

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: Technosoul IIf you ban abortion and dump a new born into a drug invested poverty zone, you might as well toss it into a trash can. So go and fix it so we have a decent place for the new-borns to come into. After that we can talk about changing the law.

I agree. I can not fathom how it is considered "kind" or "morally upright" to force a child to be born into what amounts fo hell on earth and suffer for X number of *years*... Obviously abortion is not utilized *only* by women in severely downtrodden situations, but the old "Adoption, not abortion" saw is *such* a crock.

[Halofan48]

The thing with the adoption stuff, is that not all of the pro-lifers who want adoption instead would adopt. Also, what about those children who are already up for adoption? It will just increase the number of unadopted children.

[Fangrim]

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

The societal effects of abortion are irrelevant to the alleged violation of the inalienable right to life.

It's like you're debating the merits of gun ownership to reduce crime in a thread about enumeration of the right to bear arms. It's nontopical.


-----

As for me, given that natural rights exist - including the right to life - the debate centers on what qualifies a being as having that natural right.

After that, it should be clear whether or not abortion would violate this alleged right.

[Kamehameha34]

Modern technology can detect a baby's heartbeat at 18-21 days after conception. That is about 4-7 days after most women miss a period and begin to suspect they are pregnant. By time 21 days have passed, you have a living being.

Non sequitur.

A heartbeat, although very poetically representative of a human life, is not intrinsically significant. A heartbeat is a pulse, a recurring cluster of energy. Ocean currents technically 'pulse.'

Fact is, until the baby can survive outside of the mothers womb, it is considered a part of the mother - not an individual.

[SoylentGreen]

Fangrim As for me, given that natural rights exist - including the right to life -

.

I would argue that there is no such thing as a natural right.
Rights are just an extension of the a particular philosophy that someone happens to believe in.
They exist only in the sense that we perceive them not as something separate or existing outside in the natural world.

the debate centers on what qualifies a being as having that natural right

This cannot be correct. If a right is natural then a being would not have to qualify for it, it should be theres naturally.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: SoylentGreen . I would argue that there is no such thing as a natural right. Rights are just an extension of the a particular philosophy that someone happens to believe in. They exist only in the sense that we perceive them not as something separate or existing outside in the natural world. This cannot be correct. If a right is natural then a being would not have to qualify for it, it should be theres naturally.

....which is exactly why I said "given that natural rights exist."

I personally am also skeptical as to their existence. But it's obviously a chief underpinning of this thread. Debating their existence here is like (I know, second analogy I've used) debating God's existence in a thread about the Reformation.

[SoylentGreen]

Whatssnew's OP takes the "inalienable right to life" as a truth, and therefore abortion is a crime against that right.
But if there is no such thing then his argument falls.
Abortion does not violate the inalienable right to life because there is no such thing as an "inalienable right" to life or anything else.
Considering that his stance on abortion is based on that premise then it would seem acceptable here to argue the point.

WhatssnewYou would think the mother would be tried for murder and all others having a hand in it would be tried for conspiracy to murder. Yet strangly enough it is allowed when every human under the laws of our country (USA) is gartenteed "Life, liberty, and the pursiut of happyness."

Yet strangely enough NO human under the laws of your country (USA) is guaranteed "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[Kamehameha34]

Yet strangely enough NO human under the laws of your country (USA) is guaranteed "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

It is guaranteed implicitly, and with qualifiers, that all citizens have the right to life, liberty, and property and that this right can only be taken away via due process.

Read the 5th amendment.

[Ken Carman]

The quandry here is, of course, whether you consider the unborn to be "life" in the same sense as "born." Or at what point does one consoder it to be the same? Those who believe in choice do not, for the most part. Those who don't believe in choice often believe it is the same. I don't think this gap will ever close no matter what we do legally speaking. Then we have the sticky wicket, even if you do believe the unborn to be the same... therefore how much do we regulate the mother and father: especially the mother since she carries it to term. Anything she does that some lawyer, or publicity seeking pol/pundit, might assume brought harm to the unborn: including getting innoculations of any type or not... if that fetus dies after that, do we execute the Mom for murder or jail her for unjustifiable homicide? Even once born many resist such laws. Should how much leeway the parents are given be severely limited: including how they raise their child? Some claim Atheists to be dangerous and even a sickness. If an Atheistic couple raises their child to be an Atheist, should they be jailed or have the child ripped from them? I know this thread is about pre-birth but when you give the state the right to decide who knows better for the fetus, or the couple, could jailing Atheists, or Fundamentalists be that far behind?

So the larger question in the abortion debate that is addressed less than it should be is where such power should flow to, in the most personal no matters: the state, or the individual. The fetus cannot decide, no more than a just born baby can't.

Of how much significance should we consider birth when it comes to such things? I believe: a lot. Others seem eager to blur the threshold that's crossed here.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It is guaranteed implicitly, and with qualifiers, that all citizens have the right to life, liberty, and property and that this right can only be taken away via due process. Read the 5th amendment.

Yes, your correct in that, but whatssnew is taking the 5th out of context when claiming that a women is committing murder by having an abortion.

Also you have correctly taken the right passage from the constitution which states "the right to life, liberty, and property ".
As apposed to whatssnew who incorrectly took his passage from the Declaration of Independence "the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
And the DoI is not a legal document. It guarantees nothing and is not subject to law.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Yes, your correct in that, but whatssnew is taking the 5th out of context when claiming that a women is committing murder by having an abortion. Also you have correctly taken the right passage from the constitution which states "the right to life, liberty, and property ". As apposed to whatssnew who incorrectly took his passage from the Declaration of Independence "the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". And the DoI is not a legal document. It guarantees nothing and is not subject to law.

And, of course, there have been qualifiers regarding children. Is a fetus considered a citizen in the full sense of the word? Um, I suspect... not.

[Kamehameha34]

Also you have correctly taken the right passage from the constitution which states "the right to life, liberty, and property ". As apposed to whatssnew who incorrectly took his passage from the Declaration of Independence "the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

I understand that, but what was being cited was the right to life under US law. I apologize for assuming your response had to do with the conversation in this respect.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I understand that, but what was being cited was the right to life under US law. I apologize for assuming your response had to do with the conversation in this respect.

The right to life mentioned in the 5th can only be interpreted as the right to due process from the courts, not as every American has the right to be born.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: SoylentGreen The right to life mentioned in the 5th can only be interpreted as the right to due process from the courts, not as every American has the right to be born.

I wasn't proposing differently. What I thought you were proposing was "No American is guaranteed the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness."

[Whatssnew]

It seems to me that people who are for choice use reasoning that supports them emotionally. For example, the way in which they keep trying to say in an indirect manner that you are not a human being until you are born. Even though there is very little physical change from right before birth to after birth. My argument is a form or mass becomes a being with a heart beat. Thus the un-born is a living being, and to kill it is murder. Just because you kill a baby inside the womb and then take it out does not make it ok. As I have heard before, doctors will open the mother, scramble the brains of the baby, then remove a resulting lifeless form. I don’t know how often they use that procedure, but it is appalling. Why is it you keep trying to forget what actions are taken against living humans? I think its because you have such a corrupt moral fiber that you must lie to yourself to live with yourself.

Also I have notice how strange it is when people say the child would have a poor life therefore it is ok to have abortions. Well by that reasoning you should be able to kill homeless, mentally unstable, diabetics, cancer patients, and the physically/mentally disabled. The only difference is some of these people are able to fend for themselves. Maybe you should crack down on the bad parents, instead of killing babies.

As for beliefs and there relevance to American rights, they are to be taken seriously when they are among part of the foundation of the creation of this nation.

As for taking the 5th out of context, I wasn’t saying the 5th makes abortion murder, I am saying that it was written before such atrocities were dreamed of and it stands against such filth. And any person can see it is murder, (though many choose not too) and that right to life of a being, is being violated by the participants in the action. And by modern laws you could possibly make a case (I think) that this form of elective killing is a criminal action under our laws. Strange you need to go through more legal red tape to go fishing in around here than you do to get an abortion.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I wasn't proposing differently. What I thought you were proposing was "No American is guaranteed the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness."

Doesn't that depend on context.
The quote "the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness." comes from the declaration of independence. The DoI is not a garantee or a legal document and has no standing outside of its philisophical statement.
The laws and rights of your country are only garanteed through the constitution.
And the right to life mentioned in the constitution is specific and conditional.

[SoylentGreen]

Whatssnew It seems to me that people who are for choice use reasoning that supports them emotionally.

I see nothing emotional in saying that it is the right of the individual woman to choose whether to go through with a pregnancy or not.
Whereas your basing life on something as irrelevant as a heartbeat seems to be emotional, unless of course you can give some sound reasoning as to why a heartbeat should count for anything.

Even though there is very little physical change from right before birth to after birth.

Again an emotional and incorrect statement, unless of course you can provide proof that abortions are carried out right before natural birth.

My argument is a form or mass becomes a being with a heart beat

What do you base this on?

As I have heard before, doctors will open the mother, scramble the brains of the baby, then remove a resulting lifeless form. I don’t know how often they use that procedure, but it is appalling.

Then wouldn't you be able to present a coherent argument for your stance if you did some research on abortions rather than give us statements that are only good for their shock value.

I think its because you have such a corrupt moral fiber that you must lie to yourself to live with yourself.

And yet you would force women to have a baby on the basis of hearsay from people who don't know what there talking about, very moral of you.

Also I have notice how strange it is when people say the child would have a poor life therefore it is ok to have abortions.

No it's more the other way around. Anti abortionists suggest it's ok to let a baby be adopted and yet do nothing to ensure that the baby will be adopted into a capable family.

As for beliefs and there relevance to American rights, they are to be taken seriously when they are among part of the foundation of the creation of this nation.

If you want them taken seriously then learn the difference between a philosophical speech and a constitution.

I

am saying that it was written before such atrocities were dreamed of and it stands against such filth.

If you want to be taken seriously then do some research and you will discover that abortion and in a much crueler way than done now has been around a lot longer than america.

that right to life of a being, is being violated by the participants in the action.

You have yet to make the case that there is such a thing as a right to life.

And by modern laws you could possibly make a case (I think) that this form of elective killing is a criminal action under our laws.

Which laws would they be?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Soylent Doesn't that depend on context.

No, because if you recheck what I said, I said "..or the pursuit of happiness."

Americans are legally guaranteed the right to both life and liberty. It would be incorrect to say that Americans are not guaranteed the right of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Americans are legally guaranteed the right to both life and liberty. It would be incorrect to say that Americans are not guaranteed the right of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

I have a feeling we are just splitting hairs here.
But the right to life and liberty is conditional and has to be kept within context of the constitution.
As for the pursuit of happiness, that is not guaranteed by the constitution.
And here I am specifically talking about the US constitution , not individual state constitutions.
The pursuit of happiness is to vague a statement to be able to legally enforce it.