Right to Life Ethical Considerations

Conscription?

How is that something the homeowner, finding an uncontrollable, intoxicated intruder in his house, is going to be able to safely determine? Breaking into someone's house is violence. I don't see the intent to harm. I see the intent to save a life. I don't see how that forms an argument. Did you miss the part where I told you that being pregnant was the leading cause of death, worldwide, for women aged 13-18? And one of the leading causes of death for all women?

If you leave a zygote alone, and there are no medical complications, this is just what it will turn into. That makes it different than anything else you can compare it to.

That doesn't make it a right.

How can I be controlling female sexuality, by stating the fact that having intercourse can make you pregnant?It seems to me that we all know this, therefor a woman is always in control of her sexuality if she is willful.All this assumes it is a right, to be able to have intercourse with a 100% garauntee that you do not have to have a child.Once again technology is defining our morals.To me technology should only be used to save live, not destroy life. The choice is having sex. Just like same-sex marriage, it was never a religious decision for me.We are here for some reason. We should respect that reason, whatever it is, and protect life. Does our own existance overule the reason we got here? Aren't we smart enough to have respect for this reason?

The risk is curtailed, by measures being put into place, if that risk manifests into threat.If a person knows that there is this safety net in place, yet it remains that pregnancy risk is justification for their abortion, then they are being disingenuous. Their justification becomes better described as fear of pregnancy risk. (regarding those that honestly feel this way). The addition of the safety net, changes the risk dynamic.Basically i'm saying, let's call a spade a spade. Using pregnancy risk as justification for abortion is stretching it a bit, unless there is clear indication that threat is imminent. While i tend to feel that governments should not force people to do things, there are instances of the above when they do.
Lets take people with HIV for example. The government feels that they should remain a part of society, and not be kept isolated from the rest of us. This act of protecting their rights, results in an increased risk of the rest of us contracting HIV; with even less of a safety net being in place than the one i described before.NB. it needs to be kept in mind that this particular debate is only valid if the foetus is to be considered a constitutional person.

I didn't say uncontrollable. Uncontrollable would imply, in many minds, initiation of immediate threat. But not violence against the owner of the house, or other persons. So its still not enough to institute deadly force. through the act of commiting grievious bodily harm. The ability of these people to rationalise such an action provides intent.
So unless you're saying that the foetus is capable of such higher-brain activity, and is applying it, the analogy does not hold. That this is the leading cause of death in teenage women (please provide a link to this info, i haven't been able to find it) still does not support your argument. In the cases of these women, i agree that their pregnancy risk would have been justication to abort. Clearly there was impending danger, which resulted in their deaths.
This group of women, however, does not represent all cases of pregnancy. To say that they do would conflate two separate issues.

Again, didn't you read? We're talking about all women worldwide.So, yes, they do represent all cases of pregnancy. When you aggregate all cases of pregnancy together, you find that the number of deaths that result is greater than almost every other cause of death in women.All women. That's what "worldwide" means.

You have thoroughly repeated yourself Am I correct in recalling that you oppose abortion but make an exception in the case of rape? Please answer. I didn't suggest that you experience it as a religious decision; I am pointing out the correlation between religious belief and the desire to command the mores of others. You don't believe it is a causal relationship? How do you account for the strong correlation between opposition to reproductive freedom and declared religious belief?The notion that we are here for a reason is an opinion, in your case a religious one. Even if we grant your opinion for the sake of argument, there are still a myriad views on how one might go about respecting that origin, purposeful or not. We have no reason to think your belief should be imposed on others.Aren't we smart enough (yet) to respect the beliefs of others, and to content ourselves with commanding our own lives?

Yes, or solid medical reasons. It's true, I agree. No, I wasn't refering to my religious belief's at all. It doesn't matter the reason we are here, just that we are here. I wold tend to think if you believed in evolution, and a random chance thing, that you would have more respect for it.Don't we try to protect species on this planet? Isn't all life valuable? Shouldn't we respect the very process that brought each and everyone of us here? I don't others belief's should be put on the unborn.I have been doing some thinking, and if evolution is how we got to the point we are at now, then I think we are in big trouble. Up until technology, evolution was a natural process. We seem to be interfering with it a bit too much. I think we are headed for failure of our species. There will not be any strong to survive. The earth is going to chew us up, and spit us out like a bad virus.

In a way I would tend to agree. Our species is very young. As the history of species go the odds are with the above statement. We are but a blip on the radar and will surely pass.

I read it just fine, thank you; but that doesn't mean it says what you want it to say.At least 40% of women experience complications during pregnancy; of these, around 15% develop potentially life-threatening problems. Mortality results within this 15% - an estmated 4-5% (of women who develop perinatal problems).How can the other 60% of women justifiably use pregnancy risk as reason for abortion?Again, pregnancy risk is justifiable reason for abortion, in those women experiencing clear threat.

Coercing a woman to carry a fetus to term because her reason for seeking an abortion doesn't meet another's criteria, on the basis of whether or not she was willingly sexually active, is by definition a punitive control scheme: one wishes to discourage an activity and so makes the determination of guilt or innocence based on intentionality and then dictates the consequences.An exception for rape makes a mockery of the "protect the innocent" rationale for restricting access to abortion. That fetus poses no different threat to the physical well-being of the woman than any other; if the logic is that carrying a fetus conceived through rape threatens the emotional and psychological well-being of the woman, then the distinction is being made on that basis, not the rape: determining whether emotional and psychological well-being is threatened is a job best done by the person whose mind and body are involved. But others' beliefs should be imposed on us, the, um...undead?

Then so is hunting season, fishing season, murder laws, manslaughter laws, etc.
There are no valid reasons for those, other than that they are trying to control us.I don't look at it as a control scheme, sorry, the control is in the womans choice. Not having sex. Yes it does, and more. What about the child as well? I wouldn't like to grow up thinking I was the outcome of a rape. Why should the woman, and the child be punished for something that was against the will of the mother for a lifetime?

I don't believe that, and I know you don't either. Laws do seek to modify or control behavior, ideally in just ways. My argument does not require the shedding of all law, and it's a straw man maneuver to claim it does. Further, none of those laws apply or not depending on whether you have had consensual sex, do they?Opponents of abortion are proposing new, more restrictive laws and/or the readjudication of existing law to deny choices women currently have. This is exactly the appropriate moment to fight unjustly passed new law and reinterpreted old law. Women do not will themselves to become pregnant, so rape is not required for a woman to find herself with a pregnancy that was "against her will."So how about this? You feel it is better not to be born than to know something ignominious about one's origins? Our concern for the potential child's damaged self-esteem is so great that we prefer it dead?Don't shake that family tree too hard. Ignominy is a common fruit.