Right to Life Ethical Considerations

Does a hobo's right to live trump your right to control who is allowed inside your home? Or rather, don't you have the right to use force - deadly, if it becomes necessary - to protect your home against intrusion?Is the right different when it's not your house, it's your uterus? Doesn't a woman have an absolute right to determine, at any time, whether or not other humans are allowed to take residence there? Because the fetus is trespassing, stealing, and endangering the life of the mother. Defending yourself against a dangerous intruder is not murder.A fetus may very well be a human being with rights. It may not. But a woman definately is, despite what social conservatives would prefer, and so the moral calculus isn't that hard for me. When I weigh the life of the mother against the life of something that can't even mentally experience being alive, that's not a difficult choice for me.

A stranger in your home, with no right to be there, is always an immediate threat. He puts you and your family at risk.The problem here is that you still think of abortion as the murder of a fetus. It's not.It's the eviction of a fetus. The fact that the fetus can't survive anywhere but that one woman's womb is not her fault, or our fault. It's the fetus's fault for being there, as far as I'm concerned. It's a slight tragedy that the fetus might not have intended to be there, but there it is, and it's certainly taking actions that put the health of the mother in danger.If she doesn't want it there, it has to go. End of story. She has an absolute right to determine what human beings are allowed to reside in her uterus, at any time. I'd say that it is. The leading cause of death, worldwide, for women ages 13-18 is pregnancy. You may have heard the term "complications from pregnancy", but that's a misnomer. The stresses that a developing fetus places on a mother's body simply kill the mother, sometimes.

No, immediate. Oh, because the fetus just happened to crawl inside the uterus when the mother accidentally left it somewhere? C'mon. Intruder is the appropriate term. If they 1) had no right to be on your boat in the first place; 2) put your boat and your life at risk by their presence there, and 3) there was absolutely no other safe way to get them off the boat, then yes, it's their fault. Absolutely no one has the right to live inside another human being against that person's will. Absolutely no one has the right to use the body resources of another person, even if their life depends on it.That's the same principle, after all, that enjoins sick people from strapping you down and "donating" one of your kidneys against your will. Nonsense. Every woman who is pregnant has complications - lasting effects on her body as a result of pregnancy. There's no such thing as a "simple" pregnancy, as any doctor can tell you.

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?

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.

I agree. All women, however, are threatened by their pregnancies.

Abolutely false. The large majority of medical abortions (as opposed to spontaneous, natural ones) are elective abortions performed on women who were using some kind of birth control at the time of conception. You know what? Almost every woman who has an abortion sees pregnancy as a wonderful thing - at the proper time. This isn't about abortion or the unborn at all for you, is it?Right here, you've basically given yourself away. You're not interested in the unborn. You want to punish the sluts that have made you so angry.Well, as long as we're clear about it. Luckily we're under no obligation to craft legislation to fulfill your perverted need to punish people you think are too happy.

What does free will have to do with it? As many as 4 out of every 5 concepted embryos will be spontaneously aborted during the pregnancy.

Sure. What's wrong with that? People regularly choose not to take on responsibilities that they don't feel they're qualified for, or that the rewards are not worth the work.I'm sure we could imagine a hundred, or a thousand, responsibilities that you have chosen not to take on for yourself. You haven't adopted any children. You don't own a business. You wear your seatbelt so that you don't have to deal with the responsibility of paying for expensive medical bills. What, abstinence?Look. I don't know how to tell you this gently. It's actually kind of ridiculous that an adult has to be told this, in fact. When people say "the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD's is abstinence", they're kidding. That's a joke. It's like when Henry Ford said that you could order your Model T Ford in any color you wanted "as long as it's black."Nobody mistook his remarks for the offer of a choice of colors. Abstinence is not a sure way to prevent pregnancy or STD's, any more than locking yourself in the house is a "sure way" to prevent you from being exposed to illness or being murdered. I mean you could just as well say that the only sure way to prevent pregnancy or disease is to commit suicide. It certainly works better than abstinence - even the abstaining can still be raped. But do you understand why a person who isn't an idiot wouldn't suggest suicide to people who wanted to avoid pregnancy until they were ready? No, you just think that any woman (doesn't matter if men do it) who opts to have sexual intercourse before she's ready to become pregnant made an "obvious mistake". Lacks "common sense." Isn't an "adult."These are your exact words I'm quoting, after all. Of course, you don't apparently see the enormous contradiction. You propose that women who choose to have sex are immature, unintelligent, and lack sense. And these are the people you're adamant should be forced to become parents? Aborting their children would be a mercy, if the things you so cavalierly accuse these people of are true. No, you do. You've openly dismissed women who choose to have sex as immature, senseless idiots. I don't see anything in your posts about men. Look, I get that you have nothing but dishonesty with which to try to support your position, but it would be much, much better of you not to lie about things that I can disprove from your most recent post:

quote:

---

A useless, meaningless lump of flesh that stands in the way of thier happiness.

---

Your words, not my invention. Try not to treat me like an idiot and not lie about things I can easily check up on, ok?

And, also, people choose to have sex and choose not to have children because they want sex to be a part of their lives, but don't want to take on the responsibility of children.Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You could still become pregnant; someone could knock you out with drugs and inseminate you.Nope, sorry; the only sure way to avoid pregnancy is to commit suicide. I'm sorry that you're not a person who wants to accept that truth, but I'm stating an indisputable fact. Dead people do not become pregnant. Some people who choose to abstain still become pregnant. I'm saying that choosing not to have sex, and accepting the resulting physical and mental disorders, in order to avoid the slight chance you'll be exposed to diseases or become pregnant is irrational.Choosing not to have sex because you're not ready to have sex, or you haven't met anyone you would like to have sex with? Absolutely reasonable. Choosing not to have sex because you're terrified of disease and pregnancy? Absolutely irrational. As irrational as choosing never to leave your house because you're afraid of being abducted by aliens.It's the very definition of irrational: it's a phobia. An unreasonable fear. The vast, vast majority of responsible adults who have sex with other adults are successful in avoiding diseases and preventing pregnancy until they're ready to concieve. Avoiding sex altogether out of fear of something that isn't all that likely in the first place is not rational; it's a phobia. You've never heard of this guy?That's what they say, anyway. Who knows? Of course, it's hardly necessary to go back that far. In 1955 the London Sunday Pictorial set out to investigate cases of virgin birth. Out of 19 candidates, eleven were immediately dismissed as resulting from a misunderstanding - the mothers had thought that the presence of an intact hymen during the pregnancy indicated a virgin birth. One case was dismissed by the great biologist J B S Haldane, who determined from attempted tissue grafts that the woman and her child were not genetically identical.But in seven cases that they found, women gave birth to offspring who were genetically identical to themselves, without any kind of sexual contact whatsoever - just what you would expect from human parthogenesis. I'm equating it with other degenerate solutions. So, it is about condemning women who are sluts. No, I get it. Seriously, you don't have to keep repeating yourself. Being an adult means not allowing risk to prevent you from living a rich life. Adults are not so terrified of unfortunate circumstances that they retreat from every behavior. Adults do not cower in their bedrooms for fear of what might happen to them when they walk out the door.What adults do is take actions to mitigate risks. Adults determine what risks they're willing to take on for themselves in exchange for the benefits.

Really? I doubt it.

If you're not going to talk to me, you don't get to talk about me.Misrepresenting my position after retreating from debate with me is dishonest and cowardly, and you typefy the immaturity inherent in the sexual views you espouse.

You don't view abortion as an issue that predominantly affects women?Did nobody explain to you how pregnancy works, or what? Look, it's rather ridiculous of you to be lecturing sexual mores when you don't apparently understand where babies come from. So, abortion is ok as long as you don't feel bad afterwards? Funny, before, you were certain that the worst thing was when women had abortions lightly, without feeling bad about it.Which is it, exactly? Why is it that you describe your position as "simple", but it appears to change in every post?

No, children come from when a sperm combines with an ovum inside a fallopian tube, and the conjoined result travels into an accepting uterus and implants itself into the endometrium.Again, basic biology. It's imparative to keep these things in mind. I trust this isn't the first time you've heard about these events?

What, really? You can't imagine a situation where sperm and egg come together against the will of the owners of those sperm and eggs?