Oh, you want intellectual reasoning and discussion. I couldn't tell that from your posts, they fall far short of that intent. Maybe we could start over with you answering the question I've asked many times in this thread, if you think women have a "right" to abortion, tell me why you think that, and on what you base that claim.
You're saying you have a right doesn't make it a right. You merely have an individual preference that no one has a responsibility to honor. So again, what are you basing your claim on?
You're forgetting that most of the Left believes in moral relativism. If you were talking to someone on the conservative side, for example, they could try to tie their arguments to the concept of natural rights. But the person to whom you're talking to probably has no intellectual concept of things like "natural rights". Their ideology is their religion. It's like asking a Muslim why they do what they do and they respond "Islam gives me the right".
You asked me a question and I gave you an honest one. You do not believe in freedom? I hold the same belief on gun possession too.
We can see in numerous examples in Communist countries, once they finally took complete control, they were fine with either forcing women to have abortions (China) or banning women from having abortions (Romania), whatever the situation called for, considering the "greatest good". Heck, the Nazis even did both at the same time. China actually banned abortion in the 1950s and pressured women to have more children, before later reversing policy and telling them they could only have one child, with many women pushed into abortions by the government. Despite the seeming contradiction, this all took place under the same Communist Party, the same ideology. And comically, it looks like the Chinese government has now changed course once again: China restricts abortions for 'non-medical purposes' | News | Al Jazeera - September 2021
Because they do not ****ing exist. People who cling to the notion that nature somehow bestows anything are not capable to see what rights are. Rights are a human concept.
I know you do, but the right to protect ourselves is legally protected by the U.S. constitution. I don't always agree that what government protects as a legally recognized right is a morally objective right, but do think the right to self defense is both legal and moral.
You mean the right to bear arms. Yes it is. Then there are rights that are not enumerated that are retained by the people. Not that the same is not granted to the government. Yes and yes and true for the first part.
I am very much correct. Self sustaining does not mean perpetual sustaining. Let's try an analogy. A car is run by a spark igniting atomized fuel, which in turn pushes cylinders, which makes the car move. Because those cylinders are also connected to other parts, directly or indirectly, that movement then causes fuel to be atomized and then causes a spark to ignite the fuel, starting the process over again. It's a self sustaining process, even while not being an infinite process, requiring additional fuel at intervals to keep it going as well as maintenance to keep it going. If you place the car on the road before all these parts are installed or hooked up, then you would have to atomize and/or cause the spark repeatedly by external means to make it work. It is not self sustaining. The same goes for the human body. Send it out of the womb too soon and the parts will not be present or hooked up. It will only keep going if we use other machines to keep it going, if possible. However, once the parts are sufficiently matured, removal from womb results, under most conditions, in the body functioning with no other intervention needed. Just keep adding fuel and doing maintenance, and it will run itself. We even see this in certain brain dead patients where only the higher brain functions are damaged and the body continues it's self sustaining process without artificial circulation or breathing, just a feeding tube to keep fuel going to it.
Under most conditions, but not under all conditions. Imagine for example if the doctor in charge injected the fetus with something that made it unable to survive on its own outside the womb. Then that doctor refused to provide the care they knew was required for the fetus to be able to survive, once outside of the womb.
Speaking of morality and C.S. Lewis, I wonder if he would consider injecting people with experimental toxic drugs to be moral or immoral?
I've never wanted to make abortion illegal, I just encourage women to consider the morality of what they're doing. There is always a moral aspect to what we do.
When you come into a thread 10 pages long, you can miss things. The important thing is that you were willing to admit to the error. It puts you ahead of many here.
