Why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

We all have a right to our own bodies. But when a woman conceives, her former right changes to an obligation because of the new life which has come about by the exercise of her rights. That is the nature of life and womanhood. To blink this away is to divorce ourselves from reality and from that which is sacred. If conception is not sacred, then neither are our lives and our laws against murder because our lives clearly began at conception. Otherwise we would not be here. The mentality behind the right to an abortion is a cavalier rationale of the promiscuous. And should hardly be elevated to the position of law as it is nearer to a lawless and feral aristocracy than to a responsible society of shared values and equal rights. Then again, nations do rise and fall. So, far be it from me to deny heaven or hell their owing's. Still it is lamentable to see our once sober nation become drunken in iniquity. Not that I am saintly, but just an American who cares. And as time goes on, I'm left to ponder the ever widening gulf between hope and reality, as our nation is led carefully away from its birthright and potential.

 

Totally irrelevant to the issue of abortion and women's rights.

WTF is this "natural law" you're talking about? Who enforces this mythical "law" ? Who wrote it?

Is it just what YOU think should happen?

 

Don’t get pregnant. Your bad decisions are not society’s problem

 

“ We hold these truths to be self-evident ... “

 

They do have the same rights, and also the same responsibilities.

 

See, this is where you are adding or changing what I wrote. I said nothing about there being no other way to stop the use. The way the hypothetical is written, the ability to simply disconnect the machine is there. You need to quit making the strawman argument by making changes.

But here since you can't seem to do otherwise, let me spell it further out and dumb it down. The machine is super simple to stop and disconnect, but doing so results in the user dying. The used can and does see this and will have no problems simply shutting down and disconnecting the machine. NOW, does the used have the right to outright kill the user prior to stopping and disconnecting the machine, or does his right only limit him/her to stopping and disconnecting the machine regardless of the results to the user?

 

Have to evade answering those inconvenient questions?

The ones that show your "natural law" doesn't have a leg to stand on ?



WTF is this "natural law" you're talking about? Who enforces this mythical "law" ? Who wrote it?

Is it just what YOU think should happen?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WOMEN are human life and deserve the respect of having the same rights you have.

Then they have the right to bodily autonomy and abortion....

 

when YOU can't understand a simple explanation you immediately yell "straman"....

 

Because somehow failed birth control is a bad decision, or even a decision at all. "You know, I think today my IUD shall not work in preventing implantation."

 

Which means they have the same right to not have their bodily resources used against their will. If you don't believe in that right, that means that no one has that right and we can just take blood or organs from whomever we need them from as long as it doesn't kill them.

 

Of course she has the legal right to choose, and the right to make immoral decisions

 

No, accidents happen. But, that doesn’t negate moral responsibilities. Killing human life you find inconvenient is immoral.

 

I understand perfectly what you are saying, and indeed agree that if there is not a way to simply disconnect, then you can do as needed. But that was NOT the question asked. You avoided the question asked by changing it to one you wanted to answer, which is strawman by definition, your most common tactic.

NOW, does the used have the right to outright kill the user prior to stopping and disconnecting the machine, or does his right only limit him/her to stopping and disconnecting the machine regardless of the results to the user, on the premise that the disconnect procedure is simple and known.to the used?

 

.

What CRIME has a woman committed by getting pregnant? WHY should her right s be taken away if she has committed NO crime??????

.


YOU are free to believe that bunk but you can't force it on others.

It isn't....animals do it all the time....

No, it isn't, women in monogamous relationships have abortions and your typical "paint the woman who has an abortion as a whore" theme is quite misogynistic.....and revealing... .

 

Then it is immoral to kill the person inconveniently trying to harm or kill you.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WOMEN are human life and deserve the respect of having the same rights you have.


Then they have the right to bodily autonomy and abortion....

Yup, so leave her alone to make her decisions...they aren't yours..

 

Now you’re writing nonsense. A fetus is not trying to kill the mother.

 

If life doesn't begin at conception, you wouldn't be here.

 

I’m not interfering with anyone’s decisions, I’m stating my opinion. If you’re offended by that maybe you should re-examine your behavior.

 

Be what you are. Not even animals abort their conceptions. You talk about equality but want to be placed on a pedestal.

 

Yep, you are certainly completely and utterly clueless about what strawman is.

You completely missed the satire. Do you know what satire is?

I've heard of short term memory loss, but your post looks like an example of split-second memory loss.

Misusing ad hominem doesn't add any additional credibility to what you write.

When someone doesn't take the time they need to understand what is written, the conversation is a waste of time.

 

It is not an effort to elevate the unborn above the born. It is an effort to make them equal because life begins at conception. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

 

Even if you are the one who caused the dependency and hooked in the machine to begin with? Would this be a form of murder over delayed time?

 

Maybe he does. Somebody erred in making such assumptions a page or so ago.