You're making a dual argument of property rights and of risk. It's really the only two arguments available to the pro-abortion side.
The property rights argument fails miserably once the biological and logical concession must be made that the baby is in fact human, and a distinct individual human. From there, the only property rights argument (the "it's hers to do with it as she sees fit" argument) falls due the illegality and immorality of slavery, which is the only means of one human reducing another to property. To defend abortion on these grounds would necessitate defending slavery.
To the risk argument, the mother is not the only person taking a risk. The father clearly has a financial risk involved. The child is literally risking it's life. When balancing those risks, the risk of one's life outweighs any other risks involved. Only when the life of the mother is at risk, medically, are those risks balanced and does the maxim of self-defense come into play, or in the case of rape/incest the causation of a violent bodily harm causing the pregnancy, and this easily negated in the earliest days for the same self-defense rationale.
So, there is no irrational argument made here. There is no illogical argument made here. Please address each, as they sum up and attack your two positions quite discretely. I await your answers.
Nope. You're the one talking about property rights I'm talking about freedom of choice as to how to live ones life without someone else choosing for them.
That's the whole thing, and hasn't changed no matter how many rabbit trails you want to circle.
The father's "financial risk" doesn't override the physical health risks, which is why the decision is up to the woman alone.
The child isn't "risking" anything since it's not a viable entity at the age of 99% of abortions, and that's just an emotional argument anyway.
You aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not trying to change yours. I'm just telling you it's really none of your business unless it's your child
To resort to a mere legality argument will not work. We've been over that road before. Many things have been legal that have been unjust, unethical, immoral, and wrong. To simply say "well, it's legal" was no defense at Nuremberg, nor was it an adequate defense of slavery or of the subjugation of women, or any number of other "legal" atrocities. Neither is it an adequate defense of abortion now.
A newborn isn't viable immediately after delivery either. In fact, viability to live independently isn't possible for several years after delivery. The viability argument fails, unless you're willing to start expanding infanticide beyond the womb. There can also be no denial of the child's risk involved as the child is, in fact, alive and a distinct, individual human being.
No one said the father's financial risk exceeded the mother's health risk, though in many cases it may. However, it is a risk and at this point is discredited completely based solely upon gender. Gender discrimination is a rather interesting twist to make to substantiate an argument.
Property rights is the only philosophical positions possible that allows one person to dispose of anything of "theirs" without consideration for anyone else. That is the basis of your argument. A person may arbitrarily and for any reason at all, including mere convenience, dispose of their property as they see fit without the input of any others. You are asserting that the baby is merely the property of the mother in the way that her hair is; as an extension of her body and therefore her own self to do with as she chooses. Unfortunately, that defies both biology and logic. The child has different DNA from the mother and therefore is a different person. Once that biological fact is accepted, you then have no other position other than property rights via ownership of another human, I.e., slavery. One person may not simply dispose of (kill) another distinct, individual human arbitrarily or for any reason at all, including and especially not mere convenience. Once the biological and logical fact is accepted that the child is human and has it's own distinct, individual DNA, this is where you are left with the "choice" property rights argument, and it fails.
It's odd that you bring up "freedom", when discussing the ability of one human to: 1) arbitrarily take the life of another human without being in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury but only for mere convenience; and, 2) subject another human to involuntary financial servitude for almost two decades when both parties are equally responsible for the situation and the subjugated party has no rights in the decision. That is an extraordinarily odd definition of "freedom", one without precedent in history or, in fact, in logic. Further, the "freedom" to live their life as they choose is completely denied to the child. The mother may have to endure several months of pregnancy, a natural state for human females, and one that she entered into by her choice of actions (actions at this point that include the choice to actively and intentionally avoid a myriad layers of contraceptives that are nearly foolproof at preventing pregnancies). However, your assertion of "freedom" for her completely destroys every choice of life possible for the child. This inequity in the burden of life when contemplating "freedom" fails on every level of logic or morality.
The summation is the positions is accurate and it is no surprise that you have no rebuttal. There is none, at least none that has been presented cogently, logically, and rationally. I realize that this will fall, at least now, on deaf ears (yours). However, if you are intellectually honest with yourself, you owe yourself the contemplation of these arguments as they are (not as you wish they were).
Last edited by 4ager; 01/30/16.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
