Why do "right to lifers" not know that their position is actually opposed to the right to life?

Question

It's about as logical a principle as there is that being opposed to abortion rights is a defiance of the right to life.

When John Locke wrote about the right to life, he clearly meant not just life but a right to body and a right to make decisions about your own body (source: Second Treatise on Government).

An embryo or fetus is not a child but an organism that could possibly become a child, but is now only a symbiont that cannot survive without reliance on the mother. Therefore the fetus is merely a part of the mother's body. What she chooses to do with her own body is her choice and is actually the free practice of the right to life.

To want to create a police state that throws women and their doctors into prison for exercising that right to life would be denial of the right to life. Case closed.

Notice how the first several answers never really addressed the point about the term "right to life." Only one by Bea Bea addressed that and this is the only real challenge that I should address. If a woman would like to abort her child after the time of viability, she should have the right to make the decision about her body to cut off the symbiotic relationship, but the doctor should do her or his best to not harm the fetus. If the extracted fetus can live, then the fetus should be given the chance to live. The rest of the arguments against did not address my points and either made an emotional, religious, or otherwise irrational argument. The best choice answer is the only other exception. And I should point out the only woman who answered (as far as I can tell based on name and icon) who's opinion should count way more that any man (including myself) who answers who would never have to directly face this difficult choice.

Answer 1

As a woman and mother, the right to choose what happens to my body is my moral and fundamental choice.

I do want every legal right to make all the choices I want to with all aspects of my life. And the morality of those choices are mine to deal with and not the government or a "religious" leaders to make for me.

To stop these unwanted pregnancies, then offer free sterilization and stop condemning those that choose to use birth control or permanent measures.

Moral issues aside, this is a health concern. I have seen both sides of this issue and realize that "free will" is the best choice. Options are needed to help spiritual woman to be healthy, and heal from these issues.

Leave the laws alone. No woman wants to "KILL" a child, if she had a choice to not create it, if she did not want to create it or it was forced on her by man or religion.

Answer 2

Just because a child cannot survive on its own, doesn't mean that the child isn't its own separate entity inside of the mother. From the instant it's conceived, the zygote (I think that's what the fertilized egg is called) has a mixture of DNA from the father and the mother. Therefore, its DNA is different from the mother's DNA; so it can't be part of the mother's body. Could the organism possibly become something besides a child when it's finished developing? No. Therefore, the fetus is a child that has not fully developed yet. And how much has to develop before it becomes a child? Is a person born missing one or more limbs not a child either? When the zygote further develops, it will have its own blood type, that may be different from the mother's blood type. It might be a boy too. And it's definitely alive from conception because it grows from conception. Living things grow naturally, although they may have to depend on a host. Pro-choicers sometimes argue that the fetus is a parasite in the woman's body. They also say that the fetus is part of the woman's body. So does this make a tapeworm part of a woman's body too, if she gets one? Obviously a tapeworm doesn't have the same rights as a human. Why is it murder if a man stabs and kills a fetus without the woman's consent and not attempted murder (of the woman)? If a man kills a pregnant woman, he can be tried for two murders instead of one, in an effort to get him more jail time.

As for your comment about "a police state that throws women and their doctors into prison for exercising that right to life," you really should understand the truth about most women who have abortions and their providers. The idea that abortion is about women's rights is garbage. The doctors get paid under the table to do abortions and sometimes make millions. Planned Parenthood gives counselors a commission for every abortion they sell. Some doctors tell women who aren't pregnant that they are pregnant and do an abortion on women who don't even have a fetus in them. Many times the mothers are made sterile, and sometimes even killed because abortion is very underregulated and just by nature a very dangerous procedure. Most, if not all, women who have abortions have serious psychological problems for years after the fact because of the guilt from taking an innocent human life. Abortion has never been and never will be about women's rights. That's just a charade that pro-choicers use for the courts and for public relations purposes.

Answer 3

You have to ask your self when does life begin.

When you believe life begins, at that point you are talking about depriving another person of their life.

The record for a non full term baby being born and living is I be live 26 weeks.

Would you feel OK about aborting a fetus that is 36 week along?
Some people call that a choice, some call it murder.
It is however legal.

As a note to the extremist on the pro-choice side, I heard one pro-choice advocate say that you should be able to abort children up to 2 years of age. Just in-case undiagnosed abnormality's appear after birth.

Answer 4

So it makes no difference to you that the embryo (a human, developing child not "organism") contains all the DNA coding it needs to be labeled as human... or that at just 8 weeks the embryo becomes a human fetus because it has now developed a bone structure, clearly human physical characteristics, and a beating heart...? I wonder what your mother would have said if someone like you had suggested she kill you in the womb and throw you in the trash because they devalued the miracle of human life and considered you merely an inconvenient inhuman organism? How sad that you are so unwilling to protect the rights of the innocent. Good luck with that police state.

Answer 5

Prolifers do have valid points that you haven't considered -- and I say this an atheist.

Changing the label of the contents of a pregnancy certainly makes it easier to kill. Since killing is generally considered wrong, to label it an organism is an argument of convenience.

Would it surprise you to know that both of us are also organisms? Both us meet the scientific criteria of being organisms.

I think what you might have overlooked is the overindulgence in religion. Most people could care less about abortion. Lip service is easy for the masses.

If anyone believes that an abortion is murder, there is at least one abortion clinic in their city, state or province. By doing nothing and by having that knowledge they are now complicit in those "murders".

As an atheist, my view is that pregnancy results from the behaviours of irresponsible adults.

Answer 6

You seem like a logical person. As such, you should know that the most basic right is the right to life. Thus, if anyone is imposing on your right to life (or potential life) then they are in the wrong. So of course abortion is (in almost all cases) wrong. It's just common sense. However, I do agree that there are certain instances in which it has to be available.

Answer 7

if you could roll back time and i asked your mother that one day you would be posting an assinine argument for abortion
do you think that she then should have aborted you ?

Answer 8

I'm with you. If you can't kill your own baby, who can you kill???