If babies don’t have a right to life, do women have a right to reproduce?

After all, many of the same arguments used in favor of abortion could also be used in favor of restricting reproductive rights (i.e. population control, getting rid of the bad elements from society, etc.)

I know pro-choicers say “it’s not a baby”, but there are many pro-choicers here who have said that, if a baby was growing inside a woman, it would still be her right to abort it.

Why would a baby not have the right to life if women have the right to have a baby?

I'm just saying, if we hold it up as such a sacrosanct right to have a baby, if the woman wants to, in the face of overwhelming societal interest and reason to the contrary, then maybe the right to life should be recognized as sacrosanct as well.

 

The right to life has exceptions to it. A brain dead patient is alive but has lost the right to life. A fetus is alive but has not attained the right to life yet. YOU WANT EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT TO LIFE.

 

Problem is you start with a false assumption and then attempt to refute you own false assumption, it's called a strawman .. the false assumption is that the unborn do not have a right to life, they do, exactly the same right you have to life as long as in sustaining that life they are not causing non-consented injuries to another person, tell me does your right to life allow you to injure another person without consent, if not why should it be any different for a fetus?

 

A flimsy illogical comparison....about as good as "dog allegedly carries baby in mouth so abortion is bad" ....totally illogical.


A baby does have a right to life, a fetus doesn't.....there , wasn't that easy?

 

It's a logical fallacy to switch the positions of the conditions in an "If...then" statement.

Just because X implies Y does not mean Y implies X.

 

Another irrelevant argument by someone who cares very little about these babies. It is neither reasonable nor possible to ignore the following:

1. There is no way to know who is pregnant.
2. If someone was going to abort a pregnancy, there is nothing you can do about. Nothing!
3. You can try to convince them its wrong, but unless you are willing to step up and offer your love and your home, you are just as unwilling and uncaring as they are.

My message to all pro-lifers: Open your door or close your mouth.

 

It's all he's got. And when you ask him to defend his position by offering up hypotheticals based on an assumption that he would get his desired goal.....i.e. banning abortion in the United States?

He openly reveals himself as a "Taliban'esque" totalitarian and misogynist.

 

Your question is based in fallacy. A baby does have the right to life.

The second fallacy is claiming that the rights of a baby relate to the right of a woman to reproduce when you have not made this link ?

Your "some pro lifers think even if a baby did exist a woman still has right to abort" has nothing to do with the rights of a woman to reproduce and everything to do with a woman's right to not to reproduce.

A baby has rights. The question above relates to a question of conflicting rights - whether the rights of the mother over her own body trump the rights of the baby. A baby (assuming such a thing can exist prior to birth) has the right to life but, not necessarily the right to occupancy on the womb of the mother.

None of this has any bearing on the right of a woman to reproduce.

 

The right to life is indeed sacrosanct. Why do you think that it is not ?

 

Another "dog" of a thread........

 

Oh wow.

Can we even compare this abstraction that is the "right to life" of a parasitic, non-sentient and unwanted creature to the very real needs and desires of mothers?

 

Only on his "good" days!

 

Given how the OP is being savaged payback is a female cur!

 

A fetus is not a person. This thread OP is so flawed. Our religious right needs to move to the middle east, where there are other woman haters.

 

The right to life is not sacrosanct, in fact I would argue there is no such thing as a right to life.

Sacrosanct means "is regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with", and yet we see state sanctioned killing, war and numerous self-defence killings, those alone show that the right to life is not sacrosanct. When the state can "interfere" and execute another person then life cannot be sacrosanct REGARDLESS of the reasoning for that execution.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not. The fetus still does not have the right to infringe on the rights of another person without consent.

The pro-life personhood argument is a red herring which is irrelevant in the abortion debate.

 

`
Generally, I stay as far away from the abortion debate as I can. It's an exercise in futility. But once in awhile, I may glance at a title using logic that is so.....how can I say, ...unique (as opposed to 'twisted') that I feel compelled to respond, in some manner. I've never heard of a females "right to reproduce" before. Did you think of that by yourself?

 

There is no right to reproduce, it's just another fairy story concocted by the author .. one of many/

 

I've never looked at it as a right.. I've always considered it a privilege... so rephrasing "do women have a privilege to reproduce"... no I think some women should not have that privilege.. I base this on maternal child abuse not only abortion.

Should it be taken away from them... China did this... and they recently reversed the decision, an enormous amount of human rights abuse occurred while the one child policy was in place. I don't believe you can take away that "privilege" without abusing human rights.

 

Why do you think it is? There are MANY exceptions to the right to life

 

That would be a good argument, except if someone deliberately carries a fetus till 7 months, you could then argue she consented to carrying it, assuming of course that she had the opportunity to abort it sooner.

My argument for abortions later than 7 months is just, "If they are going to do it anyway, let them. Do you want to adopt it?" I do not think abortion after 7 months is ethical. But I also don't think enforcement is practical.


My argument for abortions later than 7 months is just, "If they are going to do it anyway, let them. Do you want to adopt it?" I do not think abortion after 7 months is ethical. But I also don't think enforcement is practical.

 

Consent may be withdrawn at anytime.

 

Wow, 20 posts within 10 hours. I can tell this thread must have hit a nerve.

 

Getting pregnant is not a right at all. It's a bodily function.

 

sorry no, that would be implied consent, and implied consent is only applicable until the person, by word or action, explicitly says no

 

Well, I don't know of any acceptable way to enforce a law against abortion anyway, other than pay the woman to carry it another few months. ACA should reduce the number of abortions a little. Tax payer paid maternity leave would boost it a bit more.