The "right to life" doesn't exist.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-26-2006
The "right to life" doesn't exist.
536
Sun, 06-08-2008 - 10:53pm

I would like to see some pro-lifers tackle this fact.

The right to life..does not exist...for any person born or unborn...if said life requires the support of another persons body. Let me clarify. I as a person...with basic human rights to autonomy over my own body, the basic rights to make my own health choices, life choices, and refuse any risks upon my body at any time for any reason...can make a choice to give or refuse consent of the use of my body for any reason. No born person has the RIGHT to LIFE...if that life requires my body. I am under zero legal obligation to provide blood, marrow, or organs...even if my refusing to provide them means someone else may die. No person has the right to use my body AGAINST MY WILL and WITH OUT MY CONSENT to survive. No person can attach themselves to me, draw my blood, or take my organs with out my approval. This is a basic fact.

Why should a fetus have this right...when no born person does or can. Why should pregnant women be DENIED basic human rights to control of their bodily functions...and not others? Simply because they are pregnant?

This issue has been posted numerous times on numerous boards and I have yet to see any pro-lifer even attempt to respond. Why is that? If a born person does NOT have these rights...why do some suggest that a fetus does or should?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2008
Mon, 06-09-2008 - 2:31pm

In my opinion abortion is wrong no matter what way you look at it. There IS a difference, if you are a CHRISTIAN. God does everything for a reason. Although you have the choice to carry or abort your baby. Abortion is murder. If you are ill and no one will donate to you it's very sad but

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Mon, 06-09-2008 - 3:30pm

<>

That's OK- we can ALL have opinions. But we can't legislate them.

<>

So Christians should not have abortions. We are not all Christians though. We don't make laws based on religious ideals either. I am a pagan. Would you like the things I write in my Book of Shadows to be codified as law? You may just end up dancing nekkid on the High Sabbats, Low Sabbats and under the full moon, you know;-)

<>

Actually, that's wrong. Murder is a legal term - and it doesn't apply to abortion.

<<..........The fetus of an unborn child is life according to the Bible.>>

I do not follow the Bible. Do you follow all of the laws in Leviticus?

< womb has done nothing wrong. It is in fact innocent.>>'

Of course it is. So is cancer. Alive and innocent. So is a bear that mauls your baby. Innocent as it does not have reason. But the risks of all- including pregnancy and childbirth exist independent if innocence or guilt, and thusly constitute the basis for every woman's right to choose the set of risks, both short and long term that are inherent in gestation and childbirth or abortion.

<>

To you. Some may think it is the wisest choice under certain circumstances. So no- it's not clear at all.

.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Mon, 06-09-2008 - 4:08pm

I don't have much time, but I'll tackle what I can.

"Honestly, I don't know how anyone who believes abortion is okay could be a God fearing christian. JMO. I would hate to be standing before God and have him ask me why I would do such a thing to his wonderful creations."

First of all, thinking abortion is acceptable does not mean that you intend to have one, think you need to have one, or will ever have one. I don't think abortion is really acceptable in most instances, but I also don't think that God (or anyone else) gave me the right to make that decision for anyone else. That makes me pro-choice, not pro-abortion, KWIM?

Besides that, you get yourself into a very tricky position when you start posting up biblical citations as evidence that life begins at conception. If life does begin at conception, and if you cannot violate the sixth commandment, then what do you do if the life inside you is determined to kill you? Ectopic pregnancies are the most obvious issue here, but there are other instances in which allowing the life inside to continue would end the life carrying it.

Would you castigate women who aborted in those instances and say that they are clearly not God-fearing Christians? Would you expect these women to accept their lot and die rather than kill one of God's "wonderful creations," when their death would cause the death of that creation anyway?

Frankly, I don't think that God is that cruel that he would put women in the position of being damned no matter what decision they make. I wouldn't want to believe in a God who would do such a thing. I fully expect you now to say that abortion would have to be acceptable in this instance (although it's entirely possible that you may not, and in that case I pity you). Unfortunately, with your argument as it stands, you make no exception for those who would die had they not had an abortion (which includes a few people on this board).

Photobucket
Lilypie 1st Birthday PicLilypie 1st Birthday Ticker




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2006
Mon, 06-09-2008 - 7:10pm

~In my opinion abortion is wrong no matter what way you look at it. There IS a difference, if you are a CHRISTIAN.~


~Honestly, I don't know how anyone who believes abortion is okay could be a God fearing christian. JMO. I would hate to be standing before God and have him ask me why I would do such a thing to

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-26-2006
Mon, 06-09-2008 - 10:58pm
This country is not a theocracy...so religion has no place in legal matters. I am not addressing personal morals or personal opinions about the "wrongness" of abortion...but the legal facts....that a "right" to "life" can not exist if that life requires another persons body. Abortion is not murder...it doesn't fit the definition.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Tue, 06-10-2008 - 7:21am

>>No born person has the RIGHT to LIFE...if that life requires my body. <<

so in the case of simease twins the person with the bulk of the organs can have a seperation done even if it means certain death for the other twin?










Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2007
Tue, 06-10-2008 - 8:04am

Interesting question.

*************************************************

"You're cute. I like you."

"What you se

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2005
Tue, 06-10-2008 - 8:45am

"Keeping it short for now as I'm not nearly caffienated enough!"


*passes the coffee*


Powered by Lorf!


Daisypath Vacation Ticker


Powered by Lorf!

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2007
Tue, 06-10-2008 - 2:55pm

Thanks, Colleen.

*************************************************

"You're cute. I like you."

"What you se

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-10-2008
Tue, 06-10-2008 - 6:35pm

In addition:

Therefore, if we all begin that way, and no matter when people think "life" actually begins, isn't it fair to say that legally you shouldn't take the life of the unborn child either, because it's their body and their body to do with what they want and no one else can make that decision for them???

Also, it can be argued that people who are in comas are treated differently. The "plug might eventually be pulled" on them. And although some people are fortunate enough to have made a living will and it might be stated in there, not everyone has a living will. Not every human vegetable gets to decide when their "plug is pulled" now do they?

Therefore, in some senses, if you're going to argue it this way, you're right in some ways and in others you're not.




Edited 6/10/2008 6:37 pm ET by toomanylaurens

Pages