A_Wanderer said:
It trumps because the argument of depriving reproductive liberty is built on a platform of protecting human life, parading around posters plastered with foetuses smiling to make a case that abortions are taking human life.
Wait a minute, A...
These "reproductive liberties" have only been considered "liberties" since 1973. Before that, abortion was not a "reproductive liberty". Maybe I could look at the same issue and say that prior to 1973, human fetuses had the right to develop into fully functioning human beings, but that the fetus's rights were taken away in 1973. My argument, that the fetus' rights trump those of "reproductive lierties", has a much much longer precedence than "reproductive liberties" trumping fetus' rights to life.
A_Wanderer said:
I feel that there is no distinction between a human life and a potential human life; that the ideology of these groups will never be able to make such a distinction - so their opposition to abortion will run through every stage.
Even those who support abortion rights will concede the fact that a fetus is at least a "potential human life". But they say that there is a difference between a "potential human life" and a "human life". But you see no distinction between the two. So, you are saying one of the following:
(A) The fetus is not a potential human life and therefore is not a human life and therefore does not have the same rights as a human life
or
(B) The fetus is a potential human life and there is no distinction between a human life, but you are still in favor of abortion rights, therefore saying that "reproductive liberties" are more important than the rights of a potential human/human fetus to life?
If you are saying (A), then I think you are wrong and all biological science would prove you wrong, but I can at least respect the fact that you are not advocating that it is okay to kill an innocent human life.
However, if you are saying (B), then I cannot respect your stance on this at all, because it means that you think it is okay to kill an innocent human life as long as "reproductive liberties" are upheld.
A_Wanderer said:
If you are morally opposed to abortion then by all means raise your children to believe it to be wrong, just don't start stepping in to use the government to enforce a arbitrary and moralistic limit on other peoples reproductive liberty and sovereignty over their bodies.
(1) I am morally opposed to abortion, but that moral opposition is grounded in biological fact, that a fetus is a life. All laws against murder are grounded in morality, and my desired law to make abortion legal would be no different.
(2) The reason I think it is necessary for the government to "step in" is because of the big mistake the government made when it "stepped in" in 1973 and declared that protecting life in the womb was no longer as important as protecting "reproductive liberties".