Fair point but there are too many "purists" out there who do believe in untrameled rights. There are those supporting gun rights who have that belief and I know supporters of abortion rights think a woman's right to her body should have no limit.
Well, like I said in my first post, in the Utopian version, unlimited rights carry the responsibility of not interfering with another's rights. So, in that way, there is a limit. Those who believe in abortion can't reconcile with the idea that the unborn child has rights that can't be trampeled by the mother's "right to choose." So they soothe their conscious by terming the unborn child a "fetus", rather than a person with rights of his/her own.
Fair enough. Where do you think the line should be? 1) When should a baby's right be considered over a mothers and vice versa? 2) What are the reasonable limits on gun ownership? Which guns if any should be prohibited what limits on ownership should be in place? These are the questions to debate. Where are the limits not if there are limits. I posted my ideas on abortion earlier in some detail and on gun ownership in general. I am curious what others think.
Once a "fetus" can survive outside of the womb, unless endangering the immediate health and/or survival of the mother, imo is where we should draw the line. Automatic firing weapons in all honesty have no place in the private ownership discussion, and rightfully so aren't unless one possesses a Fed CIII license. And those lics are damn near impossible to get. And as long as one is not a felon, a batterer, or of mental disease and defect, like the rules are now, there shouldn't be limits to weapons already accessable in stores now. And we sure don't need more legislation and new laws to make things harder, just enforce the laws already on the books. How many felons or others not allowed to own weapons tried to buy or access them last year? Of those cases, how many were even tried? Laws don't work if their not enforced...
This is a false dilemma. It is a medical rarity when pregnancy threatens the life or health of a mother. Former Surgeon General C. Everret Koop once said, "protection of the life of the mother as an exercise of abortion is a smoke screen. In my thirty-six years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instances where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications would arise that threaten the mother’s life, the doctor will induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger. To spare a mother’s life is a myth of abortion.” The major condition, where carrying a baby can kill a mother occurs when the embryo implants in the fallopian tubes rather than the uterus. In such case the fallopian tube must be removed, and the baby is lost as an effect. But even in this case abortion does not save the mother. Necessary life saving surgery kills the baby, which was never viable anyway. It is a medical ethics principle called double effect. This occurs in one in several hundred thousand pregnancies. Considering that, the rights of the baby and the mother are never truly at odds. The parties should be neutral.
Thanks this is where information helps. Too often emotion or political profit form the basis of debate. I appreciate your input Supra.
I cant speak for everyone, but I call it a fetus because it's a fetus. I don't go the the grocery store and buy a dozen chickens for breakfast. I buy a dozen eggs.
In your lame attempt to be snarky you have shown us that you don't know the difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg.
who asked for a law? i was doing the opposite. something should be illegal if it hinders the good operation of society and/or has a victim (takes away others rights). is drunk driving illegal because of morality? no, its public safety. i disagree with you about morality and law. morality used to be law, but rational societies have been sloughing off victimless laws----just as not honoring you father or mother, coveting your neighbors wife, and adultery are not illegal neither should abortion be.
