While you're at it! Abolish distribution of cigarettes! Abolish distribution of alcohol! Abolish distribution of un-healthy food!
Jurisdiction - You believe, you have a moral obligation to save an unborn fetus' potential future existence.
But you feel not moral pull to stop alcohol distribution as it ruins families and lives. You feel no moral pull to stop cigarette distribution as it causes numerous health problems for what could have been healthy people! You feel no moral pull to imprison anyone who attempts to commit suicide, even though that person is potentially ruining their life which could prosper. You feel no moral pull to end war that kills thousands of civilians with lives to lead! You feel no moral pull to end miscarriages which removes unborn fetuses more than abortions.You feel no moral pull to stop the distribution of un-healthy food even though it creates obesity which can ruin a person's life. Why?
If your moral premise is that you must save a life from an outside "tyrannical" practice, then your morals are directed at a certain issue, rather than pertaining to the idea of preservation of life.
I don't agree with the war.
I can't do anything about miscarriages.
I can't force ppl not to eat garbage food.
I can perhaps persuade ppl not to kill their babies.
Also, let's see how high you are on consistency. If your moral premise is that you must save a life from an outside "tyrannical" practice, then your morals are directed at a certain issue, rather than pertaining to the idea of preservation of life. So I guess we shouldn't strive to outlaw kidnapping. Or slavery. Or murder.
I don't want to argue about things on facebook. Why? Because you are morally different than I am. You will present the same argument I have heard from pro-lifers, again and again. I will present you with the same argument you have heard from pro-choicers, again and again.
What is the best solution?
Simple, I will be the antagonist to your cause. I will be the prod to your wound. I will CONTINUE to oppose you and you will continue to oppose me.
If you want something to argue about, give me a collective, and fair solution where the fetus and mother don't lose rights.
There is your argument. You can't give a fetus rights without taking away a mothers. If you can, tell me how.
Here's how - wait 9 months. The woman's right not to be inconvenienced (and it's questionable whether that's a right) is inferior to the right to life of the other person who ends up dead. You're all caught up in the pro-baby-murder rhetoric. Calm down and think.
So, Your argument boils down to this. An unborn fetus is a slave of a woman who acts as the slave-owners.
Seeing as a slave is a living cognitively functioning human, you give them rights, denying slave-owners rights. Is a fetus a living, breathing human deserving of rights? Or is it the idea that it may be one, could die at birth, who knows.
Inconsistency in that argument for sure. Seeing as Woman are not oppressing a living breathing human.
PZ not Myers
"living breathing human"-We should talk in person about this, man.
I was simply making the point that because your have to take certain freedoms from a certain group to bestow natural rights on another, does not make the process immoral.
They are oppressing them when they stick scalpels into the bases of their skulls. Remember, Wes? Abortion is killing. It's ugly and grim. Never forget that.