What is your stance on abortion?
No, it merely means that the victims right to life is more important than the aggressors.
If all rights to life were equal then this wouldn't be the case, but only one person here (the victim) has the right to self-defense, which is WHY the aggressor's right to life is negated. The right to life of the aggressor is overruled by the right of self defense of the victim. And again: property rights is another example. Simply walking on someone's property doesn't threaten the life of the owner, yet you can legally shoot and kill that person in most states. This is another clear example in which another right overrules someone else's right to life, without the owner's right to life even needing to be involved. Similarly, even if a fetus was not threatening your health or life, your consent to bodily autonomy still overrules its right to life regardless. The entire point is that the right to life is not absolute.
@6WP5FSYRepublican 5mos5MO
You are putting the cart before the horse. People have a right to self defense because we hold the right to life so highly that when somebody threatens it, their right to life becomes less important. The right to self defense isn't more important than the right to life, it is a safeguard of it.
Property rights extend to implicit threats to a persons life from a home intruder. If we didn't value the right to life to a great degree, people would be allowed to booby trap their own living spaces against home intruders. However, this is illegal. Even in the case of a home invasion we take the right to life of the aggressor with some seriousness.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
If you can violate someone's right to life via the use of another right, then that right has fundamentally taken a higher priority than the right to life. That's the entire point: the right to life is NOT absolute, as other rights can supersede it under certain circumstances. If the right to life was always the most important to uphold under any circumstances, then killing someone would ALWAYS be illegal, but it is not. That is the conclusion I am getting at. It feels like we are agreeing on the same point but miscommunicating in between somehow..?
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
That's unbelievably stupid of you – inferring that any right would EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE outweigh a right to LIFE? Hate to burst your bubble, but if you're DEAD you can't enjoy ANY RIGHT AT ALL. And let me tell you this, you so-called ANARCHO-Marxist – in your spirit of anarchism, why would you EVER support taking away the firearms of people while allowed the government (THE ENEMY OF ANARCHISM) to use nuclear bombs, napalm, AK-47s, &c? That's not anarchist at all that is statism if I ever saw it.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
Simple: your right to bodily autonomy and consent already does come before other people's right to life, that is why you cannot be forced donate blood or organs against your consent, even if someone else will die without it, because your right to consent over who can or cannot use your body is not conditional on the right to life of others. You have no obligation to give someone your bodily consent, even if their life is at stake, because your right to bodily autonomy comes above other people's right to life, including a fetus's.
Secondly, government is not the enemy of anarchis… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
Your donating blood illustration does not work. When you refuse to donate blood, someone dies because of your inaction. When you murder your own child, someone dies directly as the result of your action. These are two completely different scenarios. I believe in natural, God-given rights, not human rights. Sometimes they are called "negative rights". A right to life means no one can murder you, a right to liberty means no one can enslave you, and a right to property means no one can steal from you, etc. You, however, seem to believe in "positive rights" were instead of hav… Read more
