chadlingard
chadlingard When does a potential have actual rights, equal to and in the frame of the argument, superior to the human incubator?
That's a true issue I'm also unsure of. However, if you grant that the fetus is a human, then surely the right to life must outweigh the right to convenience?
chadlingard As well some stats I have read put abortions as 14 times less riskier than child birth.
Most pro-life groups would argue that abortion is permissible when the mother's life is threatened. But just pure risk is not a good argument. If pure risk of illness is cause for abolishment of the risk, then surely highways should be banned as there is a risk someone will kill you while you are on it. Or for just posing a risk that someone while drive out of the road to kill a passerby. So the problem is rather "When is the risk too high?". A medical examiner or perhaps a psychologist should weigh those options. Whether person should be private or public is something I don't know.
The libertarian arguments for abortion also frequently ignore the issue of duty. Aside from rape or incest, why should the mother's right outweigh the right to life of the child if the mother knew the possible consequences of her actions?
chadlingard If you are opposed to mandatory welfare by what right could you force child birth and the obvious corollary of financial and care-giving responsibility for 18 years, and if you are not providing free-child birth facilities and pre-natal care and neo-natal care how does this affect the social contract as it were?
I agree here. It is my personal belief that every law limiting freedom - even when justified - should be met with great government welfare and help. Just saying "abortion is illegal so you're gonna have to suffer alone" does not cut it. If freedoms like that are limited, then such people should have greater access to the health services you mentioned. Again, aside from rape or some type of coercion, the person in question knew what she was getting herself into. I do not know what the solutions are for rape or incest.
chadlingard And then of course all the normal arguments raised in support of abortion on certain premises; rape, incest, risk of abnormalities and congenital defects, child-brides and forced marriages etc.
As stated, pro-life groups acknowledge that abortion is morally permissible if the mother's life is in danger. Rape and incest, as mentioned, make things difficult. I'll rather not give an opinion on this. Child brides and forced marriages are types of coercive sex, along with rape. But let's not use exceptions which are rare to justify people who clearly chose to have sex and knew the possible consequences, and who most likely ARE able to care for the child. If the mother has the resources, and is healthy, and can look after the child,and was not coerced, why should the child die because she finds the consequences of her actions (not someone else's) inconvenient?
I agree on the death penalty. A part of us wants it to be allowed, but I've read too many Russian books to support it. And yes vigilantism should not be allowed legally. You might have the moral right, but you shouldn't have the legal right.
Edit: Why is the popular word for coitius censored? In another post of mine the acronym for nationalist socialist (you know, WW2 Germans), was censored as well. What's the reason behind this? We are all adults, and the one thing we discuss here is politics which will of course refer to both.