Just for fun, because I know Gun is going to hate me for only responding to his off topic post...

"If you're more afraid of teachers with collective bargaining rights than guns, cancel basic cable."

@bo - At what point do you consider the "fetus" a life worth protecting? Is it when it passes through the birth canal? What about C-sections? Is it viability outside the womb? I am more practical in that there should be a line drawn where the fetus is declared a life independent of the mother. But I prefer to error on the side of caution. Better to say "you waited to long" to a mother than to kill something that it turns out was alive and had rudimentary cognizance.

When it's born.

So 5 minutes before it's born it is just a fetus and as such has no rights? I wish your mom had aborted *you* 5 minutes before you were born.

And thankfully, the law doesn't agree with you. After 26 weeks, it is a life according to the law and as such, only abortable if carrying the child to term would seriously endanger the life of the mother.

And the law doesn't agree with you, either, does it? Moot point. Try something better.

I just want to go on record of staying way-the-ever-loving-hell away from this argument.

I am too... there's no point in arguing it. I'm responding to what's written.

"I am too... there's no point in arguing it. I'm responding to what's written."

That's a very nuanced distinction. Nuance doesn't play well in the forums.

Actually, it does agree with me. I'm not a "from birther" at all. I have the more reasonable view that "heartbeat, hands, toes, brainwaves, and can feel pain" makes it a life and I am fine with the current 24-26 week fetal viability. Although it's not my preferred view, I am fine with saying "if it has at least a 50% chance of surviving, you can't abort it."

Doesn't mean it's not the case, does it? It's a subtle difference but a difference nonetheless. Born and 5 minutes from being born are subtle differences but still differences.

No, it isn't even a subtle difference considering a C-section could have been performed hours or even days earlier. You subtle difference is a random factor in the mother's body and has absolutely nothing to do with the fetus' development. In short, it is an arbitrary line that means absolutely nothing.

So, I guess partial birth abortions where the baby's head is crushed as it sticks halfway out the womb is OK as it isn't actually born yet.

You disgust me.

Draugnar, could I just clear something up. I may be mis-assigning views to you that aren't yours. But I thought you believed that the right to live was a natural law in the sense that it isn't given by the state it exists regardless of the state. I think you cite this in your defense of gun ownership in that owning a Gun helps preserve your right to life therefore the state can't legislate on it.

If I've interpreted your views correctly there appears to be a divergence in your views on gun law and abortion. I'm not getting into the whole argument just now, just wanted to clarify your position.

Yeah, disgust is something I can live with.

The key is where life begins. The right to life occurs where that life begins. I don't believe life begins at conception. I'm not religious in the sense that I believe God instills a soul into a fetus when sperm meets ova. I don't know that I even believe ion a soul per se. But I believe that life begins (whether God exists or not) when the fetus demonstrates as much response to stimuli as an aquarium fish (brainwaves and a response to pain) so that is where the right to life begins. Now, I can live with (although not optimal) our current restriction on abortion after the 2nd trimester, but would prefer it pushed up to only the first trimester. Likewise, I can live with outright bans on certain types of guns (aka assault weapons) but would prefer a clearer definition of what makes an assault weapon including requiring it be selective fire or full automatic fire, not semi auto only. It's a willingness to compromise that extremists on both sides won't do.

So now you can see there is no dichotomy or divergence in my views. Right to life requires a definition of what is life and that is where I can compromise to a certain degree. Assault weapons bans require a clear definition of what makes an assault weapon and that is where I can compromise. Open abortions with disturbing views of when life begins and complete bans on all weapons with projectiles launched via gunpowder are extremist views I cannot give in to just as conception is life and absolutely no gun control at all are extremes that most liberals can't compromise to.

I actually believe much of the true silent majority shares my views or could come to meet me in a compromise on both sides regarding both issues.

"It's a willingness to compromise that extremists on both sides won't do."

In the reality of it, I am thrilled to compromise. Nothing ends one-sided. I'm not that dumb. I am simply trying to evade the argument... it's evidently not working.

@bo - I was responding to Maniac - an actual adult, like myself. Yes, I know you are on a learner's permit so likely only 15 years old.

I've had a license for a year, but hey, what's the difference to you? Oh, dear Elder, please impart me with your neverending knowledge of the universe! Your words are so clear and beautiful; your breath must be made from roses! How can I ever even hope for a small taste of your knowledge to rub off on me!

http://news.yahoo.com/teen-performer-inaugural-events-fatally-shot-135859960.html

How many kids do they have to kill before someone does something about it...

@draugnar - if the right to life is a natural right or God given right it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, it is still there and cannot be overridden by man or society. Your views on where life starts become irrelevant (unless you are God). In the event that the right to life is natural but Humans are allowed to define what 'life' is it would mean we would always have to err on the side of caution. We couldn't demolish a building thinking no one was inside or leave or children alone and unfed for three days hoping that they would survive. It would be the same with the unborn and patients to the end of their lives. If there is an hope of survival, however minute, we would be obliged not to break natural law and do everything we could to preserve life.

If on the other hand you believe that the right to life is a human right created by humans then we have more flexibility to decide upon matters where rights compete. We can prevent the insane and young children from bearing arms because the risk of violating someone else's rights is too great. We can set a limit on abortion or criteria for when life support machines can be turned off.

What we can't do is believe the the right to life is natural and then set human beliefs and knowledge on how that should be interpreted. That reduce the right to life to being man-made. I don't think you can have it both ways here.

@ Draughnar,
It's an interesting point you make about how right to life impacts your views on abortion vs. those on gun control.
Let me ask a hypothetical question that I know has a counterfactual condition, thus negating its practical considerations. You've previously drawn the line at saying you oppose abortion in cases where the fetus has a 50% chance of viability; is it safe to assume, then, that you'd oppose the ownership of certain weapons of 50% of those owned were at some point used to kill someone?
That condition is not true of any weapon I know of, but I'm interested purely in the philosophical ramifications of the 50% threshold. Is a 50% risk of death an acceptable threshold, or is there a greater moral burden on the person committing an action to give the recipient of the action better than even odds? If someone were invading your home and you knew there was only a 50% chance that they might kill you, but a 100% chance that if you fired on them you'd kill them, do those odds factor in the morality of your decision?
Again, philosophical only, and merely a question with no agenda behind it.

Actually I would support that ban. Just like I support a ban on true assault weapons as defined by the military (select fire, certain weight of amunition, etc.)

As far as home invasion. If I felt there were any small chance they might kill me or a member of my family, I feel justified in killing them 100%. The difference between that and abortion is the home invader committed a *crime* that put my and my families life at risk. What he did wasn't an accident but a willful violation of my rights and the law. His life is forfeit because he already showed a lack of respect fro my lrights.. I also support abortions beyond the 50% if carrying the child puts the life of the mother at significant risk, although I would prefer that be done by taking the child out early so the child still has a chance to live, but even that procedure could endander the mother so practicallity says the option must be available. But a fetus didn't just say to itself "I think I will spend nine months in this woman and be born". It is an innocent as much (or more so) thn the woman carrying it. The criminal, on the other hand, is not an innocent but a wlling participant in a violent criminal action.

So the threatening of your life constitutes forfeiture of the perpetrator's right to life? I can see that as a defensible position. What if the invader is unarmed and is threatening only your property not your person? Still morally defensible to shoot to kill?
What about cases where pregnancy results from rape? Is abortion then defensible, even with a >50% viability? In this case the fetus has committed no willful act, but neither has the woman bearing it. What are the moral/philosophical ramifications there?

@maniac - Your intepretation of a natural right is neither practical nor accepted by the rest of the world. So if that is your view of a natural right, then my view of the right to life is not a natural one by *your definition but is by most of the rest of the world's definition. When you choose to make up your own definition (like obi and his definition not recognized by anyone else of what is a military grade weapon) then the usual and customary practical definition isn't going to conform to it.

So if you want to be pedantic and insist a natrual right is only what you define it to be, fine, the right to life is a man made right. But it is for all practical purposes, a universal man made right (generalization and a realistic and practical use of the word, so don't get pedantic and say cannibals see nothing wrong wth killing others to eat so it can't be universal).

@bo - I have been married 24 years today. I think my 47 years of life gives me a bit more of a practical and well formed opinion than your 16 or 17.

@hecks - If innocent life isn't threatened, then no, deadly force is *not* justified. Notice I clarified it to be beyond just my life to "innocent life". My families' lives are just as precious and threatening them justifies killing the intruder.

Things can be replaced, a life cannot. So I would only take a life to protect another.

Okay, happy anniversary. Beyond that, ageism is bad. Grow over yourself.

@draugnar - I'm not defining terms to suit my own ends here (although I think one of us might be) wiki says

"Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system."

People who believe in the right to life as a natural right don't get to pick and choose when it applies. You seem to want it to apply absolutely whe. We speak about gun control, but are quite happy to treat it as something society can define when it comes to abortion.

I'm not asking you to accept that there is an inconsistency as I know how hard that is for people to accept. But please don't accuse me of defining terms to suit my own ends.

"ageism is bad" - I agree. So think about that next time your refer to someone as "an old fart" or "an old geezer", or even just "old". Ageism works both ways. You seem to be able to dish it but not take it in response. Well, tough shit you little punk.