Ron Paul ignored.

[reverendjeremiah]

...and so you've effectively legalised the murder of innocent humans.

If you want to look at it from that facet, then be my guest.

That is very much an authoritarian solution.

no it isnt. It is the LEAST authoritarian position out of the choices available. Big difference.

By not legislating on abortion, the government is making a statement that in contrast to scientific facts, unborn children are not human,

LMFAO, now you are pushing it, grasping for straws. Unborn children ARE human, the mother owns the womb. Its crystal clear.

and thus have no human rights.

LMFAO, try and tell your parents you dont want to go to church when they force their religion on you...come back to me later once you find those rights for children you keep dragging on about.

I hold that the opposite is true; that since unborn children are genetically human, they must therefore have human rights.

Mother owns the womb, and the nutrients, and the umbilical...and the baby!.

At what point do children get their human rights in that case? At the moment of birth? If so, are you in support of abortion the day before the child was expected to be born? You speak about the "consequences" of my beliefs, but what about the consequences of yours? Where do you draw the line?

Hmm..thats a good question. Here's another, "Do we humans actually HAVE rights to begin with?" I have lots of good questions that will never get answered.
The consequences of my beliefs on this topic are the minimal possible consequences. By allowing abortion, and (hopefully) having a good education, abortion will be few and rare. Your option has consequences as well, but the freedoms of the citizen are removed. Not to mention your option allows the foot in the door for others to come in with even more wild legislations and authoritative commands upon the womans womb.

Where do I draw the line? Your rights start when your mother decides to extend them to the unborn in her womb. That is HER allowing the unborn baby to have rights. It is HER womb, it is HER body, it is HER rights that she can extend or retract from the unborn. Once the baby becomes an INDIVIDUAL, who no longer requires life support from mommas womb, then he or she will have their own rights.

I would argue that the decision that provides the most freedom to the most amount of people would be the opposite; that women (1 individual) can at minimum abort a single baby (1 individual), but have the capacity to abort several over the course of their lives (many individuals). In short, an abortion only takes one woman, but one woman can have many abortions.

By the gods! So if a handful of women use birth control as, well, birth control, then it is a horrible crime! So naturally, we need to tell these woman "sorry, but we are taking charge of your womb. You're having this baby wether you want it or not." Last I checked it took two to tango. What will be done to the man who produces future abortion victims?

Yes, the government shouldn't have to make a decision on who "must" become a mother, but the government should also uphold human rights, and I believe that the most important right humans have is the right to life.

Well, I dont know about your country, but our country is pretty cut and dry on who has rights and who doesnt.

All personsborn or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Plain and simple in our country. You cant have rights unless you are at least born.

Yet more proof that you still don't get the very basic difference between voting on whether rights are rights (which is absurd, since rights are rights by definition), and voting on what should happen when two rights come into conflict (as per the multiple examples I've given, but to which you've refused to respond).

#1 - ALL rights are voted on. Every single right that we have in our constitution was voted upon. Maybe you are saying that rights arent voted on because some king or queen ordered them upon people, I dont know, but where I come from all rights are voted for.

#2 - Unborn children have no rights in our country, and trust me, plenty of people have tried to make amendments to give them such rights. They have failed every time.

You don't get to tell me..

Easy now R. What about all of those rights you were just arguing about? My country voted in Freedom of speech as the second most important right a human can have.

...that I can't make up my mind on a specific subject when I've argued it repeatedly, given you examples, and you have refused to respond to them. You haven't even made a comment, let alone a rebuttal of the whole "conflict of rights" issue, so how you can sit there and say that I "can't make up my mind" is beyond me.

Clearly you have not made up your mind about how rights are handled on this subject. You even go so far as saying a judge, or the voting public ( I assume) should decide who has rights in the case of abortion; the mother or the unborn baby.

The only logical solution which is rights-based is to have very specific conditions on when abortion should be allowed, and when it should not. That way, a woman who is raped does not have to suffer (as much), and an innocent baby born to a mother who got pregnant accidentally gets to live.

So if a condom busts, the rights of the mother are ignored in favor of the product of the accident. If the mother is raped (is spousal rape included? Many fundies here consider no such thing as "rape" in the marriage bed) then the babies rights are ignored in favor of the mother.

This is what is called "flip flopping". One minute you are screaming about how babies are innocent and deserve rights, the next minute you are going on about how those rights can be ignored.

What is rape? Sex that a woman doesnt want. The product of that rape is an unwanted baby. That baby has no rights in your view.

What is accidental pregnancy? Sex that a woman wants, but intends not to get pregnant from. The product of that sex is an unwanted baby. That baby has rights in your view.

Both babies are unwanted by the owner of the womb.

I do not flip flop on this case. Unborn babies have no rights until they are born. Period.