Perhaps it was the context (i.e. following other things posted by other people), but I don't think my post implies any sort of rigorous defense? In fact, I tried to make clear that I'm not getting into that level of discussion about abortion in this thread, but instead limiting it to the context of rights.
But, it wouldn't be the first time that I've been accused of being "too serious." I'm probably guilty as charged. It's just a personality fault.
I don't intend this as snark: please re-read my post. I do describe such circumstances. I do believe that they are limited, on the basis of "competing rights", but I acknowledge when they exist.
You must also realize (even if you don't agree) that I approach the discussion from the perspective of every human being having all intrinsic, natural rights inherent on the basis of being a living human being - which includes the unborn, who are (undeniably) living human beings. Thus, the question I posed is really the central question of the issue: Under what circumstances is any right of the mother infringed by the life of the human being whose life is taken through abortion, much less a higher priority than the right to life of that human being?
(And, again, I did acknowledge what I believe is one, and the only, such such circumstance.)
I'm willing to discuss that question - but not much else, at least in this thread - about abortion.
If this is just about rights, I’m probably closer to the 99% than the one. But I do think there is at least some merit to rights on the other side that I have to acknowledge. An unexpected pregnancy is a burden, to the mom in particular but also the father, assuming that he’s responsible enough to stick around. The moral question is, which rights have priority. I kinda side with the one that favors life more than convenience, but I don’t think it’s immoral for those who choose abortion under some circumstances. And that’s as far as I’ll go with it, or people will jump on every little detail, and turn this into yet another abortion thread.
