The right to live is already not the most important right, that's also why it's not considered murder if you kill someone in self-defense or why the government can't force you to donate blood/organs to someone who is dying. We have plenty of other rights that come before other peoples' right to life as is, and abortion is no different; your right to bodily autonomy means that you have sole control over who can or cannot use your body, at any time, for any reason, and you have the right to stop anyone who violates that consent by any means necessary, even if it means they die.
@6WP5FSYRepublican6mos6MO
“The right to live is already not the most important right, that's also why it's not considered murder if you kill someone in self-defense”
I disagree with your conclusion that the right to self defense is in contradiction to the right to life. The fact we value a persons right to defend themselves in fact suggests we believe that ones life is valuable. Instead what is being displayed here is that the right of the aggressor is worth less than the life of the person being aggressed upon.
@VulcanMan6 6mos6MO
Killing someone in self-defense being a justified act would show that one person's right to self-defense is more important than another person's right to life. If everyone's right to life was paramount to all other rights, then this action would be considered unjustified. As another example, you are often legally allowed to shoot and kill someone who is trespassing on your property, despite the act of simply walking on privately-owned land not being violent on its own; this further shows that even the right to property is held to a higher priority than other people's right to life in many cases, thus advancing my point that there are plenty of circumstances in which another right takes precedence over another person's right to life, and abortion is no different.
@6WP5FSYRepublican6mos6MO
“Killing someone in self-defense being a justified act would show that one person's right to self-defense is more important than another person's right to life.”
No, it merely means that the victims right to life is more important than the aggressors.
@VulcanMan6 6mos6MO
But that's exactly the point? 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&… Read more
@6WP5FSYRepublican 6mos6MO
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.
