The mother freely elects to “serve as life support” when having the child, that is the inherent responsibility of motherhood”
This is wrong for so many reasons. First of all, one could argue that one has the inherent responsibility of donating blood to another person. The argument doesn't depend on that, second of all: NO. Rape, women can easily and are easily
coerced into having children, the woman can be irresponsible - in which case it could very easily be argued that they were not aware of this responsibility and would have denied it had they known (hence the case with teenage pregnancies), there are so many different reasons why this is just flat out
wrong.
“Second, even if the voter buys that by existing the baby has somehow done wrong, consider that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. Violating someone’s right to life is black & white.
This is incorrect, hence all of the debate over the death penalty. Obviously, if different actions can have one receive more or less harm, and death be a result of harm enough, then it isn't black and white. Yes, someone is either alive or dead, but the actual "violation" is not.
Life is the prerequisite to all other natural rights, so the punishment is proportional even if it is death.
Hm.. this is framing the problem incorrectly. Obviously, you have to be alive to have any rights, that's a fact, however, lets consider the following: If we treated this as the basis for all rulings then that means any case in which a "right of life" is violated there is no justification, as it is necessary for any other rights to exist. If someone kills a violent mugger in self-defense, well that person wouldn't even have the right to defend themself if it wasn't for the fact that they were alive, that's immoral. Do you see the ab absurdum baked in?
For instance, those sentenced to death have taken the lives of many people (i.e. in exchange for taking the lives of others, the perpetrator forfeits their right to life in response).
Does that mean if someone acts in self-defence they've forfeited they're right to life? No, obviously not, there are clearly circumstances where it is warranted to take life away.
On the other hand, it is universally agreed to be an unjust practice to execute over minor grievances.
Minor grievances? First of all, this assumes that the case of someone's bodily anatomy on the literal deepest level is minor in any regard, which it isn't. Second of all, it wouldn't matter if it was universally agreed upon, it still wouldn't necessarily be true. Now I agree with it, but you can see MisterChris's fallacious thinking whenever it comes to moral arguments.
My liberty and pursuit of happiness are impeded in small ways daily (such as the fact that I must follow traffic laws when I drive, or the fact that I am not allowed to bring my orange juice into the movie theatre).
So.. you're saying that a DRIVING VIOLATION is equivalent to PREGNANCY? That's your argument here? They clearly are not equivalent, for as they said. this is a small impedement, whereas pregnancy is a constant for at least 9 months, 24/7. This is a false equivalence.
These small inconveniences do not warrant me lining up everyone who has wronged me and shooting them in the back of the head, especially since many small sacrifices I make in liberty I make for the greater good (imagine how many lives people would take if they didn’t follow traffic laws).
Again, this is obviously a false equivalence on MisterChris's part.
The woman sacrifices the right to kill her baby for the greater good of having a child… and finally the minor inconvenience a baby brings is not warranting death.”
This is not at all what's happening, as abortion does not mean, to kill a baby, abortion means to terminate a pregnancy. Which could result in death of the fetus, or a cee section.
PART 2 to come
