Yes. Where do you believe human rights and responsibilities come from if not God?
Reason. Morals/human rights come from an analysis of our condition, and thereby reflect our values.
As a citizen intervening, you are correct that stopping the murderer is
my intent. But even if they are captured, execution would be a just
punishment for murder. It is not repossession. It is justice. They have
forfeited their right to life, and that can be supported biblically
(Gen. 9:6).
That verse doesn't substantiate whose prerogative it is to dispense such justice. Presumably, it's God's. This neither justifies execution nor one's seeking to take the life of another, his crimes notwithstanding.
Are you asking why a parent has a responsibility to feed their toddler?
Among other things, yes.
Do you think a parent does not have that responsibility?
Not exactly. If a parent decides to raise their child, then there are inevitable responsibilities associated with that endeavor. My question is geared towards finding out the reason any parent would "owe" this responsibility to their child, which necessarily implicates that they're indebted to said child (though in reality, they're somehow indebted to the State.) What creates and justifies this obligation? The mother's carrying her child to term--is that not gift enough? (And note, I characterized it as a "gift" not as a "debt.")
The baby is not actively trying to threaten the mother's life so
this is not an issue of justice. The baby isn't being punished. Both the
risk to the mother and the child are factors to consider.
I wouldn't suggest that the baby is actively trying to threaten its mother's life. But whether its intent is verifiable or not, it doesn't change the threat it circumstantially poses. And since the risks concern the participation of its mother, particularly the submission of her womb, then why aren't her considerations given priority?
If the baby
has a 0% chance of survival, but will kill the mother if brought to
term, then that is an instance where killing the baby could be
justified. But it is still killing a baby so it is not to be taken
lightly. I cannot emphasize that enough.
And if it has, for argument's sake, a 60% chance of survival, does the mother merely standby as carrying the baby to term kills her?
If both baby and mother have a 50% chance of surviving, I don't think
the baby should be killed. But these are the extreme cases.
So again, the mother must necessarily risk her life carrying a baby to term? And what I'm focused on is not the extreme cases, but the principle. If a mother prioritizes her own survival over that of her unborn child's, why would anyone else get a say?
The overwhelming majority of people kill their babies because they don't
want the responsibility of parenthood, not because of personal risk.
Under the circumstances where the unborn child (zygote/embryo/fetus) is maimed, I would join you in condemning this act. But under the circumstances where it's merely expelled, then I'm going to reiterate that the zygote/embryo/fetus wasn't killed; it dies as a result of its physiological underdevelopment. If I were being honest, I'd tell you that I abhor the act of abortion--truly, I do. (Not that this at all qualifies the integrity of my argument.) But it's not the act I endorse, but the principle behind it, i.e. bodily autonomy which is an extension of individual autonomy. And, in strictly the case where the zygote/embryo/fetus is merely expelled (circumstances otherwise would dictate that the zygote/embryo/fetus is being harmed with intention) I take no issue as a matter of principle with this exercise as an extension of the mother's prerogative, which is to bear exclusive control over how she behaves her body, including the participation in a pregnancy.
