I find all this back-and-forth on the issue of when life begins to be irrelevant to the core issue.
Abortion is a sticky wicket because there is an intersection of, and conflict between, the rights of the mother and those of her fetus.
The only way to resolve this conflict is to favor the rights of one party at the expense of the other. Either the woman can kill the fetus, violating its fundamental right to live, or be forced to carry the fetus full-term, thus violating her rights to bodily autonomy.
Regardless of where one comes down, this is the fundamental issue.
So the real question is *who decides*?
In my view, it must be the woman, perhaps in consultation with her family and doctor if she so chooses, but in the end, it has to be her call.
I find this conclusion uncomfortable, but one thing I know for certain is that it is not my call, and sure as hell isn't some politician's.
i suspect you would not allow a woman to decide to kill her 3 month old child or to simply drop one 5 feet onto the sidewalk because her bodily autonomy allows it.
does an unborn entity of, say, 5 months possess no rights?
if one were to slip this woman ru486 and cause fatal miscarriage, would that be murder?
because the idea that she can end that pregnancy and commit no crime but that someone else could not would seem to pose a contradiction.
it can't be murder if you kill them but not if i do.
how do we resolve that?
this is why i think defining the moment of personhood is the key.
once we do that, the contradictions and the precedence of rights and values gets resolved.
Of course I would not allow the killing of a 3 month old child. Once the child is born, it is no longer a part of the woman's body and thus the conflict between the fundamental rights of the mother and the fetus no longer exists.
As a human being, the fetus possesses the same rights as the born, but again, in the case of pregnancy, the mother's right to control her own body, which is fundamental, cannot be fully exercised without violating the right of the fetus to live.
So, again, the fundamental question becomes, who decides and enforces that decision?
The same question applies to the determination of personhood.
My instincts and emotions would legally favor the fetus over the mother, but intellectually I am hesitant to place my judgment above the mother's in this matter, particularly in a blanket fashion.
Equally important, I know that empowering the State to regulate such things is fraught with danger, which I think the last two years have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Certainly, reasonable people can disagree on this.
As for the ru486 scenario, that is clearly a violation of the rights of both the mother and the fetus and the perpetrator should be dealt with accordingly.
Sex is a contract. Having sex might result in a baby. That is the express purpose of sex. Virtually everyone knows this. When you have sex, you sign a contract that says “I might get pregnant from this action. I agree to this possibility.” Whether or not you like it, you have signed it. You’re basically signing away the right of bodily autonomy for a little while in the event you do get pregnant.
Being pregnant is not permanent. It’s over in 40 weeks. Being aborted is permanent. When life and death are involved, that trumps the inconvenience of being pregnant for less than a year.
That too is your opinion. The state imposed itself on us in all sorts of ways. Murdering an innocent human being is well within the borders of any society-wife legal framework, which is why only 6 countries in Earth, including the U.S., allow abortion beyond 18 weeks.
Moreover, even to take your bodily autonomy argument, that applies to zero abortions beyond 10 weeks. Once a woman knows, or should know with any degree of individual responsibility or concern for her body, it is reasonable to balance those two conflicting rights by an assertion at that point to either have an abortion or not. Aborting a 15 week old human being by tearing it apart limb from limb is not justified by bodily autonomy because at that point the mother is, at best, indifferent to the living human being she has knowingly carried for months before deciding to murder that human, and in the process ensured that living human being was subjected to blatant torture in the process. Women know if they have had sex. When we are talking about killing a living human being, I was too lazy to get a pregnancy test isn’t a justification.
Do you even have the guts to scroll down to what an actual tortured and aborted baby looks like?
You can look, by age, at what you propose society has no interest in..... I encourage you to expand even the 4 month fetus. It’s easy to say “it’s a woman’s body.” I once did. But people with more guts than me challenged me to observe the outcome and see if I still felt that way. I don’t.
Why not? We have laws against murder, harming others, robbery, tax evasion, etc. why is this any different?
We need to remember that outlawing abortion means stopping doctors from performing the procedure or prescribing medicine to accomplish the same. Doctors are not allowed to do all kinds of things already.
Mandates are illegal and immoral. A gross violation of human rights.
Those responsible for them should be prosecuted criminally and upon conviction, have all their assets confiscated and distributed pro rata as damages to those they harmed.
I think you’re inflating the woman’s rights and downplaying the rights of the fetus. Also I’m not so against the state as you. But you’re entitled to your opinion. Thanks for the discussion.
The woman owns her own body, and thus has the right to do as she pleases with it.
The fetus is alive, and thus has the right not to be killed.
This is a unique and difficult situation.
I am not arguing that one parties' rights trump the other's, only that it is not for me to decide and that the State deciding is perhaps the worst outcome possible.
I find all this back-and-forth on the issue of when life begins to be irrelevant to the core issue.
Abortion is a sticky wicket because there is an intersection of, and conflict between, the rights of the mother and those of her fetus.
The only way to resolve this conflict is to favor the rights of one party at the expense of the other. Either the woman can kill the fetus, violating its fundamental right to live, or be forced to carry the fetus full-term, thus violating her rights to bodily autonomy.
Regardless of where one comes down, this is the fundamental issue.
So the real question is *who decides*?
In my view, it must be the woman, perhaps in consultation with her family and doctor if she so chooses, but in the end, it has to be her call.
I find this conclusion uncomfortable, but one thing I know for certain is that it is not my call, and sure as hell isn't some politician's.
this seems a difficult framing.
i suspect you would not allow a woman to decide to kill her 3 month old child or to simply drop one 5 feet onto the sidewalk because her bodily autonomy allows it.
does an unborn entity of, say, 5 months possess no rights?
if one were to slip this woman ru486 and cause fatal miscarriage, would that be murder?
because the idea that she can end that pregnancy and commit no crime but that someone else could not would seem to pose a contradiction.
it can't be murder if you kill them but not if i do.
how do we resolve that?
this is why i think defining the moment of personhood is the key.
once we do that, the contradictions and the precedence of rights and values gets resolved.
Of course I would not allow the killing of a 3 month old child. Once the child is born, it is no longer a part of the woman's body and thus the conflict between the fundamental rights of the mother and the fetus no longer exists.
As a human being, the fetus possesses the same rights as the born, but again, in the case of pregnancy, the mother's right to control her own body, which is fundamental, cannot be fully exercised without violating the right of the fetus to live.
So, again, the fundamental question becomes, who decides and enforces that decision?
The same question applies to the determination of personhood.
My instincts and emotions would legally favor the fetus over the mother, but intellectually I am hesitant to place my judgment above the mother's in this matter, particularly in a blanket fashion.
Equally important, I know that empowering the State to regulate such things is fraught with danger, which I think the last two years have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Certainly, reasonable people can disagree on this.
As for the ru486 scenario, that is clearly a violation of the rights of both the mother and the fetus and the perpetrator should be dealt with accordingly.
Sex is a contract. Having sex might result in a baby. That is the express purpose of sex. Virtually everyone knows this. When you have sex, you sign a contract that says “I might get pregnant from this action. I agree to this possibility.” Whether or not you like it, you have signed it. You’re basically signing away the right of bodily autonomy for a little while in the event you do get pregnant.
Being pregnant is not permanent. It’s over in 40 weeks. Being aborted is permanent. When life and death are involved, that trumps the inconvenience of being pregnant for less than a year.
You are entitled to your opinion which is sound, and I don't necessarily disagree.
What you are not, or at least should not, be entitled to, is to impose your opinion on others, either personally or by proxy via the State.
That too is your opinion. The state imposed itself on us in all sorts of ways. Murdering an innocent human being is well within the borders of any society-wife legal framework, which is why only 6 countries in Earth, including the U.S., allow abortion beyond 18 weeks.
Moreover, even to take your bodily autonomy argument, that applies to zero abortions beyond 10 weeks. Once a woman knows, or should know with any degree of individual responsibility or concern for her body, it is reasonable to balance those two conflicting rights by an assertion at that point to either have an abortion or not. Aborting a 15 week old human being by tearing it apart limb from limb is not justified by bodily autonomy because at that point the mother is, at best, indifferent to the living human being she has knowingly carried for months before deciding to murder that human, and in the process ensured that living human being was subjected to blatant torture in the process. Women know if they have had sex. When we are talking about killing a living human being, I was too lazy to get a pregnancy test isn’t a justification.
Do you even have the guts to scroll down to what an actual tortured and aborted baby looks like?
You can look, by age, at what you propose society has no interest in..... I encourage you to expand even the 4 month fetus. It’s easy to say “it’s a woman’s body.” I once did. But people with more guts than me challenged me to observe the outcome and see if I still felt that way. I don’t.
https://wisconsinrighttolife.org/pictures-of-aborted-babies-view
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dead-babies-found-in-dc-apartment-may-have-been-victims-of-infanticide-following-abortion-attempts/
No need to be insulting. I have "the guts" and have seen more than my share of it.
Let me be clear: abortion is a terrible thing and I am not in favor of it, and would not have one were I a woman.
But far worse is giving the State the power to regulate people's medical choices and bodily autonomy.
As an Ancap, this is the only logical position I can come to, as uncomfortable and unsatisfying as it is.
So when specifically do women lose the right to kill their children?
In my view, when the child is no longer within the body of the mother.
But again, my overarching point is that empowering the State to decide leads to worse outcomes than allowing the woman to decide.
There is legislation afoot that will allow killing the child *after it is born*.
This sort of abomination is only possible because of State power.
Why not? We have laws against murder, harming others, robbery, tax evasion, etc. why is this any different?
We need to remember that outlawing abortion means stopping doctors from performing the procedure or prescribing medicine to accomplish the same. Doctors are not allowed to do all kinds of things already.
It is different because unlike your examples, we are dealing with an irreconcilable conflict between the rights of two human beings.
You appear to advocate the State protect those of the fetus over those of the mother. Fine.
I don't think the State should have the power to regulate any aspect of personal lives.
I simply cannot endorse any sort of State coercion.
Libértate, what was your opinion on “vaccines” & mandates that everyone on the planet submit?
Mandates are illegal and immoral. A gross violation of human rights.
Those responsible for them should be prosecuted criminally and upon conviction, have all their assets confiscated and distributed pro rata as damages to those they harmed.
I think you’re inflating the woman’s rights and downplaying the rights of the fetus. Also I’m not so against the state as you. But you’re entitled to your opinion. Thanks for the discussion.
Rights are rights, and you are missing my point.
The woman owns her own body, and thus has the right to do as she pleases with it.
The fetus is alive, and thus has the right not to be killed.
This is a unique and difficult situation.
I am not arguing that one parties' rights trump the other's, only that it is not for me to decide and that the State deciding is perhaps the worst outcome possible.