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.
The woman herself. Perhaps her family, perhaps her local community.
These issues would be sorted out and no doubt be different in different places and times.
I am a firm advocate of the principle of subsidiarity.
Thus, I am simply arguing that a one-size-fits all State edict from on high for a nation of 330 million people is dangerous, divisive, and should not be tolerated.
Roe v. Wade is a terrible decision and should have been overturned decades ago.
Having the issue dealt with at the State level is better than the Federal, but even better would be at the local level.
That would minimize the number of people, pro or con, that would be forced to live with, and support, that which they abhor.
As it happens, ceteris paribus I would prefer a stricter set of rules for many of the reasons discussed here, and the fact that the fetus is completely innocent and defenseless.
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.
Sure, she has the right to do with her body whatever she pleases. But the fetus is not her body. She has bodily autonomy, but so does the fetus. She under took the action that would result in a fetus, so now she cannot violate the fetus’s bodily autonomy. She now owes it to the fetus to protect its right to life.
Look at it this way, which party has the responsibility to protect and which party has the right to be protected? Natural law says the mother has the mora and natural l responsibility to protect her offspring.
And ideally it would be the people voting on abortion policy, not the state deciding.
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.
Oh really? Who but the state has the right to stop a parent from killing their child, at any age?
The woman herself. Perhaps her family, perhaps her local community.
These issues would be sorted out and no doubt be different in different places and times.
I am a firm advocate of the principle of subsidiarity.
Thus, I am simply arguing that a one-size-fits all State edict from on high for a nation of 330 million people is dangerous, divisive, and should not be tolerated.
Roe v. Wade is a terrible decision and should have been overturned decades ago.
Having the issue dealt with at the State level is better than the Federal, but even better would be at the local level.
That would minimize the number of people, pro or con, that would be forced to live with, and support, that which they abhor.
As it happens, ceteris paribus I would prefer a stricter set of rules for many of the reasons discussed here, and the fact that the fetus is completely innocent and defenseless.
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.
Sure, she has the right to do with her body whatever she pleases. But the fetus is not her body. She has bodily autonomy, but so does the fetus. She under took the action that would result in a fetus, so now she cannot violate the fetus’s bodily autonomy. She now owes it to the fetus to protect its right to life.
Look at it this way, which party has the responsibility to protect and which party has the right to be protected? Natural law says the mother has the mora and natural l responsibility to protect her offspring.
And ideally it would be the people voting on abortion policy, not the state deciding.