Home - List All Discussions

Something else I don't get...

Sorry for multiple posts but it's just on my mind.

by: AshMarie88

Last night I was thinking about the "pro-lifers" who make the rape/incest exception. How could they?
We know they make those exceptions, they think abortion is okay in that circumstance, but how do they feel about killing born kids who were conceived from rape or incest? If the mom is "suffering" and can't get over the rape, then wouldn't killing the child to end the mom's suffering be acceptable to those "pro-lifers"? If not, why? Obviously to most pro-lifers, almost every baby is the same or should have equal amount of rights, so why should a born rape baby have more rights to life than an unborn rape baby?
What makes one so right, and the other so wrong?
If in fact it's just the case of the child's gestation, shouldn't those same pro-lifers be okay with early term abortions for ANY reason, and not JUST rape/incest?

reply from: Sigma

I don't mind the multiple posts, you're more interesting to discuss things with than the majority of pro-lifers here.
My take on the subject is this: many, and I daresay most, pro-lifers disagree with abortion not due to the consensual nature of the pregnancy, but due to the consensual nature of the sexual activity in which the woman engaged. This feeling focuses on the perceived "guilt" of the woman, which suggests that if a woman does not consent to sex she is not, then, "responsible" for the pregnancy.
Unfortunately, this further suggests that the conscientious use of normally effective birth control would also be an exception since she responsibly tried to advert the pregnancy.
While your position is consistent in this way, AshMarie88, I have serious doubts that there will be any great numbers that agree with you.

reply from: yoda

Ashley: Yep. You're asking for rational moral consistency on a subject which far too many people are willing to be morally inconsistent. I think a lot of it goes back to simple prejudices. They rationalize that a rapist's baby must be "bad seed", so they declare that killing bad seed is okay.

reply from: Teresa18

I know those type of people, the "I'm pro-life BUT." The majority of cases are not rape. In those cases, yes, the mother of course did consent to having sex, knowing that a baby was a possibility. In rape, the mother did not consent, but she still got pregnant. In all situations, though, one thing is in common. A life is being destroyed with the womb of the mother. The mother may experience some discomfort for 9 months, but that is still her child, her flesh and blood, and she shouldn't kill it because of the crime of its father. The child can't help what happened.
Some people figure the child will have the evil rapists genes in himself or herself. That is ridiculous, though. We have no right to determine how a child will be before it is even born. If that were so, then why not determine all births based on the best parents and traits and abort the rest?
I've actually heard that the majority of women who were raped think of the baby as something positive to come out of a horrible situation. Many women who have had abortions after rape actually go on to regret it, making the situation worse.
The only way I would support abortion is if the mother literally would die if the baby were not aborted. From the research I have done, that is almost never if not necessary. In situations such as that, efforts should be made to save both, and if the baby dies in the process of treating the mother, than that is what unfortunately happens.

reply from: Sigma

Continuing a pregnancy on a cervix bruised by rape could be very painful for the woman. Would that change your opinion?
And some may think that to be required to share her body in this way is another rape, it is another way that someone else can use her body without her wanting them to. Would that change your opinion if a woman thought that after being raped?

reply from: Teresa18

Continuing a pregnancy on a cervix bruised by rape could be very painful for the woman. Would that change your opinion?
And some may think that to be required to share her body in this way is another rape, it is another way that someone else can use her body without her wanting them to. Would that change your opinion if a woman thought that after being raped?
Sigma, I admitted that there may be some discomfort for the woman. However, I am certain the doctors may be able to do something to help with such pain or discomfort. As long as the mother is not going to lose her life or be severely damaged for the rest of life, that child should be allowed to live.
The natural process of human reproduction is not rape, no matter how hard you try to twist it around. Many women, even women who "want" their own children, still are not always comfortable, per say, during pregnancy. They still do not proclaim their child a "rapist." Human reproduction has been this way since the don of human life. It is not the most pleasant thing, but in over 98% of all cases the mother does not have serious health issues that will cause her to lose her life or be permanently damaged. If all women declared their children "rapists", there would be no life, and none of us would be here. A baby within the mother is in its natural spot in the womb. She is still free pretty much to live her life, while it may be a bit uncomfortable for 9 months. It is a human life we are dealing with, the mother's child. Just because there may be a bit of discomfort, does not mean that the woman should be permitted to terminate the life of her own flesh and blood.

reply from: AshMarie88

Temporary pain doesn't justify child killing.

reply from: Sigma

Dismissing the emotional and physical pain and self-sacrifce as "some discomfort" really does not sit right with me. Your pardon if this comes across as harsh, but callousness towards women really raises my ire.
To require pregnancy with absolutely no regard for her health except her death is demeaning to women in general and mothers in particular. It is this lack of interest in anything but what is growing within her that spurs movements like the Feminist movement into putting issues such as consent and coersion in the centerstage.
The requirement of it by legislation is. Requiring pregnancy by law takes away her ability to determine who uses her body. It is absolutely a form of rape. To add this on top of the physical rape is morally reprehensible imo.
Whether it is pleasant would be completely individual to the woman. Some like being pregnant, or at least it is worth it. To other women it is absolutely not worth it. You cannot determine what pregnancy is to any other woman.
True. It should be allowed because it is her body and she may determine who uses it. Pregnancy and motherhood are sacred relationships, it should not be done simply because one has no other choice. That is, to me, sickening and horrifying. Both should be gone through because a woman wishes and desires to. Self-sacrifice is not self-sacrifice if it is required by law.

reply from: Sigma

The use of her organs does justify abortion to the majority of the nation. Whatever pain and discomfort she goes through is completely individual.

reply from: AshMarie88

The use of her organs does justify abortion to the majority of the nation. Whatever pain and discomfort she goes through is completely individual.
The only organ her child uses is THE UTERUS. But even that organ doesn't provide the nutrients for the child, it's the cord.

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88, the fetus does not have to be directly connected to the various organs to use them. The wastes the fetus puts out, for example, are put into her bloodstream and passed through her bladder. That uses both her circulatory system and her bladder. Her lungs breathe in oxygen that is then passed onto the fetus, her heart is placed under greater stress to provide for the fetus, etc etc etc.
Virtually her entire body is changed to accomodate the fetus. If you want me to make you a list it'll have to wait until I'm back home.

reply from: AshMarie88

AshMarie88, the fetus does not have to be directly connected to the various organs to use them. The wastes the fetus puts out, for example, are put into her bloodstream and passed through her bladder. That uses both her circulatory system and her bladder. Her lungs breathe in oxygen that is then passed onto the fetus, her heart is placed under greater stress to provide for the fetus, etc etc etc.
Virtually her entire body is changed to accomodate the fetus. If you want me to make you a list it'll have to wait until I'm back home.
You make it sound like pregnancy is the most deadly thing, and that pregnancy puts most pressure on women.

reply from: Sigma

You put your own spin on what I say. Pregnancy puts stress on the woman's body. Less on some, more on others, but it is stress on the woman's body. Don't trivialize it as merely "discomfort".

reply from: bradensmommy

Well, saying pregnancy puts stress on a woman's body and doesn't put stress on it with abortion is a lie. People's bodies go through things all the time. A teenager has growing pains but should we kill ourselves because its a temporary pain? Pregnancy is a temporary discomfort, an abortion is a forever discomfort mentally and physically. It really makes me angry when Siggy brings about pregnancy so negatively. Unless you have experienced childbirth (like I've said before) you don't know crap about it.
I don't know about anyone else but I think 9 months of discomfort is better than a lifetime of pain.

reply from: Teresa18

Dismissing the emotional and physical pain and self-sacrifce as "some discomfort" really does not sit right with me. Your pardon if this comes across as harsh, but callousness towards women really raises my ire.
To require pregnancy with absolutely no regard for her health except her death is demeaning to women in general and mothers in particular. It is this lack of interest in anything but what is growing within her that spurs movements like the Feminist movement into putting issues such as consent and coersion in the centerstage.
The requirement of it by legislation is. Requiring pregnancy by law takes away her ability to determine who uses her body. It is absolutely a form of rape. To add this on top of the physical rape is morally reprehensible imo.
Whether it is pleasant would be completely individual to the woman. Some like being pregnant, or at least it is worth it. To other women it is absolutely not worth it. You cannot determine what pregnancy is to any other woman.
True. It should be allowed because it is her body and she may determine who uses it. Pregnancy and motherhood are sacred relationships, it should not be done simply because one has no other choice. That is, to me, sickening and horrifying. Both should be gone through because a woman wishes and desires to. Self-sacrifice is not self-sacrifice if it is required by law.
Sigma, your utter dismissal of the life being killed within the womb of the mother "raises my ire." I do regard the mother's health in high esteem. However, while pregnancy is not always pleasant, it is a natural means of reproduction for humans. Pregnancy is temporary. Once a woman becomes pregnant, there is another life to consider. That life should not be disregarded for the simple issue of a "woman's choice." The child in the womb can not choose or decide anything. He/she is being forcefully killed at the hands of the abortionists. Over 98% of abortions are simply done for convenience purposes. We have technology and doctors to help women through their pregnancies. If the mother was horribly ill, and in the process of treating her the child lost his/her life or was unable to be delivered and had to be aborted, then I would understand. However, the vast majority of women who have abortions are perfectly healthy women.
It absolutely makes me sick that you equate a beautiful process like human reproduction and children to someone so cold as a rapist. The child is not raping the mother's body. If the child was raping the mother's body for 9 months, there is no way she could possibly live. The vast majority of women, again, are not harmed by pregnancy in a way where they would need to kill their own child. Women go on to live for years and years after giving birth. Women even live longer than men.
Whether it is worth it to her or not, is not the question. It is absolutely worth it to the child, who by a simply choice, could be salt poisoned, or ripped apart by a vaccum and sucked through a tube.
Just because the mother does not consider a particular relationship with her child sacred, does not mean the child should be killed. She is under no obligation to keep the child after the birth. Yes, her body is helping the child to survive, but it isn't sacrificing her long term or even short term. It is in no way harming her body except in that 2% of cases. As I said, many women remain active up until the birth of their children.

reply from: yoda

(To Sigma) "It absolutely makes me sick that you equate a beautiful process like human reproduction and children to someone so cold as a rapist."
And there you have it, wrapped up in a nutshell. The distinction between the cold, uncaring, dismissive Sigma and a ProLifer......... it's not a matter of "logic" or science in any way, it's a difference in values. Cold-hearted, cold-blooded types like Sigma care nothing for innocent life, but instead revel in it's destruction for selfish motives.

reply from: Sigma

I didn't say that. I merely said that pregnancy, for most women, is more than a simple "discomfort". Do not trivialize what women go through during pregnancy.
You don't know crap about how other women experience their pregnancies. Do not trivialize it solely based upon your experience. It is a big deal.

reply from: Sigma

Pregnancy is temporary and is a natural means of reproduction, yes. This does not mean it is not hard on the woman's body. Do not trivialize what she goes through to facilitate this means of reproduction.
You may not believe her health concerns justify abortions and that's fine, but do not deny that her health is a serious issue (beyond mere "discomfort") during pregnancy. She deserves more than "well it won't kill her".
I agree. The fetus is alive and that should not be disregarded on a whim. We should examine our moral and legal obligation to the fetus as well as our moral and legal obligation to the woman as an autonomous individual.
You misunderstand my point. It would be the State gov't that is requiring the pregnancy to continue and that is similar to the rape. They would be telling the woman who can use her body against her will and without her consent. The fetus cannot choose to use her body and is not a moral entity capable of having malicious intent. The gov't can make this decision were it up to them.
The fetus, by the same token of not being able to choose to be attached, would not even be able to have the concept of "worth it" attached to it. Concepts of desire, choice, hope, fear or anything else for that matter cannot be applied to such a creature as the fetus during the time-frame the vast majority of abortions are done. It is anthropomorphizing to attach labels such as these.
It is alive and it is killed. That alone can be said, and that alone should be part of our consideration. That it will grow into a baby, a child, a teenage, an adult is wonderful and special, but when she becomes pregnant we have to deal with what the fetus is and we have to deal with what we owe the woman as an autonomous individual.
Whatever the woman considers the relationship to be, I consider the relationship sacred and personal. It is not for me to determine whether she accepts or rejects the gift she has received. It would be moral abomination for me to do this, imo.
She absolutely sacrafices the use of her body when another uses it. Pregnancy requires self-sacrifice; it requires strength of body and mind to accept the changes to your body and to your emotional health. For the gov't to mandate the pregnancy continue makes the consideration of the fetus more important than consideration than the pregnant woman. The woman, imo, is the more important participant and should be given consideration first.

reply from: galen

Sigma...
didn't someone ever tell you that just because you can do something, it dosn't mean you HAVE to do it.?
rape is an aweful experience that i hope you never have to go through... it does NOT justify killing someone... ever.
mary

reply from: Teresa18

I think I admitted several times that it is difficult on the woman's body. I know that during the 9 months she may not always feel well. You are acting clearly as though pregnancy is some sort of horrible disease that puts all women in bed for nine months. Pregnancy is a natural means of reproduction for humans. Women have obviously survived through pregnancies for thousands of years. In over 98% of cases, women that have abortions are perfectly healthy women. With technology and medical care, women today remain active often close to their due dates. Allowing abortion becasue of 2% of cases where the woman's health is in danger is ridiculous. Yes it isn't always comfortable or pleasant, and sometimes even difficult, but again, abortion/death is permanent.
You are basing this strictly on your morals and the legal system as opposed to biology, which proves this is a person, a young child being killed within the womb of the mother. Morally, you feel a woman has the right to terminate or remove that life through 9 months of pregnancy. You also show that you choose to side with the law, whether correct or incorrect. The law was wrong in horrible things such as the Holocaust and slavery. You are completely disrespecting life as we know it by equating the natural means of human reproduction to slavery.
It would be similar to rape if they were allowing any run of the mill person off the street to use her body against her will. However, this is her child, her own flesh and blood. In most cases, she has consented to pregnancy through sexual intercourse. Even if she was raped, there is still a life there, the life of her child. Since this is the normal reproduction process and means of survival for a child in that stage, she has a responsibiltiy to her child. The child is not going to be permanently in her womb. The child is only going to reside in there for 9 months. A woman's uterus is made to carry a child. When she gets pregnant, the child resides there. The child just needs to stay there in that particular phase of development. Like I said, over 98% of abortions are done on perfectly healthy women and children. The government should not allow perfectly healthy women to kill their children. If the woman is ill, then all efforts should be made to save both, including early delivery. If, in the process of treating the woman, the child dies, it is a shame.
Whether the child is too young in development to understand such concepts is not the point. The point is that this is a person. Albeit a young person, but a person. Bascially, according to you, anyone who is unconscious or in a coma could be killed simply because they can't feel desire, choice, hope, fear, etc. in that particular state. The child in the womb may not yet have a developed consciousness, but that is not because the sense of consciousness is destroyed but because it is still developing. As a person in a coma will become conscious, so will the child in the womb. We don't just owe the woman, most of the time making the choice for personal gains and not health reasons, we owe the child too young to speak for himself/herself.
It does not matter how the woman considers the particular relationship. Women may not love their born children or consider that relationship sacred. That does not mean the woman should kill her child. I know she is sharing her body with her child, but that is the natural means of human reproduction. It is only temporary. Referring to sacrifice of the woman is interesting though, Sigma. In 98% of cases, the child is merely being selfishly sacrificed, not for health, but for selfish motives basically leading to her unwant or dislkike of the child. Now that she has that child in her womb, based on the natural process of human reproduction, she has a responsibility to that child. The government must consider the other person and do what is best so they BOTH survive. Most, and a solid majority of women abort to non health related reasons. The woman would be considered in health related cases, like I said. If both are unable to be saved, the doctors would choose the woman. Fortunately, the woman's body is naturally designed for pregnancy, and with today's medical care and technology, most women survive, often living longer than most men, so that is a rarity.

reply from: Sigma

All I have seen you said is that she won't be comfortable. I think referring to pregnancy as a "discomfort" trivializes the importance and magnitude of what is occurring. If you have admitted before that pregnancy is hard on a woman's body then I have no quarrel in this area.
You are severely blowing my objection out of proportion. I have said nothing like this. My objection is to references to pregnancy as "not feeling well" and as a "discomfort". I believe words such as those trivialize what women go through, not that women are bedridden or in dire need of medical attention.
With current technology and medical care this is true. However, do not pretend that this drop in maternal mortality isn't recent.
If you look at http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/1/241S/F2 graph, you can see that in the United States the maternal mortality rate was quite high in the 1900s, peaking at about 1000 deaths for every 100,000 births and began to decline to today's rates in the '30s.
In any case, I do not justify abortion based on how hard it is on the woman's body. I simply do not wish for anyone to trivialize a woman's contribution.
Teresa18, biology cannot determine whether the fetus is a person in a moral/philosophical sense. It simply cannot; biology does not deal with the moral/philosophical realm.
When have I shown this? I do not disagree with the law in this case, but that does not logically progress to agreeing with the law in all cases.
Again, Teresa18, I do not equate pregnancy with slavery. I equate requiring pregnancy to continue by law as similar to slavery.
So... if a woman is raped by her son or a daughter by her father, it is not rape? Their family relationship does not matter, Teresa18, it is what the law is requiring to happen that makes it similar to rape. The State would be taking away her ability to choose who uses her physical body; the State would be allowing the fetus to use her body against her will and without her consent. The State would be in the wrong.
The fetus is not raping her as I am using it here. Rape is sex until the man does not stop when she asks him to. Until the State prevents her from stopping the pregnancy there is no problem.
I do not see how whether this is "natural" matters, Teresa18. I do not see how whether this is temporary matters either. Whether it is temporary or not, whether it is natural or not, the woman should not be required to continue the pregnancy. A rape is wrong whether it is temporary or not. It is wrong whether it is done to save someone's life or not. A rape is wrong because the woman does not want it to happen to her body. It has nothing to do with any other issue, really. It is wrong because it is done against the woman's will.
The fetus is not "too young to understand". Such things as "desire" are empty concepts to the fetus. They cannot apply at all. It is not a matter of understanding, it is a matter of applying the concept to something that cannot have that concept applied. It would be like applying "desire" to a chair. The chair cannot have desires.
Why does it matter whether it is natural or temporary? She is sharing her body, and that should only be done willingly.
Selfishness is not and should not be illegal. She can be as selfish or as generous as she wants to be with the use of her body. And that's the way it should be.

reply from: Ayame

Our gentials are soley based on having the ability to create life. Not destroy it. Reproduction is first, pleasure second.
I can say, after giving birth, that it is the most amazing thing I have ever done. I would go through it a million times to get my daughter. Yes, it's painful, but I did it, and it wasn't bad, to be honest. It was great, and in the end, when my daughter was born, I cried, because I was able to bring into this world a wonderful life, a beautiful thing.

reply from: Teresa18

Sigma, just curiously, can you name some of the effects of abortion and a mother killing her child. Are those not hard on her?
I have not trivialized it. I've admitted she may not feel well physically and may be uncomfortable. I admitted it can be hard. I'm objecting to you trivializing the life of the womb child. Why are you trivializing life?
I don't think I've ever pretended it isn't recent. It's gone down dramatically since the 30s. Frankly, by the time the 70s came around, there were less and less deaths from pregnancy. Making abortion legal certainly had nothing to do with the drop in the mortality rate of mothers. It was dropping long before that. Now, medications and technology are very advanced, thus able to save mothers. Abortion is rarely necessary for a mother's health. Sometimes in treating the mother, the death of the child is an effect, but having to perform an actual abortion is very rare.
Once again, why do you trivialize life, the life of the womb child?

Sigma, define personhood. If society, using philosophical and moral perameters, decided the unborn child is intrinsically deserving of protection, and that view point changed, does the unborn child in its essence remain the same? Can those moral/philosophical values change from day to day?
Why is the determination whether the unborn child should be allowed to live based on legal considerations, especially if they conflict with your moral/philosophical values?

First of all, this is a stark difference in basic human reproduction and supporting her child through its first 9 motnsh of development as opposed to being raped by anyone. This is a segment of an article, quite lengthy, written by Libertarians for Life. It explains this issue better than I can. I am not a Libertarian, but I still think it is a good article.
I. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATION: A LIBERTARIAN FRAMEWORK
"Abortion proponents equate unwanted pregnancy with involuntary servitude and slavery, often framing their arguments with "pro-choice" and other libertarian-sounding rights talk. After all, libertarians support the right to control one's own body, and since 1974 the Libertarian Party's platform has unconditionally supported abortion choice until birth.
Many libertarians, however, find abortion to be contrary to libertarian principles and goals. According to Ron Paul, "Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual."1 Dr. Paul, an obstetrician and a member of Congress (R-TX), was the Libertarian Party's candidate for President in 1988.
The Libertarian Party's "Statement of Principles" itself defends "the right to life." In the past, the platform has said, "Children are human beings and, as such, have all the rights of human beings."2 Are children human beings prenatally? Despite the fact that this is the pivotal question in the abortion debate, the platform is silent.
In response to such shortcomings, Libertarians for Life (LFL) was formed in 1976. As is standard in libertarian discussion, LFL brings a philosophical, rather than a religious or merely pragmatic, perspective to the abortion debate.3 Being libertarian, LFL opposes the use of state power to enforce policies or principles that cannot be supported on the grounds of defense against aggressors. The state should not side with any aggressor at the expense of the victim. If abortion is an evil that violates rights, then libertarians, of all people, should not want the state to defend and protect the evil-doing.
Two tiers of human offspring?
The unalienable right not to be unjustly killed applies equally to all human beings. Day One in a human being's life occurs at fertilization - that is high school biology. If pregnant women are human beings, why not when they themselves were zygotes? A two-tiered legal policy on human offspring that defines a superior class with rights, and an inferior class without rights, is not libertarian.
In her 1963 article, "Man's Rights," Ayn Rand held a single-tier position. "There are no 'rights' of special groups," she said, "there are no 'rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.' There are only the Rights of Man - rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals."4
Rand, whose philosophy of Objectivism helped found today's libertarian movement, was, however, an impassioned abortion choicer. She called "the unborn...the nonliving," and in the same breath said, "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months."5 Elsewhere, she said "that a human being's life begins at birth."6
Inequality under rights goes against the idea of having rights. This inconsistency leads many to conclude that unwanted pregnancy must be an insoluble clash between the unalienable rights of two people: the child's right not to be killed and the woman's right to liberty. Some libertarian abortion choicers claim there is a solution. They argue that no one has a right to impose unchosen obligations upon others; therefore, even given prenatal humanity, abortion is a permissible escape from slavery. They think Rand supports their view. "No man can have a right," she said, "to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave'."7
Still, Objectivism denies that child support is slavery. In discussing born children, Nathaniel Branden, when he was Rand's closest associate, wrote, "The key to understanding the nature of parental obligation lies in the moral principle that human beings must assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions." He did not explain exactly why we must. Yet he was correct to insist that "the basic necessities of food, clothing, etc.," are the child's "by right."8
Given this right of children, then the "insoluble" clash is solved, and unwanted pregnancy is neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. There may be a clash of needs between parent and child - but not a clash of rights.9 Given personhood, a human fetus has the same right as every innocent person not to be attacked and killed. What is more, since her parents owe her support and protection from harm, she has the right to reside in her mother's womb and take nourishment there.
The non-aggression principle
The unalienable right to life, liberty, and property is, essentially, only one: the right to be free from aggression. This right stems from the obligation not to aggress against anyone; this right and this obligation are opposite sides of the same coin.
Libertarianism does not address morality in general. It addresses only one category of good versus evil: justice versus injustice, non-aggression versus aggression. To violate another's rights is to be unjust. Libertarianism's basic principle is the obligation not to violate rights. This non-aggression principle is the foundation, the sine qua non, of a moral society. We owe others non-aggression. People who commit murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, or fraud, or fail to pay their just debts, are aggressors.
No matter the circumstances, no individual or government may use the sword, except in fair responses to rights violations. Implicit in the non-aggression principle is the right of defense. We have no obligation to allow others to succeed in attacking us before we react. There is a related principle: no one has a right to negligently or intentionally endanger the innocent and then allow the harm to happen. If we endanger others without their consent, we incur a positive obligation to prevent the harm. This might be called the non-endangerment principle: you endanger them - you protect them from the harm.
Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors.
The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of contract, agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a state of nature. This is because the obligation comes with our human nature, and we acquire this nature at conception.
Each of us has this obligation regardless of contrary personal opinions, consensus, or laws. We have it whether we wish to obey it or not. We have it even when others are not able to defend themselves. This obligation can neither be created nor destroyed. It is logically necessary to the concepts of liberty and property.
Nor should we confuse unalienable rights with "legal rights." In an ideal world, legal rights would be concrete applications of the unalienable right to be free from aggression. Unfortunately, legal rights frequently are, instead, grants of special powers and privileges to some at the expense of others.
The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." This assertion means that for government to derive a just power, the power must first reside in the individual. If I consent, my lawyers can derive from me a just power to handle my bank account. But they cannot derive from me a just power to handle my neighbor's bank account, whether I consent or not.
If one does not have a just power, one cannot give it to one's lawyer or to the government. The governed have no just power to aggress, so they cannot give politicians a just power to aggress. Even if 10 billion individuals told their politicians to aggress, the sum of their consents would still be zero. Making an action legal does not make it a right under justice if it is inherently unjust. Legalized aggression is still aggression.
Can the state be "neutral?"
Politically, if an action is not an aggression, libertarian principles require non-intervention by the state; it should be neutral - on religion, for instance, or on the books we read.
Some people appeal to "neutrality" in order to sidestep the question of prenatal rights in the abortion debate. Their contention is that the "law should not get involved." There is a distinction, however: the state can be "neutral" regarding only the desirability of an act, not the right to perform the act. Obviously, the state is not neutral in practice when it enables killing by legalizing it, subsidizing it, and giving it police protection.
Within its own boundaries, government cannot be neutral on whether there is a right to commit any act; it must take sides. For government to be neutral on whether there is a right to commit abortion, it would have to sit on its hands and let both sides fight it out in the streets - clearly an untenable option. But even though taking sides in any rights dispute is inevitable, the problem with abortion is that the government has refused to justify denying prenatal personhood. Under an illusory "neutrality," the government is actively protecting the killing of the child. Libertarian principles firmly oppose legalizing aggression. When the state uses its coercive might to protect aggressors at the expense of their victims, libertarians normally, and properly, object.
Begging the basic question
Abortion choicers often talk as if abortion is something a pregnant woman does only to herself, as if abortion were a victimless-crime debate. But the charge against abortion is that abortion is homicide, the killing of one human being, or person, by another. Prenatal humanity is the pivotal question in abortion. If abortion were a victimless crime, it should be legal. If it is homicide, then what about the victim? The law must not treat any homicide as if no one were killed.
The most notable evasion of the homicide charge was made by the United States Supreme Court on January 22, 1973. In two cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, seven of the nine justices on the Court legalized abortion on demand until birth. To rationalize their decision, they inappropriately invoked the right of privacy - while sidestepping both the moral nature and the rights of the prenatal child.
Writing for the seven, Justice Harry A. Blackmun proclaimed, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." His explanation for why not was unsatisfactory. He went on to explain: "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."10 This admission of intellectual inadequacy on the main objection to abortion - homicide - merely serves to prove that the judiciary had no good reason to legalize abortion.
Even some respected constitutional legal scholars who support abortion choice, such as John Hart Ely, were appalled by Roe. In a 1973 article, he called Roe "frightening"11 and explained why he thought "it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."12
How should courts act when undecided on pivotal questions affecting two parties and when they cannot avoid making a decision? Tossing a coin will not do in such cases. Their only reasonable course is to weigh the possible injuries that they would impose by a wrongful decision either way and then choose to avoid the worst possibility. When a human being's life is on the block, a proper legal system gives the benefit of the doubt to life. This is why even advocates of capital punishment call for stringent proof. If individuals accused of felonies get the benefit of such doubt, why not the beings in the womb?
What possible wrongful injuries should the Roe Court have considered? The pregnant woman allegedly faces a partial and temporary loss of liberty; her fetus, however, allegedly faces the total and permanent loss of life and therefore liberty as well. The answer is obvious. The Court should have decided for life. Instead, the Court wrote that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."
Interestingly, lack of legal personhood is not necessarily a disqualification for legal protection under current law. For example, eagles and their eggs are not considered persons, yet they have legal protection. In Roe, the Court went beyond a two-tiered view of humanity that perceives human fetuses as inferior to human adults, for it saw human fetuses as also inferior to eagle fetuses.
But legal personhood is no protection when the strong want to subjugate the weak. Many years ago, as Sir William Blackstone wrote, "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law, that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during marriage or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband."13 What Roe did was to suspend the very being and legal existence of the child during pregnancy.
Black people of African descent are called "Persons" in Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution, and they were referred to as persons by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in Dred Scott. But they were "not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizen' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary," Taney wrote, "they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."14
In 1774, two years before he wrote the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The God, who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."15 Jefferson understood that holding slaves was not right, yet he held them. His position on abortion and when personhood begins may not be known, but his words at least appear to affirm that our lives and rights co-exist.
Confronting the inherent contradiction between freedom and slavery is The Law by Frédéric Bastiat, a Frenchman. Published in 1850, it is now basic libertarian reading. Bastiat asked, suppose a principle "sometimes creates slavery and sometimes liberty?" He replied, "This confusion of objective will slowly enfeeble the law and impair the constitution."16 He also wrote, "We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life - physical, intellectual, and moral life."17
Treating "personhood" as a legal privilege is wrong. Unalienable rights presume personhood. Since unalienable rights are pre-legal, so is personhood.18 Personhood is a natural metaphysical fact, not an arbitrary legal artifact. In the end, Roe left the door open to further hearing of when personhood begins, but the Court would rather not come to grips with it. Later, it rejected two cases on when one's life begins that were brought by the fathers of aborted children.19
If the Court could have shown that abortion is not homicide, it would have done so. And that would have resolved the debate, at least for libertarians. Libertarians support the right to privacy. But homicide, the killing of one human being by another, is not a private matter. It is not a simple matter of choice. If it were, then "rights" would mean that the weak have no rights, and libertarianism and the very idea of rights would be meaningless."
III. MORE FACTS OF THE SITUATION:
APPLYING LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES TO THEM
What about the woman's right to liberty?
To John Hart Ely and Laurence Tribe, "The point of Roe v. Wade was not that the Supreme Court had too little 'scientific' information about when life began or what a fetus was, but rather that the Government...could not override the rights of the pregnant woman." They added, "It was a question of rights, not an issue of biology or a matter of definition that Roe resolved."38
Is prenatal homicide defensible on the level of rights? Only if childhood dependency is a capital offense against innocent parents, or if parents have an unalienable right to abandon their children and let them die.
Before considering why the child has the right to be in her mother's womb, let us examine what one abortion choicer39 asserts is "the best philosophical defense of the pro-choice position." It is philosophy professor Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous article, "A Defense of Abortion," written in 1971, two years before Roe.40 The kind of argument Thomson made is invoked by many abortion choicers, including libertarians.41
Calling an unwanted fetus an "unborn person" (for argument's sake only), Thomson attempts to prove the fetus an aggressor and her mother a victim. In the most famous part of her article, Thomson analogizes unwanted pregnancy to the case of a violinist with a life-endangering kidney problem. To save his life, his friends hook him up to a sleeping stranger, who clearly had not volunteered to be used as a dialysis machine. It is the stranger's right to decline to be a good Samaritan. If the stranger unplugs the violinist, who then dies, Thomson argues, it is not the stranger's fault. Similarly, Thomson argues, so do pregnant women have a right to unplug their children.
Her argument fails for various reasons, the most dramatic being that it is not a defense of abortion as it actually happens.42 As Thomson herself recognizes, there is no right to secure the violinist's death, to slit his throat. The aborted child is not merely "unhooked" and allowed to die.
But does Thomson succeed in defending mere removal of the child, where death results from lack of sustenance? She wishes us to see abortion as essentially passive, as merely a refusal to aid the child. Assuming it were passive, would the mother's refusal to aid her child be aggression or not?
Thomson has critics on the abortion choice side. One is Richard A. Posner, a legal scholar and a judge of the US Court of Appeals. He wrote:
"Thomson is right that we don't force people to donate kidneys to strangers, or even to family members. But normally the potential donor is not responsible for the condition that he is asked to alleviate, in the way that a woman (unless she has been raped) is responsible, although only in part, for the fact that she is pregnant. The difference in evidentiary difficulty between asking who hit X and asking who failed to save X is a strong practical reason against liability for failing to be a good Samaritan. So although bystanders are not required to rescue persons in distress, someone who creates the danger, even if nontortiously, may be required to attempt rescue, and perhaps that is the proper analogy to the pregnant woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy."
Posner is on the right track in noticing that the pregnant woman is not a mere bystander who may choose to save or not save an endangered person. Since she is a cause of the child's predicament, then presumably the woman does have a duty to protect her child from harm. Once again, the duty to protect people we endanger is the foundation of parental obligation.
Unfortunately, Posner then changes the topic radically by talking, as Thomson did, about rescuing people that one did not endanger:
"Moreover, since tort law may require someone who begins a rescue, even if under no legal duty to make the attempt, to see it through to completion with all due care, abortion could be compared to the case where, having agreed to donate a kidney, you change your mind on the operating table and if you are permitted to withdraw at that late date the intended recipient will die. Of course the woman does not, by virtue of agreeing to intercourse, agree to become pregnant. But perhaps we should ask whether she took reasonable measures to minimize the risk of pregnancy - whether, in other words, she was careless in permitting herself to become pregnant; for someone who tortiously endangers another has a clear legal duty to aid the endangered person."43
If Posner had discussed the obligation not to tortiously endanger another in the first place, he might have remained on track. Instead, he strayed to further topics, leading him to conclude, "All this is a great muddle...it does not provide a sure footing for judicial decisions."44
Among the points he raised that can be set aside is his rescue model. Rescue is irrelevant, because presumably the rescuer was a witness, not the one who caused the need for rescue.
Another is agreement, which raises such questions as: "Who agreed and who did not, and to what?" Even if the father and the mother agreed to conceive a child and succeeded in doing so, a third party is affected: the child. Where is the child's agreement? In agreements between parents regarding children, the child should be a third party beneficiary, not a victim. An agreement has no standing against someone affected by the results of the agreement but who did not consent to it. The parties to an agreement cannot waive the non-aggression right of non-consenting people. Newly conceived children are not parties to any agreement. They certainly could not have been prior to conception.
Thomson failed to raise, let alone answer, critical questions. For example, what if it were the stranger's fault that the violinist needs life support? Actually, Thomson's violinist analogy serves as a good example of the concept of chutzpah. One illustration of this Yiddish term is a mugger who shouts, "Help! Help!" as he beats up his victim.45 Contrary to Thomson, the zygote is not an attacker.
Defending the child's rights
When a child is conceived, the child is helpless. This can put the needs of parent and child in serious conflict. But it does not put their rights to be free from aggression in conflict. But what about the mother's needs in such difficult circumstances as, for example, when her life is in danger? This issue is a "life-boat" problem. In such situations, everyone's life is at risk, but none of them is at fault. Because nobody has a right to attack the innocent, nobody caught in a dire circumstance has a right to attack any of the others. The mother's right to self-preservation does not turn her child into a mere "thing" that she may destroy at will. The doctor's goal should be to save both patients, mother and child, but they can only do the possible. The goal of premature deliveries is to help both. The goal of an abortion, however, is a dead fetus.
In any event, hard cases should not obscure fundamental issues. If abortion per se were not aggression, then hard cases would not raise the issue of rights. How we deal with others and their rights when we are in grave difficulties is a true test of whether we hold a one- or a two-tiered view of humanity.
What abortion choicers are saying is that in any pregnancy, the woman's liberty is paramount. However, liberty is not paramount. Life and liberty are equal rights; both are merely forms of the same basic right: the right to be free from aggression.
Because most abortion choicers recoil at a "right" to a dead fetus, they prefer to use euphemisms for abortion, such as "pro-choice," "pregnancy termination," and "reproductive rights." Interestingly, some libertarian abortion choicers insist they favor only an "eviction" abortion: the child is removed intact and alive; if she does not survive, that is too bad. Some try to deal with conflicting needs by noting the common understanding of the non-aggression principle: Although we may not aggress against one another, we have no positive obligation under rights to help one another.
The eviction argument, however, overlooks at least two important distinctions: 1) killing versus letting die, and 2) who is causally responsible?
Killing versus letting die
Letting die at least does not shut off the possibility of survival, however theoretical and remote this possibility might be. For example, in hysterotomy abortions (which are similar to Caesarian deliveries), children have emerged alive.
In the real world, however, the evictionist's position gives only lip service to the moral distinction between intentional killing and letting die, and those who give such service are playing let's pretend with somebody else's life. Most abortions are intentionally destructive, not simple "letting die" procedures. Abortions do not merely place children in grave danger of death. In fact, the entire point of abortion is intentional destruction of the fetus.
In theory, we could enact a law that limits abortion to intact removal. On the surface, such a law would seem to reflect the non-aggression principle. When the cord is cut at birth, the parents can passively abandon their child by walking away. Eviction, however, is not passive; it is an active intervention against the child. Both attack and negligence can be forms of aggression.
Nonetheless, the heart of the eviction argument must still be addressed. What if the mother could leave right after conception as easily as the father? With in vitro fertilization, everyone can walk off without anyone attacking the child. If they do walk off, they put the child, of course, in harm's way. Have parents a right to leave children unattended in hazardous situations? If their children die, is that simply regrettable, like famine victims dying because no one gave them assistance? For parents, as regards obligations, is there no difference between their own children and the children of strangers?
To abandon one's child in the petri dish is similar to putting her on board one's airplane and then jumping out, leaving her on the plane to crash, and doing all this without the child's consent. Perhaps a stranger with a suitable womb will happen by who is willing and able to adopt her. However, what if this does not happen?
Interestingly, even most abortion choicers consider gross neglect and outright abandonment to be criminal behavior. When children have medical emergencies in the middle of the night, most parents do not go back to sleep saying, "So what if my child might die? I have the right to control my own body, don't I?"

reply from: Teresa18

It is true that the means a woman must use to mother her child before birth are quite different from the means she uses after birth. But what difference does it make, in principle, whether her child is in the crib or in her womb? When she nurses her infant or carries her in her arms, she is using the same body she used to carry that same child to term.
As even most abortion choicers know, parent and good Samaritan are not analogous roles. Parents owe their immature children support and protection from harm. Why are they obligated? Did we have the right before birth to be in our mother's womb?
Causation: Who is mugging whom?
A child's creation and presence in the womb are caused by biological forces independent of and beyond the control of the child; they are brought into play by the acts of the parents. The cause-and-effect relationship between heterosexual intercourse and pregnancy is well-known. The child did not cause the situation. The parents are the causative agents of both the pregnancy and their child's dependence.
Who among us could have chosen not to begin life, or not to inhabit our mother's body when conceived? Inhabiting the mother's body is a direct byproduct of the parents' volitional act, not the child's. What the prenatal child does, she does by necessity. This necessity is also a direct byproduct of the parents' volitional act.
No one survives without certain necessities of life and very immature children cannot obtain them without outside help. Childhood dependency is a fact of nature, like the liquidity of water. Abortion choicers know that the stork does not drop children on our heads. Yet, many insist, parents are not responsible for "accidental" pregnancies. This assertion raises two meanings of "responsible for": 1) being the source or cause of a consequence, and 2) being accountable to others for the consequence, owing them.
One cause of the child's existence, the union of a sperm and ovum, is natural. But it is dependent upon an antecedent cause, the human action that enables the two cells to come together. Nature does not do its part without human action. What parents cause to be is not just a child but a child with needs; it is a package deal. A child would not be in need of sustenance and in need of help if she did not exist.
The stork did not do it. The fact of parental agency refutes any assertion that the child is a trespasser, a parasite, or an aggressor of any sort.
Since a prenatal child is where she is because of her parents' actions, she can be said to be acting as her parents' agent - which places her alleged "guilt" squarely on her parents' heads. We might even say that the mother aggressed against herself, except that, by definition, harming others can be aggression; harming onself is not.
To conceive and then abort one's child - even by mere eviction - is to turn conception into a deadly trap for the child. It is to set her up in a vulnerable position that is virtually certain to lead to her death. Conception followed by eviction from the womb could be compared to capturing someone, placing her on one's airplane, and then shoving her out in mid-flight without a parachute. The child in the womb is like a captive; she is in the situation involuntarily, and she cannot fend for herself. A captive is not trespassing on the captor's property, by definition. (Evicting or abandoning one's child cannot be regarded as releasing her from captivity, because this does not terminate childhood inability.)
When abortion choicers liken the parent to the good Samaritan, they talk as if feeding one's own children is charity. It is a kindness to give charity, because nobody has an obligation under unalienable rights to do so. Giving to charity is a matter of choice, by definition. A good Samaritan is not a causative agent of another's need for support; good Samaritans are chance bystanders. In procreation, parents are not chance bystanders; they are active, cooperative participants, even when children are conceived in vitro. Conception and pregnancy is a common and foreseeable risk of even careful sex.
Under libertarian principles, parents have the same negative obligation towards their children that they have to strangers: non-aggression. The question is whether it follows that even given that parents are responsible for (caused) their child's existence, are the parents also responsible (accountable) for her support? Some abortion choicers claim that when parents let their child starve to death, they have not violated any positive right of the child and committed aggression. They are mistaken.
The non-endangerment principle
Basically, non-aggression is a negative obligation, like do not commit robbery. If we commit robbery, we owe the victim restitution and compensation. But we can also incur positive obligations even if we have not done harm. For example, a contract is not an initiation of force, yet by merely signing the contract, each party to it now owes each other performance. There is no aggression - until and unless a participant fails to perform.
Parental obligation does not arise out of contract, tort, the mere fact of conception, or out of the biological relationship of parent to child. It arises because the parents voluntarily (even if they did not intend it) gave themselves a life-or-death control over their child. To withhold their support is to endanger the child. Parents owe support because they have no right to use their control to cause danger and then let the harm happen.
The two central aspects to conception that are relevant to rights are: 1) It is voluntary on the parents' part, and not on the child's; the situation is imposed on the child. 2) The parents' life-or-death control over the child is total; it is they who have established and control the entire situation. If the child dies due to their withholding or withdrawal of life support, they have not merely let her die; they have killed her.
There is a distinction between risky behavior and threats of harm. Life is a series of risks, and things do happen. We could compare parental obligation to lighting a barbecue in our backyard. Normally, lighting the fire presents only risks inherent in any controlled fire. But if the fire begins to spread to our neighbor's property, it now presents a threat of harm, and we caused the danger. If their property catches fire, we caused the harm as well as danger; we have initiated force. Since we may not initiate force, we may not threaten others with harm and then let the harm befall them.
Therefore, although the non-endangerment principle is essentially negative, it contains a positive obligation proviso: if we endanger innocent people without their consent, we must protect them from the harm because of our obligation not to aggress.
The child's right to be in the mother's womb
Some abortion choicers say that life is a gift to the child by the parents, a gift that does not bind the parents. A "gift," however, implies the option to refuse to take it, and beginning life is not an option for the child. Her life is thrust upon her, as is her need for life support and her inability to fend for herself. Conception does not make a child worse off (or better off) than before, because the child does not pre-exist conception. But she is created vulnerable to harm.
The parent-child relationship is unique as a situation; it is the only relationship that begins when one side causes the other side to exist. But parental obligation is not unique as an obligation - the obligation to act justly towards others is a universal, rather than a special, obligation.
Parental obligation is simply a concrete example of the obligation to not aggress. By taking care of their child in the womb, the parents prevent an aggression that would happen if they were, instead, to tear her away from the life support she gets there.
The nature of childhood and growing maturity indicate a built-in boundary: when the child can fend for herself, the parents have fulfilled their obligation to her. Thereafter, things are in her hands.
Once again, however, in the case of procreation, the parents' power over children begins as being total. Therefore, if through their negligence or intent harm results to the child (because of the child's loss or lack of sustenance), then as a matter of practical fact, the parents have caused the harm. Thus, parental obligation does not stem from harm done; it stems from our obligation to avoid causing the innocent to be harmed.
Furthermore, threats of harm can be considered, in themselves, as forms of aggression. The kind and degree of prevention that is owed, however, depends upon the kind and degree of threat that is imposed. When we drive a car, at the minimum, we must stay alert and drive carefully. When people drive drunk, we have no obligation to wait until they hit someone before we take them off the road. Even before things happen, the obligation to drive responsibility is there. In this case, the essentially negative obligation that drivers have requires them to take positive preventative steps.
Conception is not, in itself, endangerment or a threat of harm; it is a normal, natural fact of life. Pregnancy automatically protects the child against the possible dangers of an unsupportive environment. Yet by conceiving a child, parents give themselves a life-or-death power over her, and they get this control without her consent. Children are "captives" of their parents.
If parents willfully use their powers as "captor" to put their child in harm's way (not feeding her, for example), they caused the danger without her consent. If the child is harmed (starves to death), they also willfully caused the harm without her consent. Even simple eviction from the womb initiates force and violates the child's rights (in most abortions, however, the child is first dismembered, or poisoned, then evicted).
Many men want abortion legal because it enables them to escape their responsibilities to help support their children. Thanks to our human nature, all of us are quick to hold others accountable for their actions, while none of us wants to be held accountable for our own. But "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" does not mean that we may escape our obligations by killing our creditors.
Rather than abortion protecting parents from slavery, it imposes slavery upon children. It forces children to be more than good Samaritans; it requires them to die to serve another's purpose. The right to control one's own body, however, prohibits the choice to kill or abandon one's child. For the prenatal child, the mother's womb is home; this is where she needs to be - and this is where she has the right to be.
http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html

reply from: Sigma

It certainly can be, but early abortion is easier, from what I've read, than continued pregnancy and childbirth.
Whether it is easier or harder on the woman, however, it would be gone through by choice, while the pregnancy would not be.
In what way do I trivialize life in general?
Define personhood in what context?
Why do you think they conflict with my moral/philosophical values?
Explain the difference between requiring the woman to remain pregnant against her will and having sex with a woman against her will, in terms of doing something to the woman against her will. It doesn't matter if it is "natural" or not, temporary or not.
I must ask that you pare down articles you post to the important sections. I simply do not have time to peruse lengthy articles. Since you are not Libertarian and the articles mentions several specifically Libertarian principles, would you please highlight which portions justify disallowing abortion to you and I will deal specifically to those.

reply from: yoda

The "rights" of one person frequently conflict with those of another, that's what the courts are supposed to be for. But with Roe, we see the courts completely dismissing the idea of "rights" for every unborn human, in favor of giving all rights (including the right to kill) to the mother. Even in Roe, however, it was expressly recognized that should any future court recognize the humanity of unborn human beings (which is rather redundant, when you think about it), then the "right to privacy" would be subordinate to the right to life of the unborn child.
So on the paper thin, transparent, perverse, embarrassing rationalization that we "can't be sure" that our offspring are of the same species as we are until they are born, a corrupt, wicked group of jurists gave their blessing to the slaughter of tiny, innocent babies in the womb.
And a wicked people followed them like mice or children following a pied piper, over the cliff.

reply from: Teresa18

You trivialize the life of the person in the womb by treating it as a mere parisite that can be removed purely based on a simply choice through horrific means.
Define personhood in the context of this question:
"If society, using philosophical and moral perameters, decided the unborn child is intrinsically deserving of protection, and that view point changed, does the unborn child in its essence remain the same? Can those moral/philosophical values change from day to day?"
Basically, there is a stark difference between that and maternal slavery as proven through the article. I understand it is lengthy. Perhaps if you read just a section when you have time. The sections are about 4-5 paragraphs. While I understand there is a lot to it, I read it all in about 15-20 minutes. I'm sure you could get through it faster if you skimmed it. The reason why I am not picking out certain parts is because each point follows the other in the article. It is tough to understand the point unless read in the context of the paragraph in which it is written.

reply from: yoda

The one constant in all these debates is that the differences between those favoring and those opposing abortion can be found in their hearts, not in their heads.

reply from: matt1605

I think that is trivializing things.
If I think that sex for anything but reproduction is wrong, I will not do that. But why should I impose my view of something so personal on someone else?
If I think that a fetus is a living life form with rights irrespective of it was conceived and irrespective of whether it is wanted or not, unless and until I am in a position to provide continuing life support to the fetus as well as fully support its existence as a child once it is born, I should not force someone else to do the same.
As many of you argue, the rights of one should not override the rights of another - so the mothers right should not override the right of the fetus to live.
In the same vein, the reverse should also hold true. The right of a fetus to survive should not override the right of the mother not to carry it.
Now the state (or rather other individuals holding a certain viewpoint) would like to step in and enforce either of the two.
Each side can debate its point.
My view is that the fetus, as per its current definition, is just an extension of the mother. Biologically, it is like an extended body part of the mother. The fetus, by itself has no existence outside of the mother's body (very much as the heart or the lungs dont, barring temporary medical maintenance).
Yes, the fetus has the potential to develop into an individual life form. But should the state (or other people) enforce how my body works for the rights of a fetus? And if the state defines the rights of the fetus independent of my rights, the state (or the groups promoting the individual rights of that fetus) should provide for sustenace of it delinked from me.
Clearly this is your personal view! And no one can stop you from holding it and living your life by it. But why should you force everyone else to hold the same view?
So out hair and nails were just supposed to grow. Why should we cut them? Should there be a law banning haircuts and razor blades?
Also, by seeing your logic I think I can assume that you are against any form of contraception too, condoms, IUDs, morning after pills or whatever.
So let me also explore a few other 'reproductive purist' scenarios which I am sure you will agree with.
Puberty is a sign that the body is ready to reproduce. These days the age of puberty hovers around 11/12. So should we legalize having sex at 11 because clearly the body is capable of reproduction by nature's design?
By design of the species, humans are supposed to keep reproducing to preserve the species. So should we all continue at the rate of 1 kid every year for our entire reproductive life?
Let me follow your logic here. A woman was raped and though this was not something she wanted, this automatically becomes here responsibility and she will be FORCED to carry it, though at no stage did she ever want it and even though this could have serious ramifications on her entire life. You also indicate that this is not big deal because that this is only temporary. And all this because YOU believe that the fetus has rights and its life is more valuable that whatever that woman has to unwillingly go through.
So wouldnt this be simply the same as the government simply forcing ANY woman with a working womb to carry ANY fetus that was in danger of being destroyed, irrespective of what that woman wanted? After all this is only a temporary thing (almost as if the mother's womb is a fetus-shelter). As a pro-life person, would you be willing to (or rather be happy if you were forced to) become a surrogate mother by order of the state? The technology these days makes it possible. Would that be right?
My only point is that as long as YOU or the STATE cannot provide for the individual existence of an entity, you cannot enforce YOUR viewpoint on the wellness of that entity.
At conception, a fetus is nothing more that a couple of cells in the mother's body. It should be upto the mother to decide what she wants to do. If the state believes that those cells comprise an individual entity, the state (or rather the folks who believe so) should take that entity and maintain it. As long as that is not possible, the state or others should have no say in what happens to those cells.
Yes, late into the pregnancy or once the child is born, the entity exists as an individual and at that point its individual rights kick in, because at this point, the entity can exist decoupled from mother.

reply from: Teresa18

You may be unable to provide for victims of child abuse, Matt, but I would hope that you too would argue that they should not be abused.
I have found an excellent website which answers such arguments in a much better way than I possibly could. Therefore, I'll paste this particular article to you in the hopes that you'll understand why abortion due to rape is unfair to the child. It is written from a libertarian perspective. You don't have to respond to me right away, as with the article I gave Sigma, it is kind of long. I read this one in under 10 minutes, though. Trust me, though, that has nothing really to do with the article at all. By the way, we are all just clumps of cells, and so is the child in the womb. He/she is just a smaller clump of cells. Once the egg becomes fertilized at conception, there is a person, a tiny person, but a person.
"Let's begin by briefly summarizing what has to be assumed by a discussion of abortion in the case of pregnancy due to rape.
There is no right to initiate force, that is, to violate rights, to commit aggression. (Force is permitted in defense, not in aggression.) That's presumably a given among libertarians. If someone disagrees, that's the issue we should be confronting.
The preborn are human beings -- persons with rights. If they're not, then there can't be any inherent aggression in abortion. We need not worry about so specific a case as pregnancy due to rape.
Under justice, there's a crucial difference between killing and letting die.
Conceding 1) and 2) -- if only for the purpose of discussion -- we've already conceded that there's no right to deliberately kill the preborn child as a matter of choice. Even if one views the child as a trespasser, trespass is not a capital crime, and people accused of such crimes are entitled to due process. The only permitted response would be to remove, or "evict", the kid -- not shove them through a meatgrinder. Yes, the kid may very well die from lack of sustenance, but the fact that someone is certain to die does not give us the right to kill them.
Parents owe care and support to their children. If they don't, then the mother can "evict" her child anytime she wants. There's no need to consider how the pregnancy occurred.
But there's an obvious difference here. However we describe parental obligation, one essential factor of it is that the act of conception is voluntary for the parents, not for the child. In the case of pregnancy due to rape, it is voluntary for neither the child nor the mother.
Pregnancy due to rape acts against the woman's liberty. In some sense, it's a perpetuation of the aggression of the rapist. Regardless of the practical problems of pregnancy, rape is a major trauma, and the pregnancy complicates that still further.
Not yet a technological way out
At least right now, moreover, pregnancy due to rape is not a case where we can "negotiate" a practical, win-win solution -- where the woman is free of any burden to care for the child, and where the child's life is saved.
Perhaps technology will be able to offer a practical solution in the future. Safe adoption is permissible in the normal case of parenthood; it is certainly permissible in the case of pregnancy due to rape. With advances in technology, "prenatal adoption" may turn out no different from any other adoption.
That will be a way to avoid our practical dilemma. Until then, we have to confront it.
What do we do when aggression places us in such a situation?
Analogies
I'm not crazy about analogies, but some people like them, and I can think of a few.
Let's imagine first a case where you are in the position of the fetus. You are knocked out and kidnapped; your captor hides you on the plane of an innocent third party. She, the unfortunate pilot, doesn't discover you until you come to at 10,000 feet. Your presence has been forced on her without her knowledge or consent. She states plainly that you don't have any right to be there, and she wants you out. Do you have the obligation to jump out? Or to let her push you out? Or does she have the obligation to land in a safe place before she makes you leave?
In a more complex one, you are on a mountain, and I attack you and throw you into a place filled with rocks that will tumble down below if given a push. The only way you can leave that spot is by causing a landslide. On a perch below is someone else I also forced there. If there's a landslide, their perch will be destroyed and they'll fall to their death. There is no way for your calls for help to be heard; you have to wait until you are discovered missing and a rescue party is sent. Let's assume that you are in no danger; one of your hobbies is to be a survivalist; you know how to attract game birds. You are able to live off them until found, but that will take nine months. The other person is also able to survive because your efforts to attract birds will inevitably attract birds to their perch, too.
Does your right to liberty include a right to push the rocks out of the way and cause the death of the other person?
The libertarian principle is, if A harms B, that does not entitle B to harm C. Both the pilot and the rape victim still retain the normal obligation not to intervene in an ongoing situation so as to cause an innocent person to die. If the child dies due to the woman's intervention, she, not the rapist, is the proximate cause of the child's death.
And let it be noted that there is a problem even in cases where continued positive effort is called for in order to avoid causing harm. Let's say I lock you in place with a gun in your hand; the hammer is cocked, held back by your thumb. If you ease the pressure, it fires and kills someone else also locked in place. Do you have the right to ease the pressure?
In another case, I've put you with your hand on a button. If you ease the pressure there, you cut off the current that is powering an elevator's safe descent: the elevator will then just drop, almost certainly killing those within.
In the one case, your effort is needed to maintain a set of normal, safe conditions; in the other, to prevent unleashing an explicit attack. Either way, withdrawal of such effort would implement an aggression.
There are obviously boundaries to such issues. Can you keep your hand firmly on a button or a trigger indefinitely? Obviously not. If you were about to be killed by someone else, would you have the obligation under justice to stay in place and let yourself be murdered? Hardly. But it seems in at least some cases we may be obligated to tolerate some injustice to ourselves in order to avoid committing injustice to others.
But before pursuing that further, what if we say the woman does have a right in principle to remove (evict) the fetus regardless of the consequences?
Acting as the rapist's "agent"
Libertarians would generally agree that we have no pre-existing obligation to meet the needs of others (absent contract, having committed aggression, etc.). LFL's argument in favor of parental obligation reflects the fact that parents cause the needs of their children by voluntarily causing the children to exist in a state of dependence. The lack of such voluntary causation is why, above, I conceded that the mother who conceived due to rape does not have the normal obligation parents have to their children.
So, it would appear as if she could simply cut off the sustenance her body is providing, remove the child, and that's that.
It is not, however, so simple: If she has no parental obligation to the child, that's not true of the father, the rapist. His parental obligation is intact. He has the obligation to provide care and protection to the child, just as any ordinary parent. However, in effect, he has been grossly negligent to the child. It's just as if parents had forced their child on someone, who would therefore almost certainly be unwilling to take care of the child.
In the case of rape, the father has placed the child totally and utterly within the power of the mother. He has committed an immediate act of aggression against the woman. But to the extent the woman's actions harm their child, to that extent the rapist has also aggressed against the child.
The woman herself does not have the normal parental obligation to provide for her child -- although she still has the universal obligation not to aggress against the child. She obviously has no right to deliberately kill the kid; but also, she may not act as someone else's agent of aggression.
The problem is that in withdrawing the sustenance, by simple removal, she acts as the agent of the negligent father. She exercises the power the father has given her. Her withdrawal of sustenance will render him guilty of an explicit act of aggression against the child. She brings it about.
For the mother to cut off sustenance, she must actively intervene in the situation. Unlike someone who sees a kid deposited on the church steps, she is not able merely to sit on her hands. Under libertarian principles, she would have the right to sit on her hands; but in order to cut off sustenance, she actually has to go in there and intervene in the biological process. Even though cutting off sustenance can be rationalized as passive, it is in fact active. And she is executing the power thrust upon her by the father; she is actively behaving as the agent of his aggression. She doesn't have the right to do that; no one does.
Trapped between aggressions
The dilemma for both her and the rest of us arises from the fact that she is cornered between two acts of aggression. If she continues to carry the child, to some extent she perpetuates the aggression of the father against herself. If she cuts off sustenance, she initiates the father's aggression against the child.
How do we deal with this?
One principle to keep in mind is that it is less evil to suffer injustice than to commit injustice. And we can also note that the evil of the forcible provision of sustenance is less than the evil of causing the child's death.
Both of those responses, however, are addressed to the woman. What about the rest of us?
If the woman decides to withdraw the sustenance, is anyone going to do anything about it? Bystanders have the right, presumably, to act in defense of the rights of a victim of aggression. But this is not a simple case of a parent (the father, the rapist) endangering a child. This is a case where the parent in question is also committing an on-going aggression against the other parent, the woman.
For us to intervene, then, is not simply to intervene against the aggression against the child. Necessarily, our intervention to protect the child would also have the consequence of perpetuating one element of the father's aggression against the mother, the woman.
So where does this leave bystanders, those who would act in the child's defense?
For the bystanders, one question will be, which is the greater aggression? We, too, like the mother, are confronted with a choice between injustices. Assuming that her pregnancy has not turned life threatening, etc., the facts seem to be that causing the death of the child would be the greater aggression.
Important differences
In all this, it sounds as if the raped woman has the same obligations as parents who conceive voluntarily. She presumably has to carry the kid to term -- just like the mother in the normal case. While it is true that the kid can be adopted, voluntary parents can put kids up for adoption, too.
What then are the differences?
First, we must at least make one point about our relation to the problem: While it seems that we do have the right to defend the child, the mixed nature of this situation means that by doing so, we would incur obligations to the mother. In other words, someone who would intervene to save the life of the child is also obligated to provide means of support for the woman, so as to ameliorate to whatever extent possible the presence of the father's continuing injustice against the woman.
That's not the case in intervening to prevent someone from skipping out on a debt. That's not the case in intervening to prevent parents from dropping their kids in the woods.
Next, adoption is not entirely "optional" for normal parents. They have the right to seek others who wish to care for their children. But if they fail, they've still got the obligation.
The rape victim, however, is restrained only insofar as she is acting as the agent of the father. She is his agent only in so far as she is uniquely empowered by the father.
Obviously, when the child is born, she loses all uniqueness; if by doing nothing she effects an injustice by the father against the child, then so does everyone else! The earlier that others can step in without endangering the child, then the earlier she loses her unique empowerment by the father, the earlier she is no longer acting as his agent. If she is obligated, so is everyone else; and we cannot force others to fulfill our obligations.
The underlying threat to the victims
Finally, it must be noted that one element in the woman's desire to be rid of the child has nothing to do with either her, the child, or even the rapist. The victim of rape is frequently seen by those around her as if she were the criminal.
It's the double victimization of rape. In many segments of society, for the woman to carry the child to term is to admit "guilt". The same forces that dismiss the significance of rape also demand abortion as a precondition of recognizing any wrong done to the woman: if she doesn't want the kid dead, if she's not willing actually to kill the kid, then she wasn't "really" raped.
Children born of rape, also, are frequently treated as if they were the guilty ones.
Such social victimization is, at least, one point that all of us, regardless of our positions on abortion, should recognize as a threat -- against the woman, against the child, against what it means to be a person with rights.

reply from: yoda

I think that is trivializing things.
Welcome to the forum, matt. The one thing you can rely on with respect to my posts on this issue is that you will never see a post from me that trivializes this issue. Furthermore, you make no effort to explain what is "trivial" about the difference in the hearts of proaborts and prolifers.
What is your concept of "so personal", matt? Is it one of a right to privacy? Then are you of the mind that "privacy rights" supersede such basic rights as the right to life? If you really feel that way, then surely you must believe that it's okay for a father to murder his born children in the "privacy" of his own home, right?
You seem to be saying that no one should protect another innocent human being unless they are prepared to support that human being for the rest of his/her life, is that correct? Then are all life-saving efforts immoral, unless they are done by someone with the means and intent to become guardians of the rescued victim, matt? Why would you be so demanding of someone who is simply trying to save a human life? Do you prefer that we allow innocent victims to die if we are not wealthy and ready to adopt the victims we save? Do you not perceive how cold and callous that sounds?
You are setting up an equality between two very different rights. Survival rights are the ultimate/basic of all rights, and therefore ought to supersede less basic rights. Even the supreme court of 1973 recognized that.
matt, that is patently false and malicious. Have you no respect for the truth?
Yet another intentional deception. Each newly created human zygote is a new member of our species.
Your last statement gives proof of your other falsehoods. "Late into pregnancy" there has been no biological change in the status of the unborn human being, and the attainment of viability is in no way a change of species or of status as a member of the species Homo sapiens.

reply from: bradensmommy

I think that without research and knowledge people should not post simply for the fact that there are others on this board who will question their "knowledge".
A human fetus is just that, a human. A human being and a human are the same beings. When a cat is pregnant with a fetus, that fetus is a cat and will be born a cat, am I not right?

reply from: AshMarie88

The fetus is an individual because it's a SEPERATE PERSON with SEPERATE DNA.
If it was not, do you think it'd even be a fetus? No, it would be part of the woman, perhaps an organ or such.
When a woman is pregnant, there are now TWO lives to put into consideration, not just one.

reply from: Sigma

Again, how does it trivialize life when I compare the physical relationship the fetus has with a parasitic relationship? There certainly is a lot more going on, but the relationship is essentially parasitic.
It does not trivialize the life of a parasite to call it a parasite, and I am not even calling the fetus a parasite.
Personhood, in a societal context, would indicate a unique consciousness.
Please highlight the portion that proves this. Better yet, you explain the difference between requiring the woman to remain pregnant against her will and having sex with a woman against her will, in terms of doing something to the woman against her will when whether it is 'natural' doesn't matter and whether it is temporary doesn't matter.
I did skim the article and I would understand the points in isolation. Since each point builds upon fundamental Libertarian ideals and you are not a Libertarian, in what way is what you posted relevant to your personal beliefs and your arguments here?

reply from: AshMarie88

At conception, there is no "fetus". At that stage, it's called a blasocyst(sp?).
And tho it's just cells at the moment of conception, that doesn't make it any less of a life than you and I. In fact, we WERE those cells once, and technically speaking, we're still just cells and tissues, just a little more developed.

reply from: AshMarie88

Also, abortions almost never happen at conception. Most happen AFTER great human shape and development has taken form.

reply from: Sigma

Whether it is human is not in dispute. Whether it is philosophically/morally/legally deserving of protection or a unique individual in it's own right is in dispute.

reply from: Sigma

And the dead are just cells and tissues. Those kept on life-support but are brain dead are just cells and tissues too. They are not all "people" deserving of full protection as you and I are.
What's the difference between abortion right after conception and further in the first trimester, morally speaking?

reply from: AshMarie88

The dead, I agree. They aren't deserving of protection because, obviously, they're dead. However, they do deserve respect and I do consider them people, even tho they are dead.
Those on life support DO deserve full protection.
Tho, I don't know why you think they are the same as the unborn. The unborn are neither dead nor brain-dead or kept on life support.
The only difference is development.
Morally speaking, there is no difference, however.

reply from: Sigma

Yet they are not people as you and I are, are they?
Brain-dead patients kept alive purely on machines? Are they people as you and I are in every sense of the word? I don't believe you'll find many people who would agree with you on this.
Certainly the fetus is on a form of full and complete life-support. It's called a woman.
They are similar in that they do not possess a unque consciousness.
Then why did you say: Also, abortions almost never happen at conception. Most happen AFTER great human shape and development has taken form.
Why would it matter if an abortion happened when it is still single-celled vs a late-term abortion? Morally identical, right?

reply from: AshMarie88

Because the way the new guy said it, sounded like he thought that abortions take place when there is no shape or a lot of development.
That's why I also added that, just to tell him that, I guess.

reply from: Sigma

I see.
What is great human shape and development?

reply from: AshMarie88

I see.
What is great human shape and development?
Ummm, this?
http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/TFPCommentary/images/pro_death_03.jpg

8 weeks old in the womb. Once just a cell then a billion cells, the fetus is now resembling a human more than ever, in the first trimester. It's more developed now and has taken a greater human shape than before.
That's what I mean when I say that.

reply from: Sigma

Then at 8 weeks gestation there is great human shape and development?
Why at 8 weeks gestation?

reply from: Teresa18

Sigma, while the article comes from a Libertarian perspective, it does not negate the points that it made. The overall perspective was proving pregnancy is not slavery. The article is basically the same, but I added a few things and took out Libertarian comments in order to make it politically neutral. I've also bolded the topic headings and separate addression of each point of the argument.
You act as though abortion is a method that women should be able to use in order to "control their own bodies." However, you must indeed realize that there are two bodies we are dealing with. One of the bodies is growing and developing within the womb. That body controls its own basic development while deriving nourishment and protection from the mother. You then state that the mother has every right to remove the child from her womb as it is using her body as a slave dealer uses a slave. There are some differences.
Terminating a pregnancy is obliterating freedom of the womb child by obliterating the womb child. When biology determines that these are small children in an early stage of development in the womb, you can't revoke it by your own beliefs. That is what Hitler did with the Jews, determining them non persons by his own moral or philosophical beliefs. Since children are human beings, do they not deserve the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
So, Sigma, can the state enforce policies and principles that can't be supported on the principle of defense against aggression? The state should not be siding with the aggressor at the victim's expense. Abortion violates the right to life of the child within the womb.
Two tiers of human offspring?
"The unalienable right not to be unjustly killed applies equally to all human beings. Day One in a human being's life occurs at fertilization - that is high school biology. If pregnant women are human beings, why not when they themselves were zygotes? A two-tiered legal policy on human offspring that defines a superior class with rights, and an inferior class without rights," is simply not following the belief that all human beings deserve equal protection and treatment under the law.
Inequality under rights goes against the idea of having rights. This inconsistency leads many to conclude that unwanted pregnancy must be an insoluble clash between the unalienable rights of two people: the child's right not to be killed and the woman's right to liberty. Some abortion choicers claim there is a solution. They argue that no one has a right to impose unchosen obligations upon others; therefore, even given prenatal humanity, abortion is a permissible escape from slavery. They think Rand supports their view. "No man can have a right," she said, "to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave'.7
Still, Objectivism denies that child support is slavery. In discussing born children, Nathaniel Branden, when he was Rand's closest associate, wrote, "The key to understanding the nature of parental obligation lies in the moral principle that human beings must assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions." He did not explain exactly why we must. Yet he was correct to insist that "the basic necessities of food, clothing, etc.," are the child's "by right."8
Given this right of children, then the "insoluble" clash is solved, and unwanted pregnancy is neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. There may be a clash of needs between parent and child - but not a clash of rights.9 Given personhood, a human fetus has the same right as every innocent person not to be attacked and killed. What is more, since her parents owe her support and protection from harm, she has the right to reside in her mother's womb and take nourishment there.
The non-aggression principle
The unalienable right to life, liberty, and property is, essentially, only one: the right to be free from aggression. This right stems from the obligation not to aggress against anyone; this right and this obligation are opposite sides of the same coin.
Let's address only one category of good versus evil: justice versus injustice, non-aggression versus aggression. To violate another's rights is to be unjust. A basic principle is the obligation not to violate rights. This non-aggression principle is the foundation, the sine qua non, of a moral society. We owe others non-aggression. People who commit murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, or fraud, or fail to pay their just debts, are aggressors.
No matter the circumstances, no individual or government may use the sword, except in fair responses to rights violations. Implicit in the non-aggression principle is the right of defense. We have no obligation to allow others to succeed in attacking us before we react. There is a related principle: no one has a right to negligently or intentionally endanger the innocent and then allow the harm to happen. If we endanger others without their consent, we incur a positive obligation to prevent the harm. This might be called the non-endangerment principle: you endanger them - you protect them from the harm.
Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors.
The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of contract, agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a state of nature. This is because the obligation comes with our human nature, and we acquire this nature at conception.
Each of us has this obligation regardless of contrary personal opinions, consensus, or laws. We have it whether we wish to obey it or not. We have it even when others are not able to defend themselves. This obligation can neither be created nor destroyed. It is logically necessary to the concepts of liberty and property.
Nor should we confuse unalienable rights with "legal rights." In an ideal world, legal rights would be concrete applications of the unalienable right to be free from aggression. Unfortunately, legal rights frequently are, instead, grants of special powers and privileges to some at the expense of others.
The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." This assertion means that for government to derive a just power, the power must first reside in the individual. If I consent, my lawyers can derive from me a just power to handle my bank account. But they cannot derive from me a just power to handle my neighbor's bank account, whether I consent or not.
If one does not have a just power, one cannot give it to one's lawyer or to the government. The governed have no just power to aggress, so they cannot give politicians a just power to aggress. Even if 10 billion individuals told their politicians to aggress, the sum of their consents would still be zero. Making an action legal does not make it a right under justice if it is inherently unjust. Legalized aggression is still aggression.
Can the state be "neutral?"
Some people appeal to "neutrality" in order to sidestep the question of prenatal rights in the abortion debate. Their contention is that the "law should not get involved." There is a distinction, however: the state can be "neutral" regarding only the desirability of an act, not the right to perform the act. Obviously, the state is not neutral in practice when it enables killing by legalizing it, subsidizing it, and giving it police protection.
Within its own boundaries, government cannot be neutral on whether there is a right to commit any act; it must take sides. For government to be neutral on whether there is a right to commit abortion, it would have to sit on its hands and let both sides fight it out in the streets - clearly an untenable option. But even though taking sides in any rights dispute is inevitable, the problem with abortion is that the government has refused to justify denying prenatal personhood. Under an illusory "neutrality," the government is actively protecting the killing of the child. I would assume, Sigma, you oppose legalizing aggression. When the state uses its coercive might to protect aggressors at the expense of their victims, you should object.
Begging the basic question
Abortion choicers often talk as if abortion is something a pregnant woman does only to herself, as if abortion were a victimless-crime debate. But the charge against abortion is that abortion is homicide, the killing of one human being, or person, by another. Prenatal humanity is the pivotal question in abortion. If abortion were a victimless crime, it should be legal. If it is homicide, then what about the victim? The law must not treat any homicide as if no one were killed.
The most notable evasion of the homicide charge was made by the United States Supreme Court on January 22, 1973. In two cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, seven of the nine justices on the Court legalized abortion on demand until birth. To rationalize their decision, they inappropriately invoked the right of privacy - while sidestepping both the moral nature and the rights of the prenatal child.
Writing for the seven, Justice Harry A. Blackmun proclaimed, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." His explanation for why not was unsatisfactory. He went on to explain: "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."10 This admission of intellectual inadequacy on the main objection to abortion - homicide - merely serves to prove that the judiciary had no good reason to legalize abortion.
Even some respected constitutional legal scholars who support abortion choice, such as John Hart Ely, were appalled by Roe. In a 1973 article, he called Roe "frightening"11 and explained why he thought "it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."12
How should courts act when undecided on pivotal questions affecting two parties and when they cannot avoid making a decision? Tossing a coin will not do in such cases. Their only reasonable course is to weigh the possible injuries that they would impose by a wrongful decision either way and then choose to avoid the worst possibility. When a human being's life is on the block, a proper legal system gives the benefit of the doubt to life. This is why even advocates of capital punishment call for stringent proof. If individuals accused of felonies get the benefit of such doubt, why not the beings in the womb?
What possible wrongful injuries should the Roe Court have considered? The pregnant woman allegedly faces a partial and temporary loss of liberty; her fetus, however, allegedly faces the total and permanent loss of life and therefore liberty as well. The answer is obvious. The Court should have decided for life. Instead, the Court wrote that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."
Interestingly, lack of legal personhood is not necessarily a disqualification for legal protection under current law. For example, eagles and their eggs are not considered persons, yet they have legal protection. In Roe, the Court went beyond a two-tiered view of humanity that perceives human fetuses as inferior to human adults, for it saw human fetuses as also inferior to eagle fetuses.
But legal personhood is no protection when the strong want to subjugate the weak. Many years ago, as Sir William Blackstone wrote, "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law, that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during marriage or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband."13 What Roe did was to suspend the very being and legal existence of the child during pregnancy.
Black people of African descent are called "Persons" in Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution, and they were referred to as persons by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in Dred Scott. But they were "not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizen' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary," Taney wrote, "they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."14
In 1774, two years before he wrote the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The God, who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."15 Jefferson understood that holding slaves was not right, yet he held them. His position on abortion and when personhood begins may not be known, but his words at least appear to affirm that our lives and rights co-exist.
Confronting the inherent contradiction between freedom and slavery is The Law by Frédéric Bastiat, a Frenchman. Bastiat asked, suppose a principle "sometimes creates slavery and sometimes liberty?" He replied, "This confusion of objective will slowly enfeeble the law and impair the constitution."16 He also wrote, "We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life - physical, intellectual, and moral life."17
Treating "personhood" as a legal privilege is wrong. Unalienable rights presume personhood. Since unalienable rights are pre-legal, so is personhood.18 Personhood is a natural metaphysical fact, not an arbitrary legal artifact. In the end, Roe left the door open to further hearing of when personhood begins, but the Court would rather not come to grips with it. Later, it rejected two cases on when one's life begins that were brought by the fathers of aborted children.19
If the Court could have shown that abortion is not homicide, it would have done so. And that would have resolved the debate. I support the right to privacy. But homicide, the killing of one human being by another, is not a private matter. It is not a simple matter of choice. If it were, then "rights" would mean that the weak have no rights, and libertarianism and the very idea of rights would be meaningless.
III. MORE FACTS OF THE SITUATION:
APPLYING LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES TO THEM
What about the woman's right to liberty?
To John Hart Ely and Laurence Tribe, "The point of Roe v. Wade was not that the Supreme Court had too little 'scientific' information about when life began or what a fetus was, but rather that the Government...could not override the rights of the pregnant woman." They added, "It was a question of rights, not an issue of biology or a matter of definition that Roe resolved."38
Is prenatal homicide defensible on the level of rights? Only if childhood dependency is a capital offense against innocent parents, or if parents have an unalienable right to abandon their children and let them die.
Before considering why the child has the right to be in her mother's womb, let us examine what one abortion choicer39 asserts is "the best philosophical defense of the pro-choice position." It is philosophy professor Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous article, "A Defense of Abortion," written in 1971, two years before Roe.40 The kind of argument Thomson made is invoked by many abortion choicers, including libertarians.41
Calling an unwanted fetus an "unborn person" (for argument's sake only), Thomson attempts to prove the fetus an aggressor and her mother a victim. In the most famous part of her article, Thomson analogizes unwanted pregnancy to the case of a violinist with a life-endangering kidney problem. To save his life, his friends hook him up to a sleeping stranger, who clearly had not volunteered to be used as a dialysis machine. It is the stranger's right to decline to be a good Samaritan. If the stranger unplugs the violinist, who then dies, Thomson argues, it is not the stranger's fault. Similarly, Thomson argues, so do pregnant women have a right to unplug their children.
Her argument fails for various reasons, the most dramatic being that it is not a defense of abortion as it actually happens.42 As Thomson herself recognizes, there is no right to secure the violinist's death, to slit his throat. The aborted child is not merely "unhooked" and allowed to die.
But does Thomson succeed in defending mere removal of the child, where death results from lack of sustenance? She wishes us to see abortion as essentially passive, as merely a refusal to aid the child. Assuming it were passive, would the mother's refusal to aid her child be aggression or not?
Thomson has critics on the abortion choice side. One is Richard A. Posner, a legal scholar and a judge of the US Court of Appeals. He wrote:
"Thomson is right that we don't force people to donate kidneys to strangers, or even to family members. But normally the potential donor is not responsible for the condition that he is asked to alleviate, in the way that a woman (unless she has been raped) is responsible, although only in part, for the fact that she is pregnant. The difference in evidentiary difficulty between asking who hit X and asking who failed to save X is a strong practical reason against liability for failing to be a good Samaritan. So although bystanders are not required to rescue persons in distress, someone who creates the danger, even if nontortiously, may be required to attempt rescue, and perhaps that is the proper analogy to the pregnant woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy."
Posner is on the right track in noticing that the pregnant woman is not a mere bystander who may choose to save or not save an endangered person. Since she is a cause of the child's predicament, then presumably the woman does have a duty to protect her child from harm. Once again, the duty to protect people we endanger is the foundation of parental obligation.
Unfortunately, Posner then changes the topic radically by talking, as Thomson did, about rescuing people that one did not endanger:
"Moreover, since tort law may require someone who begins a rescue, even if under no legal duty to make the attempt, to see it through to completion with all due care, abortion could be compared to the case where, having agreed to donate a kidney, you change your mind on the operating table and if you are permitted to withdraw at that late date the intended recipient will die. Of course the woman does not, by virtue of agreeing to intercourse, agree to become pregnant. But perhaps we should ask whether she took reasonable measures to minimize the risk of pregnancy - whether, in other words, she was careless in permitting herself to become pregnant; for someone who tortiously endangers another has a clear legal duty to aid the endangered person."43
If Posner had discussed the obligation not to tortiously endanger another in the first place, he might have remained on track. Instead, he strayed to further topics, leading him to conclude, "All this is a great muddle...it does not provide a sure footing for judicial decisions."44
Among the points he raised that can be set aside is his rescue model. Rescue is irrelevant, because presumably the rescuer was a witness, not the one who caused the need for rescue.
Another is agreement, which raises such questions as: "Who agreed and who did not, and to what?" Even if the father and the mother agreed to conceive a child and succeeded in doing so, a third party is affected: the child. Where is the child's agreement? In agreements between parents regarding children, the child should be a third party beneficiary, not a victim. An agreement has no standing against someone affected by the results of the agreement but who did not consent to it. The parties to an agreement cannot waive the non-aggression right of non-consenting people. Newly conceived children are not parties to any agreement. They certainly could not have been prior to conception.
Thomson failed to raise, let alone answer, critical questions. For example, what if it were the stranger's fault that the violinist needs life support? Actually, Thomson's violinist analogy serves as a good example of the concept of chutzpah. One illustration of this Yiddish term is a mugger who shouts, "Help! Help!" as he beats up his victim.45 Contrary to Thomson, the zygote is not an attacker.
Defending the child's rights
When a child is conceived, the child is helpless. This can put the needs of parent and child in serious conflict. But it does not put their rights to be free from aggression in conflict. But what about the mother's needs in such difficult circumstances as, for example, when her life is in danger? This issue is a "life-boat" problem. In such situations, everyone's life is at risk, but none of them is at fault. Because nobody has a right to attack the innocent, nobody caught in a dire circumstance has a right to attack any of the others. The mother's right to self-preservation does not turn her child into a mere "thing" that she may destroy at will. The doctor's goal should be to save both patients, mother and child, but they can only do the possible. The goal of premature deliveries is to help both. The goal of an abortion, however, is a dead fetus.
In any event, hard cases should not obscure fundamental issues. If abortion per se were not aggression, then hard cases would not raise the issue of rights. How we deal with others and their rights when we are in grave difficulties is a true test of whether we hold a one- or a two-tiered view of humanity.
What abortion choicers are saying is that in any pregnancy, the woman's liberty is paramount. However, liberty is not paramount. Life and liberty are equal rights; both are merely forms of the same basic right: the right to be free from aggression.
Because most abortion choicers recoil at a "right" to a dead fetus, they prefer to use euphemisms for abortion, such as "pro-choice," "pregnancy termination," and "reproductive rights." Interestingly, some abortion choicers insist they favor only an "eviction" abortion: the child is removed intact and alive; if she does not survive, that is too bad. Some try to deal with conflicting needs by noting the common understanding of the non-aggression principle: Although we may not aggress against one another, we have no positive obligation under rights to help one another.
The eviction argument, however, overlooks at least two important distinctions: 1) killing versus letting die, and 2) who is causally responsible?
Killing versus letting die
Letting die at least does not shut off the possibility of survival, however theoretical and remote this possibility might be. For example, in hysterotomy abortions (which are similar to Caesarian deliveries), children have emerged alive.
In the real world, however, the evictionist's position gives only lip service to the moral distinction between intentional killing and letting die, and those who give such service are playing let's pretend with somebody else's life. Most abortions are intentionally destructive, not simple "letting die" procedures. Abortions do not merely place children in grave danger of death. In fact, the entire point of abortion is intentional destruction of the fetus.
In theory, we could enact a law that limits abortion to intact removal. On the surface, such a law would seem to reflect the non-aggression principle. When the cord is cut at birth, the parents can passively abandon their child by walking away. Eviction, however, is not passive; it is an active intervention against the child. Both attack and negligence can be forms of aggression.
Nonetheless, the heart of the eviction argument must still be addressed. What if the mother could leave right after conception as easily as the father? With in vitro fertilization, everyone can walk off without anyone attacking the child. If they do walk off, they put the child, of course, in harm's way. Have parents a right to leave children unattended in hazardous situations? If their children die, is that simply regrettable, like famine victims dying because no one gave them assistance? For parents, as regards obligations, is there no difference between their own children and the children of strangers?
To abandon one's child in the petri dish is similar to putting her on board one's airplane and then jumping out, leaving her on the plane to crash, and doing all this without the child's consent. Perhaps a stranger with a suitable womb will happen by who is willing and able to adopt her. However, what if this does not happen?
Interestingly, even most abortion choicers consider gross neglect and outright abandonment to be criminal behavior. When children have medical emergencies in the middle of the night, most parents do not go back to sleep saying, "So what if my child might die? I have the right to control my own body, don't I?"
It is true that the means a woman must use to mother her child before birth are quite different from the means she uses after birth. But what difference does it make, in principle, whether her child is in the crib or in her womb? When she nurses her infant or carries her in her arms, she is using the same body she used to carry that same child to term.
As even most abortion choicers know, parent and good Samaritan are not analogous roles. Parents owe their immature children support and protection from harm. Why are they obligated? Did we have the right before birth to be in our mother's womb?
Causation: Who is mugging whom?
A child's creation and presence in the womb are caused by biological forces independent of and beyond the control of the child; they are brought into play by the acts of the parents. The cause-and-effect relationship between heterosexual intercourse and pregnancy is well-known. The child did not cause the situation. The parents are the causative agents of both the pregnancy and their child's dependence.
Who among us could have chosen not to begin life, or not to inhabit our mother's body when conceived? Inhabiting the mother's body is a direct byproduct of the parents' volitional act, not the child's. What the prenatal child does, she does by necessity. This necessity is also a direct byproduct of the parents' volitional act.
No one survives without certain necessities of life and very immature children cannot obtain them without outside help. Childhood dependency is a fact of nature, like the liquidity of water. Abortion choicers know that the stork does not drop children on our heads. Yet, many insist, parents are not responsible for "accidental" pregnancies. This assertion raises two meanings of "responsible for": 1) being the source or cause of a consequence, and 2) being accountable to others for the consequence, owing them.
One cause of the child's existence, the union of a sperm and ovum, is natural. But it is dependent upon an antecedent cause, the human action that enables the two cells to come together. Nature does not do its part without human action. What parents cause to be is not just a child but a child with needs; it is a package deal. A child would not be in need of sustenance and in need of help if she did not exist.
The stork did not do it. The fact of parental agency refutes any assertion that the child is a trespasser, a parasite, or an aggressor of any sort.
Since a prenatal child is where she is because of her parents' actions, she can be said to be acting as her parents' agent - which places her alleged "guilt" squarely on her parents' heads. We might even say that the mother aggressed against herself, except that, by definition, harming others can be aggression; harming onself is not.
To conceive and then abort one's child - even by mere eviction - is to turn conception into a deadly trap for the child. It is to set her up in a vulnerable position that is virtually certain to lead to her death. Conception followed by eviction from the womb could be compared to capturing someone, placing her on one's airplane, and then shoving her out in mid-flight without a parachute. The child in the womb is like a captive; she is in the situation involuntarily, and she cannot fend for herself. A captive is not trespassing on the captor's property, by definition. (Evicting or abandoning one's child cannot be regarded as releasing her from captivity, because this does not terminate childhood inability.)
When abortion choicers liken the parent to the good Samaritan, they talk as if feeding one's own children is charity. It is a kindness to give charity, because nobody has an obligation under unalienable rights to do so. Giving to charity is a matter of choice, by definition. A good Samaritan is not a causative agent of another's need for support; good Samaritans are chance bystanders. In procreation, parents are not chance bystanders; they are active, cooperative participants, even when children are conceived in vitro. Conception and pregnancy is a common and foreseeable risk of even careful sex.
Parents have the same negative obligation towards their children that they have to strangers: non-aggression The question is whether it follows that even given that parents are responsible for (caused) their child's existence, are the parents also responsible (accountable) for her support? Some abortion choicers claim that when parents let their child starve to death, they have not violated any positive right of the child and committed aggression. They are mistaken.
The non-endangerment principle
Basically, non-aggression is a negative obligation, like do not commit robbery. If we commit robbery, we owe the victim restitution and compensation. But we can also incur positive obligations even if we have not done harm. For example, a contract is not an initiation of force, yet by merely signing the contract, each party to it now owes each other performance. There is no aggression - until and unless a participant fails to perform.
Parental obligation does not arise out of contract, tort, the mere fact of conception, or out of the biological relationship of parent to child. It arises because the parents voluntarily (even if they did not intend it) gave themselves a life-or-death control over their child. To withhold their support is to endanger the child. Parents owe support because they have no right to use their control to cause danger and then let the harm

reply from: Teresa18

The two central aspects to conception that are relevant to rights are: 1) It is voluntary on the parents' part, and not on the child's; the situation is imposed on the child. 2) The parents' life-or-death control over the child is total; it is they who have established and control the entire situation. If the child dies due to their withholding or withdrawal of life support, they have not merely let her die; they have killed her.
There is a distinction between risky behavior and threats of harm. Life is a series of risks, and things do happen. We could compare parental obligation to lighting a barbecue in our backyard. Normally, lighting the fire presents only risks inherent in any controlled fire. But if the fire begins to spread to our neighbor's property, it now presents a threat of harm, and we caused the danger. If their property catches fire, we caused the harm as well as danger; we have initiated force. Since we may not initiate force, we may not threaten others with harm and then let the harm befall them.
Therefore, although the non-endangerment principle is essentially negative, it contains a positive obligation proviso: if we endanger innocent people without their consent, we must protect them from the harm because of our obligation not to aggress.
Some abortion choicers say that life is a gift to the child by the parents, a gift that does not bind the parents. A "gift," however, implies the option to refuse to take it, and beginning life is not an option for the child. Her life is thrust upon her, as is her need for life support and her inability to fend for herself. Conception does not make a child worse off (or better off) than before, because the child does not pre-exist conception. But she is created vulnerable to harm.
The parent-child relationship is unique as a situation; it is the only relationship that begins when one side causes the other side to exist. But parental obligation is not unique as an obligation - the obligation to act justly towards others is a universal, rather than a special, obligation.
Parental obligation is simply a concrete example of the obligation to not aggress. By taking care of their child in the womb, the parents prevent an aggression that would happen if they were, instead, to tear her away from the life support she gets there.
The nature of childhood and growing maturity indicate a built-in boundary: when the child can fend for herself, the parents have fulfilled their obligation to her. Thereafter, things are in her hands.
Once again, however, in the case of procreation, the parents' power over children begins as being total. Therefore, if through their negligence or intent harm results to the child (because of the child's loss or lack of sustenance), then as a matter of practical fact, the parents have caused the harm. Thus, parental obligation does not stem from harm done; it stems from our obligation to avoid causing the innocent to be harmed.
Furthermore, threats of harm can be considered, in themselves, as forms of aggression. The kind and degree of prevention that is owed, however, depends upon the kind and degree of threat that is imposed. When we drive a car, at the minimum, we must stay alert and drive carefully. When people drive drunk, we have no obligation to wait until they hit someone before we take them off the road. Even before things happen, the obligation to drive responsibility is there. In this case, the essentially negative obligation that drivers have requires them to take positive preventative steps.
Conception is not, in itself, endangerment or a threat of harm; it is a normal, natural fact of life. Pregnancy automatically protects the child against the possible dangers of an unsupportive environment. Yet by conceiving a child, parents give themselves a life-or-death power over her, and they get this control without her consent. Children are "captives" of their parents.
If parents willfully use their powers as "captor" to put their child in harm's way (not feeding her, for example), they caused the danger without her consent. If the child is harmed (starves to death), they also willfully caused the harm without her consent. Even simple eviction from the womb initiates force and violates the child's rights (in most abortions, however, the child is first dismembered, or poisoned, then evicted).
Many men want abortion legal because it enables them to escape their responsibilities to help support their children. Thanks to our human nature, all of us are quick to hold others accountable for their actions, while none of us wants to be held accountable for our own. But "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" does not mean that we may escape our obligations by killing our creditors.
Rather than abortion protecting parents from slavery, it imposes slavery upon children. It forces children to be more than good Samaritans; it requires them to die to serve another's purpose. The right to control one's own body, however, prohibits the choice to kill or abandon one's child. For the prenatal child, the mother's womb is home; this is where she needs to be - and this is where she has the right to be."

reply from: Sigma

Teresa18, many of the issues the article raises are based in Libertarian ideals (such as the section on State neutrality). Since you do not believe in Libertarian ideals, it is useless to bring up those points or for me to attempt to refute them.
I do not have time to go through the article point by point to refute it. I have skimmed it and I can see points that are inconsistent or do not apply as the article wishes to apply them, but I cannot go through it point by point. If a certain section refutes a point I have made please post only that section and I would be happy to respond
Teresa18, I have corrected you on many occasions. This is not my argument. I do not argue that the fetus is raping the woman. I do not argue that the fetus is enslaving the woman.
Yes, the State can. The article concedes as much: If abortion were a victimless crime, it should be legal. There is no moral entity on the part of the fetus to be a victim. It would be a victim as a brainless body kept alive by life-support is a victim. It's a nonsensical concept to apply to a creature such as the fetus, at least in the moral sense.
The fetus has no right to life because the fetus does not qualify for Constitutional protection. One has to be born to qualify for Constitutional protection as the Constitution is written.

reply from: AshMarie88

That's also just your opinion.
Can you tell me why the same principal did not apply to slaves? They were born, yet the government did not follow the constitution.

reply from: matt1605

Thanks for the ridiculous leap in logic.
So how exactly is sex for pleasure a denial of right to life to someone? If someone has sex with contraceptive (like a condom) when, by your definition of a human being, no human being is created at all, that is a denial or right to life? And that is equal to father murdering a child?
I responded to someone who said 'sex is for reproduction primarily.' For me that may not be so. I may have sex primarily for pleasure. I may never end up creating a zygote at all, let alone abort it. Where is the murder, the denial of right to life. And if there is none, am I live live my life by what someone else believes is right? Going back to what I was replying to and what I wrote, does what you wrote even make sense to yourself?
The answer to your first point, NO. My concern is about what we define as a human being.
Instead of providing any arguments for your stand, you chose to call everything else untruthful and full of malice.
My point is this. You claim that a zygote, the moment it is created becomes a human being. However, there is no existence of this zygote beyond being a couple of cells inside the mothers body.
First please medically disprove that.
Second, given that the zygote (later embryo/fetus) cannot express any opinion for itself (and is clearly incapable of doing so) there seems to be a genuine need for an interlocutor to represent its best interests (assuming IT is even something different from the mother at this point of time).
Now may main point, what gives YOU the right to step in here and define those cells as being fundamentally different from the mother's other body parts? Can YOU sustain those cells anywhere else?
Keep in mind that this is different from starving a baby in an elevator, as someone else pointed out. That live baby exists as an entity which, even though requires support for its survival, can physically exist as a separate individual.
So I go into the mothers body and select some cells from her now impregnated womb and select some from here liver.
Please prove to me medically what the difference between the two is (instead of using insinuations and calling every thing a lie).
Show me your points.
For you to be able to prove that the zygote actual has an individual existence and individual rights seprable from those of the mother, it is necessary to substantially different from the liver cells that we plucked out of the mother from the womb cells.
Can you do that?
You may point out that the zygote (at a later point of time) will develop into a baby. But at THIS POINT OF TIME, it is still indistinguishable. What then allows you to intervene on its behalf assuming it to be a distinct entity?
Is the potential for life the only criteria? In that case every sperm and ovum (as I pointed out on another post) should become property of the state because they are but half a step away from creation of life! Masturbation should be banned and menstruation should be considered to be a crime since one more member of the species was eliminated.
Once again, I am not going into killing a human being. But the very issue here is what can be defined as a human being. Why should a collection of cells, mostly indistinguishable from other. be submitted to your (or others) beliefs? With cloning today, you can take a cell from any part of the body and potentially create a new human being. Does that make every cell of every human's body state property?
Falsehood is not what I need to promote. But your last statement definitely gives proof of your willful or natural stupidity.
There is a very clear 'biological' change in the status of a fetus at late stages (did you just throw in the word biological without even knowing what it means? I mean obviously from the time the zygote was conceived to the time the baby is born, there is CONSTANT biological change in status of the baby fetus!)
The change is that at late stages, you can deliver the baby and have it exist as an individual (with life support and everything else). At that point, the mother ceases to be the sole necessity for the existence of the baby and the baby is not longer defined by the existence of the mother. Existence of you, me or the society is sufficient for the baby to exist.
Beyond this point, even if the mother did not exist, the baby would. Therefore it is a full member of our species and by full definition a human being with all the rights obtained therein. However, prior to this point, there was no other entity. There was only the mother.
To prove that something has rights separate from another, you need to establish its sole existence first. My tonsils and my heart and my kidneys do not have rights over and above, or separable from me because they do not exist as an entity without me.
I am yet to see how you can prove a zygote to be anything but a body part of the mother. And unless you can do that, you cannot claim to intervene on its behalf and grant i separate rights.
NO. To protect another human being, you need to establish a human being. You cannot claim a zygote to be a human being unless you (or anyone other than the mother) can sustain the zygote outside of the mother as an entity. If you cannot, the zygote is an extension of the mother and is owned by the mother. You have no right to intervene.
ps. Please dont once again bring up the elevator-child, father-baby murder analogies. Clearly, in these cases the child is an entity which can be sustained minus the host. It is in no way the same.

reply from: matt1605

Teresa18
Nowhere am I denying the fact that 'ending' a potential form of life is something no one would want under the right set of circumstances.
However, leaving aside some obvious illogical stuff (including the analogies which were meaningless) I think to some extent it just re-enforces my point. And doesn't necessarily support your initial argument of 'no-abortion' if you read it entirely.
Clearly then, you cannot 'force' the woman to carry out her part of deal (which in most part has been pointed out to be voluntary) unless YOU can contribute the child's birth as well as the future growth post-birth (and help not just in financial terms, as has been later pointed out), which currently you cannot. Hence you cannot (in the specific case of rape/abuse) transfer the entire burden onto the mother because of YOUR belief in something.
Also, the threat against the woman is not only one of 'life and death.' Childbirth, that too an unwanted one, will COMPLETELY alter the life of a woman.
Finally
Clearly, this article was written by someone who is either very well versed at writing judicial opinion, or a great political writer who manages to get interested parties onboard without really saying anything.
Read again "Both of those responses, however, are addressed to the woman." Highly pro-choice language.
After that, the article goes on to explore the various options for the bystanders as well as what the dilemma could be. The author clearly acknowledges that it is a choice between injustices.
The author then sort of hints what maybe a solution for onlookers (lesse injustice) but never really commits to any stand either way.
So I am once again at odds to understand how this article supported your stand. what was the title of this article? Were you driven solely by that?
As per my interpretation, it leans towards trying to show that even in case of rape abortion may not be the right thing to do, but then shows plenty of counter-arguments and finally really proposes no one solution or right way to proceed.
So in essence, it captures the gist of the abortion debate - nothing is set in stone and there are multiple exceptions either ways.
What am am I missing? Overall, doesnt it actually show up the proponents of 'total abortion ban' (as was the original poster) as well as 'no sex without intent of reproduction' and 'no use of condoms' in poor light, given that they have decided to take an extreme and illogical stand on a nuanced issue?
I have covered many other things in the other post. This is just is reference to the article you posted. Also this post is just a critique of the posted article since it was referred to multiple times.

reply from: AshMarie88

If a human zygote is not a human being, then what is it?
Fyi, "being" means existing. A zygote exists, therefore it is. It may not LOOK like a human being, but biologically speaking, we're all human beings.
Oh, and I'd like to see you take a full-term baby out of the woman's womb and have it live on its own dependently. If that newborn can be fully dependent on itself, that is when I'll believe the whole "fetus cannot live outside the womb" idea.

reply from: AshMarie88

A life isn't "potential" life.

reply from: Teresa18

There is an error in that statement. The error is that is not a potential life we are dealing with. It is a life. From the moment of conception, the young child grows and changes until death with his/her own separate set of DNA. To call it a potential life would be denied by anyone with a biology or medical degree.
The analogies were absolutely excellent. The analogies are a way to explain how ridiculous abortion is, even in the sad case of rape. . That is the second one I posted from that particular website. In that particular paragraph they were explaining it's not completely cut and dry. However, in the article they made a point to mention the pro-choice arguments in order to discount them. While I'm not Libertarian, this group, Libertarians for Life, clearly explains my feelings on the subject. I guarantee to you, if you look at the website, they are 100% pro-life.
"First, we must at least make one point about our relation to the problem: While it seems that we do have the right to defend the child, the mixed nature of this situation means that by doing so, we would incur obligations to the mother. In other words, someone who would intervene to save the life of the child is also obligated to provide means of support for the woman, so as to ameliorate to whatever extent possible the presence of the father's continuing injustice against the woman."
Clearly then, you neglected to read the overall meaning of the article and what it said following that particular statement. The meaning of that is to say that you must protect the life of the child but provide support for the woman. There two pro-life agencies right in my area that are more than willing to support the woman throughout her pregnancy and help her find an adoptive home if that is her option. There is no excuse to kill the child the child.
Abortion will completely alter the life of the woman as well. It is more risky in many cases than the natural process of child birth. Killing the life growing inside of her will be sure to change her life permanently. Many, most women have children and go on with their lives perfectly healthy and perfectly fine. If they don't want the child, they turn it over to adoption agencies who will be more than happy to find someone who does. Abortion also completely alters the life of the child, by ending his/her life.

It's awfully unfair to criticize a person without knowing anything about them and by only reading one 3.5 page article. Like I said, it was written by Libertarians for Life. Trust me, they are not pro-choice. Again, I'll link you up to the site if you want.
Here are the paragraphs that statement was referring to:
"The dilemma for both her and the rest of us arises from the fact that she is cornered between two acts of aggression. If she continues to carry the child, to some extent she perpetuates the aggression of the father against herself. If she cuts off sustenance, she initiates the father's aggression against the child.
How do we deal with this?
One principle to keep in mind is that it is less evil to suffer injustice than to commit injustice. And we can also note that the evil of the forcible provision of sustenance is less than the evil of causing the child's death.
Both of those responses, however, are addressed to the woman. What about the rest of us?"
Basically it is saying to the woman, yes she suffered an evil injustice. That, however, does not make it right to commit an injustice. Supporting the child through pregnancy is certainly less evil than purposely killing the child.
The author says that the bystanders have a right to stick up for the victim of aggression. The bystanders have to look at the options. The options are to intervene, but that could be considered a way of continuing the father's violence against the mother or to walk away. It proceeds to say both injustices must be looked at, and as long as the pregnancy is not life threatening, allowing her to kill the child would be the greater injustice.
The author commits in this sentence: "Assuming that her pregnancy has not turned life threatening, etc., the facts seem to be that causing the death of the child would be the greater aggression."
Actually, this particular article was only referred to once by me. The other article is a separate one I posted in a response to Sigma. There are two drafts of that posted. The second one would be the one that you would want to read. I guarantee to you the author of this is advocating against abortion. He was pointing out where certain pro-choice arguments come in, but in the end the answers and decisions that need to be made regarding abortion. If you read the other article written, he advocates for life from the moment of conception. I like his writing approach, interpreting pro-choice arguments in and following up with responses. He does advocate a total abortion ban unless the mother is to lose her life, as do I. That can be seen by a visit to the site from which this article was taken. Also, the analogies are pretty clear on his feelings. If your side can use the "Violinist Argument", our side can use analogies as well.
This article was addressing abortion in the case of rape. Saying that she has no duty to take care of her child is certainly not true for the father. Nevertheless, the father has already abandoned the child. He has pretty much left her with the child. He was aggressive towards the mother, but in the same extent, he also was aggressive towards his child, an innocent bystander who did not ask to be conceived. The woman doesn't have to provide for her child, but she can't be aggressive towards the child either. That is essentially what abortion is, an aggressive act to kill the child.
So, you may say, what if she simply cut of nourishment by having the child removed via early delivery. However, by doing so she is acting as the negligent father's agent. By withdrawing nourishment, she is helping bring about his child neglect by aggressing the child. In order to cut off nourishment, she would actively be intervening. "And she is executing the power thrust upon her by the father; she is actively behaving as the agent of the aggression. She doesn't have the right to do that; no one does."
Sure, there are two aggressions: 1) If she carries the child, she in some ways continues the abuse of the father 2) However, if she cuts of nourishment, she brings about the father's aggression and inflicts it upon her child. Well, what is worse suffering injustice or committing it? Then, you get to the part we were discussing earlier at the top.
Finally, I'll quote this:
"Finally, it must be noted that one element in the woman's desire to be rid of the child has nothing to do with either her, the child, or even the rapist. The victim of rape is frequently seen by those around her as if she were the criminal.
It's the double victimization of rape. In many segments of society, for the woman to carry the child to term is to admit "guilt". The same forces that dismiss the significance of rape also demand abortion as a precondition of recognizing any wrong done to the woman: if she doesn't want the kid dead, if she's not willing actually to kill the kid, then she wasn't "really" raped.
Children born of rape, also, are frequently treated as if they were the guilty ones.
Such social victimization is, at least, one point that all of us, regardless of our positions on abortion, should recognize as a threat -- against the woman, against the child, against what it means to be a person with rights."

reply from: matt1605

It is a zygote/fetus, a collection of cells inside the body of a female that is constantly dividing and on its was towards become a distinct 'human' in due course of time.
Please explain what you mean by 'biologically speaking.' Is that out of some biology text?
I think you didnt read my post. A fetus in early stages of development has only one way of continuing its existence, through being a part of the mother's body. No mother in existence - no fetus in existence.
However, after a certain time, the above does not apply. Beyond that point, the baby (or highly developed fetus) CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT THE MOTHER SURVIVING. Can survive without the mother is different from "fully dependent on itself." It will still be dependent, but its existence will not be linked to the existence of the mother!
Can you define life? Lets assume there is an ovum sitting there and there is one which just fused with a sperm. Can you tell me - with reference to 'life' - what is the difference between the two 'biologically' (as you seem to prefer)?
Life medically and biologically requires some form of spacious and temporal awareness, in addition to being a physically functioning organism.
The question here is not medical or biological but ethical and moral.
Factually incorrect.
Unsubstantiated in any widely accepted study.
That is one sentence in a very long article, and anything but 'committing' or 'declaring' something as right.
Essentially, it leans on the fact that injustice to a mother who was
1) raped
2) has to go through the pains of childbearing
3) has to potentially live with a symbol of something that was done to violate her
4) will change her life totally in any way that she may have planned it earlier
as well as the injustice done to the potential child itself due to the fact that
1) it will always carry the social stigma of being an outcome of a violent and non consentual act
2) it will not necessarily have dual parental care
3) it may not come into the world in the right set of circumstances for child rearing
is superseded by the injustice that would be done to the fetus if it were terminated and not allowed to develop into a baby.
Whereas your specific article very easily claims that the second injustice is greater than the first, many many schools of thought can very easily hold the opposite view point. And this once again is without answering the very basic question of whether the fetus at a certain stage of development can even be considered to be an individual distinct from the mother.
And as you are so influenced by the libertarian philosophy , maybe you want to know about the views of the other section of the libertarians - A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb (abortionisprolife) or also the official stand of the libertarian party The U.S. Libertarian Party platform[4] states that "abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides". It holds that abortion should be legal but neither state-funded or required because "the government should be kept out of the question".
Rather than pre-judging the solution in specific cases as abortion law does, the Libertarian Party says the real solution is for citizens to look to the voluntary and subsidiary institutions - person, family, religion -
I actually totally agree with this view point. One can use family/religion/society to justify a certain moral viewpoint. What I am TOTALLY OPPOSED TO is forcing unwilling people into one's own moral framework.
Also you and I were a sperm and an ova before that. What wrong did they do not to deserve equal protection.
So abortions at conception are ok?

reply from: AshMarie88

A human zygote/fetus is still a human being, no matter what the name for it is. Zygote/embryo/fetus/whatever are just gestational names for the unborn, kind of like how the stages for the born are newborn, infant, child, teen, adult, etc.
Is a newborn less of a human being than a fully grown adult just because the adult is fully developed and is (most likely) completely independent?
Of course it is. I'm debating with biological facts.
Oh, there are so many differences! For one, an ovum just sitting there is not doing anything. There's nothing growing, moving, or anything like that. But with a fertilized egg, there are now living cells that will keep dividing, multiplying, and growing. With just an ovum, there are no living cells. Second, the ovum itself only contains half the woman's chromosomes. A fertilized egg has half the woman's AND half the man's chromosomes together. The newly formed life now has its own unique DNA, but also its parents' genes. Third, while the ovum alone will never turn into a human being, the fertilized egg WILL, or already is.
According to you...
Just because the unborn (before a certain point) aren't aware yet, doesn't mean they are not alive. They are alive because they're made up of billions of living cells and tissues, they move, they have beating hearts (which pump their own blood thru their bodies), they have functioning body systems and organs, and of course, they GROW AND DEVELOP, and will continue to do that thru-out their entire lives. GROWTH should tell you something. Dead things don't develop.
You are aware that it's very rare for women to die from childbirth, aren't you?
Child birth is almost 100% safer than abortion, especially since you're almost guaranteed your child will be born ALIVE.
I don't see how abortion is "safe" in any way since someone always dies from one.
No, weren't "sperms and ovums". Those MET which created US, but we were never those to begin with. Ugh.
In my opinion, no. I don't believe abortion is ever okay, just like I don't believe murder and rape are ever okay.

reply from: AshMarie88

I know I may be only 18 years old, but I'm almost sure I'm more educated on this subject than you are. One of my favorite subjects in the world is biology, and I also study fetal development quite a lot. I actually learn more every day by reading up on them. I actually started looking at FD when I was a small child. I couldn't yet read big words or understand what all those terms were, but I could still make out photos and graphs.
What do you do? And have you EVEN once bothered to read any kind of fetal development?

reply from: matt1605

Did you know that for the first 4 days after fertilization, it is not even know if there will be one fetus or twins?
Did you know that the various functioning body parts do not just appear in microscopic size all of a sudden but rather form one by one over time (that too not necessarily replicating final form)? Did you also know that at first there is nothing but a mass of cells?
Do you also realize that the same growth happens in various body parts of yours every day? And if you believe that the early stage fetus you describe above is functioning individually, if we take it out of the mother's womb before a set amount of time, it can continue to survive even under the most dedicated medical intervention (please dont compare with a newborn baby, they can be kept alive without the mother)?
My point is that there are many 'living' things inside everyone's body. As long as those living things do not have an individual existence, are they all to be granted separate rights from the individual?
You heart can be used to save someone else's life after you are dead, thus it contains life in it. The same is with your kidneys and your eyes and your liver and your lungs.
So given that each of the above actually represent another life (in the truest form), should the society (or government) regulate how these organs are maintained? Because after all, if you eat junk food and destroy your heart or smoke and destroy your lungs, YOU ARE TAKING AWAY ANOTHER LIFE AND NOT JUST YOUR OWN? If sanctity of 'life' is your foremost goal, isnt that fair?
Just like "life begins as conception" according to you! It is not so according to MANY, including those who believe that life begins even before inception and the ovum and sperm are sources of life - the reason they oppose condoms and spermicide.
So what makes 'according to you' the undeniable truth?
Statistically it is even rearer for complications to arise in clinical abortions. Hence the fact you stated 'abortions are more unsafe' is not a fact. It is inaccurate. Do a little work to gather actual facts. Go google it up.
Now you are getting desperate Even you know how your initially 'fact' wasnt about this.
Funny (especially the ugh). So if I were to go back and trace you down molecule by molecule, atom by atom - did you not start from that certain sperm and that certain ovum? "We were never them to begin with"? Biologically speaking?
Of course we were! What kind of a statement is that?
Even if the mother is dying!!! Even if it is a minor who is a victim of sexual abuse and is physically not ready for labor? Even if there is serious doubt over the health of both mother and baby is the pregnancy is carried on with?
Dont try to point out that these are rare cases. Your made an unqualified statement saying it is NEVER ok. A sick statmenet by the way. I only hope you, all the more as a woman, ever end up at the wrong at of those kinds of statements.

Appreciate your being truthful in this.
I am older, 25, took pre-med in high school, have a major in engineering, am currently preparing for law school. Yes, I have read up just as much as I need to about fetal development though I will never claim to be an expert on it because it is not my field of study. My sister is in med school though and most clarifications are easy to come by.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yep yep and yep, for many different reasons but I'm too tired to discuss the rest tonight.

reply from: yoda

matt, please don't be deliberately stupid. "Denial of life" occurs when someone is killed, not when one has sex in any manner.
There is no "minimum cell count" for membership in the species Homo sapiens, matt. You yourself are a "collection of cells", no more and no less.
I don't even try, matt. Science does it. No woman has an "organ" that contains it's own nervous and circulatory system, and it's own unique DNA, and that is not listed on any medical chart as an "organ". You're really reaching beyond your limited reach here.
It's already a baby, just as it is a child, a person, a human being. There is no "magic transition" during gestation.
Now you are being stupid again. Dictionaries exist for the purpose of defining words as they are used in our society. We do no one any good when we pull definitions out of our asses, as you constantly do, and encourage us to do.
Here is what a human being IS:
Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0481706.html / hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species
MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/H0317900.html%20
human/human being: NOUN: human

reply from: yoda

If that were true, then it would be proof of your dishonesty, matt. I prefer to think that is not true.

reply from: Sigma

Actually, it's a fact. The Constitution does not apply to those not born.
Well, for one thing, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after the Civil War.

reply from: AshMarie88

Actually, it's a fact. The Constitution does not apply to those not born.
Not necessarily. It's those who are born OR naturalized in the USA.
There is also the whole thing of EQUAL RIGHTS. You get equal rights (or you're supposed to) when you're CREATED, not born. So, in all honesty, that means the unborn are entitled to the same rights we have, including the right to live.

reply from: faithman

Actually, it's a fact. The Constitution does not apply to those not born.
Not necessarily. It's those who are born OR naturalized in the USA.
There is also the whole thing of EQUAL RIGHTS. You get equal rights (or you're supposed to) when you're CREATED, not born. So, in all honesty, that means the unborn are entitled to the same rights we have, including the right to live.
Once again the truth is ignored. The constitution actually does protect the rights of the pre-born womb child. Count 40 words into the pre-amble, and you find the word posterity. That word means future generations. That is exactly what a womb child is. The 14th amendment is not all of the constitution, and it is the pre-amble that sets the spirit and the tone of the rest of the document. No where in the document is the right to slaughter the pre-born, on the contrary. Thier right and blessing to exist, is protected. We just need to uphold it as it is written, not "interperated by evil pro-aborts.

reply from: Sigma

Yes, but for an alien to be naturalized they would have to be born. That is what an alien is, one who is of foriegn birth.
Actually, you get equal protection of the law once you've either been born here or are an alien within America's jurisdiction.

reply from: Sigma

And once those future generations have been born, they gain Constitutional protection.

reply from: AshMarie88

Yea, which is the problem, the government isn't following the constitution or the bill of rights.

reply from: galen

wait a minute Siggy.... if i come down from say... Mars then i have more rights than a fetus who was concieved here??
Mary

reply from: Sigma

What do you mean? The fetus has not been born, so has neither been born here nor has been of foreign birth. It does not qualify for Constitutional protection.

reply from: Sigma

I didn't mean a literal alien. A migrant. One of foriegn birth.

reply from: galen

yeah forgien is forgien
Mary

reply from: AshMarie88

I didn't mean a literal alien. A migrant. One of foriegn birth.
Literal alien or not, just answer her question.

reply from: Sigma

Practically speaking, it would depend.
What do you think? Would an alien from Mars qualify for Constitutional protection as it is written?

reply from: galen

what is a literal alien SIggy... one that has more rights than a fetus?
b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : ACTUAL <liberty in the literal sense is impossible -- B. N. Cardozo> c : free from exaggeration or embellishment <the literal truth>
alienus, from alius
1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : STRANGE
MAry

reply from: galen

people think i am strange.... hmmm maybe that means i have no rights... or maybe it means we can ALWAYS twist words to mean whatever we want .
MAry

reply from: Sigma

Or it means you are using different parts of speech in your misguided attempts to cloud the issue.

reply from: galen

No Siggy it means today you are my target....
Mary

reply from: faithman

And once those future generations have been born, they gain Constitutional protection.
You are simply wrong. The word means yet to be born and thier rights are protected. no matter what a scum bag such as your self says.

reply from: Sigma

A literal alien, as it is commonly understood, would be a form of life that evolved on a planet separate from Earth.
Would a literal alien be a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment? It certainly wouldn't be human.

reply from: Sigma

I see. So, then, gamete cells are protected. They are our posterity.

reply from: AshMarie88

I see. So, then, gamete cells are protected. They are our posterity.
Are you kidding? They'll never be future people alone.

reply from: Sigma

So? Neither would the fetus until it can exist separate from the woman. They're human and they all are our future generations. They should be protected because of those facts. Every one that is lost is a unique individual lost.

reply from: faithman

I see. So, then, gamete cells are protected. They are our posterity.
No matter how you try to cloud the issue, yes, the pre-born posterity is protected by the constitution in the pre-amble.

reply from: Sigma

Actually they are not. Unless you wish to argue the absurd, you have no logical basis to claim they are.

reply from: Teresa18

I addressed this in the other thread where we are arguing.
That's good to know. Well, if a countries morals and ethics declare Muslims nonpeople, then they ought to be allowed to kill them then. I guess normal biological standards that make one a person are all discounted.
Here, just for you are the risks of abortion. Read up. Death isn't always listed, but pregnancy complications are the cause of under 2% of abortions. It is hard to find death stats on abortions because most abortion clinics hide certain information and claim the death did not come from abortion. Overall, the long term consequences from abortion exceed those of childbirth.
Child Birth Deaths
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/childbirth/deaths.htm

Physical Risks
http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_928YC.asp
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap4.html

Psychological Risks
http://www.afterabortion.info/psychol.html
Deaths
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_21.asp

Complications
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_20.asp

Future Premature Births
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_22.asp#Are%20there%20any%20comprehensive%20studies%20on%20premature%20births?

Effects on Women's Mental Health
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_abortion_psychological_rea.asp

After Effects
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp

Abortion Reflections
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_effects_of_abortion.asp

Fetal Handicap/Infanticide
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_24.asp#Abortion%20Leads%20to%20Infanticide%20Like%20Night%20Follows%20Day%20Why?

Leading to Suicide
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_9.asp#Does%20it%20ever%20lead%20to%20suicide?

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_suicide.asp

Abortion Trauma/Child Abuse
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_child_abuse.asp

Effects on Self-Esteem
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_child_abuse.asp

Abortion and Substance Abuse
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/abortion_and_substance_abuse.asp

Abortion and Feminization of Poverty
http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/aboriton_and_the_feminizaion_of_.asp

Once again, if you understand the article and where it is coming from, you can't completely see that this is from a Pro-Life group.
"This article was addressing abortion in the case of rape. Saying that she has no duty to take care of her child is certainly not true for the father. Nevertheless, the father has already abandoned the child. He has pretty much left her with the child. He was aggressive towards the mother, but in the same extent, he also was aggressive towards his child, an innocent bystander who did not ask to be conceived. The woman doesn't have to provide for her child, but she can't be aggressive towards the child either (or act as an agent of the father's aggression). That is essentially what abortion is, an aggressive act to kill the child.
So, you may say, what if she simply cut of nourishment by having the child removed via early delivery. However, by doing so she is acting as the negligent father's agent. By withdrawing nourishment, she is helping bring about his child neglect by aggressing the child. In order to cut off nourishment, she would actively be intervening. "And she is executing the power thrust upon her by the father; she is actively behaving as the agent of the aggression. She doesn't have the right to do that; no one does."
Sure, there are two aggressions: 1) If she carries the child, she in some ways continues the abuse of the father 2) However, if she cuts of nourishment, she brings about the father's aggression and inflicts it upon her child. Well, what is worse suffering injustice or committing it? Then, you get to the part we were discussing earlier at the top."
It's already a living person. Just because it's not at the baby stage does not mean the woman should be permitted to kill it.
Sure, many schools of thought can hold opposite points of view about a lot of things, slavery, the Holocaust, etc. at different points in history. Just because a school of thought is held, it does not mean that it is right or justifiable to kill and innocent child, who is just as much a victim of the rape as the mother.
I knew Libertarians were pro-choice long before I found these articles. However, the Libertarians for Life are a group of Libertarians that realize carrying life within the womb is far from slavery and abortion is wrong, as the right to liberty should not supersede the right to life. If you read the article I gave Sigma you will clearly understand.
Some moral frameworks believe odd things, rapists that rape is ok, others that stealing is ok, others that killing in gangs is ok. Just because there is a particular moral framework, does not make it right. From a biological standpoint, we are dealing with a separate person, one who deserves to live as done everyone else.

reply from: Teresa18

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Faithman is right, Sigma. It does say posterity. Children within the womb are people, and they are the posterity of of the mother and father. Just because the child is too young to survive without the mother's nourishment and shelter does not make it right to her to be able to kill the child. It would be ludicrous to think we would all start off able to liver on our own. Reproduction doesn't work taht way. A person must grow and develop. Just because a person is not developed enough, there is no right to murder.
Whether the law dictates something or not, we've learned the law can be wrong as it was in the decision of slavery. It should be that the child, while in the mother's womb, recieves protection with the mother. When born, as long as the mother is a citizen of the U.S., even if the child is born in China, the child is still a U.S. citizen along with being a Chinese citizen and vice versa.

reply from: Sigma

I know it says posterity. That was the only point faithman was right about.
In much the same way gametes are posterity. The usage of posterity in the Preamble grants rights when future generations are born.
And just as the law was wrong to disallow abortion. We denied the State's power to restrict freedom in both cases Now you're trying to give the State this power back.
Yes. When born.

reply from: Teresa18

Sigma, gametes are not posterity. They are not people. A gamete possesses only one strand of DNA. A human possesses two strands of DNA. There is posterity when there is a new person at fertilization.
Sigma, the law was not wrong to disallow abortion. In order to compare pregnancy in a slave type manner, the child would have to have utmost control, but the child is helpless to the mother, a innocent third party who never asked or agreed to being put in that situation. I'll leave you with this quote:
EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED SLAVERY WAS FREE
EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS ABORTION IS BORN
THAT'S HOW OPPRESSION WORKS
"THEY'RE NOT REALLY PEOPLE"-WE'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE

reply from: yoda

Is it not truly amazing to what great lengths some proaborts will go to convince us it's okay to kill babies?

reply from: Teresa18

Yes, it really is, Yoda.

reply from: Sigma

They are human. They are human gametes. The DNA they posess is human as the DNA the fetus posesses is human. The number of chromosomes does not change the fact that the gametes are human, or that they are our future generations.
Teresa18. I have not compared slavery to pregnancy. I have compared State power. And yes, the State is wrong to disallow slavery.
Were abortion disallowed, the State would have "utmost control" since it will not allow the woman to end the pregnancy when she wishes to. That is a form of slavery and of rape, not pregnancy. Again, I have not compared pregnancy to either slavery or rape.

reply from: Teresa18

Sigma, this is becoing a tedious argument. You twist things around from the meaning I am writing about. A gamete is a human's as in the mothers or the fathers BUT it is not a person. A gamete has one strand of DNA, and a HUMAN BEING has two strands of DNA. If people wish to prevent conception, that is fine. However, once a person is conceived, they should not be killed.
No, Sigma, the state has given the woman utmost control over the children in the womb, the posterity and people of this country who deserve its protection. We are endowed with our Creator certain inalienable rights, UPON CREATION. The children in the womb are the most vulnerable among us deserving protection within the mother.No one should be given utmost control over another human being.
Are human beings able to be owned, Sigma. When does the child stop becoming the mother's property? Is it when she gives birth, when the child is 2, when the child is 18? Only animals can be owned, not people. If this was the mother's organ it would be her property. An internal organ, however, is not a person as it has no ability to become a person. An internal organ is only part of a person, but it is not the whole person. A person produces its own organs to encompass the body. A child in the womb is a preson. If you are claiming that the child in the womb is truly part of the mother, then you would have to claim the woman has four arms, legs, eyes, two heads, etc. The child is only part of the woman in a sense that it is growing inside her from her nourishment and shelter. Her body is separate from that life, however. The person in the womb has a different blood type in many cases, separate brain waves, and its own DNA. People can do with they want within the law, but they are not allowed to do such things as use illegal drugs. However, just because the law legalizes abortion, it does not make abortion correct.
The child is in no way harming the mother. The child is in a natural phase of development. The mother and father brought the child into that situation. The child didn't ask to be brought into that situation. The child has been endangered due to the parents actions. The child did not agree to the situation he/she was put in. The mother has no right to kill the child, for the child is not her property.

reply from: Sigma

You're right, it is a tedious argument. Trying to say that "posterity" applies to those not yet born makes it equally logical to say that "posterity" applies to those not yet conceived. You say that gametes are not people, but gametes are absolutely human so it cannot be that being human means you're a person. What criteria are you using? Where is this definition you are using and why should that one be used?
If the woman has utmost control then she may discontinue her pregnancy. If she cannot then the State has control over who or what may use her body. This is a form of slavery and of rape.
The State, in both allowing slavery and disallowing abortion, was distructive of individual liberty. The Fourteenth Amendment was crafted to prevent the State from being able to do this. Both then and now the Fourteenth prevents the State from violating individual rights. You wish to give the State that power back.
Of course they should. Those who cannot make decisions on their own has someone else make decisions for them. No one should be required by the State to allow another to use their body against their will and without their consent.
When it exists as an individual, I suppose. It does not exist as an individual until it has a unique consciousness.
The fetus is not a person in the sense of having "someone in there".
Of course not. Legality and morality are separate.
The fetus has no right to use her body. The fetus has no rights, period. The fetus is not a moral entity.

reply from: Teresa18

Sigma, I realize why no one else on this board hardly bothers to argue with you. It is pointless. You twist my points and attempt to defect them through questions and quick one liners. People like Matt that come on here actually seem confused on some issues and while stubborn, are still open minded. You are not open-minded and you dedicate all your time on this forum to defending killing innocent children in the womb of their mother. You know God does not support this, and one day when you die you'll have to answer for defending murder of children like others had to answer for support of slavery and the Holocaust. It's not that I can't refute your points, but it becomes a tedious and circular argument.

reply from: yoda

"Tedium and circularity" are his only weapons. His apparent love of those activities leads me to think that his motivation for being here may have more to do with the joy of wearing people down with the sheer volume of his meaningless words than his allegiance to the proabortion cause. It's a type of sadism, IMO.

reply from: Sigma

Twist? Can you give an example? I actually think I do a good job replying to the point of what you say. If I am in error I'd like to know where.
I deny what you say is the truth, and you do not or cannot provide conclusive evidence beyond your opinion. There is little I can do beyond that unless you provide that evidence.
I am openminded, but I am not confused about the issue.
Unless I know God exists, what He may think about abortion is immaterial to me. Your comparison of abortion to slavery and the Holocaust is laughable, to be honest. You keep pushing it, but cannot actually show them to be comparable. I have shown that disallowing abortion is similar to slavery.
Then provide something new. Your article is a good place to start, but please concentrate on one section so we can examine it fully. Posting the full article doesn't help.

reply from: LetFreedomRing

The use of her organs does justify abortion to the majority of the nation. Whatever pain and discomfort she goes through is completely individual.
The majority? Nope. Most people oppose abortion.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/realitycheck3.htm

reply from: Sigma

http://
"></div>
">http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/realitycheck3.htm</end quot
Untrue. Look for an unbiased source. The majority of the nation agrees with allowing women to choose for themselves during at least part of the pregnancy.
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 26-27, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"Which side of the political debate on the abortion issue do you sympathize with more: the right-to-life movement that believes abortion is the taking of human life and should be outlawed; OR, the pro-choice movement that believes a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, including deciding to have an abortion?" Options rotated
For all adults: 39% said Right-to-Life, 53% said pro-choice, 3% said neither and 5% were unsure.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). June 9-12, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. Results below are among registered voters.
"I'm going to read you some positions that someone running for Congress could take. For each one, please tell me whether you would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who takes this position, less likely to vote for this candidate, or would it not make a difference to you either way? . . ."
6/9-12/06: For the position "Favors keeping abortion legal" 46% said they were more likely to vote for that candidate, 33% said they were less likely, 19% said no difference and 2% said they were unsure.
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. April 8-11, 2006. N=1,357 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"As you may know, South Dakota adopted a law that would ban all abortions, except to save the life of the mother. Do you approve or disapprove of the South Dakota abortion law?"
For all adults: 34% said they approve, 58% said they disapprove and 8% said they were unsure.

reply from: Sigma

I posted the questions as well as the answers.
Even the poll that LetFreedomRing cites to "disprove" that the majority of Americans are pro-choice shows that the majority of Americans support abortion for at least the first three months with no cited restrictions.

reply from: yoda

I believe that is the case, but either way it's immaterial to the rightness or wrongness of elective abortion.

reply from: Sigma

*sigh* I forgot your limited understanding.
No cited restrictions within the first three monthes. That would imply "abortion on demand" at least for part of the pregnancy.

reply from: yoda

Has anyone seen siggy-poo? Can someone tell him there's a couple of threads waiting for him..........??

reply from: Teresa18

Yoda, siggy-poo has been here and active off and on today. The problem is that he has you on ignore. He made a comment that when you have someone on ignore, you are unable to see threads created by them. Apparently, he can't see your threads, no matter how many times we bump them up or respond.
However, Sigma, Yoda has two threads with questions for you. I asked two questions near the ends of the threads. I'd like to hear your answers.

reply from: Sigma

Then ask them in a thread you and I are having a discussion. Hiding them where I cannot see them will not get them answered.
"Siggy-poo"? lol, you've made an affectionate pet-name for me? I find that vastly entertaining
As for yodavater, I care very little if he has questions. I find him nasty and insulting, as well as unintelligent. He's the resident troll. I don't feed trolls

reply from: bradensmommy

Yeah, but some of us are feeding you though.....

reply from: Sigma

I doubt you could qualify me as a troll With few exceptions, I make at least an effort to have a civil discussion. I do not intentionally use inflammatory or derogatory labels (such as "anti-choice", "anti-women", etc), or post just to get a rise out of someone.

reply from: Sigma

Teresa18, I just realized something. yodavater created threads and has been bumping them continuously, not realizing that I had him on ignore? Wow. That's sad and hilarious at the same time
Don't tell him that I can't see them. It gives the poor guy something to do and if he realizes it might just destroy his fragile little ego Make believe I'm really offended or something. That'll make him happy.

reply from: yoda

Goodness, I didn't know that! I thought he had to be able to see my thread titles, at least! I'm pretty sure I used to be able to see threads started by folks I have on ignore, but apparently that has changed now.
Would some kind person kindly copy the first post from one or both of the threads with his name in the title and post them as a new thread?
I'm certain siggy-poo will be forever in your debt!

reply from: bradensmommy

Yoda, you crack me up with the siggy poo name!


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics