I defer to the controversial parasite arguement but I don’t feel like getting into it here.
At least the parasite argument is honest.
I hate shallow “reproductive rights” BS.
The issue of abortion is a matter of family law and must be settled as part of the conditions for membership in a family.
So you would argue that the rape victim should give birth to the child, but that people would (or should) willingly support the woman through the pregnancy? I have a hard time accepting involuntary taxation even in the case of criminal activity.
I have a hard time understanding what you mean by “involuntary taxation” in this situation or in any situation, for that matter.
I am not saying that people should be forced to be honorable. I am saying that the world would be a better place if more people were honorable.
I am saying that a rape victim should not consider her own child as a curse just because she was raped and honorable people would support a pregnant rape victim through her pregnancy.
Maybe this analogy would help:
The world would be a better place if everybody was polite and opened doors for women. However, I am not saying people should be forced to be polite.
Should we punish people for their fathers crimes? That would be ridiculous.
How is it not a curse? If a woman wants a child, she can get pregnant voluntarily. If she becomes pregnant by rape against her will, then the potential child is automatically a loss, not a gain of a value to her. The child as much may be a value, but she has already balanced the potential benefits and costs of a child by choosing not to become pregnant voluntarily.
I hate kids. I mean I really hate kids. They are annoying and whiny and slobbering financial liabilities. That is all the argument I need.
Anyway, my only problem is that the start of life and the rights that go with it, are not logically legislated. I like things to be consistent and the current abortion laws seem to concern only the rights of the mother. I personally like the idea that we define the beginning of life the same way that we define the end of life. Which currently is the end of brain activity. So the start of life would be the beginning of brain activity (though I have no idea when that is…). But I’ve never heard this opinion from anyone else, so I am certain that the debate will continue to rage between “life starts at conception” and women’s right to their body.
Though women’s rights and brain activity as the start of life are compatible concepts. If the fetus can be removed without any direct harm involved, then the rights of the fetus are not being violated. Though I have no idea if such an operation is possible.
I actually don’t have an solid opinion regarding abortion; it took me a while to rid myself of my previous liberal tendecies (previously pro-choice, whatever that means nowadays) regarding this issue, however the parasite argument does seem to make sense.
In any case, I hardly see how it’s my own buisness since I’m not a woman, nor am I one affected by such an issue (i.e. a husband or partner, etc.), anyway.
Regarding partial birth abortion I heard Rand was against it. That would end all debates.
The correct term “dilation and evacuation.” “Partial-birth” is just a made-up bullshit term made up by the Religious Right to mislead people.
Isn’t the right to life primary to the libertarian philosophy?
That is up to her, not me and not you.
Think of the child as you would think of chocolate or sex: you really can not say you like it until you try it.
If more and more people glorify pregnant women – the way we commonly glorify people who are suddenly $10,000,000 richer, for example – maybe unplanned pregnancies will not be considered a curse.
That woman may live in a world where unmarried pregnancy is considered evil and thus, she will feel cursed. On the other hand, she may live in a world where ANY pregnancy is treated like a glorious and rare event and thus, she will feel blessed.
It seems to me like you are making an ex post / ex ante error in logic when you arrive at that conclusion. There is no reason to assume you can compare how the woman values the pregnancy
- AFTER she is already pregnant
to
- BEFORE when she is not pregnant
I believe you are also making a different type of error by assuming you can make a summation of value and attributing that to the woman.
No. She has balanced things from different starting points.
For all we know, this woman wants to get pregnant and can not find a willing man to impregnate her. For all we know, her friends probably thought she was a loser who would never ever get laid. Now, she earned respect.
I realize these are despicable statements but they are technically possible. I beg that nobody thinks that I am callously dismissing the horror that is rape. That is not my intention. My point is that we can not assume anything about her valuations.
For all we know, her rapist could turn around and say: “Sorry, lady, but I am extremely desparate to be a father and no woman likes me. How about I give you $10,000,000 if you carry the child to term? I will even send you on a 9 month vacation cruise throughout the globe where you can bask in the sunshine and have servants fan you while feeding you grapes etc. etc. etc.”
For all we know, pregnancy can actually be a euphoric and inspirational experience which is only felt at the point of conception.
Look, I am not trying to impose a positive obligation on a woman who is pregnant and I am not denying that the rape is an assault/violation of the non-aggression principle. I am just trying to encourage an attitude change, a preference or a new axiom just like we all try to encourage people to accept the non-aggression principle. None of those preferences can be proven.
Considering a “fetus” or “embryo” is unable to live outside the mother’s womb until it is at least 16 or 18 weeks old (and even then chances of survival are slim I do not believe it should be equal to a human being. While I do believe that every effort should be made by a woman to potentially seek the pregnancy to term. It should be, however, ultimately the woman’s choice at least until she’s 12 or 14 weeks along. After all, the woman will have to live with the fact that she had an abortion for the rest of her life. And often, this is punishment enough.
Now if a woman requests an abortion after the time that the fetus is viable outside the mother’s womb, it is definitely considered murder.
So viability becomes the criterion. What then is to be said for the person on life support? His body is not viable without outside assistance…what if the fetus could survive outside the mother’s womb in a similarly supportive environment (incubator), how can one tell?
A life is a life.
The right to live your own life, not the right to have your life provided to you.
I already regret getting into this [:S]
If we were to assume that fetuses counted as persons, then the proper libertarian solution would be for the woman to deliver the child, but the rapist would be force to give restitution by paying for the child’s care.
Also, a question for pro-lifers: Would a miscarriage be considered manslaughter? Would drinking alcohol or smoking during pregnancy be considered assault?
I assume this is a relatively common argument. I’ve been making it since I was about 14, so I have a hard time believing that plenty of other people haven’t come up with it. I’d put a gloss on it though. It’s not just brain activity that matters, but certain kinds of brain activity. While this doesn’t clear it up that much, I’d say the brain activity that matters is the brain activity capable of producing consciousness. If there’s brain stem activity that regulates certain functions automatically, but no higher level activity, it’s not conscious. If there’s frontal lobe activity, the ability to feel pain or emotions, the ability to experience sound, etc., then you’ve got something. It’s hard though: a pain reflex isn’t the same as an experience of pain. I’ve done some fairly extensive reading on fetal brain development in the past, and settled on a number around 20 weeks. I’m not married to that number of course.
Yippee! Love this subject. Lets me whip out my biology and everything! Most of the time, I just have to work with math. 
In any case, it is quite clear that the fetus is a truly separate organism from the beginning, and more, it is a human organism passing through a stage as an obligate endoparasite, just as all humans (indeed, all placental mammals) do. It is no more a part of the mother’s body than is any blood-feeding parasitic worm. (Nice, huh? It gets better!) That being said, this particular parasite is completely dependent on the mother to survive, and, as will shortly be shown by way of analogy, she is obligated, except in cases of rape (the practical implications of that are truly dismaying) to bear it to term, and indeed, to care for it through childhood as well.
Take the case of a man walking down the street in a hypothetical world where dialysis is unavailable. You hit him with your car, and destroy his kidneys. It was completely an accident, but also completely your responsibility (you were painting your toenails or something). Yours are not a match, so you cannot donate one, however, the man can be kept alive by having his blood filtered through your kidneys once every couple days. Are you not obligated to allow this? You are the cause of his dependency, and therefore, you are obligated to provide for it. Does anyone disagree with this?
Could be, but I haven’t heard it often. From what I’ve seen, the debate mainly revolves around two extremes and this definition of life doesn’t sit right with either crowd.
I wasn’t claiming otherwise.
Problem is that - as I understand it - brain death occurs when cerebral neurons cease activity. So it’s not just about consciousness, otherwise we’d be declaring people in vegetative state as dead. And the whole argument relies on defining the beginning of life as we define the end of life. Your argument seems to be the standard consciousness argument, which I find flawed for the reason mentioned before.