I am sure the pro-abortion crowds answers will be much longer and much more contorted.
Children are obviously allowed to use violence to prevent their parents from aggressing against them.
But you are suggesting, by disagreeing with the idea of abandonment, is that children can use violence to extract resources from their parents. This would mean that children raise themselves and parents are simply providers who must comply with their children’s demands; which means arbitrary exceptions and limits must be placed in order to curb the obvious moral hazard. What we have then is socialism within the family.
Obviously abandoning a child is reprehensible, but like abortion, it is not something that can be solved by outlawing it.
But it isn’t. Hence, the problem.
They don’t necessarily disagree with you. Its possible to agree that fetus are humans but to disagree that they have a right to reside within their mother (ejectionism).
Obviously the mainstream pro-abortion crowd uses the non-person argument to avoid having to make any principled arguments but I don’t think I’ve seen that tactic here.
And how do you propose the mother remove the child?
Induced labor.
Is it possible to induce labor in the first or second trimesters? I thought it was only possible later on, and more routine in overdue pregnancies.
Dunno. There might be other ways to eject the fetus or you’d have to wait.
so your saying that fetuses are actually self-owners and mothers’ leeway over their fetuses can only be eviction based and non-aggressive. im i correct in saying that its not the in-out of the womb that determines the personhood as states in my original post?
There isn’t, of course, any such thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being.
And there isn’t, of course, any such thing as the “right to life”.
When life begins is a red herring; all that matters is the woman’s ownership of herself, which necessarily includes her womb. All the rest is just a bunch of gibberish.
I took more practical position. Due to nonexistence of positive obligations whether there is abortion or eviction does not really matter in practice. They would end up dead anyway so not much difference between the two.
If however there is an agent with sufficient claim, like a father, demanding that the child be given to him then I might say let the woman bear the pregnancy til the end and give the child to the father.
Say you’re painting your wall, when the latter snaps and you fall and break both your legs. immediately after this happens, a deaf burgler walks in your door and starts stealing your things. He isn’t posing a danger against your life, but he cannot hear you telling him to get out. There is a gun on the floor right beside you. Your only option is to shoot the burgler. Would you propose that your only ethical option is to wait until your legs heal?
The fact that a fetus dies when the woman tries to evict it doesn’t mean she is responsible for killing it. It’s death was a byproduct of her means and not her intent or desired ends. And since abortion was/is the only available immediate means she has, she is completely within her right in using it.
Mind if I hop out of the box you put me in?
My personal view regarding abortion was never in discussion. Actually I would not embrace abortion as an option because of my ethical standards. However, this has nothing to do with what we discuss here.
Basically you can have two different views on law. Either it is a basic set derived from the fact of self ownership and copes therefor only with individuals, or you can look at the law as a means of groups to enforce their ethical views on others. In the first case you are an individualist, in the second case you fancy a more or less collectivist idea.
My point of view is the first one. Law is not about group ethics but about the relations between individuals. Responsibility is no term of law unless you are oblieged to compensate for a physical aggression you started against someone else, hence violated his or her property rights.
Property rights, including the right to own myself, are negative rights. The only right you have is to not be aggressed against you and your property. All the rest is a voluntary contract. So, if I am against abortion, noone can rightfully force me to be pro-abortion. If I want to live in an environment that rules out abortion, I am free to do so, like I am free to leave such a community again.
Now to the children. I believe unique life starts at inception, and therefor my ethic is that abortion is a violation of my personal ethic and therefor can never be a means for any goal I have. In other words, I strip of a choice voluntary because my faith doesn’t allow me to act that way. Yet, this is my faith, and doesn’t have to be the faith of all mankind.
From a basic view on children, free of faith that is, a fetus is living in the womb as a parasit(in the literal sense), that means it is totally dependend on the will of the mother to let it live there. Because the mother owns herself, she is totally free to do to herself whatever she wants to do or whatever her ethical believes allow. No third party is involved. It is a question about the mother and the child. If a mother decides to cut the voluntary “contract” with the fetus she is free to do so, because it is up to her to decide how she acts with her body. The fetus has no right to be nurished by another person it is the mothers voluntary decision to have it inside herself and to share her property with it.
After birth things change insofar,as the child now is an entity outside the selfproperty of the mother. Still there is no right to life but only a right to not be aggressed against. That means the child completly depends on third parties to survive to a point it is able to survive for itself. Those that support the child have no right to beat it, or even kill it, as this would be an intiation of aggression. However, they can decide to stop the support at any time. Stopping support is not aggression in any way. If you argue that not sharing is a violation of rights, you go straight to the collectivist camp and you would have to agree, that robbing the rich to feed the poor is right and lawful.
At a first glance the individualist argument seems to be very harsh, and I admit it took me a while to grasp its validity. The point you need to keep in mind is that law and ethics are not the same from an individual standpoint. Violation of laws is always a thing between two individuals and never involves the group.
But laws must hold under all circumstances not only in sunshine environments. Now if abortion was murder, on what grounds? We could say that the child has a right to life and if the mother aborts it, she violated this right. What if the mother was going to die if the fetus stays in her body? Now all of a sudden both have a right to life, which one is higher? Who is to decide? Another case, if the child can not be fed without others would starve to dead? Is the right of the child to live higher than the right to life of those supporting it? Again, who is to decide?
The answer is that the decision must be made by those that are affected by the case, hence the individuals. The fast majority of women would not have an abortion unless circumstances, which are inside the realm of their decision, force them to do so. No family would stop feeding their children unless they are faced with the gruel reality of, say starvation of all. Yet, no one else but the affected have the right to decide on their actions. And all actions they take that are not an initiation of physical aggression against a third individual are lawful.
This seems to me the least common denominator to ensure laws can be kept under all circumstances and do not give a group special rights out of nothing but their sayso or ethical preferences.
Anything above that is strictly voluntary and can be seen as rules for the members of a group, but they can not be enforced on people, they can only be held as rules to act and those that do not want to act in that way can be thrown out of the group or leave it voluntary.
Does that make sense to you?
Yes, moral relativism is your position. In your faith mruder is unacceptable but in practical application you don’t mind it.
More pro-abortion nonsense. The mother had sex knowing that one of the possible outcomes was the creation of a human being that would be dependent on her and point of fact her body specifically is designed to serve as a host for this activity. She took actions that created another person dependent on her. She is responsible at the very least for assuring no harm comes to the child. This is just simple basic personal responsibility for your own actions.
Yes, but we reject it.
And a football player knows that playing football can lead to injuries. By your incredibly faulty reasoning, no football player may then seek medical attention for said injuries, since it’s just the price you pay for playing. Nor does the fact that the woman has a host mechanism mean anything other that she has a host mechanism. It’s HER host mechanism. SHE controls it. Or do you feel that a woman loses her self-ownership when she’s pregnant? Is that it? Does she become a slave to the fetus? In your view: she is nothing but a vessel, no longer human.
Further: consent can be revoked. Your view means that there cannot be any divorces as well, so we must outlaw marriage, since “buyer’s remorse” can set in.
As for “responsibility”, we still are using the dictionary definition of “responsibility” and “responsible”, aren’t we? We’re not using your pet special pleading definition which excludes abortion as taking responsibility.
LOL, I was NOT being sarcastic.
I do understand why NO ONE should be held accountable for starving their babies to death,
To use your analogy the football player knows he can get hurt so if he does get hurt he can’t sue the owner of the team under normal circumstances. The player is responsible for the risk he is taking. The woman is responsible for the risks she is taking and the possible outcomes.
The point about a woman’s body being designed to host is that the baby is welcomed by the mother’s body. This is not a foreign invasion. The woman’s body is designed to have sex and produce children and to provide for the support of the child until birth. The point being the baby is invited in not taking the place by force.
If I invite you out on a boat and travel to the middle of the ocean i can’t then throw you overboard saying I have now revoked my consent. If one person places another person under their care they are responsible for them until the care is no longer needed or until another person can take over the duties. Simple individual responsibility for one’s own actions is all that is required.
Hey, look! I agree with Max, for once.
A word on this reoccuring theme here that people are “pro-abortion”: Noone (or barely anyone), to my knowledge, is actually pro-abortion in any blatant sense. I’d gander that most people who are opposed to the criminalization of abortion aren’t particularly fond of it personally and would probably suggest against it to people they personally know, unless it was an extreme situation. Noone in their right mind actually likes abortion, it’s an ugly thing.