How about you explain how a being, with no capacity even in principle for rational thought, is analogous to a human being, a being, that is, that can be contracted with? Because, as it is, your argument is baseless.
-Jon
The baby has equal rights as the mother. So the question becomes how did we arrive at the current situation where the baby is dependent on the mother for it’s care and that the baby is attached to the mother. The situation is a result of the mother’s actions. The mother caused the dependency and is responsible for the care of the person she made dependant. It’s not about who owns the womb which I have clearly stated the woman does, it is about individuals being responsible for their own actions and for the people they cause to be dependant based on those actions.
Human life begins at conception. All rights that fully developed humans have begin at conception. A better question is why do you think it is acceptable to murder people who do not have the physical or mental capacity to make contracts?
As an example, the SDK within the Liberty Colony has already extended it’s protection services to those individuals that are unable to defend themselves under certain circumstances. So the punishment, enforcement, and procedures are the same as for those individuals that are under contract with the SDK.
The broader answer is that the people who think it’s wrong will be under the obligation to enforce it and administer the punishment. There are just some areas that simply can not have a compromise. If you start beating your child to death with a tire iron in your front lawn then I am going to intervene to protect the child.
In a free society most disputes will be resolved through contracts and arbitration. There are some issues that simply have no middle ground. That is why I use the example of an area we can hopefully agree on is wrong. Simply because party A makes an arguement that they have the right to harm party B doesn’t mean they do. In most cases, most people will agree on the issue and in the cases where they do not then there is the potential for violent conflict.
Take the extreme example that Party A has a bunch of children he is murdering on his front lawn. I tell you and together we go over and kill Party A to stop him from murdering the children. In this case it seems clear we are in agreement. Substitute abortion for murdering children and now you might disagree and not help but that might not stop me from still taking action.
We’re not talking about murdering children - that sounds like changing the subject.
So, what’s the proper ‘punishment’ for abortion according to you ? How do you plan on enforcing such ‘punishment’ ? How do you even plan on finding out who’s had an abortion to begin with ?
What action, exactly ?
I’ve read through most of this thread and it’s difficult for me to state that any human being can be the ‘property’ of another. Just because the child is conceived and lives for roughly nine months inside of the mother does not mean she owns it, and that she should be allowed to murder it. The baby has a right to life just like we all do, it’s a human being, and deeming it a ‘fetus’ is just side stepping that issue. Fetus, unborn, baby, etc. - it’s still a human being, and it has a right to live. If it’s not a human, than what is it?
If a human being begins at conception then we are talking about murdering children. Since abortion is murder then the same penalties that could apply for murder would apply in the case of abortion, including the death penalty.
Since the unborn baby is still a human then they are entitled to the same protections as anyone else. See you are making the distinction between in the womb and out of it, I am not.
The practical enforcement faces the same issues that any other crime would face, physical evidence, eye witness testimony, etc.
Is a miscarriage manslaughter then?
So, women taking the morning-after pill are committing murder…according to your ‘theory’ ?
So, in your ‘free’ society women who purposely have abortions will be executed ?
Then prove that there is such a right as the right to exist within the confines of another being, and prove that there is such a thing as the right to be a parasite. Then prove that the woman loses ownership rights to her womb when she’s pregnant. AND prove that the fetus can contract with the woman to be in the womb.
If you can’t, I suggest a healthy dose of backing off.
Remember: that the woman had sex is irrelevant. That the woman may have had it implanted via in vitro is irrelevant. Everything with which you try to counter ultimately is irrelevant.
Prove it.
No, a better question is why you do think a woman loses ownership of her womb when she’s pregnant.
She’s not murdering it; she’s removing it from her womb. That it will die is not germane. It is HER womb. If it is not HER womb, whose womb is it? Please explain to me how she loses ownership of her womb because she is pregnant. You, like Maxliberty, need to explain that special plead.
And there is no “right to life”.
Hypocrite. You refuse to apply that to the woman! You think she is no longer entitled to her own body just because she is pregnant. You are a hypocrite.
No
The problem with saying taking the morning after pill is murder is that you don’t know if she is pregnant. If you knew for a certainty that the woman was pregnant then yes it would be. In a free society, not just mine, people who murder children will undoubtedly face opposition to their actions and efforts will be made to protect the children.
I am a human now. There is some point in the past when I did not exist. I can trace my existence to the point of conception and no earlier. Since my existence began at conception then my rights which are inherent to my existence began then as well.
It is weird that you would answer on behalf of Jon. I never said that a woman loses ownership of her womb. I said that there is a relationship between two people and that this relationship which caused one party to be dependent on the other was caused by the mother. The mother incurrs obligations which means not causing harm to the other person she has made dependent on her.
So, you are saying that a bunch of cells which existed for a few hours are a “child” ?? And you’re saying that destroying those cells is “murder” and so the woman who does it can be executed ??
I suppose you don’t realize how ridiculously absurd your position is ? Not to mention it’s hardly libertarian. Also, how do you imagine that things would be handled in your totalitarian society ? Maybe there would be some ‘private’ service that would keep track of and spy on all women, in order to know when they have sex, whether they get pregnant and have abortions or not ?
That’s nice. Now try it without simply repeating your claim with a few more words.
No it isn’t.
Yes, you did. Your argument rests on the woman no longer owning her womb. If abortion is murder, then necessarily the removal of the fetus from the womb is immoral. Which, necessarily, means that the fetus owns the womb.
Not my fault that you’re unable to logically track the requirements of your argument.
Incurs an obligation? What nonsense! No one can have an obligation to carry something in the person that is not desired. Hence, you firmly believe that the woman loses her ownership of her womb.
I have explained this. She is still the owner of her womb but she has taken actions to make another person dependent on her and specifically dependent on her womb. Having made the other person dependent she is obligated at the least not to cause harm which forcibly removing from the condition of dependency would do. The causation is a result of the actions of the mother so she is responsible for the outcome.