I don’t care if the government never bans abortion, even if it is murder, because I don’t view government as a legitimate institution. Besides, it is no different than banning alcohol or pot; it doesn’t stop anybody, but simply creates a lucrative black market. Legislation is not an effective tool for influencing people’s lifestyles choices. So when pro-choicers use their “teenage girls getting illegal abortions” (argumentum ad clotheshanger), I know they are entirely correct.
So, what is left for a pro-lifer to do? Well, a pro-lifer could try to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with (abstenance propaganda, birth control), and try to persuade women with unwanted pregnancies not to get abortions. Public awareness campaigns, free ultrasounds, public protests, and–most importantly–social and economic support for single mothers–are key.
It is high time that pro-lifers (and all other do-gooders, for that matter) stop dancing around in front of government buildings, and start taking the situation into their own hands. And they can do it, by influencing people to voluntarily accept their ideology instead of having it force-fed through the State.
The government’s capacity for violence isn’t the only reason its a battleground in the abortion debate. Its role as an opinion shaper means that getting the governemnt to endorse your position is tantamount to winning the morality debate.
What “role as opinion shaper”? Is there one person on this planet who has refused to smoke pot because the government says not to? People might have their lifestyle choices influenced by their family and friends, their church, their school–even their employer–but I don’t think they care what the government has to say. After all, “it isn’t illegal if you don’t get caught.”
It’s high time that pro-lifers (and everybody else) recognize this, stop lobbying the state entire, and take their message directly to the people.
I was having a discussion with an individual the other day that said that he would (or rather, his wife would allow him to) smoke pot if it weren’t illegal. The fact that it is illegal is the only thing that keeps his wife from being ok with it.
Some people are completely submissive to power, but 99.9% of abortions are performed for young and rebellious people who could care less what the government has to say.
IF abortion is murder, and I don’t know if it is, than it is murder. Period. IF it is murder than it is a right-violation and murder is one of the worst rights-violations. I don’t see how the consequences would matter. Murder should be illegal in all forms, even if people still murder later on. IF abortion is murder than the same holds true for it. Argumentum ad clotheshanger is not a moral argument but a consequentalist one.
That being said, I do not again have a determined position on abortion yet. In a free market, parents could likely sell their children to those who want children so they would be less likely to have an abortion. Dr. Block has written on this free market in adoption, I’m not sure I remember wherer though.
Murder should be banned. Ok. But who should do the banning? The State? You are recognizing its legitimacy, in that case. I don’t want a criminal gang creating and enforcing laws against murder when they are murderers themselves. I would rather find other ways to reduce murder.
I don’t know how a PDA could unilaterally ban abortion and back it up with firepower when a good portion of the consumers and investors in a community do not oppose abortion. Besides, I don’t want armed men shutting down abortion clinics and jailing doctors; I want women and girls to stop having abortions voluntarily.
well, i dont know how a PDA can stop crime from ever happening, but the response to both of these is; so what? is there a superior legitimate option?
is that just a pure personal preference or is it based on an understanding of NAP and where abortion falls into the equation.? i.e. for someone who believes that abortion at some stage is not an NAP violation, then coercion to shut down such clinics is a NAP violation, and vice versa for the opposing view.
I just thought of something: even if it were universally agreed that abortion is wrong, a PDA could not stop an abortionist from doing his work on his own property. A PDA, after all, is not allowed to break in to the abortionist’s building and arrest him, because they are sworn to protect private property.
So no matter how you cut it, the only way to fight abortion is persuasion and evangelism, not force.
This all comes down to the issue of when and how rights are assumed by the individual. Then we get into the issue of eviction, depending on which way we go on the rights aspect.