Late Term Abortions (1 Viewer)

[Orange Crush]

My serious answer to his question: if it's in there, she has the rights. If you don't like that, pull out. Suppose I stuck something into your mouth you decided you didn't want, and I refused to pull it out? Should I be allowed to hold you responsible for what you might choose to do at that point?

The law is very clear. You are only allowed to use deadly force if there is no other option. So if you're shoving poison into my mouth then I can break your neck. If you're trying to force me to try the cupcake you just baked, I'm probably limited to just punching you in the face.

 

[Thorn]

Starting to take a really creepy turn here.

 

[Aerial Assault]

2. It really doesn't matter how I got there.

So if I invite you into my stomach (or home), and you enter, I can kill you?A fetus doesn't appear in a womb on purpose. It's either invited (when the woman is trying to get pregnant), or it appears there accidentally (when the condom breaks) -- but that doesn't make it a trespasser guilty of the sort of wrongdoing for which the death penalty is appropriate.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to late-term abortions, but I wouldn't justify my position by analogizing abortion to killing an invited guest (or even an accidental wanderer) for being in my person.

Me too and me neither. I've ben reading this thread and refraining from commenting, because, Tim, you're an awesome poster around here. However, as usual, sheer, naked libertarianism is really scary.

 

[Christo]

2. It really doesn't matter how I got there.

So if I invite you into my stomach (or home), and you enter, I can kill you?A fetus doesn't appear in a womb on purpose. It's either invited (when the woman is trying to get pregnant), or it appears there accidentally (when the condom breaks) -- but that doesn't make it a trespasser guilty of the sort of wrongdoing for which the death penalty is appropriate.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to late-term abortions, but I wouldn't justify my position by analogizing abortion to killing an invited guest (or even an accidental wanderer) for being in my person.

Me too and me neither. I've ben reading this thread and refraining from commenting, because, Tim, you're an awesome poster around here. However, as usual, sheer, naked libertarianism is really scary.

I wouldn't call it libertarianism. Libertarianism demands the recognition of individual rights to the fullest extent possible. I think a true libertarian would recognize that an unborn child has the same individual rights as the mother. The fact that the mother may be inconvenienced for nine months does not override the child's right to a life of its own.

 

[timschochet]

I wouldn't call it libertarianism. Libertarianism demands the recognition of individual rights to the fullest extent possible. I think a true libertarian would recognize that an unborn child has the same individual rights as the mother. The fact that the mother may be inconvenienced for nine months does not override the child's right to a life of its own.

Of course you're welcome to this viewpoint, but this is not libertarianism as I understand it. There is no such thing to me as an unborn child.

 

[timschochet]

Me too and me neither. I've ben reading this thread and refraining from commenting, because, Tim, you're an awesome poster around here. However, as usual, sheer, naked libertarianism is really scary.

Thanks for the kind words. But I don't know what you find scary about this. I think it's far scarier (at least to me) whien those who claim to be pro-life are willing to sacrifice individual liberty in order to achieve their ends of childbirth. I can't understand how anyone can be in favor of this idea and claim to have a libertarian POV.

 

[Christo]

I wouldn't call it libertarianism. Libertarianism demands the recognition of individual rights to the fullest extent possible. I think a true libertarian would recognize that an unborn child has the same individual rights as the mother. The fact that the mother may be inconvenienced for nine months does not override the child's right to a life of its own.

Of course you're welcome to this viewpoint, but this is not libertarianism as I understand it. There is no such thing to me as an unborn child.

Ah, yes. Your constant companion.

 

[timschochet]

Abortion is a right, and all rights are absolute and cannot be "balanced" away. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. The moral standard to be applied is that of man's life and what is required by man's nature for his proper survival. The fundamental condition for man's survival--the freedom to use his rational faculty to maintain and enjoy his life. Thus, a pregnant woman, like every other individual, has the right to determine her own destiny and the destiny of her body, to choose what constitutes her own best interest and private happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as she respects the same rights in others.

These rights, and all rights, are absolute by their nature. It cannot be proper to negotiate moral principles. It cannot be proper to allow a man only a portion of the freedom he requires by his nature.

What of the fetus? Does it have rights which must be respected? The concept of rights is based on man's nature and presupposes the existence of an actual, fully formed and separate human being. Fetuses and embryos are not actual human beings; they are potential human beings. They have no rights until they exist apart from the mother, i.e., at birth. This is not to condone the morality of arbitrarily delaying an abortion until the last months of pregnancy--when the fetus is approaching humanness. But the function of the law is to protect rights--not to dictate moral issues which involve no violation of rights.

The only proper function of government is to protect man's absolute rights against violation by other men. No government, no state, no collective has any "interest" apart from the individuals of which it is composed. Thus, it can have no "interest" which conflicts with any individual's rights, such as a paternalistic interest in "maternal health." Our Consitution was drafted in recognition of these principles. It was designed, not as a charter for government power, but as a protection against government power, i.e., against invasion of individual rights by the government. For this reason, the Constitution enumerates the limited powers of the government but not (as made clear in the Ninth Amendment) every individual right.

 

[timschochet]

I wouldn't call it libertarianism. Libertarianism demands the recognition of individual rights to the fullest extent possible. I think a true libertarian would recognize that an unborn child has the same individual rights as the mother. The fact that the mother may be inconvenienced for nine months does not override the child's right to a life of its own.

Of course you're welcome to this viewpoint, but this is not libertarianism as I understand it. There is no such thing to me as an unborn child.

Ah, yes. Your constant companion.

I'm trying to be polite here, and accord my opponents (such as yourself) more credit than you probably deserve. If you hold that abortion is immoral and should be illegal, that's one thing, and you are certainly welcome to that opinion. But when you try to claim that this position is consistent with libertarian values, I have to take issue with that. It's simply not correct.

 

[Statorama]

Lots of abortion love on this site.

 

[timschochet]

Lots of abortion love on this site.

Really? You think so? It was my impression that I'm facing a whole host of people opposed to abortion, many more than are expressly for it.

 

[Jewell]

Abortion is a right, and all rights are absolute and cannot be "balanced" away.

Tim, I'm a pro-choice person and even support abortion in the third trimester under extenuating circumstances, but the above sentence that you use to begin one of your most recent posts is flat out incorrect. While the Supreme Court has recognized abortion as a right, rights can be, and are, "balanced" away all the time. For example...A person has the right to vote, but a person may lose that right to vote if they have been convicted of a felony.A person has a right to make a living, but that right may be limited if, once again, they have been convicted of a felony.A person has a right to free speech, but that free speech may be limited if it poses an immediate threat to people. (Classic example: Yelling "Fire!" in a croded movie theatre.)A person has a right to bear arms, but there are certain buildings where arms are not allowed for public safety. (Ex. Courthouses)A person has a right to drink once they're over the age of 21, but a person over 21 doesn't have the right to drink and then drive.Both the Supreme Court, and our society on the whole, "balances" rights all the time. As such, it's within the Court's pervue to balance a woman's right to an abortion with competing interests.

 

[timschochet]

Abortion is a right, and all rights are absolute and cannot be "balanced" away.

Tim, I'm a pro-choice person and even support abortion in the third trimester under extenuating circumstances, but the above sentence that you use to begin one of your most recent posts is flat out incorrect. While the Supreme Court has recognized abortion as a right, rights can be, and are, "balanced" away all the time. For example...A person has the right to vote, but a person may lose that right to vote if they have been convicted of a felony.A person has a right to make a living, but that right may be limited if, once again, they have been convicted of a felony.A person has a right to free speech, but that free speech may be limited if it poses an immediate threat to people. (Classic example: Yelling "Fire!" in a croded movie theatre.)A person has a right to bear arms, but there are certain buildings where arms are not allowed for public safety. (Ex. Courthouses)A person has a right to drink once they're over the age of 21, but a person over 21 doesn't have the right to drink and then drive.Both the Supreme Court, and our society on the whole, "balances" rights all the time. As such, it's within the Court's pervue to balance a woman's right to an abortion with competing interests.

Of course, all of your points are true. But the post you cited, which was a quote from a very well known libertarian source, was not speaking of legal rights but of natural rights. These rights are not derived from whatever the law decides is best for society, but from the very concept of individualism.

 

[The Commish]

I still don't understand what the magic is that is tied to passing through the birth canal. Seems like a very bizarre place to draw the line on this "black and white" issue. I do, however, understand why some are forced to look at it in black and white terms. Ironically enough, the fact that one feels it necessary to do so, should be a flag that it really isn't that type of issue.

It's not magic, but it is defintional. One side, the fetus is inside a woman's body, and a woman, IMO, has the right to do as she will to her body. On the other side, the baby is an independent being with rights of its own.

Can you explain this to me? I'll be out most of the day, but will return to read this evening. What do you mean by "independent being"?

Any detailed explanation I give you is going to trap me in my own use of language, and its unnecessary, since I'm pretty sure you already know exactly what I mean.

I honestly have no idea what you mean, that's why I asked. You spending all this time answering everyone else and you won't answer this question? Change the wording, the terms you used, I don't care. Just tell me what you are trying to say I'll ask a different way if that helps. In your view, what is the difference between a baby's last day in the womb and first day out of the womb if it isn't simple passage through the birth canal. Why do you draw the line in that particular place.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Abortion is a right, and all rights are absolute and cannot be "balanced" away.

Tim, I'm a pro-choice person and even support abortion in the third trimester under extenuating circumstances, but the above sentence that you use to begin one of your most recent posts is flat out incorrect. While the Supreme Court has recognized abortion as a right, rights can be, and are, "balanced" away all the time. For example...A person has the right to vote, but a person may lose that right to vote if they have been convicted of a felony.A person has a right to make a living, but that right may be limited if, once again, they have been convicted of a felony.A person has a right to free speech, but that free speech may be limited if it poses an immediate threat to people. (Classic example: Yelling "Fire!" in a croded movie theatre.)A person has a right to bear arms, but there are certain buildings where arms are not allowed for public safety. (Ex. Courthouses)A person has a right to drink once they're over the age of 21, but a person over 21 doesn't have the right to drink and then drive.Both the Supreme Court, and our society on the whole, "balances" rights all the time. As such, it's within the Court's pervue to balance a woman's right to an abortion with competing interests.

Of course, all of your points are true. But the post you cited, which was a quote from a very well known libertarian source, was not speaking of legal rights but of natural rights. These rights are not derived from whatever the law decides is best for society, but from the very concept of individualism.

Even before you mentioned that it was a quote, I was thinking to myself, "I can't help but read this passage in Ayn Rand's voice." It has her characteristic disregard for any nuance, or in some cases any semblance of basic accuracy.Jewell is correct. Nearly all rights are constantly balanced -- as they must be whenever two sets of rights conflict. Do you have the right to operate your factory? Do I have the right to hang my clothes outside without their becoming black from the smoke? If we're neighbors, those rights can't co-exist. The solution must involve some kind of balancing.A person's rights are always balanced against the harm their exercise will cause to others.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In your view, what is the difference between a baby's last day in the womb and first day out of the womb if it isn't simple passage through the birth canal.

I take it you've never given birth. From people who have, I've never heard it described as simple.

 

[Christo]

I wouldn't call it libertarianism. Libertarianism demands the recognition of individual rights to the fullest extent possible. I think a true libertarian would recognize that an unborn child has the same individual rights as the mother. The fact that the mother may be inconvenienced for nine months does not override the child's right to a life of its own.

Of course you're welcome to this viewpoint, but this is not libertarianism as I understand it. There is no such thing to me as an unborn child.

Ah, yes. Your constant companion.

I'm trying to be polite here, and accord my opponents (such as yourself) more credit than you probably deserve. If you hold that abortion is immoral and should be illegal, that's one thing, and you are certainly welcome to that opinion. But when you try to claim that this position is consistent with libertarian values, I have to take issue with that. It's simply not correct.

Do you want to re-think this before I post why it fits in quite well with libertarian thinking?

 

[timschochet]

Abortion is a right, and all rights are absolute and cannot be "balanced" away.

Tim, I'm a pro-choice person and even support abortion in the third trimester under extenuating circumstances, but the above sentence that you use to begin one of your most recent posts is flat out incorrect. While the Supreme Court has recognized abortion as a right, rights can be, and are, "balanced" away all the time. For example...A person has the right to vote, but a person may lose that right to vote if they have been convicted of a felony.A person has a right to make a living, but that right may be limited if, once again, they have been convicted of a felony.A person has a right to free speech, but that free speech may be limited if it poses an immediate threat to people. (Classic example: Yelling "Fire!" in a croded movie theatre.)A person has a right to bear arms, but there are certain buildings where arms are not allowed for public safety. (Ex. Courthouses)A person has a right to drink once they're over the age of 21, but a person over 21 doesn't have the right to drink and then drive.Both the Supreme Court, and our society on the whole, "balances" rights all the time. As such, it's within the Court's pervue to balance a woman's right to an abortion with competing interests.

Of course, all of your points are true. But the post you cited, which was a quote from a very well known libertarian source, was not speaking of legal rights but of natural rights. These rights are not derived from whatever the law decides is best for society, but from the very concept of individualism.

Even before you mentioned that it was a quote, I was thinking to myself, "I can't help but read this passage in Ayn Rand's voice." It has her characteristic disregard for any nuance, or in some cases any semblance of basic accuracy.Jewell is correct. Nearly all rights are constantly balanced -- as they must be whenever two sets of rights conflict. Do you have the right to operate your factory? Do I have the right to hang my clothes outside without their becoming black from the smoke? If we're neighbors, those rights can't co-exist. The solution must involve some kind of balancing.A person's rights are always balanced against the harm their exercise will cause to others.

I can't deny that Ayn Rand has been very influential in my thinking on this subject. I never claimed to be original. The rest of your comments are your opinion, and obviously, I disagree with it. That quote was not by Ms. Rand herself, but by one of her more influential followers.

 

[timschochet]

I wouldn't call it libertarianism. Libertarianism demands the recognition of individual rights to the fullest extent possible. I think a true libertarian would recognize that an unborn child has the same individual rights as the mother. The fact that the mother may be inconvenienced for nine months does not override the child's right to a life of its own.

Of course you're welcome to this viewpoint, but this is not libertarianism as I understand it. There is no such thing to me as an unborn child.

Ah, yes. Your constant companion.

I'm trying to be polite here, and accord my opponents (such as yourself) more credit than you probably deserve. If you hold that abortion is immoral and should be illegal, that's one thing, and you are certainly welcome to that opinion. But when you try to claim that this position is consistent with libertarian values, I have to take issue with that. It's simply not correct.

Do you want to re-think this before I post why it fits in quite well with libertarian thinking?

Absoluely not. You're a bright guy, and I'm sure you will come up with a way that brilliantly makes the two work together. I probably could too, if I had to, and I wanted to win a debate. Doesn't make it true, however. Make your point, and then I will show you where you are wrong.

 

[timschochet]

I still don't understand what the magic is that is tied to passing through the birth canal. Seems like a very bizarre place to draw the line on this "black and white" issue. I do, however, understand why some are forced to look at it in black and white terms. Ironically enough, the fact that one feels it necessary to do so, should be a flag that it really isn't that type of issue.

It's not magic, but it is defintional. One side, the fetus is inside a woman's body, and a woman, IMO, has the right to do as she will to her body. On the other side, the baby is an independent being with rights of its own.

Can you explain this to me? I'll be out most of the day, but will return to read this evening. What do you mean by "independent being"?

Any detailed explanation I give you is going to trap me in my own use of language, and its unnecessary, since I'm pretty sure you already know exactly what I mean.

I honestly have no idea what you mean, that's why I asked. You spending all this time answering everyone else and you won't answer this question? Change the wording, the terms you used, I don't care. Just tell me what you are trying to say I'll ask a different way if that helps. In your view, what is the difference between a baby's last day in the womb and first day out of the womb if it isn't simple passage through the birth canal. Why do you draw the line in that particular place.

All right. So long as the fetus, or baby, (whichever you deem to call it) is inside the body of the mother, it cannot have independent legal rights, IMO, because these would interfere with the rights of the woman to do what she will to her own body, which to me are sacrosant. Once the baby has been removed from the mother, we no longer need concern outselves with the rights of the mother's body. Therefore, we can now accord the baby individual rights.You'll notice that I make no mention of whether or not the baby is a living being before it exits the womb- unlike other pro-choice people, I'm not willing to engage in this debate. The truth is, I think that some pro-life people make very good points about "viability". But to me, these arguments are irrelevant, since I don't want to take away rights from a woman towards her own body at ANY time. Hope this makes more sense.

 

[Christo]

Alright, can we first agree that the non-aggression axiom is a bedrock principal of libertarianism?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Alright, can we first agree that the non-aggression axiom is a bedrock principal of libertarianism?

No. The non-aggression principle leads to anarchism, but most libertarians aren't anarchists.But carry on anyway.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding the concept of rights, this quote is directly from Ayn Rand:

“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

There are legal rights that must be balanced, in the way that Jewell and MT are talking about. But what I was referring to are natural rights, which these legal rights are based. Natural rights, based upon individual human freedom, should not be balanced against the supposed "collective good" of the society, whatever that means. This is the essence of libertarian thought.

 

[timschochet]

Alright, can we first agree that the non-aggression axiom is a bedrock principal of libertarianism?

I agree that this is an important aspect of libertarianism. To be honest, I have never been certain I agree with it. Ayn Rand believes that all taxation can be achieved through voluntary means such as lotteries. I have always been very skeptical about this idea. I don't believe in anarchy, and I suspect that some sort of force is necessary for a civilized society, (though certainly much less than is necessary now.) I suppose this makes me a "consequentialist libertarian."

 

[Aerial Assault]

Me too and me neither. I've ben reading this thread and refraining from commenting, because, Tim, you're an awesome poster around here. However, as usual, sheer, naked libertarianism is really scary.

Thanks for the kind words. But I don't know what you find scary about this. I think it's far scarier (at least to me) whien those who claim to be pro-life are willing to sacrifice individual liberty in order to achieve their ends of childbirth. I can't understand how anyone can be in favor of this idea and claim to have a libertarian POV.

No sweat; the WWII thread is something I've really been enjoying, and thank you for it, because I don't think I've posted in there yet. It *is* scary when pro-lifers do as you describe. But I think you're embodying the other extreme, which is also a bit disturbing. Between the two, however, you're right - - they win on scary, it's not even close, and I'm sorry if I implied to the contrary.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I wouldn't call it libertarianism. Libertarianism demands the recognition of individual rights to the fullest extent possible. I think a true libertarian would recognize that an unborn child has the same individual rights as the mother. The fact that the mother may be inconvenienced for nine months does not override the child's right to a life of its own.

Of course you're welcome to this viewpoint, but this is not libertarianism as I understand it. There is no such thing to me as an unborn child.

The second sentence has absolutely no relation to the first.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Lots of abortion love on this site.

Please. It's easy to expect this from someone with a picture of Ms. Palin, the near-boundlessly corrupt former governor of one of the smallest states in the Union, as their avatar. No one "loves" abortion. No one. The pro-choice, anti-choice debate is far more nuanced and, as you may have noticed in reading this thread, centers on the balancing of individual rights.

 

[Harry Manback]

Abortion is a right, and all rights are absolute and cannot be "balanced" away.

Tim, I'm a pro-choice person and even support abortion in the third trimester under extenuating circumstances, but the above sentence that you use to begin one of your most recent posts is flat out incorrect. While the Supreme Court has recognized abortion as a right, rights can be, and are, "balanced" away all the time. For example...A person has the right to vote, but a person may lose that right to vote if they have been convicted of a felony.A person has a right to make a living, but that right may be limited if, once again, they have been convicted of a felony.A person has a right to free speech, but that free speech may be limited if it poses an immediate threat to people. (Classic example: Yelling "Fire!" in a croded movie theatre.)A person has a right to bear arms, but there are certain buildings where arms are not allowed for public safety. (Ex. Courthouses)A person has a right to drink once they're over the age of 21, but a person over 21 doesn't have the right to drink and then drive.Both the Supreme Court, and our society on the whole, "balances" rights all the time. As such, it's within the Court's pervue to balance a woman's right to an abortion with competing interests.

Of course, all of your points are true. But the post you cited, which was a quote from a very well known libertarian source, was not speaking of legal rights but of natural rights. These rights are not derived from whatever the law decides is best for society, but from the very concept of individualism.

We have the right to liberty do we not?

 

[Harry Manback]

Alright, can we first agree that the non-aggression axiom is a bedrock principal of libertarianism?

No. The non-aggression principle leads to anarchism, but most libertarians aren't anarchists.But carry on anyway.

Awesome.

 

[17seconds]

The fact that the mother may be inconvenienced for nine months does not override the child's right to a life of its own.

Do you really think these are the opposing factors?You seem to be saying that once the nine months is over, the mother is done and the child will be just fine.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Lots of abortion love on this site.

:( Please. It's easy to expect this from someone with a picture of Ms. Palin, the near-boundlessly corrupt former governor of one of the smallest states in the Union, as their avatar. No one "loves" abortion. No one. The pro-choice, anti-choice debate is far more nuanced and, as you may have noticed in reading this thread, centers on the balancing of individual rights.

Technically, this is not correct. I love abortion. I love to say abortion. I love to type abortion. I like to call things abortions, as in "this thread is an abortion". Abortions are cool. Everyone should have at least 7 abortions. Males should have augmentation surgery to add female plumbing, just so they can experience having an abortion.Abortion milkshake anyone?Carry on.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Lots of abortion love on this site.

:( Please. It's easy to expect this from someone with a picture of Ms. Palin, the near-boundlessly corrupt former governor of one of the smallest states in the Union, as their avatar. No one "loves" abortion. No one. The pro-choice, anti-choice debate is far more nuanced and, as you may have noticed in reading this thread, centers on the balancing of individual rights.

Technically, this is not correct. I love abortion. I love to say abortion. I love to type abortion. I like to call things abortions, as in "this thread is an abortion". Abortions are cool. Everyone should have at least 7 abortions. Males should have augmentation surgery to add female plumbing, just so they can experience having an abortion.Abortion milkshake anyone?Carry on.

I stand corrected, and all that . . . . And actually, I think I called something "an abortion" in a heated moment the other day myself. Not very liberal of me. But I'm pretty sure it had to do with Jim Zorn's play calling, or the decisionmaking skills of Phoney Romeo.

 

[WetDream]

Suppose I stuck something into your mouth you decided you didn't want, and I refused to pull it out? Should I be allowed to hold you responsible for what you might choose to do at that point?

This certainly would be a sticky situation.

 

[Aggie 86]

Lots of abortion love on this site.

Please. It's easy to expect this from someone with a picture of Ms. Palin, the near-boundlessly corrupt former governor of one of the smallest states in the Union, as their avatar. No one "loves" abortion. No one. The pro-choice, anti-choice debate is far more nuanced and, as you may have noticed in reading this thread, centers on the balancing of individual rights.

That's B.S. It's not pro-choice vs anti-choice. It's pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion.There are many choices (no one is debating adoption, for example). This is about one choice and whether there should be no limits, some limits, or banned.

 

[Uwe Blab]

Lots of abortion love on this site.

Please. It's easy to expect this from someone with a picture of Ms. Palin, the near-boundlessly corrupt former governor of one of the smallest states in the Union, as their avatar. No one "loves" abortion. No one. The pro-choice, anti-choice debate is far more nuanced and, as you may have noticed in reading this thread, centers on the balancing of individual rights.

That's B.S. It's not pro-choice vs anti-choice. It's pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion.There are many choices (no one is debating adoption, for example). This is about one choice and whether there should be no limits, some limits, or banned.

Yeah, someone using "anti-choice" is pretty much code for me to stop listening or caring about their opinion. There are reasonable people on both sides..."anti-choice" is pure hackery.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Lots of abortion love on this site.

Please. It's easy to expect this from someone with a picture of Ms. Palin, the near-boundlessly corrupt former governor of one of the smallest states in the Union, as their avatar. No one "loves" abortion. No one. The pro-choice, anti-choice debate is far more nuanced and, as you may have noticed in reading this thread, centers on the balancing of individual rights.

That's B.S. It's not pro-choice vs anti-choice. It's pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion.There are many choices (no one is debating adoption, for example). This is about one choice and whether there should be no limits, some limits, or banned.

Yeah, someone using "anti-choice" is pretty much code for me to stop listening or caring about their opinion. There are reasonable people on both sides..."anti-choice" is pure hackery.

 

[phthalatemagic]

pro-abortion up until the 54th trimester

 

[17seconds]

Lots of abortion love on this site.

Please. It's easy to expect this from someone with a picture of Ms. Palin, the near-boundlessly corrupt former governor of one of the smallest states in the Union, as their avatar. No one "loves" abortion. No one. The pro-choice, anti-choice debate is far more nuanced and, as you may have noticed in reading this thread, centers on the balancing of individual rights.

That's B.S. It's not pro-choice vs anti-choice. It's pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion.There are many choices (no one is debating adoption, for example). This is about one choice and whether there should be no limits, some limits, or banned.

You don't like the term anti-choice, but pro-abortion suits you just fine?

 

[The Commish]

In your view, what is the difference between a baby's last day in the womb and first day out of the womb if it isn't simple passage through the birth canal.

I take it you've never given birth. From people who have, I've never heard it described as simple.

Poor choice of words....thanks for keeping me on my toes.

 

[The Commish]

All right. So long as the fetus, or baby, (whichever you deem to call it) is inside the body of the mother, it cannot have independent legal rights, IMO, because these would interfere with the rights of the woman to do what she will to her own body, which to me are sacrosant. Once the baby has been removed from the mother, we no longer need concern outselves with the rights of the mother's body. Therefore, we can now accord the baby individual rights.You'll notice that I make no mention of whether or not the baby is a living being before it exits the womb- unlike other pro-choice people, I'm not willing to engage in this debate. The truth is, I think that some pro-life people make very good points about "viability". But to me, these arguments are irrelevant, since I don't want to take away rights from a woman towards her own body at ANY time. Hope this makes more sense.

What you call the being is of no consequence to me. It does seem odd that the location of the being is your "line in the sand". It also seems odd that location dictates when the mother has the rights etc. At some point, don't you have to take a look at position to see if it even makes sense? Is there any other instance where you think you could apply this type of logic?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In your view, what is the difference between a baby's last day in the womb and first day out of the womb if it isn't simple passage through the birth canal.

I take it you've never given birth. From people who have, I've never heard it described as simple.

Poor choice of words....thanks for keeping me on my toes.

I had a serious point, though. The birth event is a pretty major deal. It shouldn't be downplayed.If we're going to pick a juncture and say, "Before now, I couldn't have forced anyone to go through with what loomed ahead for you. But now that we've reached this juncture, the most laborious part of the process is behind you; so if you want to bow out now, you've got to put the baby up for adoption instead of killing it." I think the conclusion of the birth event seems like a reasonable candidate for that juncture.

 

[timschochet]

All right. So long as the fetus, or baby, (whichever you deem to call it) is inside the body of the mother, it cannot have independent legal rights, IMO, because these would interfere with the rights of the woman to do what she will to her own body, which to me are sacrosant. Once the baby has been removed from the mother, we no longer need concern outselves with the rights of the mother's body. Therefore, we can now accord the baby individual rights.You'll notice that I make no mention of whether or not the baby is a living being before it exits the womb- unlike other pro-choice people, I'm not willing to engage in this debate. The truth is, I think that some pro-life people make very good points about "viability". But to me, these arguments are irrelevant, since I don't want to take away rights from a woman towards her own body at ANY time. Hope this makes more sense.

What you call the being is of no consequence to me. It does seem odd that the location of the being is your "line in the sand". It also seems odd that location dictates when the mother has the rights etc. At some point, don't you have to take a look at position to see if it even makes sense? Is there any other instance where you think you could apply this type of logic?

Not really, no. Baby making is unique. There is no other situation where one life is inside of another. I tried to use a fanciful analogy earlier where I teleported into someone's stomach, but obviously that's science fiction. Even the situation of siamese twins does not apply. There is no analogy in reality, and therefore no situation where I can or need apply this logic.

 

[The Commish]

In your view, what is the difference between a baby's last day in the womb and first day out of the womb if it isn't simple passage through the birth canal.

I take it you've never given birth. From people who have, I've never heard it described as simple.

Poor choice of words....thanks for keeping me on my toes.

I had a serious point, though. The birth event is a pretty major deal. It shouldn't be downplayed.If we're going to pick a juncture and say, "Before now, I couldn't have forced anyone to go through with what loomed ahead for you. But now that we've reached this juncture, the most laborious part of the process is behind you; so if you want to bow out now, you've got to put the baby up for adoption instead of killing it." I think the conclusion of the birth event seems like a reasonable candidate for that juncture.

There are many reasons one could choose a point in time. I don't necessarily buy the "difficulty" angle myself, but I guess I can see how some would.

 

[The Commish]

All right. So long as the fetus, or baby, (whichever you deem to call it) is inside the body of the mother, it cannot have independent legal rights, IMO, because these would interfere with the rights of the woman to do what she will to her own body, which to me are sacrosant. Once the baby has been removed from the mother, we no longer need concern outselves with the rights of the mother's body. Therefore, we can now accord the baby individual rights.You'll notice that I make no mention of whether or not the baby is a living being before it exits the womb- unlike other pro-choice people, I'm not willing to engage in this debate. The truth is, I think that some pro-life people make very good points about "viability". But to me, these arguments are irrelevant, since I don't want to take away rights from a woman towards her own body at ANY time. Hope this makes more sense.

What you call the being is of no consequence to me. It does seem odd that the location of the being is your "line in the sand". It also seems odd that location dictates when the mother has the rights etc. At some point, don't you have to take a look at position to see if it even makes sense? Is there any other instance where you think you could apply this type of logic?

Not really, no. Baby making is unique. There is no other situation where one life is inside of another. I tried to use a fanciful analogy earlier where I teleported into someone's stomach, but obviously that's science fiction. Even the situation of siamese twins does not apply. There is no analogy in reality, and therefore no situation where I can or need apply this logic.

Conjoined twins would be similar I suppose. They share a body in some cases. If one wants to have X procedure that could end both their life and the other doesn't. Who has the right to decide? Do you ever pause to think about your black and white stance on such an unique instance?

 

[timschochet]

All right. So long as the fetus, or baby, (whichever you deem to call it) is inside the body of the mother, it cannot have independent legal rights, IMO, because these would interfere with the rights of the woman to do what she will to her own body, which to me are sacrosant. Once the baby has been removed from the mother, we no longer need concern outselves with the rights of the mother's body. Therefore, we can now accord the baby individual rights.You'll notice that I make no mention of whether or not the baby is a living being before it exits the womb- unlike other pro-choice people, I'm not willing to engage in this debate. The truth is, I think that some pro-life people make very good points about "viability". But to me, these arguments are irrelevant, since I don't want to take away rights from a woman towards her own body at ANY time. Hope this makes more sense.

What you call the being is of no consequence to me. It does seem odd that the location of the being is your "line in the sand". It also seems odd that location dictates when the mother has the rights etc. At some point, don't you have to take a look at position to see if it even makes sense? Is there any other instance where you think you could apply this type of logic?

Not really, no. Baby making is unique. There is no other situation where one life is inside of another. I tried to use a fanciful analogy earlier where I teleported into someone's stomach, but obviously that's science fiction. Even the situation of siamese twins does not apply. There is no analogy in reality, and therefore no situation where I can or need apply this logic.

Conjoined twins would be similar I suppose. They share a body in some cases. If one wants to have X procedure that could end both their life and the other doesn't. Who has the right to decide? Do you ever pause to think about your black and white stance on such an unique instance?

I actually thought of this. And the truth is, I don't know. It's a fine moral question, and I would have to really think about my answer before I gave it. At the moment I'm not sure. I wish I could give you a better more definitive answer, but that's the truth.Howver, I don't find it really analogous to a fetus growing within a woman's body.

 

[vnel8tn]

2. It really doesn't matter how I got there.

So if I invite you into my stomach (or home), and you enter, I can kill you?A fetus doesn't appear in a womb on purpose. It's either invited (when the woman is trying to get pregnant), or it appears there accidentally (when the condom breaks) -- but that doesn't make it a trespasser guilty of the sort of wrongdoing for which the death penalty is appropriate.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to late-term abortions, but I wouldn't justify my position by analogizing abortion to killing an invited guest (or even an accidental wanderer) for being in my person.

The analogy that you and others here keep making about a home or property isn't a good one, because we're discussing one's body. I hold that if I am in your stomach, (using the specific example I used, not being in your home) it doesn't matter how I got there. You could have invited me. You could be happy with me there, and then change your mind. It could have been accidental, or it could have been forced upon you. I could be alive inside your stomach, or I could be brain dead, or sick, or healthy, or whatever. None of this matters. What matters is, it's your body, and you have the right to decide what to do with your body. The state, IMO, should not have the power to take that right away. So yes, as long as I am in your body, you can kill me, if that is your wish.

According to this flaVVEd opinion, the State (or society, however you want to define it) should have had NO say in the morality of Michael Jackson holding his son over a balcony....CHOOSING to dangle the life of another over the edge, and since the child was in his hands grasp...if you will:

in your body, you can kill me, if that is your wish

would have no recourse because the inherent right existed in the person putting others in danger because

you have the right to decide what to do with your body.

Keep fighting the good fight, Tim...

 

[vnel8tn]

All right. So long as the fetus, or baby, (whichever you deem to call it) is inside the body of the mother, it cannot have independent legal rights, IMO, because these would interfere with the rights of the woman to do what she will to her own body, which to me are sacrosant. Once the baby has been removed from the mother, we no longer need concern outselves with the rights of the mother's body. Therefore, we can now accord the baby individual rights.

You'll notice that I make no mention of whether or not the baby is a living being before it exits the womb- unlike other pro-choice people, I'm not willing to engage in this debate. The truth is, I think that some pro-life people make very good points about "viability". But to me, these arguments are irrelevant, since I don't want to take away rights from a woman towards her own body at ANY time. Hope this makes more sense.

What you call the being is of no consequence to me. It does seem odd that the location of the being is your "line in the sand". It also seems odd that location dictates when the mother has the rights etc. At some point, don't you have to take a look at position to see if it even makes sense? Is there any other instance where you think you could apply this type of logic?

Not really, no. Baby making is unique. There is no other situation where one life is inside of another. I tried to use a fanciful analogy earlier where I teleported into someone's stomach, but obviously that's science fiction. Even the situation of siamese twins does not apply. There is no analogy in reality, and therefore no situation where I can or need apply this logic.

Please see my post above. This was reality, and I believe it is exactly one life residing inside another (if even just his grasp). Tell me how this doesn't fit your arbitrary criteria.

 

[timschochet]

vnel8tn, I understand that you see no moral difference between what a woman chooses to do with a fetus inside her body and Michael Jackson dangling a baby over a balcony. To you, the two are one and the same. I respect your view on this, but I strongly disagree with you and I will strongly fight the possibility that your viewpoint ever becomes established law.

 

[vnel8tn]

Tim, I tried hard to limit my responses to your 'libertarian ABORTION manifesto' to just some pertinent points. The post was so long, that I apologize in advance if my deletions inadvertently takes anything out of context. I tried to leave the post in order and just delete some of the muck.

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the existential choice for a woman is not abortion vs. no abortion, but, as Garrett Hardin has pointed out, abortion vs. compulsory childbearing. (See his Mandatory Motherhood for a biologist's look at the case for abortion.) If others can force her to be a mother (and she is the biological mother even if she does not raise the child), then she is coerced into putting her body at the disposal of the fetus as if she were an unclaimed natural resource or a chattel slave. Even if the fetus is removed and raised separately, she is still forced to be the manufacturer, the baby machine. Thus, the woman's most fundamental right of choice, the right to control her own body and happiness, is being abrogated.

In thinking that his position is pro-abortion, Block fails to recognize (or else discounts) the real point of abortion--not that the woman does not want to be pregnant, or that she does not want to raise a child, but that she does not want to bear this child. If the fetus is removed and raised independently, as Block suggests, the woman is still the biological mother with all the psychological significance that implies. She has still been forced to be the baby machine. But, we maintain, a woman's right to self-determination includes the right to refuse to bear a child as long as that choice is still physically open to her.

It does not pump its own blood WRONG; it does not do its own breathing; it does not have a separate (or any) consciousness. To say that the fetus is a separate entity as if it were the same as a completed, self-sustaining structure simply makes no sense even in biological terms.

We maintain that they cannot offer such proof because none exists. If there is no objective evidence that the fetus possesses the psychological qualities that define "person," ARBITRARYLibertarians have quibbled endlessly over the question of when the fetus actually becomes capable of rationality and therefore a person.AGAIN...ARBITRARY

Since the purpose of abortion is not just to terminate the pregnancy but to avoid bearing the child, what is necessary is not just the removal of the fetus (otherwise she could just bring it to term and give it up for adoption), but its death.

One additional ethical consideration remains. Tibor Machan and others have argued that the husband (or the man who contributed the sperm) has a right to a say in the matter of abortion. But the man has no right to be a father against the woman's wishes. If she does not want to be a mother, then to insist that she produce a baby for his benefit puts her in the position of a chattel slave. The woman has the right, however, to choose to be a mother even if the man does not want to be a father. THIS FORCES THE FATHER AGAINST HIS WILL INTO FATHERHOOD, NO?

But if rights and principles are, as we maintain, interpretations of the relationship between ourselves and the world of reality, then we have the right to judge the reasonableness of these constructs by their results on our lives. If the principles we espouse result in immense human misery, we may justifiably ask ourselves if these principles are false and reexamine them in a new light. THIRD REICH???

Some anti-abortionists even go so far as to suggest a sociological link between abortion and the mass murders in Nazi Germany. But this makes no sense, since Hitler was opposed to abortion ("Nazi ideals, he said, "demand that the practice of abortion shall be exterminated with a strong hand.") and indeed Nazi law made abortion a capital crime. ONLY FOR KILLING GERMANS, I BELIEVE, NOT OTHERS

The fetus' blood supply is pumped by its own heart. The mother's blood supply does not mix...that is why some babies can be Rh+ blood type, while mom is not.I am interested in how your position reconciles the bolded parts above about how it is inherently wrong (actually stated the purpose of abortion is death to the fetus) to force a woman to become a BIOLOGICAL mother (adoption explanation), but it is not wrong, to force the same upon the father...

 

[vnel8tn]

vnel8tn, I understand that you see no moral difference between what a woman chooses to do with a fetus inside her body and Michael Jackson dangling a baby over a balcony. To you, the two are one and the same. I respect your view on this, but I strongly disagree with you and I will strongly fight the possibility that your viewpoint ever becomes established law.

There is no other situation where one life is inside of another. I tried to use a fanciful analogy earlier where I teleported into someone's stomach, but obviously that's science fiction... There is no analogy in reality, and therefore no situation where I can or need apply this logic.

Your stated position, and your 'tiny imposition into another's stomach' analogy, seems contrary to your stated strong disagreement, to put you in the same boat. Either one is free to exert their will or not. Should Michael have been free to do whatever he wanted with his body (say, for instance, open his hands and let go), or not? Why, or why not?