Other: Did Ron Paul Convince you on Abortion?

[LibertyExtremist]

In my opinion, abortion is murder and it is wrong. I have always felt this way and I felt the same way as an atheist, deist, and a Christian. That being said, I believe that there are certain circumstances where an abortion might be justified (rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, threat to mother's life, etc.).

 

[jmdrake]

In the rape exception, the woman still has a right to choose... or not to choose. You cannot force her to make a decision, life or death, of another human being (even if that human being is technically by your definition of the morning after pill, still unborn.) Not only can you not do so, but it is morally wrong to force someone who has just been raped to make a decision of such gravity...within any allotted time frame, let alone by the morning after. As long as that baby is inside her she can choose 'evict' or 'not evict.'

Sure you can. At some point she's not allowed to make the "choice" to wrap the newborn up and throw it in the dumpster just because she was a rape victim. And not making a choice is a choice. Saying it's morally wrong to "force" someone to make a choice is an infantile approach to rape victims. When a woman is raped she has the choice to go to the hospital and get a rape kit done so that there is evidence to use later in a trial. Any honest police officer would say "I can't make you do that. But if you don't it will be much more difficult to get a conviction." Life is about choices. Calling choices immoral makes no sense.

When a woman has consensual sex, she has made a choice that she has to live by. No one forced her to make a choice on the spot.

I would not make an exception for incest, unless it was underage incest of course, in which case the rules of rape apply.

There also needs to be an exception for threats to the life of the mother, however rare those cases may be.

EDIT: As to the case of people who lie about whether or not they've been raped, that is just something you have to live with. If it is later found that she lied, she is liable for punishment.

It's difficult enough to prove a woman lied about rape by a particular man. It would be pretty much impossible to prove that a woman lied about being raped by some unnamed stranger. And your proposal is grossly unfair to the baby that didn't choose to have a rapist as a father.

 

[amartin315]

Sure you can. At some point she's not allowed to make the "choice" to wrap the newborn up and throw it in the dumpster just because she was a rape victim. And not making a choice is a choice. Saying it's morally wrong to "force" someone to make a choice is an infantile approach to rape victims. When a woman is raped she has the choice to go to the hospital and get a rape kit done so that there is evidence to use later in a trial. Any honest police officer would say "I can't make you do that. But if you don't it will be much more difficult to get a conviction." Life is about choices. Calling choices immoral makes no sense.

The choice she always has is not whether to throw the baby in the dumpster, but whether to 'evict' the baby from her motherly care or not. If she chooses to evict the baby after it is 'born' (outside the womb) then the decision to 'evict' must be done reasonably, taking into account the baby's right to life. It is not unreasonable to expect the mother to leave the baby in the care of some other person. Inside the womb, it is impossible to 'evict' without harming the baby, therefor all considerations for the baby's life have been made and unfortunately the sad scientific reality is that the baby must die in order to respect the mother's rights.

She has a right to live her life without someone coming along and saying "you must shove this pill down your throat or else..." (or else carry a baby for 9 months.) In that case she is a victim of aggression and has no responsibility to any other person.

It's difficult enough to prove a woman lied about rape by a particular man. It would be pretty much impossible to prove that a woman lied about being raped by some unnamed stranger. And your proposal is grossly unfair to the baby that didn't choose to have a rapist as a father.

It's difficult to prove and it's unfair to babies, but that's tough. I believe the non-aggression principle doesn't always lead to "fair" or "happy" outcomes.

 

[jmdrake]

In my opinion, abortion is murder and it is wrong. I have always felt this way and I felt the same way as an atheist, deist, and a Christian. That being said, I believe that there are certain circumstances where an abortion might be justified (rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, threat to mother's life, etc.).

I once argued that position until a pro abortion advocate argued that if I really believed abortion is murder then why would I be okay with murdering a child who's father was a rapist? Note that I had not argued the "abortion is murder" point that you have. So I hope you can see the problem in trying to hold both the "It's murder" position and the "Well if it's rape it's okay" position.

 

[jmdrake]

The choice she always has is not whether to throw the baby in the dumpster, but whether to 'evict' the baby from her motherly care or not. If she chooses to evict the baby after it is 'born' (outside the womb) then the decision to 'evict' must be done reasonably, taking into account the baby's right to life. It is not unreasonable to expect the mother to leave the baby in the care of some other person. Inside the womb, it is impossible to 'evict' without harming the baby, therefor all considerations for the baby's life have been made and unfortunately the sad scientific reality is that the baby must die in order to respect the mother's rights.

She has a right to live her life without someone coming along and saying "you must shove this pill down your throat or else..." (or else carry a baby for 9 months.) In that case she is a victim of aggression and has no responsibility to any other person.

You are going by what you call reasonable.

It's difficult to prove and it's unfair to babies, but that's tough. I believe the non-aggression principle doesn't always lead to "fair" or "happy" outcomes.

Except you aren't following NAP. You are supporting aggression against the unborn based on whether or not the mother made some poor choice early on. If the baby isn't a baby then fine. There's no aggression if the mother has an abortion for whatever reason. If the baby is a baby then you can't say "Well it's a violation of NAP if the mother was a slut and aborts it but it isn't a violation of NAP if she was raped and aborts it." An innocent person's rights cannot be dependent upon the victimhood of the aggressor.

 

[staerker]

Imago Dei.

 

[amartin315]

You are going by what you call reasonable.



Except you aren't following NAP. You are supporting aggression against the unborn based on whether or not the mother made some poor choice early on. If the baby isn't a baby then fine. There's no aggression if the mother has an abortion for whatever reason. If the baby is a baby then you can't say "Well it's a violation of NAP if the mother was a slut and aborts it but it isn't a violation of NAP if she was raped and aborts it." An innocent person's rights cannot be dependent upon the victimhood of the aggressor.

An innocent person's rights aren't dependent on the victimhood of the aggressor. The baby always has a right to life. It's just that the mother ALSO has a right to her bodily integrity, however you want to call it. There are two competing rights.

That's why it's important to have a concept of "reasonableness", which is why I would make the decision in court on a case by case basis as I originally said. Courts deal with the word "reasonable" all the time. They have it down to a science almost. It's not a difficult concept to apply.

When a rape victim gets raped, she has, against her will, been provided with a choice. Evict or do not evict. She has been presented with a situation where she must make a decision or else carry a baby to term. It is a decision under duress, not only because it comes as the result of rape, but also because she is faced with grave consequences for either action that she could decide to take. If she decides life, then she is faced with carrying a baby to term. If she chooses death, then she is faced with the prospect of a thought that might haunt her for the rest of her life. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to force her to make choices under duress in a short amount of time. Decisions made under duress are violable.

Ergo, she is never considered to be responsible for the baby in her womb. The baby does have a right to life, but since the mother never made the free choice to waive the rights to her body, she retains those rights. We have competing rights. The woman has no right to take the baby's life, but the baby has no right to the woman's body. The woman is free to take away her body in the most reasonable way possible. As a sad consequence, the baby dies. There is no reasonable (or other) way to evict a baby in the womb without it dying.

Just imagine if the Jehova's witness comes on my lawn. I want him to go away. It is reasonable for me to escort him off my property. It is unreasonable for me to shoot him and escort him off my property. All else being equal of course.

 

[jmdrake]

An innocent person's rights aren't dependent on the victimhood of the aggressor. The baby always has a right to life. It's just that the mother ALSO has a right to her bodily integrity, however you want to call it. There are two competing rights.

A mother doesn't give up that right to bodily integrity simply by voluntarily sleeping with someone. So it's till a "competing right" if that's the way you want to cast it. And reasonable is giving the rape victim two choices. You can take an abortion pill now, or you can wait until the baby can be "evicted" without harm to your or the baby. With modern incubation technology that is not nine months as you asserted. Further, decades ago we had the ability to do embryo transplants.

http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/FetalAdoption.htm

That's why it's important to have a concept of "reasonableness", which is why I would make the decision in court on a case by case basis as I originally said. Courts deal with the word "reasonable" all the time. They have it down to a science almost. It's not a difficult concept to apply.

When a rape victim gets raped, she has, against her will, been provided with a choice. Evict or do not evict. She has been presented with a situation where she must make a decision or else carry a baby to term. It is a decision under duress, not only because it comes as the result of rape, but also because she is faced with grave consequences for either action that she could decide to take. If she decides life, then she is faced with carrying a baby to term. If she chooses death, then she is faced with the prospect of a thought that might haunt her for the rest of her life. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to force her to make choices under duress in a short amount of time. Decisions made under duress are violable.

Like you said. Life isn't fair. All you've done is transferred unfairness from mother to child. And at no point is the pregnancy is there a lack of duress for the choice so that really isn't worth factoring into the argument. It's better for the mother to make the choice early in the pregnancy. She doesn't know the child's sex. There is less wear and tare on her own body. At this point there is no nervous system or heartbeat so it's less arguably a "life." In fact most consider the morning after pill not to be an abortion at all as it usually (some argue always) works by preventing the egg from being released. So you're asking a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant to make the only sensible choice possible.

Ergo, she is never considered to be responsible for the baby in her womb. The baby does have a right to life, but since the mother never made the free choice to waive the rights to her body, she retains those rights. We have competing rights. The woman has no right to take the baby's life, but the baby has no right to the woman's body. The woman is free to take away her body in the most reasonable way possible. As a sad consequence, the baby dies. There is no reasonable (or other) way to evict a baby in the womb without it dying.

Just imagine if the Jehova's witness comes on my lawn. I want him to go away. It is reasonable for me to escort him off my property. It is unreasonable for me to shoot him and escort him off my property. All else being equal of course.

I'm not sure where you are going with the JW analogy. Are you suggesting that you don't ever agree with a mother, even a rape victim, taking an action that kills the fetus? That's the Walter Block argument. (Evictionism). I can go along with that position. I don't think it should be relegated only to victims of rape though. But that doesn't seem to be what you were saying earlier.

 

[LibertyExtremist]

I once argued that position until a pro abortion advocate argued that if I really believed abortion is murder then why would I be okay with murdering a child who's father was a rapist? Note that I had not argued the "abortion is murder" point that you have. So I hope you can see the problem in trying to hold both the "It's murder" position and the "Well if it's rape it's okay" position.

Absolutely and that is why I said "might" be justified in my post. Excluding rape, I think that the other positions are certainly justifiable (abnormalities, incest, threat to mother's life), however, the issue I think is a bit muddy when it comes to rape as it was not something that the woman consented to, thus why should she have to suffer the consequences of carrying a rapists child? I'm not saying that necessarily justifies an abortion, but it kind of complicates the issue. Also, I'm not disagreeing with your logic here, just thinking out loud.

 

[amartin315]

A mother doesn't give up that right to bodily integrity simply by voluntarily sleeping with someone. So it's till a "competing right" if that's the way you want to cast it. And reasonable is giving the rape victim two choices. You can take an abortion pill now, or you can wait until the baby can be "evicted" without harm to your or the baby. With modern incubation technology that is not nine months as you asserted. Further, decades ago we had the ability to do embryo transplants.

http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/FetalAdoption.htm



Like you said. Life isn't fair. All you've done is transferred unfairness from mother to child. And at no point is the pregnancy is there a lack of duress for the choice so that really isn't worth factoring into the argument. It's better for the mother to make the choice early in the pregnancy. She doesn't know the child's sex. There is less wear and tare on her own body. At this point there is no nervous system or heartbeat so it's less arguably a "life." In fact most consider the morning after pill not to be an abortion at all as it usually (some argue always) works by preventing the egg from being released. So you're asking a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant to make the only sensible choice possible.



I'm not sure where you are going with the JW analogy. Are you suggesting that you don't ever agree with a mother, even a rape victim, taking an action that kills the fetus? That's the Walter Block argument. (Evictionism). I can go along with that position. I don't think it should be relegated only to victims of rape though. But that doesn't seem to be what you were saying earlier.

Consider a Jehova's witness on my yard. He has a right to life. I have a right to property. The reasonable thing to do is to kick the JW off my property if I dont want him there. I don't have a right to shoot him in order to get him off my property. If he refuses to leave peacefully, then I have the right to shoot him in order to make him leave, even though he has a right to life. We are balancing the rights of the two people. We apply a reasonableness standard based on the circumstances.

If I had invited the JW to my property and promised his father he could stay there for 9 months, then that changes the circumstances. I voluntarily waived certain rights to my property. Now it is not only unreasonable to ask the JW to leave, it is certainly also more unreasonable to shoot him if he doesnt comply.

EDIT: Now consider again the JW in my yard with no 9 month agreement. I don't have to decide, right as soon as the JW comes on my property, whether or not I want to hear more from him. I can wait and let him say a few words, or I can let him talk to me for hours, and I can still have the right to say GTFO. And then, if he doesn't comply, his right to life becomes moot.

 

[philipped]

He actually did not. It took my best friend telling me he chose life and his partner did not. And my other friend giving birth to his first daughter this morning. I was only looking at it conceptually when Ron Paul spoke of it, it effected me a lot more as I began to put myself in my friends shoes for some reason. Looking at how it effected my friend who currently isn't a father, and the one who became one today is what moved me away from being completely for abortion.

 

[jmdrake]

Consider a Jehova's witness on my yard. He has a right to life. I have a right to property. The reasonable thing to do is to kick the JW off my property if I dont want him there. I don't have a right to shoot him in order to get him off my property. If he refuses to leave peacefully, then I have the right to shoot him in order to make him leave, even though he has a right to life. We are balancing the rights of the two people. We apply a reasonableness standard based on the circumstances.

If I had invited the JW to my property and promised his father he could stay there for 9 months, then that changes the circumstances. I voluntarily waived certain rights to my property. Now it is not only unreasonable to ask the JW to leave, it is certainly also more unreasonable to shoot him if he doesnt comply.

EDIT: Now consider again the JW in my yard with no 9 month agreement. I don't have to decide, right as soon as the JW comes on my property, whether or not I want to hear more from him. I can wait and let him say a few words, or I can let him talk to me for hours, and I can still have the right to say GTFO. And then, if he doesn't comply, his right to life becomes moot.

Not a good analogy as the JW voluntarily got on your property and could leave without violence. Here is a correct analogy.

You own a boat. You are in middle of the ocean. It's a 9 month journey until you get to port. There are no life rafts on your boat. There are two people on your boat that you decide you no longer want on. One is someone you invited on. The other was kidnapped by someone else and forced on your boat. Do you have more of a right to put the one who was kidnapped and forced on your boat off in the middle of the ocean to certain death than the one you invited on your boat?

 

[jmdrake]

He actually did not. It took my best friend telling me he chose life and his partner did not. And my other friend giving birth to his first daughter this morning. I was only looking at it conceptually when Ron Paul spoke of it, it effected me a lot more as I began to put myself in my friends shoes for some reason. Looking at how it effected my friend who currently isn't a father, and the one who became one today is what moved me away from being completely for abortion.

Very moving story. Thank you for sharing.

 

[amartin315]

Not a good analogy as the JW voluntarily got on your property and could leave without violence. Here is a correct analogy.

You own a boat. You are in middle of the ocean. It's a 9 month journey until you get to port. There are no life rafts on your boat. There are two people on your boat that you decide you no longer want on. One is someone you invited on. The other was kidnapped by someone else and forced on your boat. Do you have more of a right to put the one who was kidnapped and forced on your boat off in the middle of the ocean to certain death than the one you invited on your boat?

Yes

 

[dannno]

No, but he made the position sound a lot more reasonable.

However I don't see any difference between a very early term abortion and pulling the fire alarm at a honey moon retreat.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes

You might feel that way, but any court of law would convict you of murder just the same. Not so if you threw the kidnapper himself overboard.

 

[jmdrake]

No, but he made the position sound a lot more reasonable.

However I don't see any difference between a very early term abortion and pulling the fire alarm at a honey moon retreat.

And that's why the morning after pill argument is so compelling. Most likely at this point we there hasn't even been fertilization. It is irresponsible for a woman who might not want to carry a rapists baby to say "Well....let me think about this for 5 months and get back with you."

 

[amartin315]

You might feel that way, but any court of law would convict you of murder just the same. Not so if you threw the kidnapper himself overboard.

One certainly has less of a right than the other to the ship captain's food and his toilet for the next 9 month voyage.

 

[24marinematt]

I believe late term abortions should absolutely be illegal, but I wouldn't call myself "pro-life". I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

No. My own personal experience in medicine and emergency services dealing with the underserved and uninsured flipped me from being vehemently pro-life to pro-choice.

I can only control my own choices and what I do with my own body. I don't feel it's within my right to impose my morality on anybody, and I want politics and politicians as far from the reproductive rights spectrum as they can possibly get.