I completely agree, but she has no right to murder her child. She has no right to pay an abortionist to rip her baby's body apart limb by limb and then have his brains suctioned out.
+rep.
When the baby is no longer wanted, it becomes a trespasser, a parasite, that needs to be dealt with. I don't believe that fetuses have rights until they're born. Even if they did, I think those rights don't matter when the baby violates the mother's "property" rights (as a woman's body IS her property).
The fetus was literally conceived in the womb. It was the choice of the mom and dad to put the fetus there. The fetus had no say in the matter.
Should a parent of a 5 year old be able to kick their child off their "property" in the middle of a blizzard and expect not to be charged with murder?
Its actually worse than that, though. Blockean evictionism, whatever its merits, doesn't actually happen. As eduardo pointed out, the abortion doctors are paid to kill, not to evict. Its true that eviction would lead to death in most cases in the 1st 20 weeks or so (I'm not an evictionist, I am anti-abortion of any kind except if necessary to defend the mother's life) but if you're really going to make the "parasite" argument, you must distinguish between these two.
This is a good point. I find "pro-choice" to be more problematic than "pro-life" though. It's deliberately vague-who doesn't want freedom of choice? It may be cliche, but "pro-death" is a more accurate phrase IMO.
It might be a little bit of a strawman of what they actually think, but it my mind "pro-death" is more accurate. "Pro-right-to-kill" would be 100% accurate.
That bolded area is flat out insanity! You are acknowledging that is a life.
I can understand this if you aren't a parent. When parents make this statement, when you can feel the soul of the child in your heart, I truly worry about our society. Caring for and loving the younger generation should be such an ingrained instinct.
And not that it matters, I'm against the current wars and the death penalty. I only believe killing is justified for clear self defense.
I can't defend the way the death penalty is currently done in our corrupt justice system. Eliminating it might be a lesser evil than doing it the way we currently do it (Expensively, selectively, stretched out, and being as prone to error as it is) but I believe market anarchism would solve all four of those problems. And I believe as a moral issue Genesis 9:6 justifies the death penalty for murder (As this command was given to Noah, rather than Moses, and that the reasoning had to do with man being made in God's image, rather than cleansing the holy land of unrighteousness, tells me that this command did not end with Christ as the other Mosaic penal laws did). Of all the hills I could die on, this isn't the one I would pick, but I think executing a murderer could fall under a similar category as self-defense (morally acceptable.)
War is a different issue entirely, at least in the modern era. Long ago it may have restrained itself to killing actual participants, but not anymore.
I've always thought so too. Not for nothing, those who support abortion choose euphamisms such as "women's rights" and "pro-choice". You're either anti-abortion or pro-abortion....that's it.
You know, when it comes to liberals and conservatives, I think this is fair. Liberals hide behind euphamisms like "Pro-choice" or "Bodily freedom" but they really don't support those things. A quick litmus test to weed these kinds of people out (Including "moderate libertarians" at that), ask them if a woman has the right to do heroin. Or to be a prostitute. Or, for that matter, to commit suicide (Note that I am in no way suggesting that any of these actions are moral.) If they say no to any of the three (This was just a quick look, there are probably others you could use) they aren't really serious in any way about "bodily freedom." Heck, if they say that someone who uses lethal violence to protect themselves against someone who tries to arrest them for doing those things is criminally culpable, I'd still say they are hypocrites.
But with hardcore libertarians and anarchists, I think it does get a little bit murkier than that. Some of them really do acknowledge the rights of the unborn, but then get confused on "property rights" or similar things. They're actually consistent with what they claim, or at least as far as I know, they are consistent. Wrong, but consistent. I wouldn't necessarily say that someone who is "pro-choice" because of a bodily rights argument,
and is actually consistent about it would necessarily fall strictly on this dichotomy. I could be convinced that I am wrong on this point.
I oppose killing in all circumstances, but this is another reason why the religious Right should stop using the term "pro-life", because they certainly DO support taking life under certain circumstances (war and capital punishment, just to name two).
I get the death penalty thing (I addressed it above) but are you really ALWAYS opposed to killing? Like, if someone tried to hurt your kids, you wouldn't try to stop them? I mean, I get using less than lethal violence being the best option if possible, but using a lesser degree of force kind of implies a willingness to kill,
if you have to. It has been pointed out here on these forums before that supporting taxation is essentially supporting lethal violence to enforce taxation, since if one resists up to a certain point, the cops will use lethal force. You can say that the penalty for murder is something other than death. Let's call it life imprisonment (Or anything else you deem appropriate). Let's say the murderer resists. Should the arresting officers (Whether they be government police officers, or ideally, some kind of free market replacement) just let themselves get killed? I respect pacifism, but frankly, it cannot possibly be applied at a societal level. The NAP, the most nonviolent governmental ideology possible... I believe that actually can work at a societal level, and thus I believe it is the most consistent with Jesus' teachings. But I don't think that pure pacifism can ever be applied society-wide.
And what if the child would be unwanted and neglected by the mother if she gave birth to it?
She should give it up for adoption.
What if the child had Down Syndrome?
That you seriously think this is an excuse actually makes you worse than someone who truly doesn't believe fetuses are humans. Seriously, this makes you morally equivalent to Adolf Hitler. Repent.
What if the mother wanted the baby, but could not afford to take care of it?
See #1.
Once again, what if the mother was raped?
This is one argument I can understand from a pure anarchistic perspective but cannot understand from virtually anyone else. That said, I still don't agree with it. The rapist is the tresspasser in that case, and the rapist should be forced to compensate the woman in some way for that tresspassing. But the fetus is not a tresspasser, because once again, he didn't choose to be there.
Should compassion be taken into consideration if a woman did give in to the pain and abort? Yeah. But it shouldn't be legally codified as an excuse to murder.
What if giving birth would kill the mother?
Dr. Ron Paul doesn't seem to think that its actually possible for there to be a situation where actually killing the fetus to protect the mother is justified. But, if he's wrong, if there ever were such a case, I would say self-defense is at least legally justified. A serious risk to one's life when giving birth is not the norm, and not what a woman consents to when having sex. Morally, I think the best choice would be to sacrifice oneself for one's child, if possible. But that's not an opinion I would want to codify into law.
It might be a clue to how sick a person you are that you lumped together a child being a danger to the mother, and having Down's Syndrome.
