Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

This post has 203 Replies | 13 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 217
Points 4,480
Seraiah Posted: Sat, Jul 9 2011 10:52 PM

Abstract
Here I demonstrate that libertarianism is incompatible with a pro-choice stance, unless libertarians make an exception in the non-aggression principle, or else alter the definition of what a human being is.
After people have read this document, there will be no more arguments on the subject and people will take time out of their days to stand hand in hand in a circle singing "Kumbaya my lord."

That is all.

Definitions

What is murder?
"Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder),  and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)."

What is an aggressor?
"a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader."

What is an intruder?
"a person who enters a building, grounds, etc, without permission"

What is abortion?
"the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy."

What is a embryo?
"the young of a viviparous animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month."

What is a fetus?
"(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation."

What is young?
"young offspring"

What is offspring?
"children ... of a particular parent or progenitor."

Original definition:
"child or young of a particular parent or progenitor."
which is a circular definition, I have corrected it.

What is a child?
a person between first cell division of the embryo and full development; a boy or girl.

Original definition:
"a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children."
An impossible definition. If a young is a child and both a fetus and an embryo are a young, a fetus and embryo must also be a child.

Therefore, abortion, by definition, is the removal of a child from the uterus in order to end the pregnancy. The child could be in either two stages of development: An embryo, before the first two months of gestation, and a fetus, after the first two months of gestation. This expellation will almost certainly kill the child.

Opening Statement

This is an old and tired battle long fought with one side predominantly focused on the value of freedom and the other focused predominantly on the value of human life. One side arguing that pro-life is incompatible with personal freedom and the other arguing that pro-choice is incompatible with human dignity.

I hold without reservation that abortion is the premeditated murder of a human being. It should not be excused or tolerated in any society, especially a libertarian one.

Libertarians have long believed that all forms of aggression (an initiation of force.) against any human being is immoral. They have also believed that private individuals may take up cases against a murderer even though they are not the murdered.

Therefore, as a mother must aggress against the child and murder him, any person has the freedom and even an obligation, to seek justice against her.

Arguments

Isn't the mother simply expelling an intruder?
One can only enter a place from another place. It might be argued that a child in the womb is an intruder because it brought itself outside of existence, into existence into the womb without the permission of the mother. Otherwise, the child can not be considered an intruder.

However, a child can not bring itself into existence. It is brought into existence by the mother and the father, and perhaps nature if you want to accuse it.
Further, a child in the stage of an embryo can not make any decision to intrude or aggress. Because the child has made no decision, he can not be considered either an aggressor or an intruder.
The child is completely innocent of any crime.

Since the child is completely innocent of any crime, and as it is incapable of performing any aggression, the mother must aggress against the child in order to expel the child into an environment in which it will surely die, or else to murder the child outright before expellation. In either case it is premeditated murder.

Since a child is brought into the world without its consent, why is it unjust to remove the child from the world without its consent?
Since it is considered murder to kill a person in his sleep, a fortiori, it is murder to kill a child in the womb. In either case, the person is presently unable to voice any objection to being murdered, but they are nonetheless capable of being murdered.
Since the genesis of the victim is irrelevant in any murder case, it is also irrelevant here.

Is the mother responsible for the child?
The mother has consented to to being responsible for the child when she consented to having sex with another man, regardless of her intent to have a child. It is common knowledge that no contraception is infallible, and therefore the act of sex is consenting to the fact that a child might be concieved and be her (and the fathers) responsibility, even if it is a remote possibility.

In any action a person performs, he is responsible for not only the intended results, but also the risks involved.

Is the mother responsible for the child even if she did not consent to sex?
Yes. To remain internally consistent with the non aggression principle, it must be so.
 

"And let it be noted that there is a problem even in cases where continued positive effort is called for in order to avoid causing harm. Let's say I lock you in place with a gun in your hand; the hammer is cocked, held back by your thumb. If you ease the pressure, it fires and kills someone else also locked in place. Do you have the right to ease the pressure?

In another case, I've put you with your hand on a button. If you ease the pressure there, you cut off the current that is powering an elevator's safe descent: the elevator will then just drop, almost certainly killing those within." -John Walker


Regardless of how you get to a point where you have every reason to believe you have life and death control over another person, you are responsible for that person or persons and the actions you take.

Isn't a fetus only a human being once it is born? After all, the original definition of a child that you listed said that a child is only a child once he is born.
As I showed previously, it is an illogical definition.

A person is brought into being when first cell division begins. Cell division is important because it is the first time when two cells cease to exist, possessing half the DNA of the mother and half the DNA of the father, and form into one DNA sequence entirely unique to that new person. It is also the first sign of an organism with the potentiality of developing into a mature human being.

It is important to note that an embryo and fetus are not defined as children only to defend abortion. There would be no other reason to call an embryo and fetus as anything other than what they are: The early developmental stages of a human being: A child.

The fact of the matter is that I was once an embryo, you were once an embryo. We are both humans, therefore an embryo is a human. To say "I was never an embryo." is as nonsensical as saying, "I was never a toddler." You presently are not an embryo, but that does not therefore imply that an embryo is not human anymore than a toddler is not a human because you may not presently be a toddler.

Lastly, if we follow occam's razor, it is a much easier explanation of human development to say that everything between a embryo to an elderly man is a single person. Trying to find the dividing line between where one organism turns from a fetus (some organism) into a baby (a person) is nigh on impossible, and it is nigh on impossible because it is one entity the entire time smoothly transitioning in its development. Just as an adult doesn't wake up one day and turn into a elderly person, a fetus does not magically turn into a human being at some redundant demarcation point.

Isn't an embryo a parasite? Why should a mother be forced to carry and nurture a parasite?

"But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host?" -Murray Rothbard

Regardless of whether you want to call the embryo or fetus a parasite or a symbiotic relationship, it is an innocent human being that deserves the respect and protections of any other human being. A child is dependent on his mother for protection and sustenance and the mother has an obligation to provide it to the best of her ability until she can pass the responsibility to someone more willing or capable.

This dependence on the mother is not exclusive to a child in the womb, but extends long after the child is born. If a "parasitical" baby outside of the womb can not be discarded in a trash can to starve to death, neither should a fetus which is in no degree more "parasitical".

In spite of all the aforementioned, could I not simply state that murder is wrong in all cases except in which humans are in the first stages of their development: embryo and fetus? After all, is it not us that define what murder is?

I can not argue against arbitrary exceptions, but I'll warn you that exceptions to morality are the first signs of an immoral person, and is the mark of our depraved society today. I have never seen a clear justification for this exception that's not rooted in a bigoted desire for woman to have the ability to abort at whim.

What about if the child is mentally or physically disabled so that he will always need the care of his parents? Or what if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother?
No one is ever obligated to exchange their life for anothers. If a mother and her doctor make the decision to abort for this reason, so be it. If a doctor is caught falsifying information in order to commit an abortion, he should be prosecuted for murder.

Can abortion be forcefully stopped?
If abortion is murder, it may be treated in the same way as any other murder. Forcefully prevented, forcefully punished.

Do embryos and fetus' have the same protections (Rights) as more developed human beings?

"Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." -Ayn rand

I maintain that all human beings, regardless of skin pigment, sex, development, or age all deserve the same protections as any other human being. The only reason the exception is made against the baby in the womb is to allow a mother to choose to kill her child so that she can save herself from a nine month inconvenience. That doesn't strike me as a worthy exception to murder, and does not reflect the respect for life that is necessary for humans to govern themselves.

Further, embryos and fetus' are not "potential beings", they are human beings in an early stage of their development, with the potential of reaching maturity. Just as a sleeping person doesn't lose his right to his own body because he is presently not able to make decisions for himself, a child in the womb doesn't lose his right to his own body for the same reasons; There is every reason to suspect that the person will be able to exercise his own rights.


Don't woman have complete authority over their own body? If so, then shouldn't they be able to expel another person from their body at will?
If woman did have complete authority over their bodies, then the mother wouldn't have the authority over a female in her womb. There would be some sort of divide-by-zero error and the universe would implode.
Since the universe hasn't imploded, it's clear that woman do not always have complete authority over their body. Just as a woman may not aggress against another person, which impedes her authority over her own body (She may not do with her body however she wishes.), a mother may not aggress against her baby inside or outside the womb.

Misc

All definitions were found at Dictionary.com

Libertarians for Life


This document is subject to numerous edits without notice.
 

"...Bitcoin [may] already [be] the world's premiere currency, if we take ratio of exchange to commodity value as a measure of success ... because the better that ratio the more valuable purely as money that thing must be" -Anenome
  • | Post Points: 165
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sat, Jul 9 2011 11:17 PM

Another senseless repetitive pro-life libertarian abortion thread.

First of all, I have to say it doesn't matter and if someone doesn't like it, then don't have one.  It's not YOUR body, and everyone is the owner of their body.  The fetus is not a living and breathing person who can make rational decisions.  It has not stepped foot into this world, and if I want to get technical it doesn't have to abide by our laws in this physical world if it does not fully exist in this world.

To kill time, here's some things I saw when glancing across this:

The mother has consented to to being responsible for the child when she consented to having sex with another man, regardless of her intent to have a child. It is common knowledge that no contraception is infallible, and therefore the act of sex is consenting to the fact that a child might be concieved and be her (and the fathers) responsibility, even if it is a remote possibility.

Consent to sex =/= consent to conceiving a child.

Don't woman have complete authority over their own body? If so, then shouldn't they be able to expel another person from their body at will?
If woman did have complete authority over their bodies, then the mother wouldn't have the authority over a female in her womb. There would be some sort of divide-by-zero error and the universe would implode.
Since the universe hasn't imploded, it's clear that woman do not always have complete authority over their body. Just as a woman may not aggress against another person, which impedes her authority over her own body (She may not do with her body however she wishes.), a mother may not aggress against her baby inside or outside the womb.

LOL.  Sounds like something from Pat Robertson.

Whether or not you like abortion, it's generally the best choice for a lot of people, who have conceived a child beyond their intentions, and now have to deal with the consequences.  It's better to let them have abortions instead of having unfit parents try to raise children and just create a bigger burden.  Unless all those Bible thumping Christians want to adopt all those potentially aborted and aborted children themselves they better pipe down.

This brings us to the more complex case of abortion. For the libertarian, the "Catholic" case against abortion, even if finally rejected as invalid, cannot be dismissed out of hand. For the essence of that case — not really "Catholic" at all in a theological sense — is that abortion destroys a human life and is therefore murder, and hence cannot be condoned. More than that, if abortion is truly murder, then the Catholic — or any other person who shares this view — cannot just shrug his shoulders and say that "Catholic" views should not be imposed upon non-Catholics. Murder is not an expression of religious preference; no sect, in the name of "freedom of religion," can or should get away with committing murder with the plea that its religion so commands. The vital question then becomes: Should abortion be considered as murder?

Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being — i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being's body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person, and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body.

The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.

- For a New Liberty

If you want to really get into it isn't eating those animals murder?  Aren't they alive and conscious within the ability to make choices?  Don't they fit into praxeology with their actions?  Don't they just want to live and be free?

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 533
Points 8,445
Phaedros replied on Sat, Jul 9 2011 11:35 PM

"everyone is the owner of their body."

Everyone except the unborn, eh? Convenient

Tumblr The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants. ~Albert Camus
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 55
Points 1,060
Bill replied on Sat, Jul 9 2011 11:58 PM

so i was in a debate with a friend about abortion and he used the example of someone pulling out the food tube of another person in analogy to a mother evicting a baby and how the former would be murder and so the latter would be as well. How are these different? obviously in the former the person who pulled out the food tube is not a slave the the person they end up killing. I guess you could argue that the the person on the food tube homesteaded/has the right to the food tube and your interference and the result of death are murder/property damage and in the case of abortion the food/care/space for the baby is already homesteaded by the mother and thus she has absolute control over her body even if the baby needs her resources to survive. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 55
Points 1,060
Bill replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 12:01 AM

what if the woman simply removes the child without actually harming the cells of the child, does she have a positive obligation to afford it resources to survive? 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 12:35 AM

you could argue that the the person on the food tube homesteaded/has the right to the food tube and your interference and the result of death are murder/property damage and in the case of abortion the food/care/space for the baby is already homesteaded by the mother and thus she has absolute control over her body even if the baby needs her resources to survive

Actually, if someone's on a food tube, chances are they did not create the set up prior to their unfortunate condition to be on a food tube, and it's most likely someone elses property, and they do not have to keep someone alive with and on their property.  Someone can bring up the NAP in defense of the person on the food tube, but it's costly to the provider (chances are someone is paying to keep said person on a food tube, so they'll also be included if they choose to end services of paying, and the provider decides to stop providing).  Essentially, both parties are neutral in this, and it's neither wrong to keep one on or pull one off.  It's a perspective that affects that.  (I don't intend for that to sound cold and calculated, but I don't want to run a point on emotion.)

As far as abortion goes the fetus may be unwanted and unintended.  The said mother is not in the wrong for wanting to abort the child ("mother knows best").  It'll be a burden on the mother to care for a child of which she does not want to care for, or cannot care for despite if she wants to, but in the end it's her decision since she's harboring the fetus with her body and gains nothing in return from the fetus.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 2:11 AM

Rothbard is correct.  The issue hinges on whether or not the fetus is to be considered a human being.  I say it is not, until some arbitrary point in the future.  If we're talking really early (the first two months or so), then I say it isn't afforded any rights yet.

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 2:17 AM

There's nothing libertarian about the OP. Prenatal babies are in the same legal predicament as postnatal babies - they can't speak for themselves. A disputes over a prenatal baby is not a conflict between the rights of the baby and the rights of the mother. This is why the whole abortion debate is so muddled and confused. The dispute is between the mother and whoever is attempting to advocate that the prenatal baby be delivered alive (perhaps the father, grandparents, etc.)

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 8:06 AM

Phaedros:

"everyone is the owner of their body."

Everyone except the unborn, eh? Convenient

 

 

hint: unborn.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290

I agree with the OP and Dr. Paul on this one, including that confederalist policy is best for everything,  Even though the fetus may or may not be capable of reasoning, it's still a life, and I believe it to be separate from the mother, and thus not violating her property rights unless it's a danger to her life.

A problem I have with a lot of pro-life people is that they're against the non-aggression principle in all other ways (certainly planned parenthood, Adolf Hitler, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton are some of the most authoritarian and statist people and are nationally "pro-choice"), yet Dr. Paul and Napolitano are against it, so I think that a lot of people support abortion not because they're thinking about the NAP, but because they support "equality of outcome" feminism.

After all, Napolitano and Dr. Paul are voluntaryists and they consider abortion to be violating the NAP.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 653
Points 13,185

Clayton:
The dispute is between the mother and whoever is attempting to advocate that the prenatal baby be delivered alive (perhaps the father, grandparents, etc.)

Yeah, I totally agree with this.  Universal rules regarding abortion create way more problems then they solve.  Regardless of the status of the fetus and mother's degree of ownership, this is a family issue and needs to be solved the way that that particular family decides upon.

they said we would have an unfair fun advantage

"enough about human rights. what about whale rights?" -moondog
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 55
Points 1,060
Bill replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 10:03 AM

sorry I wasn't specific enough, rando (not a hospital employee or anyone associated with the hospital or individuals in the hospital) walks into hospital and pulls people foods tubes out. are they criminals for trespassing or murder?

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 55
Points 1,060
Bill replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 10:07 AM

giving someone resources that are yours such as your food and your water against your will is not a violation of property rights? 

what if in the abortion it is simply a removal of the child not the vacuum blade set up that destroys the tissue of the unborn individual? how does politely asking a tresspasser to leave and then removing them in the safest way possible violate NAP?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 10:22 AM

Here's another example.  Let's say I get my girlfriend pregnant, and we decide (we'll, she decides, since it's her body) to have an abortion.  Would you force her (being against abortion) to carry the fetus til pregnancy 9 months later?

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 11:11 AM

well, it's not about forcing to carry the child but more about prohibiting doctors performing abortions. This two are not the same.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 11:21 AM

prohibiting doctors performing abortions

In the end controlling and banning the practice?  Essentially, a service agreed between two people where they seek a benefit from the services.  One person would pay the doctor, and he'd perform the abortion.  Outlawing what doctors can and can't do reminds me of those who feel they have a right to a doctors service through socialized healthcare, that they are entitled to it.  You talk of some outside force banning a practice completely.  This is getting very libertarian.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

No one likes the idea of killing unborn people or the industry that surrounds the murder of unborn people. This is an especially good reason to keep it out of the blackmarket. But due to the nature of the act it is never going to be a good experience for anyone involved. In an ideal world there would not be any unwanted pregnancies but we have not reached that point yet. In some ways, the idea of an unwanted pregnancy speaks for the intelligence of mankind. Considering the exponential population growth of humans it is not surprising that humans have developed contraceptive medicine and practice abortion operations. As we all know of china's one child policy.

I do not think that abortion is a political issue. I do not think that we need politicians to centralize the legislation on abortion. 

Ron Paul summed it up recently where he said (para phrased) he does not agree with the murder of unborn children and would not encourage it at all. But he does not agree that the government should prevent a mother from aborting the child.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 12:32 PM

I think performatively, people who say they are anti-choice don't get extremely upset about abortion because they don't seriously believe it is the same thing as a human child with a full propensity to feel pain with a history of human experience.  Even most Christians are not as upset about abortion as they would be if people went around killing 3 year olds; the reaction would be much more visceral than just pining for legislation.

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 1:21 PM

Bert:

prohibiting doctors performing abortions

In the end controlling and banning the practice?  Essentially, a service agreed between two people where they seek a benefit from the services.  One person would pay the doctor, and he'd perform the abortion.  Outlawing what doctors can and can't do reminds me of those who feel they have a right to a doctors service through socialized healthcare, that they are entitled to it.  You talk of some outside force banning a practice completely.  This is getting very libertarian.

 

You are right, I just tried to understand more about anti-abortion side, not that I am pro-life or pro-choice. Even though, I do not consider fetuses as human beings just like I do not consider an acorn to be an oak.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 217
Points 4,480
Seraiah replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 1:27 PM

Bert
Consent to sex =/= consent to conceiving a child.

If a person drives a car, he is responsible for any damage he has caused, even if he had no intention of causing said damage.
Similarly, a mother is responsible for her baby even if she did not intend to have the baby.

Bert
LOL.

It was intended to be funny, but the point still stands that you can't have it both ways. Either woman have complete authority over their bodies (and therefore the non-aggression principle doesn't apply to them.) or in fact woman do not have complete authority over their bodies.

Bert
it's generally the best choice for a lot of people

That is not an excuse for murder, nor is it an argument that abortion is not murder.

What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being's body?

All humans, when they're in the womb. The child is not an aggressor, and is incapable of aggressing. The woman must initiate aggression against the child in order to get rid of him, which goes flat against the non-aggression principle.

Eric080
The issue hinges on whether or not the fetus is to be considered a human being.  I say it is not, until some arbitrary point in the future.

My opening post posits that libertarians either have to redefine what a human is or else to make an exception to the non-aggression principle to hold on to a pro-choice stance. As I see no scientific reason (only a political reason) to redefine a fetus and/or embryo as something other than human, I refuse to do it. I also refuse to make an exception to the non-aggression principle as I see it as a statist mentality. Statists also think that the non-aggression principle holds true... Except for the state.

Clayton
There's nothing libertarian about the OP.

You are either misunderstanding my post or else being dishonest. My argument posits that abortion is incompatible with the non-aggression principle. You may argue that I am wrong (Which you have not.), but not that I am not at least on the face of it arguing within the bounds of a libertarian framework.

Clayton
The dispute is between the mother and whoever is attempting to advocate that the prenatal baby be delivered alive (perhaps the father, grandparents, etc.)

The argument is that for an abortion to be performed, the mother must aggress against the baby. The mother is *not* aggressing against the babies advocate. Just as in any other case of murder, a third party must seek justice in leu of the murdered.

mikachusetts
this is a family issue and needs to be solved the way that that particular family decides upon.

Are you suggesting that if a person is murdered, the only people that have standing to seek justice are people inside the family? So if a person murders an entire family, no one would have standing to prosecute?

Further, you have not bothered to argue that a embryo or fetus is not a human being, nor have you argued that killing the baby does not go against the non aggression principle.

I was once an embryo, you were once an embryo. If someone attacked you or me when we were inside the womb, they would be committing an act of aggression against us, thus breaking the non-aggression principle.

MaikU
well, it's not about forcing to carry the child but more about prohibiting doctors performing abortions. This two are not the same.

Prematurely ending a pregnancy in any form by anyone is murder.

Jack Roberts
Ron Paul summed it up recently where he said (para phrased) he does not agree with the murder of unborn children and would not encourage it at all. But he does not agree that the government should prevent a mother from aborting the child.

Goverment should be abolished completely, but in its place there will be private law practices. These private law practices would have the standing to prosecute the murder of any human being. Since the mother must aggress against the child in order to abort him, she is committing an act of pre-meditated murder that may be prosecuted by any human being (And therefore any private law practice.).

Eric080
Even most Christians are not as upset about abortion as they would be if people went around killing 3 year olds; the reaction would be much more visceral than just pining for legislation.

Not only does this not address my argument in the least, it is in itself a fallacy. Murder is not wrong based on the amount of pain inflicted, it is wrong because it is ending a human life without the victims consent. Murder is no less wrong if the murderer used pain killers or a machete.

I do not doubt, however, that we have become very desensitized to this type of murder.

On the flip side, do you feel kicking a person in the stomache is no different than kicking a pregnant person in the stomache?

"...Bitcoin [may] already [be] the world's premiere currency, if we take ratio of exchange to commodity value as a measure of success ... because the better that ratio the more valuable purely as money that thing must be" -Anenome
  • | Post Points: 65
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 1:49 PM

If a person drives a car, he is responsible for any damage he has caused, even if he had no intention of causing said damage.
Similarly, a mother is responsible for her baby even if she did not intend to have the baby.

Um, am I responsible for damage caused right after I'm done driving?  I think that's a closer analogy.

It was intended to be funny, but the point still stands that you can't have it both ways. Either woman have complete authority over their bodies (and therefore the non-aggression principle doesn't apply to them.) or in fact woman do not have complete authority over their bodies.

They have complete control and the NAP still stands, because the fetus is unwanted and unexpected, and by perspective aggressing upon (or inside) the person.  Just because the fetus is "innocent" does not mean it's not aggressing, especially since it must have forced removal.

That is not an excuse for murder, nor is it an argument that abortion is not murder.

That's if someone sees abortion as murder, I do not, so it's not murder to myself or others with the same world view.

All humans, when they're in the womb. The child is not an aggressor, and is incapable of aggressing. The woman must initiate aggression against the child in order to get rid of him, which goes flat against the non-aggression principle.

If the fetus cannot peacefully leave, is unwanted and unintended, and you must use force, it seems like aggression.  Keep in mind this is based on perspective of the person who's womb it is, which is the woman.

My opening post posits that libertarians either have to redefine what a human is or else to make an exception to the non-aggression principle to hold on to a pro-choice stance. As I see no scientific reason (only a political reason) to redefine a fetus and/or embryo as something other than human, I refuse to do it. I also refuse to make an exception to the non-aggression principle as I see it as a statist mentality. Statists also think that the non-aggression principle holds true... Except for the state.

A woman has control over her own body and the NAP still stands true to this.

You are either misunderstanding my post or else being dishonest. My argument posits that abortion is incompatible with the non-aggression principle. You may argue that I am wrong (Which you have not.), but not that I am not at least on the face of it arguing within the bounds of a libertarian framework.

I have proved that you are wrong, you just can't admit and accept that.

The argument is that for an abortion to be performed, the mother must aggress against the baby. The mother is *not* aggressing against the babies advocate. Just as in any other case of murder, a third party must seek justice against the murdered.

The fetus is in the creation process, and is not yet a human, it's raw material owned by the mother and in 9 months depending what health she keeps her work in creates a final product, but til then the mother owns the womb and the materials that are creating.  I assume no different than a black smith owning the iron and forge used to make a final product, and can destroy whatever he wishes.  3rd party?  To be honest, I think the mother is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party.

Are you suggesting that if a person is murdered, the only people that have standing to seek justice are people inside the family? So if a person murders an entire family, no one would have standing to prosecute?

Further, you have not bothered to argue that a embryo or fetus is not a human being, nor have you argued that killing the baby does not go against the non aggression principle.

I was once an embryo, you were once an embryo. If someone attacked you or me when we were inside the womb, they would be committing an act of aggression against us, thus breaking the non-aggression principle.

Abortion is a family issue, because I'll assume the woman may consult the man who's seed was spilt into her vagina about his opinion on the matter (but she doesn't have to).

I have argued about whether it is not a human, I'll tell you right now, it's not a human in the sense of applicable laws in this physical world.

If someone outside the creator attacked us, the mother can seek justice for someone aggressing against her work.

Prematurely ending a pregnancy in any form by anyone is murder.

Subjective perspective.

Goverment should be abolished completely, but in its place there will be private law practices. These private law practices would have the standing to prosecute the murder of any human being. Since the mother must aggress against the child in order to abort him, she is committing an act of pre-meditated murder that may be prosecuted by any human being (And therefore any private law practice.).

Who said private law practices will cater to YOUR interests?  You may be surprised to find an entire society of pro-choice law practices.  Wouldn't surprise me, because there's plenty of pro-choice individuals.

On the flip side, do you feel kicking a person in the stomache is no different than kicking a pregnant person in the stomache?

I don't kick people in stomaches, I'm not that much of an asshole.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 2:05 PM

Seraiah, no, what I said regarding people's reaction to abortion versus murder is not a logical fallacy.  It would become a logical fallacy if it were applied as a defeater of your argument.  I understand what you are saying; the issue hinges on the definition of what it means to be human.  That comment of mine was a tangent.  It was not meant to be a demonstration that a fetus is not a human; I realize that isn't contingent on what most people happen to believe.

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 217
Points 4,480
Seraiah replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 2:32 PM

Bert
Um, am I responsible for damage caused right after I'm done driving?  I think that's a closer analogy.

Though you're free to try, if you dive out of your car before it does any damage, you're still at fault.

Bert
Just because the fetus is "innocent" does not mean it's not aggressing

Yes it does. Aggression requires a voluntary act from the aggressor.


Bert
If the fetus cannot peacefully leave, is unwanted and unintended, and you must use force, it seems like aggression.

Aggression requires a willfull act on the side of the aggressor, otherwise it is not aggression. The baby is incapable of aggressing.

You could say that pregnancy is harmful to the mother, and impedes her freedom, but it's impossible to place the blame on the child. The act of the father and/or mother along with nature is to blame.

The mother does have to actively assist the baby in order to avoid doing the baby harm (Avoiding to break the non-aggression principle.) and this situation is not exclusive to pregnancy as the examples in the OP show.

Bert
Subjective perspective.

It is based on the non aggression principle and logical causality. I was a embryo, then a fetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a pre adolescant, then an adolescant, then an adult. The entire time, I was one human.

Scientifically there is no way to divide between bio-mass and a human being because it is a smooth seamless transition of a single entity. There is no natural demarcation you can point to between one organism and another because it is *one* organism the entire time. This is not a subjective feeling, this is a scientific fact that can be falsified with evidence.

Bert
Who said private law practices will cater to YOUR interests?  You may be surprised to find an entire society of pro-choice law practices.  Wouldn't surprise me, because there's plenty of pro-choice individuals.

I would not want to live in a society in which a father could not prosecute the murderer if his child. Further, all murder cases are done as a "charity" on behalf of the deceased. It's not about catering to the desires of the dead individual, it's about seeking justice for breaking the Non-Aggression principle on behalf of someone that can not do it himself.

I don't doubt that there would be pro-choice societies, but that doesn't refute the fact that it would go against the non-aggression principle.

Eric080
Seraiah, no, what I said regarding people's reaction to abortion versus murder is not a logical fallacy.  It would become a logical fallacy if it were applied as a defeater of your argument. 

Fair enough. The observation in itself certainly isn't a fallacy. However, I don't see it as anything more than desensitization to murder, not a repressed feeling that children inside the womb are not actually children (or even human for that matter.).

"...Bitcoin [may] already [be] the world's premiere currency, if we take ratio of exchange to commodity value as a measure of success ... because the better that ratio the more valuable purely as money that thing must be" -Anenome
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 2:40 PM

The argument is that for an abortion to be performed, the mother must aggress against the baby. The mother is *not* aggressing against the babies advocate. Just as in any other case of murder, a third party must seek justice in leu of the murdered.

I'm not a big fan of NAP or "agression"-based analysis. The first step is to identify the property. The next step is to identify who has rightful ownership of the property. The last step is to ask who is unilaterally reassigning property boundaries.

The property is not the baby since prenatal babies cannot argue their rights at law. Property rights emerge from verbal argument in disputes and always attach to persons who can have standing in a dispute. The property is guardianship rights over the baby, that is what is being disputed.

Until the baby is born, the mother clearly has exclusive guardianship rights over it. She can refuse to eat. She can commit suicide. Because the baby is parasitically attached to her, no one can assist the baby without exercising force against the mother herself. After the baby is born, both father and mother have equal guardianship rights from the point-of-view of relatedness to the child but law generally assigns a higher precedence to the mother's guardianship due to the unique nurturing relationship between a mother and child.

Finally, the question of who is "aggressing", that is, who is attempting to unilaterally reassign property boundaries. Does the mother have the right to cancel the potential guardianship rights of all other kin of the prenatal baby or, on the other hand, do the potential guardians of the prenatal baby have the right to forcibly compel the mother to undergo birth (natural or otherwise)?

I think the answer to this problem is complex. There are several cases. In the first case, the fetus is not viable outside the womb. In this case, if the mother were to have the fetus removed from her body, it would necessarily be dead or die. Hence, the potential guardians cannot possibly have any claim to right of first refusal since there is nothing for them to make claim to. In the second case, the fetus is viable but could be removed with less damage to the mother's body if it were aborted. This is the most difficult case and would probably have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis (perhaps if the potential guardians offered a cash payment, they could provide sufficient incentive to the woman to undergo some additional damage to her body in order to receive the child alive). The third case is where the damage to the mother's body is the same if she aborts or she delivers. In this case, there cannot possibly be any violation of her property rights in her own body to preserve the baby alive. Hence, the mother cannot object that delivering the baby alive would be a violation of her property rights in her own body which means the rights of the potential guardians in the child's life would prevail.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 45
Points 705
magnetic replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 2:56 PM

"everyone is the owner of their body."

Everyone except the unborn, eh? Convenient

 

Isn't it obvious that the unborn is by biological necessity in a physiological state whereby all of the material it needs to grow and be sustained are being provided by the mother. That is, the relation between the unborn and the mother is like that between a tumor and the mother.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 45
Points 705
magnetic replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 3:18 PM

Murder is not wrong based on the amount of pain inflicted, it is wrong because it is ending a human life without the victims consent. Murder is no less wrong if the murderer used pain killers or a machete.

I do not doubt, however, that we have become very desensitized to this type of murder.

 

From a legal stand-point, murder is a charge made against an individual, the charge being the violation of the body (private property) of the allegedly murdered individual.

 

Your debate, then, supposes that it is coherent to charge an individual with murder when an abortion has been performed. Further, it must follow that the aborted had their property (their body) violated. But the aborted are never fully invested in their bodies, because they are not individuals. Individuation is a process, and humans only become individuals by communicative acts in which they set themselves apart. The unborn do not express that they and they alone own their bodies. Neither can they express the opposite, that they are wholly dependent upon the mother, except for the physiological functions which they have fully developed and for which they only require nurishment (which again comes from the mother).

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 45
Points 705
magnetic replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 3:22 PM

Yes it does. Aggression requires a voluntary act from the aggressor.

And zapping a cancerous growth is agression against a tumor.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 217
Points 4,480
Seraiah replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 6:10 PM

Clayton
The first step is to identify the property. The next step is to identify who has rightful ownership of the property. The last step is to ask who is unilaterally reassigning property boundaries.


All humans are the owners of their own bodies from creation to death, minor exceptions exluded, or else if they do not own their bodies, they're bodies are implicitly protected from aggression.
In order to abort the child, the mother must claim ownership of another humans body and then discard it, or else to claim that the child is a foreign object that does not even deserve the considerations of a human being. (A distinction that I oppose for the aforementioned and forementioned reason...)

Clayton
The property is not the baby since prenatal babies cannot argue their rights at law. Property rights emerge from verbal argument in disputes and always attach to persons who can have standing in a dispute. The property is guardianship rights over the baby, that is what is being disputed.

Guardianship rights are meaningless in a dispute if the baby is neither property nor a human being. If you are arguing for the protection of the parents future rights, you err in that you don't apply the same reasoning in favor of the baby.

I also dispute the idea that a person does not have rights simply because they cannot argue them. If a sleeping person, or an otherwise momentarily unconscious person, doesn't lose his rights then a baby doesn't lose its rights either. Both are momentary periods where the person can not argue their rights, yet the rights are nonetheless protected.

Clayton
Until the baby is born, the mother clearly has exclusive guardianship rights over it. She can refuse to eat. She can commit suicide. Because the baby is parasitically attached to her, no one can assist the baby without exercising force against the mother herself.

It would be perfectly legitimate to exercise force against the mother in order to protect the baby, just as it's perfectly legitimate to assist someone who is about to be murdered or severely harmed.

Clayton
... potential guardians ...

The "potential guardians" destinction is not necessary if we remain with the standard libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, and a simple definition of a human being.

We should always view an abortion as homicide, and attempt to justify it as homicide.

I am not adding any new rights to the embryo/fetus, I'm not coming up with some new destinction, I am only asking that a embryo/fetus be treated like a very young human being that has aggressed against no one. No more, no less.

magnetic
Your debate, then, supposes that it is coherent to charge an individual with murder when an abortion has been performed. Further, it must follow that the aborted had their property (their body) violated. But the aborted are never fully invested in their bodies, because they are not individuals. Individuation is a process, and humans only become individuals by communicative acts in which they set themselves apart. The unborn do not express that they and they alone own their bodies. Neither can they express the opposite, that they are wholly dependent upon the mother, except for the physiological functions which they have fully developed and for which they only require nurishment (which again comes from the mother).


Why should a persons individuality hold any bearing on whether or not a person may be murdered? A person in a libertarian society is secure in his property regardless of the manner in which his mind works. A person could be totally unaware that he is an individual and still be assured that his life is safe from aggression.

Further, this distinction is incapable of differentiating between a useless mass of flesh and bone and an infant.

If you insist that being an "individual" has some sort of bearing on this subject (I don't believe it does.), then you would also have to insist that infants and toddlers are possessions to be discarded at will as well. (Or at least to be discarded at the will of the mother and father.)

magnetic
 And zapping a cancerous growth is agression against a tumor.

As I pointed out before, defining a embryo or a fetus as a tumor has no scientific basis, only a political one.

Should someone that is unbiased in this issue look at the progression of a humans life I am confident they would say that a humans life starts at first cell division and then proceeds through a series of developments, IE fetus, infant, toddler, etc.

As I've stated before, the reason for this is there is no logical way to divide between a "tumor" in the mother and the first growing human being. Again, there is no observable demarcation between this supposed "tumor" and a growing human being.

If you can find such a demarcation, then please present it.

"...Bitcoin [may] already [be] the world's premiere currency, if we take ratio of exchange to commodity value as a measure of success ... because the better that ratio the more valuable purely as money that thing must be" -Anenome
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,687
Points 48,995

I don't get it.  If a woman owns her own body, why can't she expel the baby inside of her?  That the baby owns its own body, whether right or wrong, has no moral implications on whether or not the mother should have to take care of it or has to keep it in her body.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 55
Points 1,060
Bill replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 6:47 PM

Jonathan you are exactly right, she can remove it without harming it. Induced labor anyone? and then its outside of her un harmed and if it dies she has no positive obligation to care for it. It is an intruder she invited in and is now kicking it off. if it can't take care of itself that is no fault of hers.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 10:43 PM

All humans are the owners of their own bodies from creation to death, minor exceptions exluded, or else if they do not own their bodies, they're bodies are implicitly protected from aggression.

Tell that to the innumerable slaves who have existed throughout history and exist today. Manifesto assertions are a dime a dozen.

In order to abort the child, the mother must claim ownership of another humans body and then discard it, or else to claim that the child is a foreign object that does not even deserve the considerations of a human being. (A distinction that I oppose for the aforementioned and forementioned reason...)

As Catalan has pointed out, this is not true, the mother can simply expel and repudiate the child. However, I think Catalan has neglected the detail of whether the mother can be forced to remove the baby non-destructively. I'm not an expert on abortion procedures but my understanding is that in some cases abortion enables the mother to undergo less extensive damage to her body during removal of the child. I think the mother's property rights in her body supersede the guardianship rights of the father or other potential guardians in this case but we really can't know for sure absent a free market in law. It's all speculation.

I also dispute the idea that a person does not have rights simply because they cannot argue them. If a sleeping person, or an otherwise momentarily unconscious person, doesn't lose his rights then a baby doesn't lose its rights either. Both are momentary periods where the person can not argue their rights, yet the rights are nonetheless protected.

I think you're missing my point completely. The baby cannot speak on its own behalf. So, someone must speak on its behalf. That someone could be the mother, the father, the King or someone else. The legal question is "which one person has the right to speak for the child, that is, to be its guardian?" The right to speak for the child is dispositive of its fate since a person who is free to speak on his own behalf has the right to commit suicide. That is, the guardian only doesn't have the right to kill the child because there are others who have a right of first refusal in care of the child and to kill the child would be a violation of the property rights of those other individuals. I speculate that this is the framework under which a free market in law would treat any homicide. The relatives (including legal relatives such as husband and wife) would seek damages on the basis that the homicide violated their rights in the continued life of the now dead individual. Sure, if you kill my wife, you have violated her rights but how does that matter at this point? She's dead. No amount of arguing her rights is going to bring her back to life. What matters is that I had a legitimate interest in her continued life and you violated my property rights when you violated her property rights in her body. That's why you owe me damages as opposed to the guy down the street.

This is the crucial distinction between a human and an animal. No one other than the owner has a property right in the continued life of an animal. Hence, if the owner wants to kill the animal, he or she may. There are no other legitimate claimants who may rightfully interfere in the owner's disposition of the animal.

It would be perfectly legitimate to exercise force against the mother in order to protect the baby, just as it's perfectly legitimate to assist someone who is about to be murdered or severely harmed.

...

We should always view an abortion as homicide, and attempt to justify it as homicide.

You're assuming your own conclusion.

Clayton -

 

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 55
Points 1,060
Bill replied on Sun, Jul 10 2011 11:18 PM

I think in this situation it is a case where the means are very important. I would be ok for the suction machine to be outlawed as it violates the child's property beyond the extent of the harm to the mother's property. Proportionality to the crime is important and rothbard agrees with this. Obvi under free market law it would be up to the individuals to voluntarily decide. Induced birth or pills that remove/ prevent the egg from implantation are then allowed. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 467
Points 7,590
No human being comes out of a womb self sufficient.
No human being is obligated to provide charity.

I stand in opposition to using violence against any pregnant woman who enforced the trespass of an unwanted guest within her own body.
I am for any pregnant woman enforcing the trespass of unborn persons on her property.
I am for pregnant women extending a duty of care to any trespasser, in that the trespasser ought to leave her property alive.
Like any other trespasser, once a non-threatening/aggressive trespasser has safely left your property they are no longer your concern.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Jul 11 2011 12:46 AM

No human being comes out of a womb self sufficient.
No human being is obligated to provide charity.
I stand in opposition to using violence against any pregnant woman who enforced the trespass of an unwanted guest within her own body.
I am for any pregnant woman evicting unborn persons trespassing on her property.
I am for pregnant women extending a duty of care to any trespasser, in that the trespasser ought to leave her property alive.
Like any other trespasser, once a non-threatening/aggressive trespasser has safely left your property they are no longer your concern.

I think the trespass/eviction analogy of pregnancy/abortion is significantly mistaken and would not be of use to legal disputes in a free market law society.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 467
Points 7,590
If we are making non-arguments and something is mistaken, perhaps you could account for several centuries of evolution in common law on the concepts of trespass/notice/eviction...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Jul 11 2011 12:52 AM

Has the common law of trespass and eviction ever been applied in real law to an abortion dispute?

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 467
Points 7,590
Perhaps we can dive into the differences of liability based on whether birth occurs in a residence or hospital. Or the liability differences between the duty of care of an attending unskilled father assisting birth on the side of the road versus a licensed physician. Duty of care is an important concept at common law. The short answer to your question is... I don't know and don't have a white paper ready to throw at the question. I am of the belief a link can be made in liability law regarding birth. The underpinning of the United States legal system has always been common law.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Jul 11 2011 1:45 AM

Common law is not identically equal to trespass law. I object to your treatment of abortion as subject to trespass law, or even meaningfully informed by it. The treatment of abortion under common law, however, is precisely what I'm trying to speculate about.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 18
Points 375
C20H25N3O replied on Mon, Jul 11 2011 3:07 AM
I am a pacifist. I will not condone the killing of a child. It is a child and there is no word of God about it. It is an opinion, that's it. So I'm not for it.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 5,190
I think it's easy a child has the right to live, the mother has a right to live also. But if she consented to sexual intercourse and get pregnant, she must comply to the right of the child to live. She and he could have though before. Contraception is not undo able. If she does not want the child, well so be it, let it get adopted. What's the trouble with it? I once though differently about it, but I was wrong. Women are not harmed by bearing a child, they are "build" for that. And in this case she has to wait till the baby is born to "be the only owner of her body." Anyway there will be no to suppress an abortion, and how will you judge if a woman is pregnant at the start of the pregnancy. Should women be forces to make a test every day? That can't be done, and guess what if the mother goes outside the country she's living in who ever will know what she does abroad? No we're here in an area, where nothing can stop a woman to get rid of the child during her earlier or maybe even later pregnancy. What we can do is not paying anything for here doing this abortion. If she does it she has to bear the consequences and we should not feel sorry for anything which comes form it. What should you do to a mother which has aborted children? Kill her?
  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 6 (204 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS