Knight_of_BAAWA: Further, that the woman decided to have sex is not the same as deciding to be pregnant. Please think.
Byzantine:If she decided to participate in fellatio or cunnilingus that distinction could be drawn. A nubile female engaged in sexual intercourse is consenting to an act which she knows could very well result in a living being inside her.
But not to the pregnancy. Believing otherwise is believing a non sequitur.
Byzantine: If I get drunk and drive, I can certainly say I didn't intend to hurt anybody, but I increase the likelihood of my doing so, and will be held to account for pursuing a neglectful course of conduct.
If I get drunk and drive, I can certainly say I didn't intend to hurt anybody, but I increase the likelihood of my doing so, and will be held to account for pursuing a neglectful course of conduct.
If you get into a drinking and driving accident, and someone ends up stuck inside you, you can abort them.
Knight_of_BAAWA: But not to the pregnancy. Believing otherwise is believing a non sequitur.
Byzantine:If I get drunk and drive, I can certainly say I didn't intend to hurt anybody, but I increase the likelihood of my doing so, and will be held to account for pursuing a neglectful course of conduct.
And that false analogy has what do to with anything?
Knight_of_BAAWA: And that false analogy has what do to with anything?
Byzantine:That the woman is liable for the entirely foreseeable state of dependency she created in another
And how does this impact abortion, assuming for the sake of argument that it's true. Answer: it doesn't.
Let's consider a few things. Once an egg is fertilized, there is a genetically specific organism formed. Apparently, from the moment of fertilization that egg is no longer specific to the mother, or for that matter the father, but is specific to itself. As the fetus grows, at no time does it revert back to the specificity of the genetic father or mother, but is, in a very real sense, individually specific, a genetic original. The question of ownership overlooks a vast consideration of a DNA Specific Individual. Now, this raises many other issues, particularly when it comes to an Individual and the Rights of an Individual; in addition it raises questions about what it means to be a libertarian who espouses no initiation of force against another Individual except in self-defense. I personally have wrest with my own ability to reason in consideration of such facts and unfortunately have come to no conclusions on matters of a "mother's right to choose" over the Rights of a DNA Specific Individual, fetus or born.
Republicae:n addition it raises questions about what it means to be a libertarian who espouses no initiation of force against another Individual except in self-defense. I personally have wrest with my own ability to reason in consideration of such facts and unfortunately have come to no conclusions on matters of a "mother's right to choose" over the Rights of a DNA Specific Individual, fetus or born.
Abortion is clearly self defensive.
banned: Republicae:n addition it raises questions about what it means to be a libertarian who espouses no initiation of force against another Individual except in self-defense. I personally have wrest with my own ability to reason in consideration of such facts and unfortunately have come to no conclusions on matters of a "mother's right to choose" over the Rights of a DNA Specific Individual, fetus or born. Abortion is clearly self defensive.
Clear is one thing it is not. I'm at about the same point as Republicae. I'm just not sure under what conditions abortion should be permitted. This is one of those issues where people have different moral intuitions. I myself have switched positions several times and am confident in saying that it is not clearly self-defense, although self-defense it may be.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
I have to agree with Solid_Choke, it is not even close to clear. And, admitted I have the same issues Solid has. Being a flip-flopper on the issue myself.
What I sure do not agree upon is the idea that abortion has to either be permitted or forbidden. Who is to permit?
The question to answer is, where in the process of abortion or under what circumstances is abortion, or parts of it, criminal. It is quite clear, that all approaches that try to deny the mothers right to own herself are futile. No one can claim to be nurtured by another human being. The only claim every human being has is to be not aggressed against. The issue with abortion is where does self defense turn into aggression against the fetus.
Another important point is to keep ethics out of the way when discussing negative rights. Whether something is good or bad is of no avail regarding negativ rights, for good and bad is a question of morale and ethics and therefor out of the realm of natural law.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Natural law does come under morality. I think the distinction you want to make is between ethics (which concern one's character) and strictly interpersonal norms, i.e. negative rights.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
yup, you are correct. So I take back the remark about morality.
I am glad to see others have a hard time with this issue as well.
There really is no "crime" that is cut and dry. Killing someone can be justifiable. Stealing from someone can also be justifiable.
I can understand why a teenager that gets pregnant would want an abortion, especially if they are in a religious family. Pregnancy can ruin their life. And teenagers do not always think things through.
I would rather see what a market solution is to the problem of abortion rather than a state solution.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Byzantine: Spideynw: Pregnancy can ruin their life. Let's keep some perspective on this. There is a large market for healthy babies so adoption is a viable option. Pregnancy will certainly torpedo a normal high school experience but, trust me on this, your teenage years are a blip on the radar. Short of killing or serious injury, there is very little you can do in your teenage years that would irreparably harm your life. To get things going in a different direction, I'd also add that high school is one of the more dystopic institutions out there and one I'd love to see disappear. The artificial "high school experience" is a large part of why a pregnancy in the teen years (actually the norm for human history) is considered such a calamity.
Spideynw: Pregnancy can ruin their life.
Let's keep some perspective on this. There is a large market for healthy babies so adoption is a viable option. Pregnancy will certainly torpedo a normal high school experience but, trust me on this, your teenage years are a blip on the radar. Short of killing or serious injury, there is very little you can do in your teenage years that would irreparably harm your life.
To get things going in a different direction, I'd also add that high school is one of the more dystopic institutions out there and one I'd love to see disappear. The artificial "high school experience" is a large part of why a pregnancy in the teen years (actually the norm for human history) is considered such a calamity.
According to the statement that "Pregnancy can ruin their life" I would say there is a market solution, of which one is, as Byz stats, a healthy baby market.
Another solution for those who think could not live with the idea that abortion should take place is to open a firm that offers ,say, $500 to every couple or woman that agree to the contract to carry thebaby until birth and is allowed to give it into this firm care if she wants to. Kind of an arbitration thing from the firms perspective to fix a price upfront :-). Wouldn't that be a great approach for fundamentalist Christian charities? Oh no, cost too much money, coercion and violence, especially when perpetrated by the tax funded state is cheaper.
Yet, even if those things where possible it does not solve the basic question behind the issue. I admit, it would take the heat out of the discussion at least a bit.
But the question is, if abortion is a crime or not will still not be answered. All those solutions just reduce the magnitude of the issue -which would be a huge leap anyway.