Replies

Children who have already been born can survive with help from parties other than the mother. If those parties wish to provide the help, then more power to them, but they should not be forced. As long as the mother is the only person who can help the fetus, she may choose to do so, but should not be forced.

Children who are sufficiently developed but not yet born may also be supported by others by way of medical technology, yet under the law, such a child, before birth, can legally be assassinated by a doctor.

But I have a problem with even the 'supported by others' statement. Which other? And how? What if there is no other willing to support the child? Would you advocate the government force someone to support the child, or alternatively, force taxpayers to finance the government's support of a child, or alternatively, allow the abandonment of children, so that they might live or die as nature would have it?

I do not speak of forcing any woman to do anything. I do not advocate forced pregnancy. She has freely chosen to undertake the act that created a new human life.

To cut to the chase, at what point do you believe that a human being is invested with his natural and inalienable rights?

'As long as the mother is the only person who can help the fetus, she may choose to do so, but should not be forced.' -GovernmentShrinker

There is an important difference in this matter between knowingly initiating deadly force and refusing life-saving resources. If I met a starving man on the street I could refuse to give him food or money. However, If I shot him with a gun this would be a different matter.

'Contrary to your assertion, it is not antithetical to liberty to 'force' a mother not to kill her child.' -thoughtomator

I agree. My point exactly.