'Bio life' does not trump the rights of the mother.. See post #10
Can you please define what you mean by 'bio life'. Are we all not biologically alive? What distinguishes 'bio life' from other life?
"it therefore follows that the right to life exists at the moment of conception. [thoughtomator]
Not so. The legal consequenses of such a theory would be ludicrous. -- In effect, all fertile females from conception to viablity could be charged with murder for aborting..
I do in fact claim that abortion is murder, it being incontrovertible that the procedure is the deliberate taking of a human life without the justification of self-defense.
You are begging the question that the mothers non-viable baby has inalienable rights, separate from its mother. They cannot be separated. Thus, the mothers rights are inalienable.
First you will need to establish that viability is a necessary precondition to the inalienable rights of a human being. I agree that the mother's rights are inalienable. I assert that the baby, viable or not, also has inalienable rights, based on its humanity, and the acknowledgment that human beings have inalienable rights.
Also, outside the Hobbesian state of war, the rights of every human being are bounded by the equal rights of every other human being. Thus my right to life is preconditioned on the relinquishment of any claim to take your life, and vice versa, or we do end up in fact in the Hobbesian state of war.
"I continue, that the right to life compels others not to perform any act intended to end a human life other than in the context of a Hobbesian state of war." [thoughtomator]
Defense of your own life and body is not anarchy, -- "a Hobbesian state of war".
This is true, but this is the definition of self-defense. A child is in the overwhelming majority of cases not a threat to the life of the mother. I will grant that if the threat to the life of the mother were certain, or nearly so, then abortion could be countenanced on that basis.
"Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right,..." [thoughtomator]
Hobson's choice. A dilemma.. How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.
A person's freedoms are limited by the equal freedoms of others. Thus, as I have no right to take your life, a mother has no right to take her child's. If I did have the right to take your life, the reverse would be true, and neither of us would have actual liberty, but rather would be reverted to the state of war. The state not only has the power to prohibit (not compel - no action is being compelled) in this case, but the responsibility to do so, as the legitimate arbitrator of disputes between where one man's rights begin and his neighbor's end. Just as the law can justly prohbit me from murdering you, the law can justly prohibit a woman from murdering her child.
Before viablity, abortion is not a criminal act.
It is not technically criminal while the law permits it; although the legitimacy of the current law is highly dubious (SCOTUS legislating through Roe v. Wade and others). It is morally criminal because it is murder.
With respect to the term 'viability', I request a definition, as the term can be highly subjective.
Free people cannot countenace governmental powers that intrude upon an individuals life & liberty to this extent. The enforcement of such prohibitory laws violate our basic constitutional principles.
Prohibition of abortion does not intrude upon an individual's right to life, excepting the above noted case where the pregnancy constitutes a certain threat to the mother's life, in which case she may kill it on self-defense grounds, tragic as that may be. As far as the intrusion upon liberty, as you phrase it, I see no intrusion on any valid liberty. No man has liberty to murder another man. No libertarian defines liberty as freedom to murder. The defense of liberty is in fact the only legitimate grounds under which a government can prohibit, as it is the reason why government is instituted among free men in the first place; thus it may legitimately prohibit murder, theft, and torture.
If you feel a basic Constitutional principle is contradicted here, tell me explicitly what principle that is and how it is derived.
I find your case more authoritarian than libertarian.
Authoritarian means relying upon an authority, without question. Far from relying on any authority without question, the principles of inalienable rights are empirically provable. It is no more authoritarian to accept the right to life as truth than it is to accept the law of gravity as truth. Thus, the defense of the right to life, foremost among liberties, is fundamentally and inherently libertarian.
I would appreciate it, should you feel compelled to label my point of view, that you use accurate language to do so.
"Thus, if there is to be any respect for the right to life, it is therefore necessary to compel individuals to respect that right,..." [thoughtomator]
Hobson's choice. A dilemma.. How to "compel" liberty? I choose the womans freedom over a states compulsory 'laws'.. In fact, I contend the state has been given no power to compel in this issue.
A person's freedoms are limited by the equal freedoms of others. Thus, as I have no right to take your life, a mother has no right to take her child's.
Until viablity, she & child are unseparable. She retains all rights to her & her/childs body.
If I did have the right to take your life, the reverse would be true, and neither of us would have actual liberty, but rather would be reverted to the state of war.
Not at issue.
The state not only has the power to prohibit (not compel - no action is being compelled) in this case,
Nope, not in this case.
but the responsibility to do so, as the legitimate arbitrator of disputes between where one man's rights begin and his neighbor's end.
The Mother/unviable child issue does not equate to neighbors disputes.
Just as the law can justly prohbit me from murdering you, the law can justly prohibit a woman from murdering her child.
Exactly as the USSC ruled. After viability a mother can be charged with murder, using due process.
Before viability, fiat laws on abortion declaring it to be murder violate due process,not to mention a lot of other individual rights.
_____________________________________
Before viablity, abortion is not a criminal act.
It is not technically criminal while the law permits it; although the legitimacy of the current law is highly dubious (SCOTUS legislating through Roe v. Wade and others). It is morally criminal because it is murder.
Our constitution is not beholden to your concepts of morality. -- In fact, the 1st amendment forbids congress, state, & local legislators from respecting the establishments of any specific 'moralities'.
With respect to the term 'viability', I request a definition, as the term can be highly subjective.
I'll settle for the one our USSC uses.
-----------------------------------
Free people cannot countenace governmental powers that intrude upon an individuals life & liberty to this extent. The enforcement of such prohibitory laws violate our basic constitutional principles.
Prohibition of abortion does not intrude upon an individual's right to life,
Of course it does. Prohibitive, fiat type law limits life & freedom by definition.
excepting the above noted case where the pregnancy constitutes a certain threat to the mother's life, in which case she may kill it on self-defense grounds, tragic as that may be.
Yep, self defense can be clear cut, ~or not~ .. And such deaths are tragic.
As far as the intrusion upon liberty, as you phrase it, I see no intrusion on any valid liberty. No man has liberty to murder another man.
Let a jury decide her liberty. Not a fiat law declaring murder if an unviable baby dies.
No libertarian defines liberty as freedom to murder. The defense of liberty is in fact the only legitimate grounds under which a government can prohibit, as it is the reason why government is instituted among free men in the first place; thus it may legitimately prohibit murder, theft, and torture. If you feel a basic Constitutional principle is contradicted here, tell me explicitly what principle that is and how it is derived.
You belabor a point on liberty that is not at issue, then wave the flag..
------------------------------------
I find your case more authoritarian than libertarian.
Authoritarian means relying upon an authority, without question.
Fine
Far from relying on any authority without question, the principles of inalienable rights are empirically provable.
Fine again.
It is no more authoritarian to accept the right to life as truth than it is to accept the law of gravity as truth.
Not the way you are using the word "life". Your moralities version of a "right to life" is authoritarian, as you wish our state to enforce it upon your peers. Case in point, your words above:
"It is morally criminal because it is murder."
Thus, the defense of the right to life, foremost among liberties, is fundamentally and inherently libertarian. I would appreciate it, should you feel compelled to label my point of view, that you use accurate language to do so.
Your quote above tells the tale..