[fod]

fyi bump for your education

[gjenkins]

Great article. You know, Ron Paul just gets better and better.

[jlogajan]

it shows why libertarian principles apply to human beings from conception

I'm afraid that's about as convincing as Ayn Rand's proofs that tap dancing was a superior form of art.

[Elihu Burritt]

In almost all human affairs, your right to do anything with your own body ends when your actions affect the same right of another person, or the body of that person.

[lavaroise]

This article does not approach the population theme. What about simply say that to heal, one must study healing, and hence one must not kill the sick or the healthy, but one must find a cure. I agree that pregnancy is a blessing as well as a health problem (as stated to Eve in the Bible by the way), but to find a cure to pregnancy, killing the feotus violate hypocrat's principles that are fundamental to not only mere non-agression, but to improvement of medicine. Yes, sadly, medicine improves when treatments are tried on people. Killing is not an option, suffering is the only path.

As from a religious point of view, abortion is repulsive to God. Worse, abortion is a resort to secular powers of killing, an enslavement, not an emancipated act (contrary to what feminists believe) that balances the forces of governance. For instance, any person condemned or punished should undergo a trial before, why can't feotuses be given the right to a trial, to public scrutiny? Why does it have to be a completely private matter?

[Elsie]

Which has more right to life?

A human fetus...........
or......
A bald eagle one?

[CounterCounterCulture]

BUMP for later viewing.

Thanks for the post.

[FourtySeven]

Sadly, this post does not resolve the conflict between the mother's rights, and the unborn's right in every case of pregnancy since ...

"Still, Objectivism denies that child support is slavery. In discussing born children, Nathaniel Branden, when he was Rand's closest associate, wrote, "The key to understanding the nature of parental obligation lies in the moral principle that human beings must assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions." He did not explain exactly why we must. Yet he was correct to insist that "the basic necessities of food, clothing, etc.," are the child's "by right."

...does not address any case where a woman is raped, and pregancy is the result. Clearly, it was not her action that resulted in the pregnancy, thus she has no responsibility, by this argument above, to the fetus.

Note, simply saying that she was "there" for the rape, so that's an "action" on her part is ludicrous, as I'm sure anyone who thinks about it can see.

[Free the USA]

FYI

[toenail]

I wish like hell that the LP was explicitly pro-life. The L4L'ers are a fine group, but with the LP's pro-abort plank, many will simply not support the LP.

[Alas]

No one has the right to murder a baby in the womb!

[Bonaparte]

Pro-abortionists contend that the "right" to kill her unborn baby is implicit in a woman's right to control her body. But if a third party kicks her in the abdomen, killing that baby, she has been deprived of her right to give birth to that baby, ie. to control her own body. What penalty would pro-aborts prescribe for such an offense? By their reasoning, the assailant should only be charged with something like strong-armed robbery or, at most, mayhem, since a developing human being in its mother's womb is (to them) nothing but the mother's personal property or, at most, a part of her body. But all biologists identify an unborn child as belonging to the human species, homo sapiens. And how can an unborn child, being a member of the human species, be legally defined as property? It is against the law to hold a member of the human species as chattel. But what about mayhem, ie. depriving another of the use of a body part necessary for survival or self-defense? This also fails to apply, since a baby in the womb is necessary neither to a woman's survival or self-defense -- in fact, he is often a hindrance to both. Indeed, nowhere in the literature of biology is he defined or referred to as a "body part," but rather as a separate entity of his own, dependant for a limited time on his mother, for nourishment and protection -- specifically, a young organism in the early stages of development, not an "organ." You see the difficulty here? Unless the pro-aborts recognize what biology recognizes, that an unborn child is a human organism, there is no criminal charge to which his killer can be held liable.

BTW, twenty-four states now agree with my reasoning and will try such an assailant for the crime of murder, ie. the taking of an innocent human life.

My question to the pro-aborts on this thread is --

Why is the taking of an innocent human life murder when committed by a passing stranger, but is not murder when committed by that developing human being's mother?

Unless a pro-abort is prepared to argue what no biologist will or is prepared to argue for the legitimacy of human chattel, they will be hard put to come up will a reasonable reply to this question.

[Wm Bach]

From this libertarian's pov, the right of the baby/fetus to live outweigh the mother's right to be free of the inconvenience of carrying it a few more months to delivery. On the other hand, I don't see how the baby/fetus can have a superiour right to life than the mother, in those extremely rare cases where continued pregnancy will definitely kill the mother.

No baby should die because it is termed to be invonvenient, and no mother should die for the sake of carrying a baby, come hell or high water, to a term which will prove terminal for one or both.

[Leesylvanian]

Sadly, many or most Americans have no idea about what constitutes a right. Driving a car and getting on an airplane are privileges granted by the state. That's why (along with tax purposes) we need a licence for many such privileges. Owning a gun is a right, derived from God for defense of liberty and property which is necessary to protect our Christian dignity. Abortion is a court decision made by man, and therefore reversable by man and court. In short, there is no "right" to an abortion.

[NC_Libertarian]

Pro-Life Libertarian Bump!

[MrLeRoy]

the pregnant woman is not a mere bystander who may choose to save or not save an endangered person. Since she is a cause of the child's predicament, then presumably the woman does have a duty to protect her child from harm.

I have made this argument in another forum, and have lately been stumped by the following rebuttal: If X voluntarily commits an act that results in harm to Y, X may have an obligation toward Y---but only the obligation to restore Y to the status Y had before X's act. In the case of woman X's sex act leading to zygote/embryo/fetus Y's need for maternal bodily resources, Y's status before X's act was nonexistence; so at most the pregnant woman owes the z/e/f a return to nonexistence, which abortion provides.

Anybody have a counterargument?

[Tribune7]

personal bump

[BlackbirdSST]

because it does not confront the right of the woman to control her own body

Good article. The woman exercises her right to control her body when she decides to have sex. Upon conception it's no longer her choice or her rights that are being violated. Blackbird.

[AMMON-CENTRIST]

I believe in life too much. We should outlaw it. It should be only used to save the mother.

[fod]

Fod, I still believe that one cannot be Libertarian AND be pro-life.

172 posted on 1/11/02 2:00 PM Pacific by lormand

To overcome your ignorance, sometimes you need to work at it.

I'm not really too hopeful in your case, but you never do know...