Being the libertarian I am I used to be a very strong pro-choice advocate because I thought a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body. However when I told this to someone recently he made a very good point, he said that if it were the woman's choice then she'd be the one that dies, not the baby. At first I laughed but after some consideration I realised he was right. Letting a woman destroy the life of an innocent child is an outright violation of the Non Aggression Principle, which it why it goes against my libertarian principles. If you don't want kids, use contraceptives. Any thoughts?
This sentence makes no sense whatsoever : """"he said that if it were the woman's choice then she'd be the one that dies, not the baby."""" Why would a woman choose to die? (There is NO "baby" involved in abortion, there is no "child" involved in abortion, fetuses are aborted) What is a ""Non Aggression Principle"" ? Want to talk "aggression" ? Then the fetus is committing an act of aggression towards the woman it's in first. Do you believe pregnant women lose the right to self defense? It's OK for a woman to die but not a fetus that isn't even a person yet? That's quite misogynistic. If a woman doesn't want kids she may choose to use birth control ( which has a failure rate) or choose not use any BC at all and have an abortion if she doesn't want a kid. SHOW the LAW that says women are obligated to use birth control.....
I think you missed the point. The point is that abortion shouldn't be a "woman's choice" because it violates the baby's rights. And yes, a fetus is a baby. What is your argument that it isn't? It has a beating heart, doesn't it? When did I say it is okay for a woman to die? The Non Aggression Principle is a core libertarian principle which states that nobody should infringe upon another person's rights unless they infringe upon theirs. You could have just googled that but whatever. The baby isn't "aggression" anyone because the only reason it exists is because the mother was irresponsible and din't use any contraception. (With the exception of rape, of course) If a woman doesn't want a kid she can choose birth control, and if she doesn't then she has behaved irresponsibly and must take responsibility for her actions. This is the world of grown ups kid, actions have consequences. If you chose not to use birth control for whatever reason and conceived a child because of it you do not have a right to murder that child just because it is more convenient for you.
My thoughts? You do not quite understand what you are talking about. The woman does indeed have the choice you are confused about and she chooses to live her life without a child. The "Baby" is the only other entity that might have a choice but, it cannot choose or think. Using birth control (contraceptives) is also a choice that she has....but, it IS her choice and your opinion makes no difference.
Objectively there is only one(1) individual with the freedom or right to make a choice in this situation. That individual also happens to have standing within society as an adult person and thus certain rights to its own body and life. Thus said life belongs to itself entirely and cannot be subjugated by another under law. Stating this person should kill itself rather than another entity is illogical, especially when we consider that killing itself would also kill the other.
I would say legally as opposed to objectively. I do not see law as being synonymous with objectivity. The above would be a good argument if all in society agreed with the above. So again, what makes your argument objectively better than the argument made by the OP? Law is not synonymous with objectivity. What is the abortion law based upon if other than subjective opinion?
Objectively one must consider all aspects of the individuals in question as this is the reasoning behind said laws.
tecoyah said: ↑ That individual also happens to have standing within society as an adult person and thus certain rights to its own body and life."""" You: ""The above would be a good argument if all in society agreed with the above"" Who in society does not think a person has rights to their own body and life? They really don't have to agree anyway, the law over rules their disagreement.
You are not a true libertarian. No actual innocent child is in the discussion. It is a fetus, with all the rights afforded a fetus.
Well, you're partly right, there is no "child" innocent or otherwise involved in abortion but fetuses do not have rights.
Is it not possible for one to objectively "consider all aspects of the individuals in question" and come to a different conclusion?
Its easy to have an opinion about what other people should do. I think that those advocating anti-abortion laws should have to adopt and raise at least 2 of these precious babies they claim to care about.
It would require a Constitutional amendment of epic proportions to give feti (the plural of fetus) rights. Until then a fetus is just a grown within a female's body and she (the female) should retain the right to have the fetus removed just like any other growth.
Personally... I do not "want unwanted kids I do not want to feed them, nor to watch them starve I don't want them in the schools or hospitals or jails And most importantly, I do not want to inflict an unwanted childhood experience on any child I do not agree with the idea that a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken I do not agree with the idea that a baby is no different from an adult Nor do I think a fetus is no different from an adult or a baby I think a miscarriage does not need an inquest for murder i do not think we need to spend billions of tax dollars to correct the scourge of death of innumerable fertilized eggs that fail to implant I do think that those who think otherwise are free to live their life as they choose Without sticking their nose into other people's business I do think that the OP reflects a typical libertarian obsession to rely upon words and logic ... which is what leads otherwise intelligent people to conclude a fertilized egg is a person Or to become convinced without evidence that something like natural rights actually exist
@robini123 you are correct in this matter. Law is simply the arbitrary enactment of statutes and regulations and adjudications by legislatures, administrations, and courts. There is no rhyme nor reason to them. Not a single one.
@FoxHastings you are correct in this matter -- the O/P was simply using an emotional argument. And emotional arguments are fallacies. List of fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Q.E.D. Point is awarded to @FoxHastings .
I agree as a conclusion can vary depending upon the premise it is based upon. Thanks for your input on this, I appreciate it.
