Even this is too much for a simple miscarriage, and the implication of the woman being under suspicion until cleared buy the coroner is grotesque to me. This is what already happens with late-term babies who die in the womb. A death certificate is issued and the lack of "foul play" is certified by the state.
If a baby is still born the authorities must be notified. Under your definition of "life beginning at conception" all miscarriages must be reported to the coroner, who will then refer the case to the police if foul play is suspected. There is no way around this if you want to treat an embryo the same as a late term fetus or a small infant. They would have to be treated the same.
My point is they are not the same, your point is they are, so it is up to you to create some legal dodge to maintain that they are the same but do not have to be treated as such. Stillbirths and infant deaths were once very common and still are in many parts of the world. If it is a human child, the procedures must be the same.
My point is not that we are going there, it is an exercise for you to deeply think about what you are saying. A one-day old blastocyst is a child. Ok, then let's treat it properly. But let's be ready to accept ALL the consequences to women, our privacy and our liberty once we do so. Thank you for the opportunity of letting me engage you in this debate. I think we are both better libertarians for it. The problem I see it is that "human begins at conception" is not a scientific proposition as much as a legal one.
It is an arbitrary point that we determine, in law, to declare something human. Whether based on science or religion, tradition or whim is irrelevant. The point is we make it LAW. And making it law has consequenses. We do this at the end of life as well, although not with the same argument. We tend to declare human life over when brain waves cease. A blastocyst has no brain waves. In any case, the point is that if we declare that life begins at conception and codify it into law, we must drastically increase the intrusiveness of the state if we are to be consistent.
And we MUST be consistent because the US constitution and every state consitution state we have a right to "Equal protection under the law" Your legal formulation of the beginning of human life is that it begins at the moment of conception.
Therefore, every zygotic or embryonic death is the death of a person. As such it must have a death certificate, cause of death determined, and be counted in the national death rates and records in both the CDC Morbidity and Mortality statistics and the US. It does not necessarily have to be named, but usually its parents are named on the certificate.
Every woman who miscarries will have dead babies in her file. Does the Coroner "examine the body". Under current law, he does or gets another physicican to certify cause of death. I don't even want to begin to talk about the psychological ramifications of this inexorable chain of events, but if we are to have integrity about our laws, then we must carry them out. My wife had two miscarriages. We now have two beautiful young children. If we had to be dragged through the mechanisms of the state to account for the "deaths" of our first two children, I'm not sure we would have had the will to try again.
That is the power of law, that is the power of the state. The simple anwer to this dilemma is that it is fine to BELIEVE that life begins at conception and to mourn its loss and fight against abortion, but not to use the power of the state to enforce that belief. My email is ggorka sonic.
Gary- sorry for dropping off the face of this thread! Things got hectic with the tea parties, helping orchestrate Rand Paul's million dollar moneybomb on Aug 20th, and making preparations for the PAC where I'm about to take over responsibilities as the Deputy Treasurer. If so- I would be perfectly happy to continue the conversation right here on the thread so that other readers can benefit from what's being said and pipe in when they like.
I've heard the brainwave argument before—the fact that we tend to consider human life over when brain waves have ceased, and so we might consider not treating a zygote human because it doesn't yet have brain waves.
The key word, however, is 'yet'. We would not consider a human life over if it temporarily didn't have brain waves, as long as we had good evidence that brainwaves would resume not sure if this is medically possible, but you get my drift.
I have been making your exact case for decades, but never as well. This is, simply said, the best essay on the subject I have ever read.
As an aside, I have been working conceptually on such a piece, but I have never been satisfied with the result. That project has now been scraped since I cannot think of anything useful to add. I must also commend those who posted comments on this thread, even, and maybe especially, those I disagree with. Well reasoned debate is the only way we will ever get past the "canned" responses that are usually heard on this "third rail" subject.
Thank you very much, Grant. I sincerely hope we can disseminate this line of reasoning so successfully that it will have a revolutionary impact on American policy with respect to abortion.
I hope just as sincerely that this proliferation would be accompanied and tempered by a spirit of genuine compassion and willingness to help women who are pregnant and in need of support. Dear Anonymous from 6-Dec: It's true that most versions of abortion today go much further than 'letting a child die from neglect'; but what if those versions were banned and the only remaining version was true abortion—simple eviction from the uterus? I know it isn't pleasant to think about, but would your position change?
If not, then it's not really the positive killing that bothers you so much as it is the death itself. Thank you for the great essay on life!! Let us all stand up for those little babies who can not defend themselves! This is essentially the fallacy of equivocation. A biological homo sapien and a philosophical human are too different things.
It does not have to be a "chicken fetus or a plant fetus" to fail to meet the criteria for "human", i. Also, almost everyone in history has problems with the first premise, whether they'd like to pretend otherwise or not. It is, after all, a contradiction-- if one person threatens another's exercise of their life and can only be stopped by lethal force as frequently, they cannot both have the right to that life.
Claiming the fetus has such a right is equivalent to having the fetus make a claim on the mother's life, since the latter is the sole means of enforcing the former.
This is the kind of dialogue that is critically absent from ANY mainstream media, or educational treatment of the issue. In my opinion, it is impossible within the constraints imposed by the rabid name calling, hatred and politicization by demagogues, that has co-opted the discussion. It is a huge disservice to prohibit free expression of ideas, and debate on any subject, especially one as vital to our societal health as this one.
My hats off to the author of the essay and all who participated, and eternal shame on those who keep the light of truth and freedom obfuscated. Thanks for providing the forum! Very well done wes, and at the risk of quoting Rocky Balboa People who have very strong opinions can change.
For instance I have recently been forced by my own conscience and continuing education to change my stance on the Civil War just as you describe. I have never been pro-slavery, but I had accepted the fact that slavery was a side issue of the civil war. I have since come to a better understanding by "questioning with boldness" all that I thought I knew. Even though I still believe that many of the ideas surrounding the confederacy might have been better; slavery was the issue and it was imperative that it end.
But you essay was very well constructed and proved to have inescapable logic. Keep up the good work, if I can change, and you can change, then we all can change sorry couldnt resist. Your assumption requires that to allow the child to live automatically endangers the life of the mother.
To be fair the argument must be "endagers" not "inconveniences". In very very few instances is the actual continued funtioning of the mother at risk from a fetus; and in most cases a fetus is the result of conscious decision making on the part of the mother no matter how ill advised it might have been. Next yes, my life and your life are equal, and we each have the right to exist. However when your behavior becomes detrimental to my continued existence, you forfeit your right as it concerns me.
In this case your life is not as important to me as mine is to me. To argue the opposite position is to endorse murder. If my life is in danger, I have a natural right to protect myself with force with the hope of prevailing against you. Lastly, your argument that it is our sentience that moves the bar from "killing" to "murder" would fall on deaf ears to anyone in the PETA crowd.
To use that argument it is indeed acceptable to kill a child up to about age two, because they are not fully self aware. Indeed there are those working in the Administration that do believe this would be acceptable, but I do not think this is the mainstream thought.
Michael Atchinson - I am somewhat new to Libertarian thought; although the issue is one that I have thought of. The difference between the "eviction argument" or the "good Samaritan" argument and abortion is I am not sure what the logical scientific argument is, and I will have to think on it, maybe someone else here can help me flesh this out.
Neverless, I contend that when something is your creation, or when it is your offspring you have a higher obligation to it than a true third party. To use your argument we are worse "humans" than your average herbivore; you cannot completely discount the nurturing instinct. I contend there would likely be fewer abortions if the prospective aborter had to wait until after the baby was born and had looked them in the eye; although in our degenerate society maybe not. As to the death penalty arguments; when someone is found the be un-rehabitable is that a word they continue to do harm to society as long as live.
You are making the reverse of your original argument on the "eviction" we are being forced to feed and clothe this PROVEN non funtioning member of society. This is the opposite of a fetus, which will only need to be nurtured for a few years and has basically unlimited or at least unmeasurable potential to succeed and contribute.
To complete the line of thought, if someone has killed 10 people and is trying to kill me, I shoudl do my best to kill them back. Because that is justifiable and not considered revenge. But if I should not be able to kill them, then they get to cost me money the rest of my life, and having already proven their dysfuntional nature we know that they are likely to not change. Therefore you do not argue against the killing, just the timing. The problem with this argument is that it's not new, and it has internal inconsistencies; in that "human being" is either being used in two different ways equivocation , or the answer is presumed in the question begging the question.
In either case it fails. I could spend a lot of time writing the refutation, but happily it was done a long time back http: I'm a consistent life ethicists and a libertarian.
I'm glad that there are libertarians like you who realize that the unborn has natural rights too. Thanks for speaking for those who's basic right, the right to live is being literally cut. Excellent post and a worthy reference for vital common sense points regarding the abortion debate.
I actually read this a little while back and placed the widget at the bottom of the LCR start page. It's nice to see that so many people here have so many interesting things to say on this complex issue. I really enjoyed the article because it puts forth a secular argument instead of relying on religious dogma. It is generally assumed that everyone that is pro-life is a fundamentalist christian. This is not always the case. The argument is definitely valid but I'm not so sure that it is sound.
I'll start with premise two because I have studied animal development is some detail. The father has haploid sperm that fertilize a woman's haploid egg.
The result is a diploid zygote. Morphologically this zygote is no different from any other mammalian zygote. It undergoes a process called cleavage in which the one cell becomes 2, then 4, 8, ect..
This happens until a hollow ball of cells forms called a blastocyst. The next state is gastulation where invagination occurs. In dueterostomes vertebrates and echinoderms , the anus forms first. The reason I'm going into some detail here just to illustrate the point that many other animals develop in the same way as people and are hard to tell apart unless you know what to look for.
Certainly, the simple observation of the gestation of various animals could not possible give any insight into ethics. The differences between the early embryos of different animals is genetic.
Technically you can call a human zygote a human being because of its genes. The problem I see here is that it means that a mass of cells has rights because of the sequence of DNA in its chromosomes.
I do not believe that such a morally neutral fact like that arrangement of biological molecules in an unconscious embryo has rights. All the cells in your body have the same genome. This is what is known as genomic equivalence. Does this now mean that any act that kills any cell in the human body is murder? In short, I'm agreeing that premise two is factually and objectively true. This forces me to address premise one and why I think that it is flawed.
I know that it sounds terrible to go after the "killing a human being is morally wrong" premise so I need to elaborate. I think that rights come an organisms ability to feel pain, have feelings, form relationships ect. It isn't at all connected to the species in question. As a side note: I don't eat meat for this very reason.
The ability to experience pain and suffering is crucial to questions of ethics. Human embryos don't develop nerves for months after fertilization. That means that the fetus feels no pain in the vast majority of abortions. I would consider late term abortions to be considered immoral because it has the capacity to feel pain. I'm not a fan of abortions. I would like to limit them as much as possible. Since I'm a libertarian I oppose all subsidies and funding of places that provide abortions. I'm opposed to all subsidies regardless.
I feel like I'm taking the minority position on this page but I that's nothing new for me. To quote one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century: I never equate the potential with the actual.
The best solution to prevent abortion is sexual education from an early age, ample supply of birth control, and to stop denying the fact that teenagers will engage in sexual activities they always have, and always will.
Abstinence programs don't work. Shielding people from the truth about sexual relations breeds ignorance, which increases the risks of a woman becoming pregnant without a desire to do so. If the power of the state does not end at the skin line then where does it end? I am pro-life myself, but I view this as a jurisdiction matter. The state is outside it's jurisdiction when it tries to assert authority over a woman's body.
I also find the argument that human life is sacrosanct absurd. We don't bury our nail clippings and our severed hair, if we pull a scab off our finger we don't hold a funeral.
And THAT is the crux of the matter. How can a clump of cells without a brain be treated the same as a child? We don't charge Doctors with murder for amputations. That is also human life. The "human life" argument is deficient.
When science answers the question of personhood we can revisit this argument. When are there a sufficient number of brain cells to classify the fetus as a person? For me and my wife the answer was simple. Contraception was our best chance to avoid all the moral ambiguity. When contraception failed, we chose to have our fourth child though we had planned on only three. I also chose to have a vasectomy at that time. I love my son, but I don't have unlimited resources to raise children with.
But I fear a government that thinks it is entitled to force a raped woman to carry to term. It is none of their business. The people who think that "science" can solve that problem are kidding themselves. The truth is not every problem can be solved.
Force of law is a last resort and it should be used reluctantly and sparingly. I'm not a doctor so I'm not sure exactly what kind I state that would be. But it's more than a clump of tissue, right? Should the government enforce the right to life in that situation? Very well written article with solid arguments.
I do, perhaps, differ on the Civil War issue. Of course I am against slavery, but I do think the Confederacy was in the right with regards to the founding principles. Individual rights are greater than states rights are greater than federal rights. However, I don't think a war was necessary and I do think that the Union were fighting more for federal rights than for individual rights.
Justifying the Union to me is like justifying shooting doctors who perform abortions. Another argument that I use is property rights. I don't believe it is right to shoot trespassers. An unwanted fetus is in violation of the greatest property a mother has, her own body, yet even this violation, to me, does not justify murder. Life comes before liberty. I see you sanction capital punishmet and in a perfect system I may agree with you, but when I think of those like the West Memphis Three I know that a system that errs on the side of death is not one I can support.
This is why Ron Paul also changed his position. A very good discussion if this article can be found here: I have to say I don't buy the eviction argument at all.
A mother has no right to evict a human baby from her womb because it's "on her property"--the father and her were the ones who put the baby there! You can't drag someone into your house and then shoot them because they're on your property. Now that said I'm not sure I buy your point 2, but your logic is definitely sound and I felt it necessary to say that the eviction argument is nonsense Rothbard may have been right a lot but this one is just sloppy thinking.
There are a lot of problems with this article, and the comments that follow it. Much conflating of terms and multiple meanings of words and phrases sometimes, one has to assume, intentionally in order to make one's point seem stronger than it is or paint the other side as hypocritical or unreasonable. So where does the argument go wrong? Well, there are fundamental problems such as the assumptions that Rights!
But let's play along with some basic rights as a given and see how the argument stacks up: The 1st premise is false "Every human being has the right to live, which should be protected by law" The actual right is not to be killed, not to live.
There are two separate issues with this: Every human being clearly does not have either the right to live illness, starvation etc. You can argue about whether this should be the case, but without rights being outside of human agreement this is not objectively so. What are we defining as a human being here? This is a major problem, without a solid and consistent definition we are not on the same page.
I don't wish to pre-empt your definition, but would this count as a human being with the right to live?: What we tend to do is have a large margin of error as to what constitutes a person as removing rights from someone who should have them is a terrible act whereas assigning rights to those that don't is a minor issue.
The idea that something without any cognition could be considered a person is not defensible. But again, this comes down to terminology - human life vs. A human being vs. Let's not worry about the second premise until you have given a clear and unambiguous definition of human being. As to the Eviction argument. That is weakly worded and weakly argued. What would be more appropriate is that we do not ever force a person to give blood to enable another to continue living.
If a mother no longer wishes to carry a child to term then if society wants to save the lives of the unborn, and yet protect this basic concept, then the child should be removed from the womb in a surgical procedure and then the best attempts made to keep it alive outside the womb should be made.
This preserves the child's right not to be killed and the woman's right not to have to give blood to keep another being alive. Now, you could argue, and some have, that a parent has no duty towards a child and therefore as long as they commit no harm towards the child they should not be charged with negligence in their death from, say, starvation. This is a bogus argument. I think that by not giving the child up for adoption you have signed an implicit agreement to provide a minimum standard of care.
If you are not willing to do so you must hand over the child. Likewise, any woman going through an extraction rather than abortion procedure must cede all rights to the child. It becomes a ward of the state, or whichever group funds the medical treatment to keep the child alive. All rights and responsibilities over the child pass on to that group. If the child cannot survive outside the womb too premature then those that think this wrong should use their energy to improve medical care to the point that it does rather than try to force women to be incubators against their will.
This is a fantastic defense of the pro-life stance. What you miss - what you call evasive - is the fact that the fetus lives inside and is entirely dependent on the woman. So, even if the fetus does have rights, this is a clear case of a conflict of rights. Now, it's pretty clear that if we care about equality, we have to address the fact that women can have children.
That can be a wonderful thing when you want it, but an oppressive experience otherwise. And this is where the conflict occurs. If you protect the rights of a fetus, you deny women a significant amount of freedom to choose the life she wants to live. This is why science won't help us here. If a fetus is fully a life and endowed with all rights, that just makes the resolution even harder.
That's also why it is ridiculous to call it murder. I can't think of anywhere else in the world where you can find such a similar conflict of rights. The thing is, there's a really easy way to resolve this conflict. By education people and giving them access to family planning, we can make abortion virtually unnecessary.
But then I look at the pro-life movement and see that they are hostile towards even these common sense approaches. I see that the areas with the most pro-life legislation actually tend to have more abortions. That's not surprising because they are also neglecting other, less controversial means of family planning. Can you seriously justify a position against birth control based on life?
If so, I doubt anyone will buy it. So what is the common factor here if it isn't life? And the only conclusion I can come to is that its about sex and control and about putting the government into your bedroom. If you can't see that you really shouldn't call yourself a libertarian. One part of this issue none of you are addressing, is the Right to Life camp wanting to ban birth control. Where is the ilbertarian sensibiity when it comes to that?
I can't speak for other pro life people, but I am pro life and I don't believe in banning birth control. By banning abortion a women with an ectopic pregnancy will not be able to end it because as soon as she conceives it is a human being.
I also think that if it becomes illegal to give or have an abortion it should be illegal to euthanize another animal. Since ectopic pregnancies are not viable, it would be a form of euthanasia for the unborn, and since ectopic pregnancies are considered medical emergencies for the mother, it would be permissible anyway. The rational pro-life stance doesn't value the child's right to life more than the mother's right to life but it does value it more than the mother's right to 'choice'.
As for your animal argument, I wonder if you really believe that "a life is a life". Why stop with animals? You'll need to distinguish exactly what kinds of lives have rights and what kinds don't. Issue of health of the mother as in ectopic pregnancies - this is a no brainer. It would be treated as self defense to save the life of the mother.
Yes it is still life and women who go through the loss consider it the loss of a child at least most women trying to concieve. The comment about miscarrage is crazy. Obviously a woman would not be at fault unless intention could somehow be proved. Do you see people being arrested now when newborns die of SIDS? Sorry but that is just ignorance.
Banning Birth Control - I don't see anything in this article talking about that. Preventing life from occurring is not killing existing life and a completely different issue. Seems like the same issue to me. The heart starts beating at 5 weeks and has a brain at 6 weeks that is how life is normally detected so I can at least understand that argument but otherwise murder is murder. I am tired of the they would be better off crap. Give them up for adoption if that is truly a concern.
What if you had a teenage daughter, and she was raped and became pregnant? She didn't really have much of a choice in that, did she? Why should she not have a choice in the consequences of the rape pregnancy? How can you think that it is moral to force her to live with those consequences?
And what kind of life would that child have? On another note, what if you had a daughter, and she had an ectopic pregnancy? If that pregnancy isn't terminated, that conceptus WILL die, as will your daughter more than likely. I am completely in defense fetal rights, and I, for one, would never under normal circumstances have an abortion. But prohibiting abortion is completely absolute, and this "war" on fetal rights is not suited for absolutes.
Remember, these are unwanted children, and they can't just be thrown away. They'll be handed over to the state. Or they'll be shuffled around and mistreated and eventually end up in an orphanage or foster care or juvenile detention. And that's before counting the cost of building the orphanages it will take to house them. Foster Care is already overloaded.
In Mexico and Brasil abortion's illegal and hoards of unwanted kids roam the streets begging, stealing, prostituting, drug dealing. That what you want? This is the reality your politicians are hiding from you. Think before casting your ballot. Monty, The argument in this article is that human fetuses are human beings entitled to the same rights as human infants, children, adolescents, and adults.
If that argument is correct, then the argument in your comment above is irrelevant-- unless you think a good solution to Mexico and Brazil's problem is to round up unwanted kids and "abort" them too?
I'm saying there's no difference, in terms of their rights and humanity, between unwanted American fetuses and unwanted Mexican children. That's why I'm against killing members of either group. I couldn't disagree more with your entire premise. You speak endlessly about the fetuses rights, not once do you concern yourself with the woman's rights.
If a woman chooses not to give birth to the fetus how can you reconcile her rights? Are her rights simply to be ignored? Is she less than human? If you can figure out a way for this zygote to develop into a human being, without depriving the mother her basic right to control decisions about her own body and inconveniencing her, then you might have a point.
I don't agree that all life has a right to exist, nor do I believe anyone has a right to tell someone else what they must do with their own body. Furthermore, why is it usually men, who can not get pregnant that feel they have the right to sit in judgement of women? I'd be happy to answer your questions if you'd be willing to directly address the premises and conclusion of the syllogism presented above. When these two come into conflict it is generally an individual's autonomy that wins out, e.
So, even if one granted your syllogism it is not obvious that it would take precedence over existing legal and moral? So I'm guessing you think abortion should be illegal. If so what should be the penalty under the law to the women who get an abortion under this new law?
I'm guessing life imprisonment or at least a long time in jail. So we will have a society where thousands of women maybe tens of thousands, will be imprisoned by the state because the state will try to force them to have a baby they don't want.
Even worse - because of this draconian new law every pregnancy will be of great interest to the state and to the police.
Every women who gets pregnant will need to be registered with the authorities to ensure her pregnancy is not ended. Every miscarriage will now be subject to a criminal investigation to see if a murder has been committed. Not a society anyone would welcome. I have to write an update for this sometime soon, but short answer is, I'm in a more radically anti-government place now than I was when this was written.
That is to say, if Fred has a right to private property, then Joe is obliged to keep off of it unless Fred gives him permission. However, Joe might object to this; he may insist that he too has rights that must be respected. If corresponding obligations always accompany rights, and these obligations are sometimes incompatible with the rights of other people , as is the case in the example of Fred and Joe, this gives rise to the problem of determining which right wins out in the end.
In the above example, since it is clearly impossible for both Fred and Joe to exercise the rights they are claiming at the same time, a judge must determine which of the two competing rights is more fundamental or deserving of respect.
If it happens that the right to private property is more fundamental than the right to travel, the latter will be limited and Fred will be justified in keeping Joe off of his land.
According to legal philosopher Henry Shoe:. However, on the other side of the coin, pro-choice activists say no life exists and the woman has the right to choose in this case. According to Chief Justice Blackmun, who wrote the opinion of the court:. If this is true, then it certainly seems apparent that the findings of Roe v. As can be seen, both of these arguments hinge on different assumptions regarding whether or not a fetus has a right to life. Unfortunately, this issue was never addressed during the deliberations of the Supreme Court during Roe v.
It appears, then, that the Supreme Court did not perform its due diligence, which would have required a ruling about whether or not human beings in utero poses the same rights as other citizens. In conclusion, the question of abortion is a question of rights, which are claims made by individuals which often come into conflict with one another.
The appropriate way for a court to resolve these conflicts is by determining which rights are more fundamental than others and rule accordingly. As such, the Supreme Court did not consider all the relevant facts in deliberating Roe v. This blog post is provided free of charge and we encourage you to use it for your research and writing. It should be noted that these life-threatening situations are extremely rare. This pro-life argument does not rely on any uniquely religious assumptions, although some religious people will find it compelling.
I take it to be an item of natural law what can be known about morality by virtue of being human that human life has unique value. A case can be made against abortion by using the Bible only the Hebrew Bible or both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament combined as the main moral source, but I have not given that argument here.
If the argument is to be refuted, one or more of those principles or the reasoning employed needs to be refuted. Although at the beginning of this essay I claimed I would not take up the legal reasoning related to abortion, one simple point follows from my argument.
In nearly every case, abortion should be illegal simply because the Constitution requires that innocent human life be protected from killing. Grand Rapids , MI: Zondervan , , This book is on line at: George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: You do make the case for your argument, and anyone sharing your axioms would agree.
But of course you are already aware that, leaving nutheads from either side apart, the differences arise from the axioms: In any case, your argument renders it morally correct that a woman be forced to endure the pregnancy of a child conceived during rape. And since you are relying on natural law to sustain your case, dont't you find that to be morally very wrong, based on "what can be known about morality by virtue of being human"? Singer argues against speciesism, saying that belonging to a particular species is not morally relevant.
You can test this position with specific thought experiments. And you say "human beings have unique and incomparable value in the world.
I'm sure that we all agree that humans are "unique", not even Singer would disagree. And your "imcomparable" is wrong, since you do compare them with other animals, to say that we are superior. As for the right to privacy being fictional. The Constitution clearly recognizes that the rights it puts in writing are not an exhaustive list. The right to privacy was not created in Roe but before Roe. It's interesting to note that without a right to privacy not only could the state do things like prohibit married couples from using contraception, they could also do the opposite, such as mandate contraception for 'undesirable' married couples or try to order some women to get pregnant and have children to, say, achieve some goal of population growth 2.
The right to take a life in certain cases seems to need some thought. I have a right to take a life to, say, protect my home from invasion by robbers even if those robbers do not intend to kill me. I have a right to say no to a request that I donate my kidney even though the burden on me may be minimal and my refusal will result in certain death of a sympathetic person.
Like many pro-lifers, you seem to confuse the moral problems with the state deciding abortion with the state simply not deciding. In a world where the state is forcing people to have abortions such as is said to happen in China under their 'one child' policy even to this day , the state is morally accountable for the decision to abort as it removes the ability of the woman to do anything In contrast Roe simply moves the burden of evaluating the morality of abortion onto the individual woman.
This seems pretty natural. Spin all the political theories you want about personhood, social contracts, etc. That doesn't alter the fact that we come into the world not through governments, laws, or even marriages but through the bodies of women. It's pretty much accepted that different sovereigns have different jurisdictions. For example, if I accidently kill someone my actions are judged usually by state laws and if I'm convicted of a crime it's usually by a state jury except in certain circumstances where jurisdiction might fall to the Federal gov't or even in the case of some war crimes to an international tribunal.
Simply, when you're an individual in a state you're under state jurisdiction, when you're a cell in a womb your under woman's jurisdiction. Might the woman make an immoral call? Then again states make immoral calls all the time. Innocent people are convicted, guilty people not, guilty people get convicted but are given punishments that are unjustly harsh etc. As you said it's an imperfect world. Mother's on average probably do a better job than gov'ts but you still have to take a pretty high 'error rate' like it or not.
Regardless of whether or not you like the 'natural' idea that women have sovereignty in this area because it's their bodies and their burden because that's just how nature designed humans, pro-lifers often gloss over the distinction between choosing abortion and simply not acting to stop abortion or punish it afterwards.
Pro-lifers, for example, often bemoan Roe because it took abortion 'out of the hands of the states'. But before Roe many states had legalized abortion and absolutely no state punished abortion as murder. Even today when the subject comes up of whether pro-lifers would actually treat women who have abortions as murders, the response is to sow confusion or engage in some creative forms of denial, such as a pseudo-feminist claim that women who get abortions are 'also victims'
Abortion is a heated debate in the U.S., filled with emotion and lacking rational thought. This infographic explores quantifiable data to help readers understand both sides.4/5(13).
Free Argumentative Essay on Abortion, Pro-life. December 4, Human life is a continuum beginning at conception and ending at natural death. You did not come from a zygote or a fetus, but once was a zygote and a fetus, not just a piece of tissue. Imagine the potential of life. In spite of the arguments presented by pro-abortionists, there.
- Abortion: A Pro-life Argument Ellen Willis’s “Putting Women Back into the Abortion Debate” () is an argument that supports women’s rights and feminism in terms of allowing all abortions to occur. The rational pro-life stance doesn't value the child's right to life more than the mother's right to life (but it does value it more than the mother's right to 'choice'). As for your animal argument, I wonder if you really believe that "a life is a life".
Professor Brenza Essay-2 March 17th Pro-life vs. Pro-choice The issue of abortion in the United States will always be a controversial one. Developing two sides of the debate, pro-life and pro-choice. Argumentative Essay Against Abortion. Abortion Argumentative Essay. English 9 Dec The End before the Beginning Is abortion murder? Should abortion be illegal? Abortion is something that is not overlooked, but not exactly given the proper attention it should have. Abortion: Pro-Life is the Logical Argument Essay;.