I think it's permissible to kill a fully grown adult human if it's living inside of another person's body that doesn't want it. A good percentage of the population believes it's permissible to kill a human just for walking on someone's property against their will let alone inhabiting their insides.
I think it's permissible to kill a fully grown adult human if it's living inside of another person's body that doesn't want it.
A good percentage of the population believes it's permissible to kill a human just for walking on someone's property against their will let alone inhabiting their insides.
You should stop using dramatic words like "slaughter" to make up for the inability to articulate a better argument.
breaking a lease to evict
In a free society, it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. The right to be left alone and free to do what we want (so long as nobody else's rights are being violated) is something our country values quite a bit and built into various aspects of our constitution.
Some people are disgusted by anal sex
but that doesn't mean those who choose to have it should be treated as criminals (see Lawrence v Texas).
I'm starting to see that there is likely never a justification to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will.
But at the very least abortion should be legal until viability which seems obvious.
It would be ridiculous to treat fetuses as people under the law in terms of equal rights.
In that case, would a woman who suffered a miscarriage be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
Can we file habeas petitions on behalf of the illegally incarcerated fetus of every pregnant woman in custody?
Are we going to start fighting for a fetus' right to own property and to vote?
I just realized that I could have used voting as another example of rights that children don't have.
If the argument is that the state can force childbirth on the basis of an interest in growing the population, does that mean there would be justification to compel women into becoming baby making machines Handmaid's Tale style should an interest ever arise? Scary stuff.
at what point did the deadbeat baby sign a lease agreement that includes free rent ?
Overgeneralization. Just because I have decided upon this outlook towards on one uniquely sensitive and family-level private and gender-specific policy question does not give you warrant to assume I'd advocate the same approach for other, very different public policy issues. Please be disabused of your presumptions. You assume further that I would not regulate abortions but that is false, I would regulate abortions the same as any other standardized medical procedure. The making of the decision should not be regulated by the state according to the majority will, or any other will except the pregnant mothers, by biological dictate- the same rights afforded any patient seeking heart surgery or knee replacement.
i will love you forever
you will never have to worry about anyone hurting you as long as we're together
Adults to some extent should have expectations of making rational choices.
Well no, I'm just calling it what it is, not overgeneralizing. It is simply faulty logic.
Either being an expert is important or it isn't.
Either being personally affected is important or it isn't. I don't think that any coherent conception of a functioning democracy can allow for such exceptions that radically change the qualifications for having a voice on issues.
But now you reject majority will on an issue as important as defining personhood and the protection of life,
while absurdly pretending it is in any way comparable to a knee surgery.
Who are these people who comprise this "good percentage" of the population?
And that is the consequence of having that which are deemed "inalienable" subject to the interpretation of nine government goons.
Benjamin Franklin put his recipe for home abortions between his advice for treating gout and kidney stones,
And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance,
Ultimately, it goes back to the issue of privacy and government power regardless of people's personal feelings on late term abortion and how viscerally grotesque they imagine it to be. You have to separate your feelings on what you consider abhorrent to look at the what role the government ought to play. The decision that goes into each abortion is very different and extremely complex and personal.
Anyone who supports Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine laws which are legal in the majority of states.
Rights are a product of society and culture (government).
They are not inherent or innate.
Only within a society which recognizes them are they of any value.
I realize this presents many opportunities for inconsistencies that frustrate you, but thankfully most people see the utility in reasonable distinctions. There's an obvious difference between forcing someone to endure pregnancy and childbirth vs. expecting citizens to pay taxes, just like there's an obvious difference between regulating sex between consenting adults vs. adults having sex with children (re: your point on legislating sexual propriety) although admittedly not everything is black and white and society is not perfect.
I think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history have never lived nor wanted to live in a voluntary society, so I don't find utility in using the NAP as a metric for public policy.
It's a hypothetical ideal with a lot of philosophical and practical problems that will never have any significance in the real world.
Even if I did find value in it as an insurmountable moral ideal (I do not), as a matter of U.S. law
there should be deference to Supreme Court precedent and not a theoretical universe with no government power over the individual.
Moreover a woman has an obligation to her *child in a way we don’t for strangers.
I can understand how someone could support abortion up to the point of viability even though I don’t really but after that it’s completely monstrous. It boggles my mind that you think that a viable fetus is a living human being that carries moral weight but the woman’s right to choose is more important.
But since you aren’t an ancap you obviously have other values so I’m curious why bodily autonomy is so paramount in this case and no other. Five months into a pregnancy that right to choose has been exercised, and she chose to keep it. What you’re arguing for is the right to change your mind until literally the last moment
Not everything that tugs on our heart strings warrants government intervention. Why don't you find it completely disgusting and barbaric to shrug off immigrants, abandon refugees, and ignore others in life or death situations that might rely on help from the U.S. government to intervene and save their lives? I'm not trying to sound snarky here - just showing that the prioritization of American lives is morally arbitrary and rooted in pragmatism. There is only so much we can and should police.
As I said, I used to agree with using viability as a point in time in which the government's interests could theoretically override the value of bodily autonomy. But I cannot think of a scenario in which the government controlling people's bodies in such an invasive way could ever be justified, even if the fetus is 9 months old.
*born. There is no inherent obligation between a woman and the contents of her womb.
Bodily autonomy is the only right actually at play here. If someone (even a born person) lives in or off of my body, I have the right to evict. Not one of us has a right to use any body other than our own without consent.
Why not?
I’m glad you brought that up. If a landlord breaks a lease on a good tenant because he changed his mind there’s a penalty. Do you agree that this is morally justified? If you do you agree that there are restrictions on the right to “evict”
The monthly cycle would be a tragic and mournful event if women did have an obligation to the contents of their wombs, don't you think? Instead of a first period being a sign a feminine maturity, it would the first in a long line of failures to uphold this imagined obligation. It might be better to ask why you think reality should be different.
What lease exists between a woman and the contents of her womb? Is a squatter a 'good tenant'? Your scenario has no relevance.
It’s just weird because I know that every single person who has responded and said that yes they support elective abortions of healthy fetuses up to the moment of birth also supports taxes and other types of government policy.
