Two Libertarians Debate Abortion
The answer isn't as straightforward as many assume.

Now abortion law is up to states. Some will ban it, while most blue states will allow it in some form.
Because libertarians want government out of our lives, people assume we are pro-choice. Some of us are. But like the rest of America, there are principled libertarians on both sides.
We freedom-lovers believe women (and men) own their bodies and should have control over what happens to them.
But we also believe that one of the few legitimate roles for government is stopping murder. If a fetus is a life, abortion is legally murder.
"Life begins from the moment conception is complete," says Kerry Baldwin, host of the Dare to Think Podcast. "Abortion is murder."
"The termination of a pregnancy is the right of any woman," counters pro-choice Avens O'Brien of Feminists for Liberty.
I say to O'Brien, "That is a form of life in the womb. You're not bothered terminating that?"
"I'm not sure I agree that it's a person with rights," she responds.
"At what point does the baby have a right to be protected by the state?" I continue. "You're saying that one minute before birth, the baby does not, and one minute after, it does?"
"Individuals have rights," she responds. "Individuals don't exist inside other people."
Baldwin counters, "Passing through the birth canal doesn't change the humanity of the fetus."
"As long as a fetus is inside a person, the person gets to determine whatever's happening to it," answers O'Brien.
Baldwin says the only time abortion should be legal is if a woman's life is in danger. Rape is not justification. Rape, she says, is "a crime against women. They need restitution for that crime," but the woman must carry the baby to term.
Baldwin is libertarian, so she usually opposes government force. I point out that abortion bans are government force.
"It is the role of civil governance to criminalize acts of violence," she replies.
I wonder how such criminalization would work.
"If abortion is illegal," I point out, "the state either has to punish the woman or doctor or both."
"This is a woman who's in crisis," says Baldwin. "It doesn't make sense to…throw her in prison."
Before Roe v. Wade, prosecuting women was rare. Sometimes doctors were prosecuted.
"The way you enforce is not through a police state," says Baldwin. "The way to get women to stop choosing abortion is to provide other options." One such option, she says, is to make adoption easier.
Easier adoption would be good, but it certainly won't persuade all women to carry babies to term.
Watching this week's abortion protests, one thing puzzles me: Why do activists always turn to politics?
Celebrities like Lady Gaga and Rihanna attacked Alabama's abortion bill. "Governor…SHAME ON YOU," said Rihanna.
Instead of shouting at politicians, activists could put their money where their mouths are.
I say to Baldwin and O'Brien, "Lady Gaga and Rihanna by themselves have enough money to fly every woman…to a state where it's legal. Why is this a government issue?"
"It would be great if celebrities spent their money on mutual aid and direct action instead of lobbying politicians," says O'Brien.
"Currently there is a meme going around," she adds. "People write, 'If anyone needs to go camping because their state does not allow camping…come camping with me. We'll never talk about your camping.'"
Why "camping" instead of "abortion"?
Because in "certain states, that would create a legal problem," explains O'Brien.
The two sides will never agree about abortion.
Personally, I think it's reasonable when states ban late-term abortion. An 8-month-old fetus sure seems like life to me.
But I'm mostly pro-choice. People should own their own bodies. If someone lives inside you, you have a right to control that life.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Individuals have rights," she responds. "Individuals don't exist inside other people."
Baldwin counters, "Passing through the birth canal doesn't change the humanity of the fetus."
"As long as a fetus is inside a person, the person gets to determine whatever's happening to it," answers O'Brien.
Anyone who's ever looked at a sonogram or a medical textbook knows that O'Brien is an evil ghoul.
Look around long enough, and you'll find someone who supports abortion up to the 57th trimester.
I'm earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join.
Check further details by reaching this link..>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Or had children.
Even beyond the 'is it alive?' question. Women claiming the baby, in utero, is an undue burden is like someone slamming a car into a tree during a test drive because purchasing and owning a car is an undue burden. It's pretty clear you don't want to own a car, you just want to slam cars into trees and damn the consequences.
I recall, back when libertarian theorists were serious people, we'd debate this. The typical reductio was, "So, if you built a house out of cloned skin, and stitched somebody to it, anybody who walked inside would stop being an individual? Or maybe you want to argue that I'd stop being an individual if we were both on the same IV?"
That wasn't a debate, except maybe in a Monty Python sense. It was two people disagreeing in each other's presence. In actual debates you have to engage with the opposing viewpoint.
In actual debates you have to engage with the opposing viewpoint.
When it comes to abortion, that's not a thing.
Check out the abortion debate a year or two ago at the Soho Forum. That was unlike any abortion debate I have ever seen. Two principled libertarians using libertarian principles to get to their positions. Both trying to to grapple with each other's arguments rather than talking past them. It was a really interesting and engaging exercise to watch.
Individuals have rights, NPCs aren't individuals so they have no rights and can be murdered at will? Is the moloch cultist so sure she likes where this logic goes?
Don't murder our "unicorns" says the [WE] mob...
It's simple...
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting FORCED reproduction.
you have to take responsibility for your actions..absent rape you are accountable knowing that when you have unprotected sex you could get pregnant. It is part of the bargain evolution gave us with sex.
And you have the NAP with libertarians...aborting a fetus is pretty aggressive.
Birth control does not always work. Every method except abstinence has a non zero failure rate. Accidents happen.
What position does the one with pink hair take?
Pro-choice
*whispers loudly* I think the question was rhetorical.
It was NOT a rhetorical question, and rswallen is wrong. She's pro-abortion.
Boom!
Any position, if she's drunk enough.
as man I can tell you she has nothing to worry about
Yeah, the way to win this debate is argue that an ice pick through the skull of a baby's crowning head is liberté!!!
Ironically; Pro-Life isn't lobbying to end that...
They're lobbying to FORCE reproduction.
And it doesn't seem to matter how much that FACT is told; Partisan [WE] mobs don't want to listen. [WE] gang-affiliation (or religious every sperm is sacred) is 100% of the debate at this point..
Well you can use birth control or just not have sex...no one is forcing you to have sex...
Oh; So now the foundation of those puritan Gov-Guns appears...
Pro-Life, "Gov-Guns will make sure you never have sex except to reproduce..."
Rub a Pro-Life Republican and out pops a leftard dictator...
Obviously that is murder. But trying to argue that is the equivalent of taking Plan B is disingenuous in my opinion. (not saying that is/was your argument. But abortion debates need to recognize the full spectrum. Polling suggests most Americans are fine with abortion in the first couple of months, despise/hate it in the last couple of months. I find that most people on the extreme ends of this debate completely ignore that fact)
Fetal Ejection...
Liberty for the ?baby? and the woman.
If someone lives inside you, unless you were raped, you invited them in.
My immune system lives inside me Greg, do I get to determine what happens to it?
No, the government will decide for you.
^^^THIS............. The WORST part of the entire subject...
It's PERSONAL... Not a [WE] voters-mob packing Gov-Guns issue.
If you recognize a right to invite them in...
You should recognize a right to kick them out...
Not when it ends a life.
Yeah; cause other people who are dependent on you to survive should certainly be able to VOID your rights... Every 'bumb' get a home with 'others' by FORCE of Gov-Guns. All the People OWN the Doctors and will FORCE them to supply services.. Everyone's wealth will be FORCEFULLY taken to 'save' everyone from possible death...
Like I said...
Rub a Pro-Life Republican and out pops a leftard.
"If someone lives inside you, unless you were raped, you invited them in."
Bullshit. A fetus didn't exist during the sex act. Therefore, it could not have been invited. But assume what you say is true. So what? An invitation can be rescinded at any time.
That's like inviting an individual to live with you in your house, and then deciding that his life should end. Your statement and my comparison are violations of the NAP.
The answer isn't as straightforward as many assume.
Have the Reason Editors been informed yet?
I find it laughably straightforward....
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction...
Of course you do, because you're a trolling idiot.
Progressives have been using the Supreme Court to get around the limitations of democratic institutions, and now are scared that, for the moment, they do not own the courts.
"Reflecting upon the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, the economist Noah Smith observed last week that he “viscerally did not realize, just how much of America’s liberalism over the last half century depended on the single institution of the Supreme Court.” Smith was on to something...
...Sometimes, as in the cases of NAACP v. Alabama, Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, Brandenburg v. Ohio, Texas v. Johnson, and others, its requests have been legitimate; by design, the Constitution contains some important counter-majoritarian provisions, and there is no shame whatsoever in using them. Mostly, however, they have been illegitimate. In cases such as Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, Lemon v. Kurtzman, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lee v. Weisman, Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc, and Kennedy v. Louisiana, progressives have treated the Court as if it were an ersatz legislature whose job it was to start with a given outcome in mind and find the path to that outcome that it could most easily sell with a straight face.
Even now — even as that judicial avenue is being blocked off to them for a while — many of the key institutions of American progressivism remain unable to grasp why their behavior has been such a problem. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, the New York Times wrote yesterday, “Senate Republicans did not have to take the politically risky step of banning abortions; the court took care of the issue for them.” But, of course, “the court” did no such thing. Having determined correctly that the Constitution is silent on the question of abortion, the Court returned the United States to its pre-Roe status quo, which left the matter entirely up to each state." - Charles Cooke
Progressives have been using the Supreme Court to get around the limitations of democratic institutions, and now are scared that, for the moment, they do not own the courts.
Threats to destroy a third of the Republic have consequences bitches!
Not if your a progressive
Please explain what is getting destroyed and why is it a third?
The judicial branch of government.
Progressives have been using the Supreme Court to get around the limitations of the U.S. Constitution by putting emotional activist justices in who don't know how to read; but just use emotions....
There... fixed that for you...
Because lets face it; Has there ever been a time that the Supreme Court has *actually* written a Law oppressing Individual Liberty??? No... They just failed to OPPRESS the Legislative Law put before it.
It would actually be unconstitutional for the federal government to allow or disallow abortion. I have full faith the current SCOTUS would strike down an attempt by a GOP majority to federally ban abortion. So many of our federal laws are actually unconstitutional, though.
Obergefell and the like are covered by the 9th & 14th because every right is not enumerated. Roe, however has the question of the fetus. At some point prior to birth, the fetus is biologically (and morally) indistinguishable from an infant, and deserves protection. The 24, or 28, or 32 week old fetus was not a surprise to the woman. She made a decision by not aborting earlier (which she should be thoroughly informed of), and therefore logically gives up that choice after some point.
Alito was also wrong about history. Clearly, common law saw the right to abort before "quickening" by strongly objecting to abortion after quickening but not mentioning it otherwise.
If you accept that "Life begins from the moment conception is complete," then you also must oppose hormonal birth control, the morning after pill and IUDs. Most abortion opponents don't want to go as far as stopping major forms of birth control but use the same idea for their opposition to abortion. What's the difference between a zygote and an early fetus? It is the same question as what the difference before and after passage through the birth canal. There is no easy complete answer in this issue and people will have to choose something that is not perfect.
Nothing you said is actually true.
And is immaterial. Even without birth control it's not uncommon for fully fertilized embryos to fail to attach. Moreover, it's possible to value every life and practically acknowledge that not everyone can be (physically) saved. That, while more could always be done, God's Will, Nature, Cosmic forces must take it's/their course:
Courage to change what must be altered,
Serenity to accept that which can't,
Wisdom to know the difference
You still have not answered the question. If protection should exist from fertilization, then hormonal birth control and the morning after pill would violate that protection. What is the rational for not protecting the zygote but protecting the young fetus? Abortion does not offer up simple answers.
I was talking to JesseAz, not you. I've got a question for you to answer, why don't you go fuck yourself?
Think I'm being hostile and disingenuous? Guess what; [If this, then you must that. Question that logically follows from my false dichotomy.] is fucking hostile and disingenuous. So, let me apologize for being disingenuous and go fuck yourself.
Apology accepted. Don't worry about the hostile part, I am old enough to have run up against that before.
There is what you think and then there is the law. The constitution does not provide a right to abortion.
Roe was a bad take just like Plessy and was set aside.
If you want a constitutional right established it needs an amendment. Women's vote, 18 year old vote for example.
Else 10A applies. Back to the states and the people where it belongs
Lots of feels on one side and the law on the other.
Yeah; It doesn't provide a right to clip off my fingernails either....
You people and your negative rights narrative is utter B.S. an you know it Authoritarian Gov-Gun worshiping F'Heads.
The excuses people use to pull out Gov-Guns against those 'evil' people has reached epidemic proportions.... Never-mind that USA that was founded on the principles of Individual Liberty and Justice for all... Heck; if it's not SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the Bill of Rights; the 9th Amendment doesn't exist. /s
Spin, spin, spin, propaganda, propaganda, propaganda, new word definitions WHATEVER it TAKES to get control of those Gov-Guns!!
Oh yea, we should totally legalize murder! Also, maybe learn to speak English.
Murder of what? Cows, Chickens, Unicorns???? Fingernails....
Whatever people like you deem worthy of getting murdered. That's the nature of the left, all arbitrary.
Humorously; I haven't heard of a single legislative proposition to make it illegal for doctors to intentionally "murder" the fetus.
All that's going on is legislation that FORCED women to reproduce.
Maybe when Pro-Life starts doing what it says it wants to do instead of using it as a blind excuse to re-enact slavery of the State....... then.......... It won't be nothing but an EXCUSE to poke Gov-Guns at those 'evil' people and FORCE them to reproduce.
Yea, I don't see any leftoids arguing that we needed Stare Decisis for Plessy.
common sense...nice job
"Individuals have rights," she responds. "Individuals don't exist inside other people."
We see this distortion of language here too. It is amazing what pro aborts have to tell themselves to justify their morality. They have to redefine words.
True on so many issues, racism, vaccine for example
I think it might be interesting to return to using the word gay as it's true meaning, "happy" in conversation.
Watch the reactions.
Interesting to learn that men (sorry, penis-havers) cease to exist during coitus.
If a pre-viable fetus is a full individual, fertilized IVF eggs, tampons and high school boy socks get to vote when they turn 18?
Wrap your head around the idea that laws requiring a woman to carry a rapist's baby is a taking and this is really a 5th Amendment issue...
I would pay to watch that litigated!
Writing laws around viability is a losing battle considering every year the line of viability moves up.
I am pro-life, but I think there is some legitimacy to the argument that the government cannot compel a woman to support another life inside her. It is a HUGE burden to her an no one else can do it. Only the fact that this is a human life makes me reluctantly OK with government intrusion here.
But stealing half or more of a man's earnings for 20-25 years over a child he did not have a choice about is just fine?
Non sequitur. I don't get your point.
It's not a non sequitur. It definitely follows. However, I think it's probably a straw man, since you never said you supported child support.
don't forget that even knowing a woman is pregnant before about 20-25 weeks requires violating her privacy. the government only knows there is a life to compel her to carry if they confiscate her medical records.
kind of why most people were OK with the post 20week restrictions we have had for about 50yrs. the "but it's a life" argument falls flat when nobody even knows it's there, and the "it's not a person" argument loses some credibility when you can put your hand on a woman's tummy and feel it kick.
the whole question of whether or not you consider it a life deserving full protection isn't as black and white as people on either side ever try to pretend. for most people, the shades of gray change around 20-24weeks.
Right where Roe v Wade put it...
I'm so disgusted by Pro-Life Republicans....
Rub a Pro-Life Republican and out pops a leftard.
Actually, not so. There are plenty of states that allowed later abortions.
And overturning Roe v Wade has absolutely ZERO effect on that.
Unless of course; The goal-post is for the right to exercising some of that National Socialism (Nazism) the left has instilled in this nation and starts cherry-picking industries to bully (energy) for their imaginative save the (Unicorn, Planet) passions... Which is really nothing than Selfish Ego boosts of POWER over 'those' icky people.
Yes. Ideally these laws would make it illegal to perform an abortion, but having an abortion would be legal within an unenumerated right to privacy. I realize though, in reality, these laws will be made and enforced by religious zealots doing God's work in some places.
This might help--
I am pro-life, but I think there is some legitimacy to the argument that the government can compel a woman to support another life that she and a partner forced to be
inside her.
Does that clarify the issue at all?
No. I was aware of how babies are made. If the woman had no responsibility in conceiving the baby, this would be a no-brainer.
The bargain of enjoying sex is you can get pregnant (without bc)...unless raped you knew the consequences....evolution drives us to procreate
"We see this distortion of language" --- WRONG...
Actually she pegs it right on especially by using 'person' in the second.
Individual ---- In Divisible (syn; separate)...... You'd have better luck pretending a post-viable pregnant woman isn't an Individual because linguistically that would hold some water.
Her phrasing is actually rather statist. "Individuals don't exist inside me." makes sense. "Individuals by and large are hard to consider as individuals if they're wholly subsistent on a host." makes sense. But "Individuals don't exist inside other people." sounds and awful lot like she's telling other women who's choices she's supposed to be defending what ideas they can and can't have about their bodies and any bodies contained therein. And it's a bit of unpersoning someone to justify homicidal eviction. Being hyperbolic; "There were no individuals on J6 and they had to be forcibly ejected by any means necessary." Which, especially on the part of a nascent human runs afoul of presumption of innocence and cruel and unusual punishment. Even for adults, the penalty for trespassing or rape or assault isn't summary execution by the state. There are certainly allowances for self-defense and in the moment decisions, which the 8 or 15 or whatever week allowances mimic but, in parallel, you don't get to wait 9 mos. after you get raped to go shoot your rapist and you don't get to put up with your roommate's bullshit for 9 mos. before sticking their head in a blender.
Personally, I think it's reasonable when states ban late-term abortion. An 8-month-old fetus sure seems like life to me.
I generally agree. But the reason to have an elective abortion is that the woman doesn't want to be pregnant. At 8-months, it isn't necessary to terminate the fetus to terminate the pregnancy.
I have seen some argue that viability was an arbitrary line to draw, but I disagree for that reason. After viability, ending the pregnancy at least might not end the life of the fetus, thus restricting abortions that would kill the fetus past that point is perfectly reasonable. And, it also should be enough time to obtain an elective abortion prior to that. At least, as long as the state doesn't try and regulate abortion clinics out of existence with medically unnecessary requirements or put other hurdles in the way. (These are referred to as TRAP laws by pro-choice activists - Targeted Regulation on Abortion Providers.)
A C-section post viability would terminate the pregnancy and save the baby. Presumably then adoption.
As long as the government is responsible for all the incremental costs of pregnancy and delivery (including lifetime mental health costs, which pro-lifers claim is big) plus market-determined money damages to cover impact to the body, that's fair.
What bar you talking about?
So in both cases you remove the baby, you just aren't killing it. And then handing it over to someone who wants to raise it and will pay.
Your turn
Correction:
What are you talking about?
^^^^YES THIS......... At least someone isn't blinded with partisan shades...
Frankly, I don't see why you'd even have to tell them.
They come in for their late-term abortion, you put them under, remove the baby, wake them and send them off as someone who's gotten an abortion.
They didn't care what happened to the 'clump of cells', so you're free to find the baby a good home.
Call yourself 'Parenthood Planning', and have ads that specialize in late term options. Charge a premium for your services in the 'post-Roe' environment and offer absolute discretion.
Everyone gets what they want.
"This is a woman who's in crisis," says Baldwin. "It doesn't make sense to…throw her in prison."
This is disingenuous. If she really thinks that abortion is murder, as she said she did, then being in "crisis" shouldn't be an excuse. I see it as highly contradictory to think that abortion is equal to murder and yet also think that it would be wrong to put the woman that goes to get one in jail for it. In what other circumstances is someone being in "crisis" (but not mentally ill) a get-out-of-jail free card for having murdered someone?
A thought experiment that I have heard illustrates the issue fairly well to me. Most people have heard of the concept of a Sophie's Choice, even if they don't know what it actually is. What if, instead of a mother having to chose which one of her children will live and which will die, a woman that was pregnant had to chose whether to continue the pregnancy or keep her 3 year old child alive. I would think that someone that really does believe fertilization to create a human life equal to a born child would be incredibly torn over the choice, such that they might flip a coin. But I can't imagine anyone actually having a hard time making that choice if they really were forced to.
No no, they're 'in crisis' - that's code for 'mentally ill'. It's inches from declaring women mentally unfit to make important decisions.
when they say the don't want to throw the women in prison, what they are really doing is admitting there is no way to sell the restrictions if they did.
Exactly. And that shows us just how few the people are that really believe that abortion is equivalent to murder.
Or that it's the doctor who is the murderer, not the woman.
Or that it's the doctor who is the murderer, not the woman.
That would only make sense if you also wouldn't call the person that hires a hitman guilty of murder.
And he's not. At best he is an accomplice or co-conspirator.
Nah, the doctor would be the murderer, not the woman.
Good article. In Stossel's usual direct and didactic style he does a much better job than almost anyone I've read in getting to the real differences between the sides in this debate. There are conflicting principles that are probably never going to be resolved among libertarians.
To an extent, yes.
But this statement undermines all that Stossel otherwise claims to believe:
“. If someone lives inside you, you have a right to control that life.
He is acknowledging that there is a person in the womb, and that individual is owned by another.
John, shave the ‘Stach, you’ve devolved into a Prog.
As-If Pro-Life hasn't gone extremist the other way around; that the pregnancy owns the woman...
NOT
Gov-Gun enslavement of both ?baby? and mother...
Liberty for both ?baby? and mother...
Because lets face it...
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection/C-Section)
UR supporting FORCED reproduction.
Liberty for both ?baby? and mother...
For the Mother, the liberty to be free of the consequences of her actions
For the Baby, the liberty of Death.
This sounds like a valid position to you?
what "baby"?? That unicorn you imagine is your baby?
Well if you want to play mythical creature games in you head; that's fine... KEEP IT IN YOUR LIFE...
Don't run around like a Power-Mad Dictator pushing your "save the unicorns" believe on other people's PERSONAL life with Gov-Guns.
What you call a "unicorn" is an actual living being. Hence, he/she is given a right to life. What part of that do you fail to understand?
I don't think so, really. That's the fundamental disagreement I'm talking about. Whose rights come out on top? I don't think there is any way to resolve that through logic or science. It's an axiomatic assumption.
Or just be sensible enough to stop counting chickens before they hatch..
On the contrary, those unhatched chickens are still objectively chickens.
"Rape, she says, is "a crime against women. They need restitution for that crime," but the woman must carry the baby to term."
What's Baldwin's position on the college-debate hypothethical - if you wake up and find yourself on a gurney, attached to a stranger with failing organs and are told if you pull the tubes out of your body and leave, the stranger will promptly die, is leaving murder? She either says it's murder or she's a hypocrite.
First, you've got to fix the scenario--
if you and a partner attach tubes to yourself and to a stranger with failing organs knowing full well that this might cause the stranger to become dependent on you for at least 9 months but possibly 18 years, that, in fact, this is the PURPOSE of attaching the tubes, and wake up and find yourself on a gurney, attached to a stranger with failing organs and are told if you pull the tubes out of your body and leave, the stranger will promptly die, is leaving murder?
The answer, clearly is yes, leaving is murder.
I've always found this argument fascinating for it's utterly obvious ass-backwards contrivance. Adult humans don't just wake up attached to another human being, they either consented to be attached or they didn't. Further, the violinist argument traditionally involves a contrived fanbase that goes out and kidnaps you (voiding your consent) before attaching you to the ailing violinist a contrivance that makes no real sense with regard to the fetus or the mother. Does, even a raped woman consent, or not, to a mob of kidnappers implanting a fetus inside of her the way the violinist's mob kidnaps you? Isn't the mother/violinist's consent to your kidnapping really kind of important with regard to guilt and your situation of having been kidnapped against your will? Not that you are capable of exacting justice but, if we have justice as a notion to be served, surely participation in a kidnapping scheme is a quid pro quo of bodily autonomy rights.
The better argument is the role reversal you wake up on a gurney attached to a healthy person. No idea how you got there or why you're in the condition you're in, but you're sure from your atrophied muscles, general lack of knowledge about this medical procedure, and failing organs that you aren't responsible for subjecting either one of you to this condition, and, if at any point in the next 8ish mos. the person decides to pull the plug, you would die. Would you consider them your murderer for pulling the plug or merely evicting a trespasser on their personal autonomy? Even if they consented to hooking you up and keeping you alive for 9 mos.? Seems, even if no life is involved, like a pretty clear libertarian case of 'stupid games, stupid prizes' and voiding contracts to me. Cram a foreign object up there and, under contract, can't take it out for 9 mos.? Maybe there's a valid case for breaching the contract if leaving it in would kill you, otherwise, tough shit. Unless you're 12, the whole "I didn't know it would make a baby!" routine is bullshit.
For me, it comes down to viability as the time when individual rights obtain and government protection is warranted. By viability, I mean when the unborn child, if removed from the mother, can live on its own or through the voluntary assistance of others.
No, there are many patients who cannot live on their own. Abort them?
End of life is agreed to be when brain waves end. Start of life should be when brain waves begin. About 15-20 weeks.
Scientific, rational, logical, and consistent.
brain waves are not part of any definition of end of life.... death is defined as an irreversible cessation of all vital functions, so if you wanted to use that standard it would mean when the fetus is capable of sustaining all vital functions. (in other words... viability.)
but, since the window for that starts at around 20-24weeks, and 20-24weeks was the standard compromise everyone could live with for the last 50yrs.... why don't we just call it 20weeks and be done with it?
brain waves are not part of any definition of end of life.... death is defined as an irreversible cessation of all vital functions
Incorrect both clinically and legally.
Uniform Determination of Death Act
Section 1
Determination of Death. An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
It's worth noting a few things: 1. The above was generally agreed upon in 1981 and has since been passed/ratified/agreed upon by 40 states, well within your retardation about "the last 50 yrs.", much was still in legal dispute circa Terry Schiavo's death in 2005. 2. While there are many, many procedures that cease respiratory and/or cardiac function reversibly, there is no procedure by which total brain function ceases reversibly. So, while this may give the appearance of an either/or definition, it's really a "Condition A which can be difficult to detect without instrumentation and a condition B that, if not controlled or immediately reversed, promptly brings about condition A, but is readily observable and monitored with standard equipment." situation. 3. Admittedly reading through some tea leaves but, presumably, both yours and the above definition seem to consider the respiratory system a vital function. While all manner of rather conclusive speculation can be made about the lungs in utero, definitive viability of the lungs cannot be determined. That is to say you're striving once again to create a strict legal definition according to an oxymoron in the background of the progress of science.
Along those lines, if, in the next 5 yrs. science develops a medical procedure to restore brain wave function after complete cessation and somebody finds you... or even someone else that you may or may not even know... brain dead in a parking lot, do you want them to just stick with the old law and be done with it, or do you think there might be at least some reason to update the law to make exceptions for when someone's actually dead. After all, the above only says irreversible, it doesn't specify motivations or contexts, if the EMTs or ER docs don't feel like restarting your brain or are morally opposed to restarting your brain (either because of the whole 'raising the dead' aspect, or because you're better off as worm food), what are you gonna do?
Women shouldn't be treating like they are medical equipment...
Once upon a time (Roe v Wade) they were recognized equally; Now they are just medical equipment of the State.
I missed the part where the State forced them to be irresponsible with a dude.
And the punishment will be... [WE] mob Power FORCING them to Reproduce against their will....
Frankly; The cruel and unusual punishment might even qualify in this B.S. of a ruling.
Unless the situation is rape, no one forced either of them to reproduce. So you're wrong there.
Once upon a time (Roe v Wade) they were recognized equally; Now they are just medical equipment of the State.
Fuck that noise, since before, during, and after Roe v. Wade "I know a guy" or "let me call a guy" has been the ubiquitous solution to every problem between routing drains, mowing lawns, opening pickle jars, busting heads, reaching high shelves, and patching roofs, State involvement or not. You name the odds and I'll bet that the average guy knows a greater percentage of the female employees who work for him than the average women knows who work for her, including firefighters, police officers, postal carriers etc.
Everyone knows Joan of Arcs name, nobody can name a single man she fought alongside despite the fact that without the Argamnacs, she would have no army to lead or war to fight. Men have been the fucking mules drawing carts in the coal mines and cannon fodder warhorses for millenia and you get bent out of shape because a woman might be incovenienced having to carry a baby she participated in the conception of? Treated as a medical device in a field where everyone debates how to 'do no harm' rather than 'don't die for your country, make the other poor bastard die for his!'? Go fuck yourself.
Sh*tty policy isn't an excuse for MORE sh*tty policy...
do a search on lifecycle of a human
Wouldn't the NAP apply to this argument? The way I see it, abortion would violate the NAP pretty directly.
It also seems to infringe on the 10th and 14th amendments.
Not to mention the fact that the overturn gives the decision back to the states, in turn giving more power to the people.
the question always has been, and always will be, when is the fetus considered to be a person. people can have good faith opinions both ways. some go with the extra rigid definition of "unique DNA," some go with the extra rigid definition of birth. most people fall somewhere in between. some go with brain waves, some go with heartbeats..... most fall somewhere around viability, or the 20-24 week range that had been the standard for the whole country for the last 50yrs.
why is a late stage dimentia patient a person
why can't you think of any response actually related to what i said?
he question always has been, and always will be, when is the fetus considered to be a person.
if being considered a person is req to have rights protected then it seems to be a related question
If we're going to be objective, then life beings at conception. And no, 20-24 weeks was not the standard, plenty of states offered late-term abortions.
Last year, we had a baby born prematurely at 21 weeks, a world record of earliest birth since conception. By the logic of many pro-choice activists, he was not a living being at birth.
State Gov-Guns ***IS NOT*** Individual People... It's a [WE] mob packing Gov-Guns of authority over Individual People....
Holy crap; Now the State Government is a Person too?
U CAN'T LIMIT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS GROWTH!!! /s
IT'S A PERSON!!!!! /s
Both statements are factually true; you are not a libertarian, are you?
So giving what used to be a federally guaranteed individual right to the state is giving more power to the individual? That's some weird math.
Yes. The federal government is not the giver of rights, it is intended to protect the rights that already exist. Any powers given from the federal government to the states is a step in the right direction.
One of those individual rights is a right to life. The government cannot violate that.
All the shrieking and "I'm moving stuff" seems to not line up with the rest of the world.
For example most (maybe all?) have limits on abortion. And many are lot more strict than the 24 week minimum Roe set.
Germany = 12 Weeks
France = 14 weeks
The list of where to move to is not that long. I believe only 7 countries allow abortion after 24 weeks and one of them in North Korea.
The list of where to move to is not that long. I believe only 7 countries allow abortion after 24 weeks and one of them in North Korea.
There's a difference between "allowed" and "required".
If only the USA could be be as crappy as NON-USA nations... /s
Plenty of non-USA nations are crappy, including Germany and France, that's correct.
Canaduh has no regulations on abortion period.
For an added bonus, their Prime Dictator thinks self-defense only exists for him and his cronies.
"Currently there is a meme going around," she adds. "People write, 'If anyone needs to go camping because their state does not allow camping…come camping with me. We'll never talk about your camping.'"
OT, but this line reminded me and I couldn't resist:
Once upon a very unlike time in a very unwoke workplace, one of the cooks went around to everybody, Male or Female (no Trans AFAICT) asking: "If you woke up in the woods with grass stains on your knees and elbows and a rubber in your ass, would you tell anybody?"
When the almost inevitable answer of 'NO!' came, the cook then asked in a sly sissy voice: "Sooo, you wanna go camping?". 😉
As the saying goes, a fun time was had by all! 🙂
So, Missouri is currently trying to make it a felony to abort an ectopic pregnancy. Why?
-Missouri's ban has a carveout for when the woman's life is at stake.
-An ectopic pregnancy is pretty much *always fatal* to the mother before it comes to term. (The vast majority of ectopic pregnancies that implant in the fallopian tube are always fatal).
-The fetus almost never survives an ectopic pregnancy. (The few cases of an ectopic pregnancy being delivered involve eggs which manage to implant in the stomach cavity - a situation rare even among ectopic pregnancies - and the mother is still unlikely to survive because the body can't cleanse the remaining tissue by discharging it through the vaginal canal).
Why would you specifically criminalize aborting a type of pregnancy that is always going to threaten the life of the mother?
Correction - were at one point this year trying to pass such a law. Still, are MO lawmakers that much of an idiot that they didn't bother to do basic research before trying to legislate something? (Okay, I'm willing to bet the answer to that is 'yes').
I would go so far as to say ending an ectopic pregnancy isn't even an abortion since it can pretty much never be viable.
Giving you and them more credit than they deserve, there's always the art of the deal or, in the case of dems "Don't say Overton Window" explanation.
Obergefell and the like are covered by the 9th & 14th because every right is not enumerated. Roe, however has the question of the fetus. At some point prior to birth, the fetus is biologically (and morally) indistinguishable from an infant, and deserves protection. The 24, or 28, or 32 week old fetus was not a surprise to the woman. She made a decision by not aborting earlier (which she should be thoroughly informed of), and therefore logically gives up that choice after some point.
Alito was also wrong about history. Clearly, common law saw the right to abort before "quickening" by strongly objecting to abortion after quickening but not mentioning it otherwise.
We routinely define the end of human life as when higher brain functions cease. An acceptable definition for the start of human life is the start of higher brain function near the end of the second trimester when the fetus begins hearing and learning. Common law and Roe seem to have stumbled into the right answer. Just because we know about DNA it does not follow that when 2 cells merge to form a single cell we have a human being with constitutional rights. We have a potential human which faces many developmental hurdles to reach the living human threshold. The 13th amendment forbids involuntary servitude which is certainly what involuntary parenthood is. Before the potential human gets constitutional rights there is a right to early abortion both in common law and the Constitution. Any law outlawing it based on someone's religious belief probably violates the Establishment clause. SCOTUS should perhaps try reading the Constitution.
1) On the contrary, plenty of states allowed late-term abortions under Roe v. Wade. So you're wrong there.
2) The brain alone does not determine the death of an individual, but rather when all functions of the body cease to exist. This is not the case with a fetus since there already exists some bodily functions. The scientific consensus suggest life beings at conception, meaning the "potential human" is actually objectively a human being.
3) Unless the situation was rape, the woman and a partner voluntarily let the child live inside her, hence it's not a violation of the 14th Amendment since it was completely voluntary, and hence voluntary parenthood.
4) Contrary to what you say, it is not a violation of the Establishment Clause to pass out a law for religious reasons. With that logic, should we abolish all laws based on Christian ethics? I suspect you'd rather have it that way!
"As long as a fetus is inside a person, the person gets to determine whatever's happening to it," answers O'Brien. }}}}
Bullshit! The Libertarian position that a woman has control over HER own body does NOT mean that the pregnant woman also has unlimited say over what happens to the "it" O'Brien refers to.
Most people object to late term abortions, especially if not done because the fetus has severe health problems. A woman may have the right to have an embryo/fetus removed from her body, but not the right to do anything at all to that other living body. When a viable fetus is delivered---which is what has to happen if the pregnancy is far enough along---he or she does not have to be killed first.
If I had to choose between killing someone I know, and someone I do not know, I would choose killing some I do not know.
Interesting counter-argument. If you were choosing between someone you know personally, such as a friend, coworker, family member, and then a stranger, why would you choose the person you know? I would assume that you'd be choosing that person because you would have not only a personal stake in their loss, but also that direct knowledge of what that person would be losing by losing their life. You have shared experiences with that person. You know at least something about their personality, their past, their hopes for the future, and you probably also know other people that know them and would miss them if they were gone. The stranger would have all of the same qualities, but you'd be removed from them and wouldn't be able to empathize as strongly with that person. And what if it wasn't you making the choice, but someone that knew the one that was a stranger to you?
With a life in a womb, whether zygote, embryo, or fetus, it doesn't actually have those qualities. It has no consciousness yet, thus no past or hopes for the future or personality. It has no friends or other people that it loves. It only has the potential to obtain those things if it is born. There is no one closer to that potential life than the pregnant woman. If she would chose her 3-year old child over the potential human person in her womb, then there is no one that would ever choose the potential person over a born human being.
The woman that is pregnant, the man that got her pregnant, and her friends and family are the only ones with much stake in that life reaching its potential. And since the woman is the one that actually has to bear the physical burdens of pregnancy and risks that come with it, it is her stake that matters the most, by far. And the woman is then the only one that should be allowed to choose for her to take on those risks and burdens.