A Libertarian case for supporting abortion rights even if you believe that "life

[Torie]

Does the libertarian in this brave new world think there is a right to not feed their children, and let them starve to death?  Surely they don't think it is right to just turn the kid over to the state to pay for. I am not sure of the difference here between the kid and the fetus. It takes money to take care of a kid, and what is the difference between money and having a kid in your womb, other than perhaps a matter of degree? Both are theft on this planet it seems to me.

[Torie]

I am making a point about the helpless.  Even in the real world, charities and adoption without "stolen" tax money could not take care of them all, and many would die. One might draw a distinction between the coercion of writing a check to the state, and having to carry a fetus to term, but other than that to me there is no difference. And who would want to adopt a severely handicapped kid with huge attendant expense and time, etc.?  Very few. Heck, it is hard to find homes for a lot of black kids now, or it used to be. They go to orphanages supported by the state.

We are assuming here in this hypothetical discussion that a fetus is every bit as human as an actually born kid.

[Torie]

Once more, with feeling: the property rights of the mother far outweigh any imagined property rights of a semi-sentient fetus.

Well once you degrade the status of the fetus, then the debate gets back into more familiar territory.

[Torie]

I'm sorry if the rights of a non-intelligent unborn non-aware being matter more to you than a real intelligent human being, Torie.

No need to be sorry, because that is not my point of view actually. In this thread the assumption was that fetuses were human. I have posted before my views regarding fetuses and the continuum of sentience.

[Torie]

Once more, with feeling: the property rights of the mother far outweigh any imagined property rights of a semi-sentient fetus.

Well once you degrade the status of the fetus, then the debate gets back into more familiar territory.

"Degrade"? You ought instead accuse those who are pro-life of inflating the status of the fetus.

I am not accusing anyone of anything. First you form an opinion of how human fetus is, and when, and then you decide given the former assumption, what rights a fetus has vis a vis the mother, if any. The discussion here was about the provocative idea that even assuming a fetus is every bit as human as the mother, the mother has the right still to abort it because otherwise she is being made a slave by having to carry the fetus against her will, or something. And then it went from there.

[Torie]

I am making a point about the helpless.  Even in the real world, charities and adoption without "stolen" tax money could not take care of them all, and many would die. One might draw a distinction between the coercion of writing a check to the state, and having to carry a fetus to term, but other than that to me there is no difference. And who would want to adopt a severely handicapped kid with huge attendant expense and time, etc.?  Very few. Heck, it is hard to find homes for a lot of black kids now, or it used to be. They go to orphanages supported by the state.

We are assuming here in this hypothetical discussion that a fetus is every bit as human as an actually born kid.

Huge difference, Torie. One is taking a money slice out of voluntary transactions: if you don't want to be taxed, then don't transact. The other is making a direct physical demand on the individual's body and time. It's like conscription, only more intimate.

That's why the government can't say that Torie, for example, must give his kidney to save the life of some other person. That's far more intrusive than a tax.

It is different, and than the issue is what weight to give to those differences, which is subjective. Both all the examples come under the category of coercion, since a lot of the "voluntary" transactions, like making a living and securing an income, and buying essential stuff to consume, are taxed.

[Torie]

You can be reasonably certain about viability during the time period where well more than 9 out of 10 abortions are performed... the first trimester or within one month of it. You can also be reasonably certain at the very end stages of a pregnancy. There is only a window of some weeks where you are unsure. According to this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with testing viability by removing the fetus from the womb.

So if there is nothing wrong with it, why not do exactly that instead of intentionally killing the child with the previously mentioned (page 1 of this thread) methods? If the child can be removed and it may or may not result in death, what justifies the intentional killing?

The fact that it's the property of the mother, and property can be disposed of however the possessor wishes.

In other words, a fetus = a slave. I don't think this line of argument will persuade many folks E, other than perhaps yourself.

[Torie]

You can be reasonably certain about viability during the time period where well more than 9 out of 10 abortions are performed... the first trimester or within one month of it. You can also be reasonably certain at the very end stages of a pregnancy. There is only a window of some weeks where you are unsure. According to this line of reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with testing viability by removing the fetus from the womb.

So if there is nothing wrong with it, why not do exactly that instead of intentionally killing the child with the previously mentioned (page 1 of this thread) methods? If the child can be removed and it may or may not result in death, what justifies the intentional killing?

The fact that it's the property of the mother, and property can be disposed of however the possessor wishes.

In other words, a fetus = a slave. I don't think this line of argument will persuade many folks E, other than perhaps yourself.

A fetus is less useful than a slave, as a slave is fully sentient and can own property.

I don't expect it to "persuade" anyone who's pro-life, as most pro-lifers are cowards afraid to admit their own mortality.

Well it doesn't persuade me, although I am not sure how folks want to label me. I am not sure what admitting your own mortality is about, but I assume it is something about fear of death, and I still don't see the nexus of that with abortion.

[Torie]

Ya, I am centrist, except when I am not.    But fair comment overall.