I’m sorry, but there is no moral connection between your inability to end an innocent human life and being able to force someone to provide you goods and services for free.* The rest of what you said is similarly emotional word salad with almost no connection to either the legal or the moral issues at play.
*Edit to clarify that the father should be completely on the hook.
Don’t you think that forcing people who get pregnant to have a kid has a punishing and vindictive tone to it?
Don’t you think there is a moral issue with that?
Specially if you start thinking that some woman who get pregnant, don’t want to get pregnant in the first place, and probably knew no much better to make a better decision when they had a choice?
I know you have very conservative ideas about human rights based on your previous posts, but women who are banned access to both healthcare and abortion services have their hands tied. It’s not possible to make the claim that you care about human lives while also barring access to basic human needs. Either you care about all human lives or you don’t. Why bother “protecting” a fetus if it’s not even being given the care it needs?
No, and the question itself seems extremely strange to me.
Yes, there is a moral issue with it.
I think what you’re trying to say is that banning abortion is unfair to women who don’t want to get pregnant but don’t know how to prevent that from happening.
Again, this is indeed a moral issue. On one side we have an innocent human life, and on the other we have a mother who has her own issues wrestle with. Even if the consequences of the decision were equal, I’d go for the innocent human life. But the consequences are overwhelmingly asymmetric.
I would say my views are classically liberal, but tomato, tomahto…
I’m not precisely sure what you mean. I’m glad you separated the terms “abortion services” and “healthcare”, because rolling the former into the latter makes it difficult to discuss the topic. But how are women being banned from healthcare?
Again, I’m not sure I understand. Who is trying to bar access to basic human needs?
I am discussing the moral and legal issues abounding ending an innocent human life. I’m not sure that requires me to care about my asshole neighbor now.
The state should have relatively few roles to play in society. A fundamental one is protecting innocent human lives from being killed. The government does not have the obligation to feed, care for, and raise every child in the United States.
How do you define “human life”? Do you see it as beginning at conception?
I follow the science and experts:
I’m not interested in reading all this. I’m asking for your opinion on the matter.
Funny that it seems strange to you, but it gives me a bit more understanding on where you are coming from, so thanks for typing that.
From what you are saying, it seems that you don’t really want people to have babies, but you don’t want them to abort because that means “killing” a human life from your perspective.
From my perspective, you seem to value the “human life” of this unborn kid more than you value the human life of the mother.
Why do you value this “innocent human life”? Are we talking about religious beliefs? Or are we talking about the potential benefit for society of this unborn child?
I’m not sure where you got that idea. I definitely want people to have babies.
Scientifically speaking, it is. There is a human life and you are indeed ending that life.
I’m not sure what you mean by “value” here. I thought we were talking about the moral and legal systems of a society. In the abstract, no one human life should have more value than another. That I do not support someone inflicting harm on another should not mean that I value their life less.
One is not dead if they never existed.
I never expected you to disagree with me on this. This is literally the state policing our bodies.
Lack of abortion access primarily affects marginalised communities. It clips off the steps of the social mobility ladder. Unintended births when poor can be ruinous economically. It severely hampers the ability of a young person or a person from a marginalised community to continue building their lives and increasing their education or skill level to increase their living standards. It keeps the poor, poor. The poor make shit customers, hampering economic growth and pushing average incomes down. If you’re a worker or a business owner, this means less customers in general and less revenues pushing into a vicious feedback loop that cripples economic growth and development. This is what I call government overreach.
Not everyone is born equally and given the level of knowledge you and I might have. and this is an infringement of freedom of belief. Banning abortion does not stop people from attempting abortions, but only forces them to go through with a variety of extreme and unsafe practises, causing major harm or death. People imprisoned under abortion laws are now costing taxpayer’s money, ruining the woman’s life as well.
While it sounds unintuitive, legalised abortions reduce the number of actual abortions as it’s not stigmatised. These pressures are not as much an issue for the more fortunate as the more fortunate can likely absorb the cost and time of having a child. Allowing people to plan their families means they can put themselves on the path towards success for themselves and thus, their descendents, ensuring that their planned kids start out with a head start and helping them with the knowledge they need to succeed and avoid accidental pregnancies. Pro choice is pro life.
This is completely against libertarian principles. It is also against freedom of religion.
This is not a scientifically or morally supportable statement.
No, this is the state protecting an innocent human life from deliberate harm.
That’s interesting. Can you show me the data on that? There’s at least 12 things wrong with this data (first answer I found), but it still seems that Roe decreased the overall number of abortions in the US. United States abortion rates, 1960-2013
Libertarians are pretty even split on abortion. Basically, if you follow the science and believe that we are talking about an innocent human life, the non-aggression principle obviously applied to that life. If you believe life begins mysteriously at some other random or specific time, you don’t think that others can tell you what to do with your body.
You’re gonna have to explain that one for me.
Right well that is the main topic isn’t it. The birth and life of an unborn child is highly dependant and influential on at least the mother’s life.
So do we allow the unborn child to inflict any harm (not only physical) to the very already-born mother? Or maybe we let the mother decide how much do they want their life changed and influenced by this upcoming life?
Who is at danger here, the unborn-child? or the mother?
How is the state protecting an innocent human live from being killed, if it forces this innocent life to potentially live in misery and does not provide for it.
Sure, the belief that life begins at conception is hotly debated and is primarily driven by religious beliefs. Despite being a lapsed catholic, I believe life begins at birth. The state is telling me what I can and cannot believe.
A foetus is not universally agreed upon as having ‘life’. I acknowledge that people believe that life begins at conception. If they want to follow that, they are free to. But I should not be forced by the state.
Exactly, it’s not so simple. I’m sure we can all see in one sense how life begins at conception, but does a small mass of cells have the same rights and claims on the state’s protection as a fully formed human?
That is a really weird contention. Again, I point to this:
The existence of a law which does not comport with your view of reality is not necessarily against your religion in a constitutional sense (in fact, very, very few would be.).
The Libertarian platform is:
1.5 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
I contend, that in this case, it is a violation of my rights.
There is some truth to this, but the human life’s claims on the state’s protection are extremely minimal comparatively.
Sorry, could you explain that?
You asked whether a newly created human life has the “same rights and claims on the state’s protection” as what I assumed you to mean a post-birth human (you said “fully formed”, but that doesn’t seem to have a clear timeline to me as babies are clearly not fully formed and I think brain development goes into one’s 20s). I assumed your point was that it would be normal for different “rights and claims” at different stages. I admitted that there was truth to this position (assuming that is your position), but I merely wanted to point out that no legal system of which I am aware puts a fetus’ rights the same as the post-birth babies’. In fact, even if abortion were illegal, the fetus’ rights would be quite minimal compared to that of a newborn babies’.