Jump to content

Abortion


artik

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Abortion Rights are Pro-Life

by Leonard Peikoff

 

Thirty years after Roe V. Wade, no one defends the right to abortion in fundamental, moral terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.

 

Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms "pro-life" and "right to life" to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.

 

Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase "a woman's right to choose." Does she have the right to choose murder? That's what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.

 

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

 

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.

 

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

 

That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.

 

("Independent" does not mean self-supporting--a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)

 

"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."

 

It is only on this base that we can support the woman's political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person--not even her husband--has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom.

 

There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion--accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health. The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally--but not treated as a murderer.

 

If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman's body.

 

If anti-abortionists object that an embryo has the genetic equipment of a human being, remember: so does every cell in the human body.

 

Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict it's the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo.

 

Being a parent is a profound responsibility--financial, psychological, moral--across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It's a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that--as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence.

 

The anti-abortionists' attitude, however, is: "The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness."

 

Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life."

 

The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.

 

Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life--lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those photos are definetly disturbing. But I don't think disturbing images should dictate our laws. The point of law is to make our society work better, and to force women into childbirth when we have the technology to end unwanted pregnancies (early), we are obligated to allow people to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that article is the sum of every argument already made. but this line:

"It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy."

makes me smile. pro life legislation will hardly ever pass that doesnt have concessions for rape or the mothers life endangered. the funny thing is... Ron Paul, a US congressman, also an obstetrician, quoted some statistics a while back and around 1% of abortions performed were when the mothers life was endangered.

 

all this just reminds me of the fight between the neo cons and gay rights activists for gay marriage. republicans were like..."alright alright, we'll give you civil unions, and all its legal entitlements... but just wont call it marriage. ok?" gay rights groups who are fighting for legal rights and entitlements of married couples..."NO WAY!"

same with abortion..."ok ok, we are gonna ban abortion, but we'll give you concessions on endangerment of the mothers life and rape, etc etc." abortionists: "NO WAY!"

its just all funny.

 

if im a hypocrite for supporting abortion abolition and repealing the welfare state, then obviously all the people who are crying about thier rights to life liberty and property being infringed upon are hypocrites as well. being property rights freaks all of a sudden.... the abortionists surely arent going to be supportive of me when i blow away a motherfucker for walking in my front yard, just because i fucked up and forgot to put a fence around my property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people think that making abortion illegal will some how save every fetus. illegal abortions are already being performed, and instances of illegal abortions would only increase, probably skyrocket, if legal abortions were outlawed, creating a black market for the service. certainly, people who did this would be liable to prosecution, but that would take a large concerted effort. meanwhile, mothers who still saw no other option would be using unliscenced practitioners and putting themselves at tremendous risk. in this situation, as in the current one, the best way to keep people safe is to increase education. but legal abortion, as a safety catch, will always be preferable to back alley abortion.

 

it's a case of the law, but it's also common sense. does the legal status of drugs stop their production and consumption? of course not. i suspect and fear that if roe v wade were suddenly overturned that we would quickly find out that the same goes for abortion.

 

i personally would never ask a woman to go through an abortion, in fact, i would beg her not to, even if it meant raising a kid on my own. but it's not my choice and it never will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had two abortions with my ex

 

 

had we kept em, i'd be the father of a 7 and 4 1/2 yr old respectively

 

 

it still makes me feel a little sad sometimes knowing that but i wasn't about to raise two kids on the crappy money i was making back then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that article is the sum of every argument already made. but this line:

"It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy."

makes me smile. pro life legislation will hardly ever pass that doesnt have concessions for rape or the mothers life endangered. the funny thing is... Ron Paul, a US congressman, also an obstetrician, quoted some statistics a while back and around 1% of abortions performed were when the mothers life was endangered.

 

all this just reminds me of the fight between the neo cons and gay rights activists for gay marriage. republicans were like..."alright alright, we'll give you civil unions, and all its legal entitlements... but just wont call it marriage. ok?" gay rights groups who are fighting for legal rights and entitlements of married couples..."NO WAY!"

same with abortion..."ok ok, we are gonna ban abortion, but we'll give you concessions on endangerment of the mothers life and rape, etc etc." abortionists: "NO WAY!"

its just all funny.

 

if im a hypocrite for supporting abortion abolition and repealing the welfare state, then obviously all the people who are crying about thier rights to life liberty and property being infringed upon are hypocrites as well. being property rights freaks all of a sudden.... the abortionists surely arent going to be supportive of me when i blow away a motherfucker for walking in my front yard, just because i fucked up and forgot to put a fence around my property.

 

this is the second time I've seen a conservative make this mistake, it's "The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," NOT "the pursuit of life, liberty, and property." Put down the Ann Coulter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"this is the second time I've seen a conservative make this mistake, it's "The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," NOT "the pursuit of life, liberty, and property." "

 

'life liberty and property' is the root of 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' from the declaration of independence. as me, crooked and a few others bashed around a bit further up the thread, this is from the principles of John Locke. his writings talked about 'life liberty and estate' which is, in todays language... PROPERTY. what do you think the pursuit of happiness is? private property. do a little research before you ramble on about catching a 'conservative' in a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont get how i got burned. im lost. we are speaking in abstracts.... so i guess. yup. you got me... adam smith said 'pursuit of property' and locke said 'estate.'

 

continue past wikipedia and any constitutional type cholar worth his salt will agree 'pursuit of happiness' is property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...