[Noumenon]

I think libertarians need a clear cut position on abortion. Our philosophy of self-ownership has been applied to virtually everything else, so why not abortion? First let me say that I was very opposed to abortion until a week ago, when I read Murray Rothbard's pro-choice argument in "The Ethics of Liberty." Basically it boils down to this:

1. A mother owns her body, and no one can use it without her consent
2. The fetus, even though it isn't part of her body, uses her body for nutrients
3. Therefore, the fetus cannot use her mother's body without her consent

However, I also strongly believe that the fetus is a human being with rights, just not full adult rights. It has at least partial self-ownership, and that fraction of ownership grows with increasing consciousness. At the very least, it has the right not to have its body aggressed against and killed. So what I propose is this: abortion is within the mother's rights as long as its passive, meaning the woman just denies it the nutrients which are part of her body and thus belong to her. Abortion violates the fetus's rights if it is aggressive, i.e., initiating force against the fetus to kill it. So whats the difference you say? Dead is dead, right? Well libertarians don't believe the end justifies the means. The means are everything. And maybe if the mother has to starve the fetus to death over a long period of time rather than have a doctor kill it immediately, she will think twice before aborting her child.

However libertarianism makes it clear that while it is immoral to violate a person's rights, what the person chooses to do with that right is not necessarily moral. It is within your rights to simply stand there while someone drowns, since you own your body and it is your choice whether to save him or not. But that doesn't make that action moral. Likewise with abortion. It is within your rights to deny the fetus the nutrients it needs to live, but I view it the same as letting someone drown.

[smashthestate]

It is within your rights to simply stand there while someone drowns, since you own your body and it is your choice whether to save him or not.

There is only one problem with this likening of situations. It is not of your doing that the person is in the water drowning. However, it is most certainly within the mother's doing that the fetus is growing inside of her (except in the case of rape, of course).

If you throw a person who can't swim in a river and refuse to save them when they begin to drown, you have committed murder. Likewise with abortion.

[Noumenon]

Thats a damn good point. I think I agree with you that conceiving a fetus is sort of like throwing someone in a river. But I think that Rothbard would say that in the case of the drowning person, you violated the person's rights by using physical force to push him into the river. The fetus initially has no rights, so you would not be violating any rights by conceiving him and making him dependent on you for survival. I'm not sure if I agree with that assessment though.

[Todd D.]

The flaw in Rothbard's argument is that he doesn't consider impregnation "consent". I do.

A woman gave her consent for a baby to use her for nutrients when she laid down to have sex (for this sake, in the broad scheme of things, it is logical to assume that the sex was consentual). That to me is de facto consent for the actions that her and the man's baby will do until he or she is born.

[Kamil]

By engaging in sexual intercourse, a woman is not rendering "consent" for pregnancy, Todd. That's absurd. A proportionate amount of the time when two individuals engage in sexual intercourse, it's strictly for pleasure. Desire for pleasure presupposes a desire for a good time, not a desire to become pregnant and possibly ruining your life. What's a woman to do, sacrifice good times just to be safe? What a boring life. I'm sure that you'll argue that protection could've been used. If so, you must keep in mind that such engagement is usually an "in the moment" type scenario which people do not always ensure protection.

If a woman becomes pregnant, she has a right to abort her fetus. Once again, this anti-abortion stance is yet another clear portrayal of how multitudes of libertarians, presupposing that many feel as you do, violate the vital self-ownership rights of others. You put a fetus, an entity marginal to that of a human, with no subjection or experience of the world, before the human? What you must question is what does this fetus have to lose? What does this human have to lose? In fact, by maintaing the fetus in the woman's body, you're actually deteriorating the fetus' life; it is a diminution of opportunity for a happy and stable life.

It is generally a young woman which accidentally becomes pregnant, correct? Well, what if she has plans for her life? What if she wants to go to college/university in order to study and get a good job? By forcing an unwanted carriage you are not only ruining the woman's life, you are ruining the baby's life. You see, by not wanting this child, the woman is clearly not fit, ready, or prepared for the responsibly, or does not desire a child whatsoever. If the baby is preserved in the woman's womb and is a forced obligation for the woman, it'll surely be the catalyst for ruining the woman's life. The woman's plans for college and a bright future are no longer possible and the woman is confined to a dead-end life. This may not be the case, but surely you can see what an unwanted baby could do to a woman's life. After the years of taking care of this child and knowing that it ruined your life, I'm quite sure that this child might not have such an easy life. Due to the fact that it is an unwanted child, chances are it'll be treated like one.

Besides, why at all must a woman go through the pains of pregnancy? Because she wanted to have a little fun? Is that a mistake? The baby can be placed for adoption, but is that really desirable? Children can be kept in the adoption centres for years; it's a bad life.

[smashthestate]

Once again, this anti-abortion stance is yet another clear portrayal of how multitudes of libertarians, presupposing that many feel as you do, violate the vital self-ownership rights of others.

Umm...

The official LP position on abortion is 100% pro-choice. So there goes that argument out the window. We're just discussing our personal positions on abortion.

[Kamil]

The official LP position on abortion is 100% pro-choice. So there goes that argument out the window. We're just discussing our personal positions on abortion.

The libertarian party does not represent the beliefs of the entire body of libertarian adherents. As I just recently noted in another thread, people should avoid becoming their ideology. That's generally the case when one is too vehemently affiliated with their ideology. Anyways, even if it's the position of the libertarian party, does this signify that it is, and will be, a stable principle? Of course, the people will be able to change certain aspects of society if popular demand calls for it, right? First off, you shouldn't necessitate all that's entailed in the program of the libertarian party into what your society will look like. Besides, the entire purpose of this thread is for libertarians to find "Aclear cut position on abortion," since "[y]our philosophy of self-ownership has been applied to virtually everything else, so why not abortion?"

[smashthestate]

The libertarian party does not represent the beliefs of the entire body of libertarian adherents.

Of course not. I haven't met a single person that wholeheartedly agrees with every single position on the issues as the official party line states. I am certainly no exception. Although I agree with most of the Libertarian ideals, I believe in life at conception and feel that a fetus has the same right to life that any other human being has. Thus, I am opposed to abortion, which is opposed to what most self-proclaimed Libertarians espouse.

As I just recently noted in another thread, people should avoid becoming their ideology.

I don't see why that would be a problem as long as you truly felt that every standpoint of the party was in line with your opinions. But if you are saying that people shouldn't forfeit a personal belief on an issues simply because the ideologies position differs, then I would agree with you completely.

Anyways, even if it's the position of the libertarian party, does this signify that it is, and will be, a stable principle?

Well I can tell you that Libertarian elected officials have, are,and will be fighting to end abortion laws. As for it being a stable principle...well, your guess is as good as mine. The ideals of any ideology inevitably evolve as time goes on.

[Kamil]

I don't see why that would be a problem as long as you truly felt that every standpoint of the party was in line with your opinions. But if you are saying that people shouldn't forfeit a personal belief on an issues simply because the ideologies position differs, then I would agree with you completely.

People can adhere to their own philosophy, but they shouldn't assimilate into that of their ideology as they end up perceiving it as absolute and the source to all problems and issues with close-minded reasoning and bias. Yes, in some cases, many might take an exact position as that of their ideology's, but that can be justified as certain ideologies entail a vital core principle which corresponds to many matters such as abortion. Taking libertarianism for example with their core principles of self-ownership, I could definately see the application of such to many various issues.

well, your guess is as good as mine. The ideals of any ideology inevitably evolve as time goes on.

You got that right!:)

[Visage of Glory]

I was going to say exactly what you brought up, Todd. Consent is given when a woman decides to engage in sexual intercourse. Rape is the obvious exception to this.

By engaging in sexual intercourse, a woman is not rendering "consent" for pregnancy, Todd. That's absurd. A proportionate amount of the time when two individuals engage in sexual intercourse, it's strictly for pleasure. Desire for pleasure presupposes a desire for a good time, not a desire to become pregnant and possibly ruining your life. What's a woman to do, sacrifice good times just to be safe? What a boring life. I'm sure that you'll argue that protection could've been used. If so, you must keep in mind that such engagement is usually an "in the moment" type scenario which people do not always ensure protection.

I think this is "absurd." Just becomes a woman wants a good time, all responsibility for the act is eliminated? There is always consequences for one's actions. They cannot be ignored just because they wanted to have fun.

It is generally a young woman which accidentally becomes pregnant, correct?

Accidentially? How does someone accidentially have sex? Unless she is the next Virgin Mary, a woman that does not have sex will not have a baby. Simple as that. If that is boring, then learn to accept the responsibility of your actions.

Besides, why at all must a woman go through the pains of pregnancy? Because she wanted to have a little fun? Is that a mistake?

It is making me ill to read your arguments. It is not a mistake to have "a little fun." However, it does not eliminate the responsibility has for one's action. If I go "have a little fun" gambling, do I not have to deal with the effects of losing that money? If one gets drunk and misses work the next day, does one not have to pay the consequences for that? A woman can do it with her body as she pleases, she just has to accept those consequences.

Tell me, from a libertarian point of view, if one has a responsibility, should they carry it out? If you invite someone to stay in your house and tell them you will take care of them for a while, then decide later that you don't want them, is it moral to kick them out. if they have not done anything beyond what you told them they could do? It is your property, but I would say that you are impinging upon their rights by denying them something that they were given.

[Vivisekt]

Perhaps one of you could clarify something for me...

Humans, as a byproduct of the complexity of our thought (in my opinion - but the reason is irrelevant), engage in sexual intercourse for more than one reason. There is the reproductive use for sex, and there is the social use for sex. And since we all know how reproductive sex works, let's skip to social uses.

Social sex is not intended to produce an offspring. It is done because of any one or dozen of an innumerable list of psychological and material stimuli. It could be done to alleviate boredom, it could be done to cement a potential reproductive relationship, it could be done as an occupation, it could be done out of curiosity, and so on. As a behavior, it could closely be compared to masturbation.

All of which, finally, leads me to my issue with some of the argument here. Consent is nothing more than the outward affirmation of an intent. So if a woman consents to nonreproductive sex, and neither intends nor wants to reproduce - how is it that one can claim they've consented to reproductive sex?

I don't see the logic in that argument. Any person that is aware enough to differentiate between the two concepts can also choose, and consent discriminately, between these two acts that have vastly different intended outcomes.

Something else that has been bothering me about some of the argument in this thread is the idea that abortion is somehow universally a disavowment of responsibility. Could not it also be said that an accidently pregnant woman who finds herself wholly unprepared psychologically, biologically, and/or financially for reproduction (and the reproductive process that it requires), is taking responsibilty for her actions by making the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy? The argument is extremely subjective, so it is a falsehood to imply that abortion is universally motivated by an 'escape of responsibility'.

As for the interaction between abortion and Libertarianism, I would forward the following. A real Libertarian, fundamentally, will recognise the large degree of subjectivity within morality. This issue does not deal with clear cut definitions of what constitutes humanity and life, it involves science that we are scarcely knowledegable about, and it does not fit neatly into the preexisting laws that we already employ on life and death. They might vehemently disagree with an act such as this, but given its complicated (and ultimately subjective) nature, they couldn't possibly seek to outlaw the act and still be Libertarian. To do so, in my opinion, would be to cross the fine line between free-market Republican, and socially-conservative Libertarian.

[Kamil]

Beforehand, I would like to applaud Vivisekt's great response.

I think this is "absurd." Just becomes a woman wants a good time, all responsibility for the act is eliminated? There is always consequences for one's actions. They cannot be ignored just because they wanted to have fun.

All responsibility for the act is not eliminated, however, the woman should have the right to be able to abort her fetus if she does not want to have a child. Yes, there are consequences for one's actions, but they shouldn't stem to the severity of being life ruining when they can be fixed.. Why should the mother be forced to carry a child when it's unwanted? Is it because some conservative assholes feel the need to intervene because it's moral and what should be done? Well, fuck you. A woman should have a right to undo a mistake, she shouldn't be forced to live with it. What if I told you that by severly beating you, I'd be saving a little baby's life? Would you allow me to?

Consequences cannot be ignored, but they can be eradicated. For instance, let's say that I'm a football player. Prior to superbowl day, my back starts to hurt. This is my consequence for playing without stretching and when I'm not with the team. I accept responsibility for this injury, but I can patch things up. I am able to go and get a massage, I can practise yoga, etc... If those things are outlawed because others feel it is moral to become more primitive just like their Indian acestors were. They believe that civilization is only harmful which is why primitivism must be applied. If the people are not willing to, they will force them. This is the exact scenario of which you're proposing.

Discluding the pro-choice libertarians, you're clearly denying self-ownership rights of individuals. If one has a tumour, one will get rid of it by getting medical attention. If one is pregnant, one will abort her child. Frankly, by not wanting the child, you can surely see that it's not wanted. The fetus has nothing to lose, it has no lively experience, why should it be put before an actual human being? I thought libertarians perceived individuals as important. What happened to that? Even by forcing the pregnancy, you're ruining both the mother's and the child's lives.

Accidentially? How does someone accidentially have sex? Unless she is the next Virgin Mary, a woman that does not have sex will not have a baby. Simple as that. If that is boring, then learn to accept the responsibility of your actions.

It wasn't intended, it wasn't expected; it was an accident. You know, when people engage in sexual intercourse, the primary objective is not always to have a child, it's to have fun and pleasure. A woman should not give up on complacent relations; she should not settle for the mediocre life you want her to live. Plus, many of the times these accidental pregnancies occur, people are drunk.

Haha, Virgin Mary? That was a mere fictitious character is some shitty book.

It is making me ill to read your arguments. It is not a mistake to have "a little fun." However, it does not eliminate the responsibility has for one's action. If I go "have a little fun" gambling, do I not have to deal with the effects of losing that money? If one gets drunk and misses work the next day, does one not have to pay the consequences for that? A woman can do it with her body as she pleases, she just has to accept those consequences.

If you lose your money by gambling, you accept consequences, but you have the ability to get rid of them; the same abilities that can get rid of a mistake for a woman when she's pregnant. It's only in seldom cases that consequences cannot be eradicated, but when we have capabilities to tackle consequences, isn't it the right of the "victim" to get rid of them? A woman is giving consent to destroy an entity within her womb. It is a virus, it is nothing, it doesn't deserve to live if it'll merely ruin the woman's life. By ruining the woman's life, the baby's life will be ruined, too. It's a lose-lose situation.

Tell me, from a libertarian point of view, if one has a responsibility, should they carry it out? If you invite someone to stay in your house and tell them you will take care of them for a while, then decide later that you don't want them, is it moral to kick them out. if they have not done anything beyond what you told them they could do? It is your property, but I would say that you are impinging upon their rights by denying them something that they were given.

Dude, I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarchist. Anyways, the whole point is, the woman should accept responsibility for her actions, but those actions could also entail aborting a child, too. Hypothetically, let's say that you're a woman. You're going into university with high hopes of changing your life and getting a good career. A few months ago, you were a party animal and oftenly engaged in sexual intercourse. Currently, you have changed your ways and you're aiming for a nice and stable life. Uh oh, you become pregnant. Even though you're able to fix your mistakes, some assholes outlawed such because they feel it is moral. Well, what about you? How do you feel?

[GandalfTheGrey]

I think abortion is about as moral as shooting someone in the head. If a woman has a "right" to kill an unborn baby, then by that logic I have the same right to shoot someone in the head.

Rothbard would say that in the case of the drowning person, you violated the person's rights by using physical force to push him into the river. The fetus initially has no rights, so you would not be violating any rights by conceiving him and making him dependent on you for survival

There is absolutely no difference between this and depriving a 6 month infant of food and allowing it to starve to death: in order for the baby to feed it relies on the mother's body - its the mother's body, she has the right to do what she wants, let the baby starve and its not murder.

By engaging in sexual intercourse, a woman is not rendering "consent" for pregnancy, Todd. That's absurd. A proportionate amount of the time when two individuals engage in sexual intercourse, it's strictly for pleasure

Whether its done for pleasure or not is irrelevant. As soon as a woman engages in consensual, unprotected sex, they are implicitly accepting responsibility for the possibility they may conceive. If they don't want to conceive, they can easily avoid it.

It is generally a young woman which accidentally becomes pregnant, correct? Well, what if she has plans for her life? What if she wants to go to college/university in order to study and get a good job?

Its very simple, if you don't want a baby, don't have unprotected sex. Do people have no responsibility for their actions??

In fact, by maintaing the fetus in the woman's body, you're actually deteriorating the fetus' life; it is a diminution of opportunity for a happy and stable life.

and that makes absolutely no sense. Can you explain what you mean?

Besides, why at all must a woman go through the pains of pregnancy? Because she wanted to have a little fun? Is that a mistake?

you speak as if there is no such thing as contraception. For God's sake, get a condom! Hell they sell them in just about every public toilet, chemist supermarket, wherever. Some people even organise to have them distributed for free. Your argument is suggesting that women can fuck away freely and not have to worry because they can just have abortions. Apart from any moral arguments, think of the practical and health factors: abortions can be risky affairs, and I don't imagine doctors would reccomended women to have abortions every few months. Then there is the other main reason why contraception is a good idea: it prevents STD's. If everyone suddenly stopped using condoms on the basis that the women can just freely get abortions, imagine the epidemics of STD's.

[Todd D.]

By engaging in sexual intercourse, a woman is not rendering "consent" for pregnancy, Todd. That's absurd. A proportionate amount of the time when two individuals engage in sexual intercourse, it's strictly for pleasure. Desire for pleasure presupposes a desire for a good time, not a desire to become pregnant and possibly ruining your life.

Bullshit. I eat cheeseburgers because they taste good, not because I want to get fat. People smoke cigarettes because they want to get the buzz, not because they want to crud up their long. Does that mean that I should be able to yell at McDonalds or Marloboro because my intention for the consumption yielded undesireable results? No. I dare say that the amount of people that have sex without knowing that it can possibly lead to pregnancy is statistically nil. People know that the possibility exists, and accept that responsibility the second that they choose to partake in that activity.

What's a woman to do, sacrifice good times just to be safe? What a boring life. I'm sure that you'll argue that protection could've been used. If so, you must keep in mind that such engagement is usually an "in the moment" type scenario which people do not always ensure protection.

Man, it would be SO much fun to jump off that train tresell into the water. What, it's unsafe? What am I supposed to do, sacrafice good times just to be safe? YES! I could drive my car 130 miles an hour if I wanted to, but that's not safe, no matter how much fun it would be. Safety comes before the desire for a good time.

If a woman becomes pregnant, she has a right to abort her fetus. Once again, this anti-abortion stance is yet another clear portrayal of how multitudes of libertarians, presupposing that many feel as you do, violate the vital self-ownership rights of others.

That presupposes that the woman owns the fetus. That is arguable. I personally feel that she is carrying the fetus, but does not own it, in the same way that a woman does not OWN her children, but still cares for them and provides for them. I understand that this sets me aside from the official party platform, but this is something that I disagree with. A fetus is a human being at the moment of conception, in my opinion, as such they are sovreign, and an abortion violates THEIR rights to life.

You put a fetus, an entity marginal to that of a human, with no subjection or experience of the world, before the human?

I put the right to life above the right to comfort. Yes.

What you must question is what does this fetus have to lose? What does this human have to lose?

You must err on the side of caution here, in my opinion, and say that the fetus stands to lose its life, while the woman stands to lose her lifestyle, something that she chose to accept when she had sex.

In fact, by maintaing the fetus in the woman's body, you're actually deteriorating the fetus' life; it is a diminution of opportunity for a happy and stable life.

So instead of removing opportunity, you just remove the life itself? By that logic, we should go to the ghettos and just shoot the poor, I mean after all, that's better than living without opportunity right?

It is generally a young woman which accidentally becomes pregnant, correct? Well, what if she has plans for her life? What if she wants to go to college/university in order to study and get a good job? By forcing an unwanted carriage you are not only ruining the woman's life, you are ruining the baby's life.

The woman chose to sacrafice those things when she had sex, I do not waver on that. She made a concious decision to have sex, and accepted the responsibility that comes with those actions. Period.

You see, by not wanting this child, the woman is clearly not fit, ready, or prepared for the responsibly, or does not desire a child whatsoever. If the baby is preserved in the woman's womb and is a forced obligation for the woman, it'll surely be the catalyst for ruining the woman's life. The woman's plans for college and a bright future are no longer possible and the woman is confined to a dead-end life.

I agree that it was a shitty decision by the woman, but it's a decision nonetheless. I could spend my life savings on a month long trip to the Bahamas if I like, but that's a shitty choice that ensures that my opportunity to lead a successful life is diminished. So what? My choice, nobody's fault but my own.

This may not be the case, but surely you can see what an unwanted baby could do to a woman's life. After the years of taking care of this child and knowing that it ruined your life, I'm quite sure that this child might not have such an easy life. Due to the fact that it is an unwanted child, chances are it'll be treated like one.

That's a shitty decision in response to a shitty decision, and the signs of a morally bankrupt human being, doesn't give her the right to kill someone else though.

Besides, why at all must a woman go through the pains of pregnancy? Because she wanted to have a little fun? Is that a mistake? The baby can be placed for adoption, but is that really desirable? Children can be kept in the adoption centres for years; it's a bad life.

Why should I have to live with a broken neck? Because I decided to have a little fun with alcohol and then drive home? Why should I have to live with an STD? Because I decided to have a little fun with a cheap whore? In a word, because I chose to. She chose to partake in an action, now she must accept responsibility. Period.

[Visage of Glory]

All responsibility for the act is not eliminated, however, the woman should have the right to be able to abort her fetus if she does not want to have a child. Yes, there are consequences for one's actions, but they shouldn't stem to the severity of being life ruining when they can be fixed..

So to keep the woman's life how she wants it, she can kill a living being with potential to become human.

Why should the mother be forced to carry a child when it's unwanted? Is it because some conservative assholes feel the need to intervene because it's moral and what should be done? Well, fuck you. A woman should have a right to undo a mistake, she shouldn't be forced to live with it. What if I told you that by severly beating you, I'd be saving a little baby's life? Would you allow me to?

Yes, if I was directly involved in bringing that baby into existance. Even if I wasn't, I would still allow it. That baby has as much right to live as I do.

Consequences cannot be ignored, but they can be eradicated. For instance, let's say that I'm a football player. Prior to superbowl day, my back starts to hurt. This is my consequence for playing without stretching and when I'm not with the team. I accept responsibility for this injury, but I can patch things up. I am able to go and get a massage, I can practise yoga, etc... If those things are outlawed because others feel it is moral to become more primitive just like their Indian acestors were. They believe that civilization is only harmful which is why primitivism must be applied. If the people are not willing to, they will force them. This is the exact scenario of which you're proposing.

This is something completely different. It does not involve another living being with potential to be human.

Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 7:21 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beforehand, I would like to applaud Vivisekt's great response.

Quote:
I think this is "absurd." Just becomes a woman wants a good time, all responsibility for the act is eliminated? There is always consequences for one's actions. They cannot be ignored just because they wanted to have fun.


All responsibility for the act is not eliminated, however, the woman should have the right to be able to abort her fetus if she does not want to have a child. Yes, there are consequences for one's actions, but they shouldn't stem to the severity of being life ruining when they can be fixed.. Why should the mother be forced to carry a child when it's unwanted? Is it because some conservative assholes feel the need to intervene because it's moral and what should be done? Well, fuck you. A woman should have a right to undo a mistake, she shouldn't be forced to live with it. What if I told you that by severly beating you, I'd be saving a little baby's life? Would you allow me to?

Consequences cannot be ignored, but they can be eradicated. For instance, let's say that I'm a football player. Prior to superbowl day, my back starts to hurt. This is my consequence for playing without stretching and when I'm not with the team. I accept responsibility for this injury, but I can patch things up. I am able to go and get a massage, I can practise yoga, etc... If those things are outlawed because others feel it is moral to become more primitive just like their Indian acestors were. They believe that civilization is only harmful which is why primitivism must be applied. If the people are not willing to, they will force them. This is the exact scenario of which you're proposing.

Discluding the pro-choice libertarians, you're clearly denying self-ownership rights of individuals. If one has a tumour, one will get rid of it by getting medical attention. If one is pregnant, one will abort her child. Frankly, by not wanting the child, you can surely see that it's not wanted. The fetus has nothing to lose, it has no lively experience, why should it be put before an actual human being? I thought libertarians perceived individuals as important. What happened to that? Even by forcing the pregnancy, you're ruining both the mother's and the child's lives.

Quote:
Accidentially? How does someone accidentially have sex? Unless she is the next Virgin Mary, a woman that does not have sex will not have a baby. Simple as that. If that is boring, then learn to accept the responsibility of your actions.

It wasn't intended, it wasn't expected; it was an accident. You know, when people engage in sexual intercourse, the primary objective is not always to have a child, it's to have fun and pleasure. A woman should not give up on complacent relations; she should not settle for the mediocre life you want her to live. Plus, many of the times these accidental pregnancies occur, people are drunk.

And yet, they all know that it is a possible outcome. Yes, women should give up their life if they are too irresponsible to take precautions against getting pregant, and too weak to accept their responsibility when it happens. And being drunk does not even begin to excuse them. It just shows more of their irresponsibility.

If you lose your money by gambling, you accept consequences, but you have the ability to get rid of them; the same abilities that can get rid of a mistake for a woman when she's pregnant. It's only in seldom cases that consequences cannot be eradicated, but when we have capabilities to tackle consequences, isn't it the right of the "victim" to get rid of them? A woman is giving consent to destroy an entity within her womb. It is a virus, it is nothing, it doesn't deserve to live if it'll merely ruin the woman's life. By ruining the woman's life, the baby's life will be ruined, too. It's a lose-lose situation.

That loan shark that I borrowed money from and lost on gambling is ruining my life. He is a virus, he continues to demand payment for my debt. It seems you think that loan shark does not deserve to live. And I do not accept your logic that the baby's life will be ruined. A hard life is better than no life at all.

Dude, I'm not a libertarian, I'm an anarchist. Anyways, the whole point is, the woman should accept responsibility for her actions, but those actions could also entail aborting a child, too. Hypothetically, let's say that you're a woman. You're going into university with high hopes of changing your life and getting a good career. A few months ago, you were a party animal and oftenly engaged in sexual intercourse. Currently, you have changed your ways and you're aiming for a nice and stable life. Uh oh, you become pregnant. Even though you're able to fix your mistakes, some assholes outlawed such because they feel it is moral. Well, what about you? How do you feel?

I know you are an anarchist. That question was just given out to all libertarian. And the answer is, I have to accept the responsiblity of mine being a party animal and having unprotected irresponsible sex. I don't think it is right to murder to fix my problems. That seems completely immoral to me.

[Visage of Glory]

Social sex is not intended to produce an offspring. It is done because of any one or dozen of an innumerable list of psychological and material stimuli. It could be done to alleviate boredom, it could be done to cement a potential reproductive relationship, it could be done as an occupation, it could be done out of curiosity, and so on. As a behavior, it could closely be compared to masturbation.

Except that masturbation won't make one pregnant. I don't think the reasons for doing it matter as much as the consequences. Sex=potential for woman to become pregnant.

All of which, finally, leads me to my issue with some of the argument here. Consent is nothing more than the outward affirmation of an intent. So if a woman consents to nonreproductive sex, and neither intends nor wants to reproduce - how is it that one can claim they've consented to reproductive sex?

The fact is that sex is reproductive in nature. There is plenty of ways to have non-reproductive sex, but it is accepted that sex can end in reproduction. If they don't want that, then they need to eliminate the possibility of concieving.

Something else that has been bothering me about some of the argument in this thread is the idea that abortion is somehow universally a disavowment of responsibility. Could not it also be said that an accidently pregnant woman who finds herself wholly unprepared psychologically, biologically, and/or financially for reproduction (and the reproductive process that it requires), is taking responsibilty for her actions by making the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy? The argument is extremely subjective, so it is a falsehood to imply that abortion is universally motivated by an 'escape of responsibility'.

So it is more responsible to murder than to deal with the consequences of having sex, even if the motivator was a social one. To me, whether or not they are ready for it, they have to accept their responsiblity of the child. Murder is always immoral. I understand that others may not percieve it that way, but that is what I believe.

[Vivisekt]

Except that masturbation won't make one pregnant. I don't think the reasons for doing it matter as much as the consequences. Sex=potential for woman to become pregnant.

They matter when you're talking about consent, which as I said, is nothing but an outward affirmation of intent. If the woman did not consent to being impregnanted, and reproducing was not her intent, then she has simply not consented to reproductive sex. All other facts or opinion aside - that argument is debunked.

The fact is that sex is reproductive in nature. There is plenty of ways to have non-reproductive sex, but it is accepted that sex can end in reproduction. If they don't want that, then they need to eliminate the possibility of concieving.

It is possible to die in a car crash if you leave your house in the morning - so should we stop driving to work?

Personally, I don't see that as a realistic line of reasoning either.

Being prepared for the potential consequences is good enough, and for some people, that means being emotionally ready to have an abortion.

So it is more responsible to murder than to deal with the consequences of having sex, even if the motivator was a social one.

[...]

Murder is always immoral.

It isn't murder if it isn't illegal. Murder is a term that is specifically applied to killing that is outside of the law (besides slang usages and alts). Usage of the term in the context of legal abortion is just emotional pandering.

I understand that others may not percieve it that way, but that is what I believe.

That's fine, but my point was cautioning against trying to tell other people that the motivation for abortion is universally going to be an 'escape from responsibility'. As I have tried to illustrate with my first post, some people feel that having an abortion is the responsible thing to do, and as such they are not ducking any responsibility by having the proceedure - but are rather stepping right up to that responsibility and doing what they feel needs to be done. It's just that your sense of morality differs from theirs.



edit(s): elaboration

Beforehand, I would like to applaud Vivisekt's great response.

Great post Vivesekt

Thanks.

[Demosthenes]

I think when all the dickhead, militant, Pro-life, "it's murder", self-righeous demagogues can carry a child themselves they can keep such sentiments without sounding like a total hypocrits.

I know this is an old and tired contention, and certainly most likely a surprise coming from me, but honestly I can't stand to hear a bunch of self-rightous men, who most likely have pressured one woman or another to have sex with them at one time (or will when they are old enough) then turn around and give absolutely no weight to the mother's wellfare.

The "hey you fucked him" rule is simple arrogance. Most abortions occur becaue the father won't do his part. So where is all the righteous indignation at that? piff...I haven't heard it yet...and most liekly won't excpet from myself. Where's the dad?

I personally hate condoms. I know all the responsibilty issues this implies, and accept them. How many of the men who trumpet condom use feel the same way I do? And when push comes to shove, in the bedroom they try to weasel their way out of wearing one? Then they wanna say "Bitch, if your pregnant it's your problem!"

I fully realize the implications. But I am also willing to support the given woman no matter her decesion if I impregante her.

One final note- I don't like abortion. It is a shame no matter how you feel about it. No question that a potential life is lost when this happens. So I support the ongoing efforts to develop newer and more efficient birth control devices. I also support more widespread availability of RU486. Which largely renders this whole discussion moot, except for the most die-hard militants in the crowd, who should be denied any sex except that which is given to them as charity by their wives if they have them.

Men are far more sexually irresponsible than women. It's too chickenshit for us to be high and mighty about an issue most choose not to bear the consequences of themselves. discusting...

And I agree with Kam- Great post Vivesekt!

[Todd D.]

I think when all the dickhead, militant, Pro-life, "it's murder", self-righeous demagogues can carry a child themselves they can keep such sentiments without sounding like a total hypocrits.

Oh that's such horsecrap. Once again the "you don't know so you can't say" argument. I don't need to be faced with certain moral choices to know what the right thing to do is. Morality is not contingent on experience.

I know this is an old and tired contention, and certainly most likely a surprise coming from me, but honestly I can't stand to hear a bunch of self-rightous men, who most likely have pressured one woman or another to have sex with them at one time (or will when they are old enough) then turn around and give absolutely no weight to the mother's wellfare.
The "hey you fucked him" rule is simple arrogance. Most abortions occur becaue the father won't do his part. So where is all the righteous indignation at that? piff...I haven't heard it yet...and most liekly won't excpet from myself. Where's the dad?

No argument here. What's good for one is good for the other, and it is every bit as much that man's baby as it is her's. He damn well should do his part. In fact, this only serves to solidify my argument. Abortion right now is completely the Woman's decision, meaning that even if the man wants to keep it, he has ZERO say in the situation. How is that fair? It's not. It's all about a woman AND a man not wanting to accept the responsibility of her actions. Both are inexcusable.

I personally hate condoms. I know all the responsibilty issues this implies, and accept them. How many of the men who trumpet condom use feel the same way I do? And when push comes to shove, in the bedroom they try to weasel their way out of wearing one? Then they wanna say "Bitch, if your pregnant it's your problem!"

You are absolutely right, that is morally reprehensable to try and shuffle your responsibility off to the woman. I personally do not engage in premarital sex, but I do believe in responsibility for people's actions. It works both ways.

I fully realize the implications. But I am also willing to support the given woman no matter her decesion if I impregante her.

Personal choice, I personally would feel that it is party my baby, and I deserve some of the say.

Men are far more sexually irresponsible than women. It's too chickenshit for us to be high and mighty about an issue most choose not to bear the consequences of themselves. discusting...

Men in general are more irresponsible because we have been taught that it's ok to be. It's not. I dare say that if you force them to accept their responsibility, you would see a far decline in promiscuity. Instead we offer this one size fits all remedy. Got drunk the night before? It's ok, suck it out with a vacuum! Who cares if it's a child, it's YOUR body right? Ohhhh, Haha, you can always get another one, it's all good!

Both sides being responsible is despicable. No exceptions.

[Visage of Glory]

I totally agree with Todd. The man has just as much responsibility to take care of the baby as the woman. Sex takes two. A man does not take responsibility for his actions is worse. A man has just as much resposibility for that child as a woman. I am sorry if you think I am self-righteous for saying that it is irresponsible for a woman to have sex, then try to ignore the consequences, but it is true. And of course, the same applies to men.

By the way, the only woman I plan on pressuring to have sex with is my wife, assuming I get married.