The only thing abortion restrictions tend to do is make abortions more unsafe. Is that moral?
Isn't that a gross exaggeration?
Does Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine really describe one's capacity to kill someone for just walking on their property without their permission?
First, society & culture =/= government;
second, rights are moral concepts.
They're primarily a product of reason, which analyzes action within a society and its culture.
But they are uniquely "human."
A society can apply them uniformly or not, but "value" is individual.
Except the distinctions aren't reasonable.
I've stated numerous times on this forum that I considered myself a "true" pro-choicer;
I've argued against age of consent laws;
and though I've never seen the topic brought up before your commentary, it would be reasonable to presume that I'm against the prohibition of sodomy.
Because, there's a single principle on which all these arguments are premised: self-ownership.
So I ask: when does a one's body stop being one's body?
Why would one, who's presumably pro-choice, support any restriction on one's capacity to exercise an abortion if in fact, her body is her body?
That is not within the realm of your epistemological limit.
All political ideologies are hypothetical ideals. Pragmatism is arbitrary execution.
What is law without moral economy? Legal arbitration? Then you have no dog in this race since your stake is rooted in legal decision, the policy it favors notwithstanding.
Because the interpretation of nine government goons "matters more" than the individual, even if the burden of that concern rests solely on said individual?
No, the systems we operate under are not hypothetical.
Is there not a point where the right to choose has been exercised? If a tenant and a landlord agree on a lease there’s a consequence for breaking it.
Is there not a point where the right to choose has been exercised?
It’s just weird because I know that every single person who has responded and said that yes they support elective abortions of healthy fetuses up to the moment of birth also supports taxes and other types of government policy.
There's also a sizeable number of Pro Life people, who'd be willing to allow abortions in various situations,
Forced pregnancy is far more invasive than anything that has to do with property or the domicile. The constitution recognizes the distinction between violating property vs. person and considers the latter to be far more significant (i.e. searches of one's person have higher standards than searches of one's property; forcibly inserting yourself into someone's home has a lesser criminal status than forcibly inserting yourself into someone's body, etc.).My references to property have only meant to highlight how much we value property and privacy when it comes to government intrusion. The Bill of Rights establishes that the government cannot even force someone to house a person against their will, let alone live inside of their body. If there's a hurricane coming, the government can't force anyone to take in homeless people to save lives regardless of how immoral you find it to leave them on the streets.
You support murder of fetuses old enough to be premature born babies being dubbed slaughter on a technicality, I support it coming under the murder law it should apply to.
@RationalMadmanYou support murder of fetuses old enough to be premature born babies being dubbed slaughter on a technicality, I support it coming under the murder law it should apply to.If an adult takes possession of an unwilling person we recognize it as a violation, but a fetus has no such restrictions? I mean, there's really only two choices: self ownership (and people using their bodies in way we might not approve of personally) or no reasonable expectation of rights. Pick your poison.
The only thing abortion restrictions tend to do is make abortions more unsafe. Is that moral?does the anti-abortion crowd promote free (or super cheap) birth control and IUDs ?that and better support for single mothers would very likely reduce abortions (and or "induced miscarriages") MORE than simply making them illegal
The bond between parent and child is sacred,
or must be likely to suffer following its birth, with no prospect of improvement
The bond between parent and child is sacred
But you chose to ignore all my contentions and reiterate opposition to throwing babies in the trash can. While that is certainly your prerogative, I think it says quite a bit.
And don't you think your focus on third trimester abortions (1% of cases) seems a little weird?
fundamentally disagree on the role of government
legal rights > moral preferences
The only thing abortion restrictions tend to do is make abortions more unsafe." - SkepticalOneEven if you disagree with Pro Life, I don't understand your statement,Logically if it's against the law to carelessly abort, then there are going to be less abortions,
Abortions occur as frequently in the two most-restrictive categories of countries (banned outright or allowed only to save the woman’s life) as in the least-restrictive category (allowed without restriction as to reason)—37 and 34 per 1,000 women, respectively.
please explain
what are "legal rights" based on if not moral impulse ?
I would agree that most rights come from self ownership or ownership as a concept. But like all rights, there are limits on how far they can go. People have compared this to property rights, but property rights are actually super complicated once a tenant gets involved, because once another person is involved there is a complicated balancing act of competing rights and interests. If a landowner allowed a tenant to live in their property for a period of time even without a lease they can't just kick them out in one day, there is a legal eviction process that must be followed that takes weeks or months. This is because our society recognizes that the rights of the landlord must be tempered with the interests of the tenant.
People being thrown out on the street without due notice to find another place is bad for society. The landlord has a right to evict, but not the right to remove a tenant immediately like one would with a guest. When it comes to pregnancy, the woman has self ownership but there is another party involved who will literally die if the abortion takes place. If there is a point of long enough occupancy at which a landlord consents to undergoing a legal process for eviction if he wants to remove the tenant, there absolutely is a point in pregnancy where a woman consents to carrying the child to term. Several months is more than enough time to think on the issue.
This is just talking about it under the "property rights" framework which I don't fully agree with.
I believe that parents have an obligation to their children that supersedes their other rights. The parent-child relationship is the most sacred bond in the world and it underpins every aspect of a healthy society.
Parents have the right to give their children up for adoption and absolve themselves of their duties not in my view because of their "self ownership" but because usually it's the best choice for the child if they can't take care of it. It's a way of exercising that obligation by doing the best they can with limited options. The idea that a parent has the right to order their 8 month fetus to be dismembered and thrown in the trash...no way. Especially when the alternative in America, which has more families wanting to adopt infants than there are infants these days, is that the child will be raised by a loving family in a first world country.
I did not say they were equal or the same.
Rights are a product of society and culture (government).
Maybe.
Application is what matters. Rights are meaningless words unless a society recognizes them as governing.
Most are. Some are more reasonable than others.
Gross.
Never, although there are times stewardship over another's body might be appropriate.
I don't but I assume they prioritize other values and philosophical ideals over the NAP.
It's reasonable to make inferences based on context clues, but this is a red herring.
No, the systems we operate under are not hypothetical.
I never said morality should be divorced from the law. I said tangential references to the NAP are useless to conversations about U.S. laws not only because I think it's a philosophically problematic ultimatum, but because it has no status and no impact or relevance to outcomes of policy that interest and/or affect me.
In this country, yes. Welcome to the real world.
