Who Owns You?

[utbagpiper]

And, lets forget totally that slavery needed government to hold it up and enforce it.

...
Whereas, without government laws requiring the return of runaway slaves, prohibiting arms to slaves and freedmen, treating self-defense by a slave as assault or against manumission, it would be very, very difficult to for slavers to maintain slavery. Your slaves either kill you, or run away. Without government to enforce your interests against the slaves, you're up a creek and out your "investment" as a slaver.

No it didn't.

All it needs is for one group to be stronger than another. Laws the upheld slavery were helpful, not at all necessary to perpetuate slavery as evidenced by the fact that slavery still exists (including underground in this nation) despite laws banning it, legal penalties, and the aid of society to free slaves when they are found. There was no government (beyond tribes that look a lot like what anarchists want voluntary social groups to look like) in Africa supporting the slave trade on that end.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem must be warped into a nail.

Some seem to forget, overlook, or are ignorant of the Fugitive Slave law(s) passed by the fedgov requiring non-slave states to return courageous slaves who legitimately escaped their enslavers. A secession movement got started in northern states over that law. (See Dr. Tom Woods' book Nullification. Also, possibly videos of his addresses and comments on YouTube.)

Sounds a bit like laws that protect abortionist. Shall we discuss who owns you if "you" happen to be baby who hasn't been born yet?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

****piper

Ah, the puerile conduct of anarchists. Refusal to address others in a civil manner.

He is not being quite forthright. Citizen was willing to discuss it but rightfully pointed out the ****piper was relying on his faith as to what constitutes "life" in a fetus.

False.

I never used my faith to determine or argue what constitutes "life". It was our leading Objectivist who kept bringing up souls entering the body. I would like to discuss objective measures of life. When I didn't take the bait on a religious debate (which the objectivist knows he can crush by simply saying it can't be proven) and instead stayed focused on objective measures of life, the objectivist went radio silent. It is clear, that the objective measures of life would require one to concede that a child is alive and entitled to a right to life at somepoint prior to birth. And that would then justify third party action to defend innocent life against the initiation of force from all others, including the mother.

saying it is at life is faith based and not provable by any means. Arbitrary line.

Really? Do you dare discuss that objectively? I shall not reference any religious beliefs nor authority at all.

What are the characteristics that make a person a person, endowed with the right to life?

Stealthy has quite rightly pointed out that "dependency" is not a characteristic on which we deny person-hood and the right to life.

So be objective, SVG. What are the objective characteristics that need to be present for a person to be a person. Then let's see how many of those are present at some point prior to birth.

The answer is never state must mandate.

Really?

The state must never protect innocent life from aggression? The state must not prevent slavery? I think we are seeing a hierarchy of values for the anarchists here in which right to life is less important for some than for others. Seemingly, they don't believe their own mantras about all being equal.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

First...please tell me what you mean by "Objectivist" as that would seem to be an important term to be clear about. It makes it appear (to me at least) that you are claiming to be a "Subjectivist".

Objectivist is a social/political philosophy that claims the proper answer to all social, political, and moral questions (at least for public policy purposes, perhaps also for individual use) can be arrived at through entirely objective data and human reasoning. See Ayn Rand for much explanation.

I believe it is really an anti-theist religious system masquerading as a social/political philosophy.

While I am not a "subjectivist", I do believe that just as we are endowed with rights and reasoning, we are also endowed with feelings, a sense of beauty, and an innate sense of right and wrong, often called a conscience. I believe that to reject any of our components in exclusive favor of others is not likely to lead to proper answers.

Logically, one may not be able to explain the difference in reaction among decent men between hearing about medical research on tissue samples or cancer tumors and how we react to the recently leaked videos of Planned Parenthood employees discussing the harvesting and sale (I mean "donation with expenses and handing costs reimbursed") of "fetal" organs and bodies. But we know there is a difference. PP knows there is a difference and so attempts to prevent release of the videos.

On this site, our leading Objectivists are really rather poor specimens of the practice. They are really just rules hating anarchists who have found "Objectivism" to be a convenient philosophy to justify most of their views. But they lack the courage to follow through when objective data and logic challenges one of their previously held positions, as we see on this thread when I ask who owns a baby. Rather than sticking strictly to objective data, Citizen attempts to lure me into a wholly religious discussion regarding souls. When I persist in discussing objective measures of life and person-hood, he goes running into silence.

Second...at least from a practical point of view, it appears that the MOTHER owns the unborn child. Simple reality appears to make that so. Until that child (as yet unborn) is removed from her, they operate symbiotically. The mother lives, the child has a chance...the mother dies, the child dies. Unless someone intrudes upon the bodily integrity of the mother, or the natural birthing process completes, the child remains within the mother and has virtually concept of the world around it nor the ability to interact with it.

First of all, our leading objectivists are not generally very kind to "practical" points of view. They like to argue pure theory, believing that theory always works best in life.

More importantly, how does this situation of mother and child materially change 10 seconds after the child is born? Does technology change our claim to rights?

Now, if one wishes society to make a determination about when the mother's right to control her own fate no longer superceeds that of the unborn child, that is a further discussion. Then it becomes a comparison of natural law with man-made law.

Even natural law prohibits the ending of an innocent life for mere personal convenience, does it not? Which brings us back to the question of when does a child become a person, endowed with rights. I believe this is logically and inextricably linked to the question of when does a person cease to be a person endowed with rights?

I believe that to answer one question, gives a lot of insights into the logical, rational, objective answer to the other question.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

I am saying his picking of conception is arbitrary and faith based.

Please provide the citation where I say life begins at conception, much less that laws should prohibit abortion from that moment. You can't because such a cite doesn't exist here. Never has.

Furthermore, please provide the cite where I use religion in my argument against elective abortion. I don't. I made one brief reference to a Bible verse about God's ways being above man's ways in countering your claim (quoted from another) that "morals cannot contradict reason and logic." That is the only reference to religion I've made in this thread, and it was a side note. You cannot find any other place where I've even referenced religion (other than to try to persuade Citizen to stop making religious rather than Objective arguments on the topic of when a child becomes a person endowed with the right to life).

What truly baffles me is that you clearly believe I posted something about conception and hinged my social/political views on religious beliefs, else you'd not have written that I did. But I didn't. And if you take a moment and go re-read my posts, you'll find I didn't. So what lead you to believe I did? Mistaken what Citizen posted for what I did? Accepting his strawman as actually being a response to a post you think I made?

I don't know. But the objective data will directly contradict your beliefs.

The question is, will you alter your beliefs to match the objective data?

I was making the analogy toward those who pick the age ( the rule makers) as being the determination that they can now, drink, drive, live alone etc.... as being similar to those who pick it as life at conception, 2 weeks in , first trimester....etc. I don't think any one would disagree it becomes a life at some point.......but right now that point isn't exactly clear.

It is an apt analogy. In both cases, objective data can be used.

At one time in our nation, effective age of majority was determined by when a person did support himself. These days, we could look to brain science and perhaps peg the age at 25 when most person's brains are fully developed (Mere coincidence that the Framers set 25 as the minimum age to serve in Congress with even higher ages for the Senate and Presidency??). We might do individual brain scans. Or, we might require someone to pass a test of various mental and cognitive abilities. Clearly, 18/21 are arbitrary ages.

Charles

 

[carolina guy]

Objectivist is a social/political philosophy that claims the proper answer to all social, political, and moral questions (at least for public policy purposes, perhaps also for individual use) can be arrived at through entirely objective data and human reasoning. See Ayn Rand for much explanation.

I believe it is really an anti-theist religious system masquerading as a social/political philosophy.

While I am not a "subjectivist", I do believe that just as we are endowed with rights and reasoning, we are also endowed with feelings, a sense of beauty, and an innate sense of right and wrong, often called a conscience. I believe that to reject any of our components in exclusive favor of others is not likely to lead to proper answers.

Logically, one may not be able to explain the difference in reaction among decent men between hearing about medical research on tissue samples or cancer tumors and how we react to the recently leaked videos of Planned Parenthood employees discussing the harvesting and sale (I mean "donation with expenses and handing costs reimbursed") of "fetal" organs and bodies. But we know there is a difference. PP knows there is a difference and so attempts to prevent release of the videos.

On this site, our leading Objectivists are really rather poor specimens of the practice. They are really just rules hating anarchists who have found "Objectivism" to be a convenient philosophy to justify most of their views. But they lack the courage to follow through when objective data and logic challenges one of their previously held positions, as we see on this thread when I ask who owns a baby. Rather than sticking strictly to objective data, Citizen attempts to lure me into a wholly religious discussion regarding souls. When I persist in discussing objective measures of life and person-hood, he goes running into silence.



First of all, our leading objectivists are not generally very kind to "practical" points of view. They like to argue pure theory, believing that theory always works best in life.

More importantly, how does this situation of mother and child materially change 10 seconds after the child is born? Does technology change our claim to rights?

Material changes: The child breathes air on it's own, using it's lungs, eats food via the mouth, no longer shares a blood supply with the mother, must maintain it's own body temperature and can be cared for by anyone else. Not sure what technology has to do with it other than making somethings easier and less biological.

Even natural law prohibits the ending of an innocent life for mere personal convenience, does it not? Which brings us back to the question of when does a child become a person, endowed with rights. I believe this is logically and inextricably linked to the question of when does a person cease to be a person endowed with rights?

I believe that to answer one question, gives a lot of insights into the logical, rational, objective answer to the other question.

Charles

Natural law doesn't cover convenience...something is either right or wrong.

As far as when does the baby become a person with rights...sometime after the fertilization of the egg and a long while before birth.

I do no know, personally -- I would suspect that it is the moment that the results of the fertilized egg generates the first spark of sentience.

 

[utbagpiper]

In fairness...there have not been many other large scale attempts at different forms of government, so the poling population is rather small.

In fairness, the question is then, "Why not?" The theory sounds so great, why haven't some groups given it a try? Or, as I've asked in prior threads (where I don't think you were participating), why then in areas where government is absent (de jure or de facto) do we so rarely see the utopian paradises that some claim will come if we just get government out of the way? Surely there is a market for clean water, reliable power, proper handling of sewage everywhere more than a dozen people are living near each other.

It was largely still the same group of people/powerful that were involved with the AOC and the USC. And I think it is safe to say that Jefferson's vision was dashed not too many decades later when that "right" was crushed.

Even Jefferson never claimed that the exercise of rights was always without resistance. Certainly the British didn't let the American Colonies go peacefully.

It is unfortunate that the one real attempt to leave the union was so intertwined with a desire to maintain legalized slavery. Lacking that, I doubt Lincoln could have maintained public support long enough to win the war; and England may well have intervened on the side of the Confederacy both to get cheap cotton as well as to break up the union. (And yes, I know full well that slavery was not the reason for secession despite that being the focus of South Carolina's secession document.) For better and worse, the War Between the States is not a simple good vs evil proposition no matter how much those on either side may believe otherwise.

Charles

 

[carolina guy]

In fairness, the question is then, "Why not?" The theory sounds so great, why haven't some groups given it a try? Or, as I've asked in prior threads (where I don't think you were participating), why then in areas where government is absent (de jure or de facto) do we so rarely see the utopian paradises that some claim will come if we just get government out of the way? Surely there is a market for clean water, reliable power, proper handling of sewage everywhere more than a dozen people are living near each other.

The simple answer, and I believe, largely true, is interference by the other "governments" and their corporations in those areas. There has not been a "pure" example in the last few hundred years. There are a lot of tribal examples in areas too remote for constant contact, but those are pre-existing, so not really valid for the question.

Even Jefferson never claimed that the exercise of rights was always without resistance. Certainly the British didn't let the American Colonies go peacefully.

It is unfortunate that the one real attempt to leave the union was so intertwined with a desire to maintain legalized slavery. Lacking that, I doubt Lincoln could have maintained public support long enough to win the war; and England may well have intervened on the side of the Confederacy both to get cheap cotton as well as to break up the union. (And yes, I know full well that slavery was not the reason for secession despite that being the focus of South Carolina's secession document.) For better and worse, the War Between the States is not a simple good vs evil proposition no matter how much those on either side may believe otherwise.

Charles

The Civil War will never be settled, I fear. The US started with a flawed premise of allowing the British slavery and economic systems to continue largely as-is, dooming the experiment from the beginning. Thomas Paine was particularly eloquent in his opposition to what resulted from the DOI, AOC and Constitution. There has never been any true freedom in the US from the first colony onward.

 

[utbagpiper]

Material changes: The child breathes air on it's own,

So does a premie needing use of a respirator lack this characteristic? What of the ill, paralyzed, or aged who similarly requires mechanical assistance to breath?

eats food via the mouth,

Not necessarily true of premies, or many others who require IV delivery of nutrients.

no longer shares a blood supply with the mother,

This is true as early as the third week of pregnancy.

Week 3
By the end of the third week, the embryo still looks like a group of cells. It is wider at the top where the head is and smaller at the bottom with a small narrowing in the middle. Cells have begun to differentiate. The chorion/sac also is beginning to have its own blood supply through forming blood vessels.

The baby's blood and mother's blood is always separate. Hence the ability for the baby to have a different blood type than the mother and to remain free of certain blood borne diseases like HIV even though the the mother may be infected. (Babies who do contract HIV from their mothers generally do so when exposed to maternal blood during the birthing process, or as a result of ingesting infected breast milk (the later is a rare path to infection)).

must maintain it's own body temperature and can be cared for by anyone else.

This goes to dependency. A newborn is no better at regulating body temperature than is a preborn baby a few weeks before delivery. And lacking technology (including formula) relatively few others besides the mother can care for the baby. Prior to formula, a wet nurse (a woman who was lactating due to her own pregnancy and delivery and who produced an abundance of milk) was the only reliable option. Goats' milk is decent if human milk cannot be procured, cows' milk is not very good at all for newborn humans.

Not sure what technology has to do with it other than making somethings easier and less biological.

Lacking certain technology, a baby requires even more care from its mother after birth than it does before birth. Before birth, all a baby needs is for mom not to interrupt the pregnancy. After birth, the baby requires a lot more care and attention including active efforts to provide food, sanitation, proper temperature, etc.

I do not see that a child is any more (or less) of a human being endowed with natural rights 5 minutes or 5 weeks after birth than it is 5 minutes or weeks before birth. Drawing air into one's lungs (unaided or otherwise) seems a fairly arbitrary characteristic to me.

Natural law doesn't cover convenience...something is either right or wrong.

Fully agreed.

As far as when does the baby become a person with rights...sometime after the fertilization of the egg and a long while before birth.

I do no know, personally -- I would suspect that it is the moment that the results of the fertilized egg generates the first spark of sentience.

Ignoring my personal beliefs about when life begins, I do think the objective data can demonstrate several points well before birth. And once we can objectively demonstrate that a person is a person, then that person is endowed with the right to life and is entitled to protection of that right. Meaning, some laws against elective abortions would be justified from a purely Objectivist point of view.

I've made this so obvious that the objectivists are loathe to even discuss the matter lest their favored political position be exposed as a fraud. They are more opposed to the power of government, than they are to the protection of the most fundamental of all rights. In other words, they are not Objectivists; they are merely anarchists hiding behind a thin veneer or intellectualism and claimed Objectivism.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

The simple answer, and I believe, largely true, is interference by the other "governments" and their corporations in those areas. There has not been a "pure" example in the last few hundred years. There are a lot of tribal examples in areas too remote for constant contact, but those are pre-existing, so not really valid for the question.

I think the simple answer is that some level of government--if government is making any attempt at all to respect individual rights--brings benefits very difficult to replicate in the absence of government. One benefit, is keeping less desirable groups from running amok.

The Civil War will never be settled, I fear. The US started with a flawed premise of allowing the British slavery and economic systems to continue largely as-is, dooming the experiment from the beginning. Thomas Paine was particularly eloquent in his opposition to what resulted from the DOI, AOC and Constitution. There has never been any true freedom in the US from the first colony onward.

I believe we've had a lot of true freedom in the US. Certainly more TRUE freedom than one typically sees in anarchist areas.

Slavery was a grave evil. But lacking the compromise that allowed it to perpetuate for 80 years, we'd never have formed a nation, probably not remained independent in 1812, and utterly failed to show the world what self-government could do for good. It is most unfortunate that it took such violence, death, and destruction to bring it to an end in this nation.

Charles

 

[carolina guy]

I think the simple answer is that some level of government--if government is making any attempt at all to respect individual rights--brings benefits very difficult to replicate in the absence of government. One benefit, is keeping less desirable groups from running amok.



I believe we've had a lot of true freedom in the US. Certainly more TRUE freedom than one typically sees in anarchist areas.

Slavery was a grave evil. But lacking the compromise that allowed it to perpetuate for 80 years, we'd never have formed a nation, probably not remained independent in 1812, and utterly failed to show the world what self-government could do for good. It is most unfortunate that it took such violence, death, and destruction to bring it to an end in this nation.

Charles

A government respecting individual (natural law) rights is an oxymoron. Can't happen, and there hasn't been one in recorded history.

So...allowing slavery (an evil by ANY definition) was necessary to get a good? Hmm...what is the phrase..."ends justifying the means"? again...

 

[carolina guy]

So does a premie needing use of a respirator lack this characteristic? What of the ill, paralyzed, or aged who similarly requires mechanical assistance to breath?




Not necessarily true of premies, or many others who require IV delivery of nutrients.



This is true as early as the third week of pregnancy.



The baby's blood and mother's blood is always separate. Hence the ability for the baby to have a different blood type than the mother and to remain free of certain blood borne diseases like HIV even though the the mother may be infected. (Babies who do contract HIV from their mothers generally do so when exposed to maternal blood during the birthing process, or as a result of ingesting infected breast milk (the later is a rare path to infection)).



This goes to dependency. A newborn is no better at regulating body temperature than is a preborn baby a few weeks before delivery. And lacking technology (including formula) relatively few others besides the mother can care for the baby. Prior to formula, a wet nurse (a woman who was lactating due to her own pregnancy and delivery and who produced an abundance of milk) was the only reliable option. Goats' milk is decent if human milk cannot be procured, cows' milk is not very good at all for newborn humans.



Lacking certain technology, a baby requires even more care from its mother after birth than it does before birth. Before birth, all a baby needs is for mom not to interrupt the pregnancy. After birth, the baby requires a lot more care and attention including active efforts to provide food, sanitation, proper temperature, etc.

I do not see that a child is any more (or less) of a human being endowed with natural rights 5 minutes or 5 weeks after birth than it is 5 minutes or weeks before birth. Drawing air into one's lungs (unaided or otherwise) seems a fairly arbitrary characteristic to me.



Fully agreed.



Ignoring my personal beliefs about when life begins, I do think the objective data can demonstrate several points well before birth. And once we can objectively demonstrate that a person is a person, then that person is endowed with the right to life and is entitled to protection of that right. Meaning, some laws against elective abortions would be justified from a purely Objectivist point of view.

I've made this so obvious that the objectivists are loathe to even discuss the matter lest their favored political position be exposed as a fraud. They are more opposed to the power of government, than they are to the protection of the most fundamental of all rights. In other words, they are not Objectivists; they are merely anarchists hiding behind a thin veneer or intellectualism and claimed Objectivism.

Charles

Premies and others requiring surgery are the exceptional circumstances...and barring the technology, would not occur. Not saying that those children don't have rights...clearly they do, and as do all other ones.

The problem you get into is FORCING a mother of an unborn child...when does state compulsion become immoral even when done "for the benefit of another"?

One thing I have rarely heard is stating that the mother AND father lose some of their freewill "rights" once they engage in fruitful copulation...

 

[utbagpiper]

Premies and others requiring surgery are the exceptional circumstances...and barring the technology, would not occur. Not saying that those children don't have rights...clearly they do, and as do all other ones.

A college physics professor once explained that sometimes one can best illustrate/test the correctness of a theory by applying it to extreme cases. If a premie is a child with rights that can be properly defended from aggression, why not a similarly aged child still in utero?

The problem you get into is FORCING a mother of an unborn child...when does state compulsion become immoral even when done "for the benefit of another"?

All I'm forcing her to do is not kill an innocent person; same as with everyone else in society. Yes, that she carries the person, temporarily in her uterus makes this case different. But how different, really? A mother of a newborn must provide care for it far in excess of the active care required for a child before it is born. We don't allow that mother to end the life of her newborn baby. Similarly for those who accept the care of the elderly, infirm, or handicapped.

One thing I have rarely heard is stating that the mother AND father lose some of their freewill "rights" once they engage in fruitful copulation...

I haven't said it yet here, but it is one basis of my rational objections to elective abortions after some point of development. When two people voluntarily undertake the one activity known to potentially create a new life (a life with full rights), they should be prepared to surrender some amount of convenience (at least) to avoid actively, deliberately, killing that life for no other reason than not wanting to be pregnant, or finding it too expensive to provide for the child, etc. The line between late term abortion and infanticide is pretty thin.

Whatever one's religious beliefs, human life doesn't just pop up spontaneously out of thin air. We all know what creates a new life. Those unwilling to bear at least a minimum level of responsibility not to kill a new life ought to take some precautions to avoid creating that life in the first place.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

A government respecting individual (natural law) rights is an oxymoron. Can't happen, and there hasn't been one in recorded history.

I disagree. No government is perfect, but I believe our constitutional republic has a better record of protecting individual rights than any other system in secular recorded history, short of living in absolute isolation.

So...allowing slavery (an evil by ANY definition) was necessary to get a good? Hmm...what is the phrase..."ends justifying the means"? again...

Yup. Societies, like individuals, tend to move by degrees. Slavery has been a common condition throughout recorded human history; some explicit, a lot implicit in terms of children, wives, daughters being little more than chattel property. Sometimes it goes by different names such as communism. No organization or group of individuals has done more to advance human rights in modern times than the USA. One has to seriously question whether we'd even exist as a nation capable of that good had the abolitionists insisted on ending slavery as a condition of forming a union, or perhaps as a condition of uniting to declare Independence from Britain. Slavery is a great evil. But one has to pick battles in the proper order and British colonies certainly don't end slavery.

Charles

 

[carolina guy]

i disagree. No government is perfect, but i believe our constitutional republic has a better record of protecting individual rights than any other system in secular recorded history, short of living in absolute isolation.



Yup. Societies, like individuals, tend to move by degrees. Slavery has been a common condition throughout recorded human history; some explicit, a lot implicit in terms of children, wives, daughters being little more than chattel property. Sometimes it goes by different names such as communism. No organization or group of individuals has done more to advance human rights in modern times than the usa. One has to seriously question whether we'd even exist as a nation capable of that good had the abolitionists insisted on ending slavery as a condition of forming a union, or perhaps as a condition of uniting to declare independence from britain. Slavery is a great evil. But one has to pick battles in the proper order and british colonies certainly don't end slavery.

Charles

(*smh*)

 

[carolina guy]

A college physics professor once explained that sometimes one can best illustrate/test the correctness of a theory by applying it to extreme cases. If a premie is a child with rights that can be properly defended from aggression, why not a similarly aged child still in utero?

All I'm forcing her to do is not kill an innocent person; same as with everyone else in society. Yes, that she carries the person, temporarily in her uterus makes this case different. But how different, really? A mother of a newborn must provide care for it far in excess of the active care required for a child before it is born. We don't allow that mother to end the life of her newborn baby. Similarly for those who accept the care of the elderly, infirm, or handicapped.

The difference is how the baby comes to be outside the mother.

Further, are you going to "force" the mother of the unborn to eat healthy, exercise among other things now considered vital for proper fetal development? Having a baby to term does have life-long consequences for the mother...all I need to do is look to my wife (mother of 4).

The baby once born is an apples and oranges argument.

I haven't said it yet here, but it is one basis of my rational objections to elective abortions after some point of development. When two people voluntarily undertake the one activity known to potentially create a new life (a life with full rights), they should be prepared to surrender some amount of convenience (at least) to avoid actively, deliberately, killing that life for no other reason than not wanting to be pregnant, or finding it too expensive to provide for the child, etc. The line between late term abortion and infanticide is pretty thin.

Whatever one's religious beliefs, human life doesn't just pop up spontaneously out of thin air. We all know what creates a new life. Those unwilling to bear at least a minimum level of responsibility not to kill a new life ought to take some precautions to avoid creating that life in the first place.

Charles

No argument. Of course, you are neglecting the outlier cases of rape, incest and such...don't want to disappoint the professor do we?

 

[utbagpiper]

(*smh*)

???

I'm not familiar with the term. Please fill me in.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

The difference is how the baby comes to be outside the mother.

No doubt that is a difference. Is it a big enough difference to completely ignore the baby's right to life? Or put another way, at what point does the child's right to live rationally need to be balanced against the mother's right to control her body to the point of ending an innocent life she voluntarily helped create?

Further, are you going to "force" the mother of the unborn to eat healthy, exercise among other things now considered vital for proper fetal development?

Nope. Neither will force you to be a nice person, good to your neighbors, charitable, etc. I will simply force you not to initiate aggression against them (or at least impose legal penalties if you do).

Having a baby to term does have life-long consequences for the mother...all I need to do is look to my wife (mother of 4).

Yes, there are cosmetic consequences. And some mild consequences that go beyond that. But ignoring the cases of serious risk to the mother's life or health, we are generally talking about minor inconviences, vs an innocent life. How does that math work out? Especially when the innocent life came into existence only through the voluntary conduct of the mother?

Furthermore, at what point do those consequences really come into being? Do the last 3 weeks of pregnancy impose materially more consequences than the 37 weeks preceding it?

The baby once born is an apples and oranges argument.

No doubt there are differences, but objectively, are they significant enough as to ignore entirely the life of the baby?

No argument. Of course, you are neglecting the outlier cases of rape, incest and such...don't want to disappoint the professor do we?

I'm happy to discuss the appropriate legal position for the <5% of abortions committed because of rape, legitimate and usual risks to the life of the mother, or a child who isn't physically able to survive beyond birth. But it seems more productive to work on the 95%+ typical case first. In fact for sake of easy argument, I'll concede that government should not impose restrictions on abortions in these rare cases. I believe that restrictions are warranted in the other 95% of cases where the creation of life was knowing and willful with consent, no unusual risks to the mother, and a healthy child who will--barring an act of aggression against him--be born a fully healthy human being, endowed with full rights to life.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

If one reads the posts around the 100's. The recent claims by the one who won't be dissed and will tattle, can be shown to be wrong.If one claims all elective abortion is immoral than the belief is at conception it is a life.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The depressing side of why such an omnibus bill would not pass has to do with a broad contempt for liberty. For example, there are many pro-abortionists who'd support all manner of restrictions against cigarette smoking and handgun ownership but they'd never support the omnibus bill. The reason is there would be a restriction on the liberty they intensely care about. For their part, anti-abortionists wouldn't support the bill because it would place a restriction on a liberty they highly value such as prayers in school or handgun ownership.The particular examples I've chosen aren't as important as the fact that we tend to value our freedoms and tend to trivialize and trample upon those of others. It's the same with tyrants. All tyrants want freedom for themselves but they don't want it for others. (Walter E. Williams)http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/97/c27-restrict-liberty.html

 

[utbagpiper]

If one reads the posts around the 100's. The recent claims by the one who won't be dissed and will tattle, can be shown to be wrong.If one claims all elective abortion is immoral than the belief is at conception it is a life.

Is this really what anarchists' consider to be mature, rational discussion, SVG? You make claims that are outright false and then not only refuse to provide citations or concede your error, but you engage in Citizen's childish tactics of refusing to address others civilly?

You are jumping to conclusions well beyond anything I've posted. But is clear that the anarchists and claimed "Objectivists" are terrified of actually discussing the topic of "Who Owns an Pre-Born Baby" in a rational, objective manner; instead resorting to sophomoric insults and strawman.

The weakness of your position becomes more clear with every such post. And for the record, I did not alert any moderator as to the content of your recent insulting misuse of my user name. Someone else--perhaps even the mods themselves--found your insult to be beneath the standards of the forumn. Maybe you ought to consider whether your chosen forms of communication are appropriate.

Charles