[quote]orion wrote:
Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.
[/quote]
Shooting a human in the chest with a gun results in death more times than not.
So the shooting of a human does not equal killing it, QED.
Just thinking along this line of ethics. Its seems you would have to support the death penalty for murderers.
What I’ve learned from this thread:
Moral Relativism is Black and White.
Who knew?
[quote]pat wrote:
I am very mush a liberty oriented person. I am for people doing what ever the fuck they want as long as other people are not hurt by it. Abortion is not one of those things. You have to ask yourself in all seriousness, is abortion terminating a human life.
If so, then terminating that life isn’t anymore a private matter, it’s a public one, just like any other circumstance where a human life is purposely terminated.
I somebody walks into your neighbor’s house and kills him, can you say with honesty that no part of that is your problem?
I think it’s murder. I can’t take the private stance because people need to stand up for others who can not stand for themselves.[/quote]
I don’t see it as murder. Only difference I guess.
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?
The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.
Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.
Whether abortion is a natural act is irrelevant.
If a child dies that is not cared for, blame nature.
A mother could be removed from a child for all kinds of reasons, leading to the child’s death.
I am glad that we have established that removing a child from the womb and killing it is not one and the same.
One is the unwillingness to care for a child that might or might not result in a death, the other is an act of aggression.
No we did not establish removing a child and killing it are two different things. How often do you think aborted fetuses live through the abortion?
I’m not even going to look the numbers up because I doubt any do and if they survive for even a short period of time they are so tiny due to premature removal that they would have all sorts of problems. Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
How can you say if abortion is an unnatural act it is irrelevant then immediately say if the baby dies blame nature? What kind of logic is that? Why would I blame nature? Human beings are not designed to be able to protect themselves directly after birth.
Look at a lot of other animals. They survive birth or the hatching process and need no help from their parents to survive. Human beings can not. A baby can not crawl to a near by tree and eat the leaves. Nor can it create its own milk to feed itself.
Why do you think women naturally secrete milk during pregnancy and after birth? That is nature?s way of say “hey care for your kid”. It is most definitely relevant.
No a mother can not be removed for all kinds of reasons. A woman can have a miscarriage, an abortion, give birth, or be killed resulting in the infants death. So the only way to remove a baby unnaturally from their mother is to either kill her or cut the baby out. Both of which are wrong.
A) You say it yourself and I quote:
Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.
B) You brought up that unattended babies die. They do, but only because they have the right but not the power the live.
Whether you can force someone to provide for someone else at gunpoint is the question here.
Usually conservatives are adamantly against that.
C) She can die at childbirth, alone in the woods.
A) Your logic overwhelms me your right a child can survive an abortion. Maybe only 1/1,000,000, but it happens so your right.
B) Sounds like an excuse to me
C) It would be kind of hard to die alone in the woods unless some one gives birth to you in the woods and leaves you to die. Great argument.
Like I have said there is no forcing at gun point. It is pretty simple I think. You provide for your child. If you do not you go to jail.
Saying a child has the right to live, but not the power and the mother and father should not be forced to care for the child is just a cowardly way to wash your hands of any guilt you should have for not doing what is right.
Threatening someone with jail is not coercion at gunpoint?
Then, this is not a way to wash my hands and I grow tired of your constant strawmen.
It is may of determining whether whether I have the right to force a mother to care for her child.
If I let this child die I am almost as guilty as she is, but that does not mean that anyone has the right force me to care for it.
You want the child to be taken care of?
Do it yourself.
I shouldn’t have to do it myself I didn’t create the fucking child she did! She will pay for the child and her health care. Even if she get some money from the government I would rather it go to her then some ass hole in Washington making hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on their ass in congress.
Threatening someone with jail is not holding a gun to their head. We threaten people with jail if they rape someone. Does that mean for every man in the world another man holds a gun to their head so they don’t rape anyone today? Who hold the gun to the gun holders head? Your argument is stupid.
It is the threat of repercussion that keeps people doing what is morally right. Other wise I would kill a person that cut me off in traffic or that took the last protein bar at the store.
So now you would hold a gun to someone else’s head so she has the money to raise the child, which she must because you hold a gun to her head.
Seems to me you are willing to threaten quite a few people before you step up and care for the child.
Plus, rape is a rights violation, not taking care of another person is not. I thought we had at least agreed on that distinctions.[/quote]
This really doesn’t make any sense, but I am going to try and get through it anyway. I am not holding a gun to anyone’s head. you keep saying that and that is not the case. I am saying if you make a choice that creates a life (effecting another being life) society should hold you accountable for your action.
Meaning you should have to care for your child or give it up for adoption and if you let your child die you should be put in jail. There is no gun involved only responsibility and repercussion.
By your logic every law is threatening every citizen. For example the law forbids murder and if you commit murder you will face 25+ year to death as a result. Is threatening anyone? No it is not…once again responsibility and repercussion.
I agree rape is a rights violation. It is morally detestable. I think every man convicted of rape should have to eat both of his testicles and then put to death, but to wrongs do not make a right.
If a baby is created through a rape the child is still not at fault. It is still murder. Once the baby is born it can be put up for adoption, but it is still morally wrong to kill the child regardless of what your ethics are.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You, wanting her to take her of someone she does not want to take care of is the enslavement part.
You have no right to make her do anything.
Then you can’t use laws to require mothers to provide for their infants and toddlers. Is that your ethical system? [/quote]
If you are generally against welfare and want to stay consistent, yes.
IF you want to save the child though you are free to do so if it is possible.
Had you looked at the links I provided you would know that that leads to an outcome that probably saves more lives in the long run, respects the rights of the mother to own her own body and leaves the government out of it in most cases.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mothers who starve infants to death. Citizens who let injured people die on their lawns, while telling would be rescuers they can’t enter their property. Really?[/quote]
Well, the not letting the rescuers enter your premises is debatable.
The argument is that if you evict an embryo from your womb you are to use the gentlest means possible, similar to you not shooting a trespasser that just unknowingly wandered on your land but asking him to leave first.
That leads to the conclusion that late term abortions are unacceptable here and now and as medical science progresses maybe 6,5,4,3 month old embryos could be saved the same way.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You, wanting her to take her of someone she does not want to take care of is the enslavement part.
You have no right to make her do anything.
Then you can’t use laws to require mothers to provide for their infants and toddlers. Is that your ethical system?
This has been addressed ad nauseum and he dodges it every time. I’m sure he’ll say it has been “addressed above.”
Orion, I know this is not “your” ethical system (which is an easy way for you not to own your arguments or truly stand behind what you are saying), but I fail to see how it will “end” the abortion debate as we know it, granted what Sloth says here is its logical conclusion.[/quote]
That is because you have not read the links I posted?
Especially not the large pdf about eviction ism, and I am not dodging anything I was quite clear on that issue.
And yes, it was adressed above and the answer is NO.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.
Shooting a human in the chest with a gun results in death more times than not.
So the shooting of a human does not equal killing it, QED.[/quote]
I agree.
So?
Not the same situation though.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just thinking along this line of ethics. Its seems you would have to support the death penalty for murderers.[/quote]
Rothbard does that, yes, with the caveat that this is the maximum penalty the victims relatives can demand.
They might decide to want less than that if there are mitigating circumstances.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
What I’ve learned from this thread:
Moral Relativism is Black and White.
Who knew?[/quote]
What you do not seem to have learned that this is an attack on moral relativism.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?
The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.
Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.
Whether abortion is a natural act is irrelevant.
If a child dies that is not cared for, blame nature.
A mother could be removed from a child for all kinds of reasons, leading to the child’s death.
I am glad that we have established that removing a child from the womb and killing it is not one and the same.
One is the unwillingness to care for a child that might or might not result in a death, the other is an act of aggression.
No we did not establish removing a child and killing it are two different things. How often do you think aborted fetuses live through the abortion?
I’m not even going to look the numbers up because I doubt any do and if they survive for even a short period of time they are so tiny due to premature removal that they would have all sorts of problems. Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
How can you say if abortion is an unnatural act it is irrelevant then immediately say if the baby dies blame nature? What kind of logic is that? Why would I blame nature? Human beings are not designed to be able to protect themselves directly after birth.
Look at a lot of other animals. They survive birth or the hatching process and need no help from their parents to survive. Human beings can not. A baby can not crawl to a near by tree and eat the leaves. Nor can it create its own milk to feed itself.
Why do you think women naturally secrete milk during pregnancy and after birth? That is nature?s way of say “hey care for your kid”. It is most definitely relevant.
No a mother can not be removed for all kinds of reasons. A woman can have a miscarriage, an abortion, give birth, or be killed resulting in the infants death. So the only way to remove a baby unnaturally from their mother is to either kill her or cut the baby out. Both of which are wrong.
A) You say it yourself and I quote:
Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.
B) You brought up that unattended babies die. They do, but only because they have the right but not the power the live.
Whether you can force someone to provide for someone else at gunpoint is the question here.
Usually conservatives are adamantly against that.
C) She can die at childbirth, alone in the woods.
A) Your logic overwhelms me your right a child can survive an abortion. Maybe only 1/1,000,000, but it happens so your right.
B) Sounds like an excuse to me
C) It would be kind of hard to die alone in the woods unless some one gives birth to you in the woods and leaves you to die. Great argument.
Like I have said there is no forcing at gun point. It is pretty simple I think. You provide for your child. If you do not you go to jail.
Saying a child has the right to live, but not the power and the mother and father should not be forced to care for the child is just a cowardly way to wash your hands of any guilt you should have for not doing what is right.
Threatening someone with jail is not coercion at gunpoint?
Then, this is not a way to wash my hands and I grow tired of your constant strawmen.
It is may of determining whether whether I have the right to force a mother to care for her child.
If I let this child die I am almost as guilty as she is, but that does not mean that anyone has the right force me to care for it.
You want the child to be taken care of?
Do it yourself.
I shouldn’t have to do it myself I didn’t create the fucking child she did! She will pay for the child and her health care. Even if she get some money from the government I would rather it go to her then some ass hole in Washington making hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on their ass in congress.
Threatening someone with jail is not holding a gun to their head. We threaten people with jail if they rape someone. Does that mean for every man in the world another man holds a gun to their head so they don’t rape anyone today? Who hold the gun to the gun holders head? Your argument is stupid.
It is the threat of repercussion that keeps people doing what is morally right. Other wise I would kill a person that cut me off in traffic or that took the last protein bar at the store.
So now you would hold a gun to someone else’s head so she has the money to raise the child, which she must because you hold a gun to her head.
Seems to me you are willing to threaten quite a few people before you step up and care for the child.
Plus, rape is a rights violation, not taking care of another person is not. I thought we had at least agreed on that distinctions.
This really doesn’t make any sense, but I am going to try and get through it anyway. I am not holding a gun to anyone’s head. you keep saying that and that is not the case. I am saying if you make a choice that creates a life (effecting another being life) society should hold you accountable for your action.
Meaning you should have to care for your child or give it up for adoption and if you let your child die you should be put in jail. There is no gun involved only responsibility and repercussion.
By your logic every law is threatening every citizen. For example the law forbids murder and if you commit murder you will face 25+ year to death as a result. Is threatening anyone? No it is not…once again responsibility and repercussion.
I agree rape is a rights violation. It is morally detestable. I think every man convicted of rape should have to eat both of his testicles and then put to death, but to wrongs do not make a right.
If a baby is created through a rape the child is still not at fault. It is still murder. Once the baby is born it can be put up for adoption, but it is still morally wrong to kill the child regardless of what your ethics are. [/quote]
And again:
Even in the case of laws against murder you do hold a gun to peoples heads. The very idea that someone cannot kill someone else without repercussions obviously contains an element of coercion.
I am sorry that I am the one to tell you that yes, when the government claims that it has a monopoly on using violence it really, truly means it.
THERE IS YOUR FUCKING GUN.
Now, that we have established that there is a fucking gun, the question is when it is appropriate to point that gun at someone.
It is, every time, when a right is violated.
Life, liberty, in other words, each and every time private property, because your body also belongs to you.
Is it also justifiable to use that gun to do other things, to bail out banks, provide food and shelter for others and so further and so on?
The libertarian answer, that once used to be the conservative answer too, is NO, because it necessarily alienaties rights that are supposed to be inalienable, you remember, life, liberty, private property.
So, if you cannot be forced to feed, clothe and shelter someone, neither can you force someone to to the same for others not even if that someone is in their womb.
You can however care for the embryo once it has been evicted from the mothers property, i.e. her womb.
PS: I find your reflex to look at each and every victim of government violence as if the victim has magically brought it on itself without any outside forces involved, to be highly disturbing.
[quote]orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.
Shooting a human in the chest with a gun results in death more times than not.
So the shooting of a human does not equal killing it, QED.
I agree.
So?
Not the same situation though.
[/quote]
Shooting a human is “not killing” him in the same way that neglecting a baby is “not killing” him. Either instance will almost certainly lead to the outcome of death, and so it becomes an exercise in absurdity (see this thread) to try and separate one act from the other. Also, each require a voluntary decision on the part of the actor. But all of this has been covered over and over.
Also, I don’t even know why I’m continuing here, but, as far as I can tell, the definition of “welfare” was never established for this argument. That seems rather neglectful, now doesn’t it?
[quote]orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
What I’ve learned from this thread:
Moral Relativism is Black and White.
Who knew?
What you do not seem to have learned that this is an attack on moral relativism.
[/quote]
When the deliberate neglect of a baby which will almost inevitably lead to his death is discussed as some sort of logical conclusion derived from a proposed ethical system, then I’d say that morals have become pretty fuzzy, no matter your intentions.
Gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are unable to lead an ethical discussion.
You argue outcome oriented, you have no fixed ethical pinciples from which to derive at logical conclusions and if you do you simply deny that the conclusion logically follows.
Hell, most of you are unable to distiguish between action and inaction and positive and negative rights.
If you are typical conservatives that means American conseratism is dead, for you argue the EXACT SAME WAY LIKE UTILITARIAN LIBERALS DO.
Next time you feel like accusing a “liberal” of “moral relatiism” simply embrace him as your intellectual twin.
It’s really amazing how fast thesse hot-butoon issue threads explode in a manner of days…
No matter how much the issue has been discussed on these forums.
If I made a thread titled “Abortion, Gay Marrige, and Gun Regulations” with a one-word title post saying ‘dicusss,’ I think it’d be a 40-page thread within a few days.
[quote]orion wrote:
Gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are unable to lead an ethical discussion.
You argue outcome oriented, you have no fixed ethical pinciples from which to derive at logical conclusions and if you do you simply deny that the conclusion logically follows.
Hell, most of you are unable to distiguish between action and inaction and positive and negative rights.
If you are typical conservatives that means American conseratism is dead, for you argue the EXACT SAME WAY LIKE UTILITARIAN LIBERALS DO.
Next time you feel like accusing a “liberal” of “moral relatiism” simply embrace him as your intellectual twin.
[/quote]
To play devil’s advocate, a baby has POSITIVE rights because a woman CHOOSES to get pregant in most cases. Even taking precautions, she embracces the risk of getting pregnant because they are not foolproof. Therefore (accepting the proposition that a baby is human from conception), she may not murder the human being she chose to create. (Just as parents must provide for the birthed children they CHOOSE to bring into this world but not the homeless man down the street).
And by the way, the people on these forums are really not the typical conservatives. Although, I am not a conservative myself, true conservatives’ arguments are much less half-baked. The ‘conservatives’ on thse forums are just ideologues who scream the loudest.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
You, wanting her to take her of someone she does not want to take care of is the enslavement part.
You have no right to make her do anything.
Then you can’t use laws to require mothers to provide for their infants and toddlers. Is that your ethical system?
If you are generally against welfare and want to stay consistent, yes.
IF you want to save the child though you are free to do so if it is possible.
Had you looked at the links I provided you would know that that leads to an outcome that probably saves more lives in the long run, respects the rights of the mother to own her own body and leaves the government out of it in most cases.
[/quote]
How I would be “free” to rescue the child? The law in Rothbard land would be against me. So again, do you let the infant die, while standing out the bounds of parent’s property? Do you tell yourself, “well, I’m consistent?”
[quote]orion wrote:
You can however care for the embryo once it has been evicted from the mothers property, i.e. her womb.
[/quote]
Who says it is just her property during the term? Natural rights? What’s more natural than a human being developing in the womb, by natural design. If a woman owns her body as her property by simply being born with it, through nature, what about the embryo? Again, nature (and most likely, the mother’s own decisions and actions) has placed an embryo in the womb, while also providing the embryo it’s own life.
This just sounds like a weak attempt to get around the non-aggression principle, after a libertarian’s one night stand gone wrong.
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?
The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.
Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.
Whether abortion is a natural act is irrelevant.
If a child dies that is not cared for, blame nature.
A mother could be removed from a child for all kinds of reasons, leading to the child’s death.
I am glad that we have established that removing a child from the womb and killing it is not one and the same.
One is the unwillingness to care for a child that might or might not result in a death, the other is an act of aggression.
No we did not establish removing a child and killing it are two different things. How often do you think aborted fetuses live through the abortion?
I’m not even going to look the numbers up because I doubt any do and if they survive for even a short period of time they are so tiny due to premature removal that they would have all sorts of problems. Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
How can you say if abortion is an unnatural act it is irrelevant then immediately say if the baby dies blame nature? What kind of logic is that? Why would I blame nature? Human beings are not designed to be able to protect themselves directly after birth.
Look at a lot of other animals. They survive birth or the hatching process and need no help from their parents to survive. Human beings can not. A baby can not crawl to a near by tree and eat the leaves. Nor can it create its own milk to feed itself.
Why do you think women naturally secrete milk during pregnancy and after birth? That is nature?s way of say “hey care for your kid”. It is most definitely relevant.
No a mother can not be removed for all kinds of reasons. A woman can have a miscarriage, an abortion, give birth, or be killed resulting in the infants death. So the only way to remove a baby unnaturally from their mother is to either kill her or cut the baby out. Both of which are wrong.
A) You say it yourself and I quote:
Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.
So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.
B) You brought up that unattended babies die. They do, but only because they have the right but not the power the live.
Whether you can force someone to provide for someone else at gunpoint is the question here.
Usually conservatives are adamantly against that.
C) She can die at childbirth, alone in the woods.
A) Your logic overwhelms me your right a child can survive an abortion. Maybe only 1/1,000,000, but it happens so your right.
B) Sounds like an excuse to me
C) It would be kind of hard to die alone in the woods unless some one gives birth to you in the woods and leaves you to die. Great argument.
Like I have said there is no forcing at gun point. It is pretty simple I think. You provide for your child. If you do not you go to jail.
Saying a child has the right to live, but not the power and the mother and father should not be forced to care for the child is just a cowardly way to wash your hands of any guilt you should have for not doing what is right.
Threatening someone with jail is not coercion at gunpoint?
Then, this is not a way to wash my hands and I grow tired of your constant strawmen.
It is may of determining whether whether I have the right to force a mother to care for her child.
If I let this child die I am almost as guilty as she is, but that does not mean that anyone has the right force me to care for it.
You want the child to be taken care of?
Do it yourself.
I shouldn’t have to do it myself I didn’t create the fucking child she did! She will pay for the child and her health care. Even if she get some money from the government I would rather it go to her then some ass hole in Washington making hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on their ass in congress.
Threatening someone with jail is not holding a gun to their head. We threaten people with jail if they rape someone. Does that mean for every man in the world another man holds a gun to their head so they don’t rape anyone today? Who hold the gun to the gun holders head? Your argument is stupid.
It is the threat of repercussion that keeps people doing what is morally right. Other wise I would kill a person that cut me off in traffic or that took the last protein bar at the store.
So now you would hold a gun to someone else’s head so she has the money to raise the child, which she must because you hold a gun to her head.
Seems to me you are willing to threaten quite a few people before you step up and care for the child.
Plus, rape is a rights violation, not taking care of another person is not. I thought we had at least agreed on that distinctions.
This really doesn’t make any sense, but I am going to try and get through it anyway. I am not holding a gun to anyone’s head. you keep saying that and that is not the case. I am saying if you make a choice that creates a life (effecting another being life) society should hold you accountable for your action.
Meaning you should have to care for your child or give it up for adoption and if you let your child die you should be put in jail. There is no gun involved only responsibility and repercussion.
By your logic every law is threatening every citizen. For example the law forbids murder and if you commit murder you will face 25+ year to death as a result. Is threatening anyone? No it is not…once again responsibility and repercussion.
I agree rape is a rights violation. It is morally detestable. I think every man convicted of rape should have to eat both of his testicles and then put to death, but to wrongs do not make a right.
If a baby is created through a rape the child is still not at fault. It is still murder. Once the baby is born it can be put up for adoption, but it is still morally wrong to kill the child regardless of what your ethics are.
And again:
Even in the case of laws against murder you do hold a gun to peoples heads. The very idea that someone cannot kill someone else without repercussions obviously contains an element of coercion.
I am sorry that I am the one to tell you that yes, when the government claims that it has a monopoly on using violence it really, truly means it.
THERE IS YOUR FUCKING GUN.
Now, that we have established that there is a fucking gun, the question is when it is appropriate to point that gun at someone.
It is, every time, when a right is violated.
Life, liberty, in other words, each and every time private property, because your body also belongs to you.
Is it also justifiable to use that gun to do other things, to bail out banks, provide food and shelter for others and so further and so on?
The libertarian answer, that once used to be the conservative answer too, is NO, because it necessarily alienaties rights that are supposed to be inalienable, you remember, life, liberty, private property.
So, if you cannot be forced to feed, clothe and shelter someone, neither can you force someone to to the same for others not even if that someone is in their womb.
You can however care for the embryo once it has been evicted from the mothers property, i.e. her womb.
PS: I find your reflex to look at each and every victim of government violence as if the victim has magically brought it on itself without any outside forces involved, to be highly disturbing.
[/quote]
I disagree with everything you wrote. I find your ability to toss a helpless child aside without thinking twice disturbing. You can not be a part of a society and expect the society to revolve around your needs. Societies were developed in order to do well for the whole of the people. I tell you what convince your country to do all the things you think are right and we’ll see how it works out.
There is no gun!