Mom lets the child begin its life in her body. Murder is not permitted. There is a natural lease period on mom’s body once the child’s life begins(if you don’t believe the child has any right to life, then we’ll just disagree)—it ends at the child’s birth. If child endangers mom’s life, I believe it should be legally permissible for her to protect herself.
I see no reason to have a big abortion debate. I do believe people have a property right in their own body/self-ownership. I see no inconsistency between a belief in self-ownership and opposition to abortion. None. I do think abortion should be legally permissible in certain cases(rape and danger to the mother’s life). I also believe a woman consents to carrying and birthing a child when she consents to sex. If you invite a being in, knowing it won’t be able to safely leave for nine months, you agree to let it stay for nine months.
I have no issue with religion. However, we should criticize stupid ideas equally and openly without the fear of being persecuted or attacked. Some ideas and parts of religion are erroneous in their nature and have no place in the western world. Some religions need a formal reform.
They’re not, because there are two bodies/lives. The owner of a boat has full ownership of it. He may not invite a guy for a ride and then throw him overboard halfway across the ocean.
Great post! My view: wanna be a big girl and play big-girl games, then pay up! Many people, including my former self, in what is still a “sexually liberated” hellscape, want to have sex without assuming any risk or responsibility. They want to f—- strangers or people they know they want nothing to do with in a marriage or raise children with and have sex in times in which they know they’re financially and mentally and emotionally incapable.
Also, he stated that capitalist transactions are supposed to be mutually beneficial. “Housing” a tenant in her body might not be beneficial for a woman.
He also said God owns us so his whole “self-ownership” position is something he doesn’t agree with.
She thought it so at the time she agreed to have sex. Most people that gamble don’t win, but they viewed the gamble as worth taking at the time they took it. Capitalism does not and can not account for people failing to properly consider risk vs. reward.
Consequences don’t exist in a vacuum. Fucking causes children. Not meaning to, doesn’t absolve you from responsibility. Unfortunately for the woman, that child is a human being and they are the ones who cook them; it’s natures fault. You cannot just kill humans because they are inconvenient. If we could, eugenics would be king and only the fittest would be allowed to live. But humans have dignity, so we cannot do that.
This isn’t consistent with your belief that everyone has self owning rights. You can ditch that belief or modify it to exclude women.
We shouldn’t respect a contract that we are unsure exists. You need to prove that there is an agreement to carry the child, otherwise it is irreverent.
So weird how abortion arguments go. Comparisons to a burglar. A tenant. Like the reproductive act is actually suprising in its ability to be reproductive.
An already existing individual human life in its own individual life cycle. The premeditated killing of such. Let’s just be honest.
Why bother with these elaborate arguments? If you have no faith in the the inherent value of a human life, from womb to twilight years, you don’t need even need an elaborate argument. Sex will be more available and carry fewer consequences. It’s convenient to chasing orgasms without being forced into a commitment.
The aborted are out of sight until the messy work is done. And done in a nice, clean, sterile way by a well mannered educated sort. Not so grisly.
Plus it keeps the poor minorities from getting out of hand inconveniencing us all. Well, I’ve what boils down to exactly that suggestion on racial threads. Being non-existent is better for them obviously, so it’s an act of mercy.
You don’t need all this. Lives that inconvenience us, they can’t reasonably fight. Part of a group we aren’t (no danger to ourselves).
Yes, and things can change. You can evict tenants for many reasons, even if they have a lease. Sometimes for no reason (at least you don’t need to give one) even if they have a lease.
We aren’t talking about gambling so the analogy is bad.
But it does allow for change in the face of new circumstances.