Aborting children with genetic defects

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You don't seem to understand that you also can't force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to carry.

So if she's walking home, and the child is heavy, and her arms are tired, she can just leave it on the ground, and hope a benevolent stranger appears?

And can you force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want carried by a woman?

No and yes. Well, she can leave it but she will be charged and rightly so. What, six month in the womb the baby is deemed a person? You can't endanger the life of a person baby because it has rights. But it just might be better for the child if she does leave it for a stranger, no?

The man's chance to abort comes at the moment he has sex. If he fails at precaution his chance is gone since the baby exists only in the mother. At that point he is our of the picture in terms of choice. The choice is only about whether a person should have to carry a baby they don't want and the man is not the carrier. The woman can have it or abort it regardless of his wish.

Try to understand that absolutes don't have to make you blind.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would it be ok to weed out defective sperm or defective eggs before they join?

I hope so, I do it at least twice a week.

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What, six month in the womb the baby is deemed a person?

That seems to be the crux of the issue, but didn't you say it's better to not kill than kill? I still agree with that. I don't even support the death penalty.

You can't endanger the life of a person baby because it has rights. But it just might be better for the child if she does leave it for a stranger, no?

Hard to know; that's just speculation.

Try to understand that absolutes don't have to make you blind.

Condescension not needed, thanks. I appreciate the principle of personal autonomy over one's body (for example, on principle I don't believe drugs should be illegal, but I've never been a user and would gain nothing from legalization, yet still support it), but I also would extend such autonomy to the pre-born child (a word which even you used) such that the mother would not be able to terminate it, as she, having more control over the creation of the child than the child itself (which had NO say in the matter), thus bears the greater responsibility. And yes, I recognize that rape is an exception to that principle, but that's precisely why rape is a crime - it's a violation of personal autonomy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What, six month in the womb the baby is deemed a person?

That seems to be the crux of the issue, but didn't you say it's better to not kill than kill? I still agree with that. I don't even support the death penalty.

You can't endanger the life of a person baby because it has rights. But it just might be better for the child if she does leave it for a stranger, no?

Hard to know; that's just speculation.

Try to understand that absolutes don't have to make you blind.

Condescension not needed, thanks. I appreciate the principle of personal autonomy over one's body (for example, on principle I don't believe drugs should be illegal, but I've never been a user and would gain nothing from legalization, yet still support it), but I also would extend such autonomy to the pre-born child (a word which even you used) such that the mother would not be able to terminate it, as she, having more control over the creation of the child than the child itself (which had NO say in the matter), thus bears the greater responsibility. And yes, I recognize that rape is an exception to that principle, but that's precisely why rape is a crime - it's a violation of personal autonomy.

Just demonstrating that one can be absolute without painting oneself in the corner. Well, what you want to do here is how did the mother responsible for the creation of a child when, in fact, no woman has volition on whether to ovulate and that is a pure biological fact of the random nature of evolution. A woman neither chooses to be a woman in the sex duo nor choses that her egg, if present, also by random chance, gets fertilized. You are choosing to burden the woman with a guilt trip over a design she had no part in creating because she engages in an act that powerful drives impel her to. You are maintaining that a woman should be a prisoner to her biology and that our intellect can't set us free of this via abortion of unwanted babies as we have determined in law we have a right to do. You do so because you give all weight to the notion that a baby is you, not in potential but in actuality. A baby in it's first minutes is an amoeba and we kill trillions of those when we purify our water. The difference is all in your head.

I know you can't help it. I feel the same way myself and personally would not want to get an abortion if I were a woman. It bothers me emotionally because it's how I feel. But I think it is an irrational feeling looked at in the light of day where applied as an absolute. There can be no logical exception of rape or the life of the mother. That baby comes first come hell or high water in absolute terms, so if you can compromise once you can compromise again.

And what I think is right for me I have no right to impose upon another with so many absolutes at play. We have to face the fact that there are areas where absolutes collide and something has to give. We set the line at 6Mo I think. Not perfect but a compromise I see as rational to deal with. And you will do terrible harm if you drive women underground.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: straightalker

unwanted intrusion of an embryo

There are tens of thousands of surviving children from botched abortions walking around on our Planet enjoying sunshine, love, joy and life who would take issue with your low opinion of humanity.

I have the highest regard for humanity. It is not me that is trying to strip rights away from people.

So if my kid's ugly, can I kill it?

You'll need to be more specific. If the child is already born, then no. Infanticide is illegal.

You wouldn't strip away my parental rights, would you?

You don't have the right to terminate the life of a born human.

You wouldn't force me to pay to raise an ugly kid, would you?

You are free to release your custody of the child.

Would you also oppose the right of a person to defend his home, property and family from the unwelcome intrusion of an armed robber? What if the owner left his door unlocked? Does that mean that the burglar is free to enter the premises and begin repossessing the owner's property?

Your analogy doesn't work - did you choose to enter your mother's body?

Actually, it quite does. It is you that is mistakenly presuming that intent is a relevant issue.

Did anyone choose to exist?

Can you show that they did not?

In fact, in the creation of a life, the mother and father are the only ones with the ability to exercise choice; certainly not the child. When the mother can't exercise choice in engaging in sex (rape), it's rightly a crime.

Again, you are focusing on irrelevant issues.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Garth
The reality is that women don't need a reason to abort their pregnancies. Period. A woman's right to protect her body from the unwanted intrusion of an embryo is inviolate.

Yeah, that's call birth-control or abstinence.

No, it's called the right to bodily integrity, but I'm sorry for trying to stand in your way of trampling on the Constitution.

But if women can't exercise those controls, and a life resulted in her womb, she better have the decency to at least give up 10 month of her life and carry that life to fruition.

Nonsense. Driving without a seatbelt is not tantamout to waiving one's right to seek recourse in the case of an accident. But again, it appears facts confuse you.

After that, she can give up the child to adoption if she decide to do so.

No woman can be forced to become or remain pregnant against her will.

Let's see, a human life or 10 month out of a women's life as a result of her own action....hmm...tough choices huh?

Your emotional appeals are irrelevant to the facts.

Heh, it appears that you are the one who have the facts confused. Driving without a seatbelt doesn't cause an accident, at least not directly. Haveing sex without birth control does cause women preganent.

Revise the analogy then, since it appears the pretinent subtlties elude you:

Consentually engaging in the act of driving is not tantamout to a waiver of one's entitlement to recourse when his bodily integrity is compromised in the course of a wreck. Likewise, consentually engaging in unprotected sex is not tantamout to a waiver of one's entitlement to recourse when her bodily integrity is compromised through pregnancy.

So your analogy doesn't not equate at all.

Acutally, it does, but you either can not or will not acknowledge it.

A the better analogy is that if you drive down the opposite direction of a one way street and you get into an accidient, it does pretty much tantamout to waiving your right in the accident.

Such an act would be obviously negligent. There is nothing negligent about having unprotected sex, however, so in reality it is your analogy that fails.

Driving down the wrong direction of the street have high probability of causing an accident, just like having sex without birth control have a chance of causing pregancy.

Again, one action is negligent, whereas the other is not.

Incidentally, do you realize how low the probability of becoming pregnant from unprotected sex acutally is?

Both are direct cause and effect, and both the party have a choose not to participate in.

Again, you are wrong, unsurprisingly. Pregnancy is at best an indirect effect of unprotected sex, seeing as how there is much less than a 50% of becoming pregnant from a particular instance of unprotected sex.

But feel free to continue disregarding the facts. You are apparently quite experienced with it already.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Thou shalt not kill. I believe in that principle. It's clear guidance.

And the exceptions are also clear. As when an attacker invades your home or when someone else is seen being critically assaulted, you intervene with lethal force. As in the ultimate example too. When a hostile foriegn Nation invades your Country. You act. You defend.

Doctors take an oath not to kill. Yet so many become so perverse and kill millions. That's a part of my point. And it's the exact opposite of weak.

You want weak. Try another thread.

So you believe in the principle that 'Thou shalt not kill' but in the same post you admit you will kill someone if you have to (i.e. an attacker invades your home). What about capitol punishment? Do you think we should have that?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I hardly see the connection between people that are in society and their rights being taken away and the rights of a bunch of cells prior to the end of the first or even second trimester.

I further argue, that an abortion is even allowed by the Christian bible. I quote:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Leviticus 17:11

So if you abort the embryo (or zygote) in the first 10-20 days after conception there is no blood and according to Leviticus there is no life which means if there is no life you can't 'kill' it.

Note how hard the Jesusfreaks are ignoring anything said in the Bible if it does not agree with their points of view.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I hardly see the connection between people that are in society and their rights being taken away and the rights of a bunch of cells prior to the end of the first or even second trimester.

I further argue, that an abortion is even allowed by the Christian bible. I quote:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Leviticus 17:11

So if you abort the embryo (or zygote) in the first 10-20 days after conception there is no blood and according to Leviticus there is no life which means if there is no life you can't 'kill' it.

Note how hard the Jesusfreaks are ignoring anything said in the Bible if it does not agree with their points of view.

Christians know from modern science that life is in the protoplasm, not the blood so they don't have to pay any attention to that old nonsense.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I hardly see the connection between people that are in society and their rights being taken away and the rights of a bunch of cells prior to the end of the first or even second trimester.

I further argue, that an abortion is even allowed by the Christian bible. I quote:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Leviticus 17:11

So if you abort the embryo (or zygote) in the first 10-20 days after conception there is no blood and according to Leviticus there is no life which means if there is no life you can't 'kill' it.

Note how hard the Jesusfreaks are ignoring anything said in the Bible if it does not agree with their points of view.

So true. I almost wanted to go back and check to see if I actually posted this considering not a single holy roller has responded or explained to me how I am misinterpreting this passage.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I hardly see the connection between people that are in society and their rights being taken away and the rights of a bunch of cells prior to the end of the first or even second trimester.

I further argue, that an abortion is even allowed by the Christian bible. I quote:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Leviticus 17:11

So if you abort the embryo (or zygote) in the first 10-20 days after conception there is no blood and according to Leviticus there is no life which means if there is no life you can't 'kill' it.

Note how hard the Jesusfreaks are ignoring anything said in the Bible if it does not agree with their points of view.

Christians know from modern science that life is in the protoplasm, not the blood so they don't have to pay any attention to that old nonsense.

I thought that Bible was "the word". If you can use science to re-interpret Bible passages, then maybe we should re-interpret the "7 days of creation", no?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I hardly see the connection between people that are in society and their rights being taken away and the rights of a bunch of cells prior to the end of the first or even second trimester.

I further argue, that an abortion is even allowed by the Christian bible. I quote:

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Leviticus 17:11

So if you abort the embryo (or zygote) in the first 10-20 days after conception there is no blood and according to Leviticus there is no life which means if there is no life you can't 'kill' it.

Note how hard the Jesusfreaks are ignoring anything said in the Bible if it does not agree with their points of view.

Christians know from modern science that life is in the protoplasm, not the blood so they don't have to pay any attention to that old nonsense.

I thought that Bible was "the word". If you can use science to re-interpret Bible passages, then maybe we should re-interpret the "7 days of creation", no?

Hehe, let's hope the fundamentalists are as cleaver as you.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Meuge
what we've done is generate a non-functional member of a society, who will never contribute to society in any way, will not produce any functional offspring, and will only leech off the already limited social and medical funds.

that is an incredibly narrow view of the worth of a human being. I feel sorry for you.

Maybe they can't read, speak, or plan ahead. But they are still capable of happiness, sadness, capable of love and affection for their parents and siblings. they have personalities, quirks, habits like anyone else. and they do contribute to society, just by existing. actually, they challenge us as a society to get past the 'surface details' and confront the essential worth of a human being, which is something beyond being a functional work unit.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Meuge
what we've done is generate a non-functional member of a society, who will never contribute to society in any way, will not produce any functional offspring, and will only leech off the already limited social and medical funds.

that is an incredibly narrow view of the worth of a human being. I feel sorry for you.

Maybe they can't read, speak, or plan ahead. But they are still capable of happiness, sadness, capable of love and affection for their parents and siblings. they have personalities, quirks, habits like anyone else. and they do contribute to society, just by existing. actually, they challenge us as a society to get past the 'surface details' and confront the essential worth of a human being, which is something beyond being a functional work unit.

Wow. Beautifully put. Thank you.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Who is this straightalker troll, and, most importantly, who was he before he got banned and came back to stir some more trouble?

Dude, you're pitiful. You remind me of a quote from "Papillon" : "I'd spit in your face if I weren't afraid I'm going to soil my saliva." - which is another fine example of protecting some cells!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Meuge
what we've done is generate a non-functional member of a society, who will never contribute to society in any way, will not produce any functional offspring, and will only leech off the already limited social and medical funds.

that is an incredibly narrow view of the worth of a human being. I feel sorry for you.

Maybe they can't read, speak, or plan ahead. But they are still capable of happiness, sadness, capable of love and affection for their parents and siblings. they have personalities, quirks, habits like anyone else. and they do contribute to society, just by existing. actually, they challenge us as a society to get past the 'surface details' and confront the essential worth of a human being, which is something beyond being a functional work unit.

Wow. Beautifully put. Thank you.

You are of course right when it comes to any existing human being, but that is not what we are talking about. Your argument is just as valid as an argument against abortion, that none of these wonderful things called humans deserves to have it's incipient life ended. Are you also consistent and pro-life? Do you want children to be born who will live only a few months in pain and misery? Would you trade places with a congenital moron that you love. I am glad I am somewhat normal and if my folks had passes on a few defective embryos to get to me, I could sympathize with their mistake, but I wouldn't blame them.

This is again one of those topics that put absolutes into conflict. All life is sacred. Perfect is better than defective. Genetic testing creates a new conflict.

Additionally, matters of faith and theology cloud the issue. Does God micromanage DNA during fertilization to insure that each of us is born according to some Divine plan, or is who we are a matter of chance, or maybe does God expect us to use the brains he gave us to shave the dice just as he planned. If it is dangerous to play God in the arrogant assumption that we know best, does that mean we are to stupid to know it's better not to be born, for example, without a brain or as a big ball of hair?

 

[straightalker]

The avatar speaks for itself who i am and who you are. Nuff said on that score.

To everyone else reading here, let's not forget that in the USA the free expression of religion and ideas is allowed and guaranteed by our Constitution. So hey, if you're a spitter, move to China where that's how they treat freedom.

About the age of the pre-born child that get's aborted by the baby sorting parents in this news story that was on Yahoo...

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72365.htm

...it takes i don't know how many weeks to verify a pregnancy. I'm guessing 8 weeks tops. Maybe just 4 weeks. Ok and then it takes a solid two months minimum AFTER THAT to process all the tests to determine if the child has any genetic diseases.

The disgust i had was about how sorting which children live by using abortion as the method is taken so flippantly by some so-called "parents". People, these pre-borns are not zygotes when they get aborted. Look at the slideshow above. Study where the child's developmental stage is at between 12 and 16 weeks when these sort-abortions are performed.

I'm never going to get vitriolic about it and choose that veneal behavior. Instead i'm just going to fairly and squarely by the fairness doctrine we all should live by here in a free Country, state my beliefs and opinions on this subject. It is news and it is politics because politics decides who get's elected to deal with these matters.

Would i vote for anyone who is not also disgusted by convenience and sorting type abortions? Clearly not.

About cells. We're all cells. A full grown average human being has trillions. A 3-4 months old pre-born human being has maybe 1/100th of that. Does that make them any less human? These kids have arms and legs and so much already by 12-16 weeks. It's horrific to think about how these kids are dealt with by the abortion mill industry at this and later stages of human development especially. Basicly, the older the pre-born the more horrific the prcedure is. Obviosly. More cells involved you might say. If that's all you care about.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: straightalker
About cells. We're all cells. A full grown average human being has trillions. A 3-4 months old pre-born human being has maybe 1/100th of that. Does that make them any less human? These kids have arms and legs and so much already by 12-16 weeks. It's horrific to think about how these kids are dealt with by the abortion mill industry at this and later stages of human development especially. Basicly, the older the pre-born the more horrific the prcedure is. Obviosly. More cells involved you might say. If that's all you care about.

This is why many people advocate permitting abortion only during the first trimester. During the first trimester it is clear that the fetus' brain is not conscious at all, so abortion is painless. After the first trimester the line between when the fetus becomes conscious is very fuzzy, however at the stage you are talking about (right after the first trimester) is is extremely unlikely that the fetus has any sort of thought processes going on (considering it is less than half a foot in length). Even if pain registers with its brain, it is hard to claim that abortion at this [12-16 week] stage is painful to the fetus. Its painful in the sense that insects can "feel" pain. The body reacts to it, however there is nothing conscious there to actually "feel" it like a full grown baby would.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: straightalker
The avatar speaks for itself who i am and who you are. Nuff said on that score.

Your a .gif of a flag? What does that prove?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: straightalker
The avatar speaks for itself who i am and who you are. Nuff said on that score.

To everyone else reading here, let's not forget that in the USA the free expression of religion and ideas is allowed and guaranteed by our Constitution. So hey, if you're a spitter, move to China where that's how they treat freedom.

About the age of the pre-born child that get's aborted by the baby sorting parents in this news story that was on Yahoo...

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72365.htm

...it takes i don't know how many weeks to verify a pregnancy. I'm guessing 8 weeks tops. Maybe just 4 weeks. Ok and then it takes a solid two months minimum AFTER THAT to process all the tests to determine if the child has any genetic diseases.

The disgust i had was about how sorting which children live by using abortion as the method is taken so flippantly by some so-called "parents". People, these pre-borns are not zygotes when they get aborted. Look at the slideshow above. Study where the child's developmental stage is at between 12 and 16 weeks when these sort-abortions are performed.

I'm never going to get vitriolic about it and choose that veneal behavior. Instead i'm just going to fairly and squarely by the fairness doctrine we all should live by here in a free Country, state my beliefs and opinions on this subject. It is news and it is politics because politics decides who get's elected to deal with these matters.

Would i vote for anyone who is not also disgusted by convenience and sorting type abortions? Clearly not.

About cells. We're all cells. A full grown average human being has trillions. A 3-4 months old pre-born human being has maybe 1/100th of that. Does that make them any less human? These kids have arms and legs and so much already by 12-16 weeks. It's horrific to think about how these kids are dealt with by the abortion mill industry at this and later stages of human development especially. Basicly, the older the pre-born the more horrific the prcedure is. Obviosly. More cells involved you might say. If that's all you care about.

Do you wish babies weren't born with horrible genetic diseases? If you do then you should be able to understand that people not encased in your mental prison may want to act to see their kids aren't born that way. You can make your own decisions but you shouldn't legislate to make your prison the law for others.

 

[Bitek]

This ongoign debate and lack of consensus demonstrates why abortion should remain legal, everyone has a different opinion and moral perpective, and therefore it should be left to the individual to decide and have to live with its moral consequences. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. If you don't want a retarded kid, tehn that should be your decision and responsibilty over your offspring.

The GOP has seemed to abandon their philosophy of personal freedom and responsibility, esp when it comes to social issues.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: straightalker
The disgust i had was about how sorting which children live by using abortion as the method is taken so flippantly by some so-called "parents". People, these pre-borns are not zygotes when they get aborted.

I am not exactly sure at what point you call it a pre-born and differentiate from a zygote. Does being a pre-born mean it could survive on it's own with very little to no medical help if born pre-maturely? According to WebMD the point in which that is even possible with intensive care is the 23rd week.

Also we are not talking about aborting potently viable babies because the parent does not like the baby?s eye color or if it is a boy or a girl. We are talking about aborting babies that have genetic defects. And you can start doing genetic testing pretty early in the 1st trimester.

Would i vote for anyone who is not also disgusted by convenience and sorting type abortions? Clearly not.

You go on and on about this being a free country and we have the freedom to choose, but at the same time you obviously want take that away from people because YOU do not like it. You say you would not vote for anyone that is also disgusted by abortions, but what if that person was disgusted but would vote against any law making them illegal? Would you still vote for them?

About cells. We're all cells. A full grown average human being has trillions. A 3-4 months old pre-born human being has maybe 1/100th of that. Does that make them any less human? These kids have arms and legs and so much already by 12-16 weeks. It's horrific to think about how these kids are dealt with by the abortion mill industry at this and later stages of human development especially. Basicly, the older the pre-born the more horrific the procedure is. Obviosly. More cells involved you might say. If that's all you care about.

All living things have cells, what separates humans from other animals? Is it our ability to communicate and with each other? To show caring or emotion for one another? At what point to separate other animals from being animals to being human? At what point do you believe an embryo is a human? What makes it human? Is it the way it looks? What if the baby had a genetic defect that made it look like an alien but otherwise was healthy, would you decide at that point that it is not human and could be destroyed? What happens if in the late 2nd trimester (around the 23rd week) there is a problem and if the baby is not delivered prematurely it will kill the mother and the baby, but in doing so delivering the baby would most certainly kill the baby?



The overall point of this debate is not about weather you agree or disagree with genetic testing and abortion is about choice. Do you think that the government should be able to take away people's choice?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
The overall point of this debate is not about weather you agree or disagree with genetic testing and abortion is about choice. Do you think that the government should be able to take away people's choice?

No, the overall point (really, central issue) of this debate is whether, and at what point, the fetus is another person with rights worthy of protection. After all, every day the government "takes away people's choice" to kill, rape, and steal, and no sane person complains about that. Law is little more than the elimination of choices, and the nation literally has hundreds of thousands of laws.

I consider myself essentially libertarian, and the only reason I oppose abortion, and the legalization of abortion, is because it harms a 3rd party, and the state has every right to protect citizens against harm by others. In contrast, I have never chosen to use recreational drugs, but I support the legalization of drug use because it affects only the user. While it may or may not be harmful (I think it is), as long as any harm is restricted to the user, such is the user's choice, and it is not my business to prohibit another person's choices which affect only themselves. While you may not agree with assigning rights to a fetus as I do, hopefully you can agree that if you accept the premise, the conclusion logically follows. After all, I've never seen anyone protest outside a liposuction clinic, despite the fact the number of cells being vacuumed out of the body via liposuction is frequently higher than the number of cells being vacuumed out via abortion.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
The overall point of this debate is not about weather you agree or disagree with genetic testing and abortion is about choice. Do you think that the government should be able to take away people's choice?

No, the overall point (really, central issue) of this debate is whether, and at what point, the fetus is another person with rights worthy of protection. After all, every day the government "takes away people's choice" to kill, rape, and steal, and no sane person complains about that. Law is little more than the elimination of choices, and the nation literally has hundreds of thousands of laws.

I consider myself essentially libertarian, and the only reason I oppose abortion, and the legalization of abortion, is because it harms a 3rd party, and the state has every right to protect citizens against harm by others. In contrast, I have never chosen to use recreational drugs, but I support the legalization of drug use because it affects only the user. While it may or may not be harmful (I think it is), as long as any harm is restricted to the user, such is the user's choice, and it is not my business to prohibit another person's choices which affect only themselves. While you may not agree with assigning rights to a fetus as I do, hopefully you can agree that if you accept the premise, the conclusion logically follows. After all, I've never seen anyone protest outside a liposuction clinic, despite the fact the number of cells being vacuumed out of the body via liposuction is frequently higher than the number of cells being vacuumed out via abortion.

So as a libertarian, you support letting the government have more control over something growing INSIDE of you than you yourself?

 

[Bitek]

And the other point is there is no clear consensus of whether a 4 mo old or 1 hr old fetus is a full person or not. An acorn is not a tree, and a 2 trimester baby cannot live on its own like a fully formed human can.

We make parents fully responsible for the raising of thier procreations and I don't see why others or the govt should be able to dictate the most personal of decisions a parent makes of their own children. It should be left to the parents discretion and it will be their burden to live with the consequences.