a monstrous proposal

[Hannou]

OK, so a woman in Austrailia is in trouble for doing her own abortion with a smuggled-in drug of some sort. Here, I think in Iowa, someone got manslaughter for killing her boyfriend who was trying to abort her pregnancy by pounding on her and now another state's writing up a law to make that scenario justifiable use of force. And there's those individuals who survived abortion attempts and now one of them does a good cover of 'Amazing Grace'. To all of this, I say, our legislators are generally willing and able to resign themselves to being flawed and pragmatic channels through which we can but hope for the designs of the almighty (or whatever you call 'the right thing to do') to flow - why do they want this to be trench warfare between woman's rights and religion for space on the law books?

I mean, we're all in this together right? I say, taking care of one another needs not be antithetical to individual liberty as long as we accept that we ourselves are not omnipotent. Call a fertilized egg and beyond an enfranchised citizen of the applicable jurisdiction just to make sure we're not making a type-II error and letting down a little teammate, and extend property rights where most surely they belong by letting a woman serve an eviction notice on her mesoderm just like if she owned an apartment building. Have abortion per se be outlawed, but allow induced labor in a clinical setting at any point, with all measures prepared for and taken to try to help the natal candidate survive, just like how you can't boot residents from real estate without proper notice. Now like all thoughts on abortion, mine are certainly vulnerable to the horror-story offense - but therein lies the elegance - I don't really know how prevalent viable term abortions are, or why, other than catastrophic health issues arising during pregnancy, people are motivated to go that route - but at least this way the onus is with the best qualified person to plan away from such situations insofar as for one reason or another they do tend to be horrific, and the natal candidate, even if the deck's stacked that bad against him or her as it would be regardless of abortion statutes in effect, get's a chance at self determination. Call it callous, but at least this way we have a clean way to call it a homicide if a woman loses a pregnancy due to assault - which to me has a nice ring to it...

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This policy, in addition to being functionally little different from abortion, would lead to an increased rate of severely premature births causing health problems and disabilities in the children affected.

Not every political issue can be reduced to property rights. Your proposal is a ghastly case in point.

There is no reason to extend either human rights or citizenship to unborn children at the point of conception, and such a legal policy would lead to unconscionable violations of the liberties not only of pregnant women, but of women who could become pregnant. Such a policy would be a greater step backward for womens' rights than even a total and unconditional prohibition on abortion would be.

 

[celticlord]

Your proposal is indeed monstrous.

"Evicting" the unborn child from the womb under theory of property rights succeeds only if the woman's body itself is property--a perverse irony given the ample rhetoric abortion advocates have devoted to the opposite proposition.

 

[Hannou]

Well, don't just curse my darkness - what are these pro-abortion anti-property arguments? I dialed it up on google and no close matches came up. I mean, I know property is a bad word to some people, leftist such as tend to correlate positively to pro-choice, and the type of feminism that objects to peep shows - but whence the irony? Seems like we all want the powers that be off our cases and out of our mesoderms...

To Brer Korimyr, I'm hearing a horror story, and a statement that life does not begin at conception, so to speak, with which I tend to agree, but in that cannot speak for all of my fellow Americans, with such notable exceptions as my man, himself a physician, Ron Paul. The indictment of property rights though - I mean this issue can't be reduced to the point of not involving unwanted pregnancy unless we start drugging the food supply - must we blame the model I chose?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Well, don't just curse my darkness - what are these pro-abortion anti-property arguments?

I'm certainly not going to make any arguments against property. I support the concept of private property, as long as the use of said property is beneficial to society. I'm only saying that there are issues in politics and moral philosophy that don't concern property, and that might more properly be addressed from a different perspective.

My favorite is the consequentialist argument, that permitting abortion lowers the incidence of children born out of wedlock and born into poverty, thus reducing the crime rate and the drain on social services. I'm fond of saying that liberal abortion policy is the best eugenics program ever devised.

There's also the idea that people should be allowed to make medical decisions for themselves.

And, of course, if one does not believe that an unborn child possesses rights from the moment of conception, it's difficult to justify prohibiting abortion on other grounds. In a society as liberal as ours, it's hard to make any political argument without framing it in terms of someone's rights-- and most people simply do not consider a falling birth rate to be sufficient justification for government to intervene.

To Brer Korimyr, I'm hearing a horror story, and a statement that life does not begin at conception, so to speak, with which I tend to agree, but in that cannot speak for all of my fellow Americans...

We don't need to speak for everyone. We need only speak for the consensus--and if no consensus exists, we must appeal to persuasion or force until a consensus can be formed.

Your proposal does not satisfy the anti-abortion side of the argument. If they considered the woman's bodily rights to be enough to justify "evicting" the fetus, they would be pro-choice in the first place. All you are truly accomplishing here is taking the pro-choice position and making it horrific.

The indictment of property rights though - I mean this issue can't be reduced to the point of not involving unwanted pregnancy unless we start drugging the food supply - must we blame the model I chose?

Can't parse this. I'm not arguing that it doesn't involve unwanted pregnancy. I'm arguing that it doesn't involve property; persons are not property, not even of themselves.

The problem with the model you chose is that it does not lead to a solution.

 

[Hannou]

Ah, no one owns their body and a government consensus arrived at by force can rightly decide what to do with the bodies, bodies being both sacred and needed for the machinations of the society. I value your candor and insight. But you'll have to forgive me for choosing my darkness over the light you proffer - being the earthy, humble sort, I'm just in favor of Mom, apple pie, and legally-sanctioned quasi-infanticide - totalitarianism is too weird for me.

 

[111john111]

You are discussing so serously, may I remind you, I'm too in favor of Mom, apple pie, and legally-sanctioned quasi-infanticide - totalitarianism is too weird for me. But others may have their own opinion.

 

[lasix]

OK, so a woman in Austrailia is in trouble for doing her own abortion with a smuggled-in drug of some sort. Here, I think in Iowa...

Different countries have different laws

someone got manslaughter for killing her boyfriend who was trying to abort her pregnancy by pounding on her and now another state's writing up a law to make that scenario justifiable use of force.

Which state?

why do they want this to be trench warfare between woman's rights and religion for space on the law books?

Yes, ralley the base does a good job of keeping the people who are in power in power.

I mean, we're all in this together right? I say, taking care of one another needs not be antithetical to individual liberty as long as we accept that we ourselves are not omnipotent.

Liberty is an overused word that has lost it's context. Use the word that you mean to use here. Sounds like socialism you are discussing???

Call a fertilized egg and beyond an enfranchised citizen of the applicable jurisdiction just to make sure we're not making a type-II error and letting down a little teammate,

Type 2 error? You are discussing stats? What is a little teammate?

extend property rights where most surely they belong by letting a woman serve an eviction notice on her mesoderm just like if she owned an apartment building.

I think it's been said enough, but for the fetus to be considered a squater, the womans uterus must be viewed as property... maybe rape is just trespassing?

the natal candidate, even if the deck's stacked that bad against him or her as it would be regardless of abortion statutes in effect, get's a chance at self determination.

Is your view of abortion to weed out the weak? Because most women who have an abortion do so because they do not want a baby/child/to be a mother... If their concern was if the baby is strong enough to continue, then why have an abortion? Why not jus wait 9 months put the baby in the incubator and see how it does?

Call it callous, but at least this way we have a clean way to call it a homicide if a woman loses a pregnancy due to assault - which to me has a nice ring to it

You can't have your cake and eat it too... Either the fetus has rights, or it doesn't have rights. Which is it? Can you kill an unsuspecing person for squatting?