Dixie Matters: Abortion

[CarryANationIII]

babykillers

[RiverBirch1967]

My cuz begged his g/f not to have an abortion because the baby was half his, and we all agreed, even though I understood her side of it. She agreed and cut all ties and now he is a happy single father of a lovely child.

[IndividualAutonomy]

I CRAVE MORE DIXIE MATTERS!

[RedShirtArmy]

lol... We've got another coming out in a couple days. Thanks!

[Live414]

That is a good question that no one in the Media Mafia would ever ask:

Why does the Mother have a Right to choose LIFE or DEATH but not a living unborn Child?

Does a woman have the right to murder an unborn Child if the Father would want that Child to live?

FIFTY MILLION Children have been murdered under Federal Law, even when that was opposed to State Law

The Federal "Law" is not legal as it is not supported by our American Constitution. Only the State Laws on this issue are valid!

[803honda]

actually the stars and stripes was made by rich white men who wanted to keep their slaves so it too represents slavery. lets not forget all the kkk and nazis who carry the stars and stripes.

[RedShirtArmy]

The flag of abortion, the Klan and Nazis - what's not to love, huh? lol

[NoMoreNeoCons]

The question at hand seems to be is this thing in a woman's womb a child or a parasite? If it's a child then killing it is murder. But if it's a parasite then abortion is not murder. When we choose the latter, we must admit that a BORN offspring is also a parasite. After all, it requires to be fed and cared for hours and hours on end. So if abortion is legal we therefore should allow the killing of children up to the age of adulthood.

[RedShirtArmy]

You are detaching yourself from the very concept of life if you take such a stance. I am totally pro-liberty and hate the modern state but what you are advocating is a pro-death stance. Life is necessary for liberty, as Ron Paul has articulated.

[cowboy4ev2]

Abortion = Murder

Feds are allowing Murder. That simple.

[nbenicewicz]

I am anti-Abortion. However, If the situation arose where the mother's life was in danger and the baby might not survive after birth I'd respect the decision of the mother. But until that situation can be proven I will stand on my anti-Abortion stance.

Another thing if someone kills a pregnant woman that person can be charged with double murder. So If an unborn child has no rights and abortion is legal then how can someone be charged with double murder?

Double Standard?

[pkpk5770]

In response to the question of whether the woman should have control over her body, the answer is 'not necessarily'. To preserve the rights of others, our own freedoms must be curtailed. We do not have the freedom to steal, cheat, or hurt other people. It is for lack of the freedom of violate others that we have real freedom. Similarly, a woman does not have the freedom to murder her child, though it is attached to her body.

[KentuckyThunder1863]

I find it staggering that the useless U.S Gov't will not allow me to keep the full extent of my wages, but will allow women to kill their own children. When women, (often teenagers) go out and become a little to "easy" so to speak. why should the innocent child suffer because of it's mother's actions? when the local Health Dept's have free birth control and protection? (which I am forced to pay for by the way.) some women need to realize that one must accept the consequences of one's actions.

[freedominsomalia]

i would say if u dont like abortions then dont get one. but dont force your beliefs on me

[RedShirtArmy]

We are not discussing pushing our beliefs upon you. We are discussing the issue of natural rights and how it relates to abortion, specifically if the unborn has rights and what rights the mother has.

[asperin]

Only an irresponsible and careless person would abort their offspring for a selfish reason. (I strongly agree with abortions of defective offspring).

So, why would an irresponsible and careless person reproduce?

When they abort they prevent their DNA to perpetuate itself into the human gene pool.

So it is actually good for the species that these people limit their numbers.

That is not the only reason to let it happen but also what IndividualAutonomy said on his first comment.

[ExecutorJoe]

i totally agree with the both of yall.

let each state decide if it will allow abortions. and the conditions, of the abortions. Be it the time limit, or the manner of the procedure.

ive never been extremely anti abortion. but seeing the age of my mother (amongst other things) when she gave birth to me, i would of been a prime candidate.

By the grace of God, she gave me to my adopted parents rather then me being aborted.

so the question is, do unborn children have the right to life?

[RedShirtArmy]

Welll I'm glad you're here with us, Executor Joe.

[IndividualAutonomy]

My view currently is that one is placing a positive obligation on the woman to keep something in her body without her consent. Since the fetus is completely dependent on the mother to survive, since it cannot dissociate or be dissociated from then the autonomy fully belongs to the mother and not the baby which is the dependent.

[RedShirtArmy]

Where I disagree with you is that she's not required to keep 'something' in her body, but someone. There's another person's rights to consider & the period of time is not indefinite, it is limited. After that limited time she may give it up for adoption. Science will soon be to the point where the unborn at virtually any stage will be able to survive without the mother. We're already there for much of the pregnancy period - putting a greater moral burden on those who would destroy the fetus.

[IndividualAutonomy]

Sure that is a fair correction. It is someone in her body. Still the fetus is the dependent one until it is able to survive and live outside of the mother where it can get another care giver. Until then, no matter my views on abortion, his/her life is up to the carrier since it is completely dependent.

[RedShirtArmy]

I see your point however I am sympathetic towards Dr Thomas Woods' arguement on this issue. He argues that the woman doesn't have the right to kill the unborn baby but does have the right to remove it from her and thus give it up for adoption. And he points out that many or most abortions happen after the period when the baby could be removed and be sustained with modern science and then given for adoption. And he points out that soon throughout the entire period this will be possible.

[IndividualAutonomy]

Redshirt, well whenever that is possible that would be the direction I would favor.

[sumnemo]

Full autonomy requires accepting responsibility for your actions. Abortion is an attempt to divorce action and consequence. It is a reduction in autonomy for the child, mother and father. Additionally, excluding rape, the mother does consent when engaging in sex. Most people know the natural consequences of engaging in sex and that birth control is not fool proof.

[IndividualAutonomy]

It is not divorcing a consequence from an action (at least not unlike many activates). One is achieving a different consequence through a different action. There is no responsibility (in a purely libertarian, non aggressive perspective ) to sustain a life at the expense of your liberty. The fetus (while in the womb) is purely that woman's dependent, just like someone that accesses oneself or one's property. The aid can be cut that off at any time.

[RedShirtArmy]

I'm not really disputing the argument that aid can be cut off at any time. I think it's heartless, but shouldn't be illegal. But I think that cutting off aid is not the same as destroying or killing, at least in many and possibly most cases (I'm not sure of the stats). In many cases the unborn is killed when simply removing him or her is possibly and many are willing to adopt him. In those cases, wouldn't you agree that this is an immoral and aggressive act against another human life?

[IndividualAutonomy]

Well just for reference, that comment you are responding to was directed at summemo. Now, of course cutting off aid (the nutrition that comes into the baby by feeding off the mother in womb) cannot be cut off by telling it so. So like anyone that will not stop using you or your property, you have a right to self defense against the aggression that is feeding off you. Now I personally don't like abortion after the nervous system forms and I like the idea of removal.

[RedShirtArmy]

I agree with you on greatly preferring removal and adoption. In addition to the arguements I've presented here, there is the added one that the woman did act in most cases in a willing manner which led to the creation of the baby (she had sex). So, in almost all cases it's not as if the baby the burden of lending aid to it has been thrust upon her totally without her consent.This responsibility, added with the argument I've laid out above, is the gist of my position.

[IndividualAutonomy]

Well it is true that people can be careless when they have sex and end up with a baby. However, I don't see how having sex = you must provide aid and allow a fetus to feed off you or be put in cage if you do not. I think that is quite a jump. There was no agreement with the fetus to be kept alive if it should form because the person wanted to have sex. It formed in the body and is not welcome.

[RedShirtArmy]

I disagree. Wanting to have sex has to come knowing that producing a baby is possible. Once the baby is produced his natural liberties must be considered. Normally I'd agree that no one need provide aid if they don't wish to. However, this unique act can create a person and the act is well known to have this result. Since another human life is involved, I think it lies then on those involved to allow him his life - carrying it the short time until it can be safely removed & put up for adoption.

[IndividualAutonomy]

Yes it is a possibility but just because it is a possibility doesn't mean you consented to letting it live if it should form. Just because it is a person's life doesn't put it over the other's liberty. I may live longer if I was able to have some of your money for a high medical expense. However, if you are others do not wish to give it to me I die.

[RedShirtArmy]

Your argument would seem to be a disproportinate reponse for 'trespassing' - similar to shooting a little girl for trespassing on your property and picking flowers there. You can remove her, but shooting her is not justified. So too, the mother can remove the unwanted baby but not kill him. Her act of sex makes her responsible in part for his creation and she only has to carry him a short time and then can safely remove him. Is this not proportional justice?

[IndividualAutonomy]

If I try to steal the money from you I can be shot for my aggression. A girl can be removed from a yard but if she continues to come force can be used if desired . If the fetus can be removed at the time the person wants it out of them then I think you could make a good case that they should have to do that instead of aborting it.

[sumnemo]

Well, actually no you couldn't legally be shot for attempting to steal the property of another absent certain circumstances. Deadly force can't generally be used to protect property.

[IndividualAutonomy]

Yes in today's law you couldn't do that. However, I am giving my position based on the autonomy of the individual which you are free deconstruct and help me form my position. I think deadly force or hopefully first non deadly force should be allowed if you provide the ability of leave and they refuse.

[IndividualAutonomy]

*free to deconstruct

[sumnemo]

Every time a consequence is divorced from an action a different consequence is achieved. If I were to hit you with my truck and cause you to be a paraplegic, I would be responsible for my action. My property would very likely be subject to being taken in a lawsuit against my will to support you. Through my actions I caused a loss of autonomy on your part. And my obligation could not be cut off when I chose.

[IndividualAutonomy]

Yes but I don't see how a fetus is entitled to care by its carrier. It is the dependent. No aggression is being taken when its life is ended since it feeds off the mother. A person that got run over was not a dependent on the car driver before hand and was not using that person or the property without his/her consent.

[sumnemo]

You also have a very restricted understanding of consent. There is fore knowledge of possible or in some cases even probably consequence of certain action (pregnancy). Then there is in the great majority of cases a decision to have sex. Consent is present. As mentioned earlier autonomy without accepting the consequences of your actions is nothing other than shifting the cost onto someone else, here an unborn child.  Surely you are not unfamiliar with the concept of moral hazard?

[IndividualAutonomy]

Well I am an ethical nihilist but no I am not familiar with that phrase. I will try to Google it. I do have a rather strict idea of what is consent. Having sex does not equal consenting to having a child. It is consenting to have sex with one or more people.

[IndividualAutonomy]

The authoritarian right wishes to impose "moral" obligations concerning dependent fetuses where no agreement was made by appealing to some "responsibility" while the authoritarian left does the same by trying to impose "moral" obligations concerning dependent people in "society" where no agreement existed as "responsibility".

[IndividualAutonomy]

Simply there was no agreement to carry a baby when one has sex just like there is no agreement to take care of the poor when you are successful and drive someone out of business.

[RedShirtArmy]

Hope y'all enjoy the video. Stay strong. Deo Vindice