You wrote:
> How is a pregnant woman a non-consentual other? If I smoke 3 packs
> of cigaretts a day for 30 years knowing full well of the dangers, I
> have chosen to accept the consequences of such actions.
By which, presumably, you mean the possibility that you will contract
cancer. And that's true enough ... but take it beyond that point. You
smoke three packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years, you contract lung
cancer ... does "accepting the consequences" mean that you are not
free to seek treatment for that cancer?
> Likewise, by
> having intercourse one consents to the possible consequences of such
> actions, whether they desire children or not.
Even leaving aside rape, etc., there are many possible consequences to
sexual intercourse. Does "accepting the consequences" mean refusing to
use penicillin if one contracts syphilis?
One of the consequences of sexual intercourse is, indeed, possible
pregnancy. The pro-life argument is that one of the options
(abortion) for addressing that possible consequence is immoral. In
particular, the pro-life _libertarian_ argument is that resorting to
that option is an initiation of force.
But the mere fact that pregnancy is a possible consequence of sexual
intercourse is not sufficient to sustain that argument. In order to
sustain it, at least two things must be demonstrated:
1) That the zygote/embryo/fetus is a "person" with rights; and
2) That abortion violates one or more of those rights.
Demonstrating those two things is a pretty tall order, but that's the
task for anyone attempting to make a _libertarian_ pro-life argument.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
