>>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?
No, because seeking treatment for cancer is not an act of aggression
towards anyone.
> > 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?
Again, the use of penicilin does not infringe upon the rights of any
other person.
I'm not going to argue whether a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person,
rather it is a potential human life that will, under most
circumstances, become a fully functioning "person." The argument over
when life begins is, to myself, a bit of an arbitrary debate because
it can also be turned in the opposite direction. Rather than arguing
whether a zygot is a person, a fetus is a person, etc., one could
take that logic to its other extreme and argue about what age we
become human. If one is not a "person" 10 minutes before birth and
has no rights, what grants it personhood 10 minutes later, a week
later, or even a month or year later. Should science not determine
an age whereby we become "persons" since they clearly have
established when we are not to be considered human? Perhaps we should
set an age limit, ahhh eighteen? Twentyone? Maybe a test whereby we
can determine whether one has reached the mental and physical
capabilities of a "person." Whatever we decide, it should therefore
be completely legal to end any lifeform that has not yet become
a "person." If it is not an initiation of force to end the life a
fetus at any age, then why should we arbitrarily declare that after
birth it is an initiation of force.
I know that all sounds far fetched but if we are going to set such
strict standards for determining when a zygote/embryo/fetus is to
actually be considered a living "person" then we must also extend
that logic to birth and therafter. Now how do you prove that a
newborn is a "person" with rights, when moments before it had no
rights and was not a person. What criteria should we establish to
determine this.
Very interesting debate. Thanks for the reply and I hope to hear from
you again soon.
Bucky
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bucky,
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
