most pregnant
> females don't feel their fetus is a person prior to birth, and if
they don't want
> to bring the pregnancy to term, there is not much that anyone can
do to stop them.
> Law and public policy could put all kinds of impediments, but in
the final
> analysis the women will do what they want, and if you can't
persuade them to do
> otherwise, all else is futile.
This is certainly true. I wouldn't argue for outlawing abortion or
say that women shouldn't have a choice, as my arguments presented
here are not facts, just simply my personal beliefs. Furthermore,
women will always have abortions and I would prefer it be done under
the guidance of a qualified professional and not some back-alley
doctor.
I do wish, however, that we could deter the number of abortions by
addressing the root causes of many. To me, the primary cause of most
abortions is the way we view pregnancy, not the crap that is shoved
down our throats everyday. Are there women that have been raped and
become preganant? Sure. But don't use rape as a facade for every
abortion committed in this country. I could be completely wrong, but
I have always viewed a large number of those who claim to be pro-
choice as actually being people who simply try to justify irrational
behavior and want to promote a society based on no responsibility
whatsoever for anyone at anytime.
But lets put that aside, as I am sure there are a number of pro-
choice people who are deeply concerned about women's rights. I
simply wish that the mentality on abortion would be more geared
towards a last option rather than the first option, as is often the
case. Could we not make adoption easier and less costly? For God's
sake, it costs less to have an abortion, a medical procedure, than it
does to fill out the paperwork alone for adopting a child. As a
libertarian, I do not feel it is the governments place to provide
economic incentives to deter abortions, but we shouldn't fund the
abortions either.
--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is not science that dictates that personhood begins with birth,
but the law
> that prevailed at the time the Constitution was adopted, and that
was frozen into
> the understanding of the term "person" at the moment of
ratification in 1789. That
> was what the word meant then and the only way that meaning can be
changed is to
> amend the Constitution. Adhering to what a law meant at the time of
adoption is
> what it means to have a law, and that especially applies to a
supreme law -- the
> Constitution. All of this other argument might go to amending the
Constitution,
> but it is otherwise irrelevant. Science has nothing to do with it.
>
> But the key thing that does dominate the debate in our time is that
most pregnant
> females don't feel their fetus is a person prior to birth, and if
they don't want
> to bring the pregnancy to term, there is not much that anyone can
do to stop them.
> Law and public policy could put all kinds of impediments, but in
the final
> analysis the women will do what they want, and if you can't
persuade them to do
> otherwise, all else is futile.
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
> 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
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.
