> Fetuses are not unable to exercise rights because they are being
> prevented/violated; they are unable because they are inherently
> unable. Plus, chronologically speaking, a fetus did not once have
> rights (or the ability to exercise them).
Bingo -- those two distinctions are good arguments to make versus a
claim by analogy of fetal rights.
-----
I'm surprised you didn't remind me that a fetus at least has the one
most fundamental rights: to live.
-----
Why would I "remind" you of something that I'm not arguing? A fetus
doesn't have a "right to live" unless it's a person (and maybe not
even then). The fetus having a right to live is a conclusion that
would come at the far end of a chain of arguments I haven't made (and
don't intend to make).
-----
I don't know that my previously posted viewpoint can be described as
"unprincipled", even by libertarians.
-----
If I described it as unprincipled, I apologize. What I meant to imply
was that it was involved judgment based on probabilities rather than a
clearcut application of principle. Most ideologues prefer to believe
-- even to the extent of pretending, when necessary -- that their
principles are always neatly and easily applied, and that there's
never any room for dispute or doubt over what the proper application is.
> Libertarians respect the principle of individual rights and the
> NAP, not because it creates absolute/total freedom for all, but
> because it creates MORE freedom than any known alternative. The
> evidence for the principle is not that no ones' rights are ever
> violated, but that the fewest rights are violated.
The foremost advocates of the non-aggression principle -- Ayn Rand,
for example -- clearly disagree with you on this. You're making what
most would classify as a utilitarian, rather than principled, argument.
> Simply stated:
> If a decision is necessary, you make the best one possible. A
> decision is necessary because both fetuses and pregnant women can
> not have the same rights when the women want abortions.
And according to NAP ideologues, there is no "necessary" decision that
violates anyone's rights, because rights never conflict with each other.
The pro-choice argument is obviously the default: If the fetus is not
a person with rights, then there's no _apparent_ conflict.
A _libertarian_ (in ideological terms) pro-life argument requires not
only proving that the fetus is a person with rights, and that abortion
would violate one or more of those rights, but that there is no
conflict between the fetus's rights and the mother's rights.
Otherwise, the principle is invalidated and becomes a mere utilitarian
prescription to be used when useful and discarded when not useful.
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.
