insomniac17 said:
I disagree. The issue is when does it become a human life? I would argue that it is from conception, not because of religion, but because if you let it continue to develop, you will get a human child from that. If you let sperm/unfertilized eggs sit around, nothing will happen and they therefore are not human life. I don't support abortion because the idea that it's the woman's body is absurd. The fetus is connected to (and inside) the woman's body, but it is not actually part of her in any way. The result of pregnancy is that a child is born, not that some minion controlled by the woman is spawned (as in she can control it the same way she controls everything else that is her body). So how it is the woman's body escapes me. Also, I believe that sex is the choice. When a woman consents to have sex, she makes the choice knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of that, and she has to deal with the responsibilities of that. It's like this; if a teenager is angry at a parent for not being able to stay out later at night, it's not that they can't, it's that they don't like the consequences of choosing to do that. They can stay out as late as they want, but they will most likely be punished in some form by the parent. Thus, it makes sense to me that using the same form of logic, when a woman chooses to have sex, she does so knowing full well that pregnancy could result from it. In the case of rape, I am still against it because of the first paragraph; I believe that it is life. |
However a fetus does not have any of the things that make a person - it does not initially have a brain of any sort (and as such does not have a mind). There are strong arguments against it being a human being with all the rights that entails essentially based on that fact. I don't think a libertarian should, as Ron Paul wants to, say 'my definition of this is the only correct one and should be backed by the state, not based on scientific backing but on my personal beliefs'.
