re: Abortion from the Libertarian Perspective: Personhood

quote:

---

The dentist said my mom should have had an abortion...

---

I am not contributing to the thread with this post. Just felt Ike it nested well with your gif

quote:

---

If there is no God then man makes the rules and we do as we please or as society accepts. If there is a Creator/God/Great I Am then we humans are subject to a higher authority.

---

We live in a democratic republic, not a theocratic republic. Because ours is a democratic republic, nonreligious views and values are as important as religious ones.

For that reason we must compromise in an attempt to respect the civil rights of everyone as much as possible. That's why abortions are allowed up to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

quote:

---

Life does not begin at conception.

---

Based on what evidence?

quote:

---

Based on what evidence?

---

Logic and science.
A 1 day old fetus can not live outside the womb. Therefore it is not alive.

quote:

---

If done before the fetus could normally survive outside the womb without machines then no it is not.
So everything before roughly the 34th or 35th week is not murder it is an abortion.

---

Yet under the law, if that child was killed by anyone other than the mother, it is still either murder or manslaughter. It is still wrongful death, a tort.

Tort and criminal law does not make that viability distinction unless the person terminating the unborn person is the mother herself.

quote:

---

genetically complete in that moment.

---

Why is genetically complete a determining factor in the discussion?

quote:

---

A 1 day old fetus can not live outside the womb. Therefore it is not alive.

---

So independent viability is the measuring stick used to determine life in your take? What about those who need medical devices to survive? Furthermore, at what exact moment does this mass become life? What if the "fetus" can't survive outside of the womb on its own but can with medical assistance and equipment...is it half alive then?

Dread Scott was more a privileges & immunities/due process case than it was a slavery case.

Basically, the issue was there were slave states and free states. It was illegal to own slaves in the free states, so all a slave had to do was enter a free state and that state would recognize them as free. However, the slave state they came from still recognized them as property. Property cannot be siezed or destroyed by the government absent due process of law. There was no due process for the slave owner when the slave was suddenly pronounced free. All citizens are entitled to the same priveleges and immunities no matter what state they are in (including rights to property). If you own a truck and drive it from Louisiana to Mississippi, that truck does not cease to be yours as soon as you cross the state line.

The question thus was: are slaves slaves no matter what state they are in, or are slaves in fact full citizens with rights equal to that of any other citizen no matter what state they are in? They could not choose the second option without a "due process" issue because they would be essentially "seizing" the property of slaveowners without due process or compensation. They would be financially ruined, as would the bankers and traders in the Northeast that traded slaves and financed the transactions. Such a decision could collapse the economy of the nation.

As courts often do, they chose the option that would result in the least litigation on their end. Courts typically have a duty to uphold a statute (in this case, the Fugitive Slave Act) if striking it down would lead to an "absurd consequence", like destroying much of the net worth of an entire region. It was a reasonable, even if repugnant, conclusion at the time.