re: Abortion from the Libertarian Perspective: Personhood

quote:

---

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.

---

LOL...thanks for this but my point was actually simply to show that just because something is legal...it doesn't take away the stench and consequences of a wrongful act.

Out of curiosity, does anyone see a distinction between actively destroying a fetus and simply expelling it unharmed from the body (where it will obviously then die due to lack of nourishment)?

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, does anyone see a distinction between actively destroying a fetus and simply expelling it unharmed from the body (where it will obviously then die due to lack of nourishment)?

---

That is an interesting question. Both kill the fetus, so the end result is the same, but the process is different. One could argue that because the intent is the same either way, that both sets of conduct should be treated the same.

If one uses the tutorship analogy, as used above, it is still a violation of the duties of a tutor.

If one uses the personhood analogy, then removing the fetus is, in and of itself, a battery. The death of the fetus is then a wrongful death.

No matter which way you slice it, it's still death, it's still wrong.

quote:

---

If one uses the personhood analogy, then removing the fetus is, in and of itself, a battery. The death of the fetus is then a wrongful death.

---

I'm not sure if that's necessarily true. For the sake of mechanical ease, let's shift from a fetus to a zygote but leave the question the same. There are several chemical ways to simply thin the uterine walls such that the zygote will become detached. I would hardly consider that a battery.

Beyond that, one could make the argument that it's allowable to remove a fetus unharmed in the same way I can forcibly remove someone who jumps on my back.

quote:

---

But outside of rape, you consented to the fetus being put inside your body.

---

That's presuming that having sex is per se consent to being impregnated. Every time I start my car, there is a non-zero chance that it will explode. Even still, if it happened, I'm not sure anyone would say that I consented to being exploded

Jokes aside, where is the line? Does someone consent to pregnancy is they are dutifully taking the Pill? Using a condom? What about NFP? Pulling out? Jumping up and down like an idiot after sex?

Ok, maybe not all jokes aside...

If I walk through a park that is known for containing people who, as a hobby, jump on people's backs as they walk by, have I consented to carrying that person as long as they wish solely because I walked through the park?

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, does anyone see a distinction between actively destroying a fetus and simply expelling it unharmed from the body (where it will obviously then die due to lack of nourishment)?

---

It would be on the doctor to sustain it...or just not be a doctor, one or the other...

Society has the means to bring it along...but, kingbob points out, then you have other legal issues

Yes, but pregnancy is actually, biologically speaking, "the point" of sexual intercourse. Your car exploding, is not the point of putting your key in the ignition of your car. If the car explodes, it is because there is a defect in the car. If a women gets pregnant after unprotected sex, it means she's functioning properly. That is what is supposed to happen, biologically speaking.

If you're having sex unprotected sex, you're assuming some degree of risk of pregnancy simply by default.

quote:

---

If I walk through a park that is known for containing people who, as a hobby, jump on people's backs as they walk by

---

Well, you knew what you were getting into, so kinda, yeah, especially if the back-jumpers own the park and advertise it as their space for doing so. Clearly, if you didn't want someone jumping on your back, you wouldn't go there. Don't be an idiot.

quote:

---

Jokes aside, where is the line? Does someone consent to pregnancy is they are dutifully taking the Pill? Using a condom? What about NFP? Pulling out? Jumping up and down like an idiot after sex?

---

Any sex is assuming some risk. Riskier behavior is assuming greater risk. Besides, a pregnancy caused by a faulty contraception product, just like a car exploding due to a defect, is grounds for tort. With pregnancy, it's called wrongful life, especially if that defective product results in a deformed child. It's a real tort.

This is why we have a tort system and a criminal system. The criminal system has to set up bright line rules, so everyone knows what is ok from what isn't. The tort system is there for the grey areas, for "oops", and for unintended consequences.

quote:

---

Abortion will occur regardless of the law. It always has.

---

That could be said for just about every law on the books. Not a good argument.

Consent to pregnancy is what sex is because that is what sex, biologically, is for. You can try to minimize risk all you want, but that is what you are doing. As long as you are consenting to sex, you are consenting to pregnancy. That is why most people are ok with abortion exceptions in the event of rape or danger to the life of the mother. In the case of rape, the sex was not consensual, so neither is the pregnancy. When the mother's life is in danger, it could be considered self defense.

quote:

---

Instead of fighting over whether a woman has the right to control her body (she does)  

---

Get back to me when same said woman can legally sell that pussy on the street. Then I will believe that. Its not hers to do with what she wants the government owns it. The government only allows her to control her uterus. Nothing more.....