The fetus is not a commodity. The woman shouldn't be allowed to just dispose with it for her pleasure and convenience.
This is taking stuff out of context! I was asked about school, army and roads and replied "Privatise it all".
I would disagree because a beating heart does not make it a person. Primitive cultures associated the heart with life (probably because a spear through the heart meant the end of the person). Modern science tells us that our capacity for personhood resides in the brain (the cerebral cortex) so we know the person can continue if a failing heart is replaced, but not if the brain is replaced. The process of creating a human body begins when the egg is fertilized, but the process of becoming a person can only begin when the cerebrum has the capacity to process thought. Heartbeat, instincts and reflexes (which are driven by the primitive brain stem) do not make us human beings. All of our relatives in the animal kingdom have heartbeats, instincts and reflexes, but we do not regard them as having personhood do we?
No problem You realise by doing that you would in fact create a society of haves and have nots, with the haves being in the position of dictating to the have nots eg. private sector managers may have no compunction about adopting profit-making strategies or corporate practices that make essential services unaffordable or unavailable to large segments of the population. A profit-seeking operation may not, for example, choose to provide health care to the indigent or extend education to poor or learning-disabled children.
Of course not Why not? You haven't been able to give a justifiable reason as to why the state should be able to infringe on the rights of females . .your own personal opinion not-with-standing. What are your grounds for infringing on a females right to consent to who, what, where and when her body is used by another person? What are your grounds for asserting to a violation of the equal protection clause? What are your grounds for denying a pregnant female the right to defend herself against non-consented injuries in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment? What are your grounds for granting a right to a person that no other person has?
You realise that in a completely free market, such sectors would die out pretty fast due to lack of demand? Additionally, other businessmen would, in such situation, enter the same field and completely outdo the evil-doers to ensure their bankrupcy and death. You are wrong. In a central-planned society or the corporatist fusion we live in today, there is not much incentive for providing this. Because there is no competition and no need to get better. In the free market these services would be provided, as long as there is a demand for it. Additionally, an entirely free society means the individuals can have Socialism and subsidity except they shouldn't force everyone else to participate (this of course also means that the ones who wish to not participate in this, shouldn't expect to get what it offers for free). Anyhow, this is the Abortion section and therefore I wish not to ruin the thread with a discussion about Libertarianism. Feel free to start a thread about it in another section though or just PM me your questions. More than happy to debate this.
I don't necessarily support banning abortion beyond the time at which the baby develops a heartbeat (I do believe there should be a limit, but six weeks is arguably too early), but I don't think this is a good comparison. In the case of a brain-dead person you have someone who has suffered severe damage because of an accident or disease, and who usually has an extremelly low chance of ever recovering. We terminate them to put them out of their misery, because there is no other hope or future for them. In the case of an unborn baby you are terminating someone who will most likely develop normally and who has a whole life to experience.
The brain dead do not have a right to use another person's body to sustain their lives.....neither does anyone else, neither does a fetus.
When I first joined the forum a week ago, I was surprised to see the sub-topic "Abortion: a hot topic". Probably because I'm Australian. "A 2009 study of polls conducted during Australia's 2007 federal elections found that a clear majority of both Labor Party and Liberal Party voters support abortion rights.[25] The study also showed that 77% of winning candidates in the 2007 election favoured an unrestricted approach to abortion.[26][27] A 2010 nationally representative study of Australians over 18 years published in The Medical Journal of Australia found that 61 per cent said abortion should be lawful without question for a woman in her first trimester of pregnancy, while 26 per cent said it should be lawful depending on the reason.[28] In the second trimester (12 to 24 weeks), support for outright lawful abortion was 12 per cent, while 57 per cent said it depended on circumstances. For third trimester or late-term abortions, 6 per cent said it should be outright lawful while 42 per cent said it depended on circumstances and 48 per cent said it should be unlawful.[29]" (*)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia As Wikipedia says, 77% of politicians support a woman's right to choose. So it follows 23% don't, and while I've heard some express this opinion, they make it very plain it is their opinion. They are not presenting Bills to parliament to outlaw abortion. Abortion law is the province of the states. Weirdly, only 4 of the 8 states have removed abortion from the criminal code- yet all allow abortion, time frames subject to medical opinion. To quote Wikipedia again: "Early-term surgical abortions are generally available around Australia for those women who seek them. The procedure is partially funded under Medicare, the government-funded public health scheme, or by private healthcare insurers. Prosecutions against medical practitioners for performing abortions have not occurred for decades, with one exception a prosecution in 1998 in Western Australia that soon after led to the explicit legalisation of on-request abortions under certain circumstances in that state. RU-486, an abortifacient widely used overseas, has been available in Australia only since February 2006." What percentage of Americans support a woman's right to choose and what percentage don't?
