Quote:
Originally Posted by Diuretic
You've assumed your own conclusions there. The issue is - correct me if I have this wrong - about choice. The way I see it the state has no right to tell a woman she must give birth to a baby. I've argued in these forums for less intrusion by the state into the life of an individual. Now that's often characterised as a libertarian point of view. Maybe, but I'm a social libertarian not an economic libertarian (along the lines of Hayek for example). I believe the state has no right to tell a woman, "you will give birth." There's more to be said on that but I'll stop here and see where the discussion goes.
|
I predict that anyone who is pro-life will try and correct you and say it is primarily about life, not choice.
The pro-life line of argument would be that that mother's choice not to give birth does not entitle her to murder her unborn baby any more than her choice not to raise a kid would entitle her to murder her newborn infant.
The pro-choice side will immediately dismiss the word "murder" when applied to any unborn "baby". From there perspective, there is no baby, there is only a lump of tissue, so it cannot be murdered any more than a tumor.
Anyway, my point is that arguing for the "rights of the mother" will never convince anyone who's pro-life to change their mind because, from their point of view, you're arguing that a mother had the right to murder her child.