Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:37:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
811 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> In the case of abortion, it is equally important to examine everyone's
> rights (including the father's).
Agreed, but what are they? There is a clear incongruity in the US, in that the
father has _no_ say in whether the child is aborted -- it all rests with the
mother, and yet the father is financially burdened with no recourse.
> There are certainly circumstances where
> the continuance of a pregnancy will most likely result in neither the
> baby nor the mother surviving. In this case, the mother most probably
> has the strongest right to chose the action which gives her the most
> chance of survival (but she also has the right to chose to hope that the
> outcome will be different and possibly sacrifice her life).
What about an instance where one but not both will probably survive, and the
physicians can act differently depending on which one they want to survive?
Who's right are to be protected? Why?
In other
> circumstances, it will be clear that the mother was fully consenting and
> informed before conception, and that the baby will do just fine when
> born, and then the mother's rights are most probably pretty limited (and
> in fact, most probably has an obligation of support to the child).
Note that adoption is a possible (societally condoned) out.
> On the other hand, there are very muddy circumstances. What if the
> conception occured as a result of rape?
I have yet to be convinced that this matters. I'm not set on a stance wrt
abortion's legality, but I don't think I buy that progeny via rape is an out
for whatever responsibilities we settle on for the pregnant mother.
> What if it occured just because the mother was uninformed?
For me, same as above.
> What if there is a medical prediction that
> the baby could be born alive, but has some condition which will cause it
> to live at most a few weeks,
For sure? My vote (though it's practicality, not rights-based) is to flush it.
> and by the way, will cost an astronomical
> amount of money to protect the mother and keep the child alive for those
> few weeks?
And that's an issue even further of practicality. I'm not sure it's fair to
bring that into the equation.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
