What is that philosophy?
non-aggression and private property rights
Can you elaborate on what non-aggression entails?
Any initiation of physical force or threat of physical force constitutes an act of aggression.
Alright, so how does abortion play into non-aggression and private property rights?
Same as with any other philosophy. The only relevant question is: "Is it a life or not?". If so, it would be murder, which is of course an act of aggression. If not, the mother has "eviction rights" and there is no life to speak of that would override those "eviction rights". I personally take the former position (pro-life), but neither position is necessarily inconsistent with non-aggression and property rights.
Well, it is technically life. So is, for example, sperm cells. They're living. But I doubt you grieve when someone ejaculates into a napkin. So it isn't as simple as "is it life or not", is it?
Perhaps you believe the status (life or not) of the "organism" (for lack of a better stand-in term) changes at some point throughout the duration of the pregnancy, but it is still the case that the question of life is the only relevant question. Maybe you have a different answer to that question at 6 weeks than you do at 2 weeks, but it is still the only relevant question.
And to better address your sperm argument: The abortion debate concerns the colloquial definition of "life" (denoting sentience), not the scientific definition of "life" (being composed of cells, among other biological criteria).
That's not necessarily true, as plenty of people consider it to be alive and a human at the moment of conception, meaning mere moments after the sperm cell enters the egg. And that is not sentience.
You can't prove that. Neither can I. Hence the entire age-old abortion debate. We cannot prove sentience at any moment throughout gestation.
I don't think they're claiming sentience of a sperm cell inside of an egg cell, they're claiming it is a human at the moment of conception, hence some abortion debates not including talk of sentience.
Well I can't speak on behalf of all pro-lifers, but my stance is a stance of caution in the face of uncertainty. It seems obvious to me that a zygote moments after conception is not sentient, but it also seems obvious that a baby moments before birth is very much sentient. The problem is that we cannot pinpoint where exactly in gestation sentience is developed, and it could even vary on a case-by-case basis. For all we know, one 6 week old fetus could be sentient while another won't be for another day or two. But due to the nature of law, we have to cut off abortion at some point, and since we don't know the appropriate point, the only consistent options are conception and birth. I choose conception, because the consequences of being wrong is needlessly temporarily inconveniencing some women, whereas if I were to choose birth and be wrong, the consequences would be the largest genocide in human history. Even though it is unlikely that zygotes are sentient, I choose to err on the side of life, because the stakes are much lower than the alternative.
I agree for the most part
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I see. There isn't anything you're familiar with that you're unsure of?
Not that I'm aware of. If asked I will answer my position and if a intelligent argument can be made against it I'm more than willing to change my stands or at least consider it.
Gotcha, well I appreciate the input
What about term limits do you feel conflicted about?
Sometimes we get an honest politician. Sometimes they are competent and strong.
Meaning you feel as though they should remain in office for longer than 2 terms?
No. Meaning I and possibly many others would want that. Not sure if that means it should be only because I feel that way.
And legalized prostitution.
What about it makes you feel conflicted? Not here to judge, merely curious.
Because I'm naturally against it. Since it legitimizes homosexual relationships. And now people think it's okay for a child to have 2 moms or 2 dads.But I also believe in equal rights, so I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexual couples having the same federal benefits that married couples do.Also, you can't really "go back." It's a thing now, so there's no undoing it. Best just leave them alone and let them do their gay thing. ... But don't force it on the churches. The state has no business telling the church what they should and shouldn't believe.
That's understandable. And I think it's admirable that you can be against something but still believe in equal rights. There are a few notions in which I feel the same way.
@crmoore Thanks, man.
No problem 👍
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!