Abortion Rights Are Not Human Rights Because Abortion Rights Is The Right To Murder

Here, I must disagree. You may speak of the rights of the unborn child, but what of the mother? Should she be burdened with a child she has no desire to raise? That sounds like a violation of individual rights to me.

Raising children is hard; most are not up to the task. It's even harder to raise a disabled child. Do you think a parent, who is forced to raise a child she doesn't want, is going raise the child properly? Treat them well? Consider how the child will be scarred for life, being raised by unwilling (possibly abusive and/or neglectful) parents.

Part of libertarianism is setting the individual free and making sure all relations are voluntarily undertaken; forcing a mother to carry to term harms both goals. I don't like abortion either, but the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is through sex education and access to contraceptives; as well as a culture amenable to them. After birth, adoption is the best option. However, relying on that exclusively overburdens the adoption system; then children suffer because there aren't enough willing parents to adopt them.

I speak as someone with a mild disability (Asperger's) with an autistic brother (low functioning). I'm lucky to have parents who were willing and able to raise me; many aren't. Not having been born would've been a mercy to them.

http://www.thedeviantliberal.org/index.php?section=24&page=107

Ziggy, I would also have to disagree with you - but you raise an interesting couple of questions at the heart of this debate:

When does life begin?

When does choice begin?

Personally, I think life begins at birth, not before it. I think it's very difficult to establish anything before birth as life, as it's difficult to know when to stop 'going back.' Eventually, you're going to end up joining the nuns for a hearty rendition of 'Every sperm is sacred.'

I might be a livelong supporter of Celtic F.C but I'm not a Catholic & therefore I don't accept the Catholic doctrine on procreation, I've no problem with contraception & in fact I'm very critical of the Catholic Church for dissuading people in Africa from using contraception & therefore helping the spread of AIDS, I've only got a problem when egg fertilizes with sperm, because that's when life begins.

What about choice, then? When does choice begin, for you?

As in, is the right to life for the fertilised egg, a choice of the parent or the fertilised egg?

Well an unborn child has no choice its a defenceless being

So, in your eyes Zig, legislation is required to protect the unborn child/ fertlised egg, as a defenceless being?

Well do you disagree with there being legislation against murder?

I wouldn't call abortion 'murder' as I believe life begins at birth.

As for legislation, I believe that it, as a whole, has proven to be ineffective, immoral, counter-productive and at odds with a free society.

For real, tangible change to happen, regarding unwanted pregancies, I would echo Patient Liberty's thoughts on the matter - education and wider availability of contraceptives (without prescription) would be much more productive and much more conducive to voluntary, and therefore longer lasting, change than prohibitive legislation.

Ziggy, I don't appreciate that statement. I feel it is personally offensive, disrespectful and out of line. Not to mention cheap.

If you keep talking like that, I'll no longer engage with you in convsersation.

In answer to your question, I feel that there would be other more efffective ways to prevent murder than legislation.

The police (as guided by legislation) are ineffective at dealing with threat - they are, generally, only interested in a crime which has already taken place.    

Well obviously there are more ways to prevent murder (like allowing people to arm themselves) however murder does happen & will happen, therefore I'd prefer to have murderers behind bars then try any anarcho fruit loop idea about trying social ostracism because believe me it wouldn't work on nutcases.

Interestingly enough, the Disability Discrimination Act (as amended) in Northern Ireland (and I think the UK) actively *excludes* those who present anti-social behaviour, personality disorder or a dual diagnosis (alcohol/ drug dependency), meaning there is no legal duty on Trusts to provide such clients with statutory care services.

For this client group, it would be better if the legislation did not exist, yet, ironically, it is meant to protect their rights, as disabled and vulnerable people. 

Of course, if the appropriate care and support is in place for such clients, it is less likely that others in the community will experience anti-social behaviour as a result of the manifestation of their ill health/ substance misuse.   

From my experience of working in the community, it is the voluntary sector that caters to this client group's complex needs, mostly unaided.