Easy Truth

Then let us say that at some objective stage in development, it is now viable, and it is inside the mother's body. A right of others to a viable fetus means a right to action. What actions do they have a right to? On one hand they don't have a right to the circulatory system of the mother, but they have a right to the fetus. So others have a right to DO what with the fetus?

Then to clarify, a right to a viable fetus, in this context, means a right after it is born. Is that correct? Meaning the right to action, like hold the entity/baby does not extend before birth.

Let us assume there appears a insect (a hugely benevolent one) that is rare and goes into your body through your ear or nose and ends in your stomach or so. It does nothing harmful to you, but it grows in your stomach into something that if taken out, will feed 1 million people for a year. A utilitarian or communist or altruist (or even Democrat or Republican) in general would say, for the majority or the masses , we should get that insect out of you for the good of the people, common good etc. etc. and there is a 1 percent chance that you could die of the operation. An argument can be made that If you were "rational" you would take the one percent chance of death and make a large amount of money selling the insect within your body. But you don't want to take the one percent chance and it is your body. But then the argument is made that there is something in your body that is not part of your body that does not belong to you. That is where my objection lies regarding the issue of "it's inside your body and it is not your body". It is a cleaner argument to say anything inside you belongs to you and all that ownership implies. It seems like I'm making the case that there is a physical boundary that determines what is your body and what is not. So what is inside your skin is yours, be it your body or not. I simply can't see a justification for anyone without the consent of the mother determining what happens to the potential child by right or by love.

Isn't there a contradiction here? There is no right over the pregnant woman but over what is "inside" her body. As an aside, I looked at one of your references and it clarifies the concepts of omission vs. commission when it comes to the suffering of another. https://mises.org/library/law-omissions-and-neglect-children

Yes, I would argue that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy at anytime while the potential entity is in her body. Some disagree and I want to find out the core argument against it. The argument seems to center around when it is identified as a baby, you shouldn't be able to kill it, which requires defining too. Killing it (via the mother's action) may be not eating properly or ingesting something that turns out to be bad for it. So the relevance is that the argument seems to center around the fact that the baby exists, be it voluntarily or by accident. That even if it were by accident, the rest of society seems to have right to force the mother to bring it to a proper birth (whatever that would mean). Which would imply that the baby has some right. It is very politically incorrect and offensive to flat out say, the baby has no right to be taken care of. It is taken care of via love, or loving which is different from having a right. And if there is NO love for it anywhere to be found, there should be NO forcing of the mother to take care of it (be it giving birth or even after). And granted, they have a personal obligation to do it. But how would that translate to rights and force?

This refers to the fact that people can conceive stupidly/accidentally/involuntarily.

So a moral obligation includes an accident that you have caused. But this is taking responsibility for something that you did not choose. Now, I have seen this "coming back in to integrity" behavior work in the case of addiction, where they are drunk and break the neighbor's window and have no memory of doing but he/she knows that he/she did it, like video exists of him doing it. In that case the person takes responsibility, fixes the window and pays compensation for emotional damage, owns the action, gives assurance it will not happen due to xyz, and it allows the alcoholic person to come back into a state of integrity. In this case a teenage couple don't fully understand the consequence of what they are doing, or rape etc. Nevertheless, they do it and a potential child is created. The question still is "while it is in the body of the woman", do other people EVER have a right to force the woman to do something with her body either to keep or expel the potential child? From what I can see, the moral right to force a woman to bear a child simply does not exist. Unless one argues something like the child has rights and if you violate them you will go to hell. A consequentialist argument that would make sense if there was a hell. The secular arguments seem to relate to some sort or utilitarian social scoring, that if you are not good for society, we can make you do things. It is a huge problem when "good for society" ends up meaning good for "some people in society". But the argument I have wondered about is still the issue of viability related to the rights of the adults involved. The moment one person shows up to say I will take care of the potential child, it is viable (philosophically speaking, not legally). And if a potential child is viable, does the volunteered custodian have any rights in the matter before birth?

This would be a contract between who and who. The parents and the rest of society? Or some in the society? Or the parents and GOD? Or is it a contract between who the child will be and the parent? This sounds like a social contract argument. Unless the society is so closely intertwined that any activity one person makes is credited and debited toward a societal pot. Almost like getting a social score for your behavior. I wouldn't know how else to make that case.

These are hard subject to discuss. Having said that, I do in fact agree, although I wish I did not. This implies that the right of a child (outside of the womb) to exist simply means the right to not be killed/harmed rather than (unanimously) not attended to and allowed to die. Meaning if all adults want to walk away from the child, the child has no moral right to force any of them to take care of it. There is no right of the child to the actions of the parent or parental figure or custodian unless there is a contractual agreement (or declaration/demonstration by a parent) amongst the adults to take care of the child. Meaning there is no inherent "duty" to take care of a child, which sounds heinous to say like that. Perhaps, fortunately, by nature, adults, amongst ourselves would find it unacceptable to allow the demise of a child unless it was a last resort/a dire situation.

Fair enough, we identify that it is a living human, let us say with clear objective standards that indicate that this entity is a living human and it is in the body of another living human. At what point does the living human that is living within the mother have a right to a government enforcing the mother to bring the child to full term? In theory there is a point at which a mother loses her right to terminate. I assume we all agree that after the child is out, she has no such right. It is the "in between time" (after there is a living human and birth) that is point of contention as to the question of rights involved.

Use of plastic bags shall make you free (or free-er).

You should move to the ungoverned areas of Pakistan. They let you use plastic bags at the grocery and you can have 4 wives too.

That actually opens up another angle of the discussion as in when technology changes how we conceive babies, let us say we don't have sex and women don't give birth but somehow two people provide samples of their DNA and designer babies are created in a test tube and go from zygote to human. When can or should a person be allowed to terminate the process?

I disagree here, this is a conceptual identification. Any emotions follow after the identification is made. But a value judgement is being made here. Okay, it is identifiable as a child (or more identifiable). When is it so valuable or important or even right to retaliate against the mother? What is being identified? Grames, when the does value judgment start? Isn't it material in this question? As in how would a robot identify the fact that we have an entity that is more important than another entity?

The state should disallow that which is objectively harmful to every individual's life. I emphasize "every" because it can't disallow the interest of some while allowing it for some others. These types of disallowed activities would be physical force, theft, murder, fraud and the like. Any labor that contributes to those kind of activities might be disallowed too, I'm not sure but it makes some sense. I assume you're making the case that "doesn't the government have a right to prevent murder of a 7 month old in the womb". That goes back to the question of if the 7 month old in the womb is a person or not. I was also wondering about the question of if "a child" has a right to the labor of others (be it parents or some random adoption or perhaps forcibly take the child into a government run orphanage). Sure looks like forced charity. But it seems to be the case right now and it would fall under your example of proscribe, meaning we will be prevented from killing a child or letting it die.

I think you mean pay for it, otherwise NO. In the case of payment, that would be a voluntary transaction. In that sense, it may be that the state offers to pay the woman let's say one hundred thousand dollars to have the baby, and maybe she says yes. It all depends on what you mean by proscribe. But if you mean the state has a right to force you into something without your consent, absolutely NOT. Even in the case of eminent domain, the state should not have that right because it is "we will take what is yours, pay you what we think is fair, no matter what you agree or don't agree to". The weapons thing may fall under the monopoly of force issue. If the state has the monopoly on force then it could assert that it has the only right to produce a certain weapon. I bring that up because it's different from the abortion issue.

It's a simple No, because this is a question of having a right to the labor of another and one does not have that right (descriptively and/or prescriptively).

Ultimately it is still based on emotion or the feelings it evokes "when it is recognized as a baby". I am sympathetic to that, but if we go by the feel of it, imagine we were going to force a woman at 7 months to have the baby. Then we put her in a locked room and if she resists tie her hands so she can't hurt the child etc. Maybe point a gun to her head and tell her we pull the child out after you're dead if you resists. So even based on sound reasoning, we can do some cruel ugly looking actions. I would argue a case for a defacto descriptive right of the mother coming into play, in that the mother, absent anyone to prevent her, can give birth and do whatever she wants with the offspring. There is no other way but to justify preventing her but on the basis of "ownership", as in who owns the child. If someone else owns the child while it is inside the mother's body then they would have the right. But I don't know on what basis one would assign ownership in this case.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/18/politics/ashli-babbitt-capitol-hill-riot-death-invs/index.html In summary, Jan 6 is something that should not be allowed to happen again. Any justification falls short. There are other ways to change this flawed government. Violence is not justified on either side. Be it conspired and on purpose or accidental.

It happened yesterday too. It's a very common thing. A woman was shot but not killed too. She died soon after being shot. And don't forget the Black Lives Matters events, they did the same thing so it should be okay. Lots of stretching going on … on every side of the issue.

Once violence starts, any concentration power can use force and justify it as retaliation. It could be a political leader supported by some armed group as we have seen many times in history.

I don't want to nit pick but the right to a speedy trial is violated so frequently that it is the norm. But yes, it is a violation of our rights. Are you objecting to the "McCarthy-like" congressional show or actual legal action within courts? Clearly the congressional hearings and the media is overblowing some of the activities. Nevertheless, this was a potential overthrow of a government that is on the whole very functional, meaning a system that can right itself peacefully. What will happen after the hearings? I suspect, like an impeachment, the jury is the public and the way it will vote.

Again Tad, you're describing it. Don't we have to make the case of why it should be this way? Are you arguing that it is unanswerable objectively therefore the vote is all we have?

Unless you say why, the solution is based on democratic means, meaning we get everyone's votes and that is what we will go by.

Me too, but I can only find an emotional response on my part. I can't back it up with a principle. It makes me cringe to see a baby looking thing pulled out like that. Nevertheless, I can't simply propose or support laws based on how it feels to me and that is my quandary. The only unemotional reason I can find is perhaps rules that help propagate a species. One problem with that is that it would attack homosexuality too. But there is also no inherent value in one's species. Or is there?