5 ms·

Following the viewpoint of the parent commenter, you are not choosing to kill the fetus. You are choosing to stop letting the fetus have residence inside your b

Following the viewpoint of the parent commenter, you are not choosing to kill the fetus. You are choosing to stop letting the fetus have residence inside your body (your property) and choosing to stop providing it with free nourishment. It's the lack of the fetus's ability to fend for itself that causes it to perish.

ch4s3 4y ago
This is in line with my argument, but I actually mean something more direct than that. I mean you have the right to kill someone living inside of you, because you have property rights over your body and rights to the security of your person. Before viability, the only means of evicting a fetus, or in other words securing your person, is to kill the fetus. I think that is a fundamental right. Just as you have the right to defend your home with lethal force, you also have the right to evict by lethal force a fetus. I don't think it does us any good to shy aways from the uncomfortable aspects of t he free exercise of these rights.
- i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
- teolandon 4y ago
  Those two situations are not comparable. Obviously there are alternative options to safely get the starving child in your house help. You can easily call the police, CPS, etc to take care of it with no danger to your own body. You cannot do the same with a fetus inside your body.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  You aren’t compelled to allow someone to stay in your home just because you previously invited them in. Ideally, people would successfully use other means of contraception and they VAST majority of the time they do. But there are myriad reasons someone may come to the decision that they cannot carry a child to term. I firmly believe that being compelled to do so violates security in one’s person. There’s a long tradition in English common law preceding the US constitution that holds basic the same concept to be true. Historically common law allowed abortion up to the “quickening”, which today we might call viability even though it differs a bit. Fundamentally I don’t think the state should be able to tell you what to do with your own body. Many important rights flow naturally from this basic premise. I think this is a principled approach rather than working backwards from an outcome.

ch4s3 4y ago

This is in line with my argument, but I actually mean something more direct than that. I mean you have the right to kill someone living inside of you, because you have property rights over your body and rights to the security of your person. Before viability, the only means of evicting a fetus, or in other words securing your person, is to kill the fetus. I think that is a fundamental right. Just as you have the right to defend your home with lethal force, you also have the right to evict by lethal force a fetus. I don't think it does us any good to shy aways from the uncomfortable aspects of t he free exercise of these rights.

i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago

i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago

teolandon 4y ago
Those two situations are not comparable. Obviously there are alternative options to safely get the starving child in your house help. You can easily call the police, CPS, etc to take care of it with no danger to your own body. You cannot do the same with a fetus inside your body.
ch4s3 4y ago
You aren’t compelled to allow someone to stay in your home just because you previously invited them in. Ideally, people would successfully use other means of contraception and they VAST majority of the time they do. But there are myriad reasons someone may come to the decision that they cannot carry a child to term. I firmly believe that being compelled to do so violates security in one’s person. There’s a long tradition in English common law preceding the US constitution that holds basic the same concept to be true. Historically common law allowed abortion up to the “quickening”, which today we might call viability even though it differs a bit. Fundamentally I don’t think the state should be able to tell you what to do with your own body. Many important rights flow naturally from this basic premise. I think this is a principled approach rather than working backwards from an outcome.