scubasteve wrote:
temperaryobsessor wrote:
I believe in personal freedom until somebody else is hurt by your freedom and in this case there is somebody else.
Logically I could see the argument of saying they are not a person until their brain starts developing as reasonable, although I do not take that stand. However, I find defining someone's personhood by location pretty arbitrary e.g. not a person because they are still in the womb.
The libertarian credo doesn't really apply here, because it still depends on at what stage you consider someone a person, with inherent rights as such. If a fetus is a "person", the mother would be infringing on the baby's right to life. If a fetus is not a person, the state would be infringing on the mother's right to choose. Arbitrary or not, I don't see any way to take a stand on this issue without first deciding at what point one becomes a "person". (Or if such rights are granted by societies rather than by God, it might be when one becomes a "citizen".) Either way, I say from birth, and therefore I'm pro-choice. That's all it comes down to.
.
Arbitrary or not I chose conception as the point where I define a person, so if you agree with me on that the libertarian credo stands.
That being said I do not see everything as equal. I believe life trumps medical procedures which are not to save your life.
Even taking a pro choice stand on the definition of person, the right to "choice" is still no more legitimate than the right to lyposuction.