Abortion and Welfare

[Birminghamia]

We can also relate this to breathing.

Since you are breathing oxygen made primarily by plants, and (eventually) all of the oxygen would convert to carbon without plants, I can terminate your life on behalf of a blade of grass in Central Park, because you are dependent on the blade of grass (for all we know).

Makes perfect sense.

Are you really comparing a blade of grass to a human being?

I am showing you how ludicrous this idea of 'abortion and welfare' is. Because you indirectly support something (note that in both cases neither supporter is needed for the dependant's survival) does not give you the right to abort it, as a mother (legally) has with her child.

Note that I am against the criminalisation of abortion and abortion.

[Dempublicents1]

The argument in favour of abortion is based around property rights. In short, others cannot use your property without your consent, whether they are burglars or unborn babies.

Not really. The wording is often phrased in the same way a property rights argument for lack of better terms. But they way in which you have "ownership" of yourself - of your own body - is actually much more stringent than ownership of property. It is true that, in general, others cannot use your property without your consent. But it is absolutely true that others cannot use your body without your consent.

Can you name a situation in which others can use your property without your consent?

Yes. Easements are the first example to come to mind. You may own property all the way out to your street, but a portion of that property can be controlled by the government for power lines, etc. and you're not allowed to build on it without special permission for that reason. Also, in cases of major disasters, the government can use your property without your consent for the purposes of housing people or distributing resources, etc.

[Drachmar]

The argument in favour of abortion is based around property rights. In short, others cannot use your property without your consent, whether they are burglars or unborn babies.

Not really. The wording is often phrased in the same way a property rights argument for lack of better terms. But they way in which you have "ownership" of yourself - of your own body - is actually much more stringent than ownership of property. It is true that, in general, others cannot use your property without your consent. But it is absolutely true that others cannot use your body without your consent.

Can you name a situation in which others can use your property without your consent?

I have a sidewalk right outside my house that's used without my permission, and the city can force me to repair it if it's torn up by them.

Oh, the government can also confiscate my property without my consent. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#United_States

[Greed and Death]

A lot of people in the abortion thread have said that no person should be forced to support another human being (or fetus, whatever.)

Well, isn't welfare just that? You are forced to pay a tax that is given to another human being so they and their ilk can continue to survive.

Basically you are forced to support another human being and help keep them alive, even if you don't want to. Isn't this wrong?

You can always use the baby Moses laws to your advantage.

[Pevisopolis]

A lot of people in the abortion thread have said that no person should be forced to support another human being (or fetus, whatever.)

Well, isn't welfare just that? You are forced to pay a tax that is given to another human being so they and their ilk can continue to survive.

Basically you are forced to support another human being and help keep them alive, even if you don't want to. Isn't this wrong?

I'm not a supporter of welfare, I'm rather in support of a society in which you work voluntarily and humanely for the good of all.