Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Cite please. What am I walking away from?
|
I said:
- Club's conception of individual rights -- as least as regards a woman's bodily autonomy -- is a pretty weak one. Woman who act irresponsibly in his book -- e.g., choosing to have non-incestuous sex -- are not deemed to have any real cognizable interests relating to the pregnancy that follows.
In #2602, you quoted that post, and responded:
- Dude you are being ridiculous in your characterization of my position.
Earlier, in #2482, I said:
- Is there a non-rhetorical difference between saying that a woman who engages in non-incestuous consensual sex forfeits the right to autonomy, and saying that you're not going to include the burdens to her in weighing the relative interests relevant to her desire to have an abortion? I'm not seeing it.
In response to which, in #2489, you said:
- I think it goes to how much weight you give the burdens - less if she didn't take proper precautions in the first place.
To which I said, in #2494:
- I fail to see where you are giving any weight at all to the mother's interests. It sounds like you think abortion is OK only if the fetus is entirely oblivious to whatever it experiences. It's not really "balancing" if one side of the scale has nothing on it. It is analytically, simply, I grant you, but only at the cost of ignoring half of a difficult moral equation.
And pointed out that you view property rights differently.
The crux of it is this idea that women who act irresponsibly -- i.e., opt to have sex -- have fewer rights. Or you take their burdens less seriously. It's a morally judgmental view of personal rights that is profoundly unlibertarian -- it's the opposite of libertarianism, really -- and stands in direct contrast to your many and well-developed posts about economic rights. I don't think you've ever said that someone who invests money unwisely can be taxed at higher rates.
