by size or quality or length of time existing or dependence on another human, then you are saying that other human beings have the right to judge whether or not a human has the right to exist. Surely you must see this slippery slope. This is the eugenicists argument. Then there is the argument that humans are nothing but higher order animals and therefore require even MORE "evolved" and "smarter" among them to cull and manage the herd for the maximum benefit of those decreed "in need" or "worthy". Surely you can see the problem inherent in this argumant as well.
I was once a rabid pro-choice, womens rights liberal. Then I had to admit that an issue I held dear was an evil one. On the surface a "womans right to choose" and do what she wants with her own body seems libertarian. Start to think about the rights of the voiceless, growing human being and the womans right carries no more weight than the unborn. I saw that "womens rights" was a con to separate women from their natural protectors, males in their family.
THAT BEING SAID, the libertarian position (and it was Christs position as well-"live by the sword, die by the sword") must be to not use force to make a womans choice to sin or not sin from her. She must be offered options, support, and women must be educated to question why, if they are indeed only animals, they would choose to do such an unnatural thing as destroying their own progeny for convenience or the "good" of an imaginary collective called "society". Animals generally do not do that.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: