Comment: Okay, here's my thoughts.

(See in situ)


Okay, here's my thoughts.

First, as stated below, property rights should be adhered to. So the fetus possibly could have them at some designated point. According to Dr. Paul, the fetus is a life at conception when it comes to him as a doctor injuring the fetus or anyone injuring the mom and the fetus are in double trouble. The law recognizes the fetus at conception in all instances except abortion.

So that should be easy. There should be a defining point in time that classifies the fetus as a human life.

But, in the case of abortion and property rights there is some complication for the fetus' right to life. The women also has a right to her property - her body. The fetus is basically a parasite. So that is the dilemma. Not only does she have to acquire food for two, she has to abstain from unhealthy or treacherous activities, she will most likely miss work and consequently money, she will endure horrendous pain, and she will have to rehabilitate her body (which will never recover fully). These are the consequences even if she decides to put the baby up for adoption. We all know that far more is required if she keeps the baby. Besides the 18 years of child care there are other factors. If the women is exceptionally young she would have to endure ostracism at school. Her entire life may be effected if she cannot afford to go to college and raise the child. Her family may disown her for having sex too young. Those are a just a few consequences. And they do not touch upon the affects the baby may have to endure in an unwanted birth situation.

So, with two sets of rights at stake I understand why the courts are not so clear on when life begins. I think at this point the only way to solve it is to give the women a grace period on the conception date. And maybe this is what the courts do. Perhaps by the end of the first trimester the women should have her decision done.

So timmy, that is the way I see it from an atheistic anarchic worldview.