...possesses the actual individual's
right to life and property. The
starting point here for this new, actual individual is the inalienable
right to its life and property. Its property at this starting point
in time is simply the property of its own material body. Its
inalienable right to its own life is the basis for all of its future
rights and its own body as its property is the first stepping stone
right away from its right-to-life home base of rights as it steps into
its future as an actual growing and developing possessor of individual
human rights.
If this new individual is fortunate enough to be born in the United States of America it has two giant benefactors protecting til death its newly acquired rights: the Constitution of that country's genius forbearers and people who think like me.
Those who think opposite of me and advocate that both the woman and the fetus possess rights are advocating a contradiction. And because contradictions do not exist, do not exist in the world, in the nature of things, in the universe at large, those who advocate contradictions are wrong.
Anti-abortion, therefore, is wrong.
Pro abortion, being no less complicated than the application of the concept of individual rights to human action is right because it does not violate anyone's rights.
If you are an anti-abortionist and you want to know HOW TO maintain your position in the face of logic see below.
Pro Abortion is Pro Non-Contradiction
If you are pro non-contradiction, then there can be no such
thing as the right to violate rights. Therefore, either the
fetuses (alleged) rights supersede the woman's or the
woman's supersedes the fetuses'.
Since rights ( see Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal
by Ayn Rand, Appendix: Man's Rights ) are "conditions
of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival"
there is no contest here: the woman's survival comes first,
if she dies the fetus dies with her therefore the logic is
inescapable: the woman's rights come first.
Anti-Abortion is Anti-rights
Those who are against abortion are ultimately
against rights. There is no other choice here. You
can't say they are simply mistaken or making an error of
judgement. What is it they are mistaken about? What
is their error? They are mistaken about individual
rights and their error is that they are against them, in
principle and in fact.
So anti-abortionists loose "both" ways: even if we elect to skateboard down the slippery slope of allowing --for the sake of discussion-- that fetuses have rights, the law of non-contradiction dictates that the mother's rights supersede those of the fetus. And further, if we make the correct argument that the fetus is not an actual individual but only a potential individual which doesn't acquire rights until it is born and becomes --in the process-- an actual individual, then the anti-abortionist position is twice wrong, doubly wrong, proven wrong.
Therefore, if you are an anti-abortionist and you now insist on maintaining your position you have to do so by doing one or both of the following:
Support a metaphysical position that falsely claims that contradictions existand/or
Support the incorrect man-made axiom that says rights are not birth-rights but rather a gift from your rulers. (Whether rulers from "heaven" or earth is irrelevant.)
(If you are thinking here, not only is this not irrelevant but it is relevant --in spades!-- then you are potential evidence for my number 4 Hypothesis, that is the one labeled Ho4 deep inside my psycho-epistemology Venn. Explorable for free as Guest at my website: http://www.gdeering.com)
There is not and cannot be such a thing as the right to violate rights, because such a position is contradictory and as nature amply demonstrates by not having any: contradictions do not exist.
Be sure to click your Browser's BACK button to get back to the text from whence you cometh.