Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
I agree that, ceteris paribus, habitual risky-sex-havers more deserve to be denied abortions than “I used three different prophylactics but somehow they all failed at the same time” neurotics deserve it. But given that you can’t fractionally abort a baby like you can fractionally vary a fine or a prison sentence, there is alas no room for a sliding scale here.
As I said, it was devil’s advocacy. I agree that one should be required to reap what they’ve sown, and if she didn’t want a baby, she should have kept it in her pants.
In non-devils-advocacy, I think that the negative externalities of an unwanted child and a resentful mother are sufficiently bad for society that my desire to profit society exceeds my desire to force people to eat their just desserts, so on balance I come down grudgingly pro-choice in the end. And I wouldn’t prosecute doctor or mother for straight-up infanticide, let alone late-term abortion. The UK’s new legislation moves us closer to that.
I am reluctant to laud it though, because it’s pretty transparent that British lawmakers’ motivations are, as @Southkraut speculates, “Women can do no wrong”, which means we have good law (or at least lesser-evil law) for bad motives.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
6d ago
I preface this by saying it is entirely devil’s advocacy, but it seems like this sort of legislation would be logically coherent under the ‘libertarian violinist’ pro-abortion argument. It’s the woman who is inconvenienced by having another person strapped to her circulatory system, so she has an excuse to get away with murder. No-one violated the NAP on the doctor, so he doesn’t have an excuse.
Sic semper those-who-invest-in-the-Diplomatic-Ideas-group
More options
Context Copy link