The Conversation About Abortion You Never Hear? Overturn Roe to decree Roe 2.0?

My email in reply to a post at LewRockwell.com.

[Note that the owners of the web site do not agree with all the
opinions posted there.]

Dear Mr. White,

I like, and agree with, most of the things you post, so the one titled “The Conversation About Abortion You Never Hear” was a shock to me.

I realize that there are many self-identifying libertarians like yourself defend abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a “right” of the mother. Even so, I have to scratch my head when I see anyone otherwise rational in his conversation defend the practice of abortion (in its contemporary definition as being an intentional procedure to expel a fetus, aka “unborn child”, aka “baby in the womb”, resulting in the death of a living “fetus”.

This was the paragraph where I saw something that in my opinion defies logic:

The repeal of Roe vs. Wade should have meant that the decision to have an abortion was left up to each individual woman, not a coercive State government.

Do you not understand? Or remember? That is exactly, precisely, absolutely what the Roe v Wade decision of 22 January 1973 was? It was a coercive decision banning any restriction on what I call prenatal infanticide. Your position is exactly what the Roe v Wade decision decreed as law of the land.

I also find it interesting that the same people who defend the human rights, or even the rights of the non-aggression principle*, and even apply them to post-partum babies, would be fooled by the artificial “geographic” location of the baby (inside or outside a womb, one minute before vs. one minute after) into thinking the obvious imputed opinion doesn’t matter of the other party involved in an abortion that has more at stake than the mother herself.

By the way, I emphasize that the pro-life position is emphatically endorsed by MANY atheists and agnostics. You can search “pro-life atheists” and “godless pro-lifers”. The Christian pro-life position has accusers who claim it is a “religious” position. True, opposition to aggressive murder is a Christian principle, but many atheists are also against killing innocent human beings, including pro-life atheists.

That’s another example, in my opinion, of how Biblical beliefs clarify many other truths, and lies, not considered religious.

*I prefer L. Neil’s term, zero-aggression principle


%d bloggers like this: