First let’s get one thing on record: when an abortion is performed, knives and chemicals are inserted into a woman’s body to kill the most precious thing there exists.
I am going to straightforwardly block everybody who doesn’t agree on that very basic fact. They are either cowards, morons, or psychopaths. There are no psychopaths on this website, so the previous two will apply.
Let us restate for the record: when an abortion is performed, knives and chemicals are inserted into a woman’s body to kill the most precious thing there exists.
The argument, between civilized peoples, will not be about this fact which obviousness makes a mockery of redundance. It will be about the following:
-
Does anybody have a right to take not only a life, but the single most precious form of life known to man?
-
If someone does, is it only the mother, or is this a modernist conception that holds that a father is only a sack of semen incorrect, and the father have some rights? Even equal rights? Does the suffering a woman endures during a preagnancy, plus the financial, emotional and social burden this tiny life will pose her give her special rights over this the most precious form of life?
-
Is there a gradient, a form of legality for this snuffing that does not fall on simple unhindered right?
-
Does the right apply for the woman carrying the child, or the person effectuating the killing? That is, in the case of illegality, is the burden of punishment or restraint on the woman or on the murderer?
-
If these rights do not in fact exist, or exist only in gradients, does the state have any rights to impose restriction or punishment?
Being this not only a fairly complicated, but also significantly painful subject to explore, I will start off with some rough ideas.
In Rome, fathers had the legal prerrogative to murder their son at any point of their lives. In Sparta, the state itself imposed the killing of any newborns that presented significant disabilities. I will withdraw these from consideration, as they pertain to forms and ideas of honor that, though real, exist outside of the scope of the experience of any of us.
Whatever the case, in the case of an absentee father, having been already made aware of the existence of the child, he loses any rights. But if a man, made aware of the existence of a child, assumes fatherhood, it must not under any conception be deprived of him the right to prevent the child’s killing. Even taking into consideration the hardships of the mother, her biological role in maintaining that life for 9 months and, realistically, the creature’s entire childhood, it must be seen criminal, and definitely dishonorable and despicable, even giving the man the right of retributive murder and long mourning, to violate his wishes for the life of the child. I cannot be convinced otherwise. A man is not a sack of semen, any more than a woman is a sack of ovaries. Fathers have rights, families exist, however much modernists consider families to be stupid. It is beyond obvious that it is they who are stupid. There exist circumstances where a family cannot remain together, but this is a thing that went wrong, not a given or starting set of circumstances. To say a father is a sack of semen, with no rights, is to say that families should not and in real terms do not exist.
The only question here is if the state has any place enforcing anything in regards to this. The short answer is no, according to me. The long answer is that the state also is what gets in the way of the paternal family taking serious reprisals against the maternal family in the case of an abortion. As well as even more serious reprisals against the actual person committing the, I apologize ladies, but unthinkable murder.
The state is involved. And in fact, this is the Republican conception of a state. Not an ideal thing that should exist and should exist in a certain way, but something that does exist, and which existence must be dealt with with a prejudice to its diminishment. Obviously no free man can seriously desire a group of men outside their families having any bearing on any aspect of their existence. Given the historical contingency of states, a Republican state must be employed. Among other things, to strike fear in the heart of expansionist totalitarians. Possibly that is an aspect of what Rome was and is, of what Cesar’s great expansion meant, but that is outside of our scope. We are dealing with the most precious thing that exists here.
One example is the financial markets. Externally, of course, an interventionist foreign policy is needed due to the interventionist attitude, unavoidable, of less freedom-minded states. But even internally: a Republican’s idea is that there should be absolute 0 intervention. Given the actual state of things, Republicans must devise opinions regarding the forms of intervention, seeking always to enforce sanity and a prejudice against state presence.
In this case, considering the state is involved in family affairs, and that for example medicinie is a highly regulated practice, it is my opinion that abortion should not be legal. If it is unavoidable that it be made legal, it is my opinion that fathers must absolutely have equal rights with the mother. If a father, duly informed, is absentee, then he cannot have any rights, and the mother must be left to the nefarious business of snuffing out the single most precious thing in existence. It must be highly regulated, doctors must have to meet rigorous conditions, and the state absolutely cannot be allowed to fund any initiatives actively encouraging abortion. As well, any rights that pro-abortion initiatives enjoy, anti-abortion initiatives must also enjoy. It cannot, whatever the end state of affairs be, be treated as a light matter. Simply to buy a fiearm, citizens are forced to wait a number of days. A girl, usually very young, very confused, and very scared, cannot be offered a simple way to commit an act that will mark her for ever, and that will snuff out such a very precious thing. It strikes me as deeply racist, or honestly classist is the word, to suggest that poor people’s lives are worth less, that it is better they be aborted. Fuck you Harvard motherles cunts, it is you that should never have existed, and somebody should do you that favour right now. I would feel much better. But a single ghetto or country soul being lost, actually does hurt me. Call me crazy.
Life is beautiful. Even for the most penurious human lives. To steal that away, must be the greatest crime. Must be. Better to take a gulp of air than none. No matter what.
Having said all this, if it is determined that it is dishonorable and further illegal, because the penury a mother endures simply with a preagnancy, let alone the hormonal and post preagnancy implications of caring for a child, is very real, whatever restriction or punishment that exists cannot be punitive for the mother. Cannot. It is one of those things, where even though it is a crime, its commition cannot sanely be punished. It simply cannot. Unless, i do believe, the paternal family sues. In that case, some form of reprisal must be allowed. Must be. A person, by condition of being a man, cannot be asked to take the murder of their child and be quiet. This must be obvious.
In the real world, where political decisions are made not by individuals but by groups, I will support the group that is against abortion. And the above are my reasons. Let’s have your answer.