A_Muse_Mint101: An argument from a self-ascribed antinatalist.
Procreated life cannot consent to exist. To nip the obvious refutation in the bud, nor can it refuse consent. A little simplified but, with anything that cannot be positively affirmed the absence or negative is reasonable. What can be positively affirmed, is the government is -forcing- a being to exist without knowing if they consent. Ergo, not government, you, nor I get to speak for them since that consent is not implied or explicit. Religious ideals of others do not have supremacy over individual rights in the US constitution.
What we can positively affirm is the -choice- of the progenitors as to whether or not they want to create a life. "Unborn human life, fetus, etc." is not legally a person as defined [in the US] constitutionally; not explicitly defined. Therefore, it is not explicitly murder, except in the case where the progenitors -decide-, without extant foreseeable undue burden, that they will bear a human from pregnancy thru gestation and birth. In layspeak, it's murder if someone other than the progenitors, disease, maladies, etc.. cause its death without their -consent- prior to birth. The progenitors need not justify their -decision- to assumed greater authority; as it is my conviction they are the greatest authority on their creation prior to birth. When viability of existing without maternal gestation prior to birth can be established, and whether or not that is ethical itself, is a valid argument to address in regards to ethical dilemmas arising from abortion during gestation. One I won't be addressing here.
I personally adhere and subscribe to a position, for me as an autonomous human being with legally protected life and liberty, that I will not -force- existence by my actions of procreation. I will not interfere, beyond solicited and/or public comment, and thru reasonable argument, with another autonomous human being with legally protected life and liberty on matters they shall -decide- upon in their -freedom- to procreate. There are a few obvious exceptions that I won't go deep or further into about the ethics of baby selling, slave production, etc.. in these regards.
I've more to add, and feel free to comment with respect to the arguments, legality, logic of the statement and refrain from fallacious reasoning and attacks upon the persons who form other corresponding arguments and comments. This mostly for my own consideration, but as it is, I'm musing 'aloud'.
Procreated life cannot consent to exist. To nip the obvious refutation in the bud, nor can it refuse consent. A little simplified but, with anything that cannot be positively affirmed the absence or negative is reasonable. What can be positively affirmed, is the government is -forcing- a being to exist without knowing if they consent. Ergo, not government, you, nor I get to speak for them since that consent is not implied or explicit. Religious ideals of others do not have supremacy over individual rights in the US constitution.
What we can positively affirm is the -choice- of the progenitors as to whether or not they want to create a life. "Unborn human life, fetus, etc." is not legally a person as defined [in the US] constitutionally; not explicitly defined. Therefore, it is not explicitly murder, except in the case where the progenitors -decide-, without extant foreseeable undue burden, that they will bear a human from pregnancy thru gestation and birth. In layspeak, it's murder if someone other than the progenitors, disease, maladies, etc.. cause its death without their -consent- prior to birth. The progenitors need not justify their -decision- to assumed greater authority; as it is my conviction they are the greatest authority on their creation prior to birth. When viability of existing without maternal gestation prior to birth can be established, and whether or not that is ethical itself, is a valid argument to address in regards to ethical dilemmas arising from abortion during gestation. One I won't be addressing here.
I personally adhere and subscribe to a position, for me as an autonomous human being with legally protected life and liberty, that I will not -force- existence by my actions of procreation. I will not interfere, beyond solicited and/or public comment, and thru reasonable argument, with another autonomous human being with legally protected life and liberty on matters they shall -decide- upon in their -freedom- to procreate. There are a few obvious exceptions that I won't go deep or further into about the ethics of baby selling, slave production, etc.. in these regards.
I've more to add, and feel free to comment with respect to the arguments, legality, logic of the statement and refrain from fallacious reasoning and attacks upon the persons who form other corresponding arguments and comments. This mostly for my own consideration, but as it is, I'm musing 'aloud'.