Aborto e discriminação IV

(Via MisesBlog) Um importante texto (46 pág.) de 2005 foi agora publicado online:

Walter Block & Roy Whitehead, Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy," Appalachian Law Review (2005) 4 (2) 1-45. O texto é longo, deixo aqui apenas uma pequenas referências.

A situação dos "pro-life": (...) There is a strong analogy between the anti-abortionists active in the modern era and the abolitionits who tried to end slavery in the pre- Civil War1" period. Each attempts (attempted) to safeguard the well-being and even the very lives of a particularly helpless group of people. If anything, the present day pro-life forces are in a worse position than their nineteenth century counterparts. For one thing, the fetus is far more helpless than was the black slave. The latter could "run away" with the help of the Underground Railroad and other such institutions. No threeweek old fetus has the maturity to initiate or even remotely cooperate in any such venture. True, the pro-lifers can try to convince a pregnant woman not to abort, but in order to save the baby's life they have to convince the potentially evil doer not of course the fetus. In contrast, the organizers of the underground railroad did not have to convince the masters of anything - not very likely, in any case - but only the slaves, a far less difficult task.

Mas o problema que se põe aos liberais "pro-life" : (...) The bottom line, here, is the question of legality: under what conditions is it justified to use force? In our own personal view, abortion is an evil; we oppose it. It would be nice if all women carried babies to term, and that as a result there were fewer, or better yet, no people killed in this mariner. We are pro-people. 'we also oppose drugs, alcohol, cigarette smolung, and chocolate eating. We try hard not to do any of these things. However, we would not impose a penalty on ourselves or anyone else for engaging in these actions. It is the same with abortion. The real question is, "What penalties should be imposed for engaging in this practice?" not whether or not it is virtuous or moral to indulge in them.

A ler e comentar mais tarde.