...Can we please introduce a variate of Godwin's law here. Anyone who calls Amanda 'twisted' (how ugly) or brings in Amanda's youth into play, without any sort of argument, automatically loses.

Amnada, presumably with God on her side, and with Frank Brennan's approval, doesn't need a moral pep-talk from me. But if she does, she shoud perk up. Any mindless nastiness she encounters as white noise in public forums like this should be disregarded.

Mind you, I reserve my right to stand off from Amanda if she wants heads chopped off. That does not seem very likely. It seems to be the so called Liberals who are waving the axe on this matter.

suzeonline writes

'Women have won that right already Herman.'

Some men have won the right to mutilate their daughters in Islamic countries. One day you will learn Suzi that just because it is legal does not make it right.

It is significant that the author of this article tells us that she is a Christian. Exactly what relevance it has is not clear. Being ‘pro-life’ on the basis of a belief that life begins at conception is not a singularly Christian or even religious point of view. Many people who are not religious ‘believe’ that life begins at conception. There is no compelling evidence either way. The ‘belief’ that it does not is just as strong. Where you have absolutely no evidence for either of two opposing views you must consider them both equally valid. It is not a matter of conscience it is a matter of ignorance. The author does not need to resort to ‘freedom of conscience’, a bill of rights or appeals to religious freedom she just needs to act on the evidence or lack thereof. It would be perfectly reasonable to not participate in abortions or help procure them because there is no evidence to suggest that life does not begin at conception. So what exactly is the real agenda in appealing to religious freedom or conscience?

Since the question of when life begins cannot be resolved the state has to look after the welfare and rights of other people who are affected beside the foetus. This means the mother. The mother has a right to the procurement of medical services including abortion. All other things being equal those rights should be granted to her unless a compelling argument can be mounted for denying them.

The ethical issue for doctors is not about whether life begins at conception but rather can they ethically deny the rights that the state grants to a woman when all other things are equal. If someone comes up with evidence to prove life begins at conception then they may have a case but until that happens they have no reason to deny the rights of women who seek help with abortions.

Most religious doctors are not battling with their conscience – they are battling with their emotional dependence on religion.

Um, sorry to burst some bubbles but an unborn fetus IS part of the mother- it's attached to her and even gets its nutrition intravenously from her bloodstream.

But on a side note, what happens if somebody is born with a conjoined twin- or a fetus in fetu? (if you want to get really complicated to the point where you are forced to research on Google).
Every single moral justification and complication of a woman maintaining an unwanted pregnancy is the same as these people maintaining their bond with their conjoined sibling.

And what doesn't get asked enough- what happens after the kid is born? You can't just whinge about abortion and then at the point of an unwanted child being born pat yourself on the back and say "my work here is done". It's irresponsible. How is the child going to be brought up? What kind of person will the child become? The issue doesn't stop with an assumably promiscuious woman getting her "just deserts" for having intercourse.

Anyway- I agree that the simple solution to this right dilemma is to make the information needed to consult an abortion expert publicly available (eg a hotline advertised on TV). Therefore, anyone with an objection is simply never consulted to begin with.

Hazza
Yes good points and these are very real issues.

If rights mean nothing more than forcibly imposed values, then instead of talking about rights, perhaps we should just say “I like forcing others to serve me against their will”, or “I hate it when people use force to confiscate the fruits of my labour”.

However, that theory still lacks any ethical content, confuses rights with mere power, and provides no reason why the state should be the party who gets to say what rights are. By your reasoning, Ivan Milat had as much ‘right’ as anyone else to impose his values on his victims. It is an amoral and immoral theory of mere power, not a theory of rights.

At least the libertarian theory provides
a) for the value of peaceful social co-operation to be paramount, and
b) that each person’s material well-being is improved as best we know how, and
c) a way out of that mere arbitrary power struggle by grounding the ethics in a proposition to which everyone universally assents implicitly by joining in the discussion. ‘You own yourself’.

Your present theory of rights fails all those tests.

“by WHO?”

The aggrieved or his agents.

If we assume a system of state courts protecting the rights to life, liberty and property, as in your school/factory example, then the person who claims his right is being infringed, can apply to the court for it to be enforced.

However let us even assume the government monopoly of law and courts were abolished, and the aggrieved person either enforced the right himself, or contracted out this action to competing private firms. Protection services are currently provided by security firms, forensic services by insurance firms, and adjudication and case law services by commercial arbitrators.

Thus it is more feasible for the rights to life, liberty and property to be enforced by the individual and his agents, than may at first sound. There is nothing about a state monopoly of violence and threats that makes it less arbitrary and chaotic, and more ethical or practical – on the contrary.

‘…. "Buy the forests" … means that people have to buy their rights’

That assumes what is in issue. The greens don’t have a ‘right’ to use old-growth forests for preservation, any more than house-dwellers do for shelter, by your own theory.

‘and means that having rights only comes down to having more money to bid than the person who is less honest… Same deal with the lumber tycoon bidding against the locals.’

If ‘the locals’ can’t afford it, compared to the guy selling lumber, it’s because far more people want to use the forest for building homes etc., than for conservation. However, if it’s the other way around, why should they be forcibly prevented from buying and conserving it by the state?

‘Also, might I ask who owned the forest and why do THEY have a right to it?...
‘And I should also ask- WHO SAYS which property is which? …. (etc. etc.)… Under what circumstances?”

Good questions. They all go to the underlying question how could a just, prosperous and sustainable society be based on freedom and private property with a minimum of arbitrary violence, ie with little or no state.

Two points.

Under your present theory, these questions are both meaningless and irrelevant. All that matters is pure power; and murder, rape and robbery are as validly called rights as anything else. That by itself should persuade you to consider a better theory.

The libertarian theory is both more ethical and produces much better practical results. And the right to property arises directly out of the right to life and liberty.

However, we all receive at least 10 years compulsory indoctrination that rights consist of whatever the state says, that rights may include abuses, that the state is above society, that the state is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, like a god, etc. etc. and I cannot reverse that in 700 words.

I can only ask that you exercise your inquiring mind to consider a theory that is more coherent, ethical and practical, for example:
Short version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Middle version: http://mises.org/daily/3750
Longer version: http://mises.org/etexts/hoppe5.pdf