Not sure where to post this, but the reason I am an anarchist AND pro life is because I believe it is unethical to take away the freedoms and liberties we should all be given from someone so young. Anarchism is about freedom and equality for everyone. EVERYONE. So in an anarchistic society, theoretically you can kill your child (or anyone) and you wouldn't be breaking any laws (because there are none.) But society and civilization would still exist, so you would be punished accordingly to your community. But how can an undeveloped human be any less of a human than you or I? They don't know anything only because they haven't lived long enough to learn anything. They feel pain, there hearts beat...I'm not sure what isn't human about them. Although that was the old argument (that they aren't humans) now it's that they are human but they don't have rights yet and that the mother's life is more important (and the mother is in complete control of them) So that sets up a social hierarchy (which anarchism is trying to destroy). In a hierarchy, someone is always greater or more important than someone else...which is wrong. We are all equal. First, it's mothers are more important than unborn babies. Then mothers are more important than 0-3 years old. then old people are less important then 20-40 year olds. Each step we take devalues the human life more and more. Any other thoughts or opinions? Any other pro-life anarchists? I don't believe the right to kill someone should have ever been given to anyone. peace! Please no flaming comments or anything. I want thought provoking debates!! No offense intended to anyone BTW.
I kind of think that if you don't have a vag then you shouldn't have a say. (BEING a vag doesn't qualify you either) However, if confronted and entered into a conversation? I'll back up pro-choice. It isn't MY body, it isn't MY pain to deal with.
As an anarchist im sure you've heard this quote: "If humans were truly good, than there would be no need for government. If humans were truly bad, than, government, made up of humans, would also be bad." I think that you would be a good person and therefore you do not see a purpose to kill anyone. All people should be equal and they would not find a reason to hurt each other. The arguement lies in the thought that one person can be twisted socially, even in a anarchal state where there is no distinction between entities, to hurt others. What then? Or that one person can tip the scales of over population... I don't believe anarchy is the idea of dissolving all hiearchies, although it might involve the disintergration of the hiearchies we have now. Hiearchy is based on judgement and valuation, as you pointed out. Everything has a value, whether we like it or not. Anarchy is simply the lack of an overpowering force that controls our individual right to create this value, and the reoccurring environment that supports this idea. In anarchy, if you value an unborns life, your choice in its survival would depend on your own will to determine its fate. And that choice is limited to the choice of that person who harbors the child. So in short, if everyone wanted the baby to be born and the woman did not, it would not be born. But the opposit is also true. Ideology has no place in anarchy apart from the individual...
That would make an interesting thread... Anarchy is about liberty and equality. if you have an abortion, where is the equality? and if you don't have an abortion (if you want to have one) for the equality of the life inside you, where is the liberty? But I think that challenging the liberty for equality by your own choice isn't as tricky.
Many people don't consider killing a fetus to be an immoral act because: 1. A fetus is not sentient and has no conscious thoughts or emotions. Is it immoral to kill an ant? What about a fish? 2. There is nothing more to a human being than what is physical (no soul, spirit, etc), and what is physical in a fetus is both expendable and replaceable, as it has no conscious thoughts, memories or experiences that would make its life valuable, unlike people who have been born. Any physical variation due to DNA is superficial and any future babies birthed by the mother (babies willingly birthed, I might add) would be essentially the same organism. 3. The fetus is completely dependent on its mother for its survival. It feeds off its mother and causes numerous unpleasant and painful physiological changes in its mother, all while being completely unwanted and unasked for. It is then asking a woman to be unrealistically altruistic to carry and birth the baby against her will.
We at Women for Life are also anarchists see our website http://womenforlifeuk.wordpress.com and email us at womenforlife@live.co.uk
Not exactly true as anarchy does not mean 'no laws', although there are extreme forms of it that imply it. The main thing is 'no leaders'. (Think back to direct democracy or tribalism for examples) They are considered unconscious as a fetus because their brains are not fully functioning. The 8th week is the first brain activity (known). The 13th week is when the nervous system is formed and the brain is mostly formed. The 30th week is when, they say, consciousness kicks in, because the now-developed brain can control most of the body. But, while we are still 100% unsure of what causes consciousness, in fact we are not 100% sure if anyone else besides ourselves have consciousness, it is possible to make the claim that the fetus has consciousness at the 1st week or maybe even that eggs have consciousness (in which the menstrual cycle would be murder itself). But many people would disagree with you. Unsure what determining factor is used for this. Even though I see it that way as well, I do believe that value does not come with the person, but it comes from the mind of who is determining the value. It could be said, and has been said, that you are preventing the future of possible life, but then again so does masturbation and the menstrual cycle, so does death in general. Have a good day.
