This is mainly an argument aimed at conservatives and as far as I am aware it was first made by Rothbard in the “Ethics of Liberty”:
Let us assume, for discussions sake that an embryo was a human being with all inherent rights.
What is the nature of these rights? Are they positive, i.e. must they be provided by others, or negative, i.e. only need to be respected by others?
That is important distinction, because the same conservatives who would object to the idea that they are forced at gunpoint to provide for the needs of others, expect a mother to keep a child alive.
That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.
Therefore, let us separate the child from the mother and see if it lives.
If it doesn´t, the child´s right to live was never violated, it could exercise that right if it had only the power to do so, alas it hasn´t. It basically is in the same position like a person dying of diseases or of old age.
So, the real question for a conservative is, how he can be against abortion and also against welfare when forcing a woman to keep a child alive she does not want basically is welfare?
I find it funny that generally people are against murder, but to kill what is potentially a human life is okay. I always ask the same question. What did the child do to deserve to die? It is natural for men and women to want and have sex, but who suffers the repercussions of an unwanted pregnancy? The child is killed and the parties that enjoyed the baby making go about their lives usually no worse off. How is that fair? I think it send a band message to the people of the world especially our youth that says you are not responsible for your actions.
It is also funny how people talk about war being unjust, how taking someones life other then self defense is wrong, but abortion is okay. That is strange logic to me.
Read the argument again.
If an embryo is a human being, killing it is wrong.
We are not arguing about killing it, but about removing its life support system.
A right to live is respected by others by not killing you, but it does not mean that they are bound to feed you.
The embryo has a right to live, not to a cushy environment that is provided by others at gunpoint.
So, this completely consistent with an anti-aggressive war stance.[/quote]
So if I lock an adult in a cellar with no food or water, then I simply removed them from their life support system, right? No killing involved.