and?
Dr. Block has a some very solid arguments, and some very fragile ones. This is why I stay out of discussions about children and fetuses. I don’t think libertarian theory is developed enough to deal with them, and much of what is offered is a compromise on libertarianism in return for social acceptance.
Something is either right or wrong, and the case isn’t clear to me yet.
"That is because it’s a red herring. The argument is centered around the womb being the women’s property (not the fetus). She is either a self-owner who has the right to evict the fetus, or a dehumanized vessel bound to slavery. The pro-life territory is a desert of special pleading, which you can’t set foot in without conceding that the fetus has more rights than the woman. "
If you invite somebody into your house and then kill them would anybody say that you had the right to do so? Or are you merely going to limit the use of abortion to rape? And what about scenarios where the woman becomes accidentally pregnant? Does a woman have the right to use deadly force in non-self-defense circumstances? My point about the Block video was that he recognizes the right to evict, but he does not recognize the right to kill. So while in the future evictionism will make medical sense at this point it does not because most cases of eviction at this time will result in death.
| Quick Reply |
|---|
False analogy. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose life begins at conception (blastocysts are people). Nobody was invited into the womb, unless you want to argue that the sperm is a person. You’re also begging the question that sex is consent to pregnancy.
This is just becoming a repeat of past abortion threads, which all ended with alot limping after Knight_of_Baawa descended there from the heavens.
We’re not going to agree on this subject. I’ll agree with you on the right to evict, but not the right to kill in this situation.
Most of these discussions turn out to be a complete waste of time with nearly all parties feeling bad.
Then by your logic I am a murderer if i stop funding welfare programs; consequently resulting in people dying of hunger. I am eternally bound by slavery and positive rights, until my life is threatened. Then I do have a right to “kill” which cause that whole right to claim to fall flat on its face. It’s the lifeboat situation all over again in different clothing.
There is a difference between killing somebody directly, i.e. using aggression against them, and not coming to the aid of somebody in trouble. That and your welfare argument ignores 2 points 1) Whose to say that the transfer of money through government force doesn’t result in death or other negative outcomes 2) The use of private charity to ameliorate such situations. Most libertarians I know of don’t believe in the concept of a duty to act, but not acting is not the same as actively aggressing.
What criteria would you use in the lifeboat situation? And frankly the lifeboat situation brings up issues of life and death; the issue of abortion isn’t always about the life and death of the mother.
Yes.
Of course she has.
Abandonment of offspring and, occasionally, their consumption thereafter are common place in nature.
I for one find the prospect of abortion morally abhorrent and it should be, at most, reasonably discouraged. But I am not a woman and I do not wish to impede upon the rights of others. My feelings on this matter are out of personal experience, and nothing more.
If you only have the right to eviction, then you would not have the right to eat it.
You mean you do not wish to impede upon the right of others not to get prosecuted for something by third parties that have no standing in the matter?
Agreed.
You have the right to evict. If the fetus survives outside the womb, then that is fine. If a charitable organization donates mechanical lungs or status to help the fetus live, again that should be allowed as it is a fair use of property by the owners. The woman does not have the right to kill the fetus, nor does she have the right to eat it or whatnot once it is outside of her.
I think the analogy of the house guests is more that during your dinner, you decide to change your mind and evict the guests. Unfortunately it is freezing outside and they may not surivive the night. I don’t think this is the “right” think to do in this situation, but I do think it is within the rights of the property owner to indeed evict these people who may or may not then die. I don’t think I would call this ‘to kill’.
As far as I know no actual abortion is an eviction.
Based on?
But is it fair use of the fetus?
If evicting kills the fetus, which is it? Because under such a circumstance, she does have a right to kill the fetus.
So if I invited you on my jet plane, and then once we were in the air I asked you to leave without giving you a parachute, isn’t this evictionism?
I know the last example isn’t the same as abortion because the pro-choice folks don’t see the baby as invited. But I think it is consistent with the dinner guest analogy.
Libertarian theory on abortion and children in general is underdeveloped, arbitrary and self-contradicting. This area needs a ton of work.
Yes. Without that right you could not do things such as cultivate stem cells.
If you save a man who, if you were to not have saved him, would have drowned, do you now have the “right” to, at any time thereafter, push him into a similarly dangerous or even slightly less dangerous venue? If not, his above defense vis-à-vis that objection is inadequate.
It is an undeniable truth that you can’t force a woman to carry her fetus without violating the non-aggression principle. The life dependency of the fetus on the mother is a hard fact of reality created by nature and not some human society. Nature has entrusted the mother with this hard decision and not with you!
If you believe in God, then it is this God that has created this reality and you are neither his delegate nor his representative. You are entitled to believe that it is immoral but any violent action you take action against the mother is sheer statist barbarism.