I could care less if someone eats their aborted fetus. I probably wouldn’t want to stop trading with them or advocate harm to them. I am not ‘wrong’, we simply have a different viewpoint on ‘respecting life’. You may imagine that the ‘right’ you speak of are in some way objective. That this makes it fair to force them across all people at all times. I disagree. If you wish to defend the ‘rights’ of fetus’, go ahead- but please don’t craft a universal law which utilizes force (with guns) to garner support. Donate to a ‘save the fetus’ fund’ instead.
Question for you to consider:
-If we should respect a fetus’ ‘right to life’, why should we not also advocate the ‘right to life’ for chickens? Cows? Fertilized eggs? Bacteria?
-If I remove a tape worm from my body, do I have the right to sell it to a super market? Or does another person have the right to ‘claim’ it from me as well?
I have not evaded anything. Any discussion of what relationships human have or should have with each other requires we define the group we are speaking of. If I include one year olds in the human species and you do not then any discussion about the realtionships of one year olds to adult humans for example will be impossible. I confer all rights on someone the moment become human. You can confer all rights on someone when they become human as well, I presume, but you just don’t know when that is.
Have I said the resolution is simple? or without distress? The fact that the innocent third party was forced into the situation does not make them less human nor does it absolve their rights. In some pregnancies it may be a case where abortion would be permitted due to physical or emotional stress to the mother that would be considered life threatening. That does not suddenly make the baby a non-human.
Are you under the impression that without the formal state that there will be no violence? My point is that some positions can not be reconciled and they are of such a nature that doing nothing is not a likely option. Murdering children is one of those things. You favor child murder and i oppose it. I do not see a middle ground.
Hardly, what I support is the idea that actions have consequences and that actions that result in unjustified harm to other individuals needs to hold the offending party accountable.
So do I. But again, you must resort to “social” rights and not individual rights based on the NAP to make your case.
So you support the murder of a baby in case of rape! Ok, I told you that the “human” argument doesn’t hold water. Now even you agree
No human has a right to enslave another, even if it his only way to survive.
I don’t support murder, but call it what you want. You now support it also. As you’ve indicated above: “it may be a case where abortion would be permitted due to …”
So maxLiberty,
You seem to think that there is a middle ground after all.
Now, who will decide where the middle ground is? What coercive authority will make such decision for all of us???
This is where you have made your big error in reasoning. Since you do support abortions in some cases, you should have known better then to advocate a State to make such decisions. Especially since most of the western world is pro-abortions (you can abort at 9 months in many countries).
You never answered**: Do you support invading France in order to compel them to outlaw abortions?**
Now that’s a whole different animal. A person would easily stop the murder in his own street, or fight a war in his home country, but wouldn’t fight in another country as an aggressor. That’s just interventionism. Unless maxLiberty is a neocon, this seems more like your just trying to belittle him.
Only if you’re arguing from a Statist perspective and not a libertarian perspective. Go back over the thread. You may see more clearly why the question is appropriate.
What am I saying is that there may be some cases that due to the nature of the pregnancy or the nature of the circumstances that abortion might be considered acceptable in order to save the life of one of the persons involved. Some types of pregnancy would be potentially fatal to the woman and the child if allowed to continue so an abortion in those cases would be reasonable.
You definition of enslavement is requiring consequences for actions. If this is true it leads to scenarios that humans simply are not hard wired to accept such as child murder, doctors murdering patients, and many other scenarios that humans just are not biologically designed to accept. We are bio-chemically designed to protect children. To pretend that murdering one year olds is acceptable human behavior ignores the reality of our own humanity. What you want os to change the species so it no longer is human…so that is transformed into something else that disconnects action from consequence.
Who will decide when any aggression has been committed? What coercive authority will punish the serial killer?
I have not advocated for the state…like always I never even mention the state in my discussions. You keep bringing up the state, not me.
I support preventing child murder… if that means invading France should I have the energy to do so then so be it. Does that answer your question?
Aggression wherever it occurs is wrong. I don’t pay much attention intellectually to the borders of France or any other country when it comes to injustice. This is why the question was silly to begin with. If I support protecting children against murders next door then theoretically I would support protecting them from child murders everywhere. Murder is not more acceptable the further away it is. Let go of the state definitions of who you are…home country…interventionism…this is how the state wants to define things.
What you are saying is that there is a middle ground. You were unable to defend your firm position due to its inconsistency and incompatibility with freedom. You support “murder” only in some cases… You should have ended the debate right here and there.
In the free society, there is no coercive authority that makes any such decisions. There are only defense agencies that enforce the rules and laws that have been created by the market itself. Are you familiar on some of the work on this issue?
Since all exchange is voluntary in the free society, you will be free to disassociate yourself with people who refuse to contractually agree not to support abortion in any way. But you cannot enforce a total ban.
If most people will agree with you, it will be very difficult for the small minority who support abortion to conduct business with anybody. They would be pressured into submitting into your demands, but you could not force them.
Just like I recognize self defense as justified homicide so too can an abortion under some circumstances be justified. Both involve killing people but for reasons we can understand and tolerate. There is no inconsistency.
Yes, perhaps you need to think on the subject a little more. Whatever you want to call it, some people will think your defense agency is a coercive force when it takes action on aggression that they do not think is a aggression. In a free society there is nothing to stop any defense agency from voluntarily protecting people it considers vulnerable like children, or handicapped individuals, or any other group.
So a defense agency (which could be an individual acting alone, comical how the Austrians first act in a free society is to create an agency, not themselves, to protect them) steps in when they see you beating your 2 year old child with a tire iron on your front lawn. You cry foul that your rights to beat non contract capable organisms has been violated and the “defense agency” says it was simply protecting someone unable to sufficiently protect themselves from being assaulted. Now what? Who do we go to now?
I am perfectly free to assist in protecting people being assaulted. A free society does not require that I sit by while you murder someone in the seat next to me. Again, you are envisioning a society without consequences for actions taken. An impossibility with the human species.
If you are under the impression that there is nor right or wrong then this would be correct. The NAP is not the absence of acknowledging right and wrong. It is about aggression towards other humans equal in rights to yourself. These rights exist whether you have a 'defense" agency protecting you or not, no matter how big the majority is.