I feel I’ve uncovered a unique position, and I’m posting it for review/critique. Please, while I could be wrong, I’ve arrived at this position through much research and study, so no arbitrary responses. In fact, do not respond unless you cite a source and/or quote. I’m looking for fallacies in my logic or reasoning. I could very well be wrong, but I don’t think even any of the great libertarians have pointed this out.
• A fetus doesn’t meet the requirements for property rights. Therefore abortion is strictly legitimate.
• In abortion, nobody (if not the mother) has a property right such that they can legitimately retaliate.
• Once a baby (as opposed to a fetus) acts it becomes a self-owner. Therefore nobody has a property right such that they can legitimately retaliate against someone who murders the baby. This is for a baby who has just become a self-owner, not a 2, 3, or 4 year old etc who can physically contract for defense or insurance.
Any viable fetus is a human being, and therefore owns itself. In the strict sense of “property rights”, however, an unborn baby can still inherit or be given property in its name before its birth. In terms of both Natural Rights and legal rights, this argument will not hold up.
Again, any fetal human has the right of self ownership if it is capable of being born alive (if it is not, that is called a miscarriage, not an abortion). Therefore nobody, including the mother, has a right to abort, except in a case of self defense.
This one is the most perplexing. A fetus is a baby in the sense that it is a viable, sentient human being. In ancient Rome, a father could legally kill any of his children before they reached the age of 16. That was what they considered the legal age of adulthood and the right to own anything, including yourself. This is one more reason why assigning an official age or condition to self ownership goes against the principle of Natural Rights.
Any viable fetus is a human being, and therefore owns itself.
I don’t think a fetus is a self or capable of owning anything; nor does it need to.
In the strict sense of “property rights”, however, an unborn baby can still inherit or be given property in its name before its birth.
Strictly speaking, no it can’t. It obviously can’t exchange anything or own anything. I don’t even think you can argue that he has a right to it until he claims that right.
Again, any fetal human has the right of self ownership if it is capable of being born alive
An interesting concept. What, by the way, makes it capable of being alive? To rephrase: without what would it cease being capable of being born alive?
except in a case of self defense.
And who is to determine what is self defense? Have you ever had a panic attack? Have you ever had someone growing inside of you?
Age…
My point wasn’t that age was a condition. Rather, that a baby that was just born can’t really make decisions for itself in the way a baby can that is, say, a year or two years old. If a baby learns early, more power to him.
I wouldn’t like this to turn into another abortion thread, as we are all adamant in our positions (I in mine as undecided ).
Thus, lets take the assumptions Hashem makes and debate those in a “what if” void.
Therefore nobody has a property right such that they can legitimately retaliate against someone who murders the baby.
Same reasoning can be applied to anyone who is murdered. No one owns the guy, so no one can retaliate, according to your reasoning. This is where you go wrong. It is obvious that in AnCap you can retaliate even if it wasn’t your rights being violated. How else could we have private security guards?
You might say “oh, but that is by contract.” Well, you can have a contract between the baby and the mother, for example. Have her tell the baby “if you stay on my property, you give me the power to defend your rights,” and bam. Well, then she could also say “if you stay on my property, you give me the power to kill you,” which is a problem… But anyway, people can act to retaliate against violations of others’ rights (unless the other says that he doesn’t mind having his rights violated).
My problem with argumentation ethics (one of my problems with it) is that babies cannot argue with us in any reasonable fashion. Do they not have rights?
There are not many fallacies in your logic or reasoning.
You just make unproven assumptions from which to base your reasoning. Assume that a fetus does have property rights or assume that self-ownership does not depend on the ability to act or assume that self-ownership has nothing to do with judging the morality of abortion and your whole unique perspective falls to the ground.
Your reasoning is no more unique than a mother who learns that her son is gay and responds by saying: “You are not my son!” to solve her moral dillemma.
I consider abortions unethical but justified, considering fetus isn’t human. Yet. It becomes much more begging the question in later periods of pregnancy, when it’s about time for the baby (sorry, a fetus) to be born. In that part I am undecided, but leaning towards anti-crowd. My two cents.
No one owns the guy, so no one can retaliate, according to your reasoning. This is where you go wrong.
I think you’re misunderstanding… One example is if the murdered person was in debt. His creditors have a claim against the murderer. Also don’t forget we’re talking about a contractual society. He might have a contract with clauses for murder. Or the answer nobody wants to consider: the markets might find a solution that works for them.
It is obvious that in AnCap you can retaliate even if it wasn’t your rights being violated. How else could we have private security guards?
No, it isn’t obvious. Defenders have that right when it’s given to them—probably through contract—for example security guards.
Well, you can have a contract between the baby and the mother
No, you can’t. The things your logic would allow horrifies me.
My problem with argumentation ethics (one of my problems with it) is that babies cannot argue with us in any reasonable fashion. Do they not have rights?
Baby fetuses or born babies? I don’t think you understand argumentation ethics. What have you read on it? The idea isn’t that you have to argue with someone, but rather if you are capable of forming an argument, your action demonstrates that you accept property rights (I think…I haven’t read a ton either but I’m reading more). No, anything that doesn’t think and act can’t be said to be able to have property rights.
There are not many fallacies in your logic or reasoning.
Fair enough.
Assume that a fetus does have property rights
What do you believe are the requirements for property rights? Wouild you mind providing a source?
It is a living organism, independently sentient, and would prefer to live. Therefore it does need to.
Trust funds can be set up for “children of X” whether or not they actually exist yet. An actual claim on that cannot be maid by a person until he or she is 18. By that reasoning, abortion would be allowed until the 72nd trimester.
If the child can be carried to term and emerge from the womb alive, I consider it alive. I though this would be obvious.
Again, I thought it would be obvious. If it is certain that having the child would endanger the mothers life and the dangers cannot be mitigated, she would have a right to act. No, a panic attack would not qualify. That would be as ridiculous as the Twinkie defense.
A child that is the least bit aware is alive. End of story. This is completely evident to anyone who has ever seen an ultrasound, which is why Planned Parenthood does not offer them as part of a mother’s “choice”. Believe me, I do understand another point of view when it comes to the moral implications of abortion. But trying to rationalize it because the unborn child “cannot claim property rights” is just plain sick in my opinion. Looking at the situation objectively and making an informed choice is one thing, but your rationalization sounds like a libertarian version of Eugenics.
Property rights – regardless of what arbitrary definition you want to use – have nothing to do with morality. You just think they do and you think everybody thinks they do too and you pretend that it is a scientifically know fact like the sky is blue.
That is a major problem with your argument. You need to make that connection in your argument – not I. [You will never succeed at that by the way. The truth is that what you really need to do is be honest with you beliefs and simply say: “This is what I assume to be true.” and then go on from there.] Until then, you are just making libertarianism to be what the common public thinks it is: a field of study filled with cranks who do not even know their own philosophy.
You’ve failed to demonstrate that a fetus can have property right. What do you believe are the requirements for property rights?
CharlesAnthony,
I don’t know what you’re going on about. If you care to answer my question honestly, feel free to. Here it is again:
You said: Assume that a fetus does have property rights
I said: What do you believe are the requirements for property rights? Wouild you mind providing a source?
< You’ve failed to demonstrate that a fetus can have property right. What do you believe are the requirements for property rights? >
Sorry, I didn’t realize I was being graded. I would also say that in order to deny someone a perspective right-- especially concerning their own lives-- the burden would be on you to conclusively prove that that right does not exist. It is also ridiculous to expect the affected party to have to come forth and claim those rights when coming forth is impossible, and you have already proposed a death sentence in absentia. I say we should postpone that trial for about 9 months.
This is obviously where our opinions collide. I would say that if someone is alive, then all Natural Rights apply. If an expert opinion is called for, you will find few people more anti-abortion than Dr. Paul (a fact which many libertarians like to omit).
Austrian economics has no methodology for determining what is and what isnt an actor. as such, you can argue till the cows come home, but you wont come to a conclusion as to what meets your criterion of being a part of your moral theories. Its puely arbitrary, whether you consider someone as an actor or not. In the end, we are all merely complex machines anyway, and the action axiom is nothing more than a comfortable framework for describing behavior, than an actual scientific criterion of physical matter.
This is consequentially also a complete refutation of austrian economics, as to its relevance in the physical world.
You are asking a silly question and obviously so. Any and all criteria for property rights are assumptions. The requirements that I have are irrelevent just as the requirements that you have are irrelevent.
You have a hard time challenging your own premises.
Regardless, I will answer your question: My requirements are whimsical.
lol, thanks. But what I meant by calling a fetus a fetus is an organism in an early stage of pregnancy. Only few weeks before being born it becomes quite human (it has much more senses etc.), even though I DO NOT deny mother’s right to her own body, meaning, it would be immoral to force her to carry the child (a fetus in this context).
I call a fetus a human when it’s born (officially becomes baby, lol). And I can call it a baby even before a fetus is born. That’s just my use of language. Sorry for making it complicated to read. Anyway, I repeat myself, saying that "I am leaning towards “anti-abortion crowd” doesn’t mean I support violence against women. It just means that I personally for example wouldn’t like to deal with people who aborted their child in a later period (for example two weeks before supposed birth of a fetus-child)
There is no such thing as rights, at any age or in any species or at any stage of development. A baby nor mother have rights of any kind.
This is largely dependent on if the state or some third party will punish the mother for doing it. Which depends on the society.
A religious society, at least some of them, might punish the mother or throw her in prison. Hoping that will stop other mothers from doing abortions.
But that has nothing to do with rights. And probably nothing to do with religion. It’s just a lot of religious people are against abortion. On the other hand, many religious people want their children to fight wars or they want to beat them up with impunity. Both of which cannot be solved through rights, either.
If we’re talking merely the current society, we have to simply go by the current law. Which says that it is legal to have abortions, in the US. That law has nothing to do with rights, either, but a sophisticated legal system.
It is not true that Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer an ultrasound. It is possible that where you live they may not, but this is not true in the area where I live, where I know many ladies who have had abortions and it is always offered.
).