Aside from the morality arguments regarding abortion, many people oppose it not only due to religion but because they view it as murder and an act of force/aggression.
How would the laws be formed in an anarcho-capitalist society if some people do see it that way? Would abortion opposers have a right to use violence against those performing/desiring an abortion, calling it a type of defense for a fetus that cannot fight back itself? Again, this isn’t about the morality involving abortion, it’s just about what would happen. The Nazis thought killing Jews wasn’t necessarily ‘murder’, but clearly it is.
Implementation of any law in real life requires a lot of decency and restraint, even when dealing with a serial child murderer. Police officers in civilized western nations are expected to keep their emotions in check, arrest the suspect by procedure, and detain him under secure conditions.
The same is expected even of common citizenry, and too often the very wrong argument is made in favour of violence in any “self-defense” story. See Muneer Hussein and the excellent judgment of English courts in arresting him for his over the top vigilante justice.
It is a bad idea to use anything more than very very restrained force in any act of defense. If the rule of law existed for the sake of citizenry, should we terrorize that very citizenry for their own sake?
I read that story about Munir Hussain. I think it’s completely acceptable and appropriate what he did. And you think it wasn’t?
If a criminal tries to rape a man’s wife and he stops the criminal, you think the man should just pin the criminal to the floor politely until police arrive?
Prohibition on abortion will have exactly the same effect like prohibition on drugs - crime and lower quality service/merchandise which results in higher mortality than under free market conditions. I will never take drugs nor will abort any of my children, but there are people that will have their own reasons for doing it no matter what laws are there. Thus this problem will be never solved by law.
I realize this. What I’m saying, though, is that many people consider it to be murder. Basically “murder” is the trunk of the tree while it branches out to other types of murder (i.e. shooting someone, stabbing someone, abortion, electricuting someone, etc.), so to them, not necessarily my opinion, legalizing abortion is the equivalent of legalizing ‘stabbing someone’, saying that only shooting someone is committing murder. In that way it’s different than drugs in the sense that someone is harming another person (again, assuming that a fetus and an embryo are people for this discussion). So, yes, there would be lower quality service, but if the person is considered a murderer than it doesn’t really matter what happens to them as far as that society would care.
I would imagine there would be competing law systems, some tolerant of abortion and some not. Individuals could band together and form communities under law systems which are pro life. These communities can then enforce anti abortion laws by paying PDA’s in that area to uphold their laws. Anyone who disagrees with the views of these particular communities is more than welcomed to leave and live somewhere else.
I do not think that it is justifiable to force individuals to accept your views on what should be considered “moral”. I would condemn anyone who used violence to try and stop abortion, and I say this coming from a very “pro life” position.
I have a so called pro life view, though I see abortions before 3 months as not murder. My main problem would be: how would be able to stop people from doing abortions without invading privacy?
As for the words pro life, I really hate that phrase. It’s so useless. I mean, who isn’t for protecting life? Who isn’t for personal freedom? Not in action, but just words. It’s just bypassing the issue.
I see abortion as being a bit savage and uncivilized. It’s no secret how babies are made, everybody knows what causes them. If you’re not responsible enough for sex, then keep your clothes on. I’ll go with the 90 day window though, any longer than that is murder to me.
I’m an atheist by the way. My views are not religious.
What about rape victims? Or when pregnancy is direct risk to mothers life? If there will be no consensus on whether abortion is wrong or not then people that want to do it will do it where abortion is legal rendering all prohibition ineffective (thats how it works in reality today).
It was not acceptable. In defending his family at home, he did the right thing. But in gathering his brother, relatives, and neighbours to corner the armed burglar in the garden and systematically beat him in the head with a cricket bat until the man was beaten into virtual retardation, he committed a serious crime.
Let’s remember that Munir Hussein was a decent, peaceful man who had always been charitable to his community and poorer Pakistanis. He was not a person who had been angry or violent in his life ever before. We can forgive him for losing his temper the first time the life of his family was at stake. But not for going beyond that.
I don’t think we appreciate why the law enforcement is a monopoly on violence. It is so that nobody else commits violence. Of any kind, to any excess, for any reason. Even self-defense is supposed to be a thin excuse, and the burden of proof will be on you to prove it was so. That is how civilized nations have worked for centuries.
Enforcement of the laws will always be up to the victim, in the case of abortion the victim is the child who is unable to defend itself. The only way for the child to receive any justice would be if some charity group put up funds on the child’s behalf.
Ultimately, the laws will be be made when a person signs a contract with their defense agency. Some agencies might ban abortion, others might allow it. What happens when the two agencies butt heads will be the result of negotiations. Possibly Block’s evictionism as a compromise?
What about rape victims? Or when pregnancy is direct risk to mothers life?
You punish the child for the crimes of its father? Not very Libertarian.
If there will be no consensus on whether abortion is wrong or not then people that want to do it will do it where abortion is legal rendering all prohibition ineffective (thats how it works in reality today).
Using this logic then what the point of any law? Should murder or theft not be prohibited?
People will always commit crimes… the point of outlawing certain behaviour is not prevent certain behaviour. It is to provide a guide for how we as humans interact and when someone violates what is accepted it allows for some sort of remedy to those who were wronged.
I completely praise him for doing what he did. He could have gone further and I wouldn’t have cared one bit. What did the criminal expect him to do by invading his home and threatening his family? If people are just caught and have nothing terrible inflicted upon them from the victim, what’s the deterrent? It makes it even better than he was a good man and businessman before this happened. I wish we had more people like him to stand up for innocents.
Code of Hammurabi style. My opinion varies here regarding rape, which I know contradicts my other feelings, so I’m not sure how I feel about it.
It’s not really debatable whether partial-birth abortions are murder. They are. I don’t know why people dispute that. However, I realize we’re talking about regular “short-term” (again, for lack of better words) abortions. In that case, who decides what how long is too long for the mother to wait to decide?
EDIT: If someone killed a woman while she was pregnant, therefore killing her unborn baby as well, would he be charged for the second murder of the unborn baby in a society where abortion is legal?
There is no such thing as a free society, because there is no such thing as a perfect, decent human being.
I merely mention what is done by sane people, knowing full well the constraints of existing immorality and harsh behaviour among many people.
I know there is no guarantee that we three would not be as vengeful if someone were to break in to our house and tie us up, but just remember that you’ll be setting up a new precedent in your behaviour if you decide to violently butcher the man who broke in.
Even if we don’t see criminals on the same level as people in legitimate work or animals on the same level as humans, consider - if you saw me repeatedly hitting a dog with a shoe after it did something wrong, you would question my intelligence and judgment. If a society of 150 IQ people decided to detain a 60 IQ person and make sure to execute him for a mere theft, you’d question their judgment. And if you personally saw an honest husband and a father savagely beating up a career criminal, like many of Hussein’s neighbours did, you’d question his judgment.
The world of overeager vigilante justice and brutal law enforcement is not a pretty one - in my home state of Bihar, villagers hold up a thief, bring in a special leaf, secrete a liquid from that leaf into his eye to blind him. Much that way, American police officers have been known to cuff up and haul away an elderly man on the mere suspicion that he is connected to violent drug cartels and have shot down an entire family in the notorious Ruby Ridge case. I used to be like you guys, before I saw for myself what it’s like to see a criminal treated harshly. You will not feel happy or vindicated that someone got punished.
These two examples clearly both have much, much, much lower cognitive abilities than a human being (for the dog example), and an average (even below average) human being for the second example.
I don’t question his judgement at all. He’s protecting his family and property. Family is everything, and it’s disgraceful to say that Hussein shouldn’t have done what he did. Are we supposed to feel bad for the criminal because he didn’t get away with it? The fact that people now know that they do not violate the rights of his family without being severely punished is a great thing. If you were forced to hurt a random girl for some reason and given two choices, you’d pick the one who doesn’t have any brothers who would come after you. That’s a great deterrent.
I don’t know the specifics of that case, but would you have rathered he rob them poor? Again, I’m not sticking up for their actions or going against them. I don’t know if he was a one-time thief or kept robbing people.
There are two problems in that scenario. One is that they are taxpayer-funded police officers. There’s no control over what they do and nothing it necessarily personal. Not saying that all police officers are corrupt, because I know that many of them really care about protecting the community. The second problem is that it’s suspicion instead of a 100% for sure thing.
Where I grew up, a guy tried to rape a girl from my school, and her brothers nearly beat him to death. No one there would ever even think of questioning that because we stick up for each other. That’s family. Hussein did what was right. He loves the right things.
I have never stated that I’m in favor of abortion so please drop judgments that are unfair to me. Still what about mother that did not want to have children and does not want to carry it? There are 3 sides in this situation. Your response does not answer my second question.
Point is murder and theft are illegal everywhere (there is consensus here), abortion is not and that creates situation where people that want to do it can do so without any consequence. You don’t go to another country to steal - it is illegal everywhere. You can go to another country to do abortion - if it is legal there.
Really? I thought that punishment and restitution act as deterrents too. Law that does not prevent crime is not efficient. I would rather live in society where there are strong anti-incentives to committing crime (including laws that discourages it) to prevent it as much as possible.