Abortion

Miscellaneous General
21

Every time I hear “the woman has the right to choose what to do with her body” argument I have to kinda chuckle in agreement, but for different reason. She has the right and ability to choose to not engage in risky sexual behavior. A woman understands the risks of engaging in intercourse well in advance. The child she conceives did not bring him or herself into existence, the mother and her partner did.

I read a post on here a while back where someone claimed that Rothbard viewed a child in the womb as a sort of parasite that lives off the mother’s body. Because of this the mother should be able to choose whether or not the child should be carried to term. If Rothbard in fact said something to this affect, and as much as I agree with him on the things I know about him and his views I think his argument is a flawed regarding this. A child cannot be compared to a parasite because a parasite is uninvited. Yes, a woman may not want to become pregnant but she knows the risks of engaging in sexual behavior prior to.

22

from a blockean “legal libertarian” point of view the abortion debate is moot. the fetus cannot press criminal charges or ask others to press charges on her behalf. as an ethical debate, its another story.

23

I’d say this is a living thing and it has it’s own rights.

As does the mother. She has the right to decide whether or not she wants her body to go through the physical impairment of carrying a child for nine months, and to raise that child. If she does not want the child, and would prefer abortion, why would she be coerced to give birth, if she has no interest in raising it or will give it up for adoption?

Are you suggesting she shouldn’t take responsibility for her choices?

Abortion is a choice she’ll choose responsibly.

I read a post on here a while back where someone claimed that Rothbard viewed a child in the womb as a sort of parasite that lives off the mother’s body.

It was probably me. It’s in For A New Liberty. His exact words are:

Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being — i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus [p. 108] as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person, and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.

Also, from the feminist perspective, I generally hear/read the pro-life leaning stance from men who obviously can’t give birth. Claiming the child as rights while bypassing the woman’s right to her own body and the actions she’ll take with it. Making the argument that the woman voluntary had sex and knew the consequences, well, what if she was using protection and it didn’t work? What about the male? He has a part in this too. Since it takes a male and female to make a child, what if both agree that abortion is the solution? Now it’s technically, two against “one”, or rather “one to be”. It’s as the blame will be placed on the woman if she wants an abortion. I come across libertarians who believe that abortion is wrong, and something should be done about it. Interesting enough they’ll fall back on the State to make it illegal. Even if the State was decentralized, would you call a PDA on someone for having an abortion? How would you enforce that as some sort of law? If someone has an abortion will you put them in jail for murder?

Now, I don’t have a problem with people who are pro-life, that’s not the issue, it’s whether or not someone is going to use force to keep someone from having an abortion. One can be pro-life, while still allowing other people to have abortions, they just don’t have them (given that the person is a female, I’d assume).

24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

25

1)Rights are derived from the ability to reason.

2)A fetus can not reason.

3)A fetus does not have rights.

And of course the response is “BUT OH! THERE’S POTENTIAL”. That can also be applied to sperm, and I don’t think anyone would consider masturbation mass murder. In theory the hair on my arm could be cloned and made into a human. The argument doesn’t work. Also, the fetus being in the mothers constitutes aggression.

26

My view on abortion is here.

Clayton -

27

Even so, she would have had the opportunity to abort the embryo all throughout its non-rights-worthy stage, but chose not to.

28

Even so, she would have had the opportunity to abort the embryo all throughout its non-rights-worthy stage, but chose not to.

Chose not to? The point I’m making is that she would have the choice to have an abortion, but a potential argument against abortion is that she consented to have sex and knew the possible consequences, and pregnancy is one of them. If the woman safeguarded herself against becoming pregnant, she obviously does not want to become pregnant, and her last chance to rid herself of pregnancy and a child is abortion.

29

I can’t wait for the state to get out of my way on this one. I have a 1 year old daughter with special needs who doesn’t contribute anything to the productivity of my household. I want to evict her. I’ll just put her outside and let her die of natural causes. Nothing violent, mind you. Just not intervening to save her life.

p.s. Why didn’t this post the first time I tried? - a n00b.

30

That’s why I specified “throughout its non-rights-worthy stage.” If the woman chooses not to abort during the early stages when abortion is uncontroversially legitimate (or, at least, uncontroversial insofar is “potentiality” is rejected, as MisguidedThoughts argues), and then waits until the fetus is a sentient being, she is then in no position to claim that she “didn’t want” the child.

31

“I can’t wait for the state to get out of my way on this one. I have a 1 year old daughter with special needs who doesn’t contribute anything to the productivity of my household. I want to evict her. I’ll just put her outside and let her die of natural causes. Nothing violent, mind you. Just not intervening to save her life.”

Nice name. You’ve erected a strawman though.

Try again… this time without the ignorance.

32

"1)Rights are derived from the ability to reason.

2)A fetus can not reason.

3)A fetus does not have rights."

Nope. I guess temporarily unconscious people have no rights then!

“And of course the response is “BUT OH! THERE’S POTENTIAL”. That can also be applied to sperm, and I don’t think anyone would consider masturbation mass murder. In theory the hair on my arm could be cloned and made into a human. The argument doesn’t work. Also, the fetus being in the mothers constitutes aggression.”

No, it can’t be applied to sperm actually. The argument does work. Have you even read the paper on it?

“Let us begin at the beginning. At what point does human life begin? There are really only two reasonable possibilities: at conception or at birth; all other points of development in between are merely points along a continuum which begins and ends with these two options. At any point before the fertilization, there is only a sperm and an egg. Neither, without the other, is capable of developing into anything else, let alone anything human.13’ But the fertilized egg most certainly wdl become a human being, if kept in the womb for nine months.'38 At any point after birth, there is similarly no question: if a baby is not a human being, then no one is.”

33

The unconscious person DOES have the ability to reason, it’s just been suspended. It’s like comparing a person who’s legs are tied down to a person who simply lacks legs. In the case of a fetus, it simply lacks the ability to reason.

34

Also, nothing to say on the cloning idea?

35

“The unconscious person DOES have the ability to reason, it’s just been suspended.”

So their rights have been suspended as well?

Surely that is the position you must hold if you are to be logically consistent. Or is “suspension”, your differing version of “potential” aye?

Do they, in that point of time have the ability to reason? Yes or no. Personally, since they are unconcious I don’t think they would have the ability to reason: (“base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relationships among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Identity)”. Since that would require conciousness, no? lol

An individual who is in a coma. Do they, or do they not have the ability: (“the quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something”) to reason? (whilst in their current state). Terri Schiavo.

I’d say they have the potential, and in that time - they get “guardianship” rights. Same with babies, children, coma, knocked out etc. They all have the potential.

Maybe you should go ahead and define “ability” and “reason”.

36

Personally, I view it as morally reprehensible and akin to murder. However, like murder, there are cases in which it might be seen as justifiable for the mother. I still wouldn’t agree with the conclusion, but I would accept it.

37

“I pretty sure throwing someone from your speeding car and killing them as a result of their eviction, simply because you beleive you have the right to evict someone from your property come hell or high water would be seen as criminal. Especially if there were other options available and even more so if you had initially agreed to give them a ride to the grocery store then changed your mind on I-95. Or maybe someone dosent leave your property fast enough. Does that now give you unlimited freedom to evict them with extreme prejudice?” - Southern

That would depend on the circumstances. If it was Rutger Hauer from the original Hitcher movie, I’d say you’d be justified. I can see your point, but then what is the consequence other than the state, or in a free society an arbitrator of some kind, forcing you to let others use your property against your will.

“Your right to evict is absolute, but that doesnt mean you can evict them in a body bag just because you dont have to take into consideration the effects of your actions.”

Granted, but if there is no other alternative than the body bag simply because of circumstance, as is the case with many abortions, what then? Does your right to evict no longer apply simply because circumstances, engineered or not, do not allow for what most would consider a reasonable eviction? Suppose a squatter makes his home in a building you own and you find out in the winter and want to kick him out, and he’d almost certainly die with shelter. Does he all of a sudden become a rightful tennant? What you seem to be saying is if a person can make it hard to evict them, or that it might be hard to do so simply by random circumstance and chance, your right to evict is gone.

“Excellent point. Plus, all of this ‘eviction’ talk is really taking away from the sanctity of human life. I would hardly classify killing an unborn child in the same category as kicking someone out of your house.” - Brian

Why? What’s the difference? If you prefer another analogy consider a mentally retarded person wandering in, or being invited in, to a cabin on a winter night during a bad storm. You have a helpless, some might say innocent person who is entirely dependent on the host for survival who did not ask to be in that situation and probably couldn’t understand it anyway. Does that mean the host loses the right to evict?

“FACT: Fetuses have hearbeats when they are 18 days old.” - resist272727

FACT: All mammals have heartbeats. And when at the fetus stage many of them look remarkably similar too.

" It is a pretty sick process, though, as Ron Paul said in The Revolution when he talked about why he was pro-life. Given that there is a government, I think there should be some laws restricting abortions."

If you give the government the power to restrict abortion you also by default give them the power to encourage abortion. The government will not take a specific power, it will take the general power and exercise it in accordance with the ideals of the ruling elite at the time.

“Leaving aside the fact that nobody is suggesting to force women at gunpoint to keep their child…Unless the woman was raped(which currently accounts for less than 5% of abortions performed today), she made the choice to have sex knowing that it could possibly result in pregnency. Are you suggesting she shouldnt take responsibility for her choices?” - SirThinkALot

So what? I ask once more, does inviting someone in negate your right to uninvite them later?

38

If someone invaded my car, I will kick them out no matter what speed of my car. The key is, if they refuse to get out themselves. Like a robber who breaks into home and refuses to leave.

If we look at it from an eviction angle there is a problem with your statement. The problem is that the fetus is passive. It did not invade anything. It ,in and of itself, has not threatened you or refused to comply with your order to leave. It lacks the ability. You have the ability and right to evict. But once again the method you use to evict the invalid can be justified or not. If you have non violent methods at your disposal to remove the trespasser yet choose to use lethal force while not threatened with lethal force, then you would be a criminal.

39

That would depend on the circumstances. If it was Rutger Hauer from the original Hitcher movie, I’d say you’d be justified. I can see your point, but then what is the consequence other than the state, or in a free society an arbitrator of some kind, forcing you to let others use your property against your will.

If your life is threaten then yes you have the right to use lethal force. The problem is that the fetus did not force itself on anyone, does not threaten anyone with death should you try to remove them. It is not some bloodthirsty killer that you are defending yourself against. Once again you have the right to evict but not the right to use any method to evict.

You don’t have to have the state to convict people of crimes. In a free society you might have a couple of choices. Carry the baby to term, have the fetus removed without dismembering or killing it in the process, or have its brains sucked out and potentially be charged with murder.

Granted, but if there is no other alternative than the body bag simply because of circumstance, as is the case with many abortions, what then? Does your right to evict no longer apply simply because circumstances, engineered or not, do not allow for what most would consider a reasonable eviction? Suppose a squatter makes his home in a building you own and you find out in the winter and want to kick him out, and he’d almost certainly die with shelter. Does he all of a sudden become a rightful tenant? What you seem to be saying is if a person can make it hard to evict them, or that it might be hard to do so simply by random circumstance and chance, your right to evict is gone.

I don’t think you would be held responsible for what occurs after the eviction. Only what occurred during the eviction. In your squatter scenario. You discovered the squatter and he has gotten sick since the time he began squatting and when you discovered him. He is so weak that he cannot walk. You decide to evict him which is your right. You order him to leave and cannot comply. So you throw him out the 5th story window. Clearly, you just murdered him. Versus, you carry him to edge of your property and leave him to his fate. Not actual murder, but awfully disgusting.

You have the right to evict but not the right to kill in the process… unless deadly force is being used to resist the eviction.

40

So what? I ask once more, does inviting someone in negate your right to uninvite them later?

If by inviting them on a scenic plane ride and then uninviting them by throwing them out of your plane at 30,000 feet, then yes.