Abortion

Miscellaneous General
61

Ok a few things. First, a contract can’t be made with a non entity. So even if you had sex voluntarily, there would be noone that you’ve made any type of agreement with other than perhaps the father.

I would agree. You cant make a contract with someone who dosent exist.

Second, the question of the eviction leading to the death of the evicted.

The question is not so much as to whether the death occurs after the eviction (the abortion), whether the death happens during the eviction.

If you invited him in, and then decided you no longer wanted him in your boat. You would be well within your rights to kick him out, so long as his condition lead to what was the condition before hand.

I think most would argue that by picking him up in the first place, you have created some sort of agreement with the man that would include not throwing him back in the water to drown. Im not sure the condition of the person prior to the tresspass has anything to do the terms of an eviction.

If I am kicking you out of an apartment that I own, it is irrelevent if you had a place to live prior to renting from me. You are still out with no place to live.

62

I think most would argue that by picking him up in the first place, you have created some sort of agreement with the man that would include not throwing him back in the water to drown. Im not sure the condition of the person prior to the tresspass has anything to do the terms of an eviction.

How could there be an implicit agreement to return the person to safety when you are helping them out of harm? They are in no position to bargain, and they are in no position to demand anything because they are about to die. If I ever give someone water in the desert, I’ve suddenly implied an agreement to continue giving him water until he’s made it to safety? No, clearly that is a fallacious argument. I’ve given them safety without them implicating they wouldn’t accept it unless the condition was to bring them to safety. It is obvious that the person entering a plane would not enter if it was up to the whim of the pilot to when and where throw them out. Clearly the man drowning would enter the boat even if it was only for a few moments of respite.

If I am kicking you out of an apartment that I own, it is irrelevent if you had a place to live prior to renting from me. You are still out with no place to live.

I’m talking more specifically about the “Just before” you entered the house. I can’t evict you out the window, I can evict you out the door and onto solid ground, exactly your condition “just before” you entered the house.

63

it is strange, that a majority of participants in this discussion think that fetus=child. By same logic acorn is oak. Hm… But it is clearly not.

That’s why I even would not argue that fetus can have any right at all.

Also it was bizarre, how someone asserted that woman has no right to abort the fetus if she was raped.

64

So i take you into my care during the summer. I cant evict you during the winter? Sure I can. Whether I have the right to evict is independent of the your state before or after the eviction. The manner in which I choose to evict is also independent of your state prior to being on my property. It depends on your compliance to the eviction order.

If I ask you to leave and you walk for the front door, then you are in compliance and I have no right to use force. I ask you to leave and you refuse then I am with in my rights to drag you to the front door. If I ask you to leave and you refuse, then attack me with lethal force, then I am within my rights to toss you out the window.

The terms of the eviction are entirely subject to the present situation. You are trespassing and peaceful vrs. trespassing and violent.

If I ever give someone water in the desert, I’ve suddenly implied an agreement to continue giving him water until he’s made it to safety?

This is not a trespass/eviction scenario. It does not apply to what we are discussing.

I’ve given them safety without them implicating they wouldn’t accept it unless the condition was to bring them to safety. It is obvious that the person entering a plane would not enter if it was up to the whim of the pilot to when and where throw them out. Clearly the man drowning would enter the boat even if it was only for a few moments of respite.

To invite someone on your boat for a min, two min, an hour and then throw them back in the ocean when he poses no threat to you is unreasonable. Unless that is the agreement before you invite him onboard. If you did not spell out the terms then it is reasonable to believe that you will take him somewhere safe before you ask him to leave. If you were to throw him overboard for no other reason than you changed your mind I do believe you would be considered a murderer by most any court.

But that is beside the point. That is talking about evictions when there are prior assumed understandings and contracts. In the abortion comparison the eviction comes when there is no contract or prior understanding. Like you said above there can be no contract between the child and mother when the child does not yet exist.

Its more akin to someone unknowingly wandering on to your property and then being incapacitated. You discover them trespassing and decide to evict them from your property. If you evict them by chopping them up into little pieces because they are too heavy to move at one time (which is one method of abortion used). Well that would seem like murder. If you go get a wagon load them up then dump them on the edge of your property (which is akin to other methods of abortion), Well that would seem ok.

65

it is strange, that a majority of participants in this discussion think that fetus=child. By same logic acorn is oak. Hm… But it is clearly not.

That is what the eviction stance assumes.

In your opinion when is a child a child?

66

Stuff about eviction.

Yeah, I agree. I was hoping that my riffing would lead to something solid, but that’s what discussion is for right.

67

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.

I already said earlier that I consider the ‘women’s rights’ argument a red herring. I agree 100% that the woman has the right to care for her own body,…thats not the issue. The issue is whether or not that right includes the right to murder her own baby, and more importantly whether or not that description applies to abortion.

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?

Its well known that no form of protection is 100% effective…There are some that can be over 99% effective, and she knew(or should have known) that she was taking that 1% chance.

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’m of the opinion that if abortion is to be allowed…it should be soly the womans decision…The man doesnt have to carry the child and cant force the woman to get one(or not)…Idealy she would listen to the man…but it should be her decision.

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?

I’v already stated that I’m no fan of state-enforced solutions(to anything actually).

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).

I already gave my objection to this line of argument…while it applies to things where the only ‘victims’ are people who voluntary took part(like drugs which I also dont like)…but if abortion is equivilent to murder…then I dont think it should be accepted at all… If you want to say thats a big ‘if’ go ahead.

68

“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.” - Southern

Name a non violent method that will remove a fetus from a woman’s womb when she wants it out, not when it might be viable to leave on its own.

“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.”

I think you’re misunderstanding my point because I used a shitty analogy. Because of the circumstances a fetus is in, violent and lethal methods are the ONLY current solution for eviction. So if you have a hippy say, who has made his home on your property, and he has found a way to resist all other methods of removal, what then? If violence is the only option because of circumstances, does that forfeit your right to evict? We are not talking about using violence when other means are available to achieve the eviction. And taking the fetus to term is not such an option for a woman who does not want to take a child to term and give birth to it. If said hippy made his home in my garage but said he’d be ready to leave next summer, am I obligated to let him stay there until then simply because violent and/or lethal methods are all that’s left for me?

“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.”

Carrying the child to term is not an option when that’s EXACTLY what the woman wants to avoid doing with HER body, which is HER property. Please excuse the caps, I use that for emphasis because I’m typing this in notepad, not the response window.

“I don’t think you would be held responsible for what occurs after the eviction. Only what occurred during the eviction.”

Which conveniently dodges the point that is crucial here, unless there is a way to abort a fetus at any point during term without doing it harm while it’s extracted. If so, I’d be all in favor of outlawing all abortion techniques but those. But if not, then the means of eviction are in a very large sense forced on the evictor here.

“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.”

Good point, but then how can one have such an implicit contract with something that can’t speak or reason? If you bring contract into the situation, as is implied above, then consent is also implied. And as far as consent is concerned I may as well contract with a porcupine as a fetus. What you’re saying is that when a woman AND a man (it still takes two to tango for the most part) have sex they have already implicitly contracted with any possible sperm and egg combination to never do it harm, she to bring it to term, and why end the contract there with her? What else is implied, what is HE obligated to deliver being a contributor to the process so to speak? It’s not like the kid is born, goes out and gets a job and an apartment and starts dating. And if the parents take precautions against pregancy and it still happens, what does that say about the contract? The guy puts on a rubber and it breaks, is Trojan responsible for the kid now?

69

Name a non violent method that will remove a fetus from a woman’s womb when she wants it out, not when it might be viable to leave on its own.

To tell the truth I am not aware of all the different possible ways to abort a pregnancy. I am aware that at a certain point in a pregnancy it is possible to remove the child through a cesarean section intact and viable. At that point if some individual or group wishes to pony up the money to pay for the medical bills to keep the child alive great if not, then oh well.

I also know there are abortion procedures that are performed which involve dimembering the child and removing it peice by peice. Other types include bringing the baby almost to term, inducing labor then sucking the brains out through a tube. These are definitely rare but methods used.

So im my veiw, if we were all to adopt the eviction stance then abortion would not be outlawed outright, but definitely some of what is practiced today would.

Because of the circumstances a fetus is in, violent and lethal methods are the ONLY current solution for eviction.

But that is not neccessarially true. In some cases yes, in others no.

Carrying the child to term is not an option when that’s EXACTLY what the woman wants to avoid doing with HER body, which is HER property.

There is no need to carry the child to term. Babies are born months premature and they are still viable.

Good point, but then how can one have such an implicit contract with something that can’t speak or reason? If you bring contract into the situation, as is implied above, then consent is also implied.

You implied the contract with your original statement about inviting or uninviting. I agree with you that you cant have a contract and that there is no contractual obligation to the child.

70

“To tell the truth I am not aware of all the different possible ways to abort a pregnancy. I am aware that at a certain point in a pregnancy it is possible to remove the child through a cesarean section intact and viable. At that point if some individual or group wishes to pony up the money to pay for the medical bills to keep the child alive great if not, then oh well.” - Southern

Reasonable enoguh. But that still leaves a hypothetical situation which could exist. A person, by no fault or malice or even action of their own, is in a position that imposes upon another’s property and by circumstance leaves them no option but violent or lethal methods to evict if that’s their desired course of action. What happens? Is their right to evict still valid or not?

“So im my veiw, if we were all to adopt the eviction stance then abortion would not be outlawed outright, but definitely some of what is practiced today would.”

I agree. For the record I find abortion to be disgusting and immoral because I think it shows a complete disregard for human life and potential. I am however aware that there are extreme circumstances and/or dangers involved sometimes, so I’m not exactly quick to judge. And I do in the end think we are sovereign over our bodies so, as with destroying yourself with over use of drugs, it’s an option in a free society even if I don’t agree with it.

“But that is not neccessarially true. In some cases yes, in others no.”

And in those cases where it is the case?

“There is no need to carry the child to term. Babies are born months premature and they are still viable.”

Not the point though. The point is it’s her body and she wants the kid out, period. Why should she be forced to carry it to any point in the term beyond that which she desires?

“You implied the contract with your original statement about inviting or uninviting. I agree with you that you cant have a contract and that there is no contractual obligation to the child.”

True, but not quite what I’m getting at. As someone else has pointed out, simply having sex does not mean consent or even desire to have and raise a kid on the part of either party. In essence it’s like leaving your door unlocked. Not smart, but not an invitation for anyone who wants to come in either. The invitation analogy was meant to really just get rid of that grey area and assume the woman wanted the kid to begin with but changed her mind. But either way simply assuming the fetus is a person implies certain rights. If they don’t exist then abortion is a non issue; you’re removing tissue as the feminazis say. But as Walter Block says, the difficult cases are the best to deal with. So I assume rights on the part of the fetus and come to the conclusion that it’s still well within the woman’s rights to remove the fetus from her body by whatever means necessary.

71

I think most of the scenerios discussed when using the "eviction analogy are all a little bit lacking. Assuming that the fetus is a human individual (avoiding that issue for now), consider the following exciting sci-fi scenerio:

You have a spaceship (your body). One day, a scientist (partner) askes you to take on a new prototype of transporter (sexual intercourse) as cargo on one of your voyages. The scientist informs you that the transporter is a bit unstable and has the possibility of randomly transporting an individual, through no will of thier own and at random, onto your spaceship. In other words, it may pluck them out of space and time, wherever they are, and dump them on your ship (possibility of pregnancy). The scientist is paying a good deal of money so you agree to take on the transporter as cargo. Halfway through your journey, the transpoter starts beeping, and with a flash of energy deposits some random schulb onto your ship. You now have two possibilites: Either pay for the life support costs and general inconvienence of keeping this person aboard, or “evicting” them into an an environment where they have no possibility to survive. That is, blasting them out the airlock (abortion).

Do you have the right to blast this person out the airlock? Remeber that the actions that caused this person to come to reside in your property were of no actions of thier own. In fact, the action was all preformed by the scientist and yourself. In a way, the person transported (fetus) is coercively brought into the situation by your actions. I think in this case, blowing them out the airlock would obviously be some kind of murder.

Now, does the situation change if the transporter is forced onto your ship by, say, a squad of space pirates (rape)? In both cases, the “fetus” is still coerced into your care. Maybe in this case, the agressors, the pirates, would be held responsible for murder, but to me it’s still murder nonetheless.

I hope my point got across through the analogy.

72

A person, by no fault or malice or even action of their own, is in a position that imposes upon another’s property and by circumstance leaves them no option but violent or lethal methods to evict if that’s their desired course of action. What happens? Is their right to evict still valid or not?

I dont know if I have a good answer to that. But if we look at how we deal with other cases of rights conflict, then we can see that lethal force is only allowed if lethal force is used or will potentially be used against you. If we look at it from that angle it would be difficult to justify killing the tresspasser unless they posed a mortal threat to you. Any thoughts?

Is their right to evict still valid or not?

I think your right to evict is still valid, but maybe with a condition. For example I ask you to leave my home. Will you leaving happen instantly? No. I will have carry the burden of having you in my home for a minute or two untill you are able to walk out the front door. That period of time you have to wait could be a few minutes in some cases it could be a day or two, depending on the circumstances. We could veiw the pregnancy in the same light. You want the trespasser in your womb gone. But maybe you have to wait a little while before you can expect them to leave.

And I do in the end think we are sovereign over our bodies so, as with destroying yourself with over use of drugs, it’s an option in a free society even if I don’t agree with it.

I agree for the most part. But all rights have to be viewed in relation to everyone elses rights. For example does your right to your body (your life) trump the right of anothers to their body (life). It seems to me only if they are threatening you with lethal force.

Not the point though. The point is it’s her body and she wants the kid out, period. Why should she be forced to carry it to any point in the term beyond that which she desires?

As described above. Your rights are absolute provided they do not conflict with anothers rights. At that point you are both limited in what actions you can legitamitely take.

The invitation analogy

The problem with the invatation analogy when it comes to eviction is that it assumes the fetus has actively done something wrong. Been invited in and then refused to leave. But thats not the case.

So I assume rights on the part of the fetus and come to the conclusion that it’s still well within the woman’s rights to remove the fetus from her body by whatever means necessary.

Again I just have a hard time accepting that I have the right to use lethal force if I have not first been threatened.

73

I hope my point got across through the analogy.

I happen to like the analogy.

74

When it’s born.

75

When it’s born.

Any particular reason, other than its location? Not trying to be difficult. This is a question that I am still trying to figure out myself and others insights are valuable.

76

How is it criminal to kill something that does not have rights in the first place?

To suggest humans have rights just because we are human is no more valid than suggesting trees have rights because they are trees. It is circular reasoning.

77

How is it criminal to kill something that does not have rights in the first place?

The eviction arguement makes this assumption.

To suggest humans have rights just because we are human is no more valid than suggesting trees have rights because they are trees. It is circular reasoning.

This is a whole other can of worms. For now lets assume that all humans have certain rights. After all if the child/fetus does not have any rights then problem solved. Do what you want, a child/fetus is no different from a lump of coal.

78

Well, if you want to debate a moot point, have at it I guess.

79

Well, if you want to debate a moot point, have at it I guess.

No, I happen to disagree with you. Based on my disagreement this discussion is not moot. Although if you feel it is, feel free to ignore the thead.

Ive read some other threads where you have made your points, but I am unconvinced of your position. This thread is simply not the right place to discuss it.

80

I gave a most accurate example with an acorn and oak. Acorn is fetus. Oak is a child. I think these words have different meaning for a reason. When people see a pregnant woman, they say “she is gonna have a baby”, but not “she is carrying a baby”. From scientific point of view it is also obvious, that fetus, if extracted, wouldn’t probably survive, because it is not fully evolved. When the evolution in a womb winishes (and baby is born) only then it could be said, that it is human (have pretty much all attributes), and not just unevolved “collection of cells”.