If fetuses don’t act -don’t have conscious purpose, -then they can’t be people since all people act. So that disproves the premise of fetuses being people therefore they have rights. I’m not too sure it actually proves the case for abortion but it certainly puts a rut in the case against it?
any thoughts for or against this theory?
If fetuses don’t act -don’t have conscious purpose, -then they can’t be people since all people act. So that disproves the premise of fetuses being people therefore they have rights.
So if someone is asleep or incapacitated in some fashion do they cease to be people?
My first thought when reading this, and I’ll stand corrected if need be, is that you’re confusing observations about humanity which serve as a basis for praxeology with universal definitions of what constitutes human life. The two needn’t be the same, because praxeology is concerned with “acting man” and draws no conclusions and makes no analysis of the continuum problems about when life begins or the nature/worth of life in its various conditions. Fetusus or people who are brain dead may not be economic actors, but that has no bearing on whether they are or are not actual people.
Again, just my first thought.
You don’t need to disprove the “fetus is a person” claim to recognize that even as a person, his right cannot supersede the right of the woman who chooses to abort what she now deems as a parasite.
…which is why it’s okay to stab toddlers to death that wander into your yard.
strawman.
It would be OK if it were the only option available. But it clearly isn’t.
The fetus is that rare situation where it is the only option.
And a thought that fascinates me -I wondered if action was somehow part of the essence of man but wasn’t sure. If action is not a part of what makes a man what he is, then it is possible to contemplate a man who doesn’t act -would this man think, would he eat? No since these are actions. So then where is man’s rationality or his animal nature (if he does infact possess these natures) that he is supposed to have. More importantly what else could take the place of these two definitions?
DD5: the fetus can then be evicted but then how would this fulfill the proportionality requirement?
When a woman engages in sex, doesnt she voluntarily consent to the possibility that there might be a fetus in her body in the future, thus negating any claims she might have over her right to choose the fate of the fetus?
Not trying to challenge you persay, just genuinely trying to get clarification.
Take it away 1,000+ thread on abortions! lol
Evictionism: Abortion and Libertarianism
Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights
Abort the abortion threads.
I am not even going to debate on this abortion issue directly, but I’ll just leave it with this.
Civilized nations have always been built on concern and love for children, which is why the traditional family structure was made at all. That we now have women who indiscriminately have sex under very bad judgment, and then want to do away with having a child, is a sickening trend that indicates the extreme lack of both a moral and healthy lifestyle. It also indicates that parents of such women also have failed to raise them properly, by allowing her to harden against the feelings of loving a child, and treating a pregnancy like a casual affair. If anything, you’d wonder if the parents created that hardening against human love. It would have only been half as worse, if she were an apathetic mother having many children whom she occasionally decides to take care of as a mother.
Why bother saying anything else? If we all did everything that was legal, we wouldn’t have come this far. Maybe all men should abandon their children and not take responsibility for them - is that not perfectly legal? It’s also the reason why many women and children in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina could not be saved by anyone. Why didn’t all the fathers get on boats and swim back to rescue their family members weaker than them? Could it have been because they were not fathers at all to the children they had fathered and in fact were not even living as families with them as it was?
And that Mises.Org forums has people who try to throw out “theories” on such matters, like they are analytical legal experts who can determine what should be the status of an action in which bloodied bolus of flesh is ripped out of a woman, shows why we should be ashamed of being called “libertarians”.
If anything, it shows a lack of manners and decency, akin to somebody who is dining with elderly people in a fancy restaurant and talking to them about scat porn. No wonder Lew Rockwell once said that too many people become libertarians to make up for their moral failings. And I understand libertarians pride themselves on their lack of manners and decency, but so did GG Allin.
I am furious right now.
“Civilized nations have always been built on concern and love for children”
No, civilization is built upon the division of labor & private property rights. The rest of that rant is personal preferences.
“If we all did everything that was legal, we wouldn’t have come this far.”
Sorry, I don’t understand this.
“Maybe all men should abandon their children and not take responsibility for them - is that not perfectly legal?”
Libertarianism is meta-normative. “Should” and “ought” don’t come into it at all.
Rothbard footnote, from TEOL - Children and Rights chapter:
[2]What we are trying to establish here is not the morality of abortion (which may or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion. What we are concerned with in this book is people’s rights to do or not do various things, not whether they should or should not exercise such rights. Thus, we would argue that every person has the right to purchase and consume Coca-Cola from a willing seller, not that any person should or should not actually make such a purchase.
Also did you not read the Block article I linked earlier that deals precisely with this topic?
“Why didn’t all the fathers get on boats and swim back to rescue their family members weaker than them?”
I’m guessing FEMA didn’t let them.
“And that Mises.Org forums has people who try to throw out “theories” on such matters, like they are analytical legal experts who can determine what should be the status of an action in which bloodied bolus of flesh is ripped out of a woman, shows why we should be ashamed of being called “libertarians”.”
Trying to apply the non aggression principle isn’t that hard. Granted obviously abortion is advanced libertarian theory and one of the most complicated issues. Why exactly are you foreshaming these so called, “libertarians” ? There are libertarians all over the spectrum when it comes to the issue.
“If anything, it shows a lack of manners and decency, akin to somebody who is dining with elderly people in a fancy restaurant and talking to them about scat porn.”
Woah, lol talk about hyperbole.
No wonder Lew Rockwell once said that too many people become libertarians to make up for their moral failings. And I understand libertarians pride themselves on their lack of manners and decency, but so did GG Allin.
I am furious right now."
Where did he say that? Tbh, I have no idea why you got so mad. Seems like you worked yourself into that frenzy more than anyone else.
Of course division of labour and specialization ensured that we did not create an immediate exhaustion of scarce resources that we had.
But you live in a fantasy island if you think family structure has absolutely nothing to do with anything but personal preferences. Why not look at Liberia, where nobody lives as a family? 14 year old boys go around raping women regularly, 80% of the women in the African nation of Liberia have been raped at some point in their life, most children are a product of rape, many don’t live beyond 30.
Obviously, creating a system of law and order and a recognition of property rights would allow financial institutions to lend to businesses and housing developers, let these people move in as tenants, allow them to get the jobs, let them be charged so that their dwellings remain clean, hygienic, and sanitary under the responsibility of the landlord, and quickly gain in productivity from infusion of capital.
Except those kids, for purely emotional reasons, don’t have a first and foremost need for property rights and division of labour. Those kids need parents to raise them, to keep them in line, to make them understand why a moral life is necessary, and to get a decent chance to assimilate and understand before they are let off.
But otherwise, are you going to magically turn Liberian kids who go around killing and raping each other into civilized people who can implement property rights and a division of labour? Where or how are you going to implement those things at all by using just those murderous kids? Do you think those kids have an ethical respect for property that they will automatically adopt it? They won’t. As it is, we are never going to put those kids under a firm parental upbringing, so any hope for Liberia is obviously non-existent. But if that’s not going to happen, it’s even more fiction to think property rights or division of labour can be implemented. Praxeology, Conza - it’s human action that allowed property rights to exist. Human nature leads to human action, and when a Liberian kid has no respect for human life, how is he going to work under the system of civilized nations? Property rights and division of labour are not dropped onto people, it’s people who bring it about. I like to take the Liberian kid example, because when abortions become common, and love for children is slowly severed away from women and people in general, there will be no family system, and when there will be no family system, you’ll have broken households that you see in many neighbourhoods of Britain and black America. Liberia is the ultimate endpoint of that. The problem is that it won’t be reversible.
That’s what I meant about what would happen if we did everything that was legal. If it happened in pre-abortion days in the Western world that a man could have sex with as many women as he wanted, with those women having those children and then abandoning them in the middle of the forests or streets, where do you think the Western world would be now.
I got angry, because I found the original post abhorrent. It’s a rather grotesque reduction of what is considered to be nauseating by many into a legal discussion. In matters of serious debate, it is possible to be right for the wrong reasons - you could make a utilitarian argument about how cannibalism fights hunger. But why am I saying this? You just said that a family system is just personal preference. This is no better than Marxists who consider marriage a monopoly ownership and slavery over a woman, and the idea of a family to be an institution of oppression.
Oh, and I find Block’s views on moral matters and matters of reproduction to be despicable, and I prefer if he remained silent on such things.
This is the man who said that bottled fetuses should be “homestead” like cattle for the use of stem cell research, and that made me feel like jumping out of my skin.
No, stuff like that makes me want to puke.
You don’t need to disprove the “fetus is a person” claim to recognize that even as a person, his right cannot supersede the right of the woman who chooses to abort what she now deems as a parasite.
If we use the eviction point of veiw we have to assume the fetus is a person then that raises some other issues. The woman does have the right to evict but in what fashion and in what time frame.
If someone is found trespassing on your property you have the right to evict, but not strictly on your terms. If you find someone trespassing on your property you cannot demand that they leave your property within 2 seconds or you will kill them. How quickly do they have to leave.
Well that would depend on the circumstances. If you find them in the middle of your 10,000 acre wilderness hunting preserve, you cannot demand that they leave in the next hour. And then when they fail to comply shoot them in the head and drag tier dead body off your property. You have to give them reasonable time to comply with your wishes. The only time lethal force is justified is if lethal force is used to resist your order.
If applied to abortion, it would mean that the vast majority of abortions performed today would be unjustified. People are demanding that the child get out of me now!!! When the child is unable to comply, a doctor is hired to kill them and remove them from the womb. Thats not eviction.
An eviction would be to have the child removed from the womb intact. If the baby is unable to live because of the environment outside the womb then that is no ones fault. But to kill the child in the process of eviction would be unjustified.
“But you live in a fantasy island if you think family structure has absolutely nothing to do with anything but personal preferences.”
What I was referring to was this:
“That we now have women who indiscriminately have sex under very bad judgment, and then want to do away with having a child, is a sickening trend that indicates the extreme lack of both a moral and healthy lifestyle. It also indicates that parents of such women also have failed to raise them properly, by allowing her to harden against the feelings of loving a child, and treating a pregnancy like a casual affair. If anything, you’d wonder if the parents created that hardening against human love. It would have only been half as worse, if she were an apathetic mother having many children whom she occasionally decides to take care of as a mother.”
= personal opinion / value judgments.
“But you live in a fantasy island if you think family structure has absolutely nothing to do with anything”
What does it have to do with political philosophy, i.e libertarianism?
“Why not look at Liberia, where nobody lives as a family?”
Why not tone down the rash generalisations & hyperbole? “Nobody lives as a family”, ? It wouldn’t take much to refute that statement.
“14 year old boys go around raping women regularly, 80% of the women in the African nation of Liberia have been raped at some point in their life, most children are a product of rape, many don’t live beyond 30.”
Sounds like the state “protection agency” isn’t doing it’s job. Furthermore your figures are (from what I understand in my 30 sec search) absurd, and in fact the methodology used to obtain them was bogus. See here. And it was “75%”, though I guess you got your inflated figure from somewhere else.
"However this survey in no way provides support for the claim that three quarters or more of Liberian women were raped. As noted by the JAMA study, the sample was drawn from just two counties1. The report does state that the findings only apply to Montserrado and Bong, but there are much more serious problems with the methodology:
Two selection strategies were used to select SGBV survivors in the community: key informant approach (the snowball sampling) and the random sampling. The key informants were women group leaders, TBAs, etc. These individuals acted as informants and identified other women and girls in their respective communities for inclusion in the study. At least 40 women, per interview day, were later randomly selected for inclusion in the study sample.
[…]
The sampling criteria for inclusion in the study were: a woman or a girl who is a survivor of sexual gender-based violence; who accepts voluntarily to participate in the study; who speaks English or any of the Liberian languages; and who can communicate and respond to questions.
My emphasis. By design 100% of the sample had been sexually victimised. Women and girls who had never been sexually victimised were excluded. At best the survey supports the proposition that of those women and girls who suffered some form of sexual victimisation, about three quarters or more were raped. This fraction would need to be multiplied by the percentage of sexually victimised females in the total population, but the survey provides no indication of what that number may be.
It should also be clear that the study sample was “randomly selected” from an initial set of “identified other women” which was in no way random. This methodology seems calculated to turn up the most seriously-victimised individuals."
“Obviously, creating a system of law and order and a recognition of property rights would allow financial institutions to lend to businesses and housing developers, let these people move in as tenants, allow them to get the jobs, let them be charged so that their dwellings remain clean, hygienic, and sanitary under the responsibility of the landlord, and quickly gain in productivity from infusion of capital.”
You don’t “create” it, you let it happen by getting out of the way. Property rights exist regardless, but [private] property rights yes indeed. Ok..
“Except those kids, for purely emotional reasons, don’t have a first and foremost need for property rights and division of labour. Those kids need parents to raise them, to keep them in line, to make them understand why a moral life is necessary, and to get a decent chance to assimilate and understand before they are let off.”
“Those kids need parents to raise them”. Are you recommending people be forced to take them? Given the libertarian / Blockian position of evictionism & child abandonment (I don’t think you’ve actually read either article to be honest), this situation wouldn’t have happened. It’s a product of the state. Also I gather you’re saying kids need a teacher to learn? Turns out they don’t. But essentially, if you’re not advocating people be forced to take them… then what is there to discuss?
“But otherwise, are you going to magically turn Liberian kids who go around killing and raping each other into civilized people who can implement property rights and a division of labour? Where or how are you going to implement those things at all by using just those murderous kids? Do you think those kids have an ethical respect for property that they will automatically adopt it? They won’t. As it is, we are never going to put those kids under a firm parental upbringing, so any hope for Liberia is obviously non-existent. But if that’s not going to happen, it’s even more fiction to think property rights or division of labour can be implemented.”
How? More government intervention obviously isn’t the answer. Again, you don’t “implement” property rights. “As it is, we are never going to” - Are you working for a non profit organisation in Liberia? Hence the emotional reaction? Anyway, if there is a criminal element there - the incentives to do the crime need to be reduced. “Do you think those kids have an ethical respect for property that they will automatically adopt it? They won’t.” Take out the kids part, substitute adult - now what do you think? What is your thoughts for the “new” scenario?
“I like to take the Liberian kid example, because when abortions become common, and love for children is slowly severed away from women and people in general, there will be no family system, and when there will be no family system, you’ll have broken households that you see in many neighbourhoods of Britain and black America. Liberia is the ultimate endpoint of that.”
Liberia came out of a civil war.. that lasted roughly 14? years. And you’re trying to compare that to America and elsewhere? This is like the folks who use somalia as some kind of refutation of anarchy, lol. And your logic makes no sense. If those children had actually been evicted (parents who wanted to adopt or keep them alive and take the guardian rights from the natural mother - then those kids would have families) - and those that were not wanted (from international adoption agencies etc.) then they wouldn’t exist. Essentially, there wouldn’t actually be the problem there is now of streets flooded with homeless ‘criminals’.
“That’s what I meant about what would happen if we did everything that was legal.”
Ok, so essentially you’re saying - it’s fine that drugs are legal… you just don’t think that people should do them?
“If it happened in pre-abortion days in the Western world that a man could have sex with as many women as he wanted, with those women having those children and then abandoning them in the middle of the forests or streets, where do you think the Western world would be now.”
Why don’t you do yourself a favor & actually read Walter Block’s article.
“You just said that a family system is just personal preference.”
No, I said your comments about other peoples lifestyles etc were. Ultimately, do you think individuals should be able to choose (voluntary association) who they live with & where they call home?
No for several reasons. Here is just one of them:
Proportionality is irrelevant here since we are not talking about a crime. The abortion is simply the only option available for the mother.
Proportionality is irrelevant here since we are not talking about a crime. The abortion is simply the only option available for the mother.
Thats not true. There are other options. The mother can wait. Again the mother can evict but not through any means she sees fit. To use lethal force against someone (who has not used force to resist you), because they are not moving fast enough to get off your property would turn your eviction into a murder.
These type of arguments are driven by personal moral values and not by any consistent set of logical principles.
Abortion may be morally respondent to you but it does not follow that it is inconsistent with the non aggression principle.
This is when anti-abortion libertarians abandon all of their principles and turn into neocon fascists. A simple mental exercise of how such an outright ban would be enforced in a free society proves the point. You need a State, and one that is as Fascist or Communist as was Romania a few decades ago, when you talk abut outlawing abortions. This is incompatible with anything that is even remotely close to a free society.