an interesting thought on abortions

Economics Political Theory
21

These type of arguments are driven by personal moral values and not by any consistent set of logical principles.

How is anything I said based on my personal moral values. I dont think that I have declared personal support for or against abortion. I started from your premise that abortion and eviction are equivalent. Then tried to show that there are limits on what your could do when evicting someone. If abortion and eviction are equivalent then it is logical that there are limits on what you could do when aborting someone.

Abortion may be morally respondent to you but it does not follow that it is inconsistent with the non aggression principle.

I dont know how you would know one way or another whether I approve or disapprove. But just so you understand where I am coming from… I am undecided and still trying to figure it out.

This is when anti-abortion libertarians abandon all of their principles and turn into neocon fascists.

I have not abandoned anything. In fact I have done my best to stick to libertarian priciples while coming to grips with a difficult issue.

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.

If present abortion practices were veiwed as murder in some future world, then it would be banned and punished in the same way murder would be banned and punished.

If it were veiwed as murder it would be so because it is a violation of property rights. Do you need a state to enforce and protect property rights? If you are an ancap then the answer is no.

There would be no problem with enforcement with or without a government.

Can you address specificly what I have stated that has deviated from a logical comparison of eviction and abortion. You stated I wasent being logical but did not point out my error.

22

Without coercive territorial monopoly over law and force, the above is not practical even if there was a near consensus, which there is likely not to be one. You can’t even enforce such a ban with a totalitarian and brutal regime. Think drug war. You think it can be enforced in a free society, let alone compatible with it?

Are you familiar with the Romanian abortion ban of just a few decades ago? If not you should.

23

Anyways, why can’t people just pay others a premium for not having abortions? No hugely coercive social system needed to stop it or why couldn’t the adoption market provide an outlet for unwanted kids? Plus in the future there may be convienient ways to remove the fetus without killing it.

24

There is no doubt that if we had a free market, there would be far less abortions.

25

You invoked the eviction arguement as why a woman would have the absolute right to an abortion. I drew futher parrallels between abortion and eviction to demonstrate why a womans right to an abortion would be limited, just as someones right to eviction would be limited.

You stated that people who would make an arguement such as that are only letting their personal opinons cloud their logic. However, you did not show the logical error made. Please show me where my personal preferences caused an error in my logic.

You then stated it would be impossible to stop abortion. Well it is also impossible to stop murder but that doesnt mean that people will not be punished for the unjust taking of life.

In additon, the eviction arguement has nothing to do with the difficulty or impossiblility of stopping abortions. It has to do with a conflict of rights.

26

Who’s going to limit it? You? On your property, perhaps. But not on the property of others who don’t agree with you.

Punishment of acts by people not obligated to you contractually can only be done by a State. For example, you cant compel the French to oblige by American law on abortion without and act of war, in which case, if America accomplishes its task, you will be no longer able to claim that there is anarchy between France and America. Likewise, to claim that a free society can have an outright ban on abortion within a given territory is a contradictory of terms.

This is where you make the fatal mistake in logic. The fetus can have no such right to live off the mother. His fate is in his mother’s hands, no different from a person who is incapable of providing for himself. He’s right to self ownership cannot come at the expense of someone else’s. That’s just applying NAP consistently.

27

One thing I’d like to add:

The human nervous system does not magically spring up, fully-formed, immediately after conception. In fact, IIRC there’s plenty of evidence that points to it not being integrated until the end of the first trimester at the earliest.

From what I understand, a woman typically finds out that she’s pregnant well before the end of the first trimester. During that time, the fetus is progressing from blastula, through gastrula, then through neurulation and so forth. It’s not as though there’s a fully-formed human child in her womb that just gets bigger during the entire pregnancy.

My question then is: before the fetus’ nervous system is fully integrated, can we really say that it’s on par with adult human beings, or even children/babies, in terms of moral agency? If so, why aren’t other mammals considered moral agents as well, since they have more complex nervous systems than a first-trimester fetus? And we kill certain species of mammal on a regular basis.

To derail the thread even further, how much of an issue would abortion be in the absence of compulsory public schooling and anti-child-labor laws?

28

“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.”

good thing my parents did not deem me a parasite when they were paying for my arts school tuition.

"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 in the case for a man who is desparate for money quickly? is robbery or theft to be given a moral get out of jail free card because if he wanted to eat ‘he had no other choice.’

‘oh but he could get a job, etc. etc.’ assume that he cannot, or for whatever reason, urgency put him in a situation where robbery is literally his only option. does the ‘oh but I had to do something wrong in order to get what I wanted as there was no other way’ argument still sound like anything other than the selfish rationalizations of an unprinicpled woman?

29

Again, this is a personal moral judgement that has nothing to do with whether abortion is compatible or incompatible with libertariansim.

Also, I don’t get the “quickly” analogy here? Do you prefer the mother take her time and abort the fetus when it is at full term?

30

Who’s going to limit it? You? On your property, perhaps. But not on the property of others who don’t agree with you.

Ahh, I see. So if I, by accident (maybe I got lost hiking), find myself on your property am instantly subject to your rules. So if your rules are I shoot anyone on my property no questions asked, then there is nothing criminal about shooting me. Of course there is.

Punishment of acts by people not obligated to you contractually can only be done by a State. For example, you cant compel the French to oblige by American law on abortion without and act of war, in which case, if America accomplishes its task, you will be no longer able to claim that there is anarchy between France and America. Likewise, to claim that a free society can have an outright ban on abortion within a given territory is a contradictory of terms.

And again here. So if I kill you and you have no insurance or contract with a third party… no harm no foul. Because there is no one contractually obligated to take you to court. And I certainly would not beable to… because I’m dead. It might work that way but I doubt it. More than likely it would depend on what the society at large believes. Those courts which recognize abortion as a crime would be patronized, those who didnt would be seen as illegitimate and not used.

The fetus can have no such right to live off the mother.

I never made the claim that the child has that right.

His fate is in his mother’s hands, no different from a person who is incapable of providing for himself.

No, the mother has no right to dictate the fate of the child. She only has a right to her person and property. If the child is not wanted, then it is trespassing. The mother can then evict the child. The eviction process from her womb would be no different from the eviction process from a home, business, or tract of land.

When removing someone from your property you don’t have the right to kill them, unless your life is in danger. This is the proportionality part of libertarianism. If we apply this to abortion… when removing someone from your womb you don’t have the right to kill them, unless your life is in danger.

He’s right to self ownership cannot come at the expense of someone else’s. That’s just applying NAP consistently.

The NAP does not allow for the killing of someone who has not threatened your life. No matter if they are trespassing, stealing, or poking you in the chest.

If someone is trespassing you have to give them time to leave your property. This amount of time depends on the circumstances of the trespass. If you wish to expedite the eviction you may. Put them in your car and drive them to the edge of your property, open the door for them, give them a ladder to climb down from your tree house.

But in no way do you have the right shoot them in the head first. That is not expediting the eviction. It is murdering someone.

31

Also, I don’t get the “quickly” analogy here? Do you prefer the mother take her time and abort the fetus when it is at full term?

The reason time is brought up is because, in the case of eviction, time must be given to the tresspasser to comply. That amount of time is determined by the circumstances. If he has to hike two weeks to get off your property, then it is reasonable that you have to wait two weeks before you can reasonable expect him to be in compliance. If is two steps on your property, then it is reasonable if you only give two seconds to leave.

If an abortion is an eviction then it is reasonable for you to have to wait for the tresspasser to leave. In the case of a pregnancy it could be a few months. Its not reasonable to say get off my property while pulling the trigger. You did not give them time to comply.

32

This is all some objective coder of ethics you have in your mind. It has nothing to do with NAP. I don’t want to argue ethics with you of what is considered a threat or trespassing and what is proper time to leave, etc. etc…

Look, the current state of affairs is that we have anarchy between States. If one State, say the US bans abortion, and another State, say France, says it’s legitimate, what are you going to do? Regardless of your opinion on the matter, you can either respect it or you don’t. If you don’t respect it, the best you can do while not violating the peaceful state of anarchy between the two states, is not trade or not even agree to interact. Any initiation of force used to try to compel the French into obliging by your laws is incompatible with NAP. And if you succeed in enforcing US laws on French territory then you have no longer anarchy between the two states.

The only difference between the above example and the free society is that sovereignty is at the level of the individual instead of a collection of individuals.

And here it is again only in less words:

To say that there can be an outright ban on abortion in the free society in the absent of consensus is like saying that there can be an outright ban today on all the independent States of the world without a consensus. You would need some coercive global enforcer to compel it. This would be the end of anarchy between states. Likewise, your idea of a ban in the free society is the end of anarchy between individuals.

33

Nobody said abortion is like an eviction. Some trespassers must be terminated and cannot be evicted due to special circumstances.

Second, there isn’t any universal time that one allows for anything and that can be applied evenly or uniformly in all cases.

Abortion is actually a perfect example of when it is best to terminate as early as possible. When your sperm combines with the egg, we are talking about only 2 cells. That is only one more cell then each of the million of cells that you (or most men at lest) happily dispose off everyday. I would think that it would be in the interest of everyone; mother, fetus, judgmental strangers, that any termination would happen at as early stage as possible.

34

See the problem with the above is that you are using a two party analysis. We need to add several other parties to the mix. There has to be some arbitor that the states use to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence over every little dissagreement. Typically this party would be mutually agree upon or they may be a couple of different arbitors that are trusted. Now there are other states other than the US and France. Lets say Russia, Sweden, and Germany.

A conflict arises where Germany (baby) has tresspassed on French (mother) territory, this is an honest mistake for what ever reason and Germany (baby) has not threatened France (mother) with lethal force. This does not matter to the French (mother), they say leave in the next two seconds (not waiting a few months for the birth or a time when the baby can be removed without killing it) if not their rules are “nukem” (abortion). There are no contracts in place between France (Mother) and anyone else (third parties) concerning this specific situation. France (mother) nukes (aborts) Germany (child) off the face of the planet. Germany (baby) has no contract with any other nation (third parties) to come to its defense. This is considered murder by all other nations (third parties), except France (mother).

You say nothing will happen because there are no explicit contracts that address this situation between france (mother), Germany (baby), and the other nations(third parties). And any action by the third parties would be unjust.

I say that the other nations (third parties) will demand that France (mother) defend its actions (abortion) in a court run by one of the arbitors (third party) that has been traditionally used to resolve conflict. If France(mother) refuses to do so then it would become an outlaw and be at the mercy of her neighbors.

You apparently believe this would be unjust and would destroy anarchy between states. I beleive it would be completely logical and expected.

35

You completely missed the point of the analogy.

Right now, France and the US are in anarchy. US bans abortions and France does not. As long as there is anarchy between them, one cannot compel the other to oblige by his laws for they have no common government. The most you can do is refuse to conduct trade. If you wish to preserve this state of anarchy between the states, this is the most you can do. That is simply my point about why a territorial wide scale ban is not compatible with libertarianism. In the free society, instead of having sovereign states, you have sovereign individuals.

You can choose not to associate yourself with people who don’t have a problem with abortions just like you can refuse to visit or immigrate to France, or buy and sell with a Frenchman. But if you think you have the right to violate the private property of others ( or France in our example), then you have a very big problem with the philosophy of private property and libertarianism.

36

Nobody said abortion is like an eviction.

Your first post indicated that you are talking about a womans right to her (property) body not being superceded by the babys right to life. The only conflict that could arise is if the baby is occupying the womans body without her consent. Also know as tress passing.

Your second post was in response to a toddler wandering on to someones property (trespass). Claiming it would be ok if there was no other choice.

You have responded to all my posts about eviction/abortion. Now you want to claim that this is not what you were talking about at all.

Hmmm. My mistake.

Some trespassers must be terminated and cannot be evicted due to special circumstances.

Cannot think of one situation where the only option is to kill a non violent trespasser.

Second, there isn’t any universal time that one allows for anything and that can be applied evenly or uniformly in all cases.

I never claimed there was. In fact I have stated that the time period would vary depending on situation.

Abortion is actually a perfect example of when it is best to terminate as early as possible. When your sperm combines with the egg, we are talking about only 2 cells. That is only one more cell then each of the million of cells that you (or most men at lest) happily dispose off everyday. I would think that it would be in the interest of everyone; mother, fetus, judgmental strangers, that any termination would happen at as early stage as possible.

This is only your opinion. You would have to ask all involved if it is in their best interests. I would guess the child would disagree.

37

You completely missed the point of the analogy.

I understand your analogy. It is flawed. The US would not have a right to change the laws in France because it is not the accepted arbitor of rights conflicts for people who live in France. The citizens of France could simply ignore US courts and risk nothing. There are numerous states which means there are numerous arbitors who uphold the accepted laws of the society.

All law will not be universal in a libertarian world. There will be areas where abortion is veiwed as murder and the arbitors that used by the people in those areas will try those cases. In other areas it will not be seen as murder and you wont find any arbitors that will see the case. If someone brings suit against you for murder and you refuse to accept arbitration by a locally accepted arbitor you risk being branded an outlaw and all the bad things that would come of that.

38

Well that was my whole argument so how can it be flawed??? You can’t ban abortion based on libertarianism or NAP. In the libertarian society, you can ban it on your property and choose to do business with only those who agree (voluntarily) to such terms.

39

Well that was my whole argument so how can it be flawed??? You can’t ban abortion based on libertarianism or NAP. In the libertarian society, you can ban it on your property and choose to do business with only those who agree (voluntarily) to such terms.

No your arguement is that all law will begin and end at property lines. If this is what you think, I beleive you will be dissappointed. There will be things you cannot do on your property and you will be brought to trial because of it. Killing someone on your property because those are your rules will not be tolerated and you will find yourself in court to face charges of murder. If it is recognized by all the arbitors that try cases in your region that abortion is murder. Those who practice abortion will find themselves in court to defend their actions or they will be branded and outlaw.

40

Arbitration agencies are themselves product of consumer demand. And there is no territorial monopoly over some region so I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say “arbitrators n your region”. It sounds like States.

And I really don’t know what you’re argument is about any longer since you’ve already acknowledge in the previous post that there won’t be any uniform code of law in the libertarian society and abortion will be OK by some and not OK by others.