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”.
The same way you have regional businesses. Some businesses operate exclusively in certain regions of the world, because they meet customer demand. If where you live where there is high demand for arbitors that recognize abortion as murder then be prepared to be taked to court for murder. But the reverse would be true as well. In areas where abortion is not seen as a big deal then good luck finding an arbitor that will hear the case.
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.
Listen you can be dismissive if you like. I never claimed once that abortion would be outlawed everywhere. It is you who have claimed that it could not be enforced anywhere.
My only point is where its not ok people will be taken to court and tried for murder.
Where it is ok people will not be taken to court and tried for murder.
Which would be a different issue. I was only trying to make a point regarding times when voluntary sex had occured. So what are the other reasons, then?
Isn’t that basically what happens whenever we make a choice of any kind? Assuming no coercion is involved we voluntarily subject ourselves to the possibilities of A, B, C, etc occuring.
Would every miscarriage be considered manslaughter or murder? Considering the mother neglected in proper care of the fetus?
I see your point Southerner. But think of abortion as evicting the fetus from the body. Does the mother have a right to care for the fetus outside the body? Since it can’t survive outside the body, it is considered dead of natural causes? That is how I view it, the mother does not kill it, but the baby can’t naturally survive outside the body.
and DD5, You mentioned a two cell arguement I believe. referring to sperm and egg and comparing it to releasing sperm. That is logically incorrect. You are neglecting the time variable. A sperm 1 year from now either sperm or dead. An egg 1 year from now is either an egg or dead. A conceived egg (egg+sperm) a year from now is a baby.
Does the mother have a right to care for the fetus outside the body? Since it can’t survive outside the body, it is considered dead of natural causes?
No the mother cannot be required to care for the child, either in or outside her body. If the child cannot survive outside the womb and no one voluntarially cares for the child, then the cause of death would be exposure.
That is how I view it, the mother does not kill it, but the baby can’t naturally survive outside the body.
But thats the catch. If the mother simply removes the child and it is unable to survive outside the body then there is no problem. But that is not what happens in many forms of abortion practiced today. The most obvious is partial birth. Labor is induced, the head is exposed, then a tube is jammed in and brains sucked out. That would not be considered simply removing the child. That is destroying the child prior to removal.
Other methods include dismembering the body of the child and removing it piece by piece. Again this is not simply removing the child. It is killing the child prior to removal. Thats my only issue.
There are methods that leave the child intact and those methods would not be aggression. But dismemberment before or during the abortion would be.
I think those situations fall under mercy killing. Considering removal there would be virtually no chance of survival due to either underdeveloped lungs, heart, etc. Just to take the fetus out to stare at it as it dies is illogical.
edit:
abortions where the baby can biologically function outside is an issue.
It’s difficult sorting something like this out, for me at least. So much easier taking a moral stance on this than trying to hash this out legally speaking.
Just to take the fetus out to stare at it as it dies is illogical.
Hmmm. Mercy killings dont seem like they adhere to the NAP. Its dies either way. One is consistent with libertarian principles the other isnt.
abortions where the baby can biologically function outside is an issue.
That is what I have a problem with. Mainly.
It’s difficult sorting something like this out, for me at least. So much easier taking a moral stance on this than trying to hash this out legally speaking.
While morality and legality diverge on any number of issues… So far I dont see this as being one of them. Either way it is a very difficult issue.
The eviction comparison seems to be used by many as some sort of iron clad defense of abortion under any circumstance, when to me it seems to put a limit on what can and can not be done.
when I buy a bike, am I voluntarily consenting to possibility of being hit buy drunk car driver? Of course not. The purpose of sex for many people today (at least) is satisfaction, not baby making, which is just this bad consequence which may come after not using condoms etc. Just like a drunk drive hitting me while I am riding a bicycle is not MY problem (well, sometimes it can be mine but that’s beside the point) in a sense, that I didn’t CONSENT to being possibly hit by a car if I purchase a bike.
If this analogy doesn’t make sense, tell me why. I am not sure. Anyway, this your argument with “voluntary consent” is really bizarre to me and it has some serious problems.
that would seem like a good point from first glance. But then what does this “consent” mean? Does it only mean we are responsible for our actions, not consequences or we are responsible for both?
But then again, we can only consent to a certain action, not it’s consequences which is sometimes hard to foresee. But the bad consequence in this case is a fetus. It is not a human until borned anyway. So I would say woman is responsible to eithe take care of a fetus which gonna born (quit smoking, drinking etc) or do an abortion before commiting this unwanted baby to the world’s horrors and wonders where should must have to raise the child or give it for adoption.
This is my reasoning and I am not 100 percent sure about what I have said. But what I am sure only is that fetus, until born, has no human rights and is in complete control of its carrier.
I think if we use the non-aggression principle in its true spirit and not in the legal-propertarian flim-flammery seen here, abortion runs contrary libertarianism because it involves harm of another biologically-alive thing. Also, if we are to be logically consistent, we musn’t be speciesists. This same NAP applies to animals. Hence, we’re for ethical treatment of animals, and in general of all living things. What happen to transcendentalism within the libertarian movement?
then someone can ask what is true spirit of the words? Who defines what they mean? It’s easy to go to very bizarre absurdities, like in extreme propertarianism for example, where morals are completely irrelevant etc. and humans are considered as “objects”.
I am against those sort of extremes, especially life boat scenarios which are retarded but I am starting to rant.
Anyway, I don’t want to derail the thread into animal rights, but as for “fetus rights”, it has none in my view. Until it is born, of course.
In the end there is no way to conceivably escape value judgments, even with the basest mathematical algorithm, because of the process of man in creating it.
Im not sure its logical to compare being hit by a vehicle, to a woman’s eggs being fertilized via an act that she herself constented to.
Using your analogy, I feel it would be more appropriate to my theory if someone bought a bike without a warranty, but then demanded not to have to bear the costs when the bike had a freak accident and broke down.