People
are not pets.
I do not find the analogy convincing.
My main frustration with this issue is the impossibility of knowing at what point the fetus becomes a human. I think you’ve proven that it isn’t necessary to be able to answer this question in order to support the mother’s rights to her own property. This is comforting…
Let me throw a curveball at you: Didn’t the mother offer consent for the child to enter her when she allowed the seed to enter (assuming the sex was consensual)? So isn’t it a violation of an implied contract for her to forcibly evict someone she had previously welcomed in?
Two posts up, I meant to quote Spideynw, and the above post, I meant to quote xahrx.
I apologize for the multiple postings. Every time I see the text of the person I am replying to above my post, I automatically assume I am quoting him and forget to hit the quote button.
This indeed is the question.
If self-ownership implies that each individual owns their own bodies and by extension their bodily derivatives (organs, hair, blood, sperm/egg, etc); then a fertilized egg is nothing more than the combination of two individuals property.
At this point, it seems erroneous to label the potential child as a parasite/invader, except maybe in the case of rape. Also, when else is the product of the combination of property not property?
Along the stages of child production, the mother converts additional resources (food/water) to create, develop and refine an end product; he term “biological factory” is somewhat fitting. In an an-cap society, if a company purchases sperm/egg on the market and creates total In Vitro babies, at what point in the production process can the company scrap their current batch, and at what point is it a NAP violation? Obviously in both cases the “product” is also human individual, and thus as an individual it should have ownership of their body as stated above.
I think Block’s proposal of technological evictionism is the best solution for natural pregnancies, furthermore I think a free an-cap society would see less abortions due to no regulations on adoption. We’d probably see businesses that cater to women with unwanted pregnancies, matching them with people seeking adoption; allowing the mother to pick/choose the most suitable terms (fiscal, visitation rights, etc, etc). Even in an an-cap society with legal abortion at some stages of child production, it’s very likely the mother would have to pay for an abortion, or go to a pregnancy/adoption service and be provided with medical care and maybe additional compensation as part of the agreement reached between mother and adopting parents.
No it comes down to defining rights. A right is a legal claim. Reasoning human beings are the only ones known to be able to make a legal claim. As such, humans that have reached the age of consent are the only ones that can make a legal claim. In an anarchist society, there would be no organization like the government to punish parents for not treating their young children as you want them treated. Same with pets.
And babies cannot reason.
That would be because you’re ignorant of Evictionism.
Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy - http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf
Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights - http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf
But they will be able to, it’s part of their nature (being human). For pets and animals however - never.
To not make that most basic of distinctions is to error.
Not true. I am fully aware of the evictionist theory and I have rejected it. Now I’m a big fan of Dr. Block, but he’s made a lot of mistakes on this issue.
He describes the fetus as an “unwanted visitor that was not contracted for to a term of nine months.”
This may come off as a bit surprising, but this is what happens when sperm is released inside of a mature female of the human species. Assuming the sex was between two consenting, sane adults, the mother was fully aware of the obligations she was undertaking when she allowed the male to release inside of her.
Block:
“Individuals only have a right not to be aggressed against. The fetus is not being aggressed against by eviction from a woman’s womb, which is her property; that is, this “facility” is owned by the woman not the fetus.On the contrary, the fetus aggressor, albeit not purposefully, is the initiator of violence.”
I agree that the womb is the mother’s property. However, as I mentioned earlier, evicting a fetus is an act of aggression the vast majority of the time as it involves destroying the fetus (i.e., dissolving it with a saline solution, sucking it out with a vacuum, crushing its skull so it will come out more easily, etc.) I have seen ultrasounds of unborn children being destroyed. They writhe around in agony for a while before dieing–I can assure you, they feel pain. This pain is not the result of tertiary factors–like when a landowner rightfully evicts a trespasser into the freezing cold. The pain felt by the unborn child is the direct result of the procedure. Abortion of this sort is therefore a violation of the NAP.
The only time “evicting” could be allowed under a libertarian legal code is when it is truly performed in a non-aggressive manner AFTER the fetus is deemed viable. Otherwise, the abortionist and mother are engaging in murder.
Additionally, the fetus cannot possibly be an aggressor since it has no choice in the matter. I suppose one could term “nature” the aggressor since it was resulting from biological forces that the fetus developed, but this is semantics.
Now all of this assumes that the unborn child is worthy of human rights. At what point a zygote/fetus/baby acquires rights I do not know and do not believe it is possible to know. For that reason, abortion is an issue separate and distinct from all others—it involves profound metaphysical questions that we cannot answer (unless you choose to go the “faith” route—i.e., believing something in the absence of evidence). Not even the brilliant Walter Block or Murray Rothbard can solve this one.
One thing that I appreciate Block for recognizing is that advancing technology will make this debate obsolete. Hopefully, it will be possible to evict a child at any stage in the future and it will remain viable. This is pure fanciful speculation however and irrelevant to formulating law in the present.
So babies and even some children don’t have rights? That’s news to me.
As so often the argument about whether abortion is a crime or not focuses on “if it is a crime it should be punished”.
The question is, who’s to punish? The state? The community? What is libertarian about that?
The only one who has a claim in any crime is the victim not any aribtrary and made up “Do-Gooder” or “Do-Bader” group of self aggrandized megalomaniacs.
So in case of abortion, the victim, or the heir as a right to retribution. That’s it. Case closed as far as it concerns rights.
The next question is a moral question. Is it ethical to committ abortion. My answer is no. So I am not in favor.
What could these people abhorring abortion do instead killing doctors?
They could fight for a free baby adoption market and try to save as many fetuses from being evicted as possible. That would be a solution of a free people.
All the rest is just a covert attack on the freedom and property of others.
And until they can, they can’t. To not make that most basic of distinctions is to error.
Can they make a legal claim? No, so no they do not have rights.
That’s absurd. Rights are natural, not granted–unless you’re authoritarian.
So is killing a cow. So what? Since fetuses cannot make legal claims, they do not have rights, just like cows can’t make legal claims.
It has nothing to do with being authoritarian, natural, or granted. Rights are legal claims. Tell me, how does a fetus make a legal claim?
Killing someone else’s cow is indeed aggression…against his property. Cows, like all animals, are property, therefore slaughtering them cannot be murder. Human beings cannot be property. Just because a human cannot make a legal claim, whether this be due to youth or a mental handicap, does not mean it is justified to kill him. I have heard several sensible arguments in favor of legalizing abortion in this thread, but this babies have the same rights as animals business is not one of them.
Well as a libertarian I am hardly covertly attacking freedom. I’m all for freeing up the adoption market and I certainly do not support killing doctors.
I don’t know how long you’ve been following this thread, but I’ve conceded that enforcing abortion laws would be very difficult and result in many unfortunate, unintended consequences. I’m not pro-life, I’m somewhat agnostic towards abortion in that I do not know whether or not it is equivalent to the murder of an already-born human. I do not think the evictionists have the answers however.
I entirely agree. Have I asked that mothers who have aborted fetuses compensate me for their actions?
Assuming that the fetus is indeed human, then remember that the victims in cases of abortion are the unborn humans. They can’t exactly file a complaint with their local police station. And the mother is certainly not entitled to compensation, for the crime is parracide and the mother is the instigator.
Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. I guess the reason is, that the abortion topic is comming up over and over again, and I am already reading too much between the lines.
Just one more remark, this time I hope it doesn’t sound offensive, as it is not meant that way.
It is true the unborn has now way to file a complaint. That is the way it is. And if there is no one to claim retribution, there is no one to be punished(if you are religious, your religion might tell you that some stuff if punished by god though). Again, it is a simple as that,no?
Have a great weekend
What about the father?