Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Economics Political Theory
61

I myself am split on the issue, as I see arguments both ways.

The fetus is in the creation process, and is not yet a human, it’s raw material owned by the mother and in 9 months depending what health she keeps her work in creates a final product, but til then the mother owns the womb and the materials that are creating

Hm, but it may be removed and be grown into a new person. Does this mean that we have created a new human being out of nothing, pure raw materials? No.

She can refuse to eat. She can commit suicide.

Aha! Now that is interesting! Her being required to keep the baby alive violates her self-ownership right! Quite nice, quite nice.

She can remove it without harming it

I’ve considered this before. Can she really? Because it’s not a longshot from there to say that a mother may neglect her child the same way (not feed it). And unless we are willing to go into that territory (which I wouldn’t mind discussing, mind you), then this argument is not correct.

Consent to sex=/= consent to conceiving a child

Hm, that is a good point, because a woman might not know of the sex/child relationship (I know, odd). That brings in the question of whether political theories should take into account “common knowledge” or not. Yet again, if we extend this reasoning, we may say that having a child =/= consenting to feeding it etc.

An interesting point to consider:

Imagine you are a mother and have a fetus, but for the sake of argument, it grows in a glass jar (and you can all see it, to make this more vivid). No, someone comes in at night and poisons the fetus and then stabs it. Cameras catch the guy, he admits to it, he obviously and undeniably did it. Now, what is his charge? Murder or mere violation of property (“raw materials”, eh?)? To spice this up with some rhetoric, the mother had a dream of a bright future for this pile of flesh which would eventually become a person with hopes and aspirations.

This is not to be taken as a definitive argument against abortion, just something to think about.

62

“The important question is “where do rights begin.” Rights do not begin at conception, but only at an indeterminate level of human development, once a human is capable of rational, deliberative discourse. Then the human can assert his rights.”

Murder of a child not beeing able to care for himself than is not murder. And that is ridicolous.

63

implies that they have the right to induce her to deliver it alive even though that entails aggression against her body. This is clearly incompatible with liberal principles.

You are wrong, the child is human an it has the rigth to live. It will not harm a woman to bear and give birth to a child. If she know she will get hurt she should something before agreeing to sex. And that does not hurt he owning herself in anyway. Still if she consented to have sex she has to stick to that decision. It was her, who consented and if that gives the base for new life he has to keep this life. No argument of ownership will heal that.

The decison was done before the sex, the other things are “follow-ups”. It’s fully compatible to liberal principles, she decided to have sex she have to bear (literally) the consequences. What you asking is not liberal, it means the life of a child does not count. That’s clearly incompatible with liberal principles.

64

^ But what if she doesn’t know the sex-baby connection?

65

Consequence of sex =/= Obligation to provide charity

66

Every one of these sentencesabove relies on a false premise. 3 assertions and 3 fallacies. Here’s why:

  1. Humans do not have a right to live under all circumstances according to libertariansims.

  2. It can harm her big times. There is a cost to carrying the child, cost to delivering it, and both always pose a risk to her health. Before the advent of Capitalism and Cesarian section, the fate of the mother (and child) were always in doubt.

  3. And if there is no consent, i.e., rape? Is the fetus not human then? It follows from your reasoning that this point of consent isn’t even relevant.

67

To emphasize your point DD5, we can rephrase the position that a woman can be compelled to bring a child to term thusly: A woman does not completely own her own body. This is a flat contradiction of the principle of self-ownership.

Clayton -

68

Wheylous

Yes I think the line of thought that she has no obligation to keep the child alive in the case of an abortion, which would now be termed premature labor induction or whatever, also leads to the issue of her not having a positive legal obligation to her child without a contract. Whether I agree with this idea and that line of reasoning idk, but I am interested in understanding the implications if I lean that way. My first argument for it is if she is going to be a neglectful mother she was probably messed up in the first place. Can any amount of law force her or the husband to want to care for her child? I doubt it and if you could would they be good parents? probably not if they were willing to neglect their child. Most people who take care of their children love them and want to care for them. Why would that be any different in a libertarian society? There would also be instances where they could make contractually binding statements to the child and then it results in their having to take care of them. In the case of physical abuse though she is violating the child’s right to property by harming their body directly. Murder would also be prosecutable in this instance. I also think every child has the right to run away and find new parents or a new place to reside. Coupled with the ability to find a job, they could concievable take care of themselves. Feral children can live with wild animals for instance, they cannot speak, but they live. In the world where children run away and group up they could form little collectives and be little adults. There would be an obvious demand for private charity to take in these kids and send them to school.

I am interested in what everyone has to say.

69

This is an exciting discussion, because it’s not one which most people would have.

I like what you are saying.

There has been the idea that “it takes a village to raise a child”, right? Well, either 1) it was never that way 2) it used to be that way. I assume 2 as I continue in my post (please tell me if my assumption is invalid). If it used to be that way, then it has now changed. Aha! Then social expectations of rearing children have changed! Thus, since the village may be absolved of its responsibilities toward the child, then so may the family. It’s just a transition in societal beliefs. I am developing this stream of thought not to provide a libertarian argument, but to try a moral justification of child neglect. The roadblock to libertarianism is often morality (perceived), so if we can get that out of the way, we can then begin a rational discussion.

Ok, so assuming my #2 is correct, then it seems that the concept of the family and obligations to children are a tradition and not a natural and all-powerful law (I use natural law as analogous to natural rights. Natural rights cannot be taken away; hence natural law would be some sort of obligation you are ultimately forced to perform). So if the family unit is not a natural obligation but a societal construct, then child neglect is allowable and abortion without harming the fetus is also allowable. We just need to figure out whether my assumption 2 is correct :wink:

70
  1. Humans do not have a right to live under all circumstances according to libertariansims.

When not? You can not deny anyone his/her live, but in the case he/she threatens your live. Nothing else can be a reason to violate the right to live for anyone.

  1. It can harm her big times. There is a cost to carrying the child, cost to delivering it, and both always pose a risk to her health. Before the advent of Capitalism and Cesarian section, the fate of the mother (and child) were always in doubt.

That is true and I wrote one should be aware of this before having consent sex. If she does not want the baby the can do contraception. If she know being in danger to give birth of a children, then she might opt for an permanent sterilisation. The risk today of diying in develped country is very low. And she could even get the baby without laboring and never ever have to seen it. If she might have a look , she might turn her mind…

  1. And if there is no consent, i.e., rape? Is the fetus not human then? It follows from your reasoning that this point of consent isn’t even relevant.

This is the only thing which really can be a reason. In this case I would not object.

the line is pretty clear to me. Consent sex → bear the child. Like it or not.

We are here in a field which we can not find any agreement. It’s the defiinition of what rights the unborne has. If you say none, then you’re reasoning is ok. If i say yes it has the right, then my reasoning is sound.

You can not say she is “helpfless”. She has a choice (at least in developed countries). If he does not have the choice then this changes everything dramatically.

I’m fully aware that my positon can not be envforced and in fact I won’t vote for it. But I’m fully sure that the unborne has the right to live. If I think that I can speak for it and I can ask the unsure mother to think about it also. We should make it easier to adopt children. Even to compensate the mother for bearing the children. We should not compensate for any abortoin. It’s here body in this case and she should beare the costs for keeping it as she like.

I can also not see why any right would be violated if she took the money, give birth and vanishes. She would be happy the adopting parents would be happy and the little one would be alive. What’s the harm in that for anyone? None. So we have a win /win /win situation in the case for life and a terrible loss in case two… I know what I prefer. And if any woman ever should be in doubt, she may call me I’d help as good as I could. I’d even try to adopt the child. Feel free to ask the same and pay for the abortion…

71

You just granted the truth of the proposition yourself… at least in the circumstance that someone is threatening your life, you have the right to take their life. Hence, the right to live is not unqualified.

The question at hand is whether the father or other persons have a legitimate right to use force to compel her to carry the child after she has changed her mind. Contraception is irrelevant because the question at hand regards a woman who is already pregnant. While I cannot say with certainty what the law would be, I can say that you’re simply ignoring the arguments that a pregnant woman could make against the use of force being applied against her in order to compel her to carry a child she does not want to carry any longer.

Which just goes to show how arbitrary your position is. In fact, if I were a lawyer for a pregnant woman wanting to get an abortion and being sued by you trying to stop her, I would use this line of questioning in cross-examination to prove that your position is not principled but merely a matter of arbitrary pronunciation.

But you don’t get to decide the law, do you?

These paragraphs suggest to me that you don’t even understand what the topic of discussion actually is. This is not a question about the morality, decency or social stigma of abortion. This is a question of whether an interested party may rightfully threaten or use force to compel a pregnant woman to carry a child after she has decided she no longer wants to carry it. That is the issue.

Clayton -

72

As I’ve said previously, it doesn’t make any logical sense to force someone to exchange their own life for anothers. Well, unless it was expressly contracted that the person intends to do that.

It’s an interesting question concerning when a person can expel a guest, but I do not see how it’s relevant to my thesis. I have posited that whether or not the baby was intentional (Whether or not the baby was “invited in” to the womb.) the mother has an obligation to the child. The basis of this obligation follows from the non aggression principle: that no person can legitimately initiate force against another individual. A baby is created into the womb, and has made no contract (implied or literal.) with the mother, the baby is therefore entirely innocent in the womb and has not aggressed nor is the baby capable of aggressing. For the mother to expel the child, the mother must aggress.

A person does have a positive obligation to avoid doing harm under certain rare circumstances. See my opening post for examples.

Charity =/= a positive obligation to avoid doing harm.

Whether or not the fetus is a child is not important, whether the fetus is a human being or not is important. For you to posit that a fetus is not a human being you should provide evidence where one organism changes into a human being.

73

The child has the right to live. If the woman decides against it, then there will be no way to enforce her bearing the child, so be it. Let her pay the abortion herself, any doctor should have the right to deny the “wished” treatment and of we go. I will not enforce anything but it’s clear: She aborts, she kills. And that clearly is a fact. She should make her peace about killing with whomever.

74

You have to define what is “human being” first. You didn’t or I probably missed it. Could you point it? Because to me child equals human being. That’s why I don’t believe that parents can own kids. They become self owners the day they born.

75

For the mother to expel the child, the mother must aggress.

How is that aggression?

That’s why I don’t believe that parents can own kids. They become self owners the day they born.

That touches on my argument and point for discussion above. Thus, parents have no more obligations to their children than they do to anyone else?

I was thinking of this and came to the conclusion that “grounding” for example, can then legally considered kidnapping/imprisoning. Many of the things parents do traditionally would be illegal.

Of course, children would choose to sign a contract with parents to actually allow them to do this. That is, IF they could reaosn out this whole thing rationally. But what about babies? When they are crawl away from their cradel and the parent puts them back, is that kidnapping?

76

Which should be a hint that there’s something wrong with this conception of law. This is one of the reasons I reject the unqualified NAP. NAP fundamentalism leads to all sorts of absurdities when applied to the human family.

Clayton -

77

Which should be a hint that there’s something wrong with this conception of law. This is one of the reasons I reject the unqualified NAP. NAP fundamentalism leads to all sorts of absurdities when applied to the human family.

I agree. There is a deep disgust that comes over me when politicians, philosophers, arm chair people etc start cavilerly talking about abortion or things of that nature. When the words “ownership”, “commodity”, and “objectification” , and “nothing but” are thrown around in a cultural vaccume like that, there is nothing but the deepest revultion that strikes me. I hope it is a different language that is trying to go beyond it’s own bounds of some logical void and into the realm of real human experience. Maybe not much can be said about such things. But I think this Tolstoy War and Peace quote may be something pretty good to reflect on for this site, the fact that it is about Germans makes it all the more amusing:

“Pfuel was one of those hopelessly and immutably self-confident men, self-confident to the point of martyrdom as only Germans are, because only Germans are self-confident on the basis of an abstract notion— science, that is, the supposed knowledge of absolute truth. A Frenchman is self-assured because he regards himself personally, both in mind and body, as irresistibly attractive to men and women. An Englishman is self-assured, as being a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore as an Englishman always knows what he should do and knows that all he does as an Englishman is undoubtedly correct. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and other people. A Russian is self-assured just because he knows nothing, and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe that anything can be known. The German’s self-assurance is worst of all, stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows the truth— science— which he himself has invented but which is for him the absolute truth.”

78

Then how do you qualify the NAP?

79

Through legal dispute. The NAP is a summary of when force is justifiable under most circumstances: if you started it, it’s your fault but if the other guy started it, then you’re just defending yourself. The problems arise with the corner cases - family and children are where this is easiest to see, in my opinion. The most general method for deciding whether a particular use of force was justifiable or not is through legal dispute (verbal argument). In other words, there is no magical principle that sums up in a sentence or paragraph the final criterion for whether the use of force was justified or not in every dispute and the role of law in society is to continually fill in and flesh out the exact criteria for the legitimate use of force.

Clayton -

80

To the contrary, many do not care, including me.