I am not so sure. I’d wager that they might violate many maxims. For one, when we invite someone onto our property and decide we don’t want them on our property, do we ram them with our car to get them off the property? I would say that would violate the trespassers right to life, and just punishment.
Shouldn’t the expelling of a child in a woman’s body be done in a way that does no harm to the baby? The baby is not resisting expulsion, the mother’s body has attached the baby to her womb. If it can’t live on it’s own then so be it. But vacuuming it out would tend to kill it before it has a chance outside the womb.
Of course all this makes one big assumption that the child is human. Forgoing that assumption, one would have to defer to the current scientific definition. Though even if this is the case, the parent could choose not to care for it.
What are your thoughts on this?
A clarification, I am not arguing a POV. I am merely questioning an action based on my understanding of property rights and natural laws.
See Rothbard’s explanation for this, It’s in “For a New Liberty”.
Essentially, it boils down to whether or not the mother wants a parasitic organism in her body. The moral argument is an entirely different story altogether. But, no one has a right to force the woman how to decide eventually. In the end, it’s her choice, not yours or mine.
A parasite invades a body and draws resources from it. In a pregnancy the mother’s body creates the being inside her. And the mother’s body keeps it alive. Aren’t there limits on the extension of force used to expel an intruder? If i see a neighbor cut across my lawn to get to their house, I would not shoot to kill the intruder. Because one has to abide by equal punishment. To pay restitution equal to the crime committed. And double it for penalty. 2 eyes for an eye…
Shouldn’t one try to expel the intruder “in one piece”? The survival outside the body is then left to nature.
No, but if he invades your home and decides to live at your expense, you may decide that you don’t have to put up with him. No individual has a right to enslave another, even if his life depends on it.
But the intruder can’t leave because it is connected to the person. I guess, a broad example would be to invite someone into your shed, but forgot it locks from the outside automatically. You want the person to leave, but putting poison gas into the shed is would not be right.
The practical way that respects the property rights of the intruder would be to unlock the door and let him leave. Which would be the equivalent of giving the organism a chance to live outside the body of the mother.
Plus, one could argue that the parasite isn’t taking from the mother, but the mother is providing.
There’s a difference in wanting to be pregnant, and getting pregnant without the intention of being pregnant. If you happen to get pregnant, and you do not want to be and no longer want to provide for what’s inside you, you can abort it. Why should one harbor an organism in their body for 9 months at their dismay? Besides it feeding off of you, the physical impairments that come during pregnancy can be a burden (this can be subjective, you may feel different if you WANT to be pregnant and have a child).
Well said Bert…
I agree with everything you wrote. Wilbee: Potentiality is nor actuality. I really cannot see how an anti-abortion rights position is consistent with libertarianism.
Also, an anti-abortion rights position also seems to be an invite to the state (add in the tyranny of the majority for that matter) to become further involved in the personal lives of individuals. An anti-abortion rights position is essentially an anti-self-ownership one as well.
I am not arguing against abortion just the method of abortion. If the baby can survive outside the body, I don’t think the baby should be taken out one piece at a time, arm leg, head… That is ultimately what I am thinking about.
I really love Rothbard in pretty much all areas except abortion because I find it hard to reconcile his “parasitic” labeling of a child in womb (FoNL) with his trustee-ownership approach to babies/children (Kid Lib - EaRAN). If parents are responsible for the lives of their children post-birth, why not pre-birth? Furthermore, in Ethics of Liberty Chapter 21 he states:
Does a fetus not belong to the species man? Isn’t conception through birth of a human child also “grounded in the nature of humans”? Is a fertilized egg - fetus a parasitic aggressor or “simply following the natural law of [it’s] own survival” grounded in it’s own nature?
Actually, the fetus is clearly not a “rational” animal (which goes back to the “potentiality is not actuality” idea). You stated that you want to change the way a fetus is commonly aborted. Neveretheless (with all due respect), it appears you are still promoting a potentially coercive situation for the woman. Even if advanced technology could make it possible to ensure that the fetus survives outside the woman, it does not follow that the choice of aborting the fetus would be morally wrong (that line of reasoning is clearly illogical). A fetus that is outside of a woman’s body is still not a rational human being that is capable of making choices. Good discussion everyone…
First, I did not say I wanted to change anything. I am merely questioning, Not persuasion. I did not say to ensure the fetus survives, I asked if the fetus should not killed before/during the extraction. Can dump the thing in the damn garbage afterwards for all I care. It’s up to the morals of the people involved afterward to keep it alive outside the womb if they want. I even mentioned this is assuming the fetus is human. I don’t know how much clearer I can get.
Honestly, I am pissed. I am repeating myself over and over again. I am being accused of persuasion just because I am asking questions and applying natural law and property rights as according to Rothbard. to a like minded group here in order to verify my logical questioning.