Sigh. [*-)]
Actually, Rothbard was only brought up to show the error of your own statement. Also, FYI, it’s “feeble”.
-Jon
Not sure if I’m going to regret diving in here, but as an observer, I did want to ask some clarifying questions, for my own sake at least.
I’m not interested in accusing anyone of anything, and my own position is not fully fleshed out on this, either.. so I don’t have a stake in either side really.
Let me just ask a few questions of those defending a woman’s right to abort:
-
I think it was mentioned a few times, but not sure anyone made a point about it.. that the woman’s intent was not to kill, but to evacuate, and that the death of the fetus was a consequence, but an irrelevant one. I’m curious then, does that imply that it would make a difference if the woman’s intent was actually to kill, and the evacuation was the secondary and meaningless (to her) consequence? Not that most women would declare their intent (nor would we be able to tell it very easily ever), but just ethically, I’m curious if that was brought up because it actually made a difference to the ethical argument.. or was it for another purpose? If a woman specifically intended to kill her fetus, for whatever reason or motivation, would that change anything at all?
-
One other main point of disagreement seems to be the relationship between past events and actions and present circumstances (and the implied ethical rights of those involved). I get the impression that supporters of women’s right to abort believe ethical decisions require one only to know present conditions.. somewhat like a physics problem where you only need to know current velocities and masses and forces, but whatever happened in the past to get the billiard balls to this configuration is meaningless to solving the problem itself.. If that’s not correct, my apologies, but that’s just the impression I got. So let me ask this then.. if one uses their property in such a way that it impacts someone else, does that ever create an obligation on your part? What situations might those be, if yes?
-
The car example was a bit flawed, I think, but I also think it could be cleared up pretty easily with a little science fiction addition.. let’s suppose that in your car, you have a button you can push.. and most times you push this button, it gives you a pleasant sensation, and no other harm results.. but you also know that a certain percentage of times that you push that button, a rational being will materialize in your car, and the car will accelerate to a speed such that anyone trying to exit the vehicle will in all likelihood not survive. So let’s suppose that this time when you push the button, this happens.. Now you did not invite the person into your car. And the person did not even exist before you pushed the button, and thus never asked to be in your car, either. Nonetheless he/she/it is here. Under those circumstances (and let’s assume that the car will slow down and stop after a certain amount of time, but for now it’s at lethal speed), would you be justified in pushing this person out of your car.. merely with the intent to evacuate the car, not to kill them.. yet knowing that that would be the consequence? Is that a more appropriate way to set up the analogy? If not, my apologies, but I thought that would get at the heart of the issue a bit better. If you can think of a way to correct it, please let me know.
thanks for your time
Nathan
-
Perhaps, but it’s still her right to control her body.
-
You only need to know present conditions here.
-
It’s called science-FICTION for a reason.
-
Fair enough, so intent is irrelevant. Is that always the case, or just in this instance? Seems a bit strange that intending to murder and taking an action intended to end a life would not actually count as murder, though. But fair enough.
-
What kind of circumstances would require you to know more than present conditions?
-
True, but I don’t see why you couldn’t answer the hypothetical even so. At one point in history the very idea of a car was science fiction. And I wasn’t implying it was at all likely, just for illustrative purposes. It avoids the previous error of forcing someone into your vehicle.
-
It’s not murder in the first place.
-
I don’t see what past conditions matter in this instance.
-
Should intent ever play a role in deciding ethical questions? That’s what I’m getting at. It seems that in this scenario, no matter what the woman’s intent is, it would make no difference at all. Ethically, you seem to equate normal pregnancy to a situation where an alien implants a fetus overnight. So I’m trying to understand the meaning of intent, the meaning that foreseeable consequences have in evaluating ethical issues. If they have none, then you could end up with some bizarre scenarios.
-
My question was trying to draw out if you think past conditions never matter. If they never matter, then obviously they can’t matter in this situation. But if there are at least some cases where they matter, I want to understand why they do in those cases, but not in this one.
-
No answer to the hypothetical. Yes, it’s quite ‘fanciful,’ but it’s also quite straightforward in terms of understanding what’s happening, and why, and what the consequences of possible actions are. I won’t insist on it if you’re just not interested, but I think it’s a good way of getting at the core of the disagreement.
Now for those who deem abortion to be murder, a few questions:
-
Is there any upper limit to the obligation a woman has to a fetus she’s carrying? It seems that the claim being made is that under normal circumstances where the woman could bring the fetus to term, she has a clear obligation not to terminate it instead. (Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding or misrepresenting that somehow.) But is there any limit to the conditions that we could pile on where she would still be obligated? Let’s set aside the possibility that the woman’s life would be jeopardized.. let’s just deal with length of time and discomfort. If the process of pregnancy was going to mean months of agony, akin to torture, would she be ethically obligated to not abort? Would there be any circumstances of either physical or psychic pain that she would have to endure such that she could be released from any ethical obligation you believe she has here?
-
In the case of rape wherein someone else violates her body and this results in conception through no fault of her own, what constitutes her obligation not to abort? Most of the arguments made seem to rely on pointing out her past actions as generating a responsibility to the life she’s helped create, so what if she played no part, and in fact fought against it?
-
What degree of knowledge is required for there to be responsibility? If a woman (say a teenage girl) has been misinformed about how sex relates to pregnancy, does she still have any ethical obligation to bring the fetus to term?
-
Somewhat related to 3, but if you want to answer separately, that’s fine… What degree of expectation about possibilities entails a responsibility for them? Specifically, let’s say a woman is on some amazing birth control, and her partner uses super protection of some kind.. and given this combination, she has good reason to believe that she has a one in a trillion chance of getting pregnant. Given such a staggeringly low chance, she somehow manages to do it. Is she obligated similarly? I think this is problematic because there are many things that have extremely low probability, but we engage in them every day.. and many of them would not be thought of as intentional, either. By driving on the road, I incrementally increase the chance of death for myself and everyone else. Yet, if an accident occurs, unless I’m directly involved and even then, directly negligent somehow, I wouldn’t feel ‘responsible’ for the accident, even though it could be argued I did contribute to it by an incredibly small amount. What separates the two cases?
Lets review. I take position A, you and your partner take postion B. You also state another person more famous than you also has position B so therefore position A is wrong. Unable to make your arguement you are reduced to this nonsense.
Yes, lets! My “partner” demonstrated that Rothbard used the same argument as you did, i.e. both you and he held to A. What Rothbard then goes to do is to show how the conclusion you want to follow does not follow from it. I do not recall Knight_of_BAAWA appealing to authority - he only said Rothbard and you shared the same view with regard to conception. The point being, that position does not entail what it wants you to, and the point also being, that your characterization of Rothbard being wrong amounts to your own being wrong with regard to that particular view.
-Jon
The pro-life group position begins with the fact that life begins at conception and that rights are inherent to being human so rights begin at conception as well. There are two independent human beings involved in the pregnancy. Since both have equal rights the resolution of any dispute must be accordance with this. So in the case of consensual sex any arguement that the woman makes about having a right to an abortion is examined as any other situation where one party takes an action that has it’s possible outcome making another person dependent on them. This is the car analogy which you expanded on. The only reasonable arguement the woman has is physical jeopardy of her own life for not continuing the pregnancy. Any other pain or discomfort threshold is just arbitrary.
Again, the central issue is that we have two independent people involved. The woman’s consent simply negates the woman’s claim in question 1. The short answer is the woman is obligated to at least not harm the other person which means that any removal of the baby has to come at a a stage where the baby will not be injured. A reasonable example is two peeople are forced by a third party to share a room for a certain period of time, just because both parties are forced into a bad situation doesn’t give one party the right to kill the other.
See 2 above
The problem is it’s an either or situation so there is no mitigation possible. Either the baby lives or dies. Under economic issues these types of things are reasonable to mitigate damages because we can have a sliding scale. Short answer, you made the bed you lie in it.
Wrong again. Rothbard did not believe that life begins at conception and that human rights begin at conception. His underlying assumptions are false.
But it doesn’t. So your ‘argument’ is completely baseless.
Also, you are not ‘pro-life’ at all. You want to execute women who take the morning after pill. You want to destroy the lives of existing persons using the totally lame excuse that a bunch of cells is a ‘child’.
I don’t think you have demonstrated when life begins at any point let alone that human life does not begin at conception.
I think people who murder children should be held accountable for their crime, dont you? So it is just a matter of what you define as a child.
Yes, obviously I am wrong…
-Jon
The highlighted portion discusses the Catholic church and it’s view on abortion not Rothbard’s, Nowhere does it explicitly state what Rothbard thinks about when life begins and when rights begin. Rothbard creates all sorts of other issues such as property ownership of the child and then later dismisses the fetus as a self owner. So yes obviously you are wrong as is Rothbard.
Right. I said that life is a continuum.
Life does not begin at conception. Before conception the eggs and sperm are alive.
Yes. That has nothing to do with your crazed idea of murdering women who take the morning after pill.
You don’t get to define what things are. A bunch of cells or a fetus are not a child. End of story.
I think we were discussing when human life begins. If you define it as always existing then when do we become humans? I think that was the question.
We both agree murdering children is wrong…good. When do humans become children?
I don’t get to define them but you do…is that what you are saying…and since you have not defined anything yet my definition is the only possible one that can be an option. And don’t forget you are just a bunch of cells yourself so there is no distinction between you and the fetus in this regard.
Nonsense. Rothbard clarifies that he thinks that the Catholic position is too easily brushed aside. What he does do, though, is go on to demonstrate how this view still is not sufficient to outlaw abortion. He takes the premise you take for granted as securing a victory for your anti-abortion position, and turns it on its head. It’s not Rothbard, or Knight_of_BAAWA or myself that is wrong: it’s you.
-Jon
No. You are trying to redefine “fetus” as “child”. Worse, you’re trying to redefine ‘fertilized egg’ as child. Such redefinitions are totally out of touch with reality.