Yes, but in this case it’s not really relevant.
Why would you want to go that broad when we’re focusing on something specific?
False. Ergo: strawman.
You REALLY need to take Logic 101.
Wrong again.
oooo
looks like you won’t have to worry about any abortions. [;)]
In order for aggression to occur, rights must exist to be aggressed upon, and since aggression is the only unethical form of action it is therefore the only form of action that entails an obligation upon the aggressor. People who think that conception entails certain obligations upon the parents to their child, therefore, must belive conception is aggressive. However, this is simply not true. In order for aggression to occur, the violation of a right must occur, and in order for the violation of a right to occur, a right must exist. If rights dont exist until the baby exists (at conception), no right has been violated by conception, and therefore there is no legal action that can be taken against the parents for not caring for their baby and no obligation for the parents to do so.
I bet that’s another pet peeve of ML’s. [:P]
-Jon
It is not possible that we have the same view since we do not agree on the outcome. Rothbard’s views have certain underlying assumptions which are false. As I have previously demonstrated, you are unable to explain the contradictions in your position so you lamely try and use Rothbard as your shield. Rothbard doesn’t explain the contradictions either.
Where does it say that Rothbard believed life begins at conception?
I don’t think anyone said that the child was aggressed against at conception. Human life begins at conception. Human rights begin at conception. So at conception we have an independent person. The obligation of the mother occurs after conception. A relationship forms between two people and we can examine this relationship as we would examine any other relationship. Please try again later.
Because the “contradictions” are of your own imagination. As I said, he takes your view (and his too, apparently) and goes on to show how the conclusion does not entail outlawry of abortion. You may not like the outcome, but you share the same premise.
-Jon
He looks at the Catholic Church view and then based on his underlying assumptions comes to the same false conclusion you do, which I have already demonstrated why that is inherently contradictory. So go back to polishing your Rothbard statue and try again when you can actually defend your arguement with more than Rothbard groupie nonsense.
It’s sad that so many people cannot tell the difference between justice and morality.
In the quote. You actually need to read it.
When you retract the statement to the effect that you’ve demonstrated a “contradiction”. You haven’t.
-Jon
I appreciate the responses from Max and Knight and banned. I’ve read what everyone’s saying, and I’m trying to formulate my own views. I can’t take either side’s view completely because it always seems something is left out if I do. Here’s my attempt to explain what I think is both good and bad on each side:
a. The abortion rights side is rightly concerned with rights to property, rights to one’s own body, quality of life, and the right to personal autonomy. What I’m unclear on is why the property rights as such can so easily, without even the slightest qualification, trump the life of the fetus. While this side tends to see life as a continuum, it seems property rights have such an absolute nature to them that they automatically win, even when a life is threatened by enforcing those rights. No consideration is required. It also seems to take no consideration for the fact that in many cases the woman had an active role in putting the fetus in the position it’s in, but then has no responsibility towards it any more than one would to a tumor. It gives the impression of a very mechanistic world-view where life is of minor importance at best compared to concepts of ownership. Perhaps that’s overly harsh, but it’s been pointed out several times that the only consideration required comes down essentially to ‘who owns the womb?’ No other information is relevant.
b. The anti-abortion side seems to hold life in high value and concludes that women cannot arbitrarily take action that ends another life, even if it’s exercising another normally legitimate right. There seems to be a hierarchy of rights perhaps. (Not meaning to put words in anyone’s mouth, that’s just my own subjective impression.) However, there seems to be no consideration of quality of life. For some women, pregnancy is terrifying, and I’ve known at least one who had such a morbid fear of it (to the point of believing that she would die or go insane if it ever happened) that an abortion would count as self defense as far as she was concerned. (I should add that she would probably only ever risk pregnancy through something like rape, but the point still stands.) The position also relies on a decision about when life begins, and unfortunately, that’s a very arbitrary thing. At one point it was thought that the sperm were the living entities, and that the womb simply provided a space for the homunculus to grow in. By that account, all ejaculations were mass murder. Now the story is that it’s at conception. That may change even still. It’s not a clear cut thing, and honest people can disagree on it.
I think both positions have taken good values and advanced them to an extreme that leaves other good values in the dust. Preserving life is important, but so is quality of life. Recognizing that there’s a meaningful difference between a sperm&egg, a fertilized egg, a 3-month fetus, a 6-month fetus, and one just an hour from birth shows discernment. Likewise, having the power to create life, having the equivalent of a magic button you can push to create someone, shouldn’t be set aside as irrelevant. Part of being human is having the capacity to be responsible for one’s plans and actions, and treating ethical decisions in a kind of snapshot, only-in-the-moment way does not reflect human experience authentically. Women should not be slaves, but neither should they be capricious in how they treat life. It’s a matter of balance, and I think that both positions I’ve heard are out of balance in their own ways. There must be some middle path. I don’t know exactly how to articulate it, but I don’t hear either side giving a full account, either. Does anyone else think similarly, or is this a question where it’s either one way or the other, no other way out?
thanks,
Nathan
There’s no such thing as the right to life. Further, not considering the property right of the woman to her womb makes her a slave. Not going to happen.
What’s the foundation of property rights if not life? Perhaps you’d say that doesn’t matter, but if life is essential to a meaningful understanding of a right to property (and a right to one’s self), I don’t see how one can set it aside so easily, either.
I should say that I do consider the woman’s right, and I don’t take it lightly. I’m just suggesting that it’s an important thing to consider rather than the only thing.
In a teeny-tiny nutshell: that you homestead your body and assert control over it. A right to life means a positive obligation upon others to provide it for you.
Obligation procedes from aggression.
A relationship not linked to contract does not create an obligation. It’s merely a relationship based on promise and tradition and can be severed at any moment, as it’s termination is not an aggressive act upon the property of either party.
The mother can stop providing for her child and insist on it’s removal from her internal premise at any time, legitimately.
Since I am pro-life, I would like to respond to these comments.
First of all, Ron Paul never saw an instance where the baby so threatened the life of the mother that an abortion would be needed. Now, that is not a scientific survey, as such it is not necessarily very relevant. However, I have yet to see any evidence of an instance where an abortion is needed to protect a mother’s life.
Second of all, as to when life begins, a sperm will always die unless it is given an egg and an egg will die unless it is given a sperm. An embryo on the other hand, will grow to an adult human as long as its life is not ended. But to call an embryo a baby at three months as opposed to conception is just arbitrary. I could just as easily claim an embryo is not a human until at 25 years old.