And again - where does Rothbard say it’s ok, in other words, “go and do this” in a libertarian world? I understand you are discussing his philosophical opinion, which has nothing to do with “Rothbard’s position” on go and do this or not. So thanks for clarifying again. Dialogue is good.[:)]
Ok - then let me know when you find out where Rothbard says “go and do this”.
I don’t think I equate It’s ok with Go and do. To me It’s ok, is much closer to It’s allowed.
Finding something morally repugnant and reprehensible is not grounds for disallowing others the right to do it…
IMHO the abortion case is the one which he left quite vague.
As I see it…
My body - my will! If I want to eject anything from it - this is my holy right!
As in…
My home - my will! If I want to eject anybody from it - this is my holy right!
But…
What if behind the door a great fire is raging and it is certain that my ejected guest will die?
It is my holy right nonetheless…
Yet…
I cannot but expect that I will be perceived by the general public as a madman and treated accordingly.
I will inevitably face infamy and social boycott…
There is also a question of a child conceived in an act of rape.
In this case a rapist grants his bastard the same “right” to a raped woman’s body, as he has himself - none!
The bastard growing in her body is just a parasite - rapist, who is raping her still - the abortion is just a self-defence.
No one is to condemn her in any manner…
absolutely true if we are talking about natural law in how you might mean, “It’s allowed”. On the other hand it is also foreseeably not ok and ok. it is contingent within the boundaries of natural law.
The problem with treating rape as a special case is the classic “sins of the father” fallacy: the idea that the child is culpable for his father’s crimes is an affront to individualism. The abortion/murder line(be it birth, conception or somewhere between) can’t be moved because of the circumstances of conception(to say a fetus can “rape” its mother implies it has a will and thus qualifies as a person).
I don’t think so.
I think the ethically sound way of approaching the question is from the perspective of personal responsibility over consequential decisions.
To a woman carrying a child of a rapist it cannot be inflicted any duty.
Preserving the life of another person whose condition she’s not responsible for is not her moral responsibility.
Even if we are to consider the child innocent of her father’s crime, which of course is my view.
Her life depends on the decision of a donor of a womb, which cannot be coerced to give it away if its not her will.
The same cannot be said about a pregnant woman that has come to such a condition due to her voluntary actions.
The notion that property rights of the woman over her body can alone sustain an argument for abortion seems to me deeply flawed, since it denies the aspect of personal responsibility over consequential actions.
I think the very idea of property rights stems from an understanding of personal responsibility and cannot be sustained without it.
Since its understood that the consequential decision that provokes a baby is the consent to a sexual act, the personal responsibility in that matter is well defined and should not be denied.
Damn… This thread really done got resurrected
Wow, a 2-1/2 year old thread!
Anyway, I can understand Rothbard’s position as fully respecting self-sovereignty since, in the cases of abortion or neglect, the only way to justify forced intervention against the mother (or father) is for self-sovereignty to be conditional (in this case upon the needs of the baby/fetus), rather than innate.
He’s not saying it is moral or to be preferred that mothers abort their fetuses and neglect their children, but only that it would be illegitimately violating their self-sovereignty to force them not to.
And everytime one talks about abortion forgets that fetus doesn’t equal human. And people don’t have rightsjust because they are alive (like fetus is a living organism, and pro-lifists asserts, that they should be treated like humans), but because they are capable of rational thinking, defense and have own body and not simply live in someone elses property (womb). Fetuses should be treated like all animals. No consciousness - no human rights. But someone could try invoking “fetus’es rights”… that would be funny 
MaikU, that has been the argument that has won me over. I just replace the word consciousness with sentience.
Someone recently, however, pointed out that other animals may also have sentience and that there is some argument as to whether babies do not gain sentience until some time after they are born… Your thoughts?
Maybe “sentience” is the wrong word?
It’s not just about “consciousness” but more accuratly it’s about what constitutes a moral agent. My thoughts here: https://argumentationethics.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/universality-animal-rights-abortions-and-argumentation-ethics/
I will attempt to approach the arguments of “self-sovereignty” and of a “counsciousness threshold” of humanbeingness at once. I’m evidently not a legal scholar (nor Austrian, for that matter), so please correct if I’m saying something stupid here. And forgive my weak command of the English language, I will attempt to make my point as much clear as it is possible.
My understanding is that any useful notion of “self-sovereignty” is conditional to the respect of the general law.
If the law establishes that the slaughter of foetus is an unjustifiable act of violence, and therefore a crime, forced intervention is justified.
The law being a set of rules and guidelines taken as an a priori to the consequential action being judged, and a lawful judgement being the prescription achieved through the comparison of a perception of what is the statement of law and what was actually or presumably known by the given actor whose consequential action is being judged.
So the question is whether abortion is understood as an act of violence and if so, under which conditions it can be justified.
Since abortion is, by definition, an act of extermination of an individual living organism, it is our task here to figure if this individual is entitled to certain rights that are violated by such act.
My point is that there is no validity in denying the foetus the same rights of small children and the like. Any attempt to encapsulate humanity in some sort of bodily structure is void of deontological meaning. Our notion of a human being cannot be subordinate to our precary understanding of consciousness or when it starts being relevant. Some could argue the threshold of consciousness is the acquisition of natural language self-referential capabilities by the age of 2 or 3, for instance.
Since the foetus is not deprived of its rights as a notional human being, it is now time to consider Rothbard’s argument that she is an intruder or parasite that can be evicted by her host.
This argument is correct whenever the host cannot be held responsible for the condition. If the host had been raped for example.
This argument is not viable in the general situation, when the vulnerable and dependent condition of foetus was established as a result of consequential actions of her mother. In that case, the mother can be held responsible for such state of affairs, and forced by a lawful judgment of her actions to provide the basic needs of the foetus and child until it acquires an acceptable level of independence, which may also be predefined by the law.
Reading Knight of B is always fun.
Rothbard was right, and yet stopped short. Walter Block extends his analysis which leads to Evictionism.
Actually, in order to avoid contradiction, Rothbard would have to oppose abortion since there are TWO bodies under consideration here, not one.
^
“…Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a living human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of human beings. Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beings-or, more broadly, potential human beings-and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.”
Murray Rothbard on abortion rights (Chapter 14: Children and Rights - The Ethics of Liberty)
So yeah… actually, try again… Rothbard ‘wins’ per usual.
I fail to see how entiling a two celled orgamism, incapble of any rational thought, to rights, on the matiralistic basis that it’s matter will one day be a part of a humen makes any sense at all.
what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host
That’s a bad argument… The fetus is not coersive, but rather was put there by the actions of it’s parents.
“That’s a bad argument… The fetus is not coersive, but rather was put there by the actions of it’s parents.”
It’s not a bad argument at all. Not necessairly both accepting. Nor is there any contract possible, explicit or implicit. Having intercourse need not be an acceptance of having a child. It is a guest, when it becomes univited - it is trespassing. If evicted it must be in the most gentlest means possible.
Really… you should read about Evictionism prior to attempting to engage.
The position I currently hold is the “Pro Property Rights” position, which is called evictionism. For those who couldn’t be bothered watching the short video or reading the journal article (where all your inevitable objections are addressed) here’s a quick summary:
A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)
B. Eviction (pro property rights)
C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)
Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
A. no
B. no
C. yes
Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
A. yes
B. yes
C. no
Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
A. yes
B. no
C. no
Conza, Iv’e read about evictionism. The main problem I have with it is the treatment of a fetus as a moral agent at all, this is not a valid rule of ownership, but now, like rothbard, i’m granting that for the purpose of argument.
Not necessairly both accepting.
Rape aside.
Nor is there any contract possible, explicit or implicit. Having intercourse need not be an acceptance of having a child.
The question is not what they “accept” if their actions caused the fetus (which we are assuming for the purpose of argument is a moral agent) to be in harms way, they have an obligation not to kill him. If I pushed you of a cliff and you are grabed my leg and hanging on to dear life, I have an obligation not to step on your fingers or otherwise remove your grip. It’s not a matter of “contract”.