You asked me to cite, and I did. Now I ask you to, again, because your first response—“Rothbard (I’m fairly sure) agrees with me in his chapter on abortion”—won’t do. What does Rothbard have to say about the property rights of fetuses?
As far as I’ve read, he only touches on the subject when addressing abortion, and he leaves the question unanswered. He does this because he’s writing about abortion, and in that context, it doesn’t matter. A fetus would not have the right to stay inside the mother either way. He does, however, write that potential adults are self-owners and that all self-owers have the right to be free from aggression.
Fair enough, I’ll cite my claim:
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.
Rothbard concedes with my argument that, even though fetuses have full human rights, they can be evicted from the body of their “unwilling human host.”
He does, however, write that potential adults are self-owners and that all self-owers have the right to be free from aggression.
This. Exactly what I was getting at.
JackCuyler, you are lying and you don’t know anything about Rothbard’s position, that’s why you won’t quote him.
In fact, he has a lot to say about the fetus, and his answer is solid, not “unanswered”. Ironically for you, but not surprisingly for libertarianism, he agrees with me explicitly in several areas that are key to his overall argument.
First, you explicitly lied about what Rothbard said. You said, “He does, however, write that potential adults are self-owners.” But Rothbard said the newborn is not a self-owner: “it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner” and “A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense”. He also said the newborn is a potential adult, so it is because the newborn is a non-self-owner, potential-adult that your statement is explicitly the polar opposite of Rothbard’s position: “In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.”
And if a baby is not a self-owner, then a fortiori neither is the fetus: “no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.”
Rothbard argues that once a fetus becomes an individual baby, quote, “as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within the mother’s body”, it therefore has the right of self-ownership. Thus, abortion is the mother’s property right, and only once a baby is a born individual “must it therefore be illegal and a violation of the child’s rights for a parent to aggress against his person.”
This all leads to RothbadDisciple’s wild misrepresentation of Rothbard, where he quoted Rothbard to try to say that Rothbard was saying precisely ther opposite of what he did in fact say. That is why in RD’s quote, Rothbard says, “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.” He is conceding strictly for the sake of argument, because his actual position is explicitly that fetuses don’t qualify for human rights, and human rights are just property rights (thus the following chapter on Human Rights as Property Rights). Take together with the next chapter, the argument can be summed as follows: fetuses don’t qualify for property rights, because they aren’t individuals and “human rights” are actually property rights for individuals.
But, of course, his argument was that fetuses definitely don’t have property rights. And his argument was also consistent with mine because he ultimately agrees with his conclusion: “For the child has hisfull rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature.”
That’s what I’ve been saying. A fetus doesn’t have property rights, but an acting individual thereby gains them.
You guys have it so backwards you’re literally quoting the authority who agrees with me to show that he agrees with you.
Hashem-
A few issues with your points. Rothbard does in fact write: “every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.” I concede to this. However, that does not imply Rothbard does not see fetuses’ as also having rights. That’s where I think you are wildly wrong. I think that Rothbard actually does believe that fetuses have full rights, just like all other people. It would, indeed, be a contradiction to say otherwise. For a fetus, too, is a potential adult. The reason the “seperateness” of the mother and fetus is important – contrary to hashem’s emphasis that the seperation is necessary for the fetus to have a property right in his person – is that the fetus is no longer violating the mother’s right to self-ownership by being an “invader” within her womb. (Note how Rothbard uses terms such as “invader” to show how he is applying equal rights to the fetus). What Rothbard says about self-ownership in the passage I quoted is specifically intended to emphasize the parent’s absolute negative obligation not to kill or maim their new baby. I believe that, according to Rothbard’s theories, the parents have the same negative obligation toward the fetus. For example, it would clearly be legal to pull the fetus parasite out of the womb, but there is a negative obligation not to shoot the dying fetus when it is outside the womb. It would, in fact, clearly be illegal by Rothbardian ethics to shoot a dying fetus, external to the womb. And, lastly, you quote when Rothbard says “the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature.” But you misinterpret this too. Note that Rothbard says “FULL” (emphasis added) rights of self-ownership. This goes back to the concept that children are non-fee-simple property of the parents; there are certain rules and conditions which they cannot break as terms of being on their parents’ property. So, to repeat, Rothbard is merely clarifying when the child has his rights in full. Contrary to you, Rothbard is not implying that babies or fetuses have no rights because they haven’t rationally acted and demonstrated them yet; he is merely saying they have partial rights.
I think that Rothbard actually does believe that fetuses have full rights, just like all other people.
Except that he says precisely the opposite, and the burden of quote is on you. Clearly, the entire point of the chapter is to distinguish fetuses/children from “all other people”, to determine when and how a human get rights: “There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership?”
It is noteworthy that when he says “we have established”, he was referring to previous chapters, where we learn that rights are property rights for acting individuals based on our needs in a social environment of scarcity. Thus the point of this chapter on children and rights. And his conclusion is that “the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature.”
We know that he doesn’t believe a fetus has greater rights than the newborn who hasn’t demonstrated his self-ownership, becuase of another quote, “Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.”
Stop trying to claim that Rothbard supports your view when he explicitly and manifestly supports my view. Especially if I’m providing the quotes that show his support of my side, while you are telling us what you “think that Rothbard actually does believe” based on no quotations and against quotes already provided.
Um…OK. Relax. Look, I provided great analysis of the passage above, and you’ve yet to refute my points. I showed how you were misinterpreting the quotes YOU provided based upon analysis of subtle details in the quotes, which you clearly missed.
Look, you’ve yet to provide any evidence for your view either. Just as I have not been able to find a quote that states more or less “fetuses have rights,” you have not been able to find a quote that says “fetuses don’t have rights.” You are also basing your view on interpretation of his arguments, which (I think) is the wrong interpretation. And I use phrases such as “I think” and “I believe” just as Rothbard used phrases such as “in my opinion” when he thought things were absolutely true. It’s because I’m not wanting to come across as arrogant or conceited in my interpretation. I’m genuinely enjoying this discussion with you.
Again, relax. We’re two Rothbardians who are both pro-choice. We just have different interpretations of the text, in which we are trying to find out what Rothbard implicitly means (rather than explicitly states). In my opinion, Rothbard would agree that it would be contradictory under any argument for abortion not to suppose the fetus as having limited self-ownership rights. Because, just like the infant, the fetus is a potential adult. The only difference is the separation, which, in my opinion, you are over-emphasizing. I showed why I think Rothbard put the idea about separation of the baby from the womb in the text. In my view, the fact that Rothbard thinks the baby has limited rights is the most damaging blow to your side. For the baby is not a rational actor either, but a potential self-owner. This is the same with the fetus. Does your view reject Rothbard’s view that babies have limited rights? Seeing that you keep bringing up this argument that the child ONLY has self-ownership rights when he demonstrates them in nature. But wait. Rothbard didn’t say that. He said that’s when children have FULL self-ownership rights. That’s a bit of a different statement than what you suppose. He implicitly states (!) that people who haven’t acted yet (fetuses and newborns!) have PARTIAL self-ownership right. You have to understand this.
If Rothbard actually supports your view, I’m willing to change my mind. I’m simply unconvinced of your argument, due to the many arguments I brought up which refuted your arguments.
“Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.”
Rothbard’s stating what no human would have a right to, thereby implying that fetuses do have some limited rights. For example, if a fetus could live outside of the womb, there would clearly be negative obligations on how you could treat it, just as Rothbard say there would be negative obligations with infants. For instance, if the fetus was living extra-uterine, you could not stab the fetus. That would be a violation of its limited self-property-right, in the Rothbardian ethic system.
“While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formulation makes birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork in the theory of self-ownership.”
This quote I provided specifically refutes your view on Rothbard’s theory. The usual formulation - of which Rothbard speaks - is the pro-abortionist view that the fetus is NOT an imminently potential person. Rothbard, by saying that this view/formulation is arbitrary, also implies that he thinks it’s arbitrary to see fetuses as NOT-imminently-potential-persons. This is how you see fetuses, and this is exactly what he sees as being arbitrary. He sees it as arbitrary to say that fetuses don’t have property rights in their person before birth. That’s why he proposes his NEW system of demarcation, in contrast to your old one. He wants to show that, even though fetuses have property in their person, they are still not being aggressed against by being evicted.
hashem, I have been nothing but civil to you, and I’m politely asking for civility from you. That precludes name-calling and attacks on my personal character. If I make a factually incorrect statement, or misinterpret a quote, it’s simply because I’m wrong or have made an error, not because I’m lying. You could have accused me of making an honest mistake, being misinformed, being ignorant, misreading, being just plain wrong, but instead you chose to attack my character. It does not reflect well on you. I am not a liar, and I have not lied one in these forums. I’m here to learn. I have nothing to gain from lying. In short, lighten up. 
Now that that’s out of the way, I’d like you to take a look at what I wrote, and when necessary, compare it to what Rothbard wrote:
Me: As far as I’ve read, he only touches on the subject when addressing abortion, and he leaves the question unanswered.
You cannot refute the first sentence without knowing what I have read. I assure you it is absolutely true. If he has written on the subject of fetal rights outside of the context of abortion, I am not aware of it, and I’d love to read it.
You have to take the second part of that sentence along with the next two, as I explain what I meant in the latter two:
Me: He does this because he’s writing about abortion, and in that context, it doesn’t matter. A fetus would not have the right to stay inside the mother either way.
No where in The Ethics of Liberty or in Children and Rights does Rothbard ever specifically claim that a fetus has or does not have rights. His position is, consistently, a woman has a right to remove the fetus from her body regardless of whether the fetus has rights or not. He leaves the question of fetal rights unanswered because it is immaterial to the question of abortion.
You responded to this with four quotes.
-
“no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either."
-
“it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner."
-
“A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense”
-
“In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.”
The first quote is an odd choice, as in that section, Rothbard is conceding, for the sake of argument, that the unborn are “entitled to full human rights…” He goes on to say, born humans with full human rights do not have the “right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host,” so neither would the unborn with full human rights.
You left off the end of the second quote, so I added it back in for you, with my bolding, Rothbard’s italics. When you include the left-off part of the quote, it’s exactly what I have been saying all along – babies are potential self-owners.
The third quote is also consistent with my statement, as it is merely a restatement of the second quote, existent meaning currently or actually, as opposed to potentially.
I’m surprised by your choice of posting the fourth quote, as it refutes your position entirely. Here Rothbard explicitly states that newborn babies have the right of self-ownership because newborn babies are potential adults.
“In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.”
You are reading too much into my reply. I’m not claiming Rothbard wrote that a fetus was a self-owner. He didn’t, as far as I know. However, he did explicitly call a new born baby, “as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body,” a self-owner, and gave the reason as because it is a potential adult.
My own belief, which is taking Rothbard’s statements further than he probably intended, is that all potential adults, even the unborn, also possess the right to self-ownership. This in no way conflicts with his position on abortion. A woman has the right to remove a parasite regardless of the status of that parasite’s rights.
You guys are dumb, and I mean that literally, not as a personal attack. This isn’t even worth the time.
Rothbard so obviously supports my position, that anyone who can read that chapter will know this. I have quoted half the chapter in my posts, and somehow you feel that Rothbard supports YOU, which is ludicrous.
Rothbard’s position is like my position: The mother has the right to abort, and the fetus doesn’t have property rights, and it doesn’t even get property rights until it acts as an individual.
The end.
The chapters prior to this one deduce why rights are property rights for acting individuals based on our needs in a social environment of scarcity. That’s why this chapter exists in the first place: to distinguish between “all other people” and fetuses/newborns, because as Rothbard said, we know that acting individuals have rights, now HOW and WHEN do they get them. His answer is that they get them by acting as individuals. Fetuses don’t have property rights.
Rothbard’s position is like my position: The mother has the right to abort, and the fetus doesn’t have property rights, and it doesn’t even get property rights until it acts as an individual.
If Rothbard thinks exactly and only this, then WHY does he clearly say a newborn - who has not yet acted! - has self-ownership property rights, and that you have a negative obligation not to aggress against the newborn?
Thanks for calling us dumb, but Jack explicitly explained why you are being obtuse, as did I. We’re just trying to learn and have a friendly conversation. As Jack said, lighten up.
How could you possibly know if I have the ability to speak?
Well I feel like I’m talking with three year olds, so if you ask me to lighten up, then pardon me for asking you to listen up.
WHY does he clearly say a newborn - who has not yet acted! - has self-ownership property rights
This is a good question, the passage you are referencing answers the question, all you have to do is actually read it:
“In short, every baby as soon as it is born and
is therefore no longer contained within his
mother’s body possesses the right of
self-ownership by virtue of being a separate
entity and a potential adult.”
Thus, the answer to your question “why does he hsay a newborn has self-ownership rights”, is because the newborn is, quote, “therefore…a separate entity and a potential adult.”
He never says you have an obligation not to damage the fetus. He DOES say, that once the fetus becomes a newborn self, that it “therefore” has self-ownership rights, and—these are his words—“It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child’s rights for a parent to aggress against his person.”
His argument is entirely that humans get property rights AFTER they are born individuals. You would know this if you read the previous chapters, where he thoroughly examines WHY we have rights. This chapter goes over HOW we get rights, the previous chapters discuss WHY we have rights.
Follow the therefores. Trace the origin and role of property rights.
So after a newborn is born, but BEFORE it rationally acts, it has rights? How is this possible? Rothbard answers this with what I’ve been saying all along: Potential rational actors have rights. I’ve yet to see your take.
As an aside, I was wrong about him leaving the question of fetal righs unanswered. He clearly says that rights are aquired at birth. I was not lying. I was wrong. I was spot on when I said that Rothbard wrote that potential adults have rights. He says repeatedly.
JackCuyler You may be the first person in history to admit fault on the internet. Respect.
Anyways, according to you Rothbard said two different things. Given the history of people misrepresenting Rothbard, I will assume you’re wrong until you provide the relevant passage for each:
“Potential rational actors have rights.”
“potential adults have rights.”
Notice, Rothbard does a weird thing. He distinguishes between A) “the right of self-ownership”, which a newborn has “by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult”, and B) “full rights of self-ownership” which are acquired “when he demonstrates that he has them in nature.”
What he is saying is that an individual human gains the right to a property in his person, but he gains full property rights when he acts as an individual. So an individual human is a self-owner once he acts, and therefore has property rights beyond the property in his person. So yes, an individual potential adult has a right—the right of self-ownership. But an individual self-owner has full property rights.
Hashem,
As you have so perfectly stated, all rights are property rights. I cannot answer your question because I do not see a difference between the two. All others, including parents, do not have the right to aggress upon the person of a newborn. That is all any property right would ever demand. What would make this right, “full”?
As an aside, I was wrong about him leaving the question of fetal rights unanswered. He clearly says that rights are aquired at birth.
But you missed the reason why Rothbard makes this distinction. He does this because this is when the right actually comes into its own, i.e., when it actually matters.
Rothbard, I am certain, would agree with me that an extra-uterine fetus, on which you can pull the plug, could not be shot with a shotgun. Because all potential human adults have self-ownership rights, including fetuses. The thing is, there are no positive obligations, only negative ones. Because, in this day and age, birth becomes the time when negative obligations really matter, that’s why Rothbard makes the distinction. Just like infants, there are certain negative obligations with fetuses. I wish Rothbard would have elaborated on this more, but I’m 100% sure he’d agree if it was possible to ask him right now.
Negative obligations apply to fetuses, they just aren’t being violated by abortion. And that is what I think Rothbard meant. Negative obligations exist in the womb, but in reality this distinction is not generally applicable. Hence Rothbard’s use of “therefore” that you brought up.
I’d like to see a citation where Rothbard says there are no negative obligations toward the fetus. Because I think there are.
I made the claim that Rothbard left the question of fetal rights unanswered. I was simply correctting my error. You posted the answer without the question. He writes, “[B]irth is indeed the proper line of demarcation…” in answer to, “But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?”
Hey Jack. I wrote about my own views on Rothbard’s line of demarcation (in its specific context) a few posts ago. I think it is textually supported.
“While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formulation makes birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork in the theory of self-ownership.”
ME: “This quote I provided specifically refutes your view on Rothbard’s theory. The usual formulation - of which Rothbard speaks - is the pro-abortionist view that the fetus is NOT an imminently potential person. Rothbard, by saying that this view/formulation is arbitrary, also implies that he thinks it’s arbitrary to see fetuses as NOT-imminently-potential-persons. This is how you see fetuses, and this is exactly what he sees as being arbitrary. He sees it as arbitrary to say that fetuses don’t have property rights in their person before birth. That’s why he proposes his NEW system of demarcation, in contrast to your old one. He wants to show that, even though fetuses have property in their person, they are still not being aggressed against by being evicted.”
I think you and I are taking Rothbard’s ideas to their logical conclusion, but that doesn’t mean we are in agreement with him. He drew the line, arbitrarily in my opinion, at birth. It’s not that first time I’ve disagreed with Rothbard, but it’s a rare occourance. I’m okay with that.