Natural Rights & Abortion

User-managed groups Natural Rights
1

Regarding the issue of abortion, there seems to be multiple natural rights approaches, including:

a. The mother owns the fetus and thus can expel it. Once the fetus is born it gains the normal rights of a human being.

b. The mother owns the fetus and thus can expel it. Once the fetus is born it does not gain the normal rights of a human being.

c. The fetus has the right of self-ownership, but the mother can have an abortion because the fetus is inside the mother’s body.

d. The fetus has the right of self ownership and thus the mother cannot have an abortion.

Which one do you support and why?

2

My views on this issue aren’t fully developed, but since I think that rights are ultimately derived from the capacity of rationality, abortions before the deveopment of the frontal cortex (I think around the end of the first trimester) are definitely non-aggressive. After that, I think that it becomes more fuzzy, but I generally agree with Long’s view that late abortions are allowed because to prohibit them would be to invade the woman’s body. Such abortions may be criticized on other moral grounds, but they are not aggressive.

3

C. There is no person to speak of when conception takes place, so the mother has no obligation to retain its presence within her body, even if that results in its death.

4

If we agree that a child is property of their parents, then we’d have to agree that children are not property of themselves, and therefore, the parents would have the right to kill their child at any stage. However, if this is the case, then to what extent can this occur? It then wouldn’t necessarily be criminal for parents to kill their infants or toddlers, or even 17 year olds (assuming we agree that adulthood starts at 18). Therefore, saying that the child is the parents property doesn’t seem to make all that much sense.

It seems to flow into the concept that though the fetus may have human rights, it is the responsibility of the parents (both) to ensure the fetus and child develop, which tends to make a more of an issue of responsibility than ‘who owns who.’ However, that being the case, it doesn’t mean that any outside entity (namely government) has the automatic right to determine whether or not abortion is legal or illegal.

The idea is so subjective that we can’t really establish laws in either sense that benefit either side since government has no business making value judgment claims in people’s lives, and therefore, both “pro-life” & “pro-choice” arguments would be wrong. Neither side in politics should actually exist.

5

This kind of question makes me an even greater believer in panarchy (extraterritorial government).

To start with, for various reasons that I will not enumerate here, we must assume that we (the human race) will never, ever, ever, agree on this question. Some will see murder in any cessation of life from the zygote on. Others will find some other point (or none at all) at which to say what is murder and what is not. It is just the way it is.

Given that, the dilemma arises if you assume a monopoly government, where it must be either one or the other, for everyone. But, if you have extraterritorial government (panarchy), where you have multiple governments that are voluntary associations and inhabit the same territory (like we have today with churches), then the dilemma disappears. Those who believe abortion is murder enact penalties that apply to the members of their government only. And vice versa.

You have two groups (just to keep things simple here) that disagree, not on the right to life, but when life begins. That is the reality. The interesting thing would be to see, over time, which group is more successful in their pursuit of happiness.

6

Hmm, Kritarchist, wouldn’t this only further expand the control of government though? In the church example you proposed, though I can see where you’re coming from, isn’t church influence just community influence? Is it necessarily equivalent to an actual government (force) who can imprison, or even kill the “wrong doer” for breaking their laws, within another government that can do the same for the same or other laws (Perhaps the well known story of how a mere speeding ticket can lead to a chain of events that get the “offender” killed by government regulators)?

It seems like this concept may be introducing government to greater opportunities to take liberties through laws at each level of government, double jeopardy, even more taxation, even more stifling of business practices, etc.

On the other hand, where we leave it to the communities and individuals to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable, this may be able to maintain social order while not stifling liberties. For example, do we really need a local ordinance that says a property owner cannot clutter their lawn, or will a community, affected by the eye-sore, eventually pressure that owner to either clean their premises, or even help in decluttering, if they cannot do it themselves? Will the community notice businesses that abuse their workers, and decide to shop elsewhere? Can community influence, watch groups, at the local level, coupled with an individual’s natural right to protect him or herself, deter crime in a community (without a bureaucratic system of state, city & county police)?

We used to have this concept in America at one time (and still have it in many parts of the world), where individual and local responsibility ruled, and police, courts or other regulators authorized to use force were an absolute final action. (For example/ Children acting up in school - the teacher was allowed to use corrective action measures on the child, who would then go home, and receive more from the parents - Today, the teacher is put in jail and the parents must pass ownership of that child to the state, who places the child in therapy - A lose, lose, lose situation).

I know this is supposed to be about abortion, but we could apply these examples to the subject, and probably come up with a similar conclusion.

7

Nikhil, let me put it this way and see if it makes sense to you. My understanding of libertarian thought is that it is centered around individual liberty, and that the state violates this liberty because it is a territorial monopoly of coercion. It maintains that monopoly by refusing to allow any individual the real option to leave its control. Through panarchy, every person maintains the right to leave the government he has chosen for himself. So, basically, this turns government into a free market, and not a monopoly of coercion within any particular territory. If you believe in the value of the free market, you should be able to see that the ability of a person to choose one government over another, taking with him whatever income the government might expect from him (not so much taxes at that point but fees-for-service) would have a tremendously curative effect on government, and what it could do. What government would deal harshly with one of its citizens, absent real proof of guilt, if they knew that that citizen could, within a year’s time, take his business elsewhere?

And as for the other comments in regard to abortion, natural law cannot determine when a person exists, since that is a question of biology. (From the stage of the zygote, when two parental cells merge, you have a distinct individual, and everything subsequent to this is mere development, including the possibility of identical twins emerging from the zygote. Many contend, and I agree with them, that you have nothing less that a distinct new human being from the zygote stage onward.) Neither can natural law determine definitively when a murder takes place when we are dealing with the unborn. What it can and does say decisively is that every human being has a right to live that others cannot take away. (The only exception might be when an individual cannot otherwise be prevented from continuing to do harm to others.) People will always disagree about when the child in the womb is a person with rights, and people deserve the right for their opinions to be tolerated. No one has the right to force their opinion on another. That too is clear from natural law.

8

I see, this clarifies a lot, thanks. There are a few things though - You say “What government would deal harshly with one of its citizens, absent real proof of guilt, if they knew that that citizen could, within a year’s time, take his business elsewhere?”

However, we see this in the US - people have been not only free to take their business elsewhere, but they’ve been able to take their business elsewhere and live comfortably in many other places in the country, depending on where they’re from (or even more to another country). They choose not to though. How would a system like this not either create excessive laws, or push these mini-governments to collectively merge? Isn’t this kind of (on a larger level) similar to the way Europe is formed? EU on a large macro level, nations on a smaller macro level, and so on and so on? Do you think this system would work in the absence of a federal government (though I couldn’t really conceive how that would possibly work)?

Great explanation on the abortion issue by the way.

9

I apologize. I used a colloquialism when I should have spoken plainly. When I said “take their business elsewhere”, I really meant that they would no longer be a part of Government A, but would change their affiliation to Government B instead. And this is clearly NOT happening anywhere on the planet at this moment. But this is exactly what panarchy is about: having a choice in governments without leaving where you are.

An example is called for. Let’s say my town of about 90,000 inhabitants allowed alternative governments. The current government we will call Government A. It presently controls all government functions, including police, fire, schools, garbage collection, etc. Let’s say they allow some number of us in my town the ability to form an alternative government for our town, called Government B. We would cooperate with Government A on most everything except the schools, prorating our taxes proportionately by government department. What is allocated for the schools we would handle entirely separately. (As I understand it, there is a precedent for this in Quebec, where, at least at some point, there were separate school systems for the English and French speakers.)

So, when I said “take their business elsewhere”, I meant that they would switch their membership (and thus some part of their taxes) from one government to another. Now expand this concept to every level of government in society, and you have the picture I was trying to express.

As for mergers of such governments, since each government is made up of voluntary participants, they could choose to merge if it made sense to them, just as many churches are now doing. Once you get rid of the monopoly aspect of government, the powers of the free market take over.

Federal governments are voluntary associations, but they must remain so to work properly. In the US, where we once had a federal government, we lost that trait in our so-called Civil War, when states were not allowed to leave the union. Since then we have a national, but not a federal, government.

10

There is another issue regarding abortion that is missing on this thread. Trying to have abortions labeled “murder” has physically and emotionally hurt many women. Being a woman, I decided to join this group for another side of the coin.

Many women conceive quickly and many experience natural abortions when something goes wrong within the process and a fetus is expelled by Mother Nature? God? who knows? This is never explained in organized religion but women are often accused of expelling at their own will. I’m not talking about that but have experienced many natural abortions myself and one caused by a fall. Many religions will blame the woman when this happens and many bring on guilt to the point of suicide.

When we ask the federal or state government to set these values for us, we become slaves to the government. I figured this out at the age of 9. I stood up to the Bishop of our Ward and said “no thank you” to being baptized. The older I get, the more I want my rights as a human being to be respected. This has caused me to be a hard-core Atheist and a Libertarian.

We come down to the endgame of choice. There are unlimited choices that can be ours in a free society but it takes education to understand freedom and liberty.

Sandy

11

Sandra, your comments bring up the very reason why every person deserves the right to choose his government, just as you once chose your religion. We are fortunate in the US to have a free market in religion, where you are free to choose which religion, including none at all, you ascribe to. That is the way it should be. That is also the way it should be with government. Rothbard’s definition of government as territorial monopolies of coercion helps us to see that the problem is the monopoly aspect. When government can be freely chosen by every person (as panarchists support), no one is forced into any situation they do not agree with.

The flip side is that no one can force their opinions on another. Your freedom, therefore, comes at the cost of granting the same freedom to others. Even when you are “right”. Even when they are “wrong”.

As I stated earlier, natural law cannot determine at what specific point it can be said that a murder takes place if an intended abortion (murder requires intent) is performed. What it can say definitively is that each human being has the right to choose his government based on his own definition of what is right and what is wrong. Some governments will see all pre-birth intentional abortions as murder. Others may not call it murder even after birth (assisted suicide, for example). The choice of government should, according to natural law, be yours to make for yourself.

12

Thank you Kritarchist for your reply. I actually do live in a government of my own choosing and I am in a minority of thought in my own choices. I am on the Board of Directors of N.W. Phoenix “Death with Dignity.” My being a Hospice worker in two states showed me the horrors of having this final choice taken to the Supreme Court during the Shaivo case in Florida. I mention this to define my work which is far more than a stand against the state, but a stand for individual freedoms.

I am very old and look back at my own choices for survival and ignored the hell out of the State and Federal Laws. In the mid 1950s when my children were born I decided to rid the home of the television and instead read to the kids. I found private Christian schools for both girls for the first 6 years and then transfered them to a secular college prep. My purpose was to introduce them to both sides of the coin. Ayn Rand guided us into ethics and the respect for the individual. Orwell guided us out of any thought of slavery.

It is possible for anyone to develop a center of right versus wrong and ignore the bible and the government. I never believed that any human can sin and destroy others and ask for forgiveness and enter the gates to heaven. We trained horses and dogs and I turned this training on my kids. Using my instincts to develop their survival instincts that gave them a sense of individual warning signs of a wrong and harmful action. We lived on the San Andreas Fault and went through many training exercises that came with my Red Cross Disaster skills.

In my opinion, removing the terrorism that came with the government and the churches was the answer to our daily lives. The very idea that a group of like-minded individuals would make for a happy community. I have never found a community like this. I went on line but hit a series of stone walls that demanded I follow the laws of the majority. One site after another banned me and I realized how sad American values had slipped and individual rights would never be possible.

I’m getting too old to fight and have become a hermit livinfg with my books and CDs of Bach. I now laugh at the slaves who choose for themselves they mentally changed existence. Am I a snob? hell yes!

13

Sandra, you are very fortunate to live in a government of your choosing. I guess you are alright with being a minority voice within it.

Many people around the world do not live in governments of their choosing. I do not. Recently I went to the Holy Land, and saw what it is like living with the prospect of war constantly. And in how many places do people live in daily dread of the real terrorism that governments inflict on their own people?

Such ownership by government is immoral and contrary to the dignity of human beings. You have struggled throughout your life to do the right things for yourself and your children, and that is very commendable. But you also have resigned yourself to a hermit’s life because you cannot face the sorrows that government confronts you with. I can understand that too. I still have some energy left in me, and intend to continue the good fight for real freedom of choice. I suspect you haven’t completely given up the fight either.

14

I went on line in 1993 in hopes that finally I might locate this freedom group and I could add to it. It did not exist. In 1999 I attended a conference in Atlanta Georgia and met Lew Rockwell along with the CATO Institute, Ron Paul and many others who made up the leadership in the LP. They were supporting Gov. Bush from Texas. I had not voted Republican since 1992 as Perot made much sense to me at the time. My husband was LP but we were not speaking much in those days.

I will be 76 in a couple of months and have been aware of my memory slipping and my looks degenerating through gravity. I will not give in to depression or whining! I am delighted to have found this site where I will be respected for my outrageous points of view.

Sandy

15

Typically d), sometimes c).

a) and b) are not acceptable to me because a fetus is a living human, and I believe all living humans should by law be considered persons and enjoy the right of self ownership and protection from infringement. I do acknowledge that 99% of the debate can be boiled down to whether a given person believes a fetus is a person, and those who share my general pro-life viewpoint should work to convince others to believe this opinion.

That said, there are a number of specific cases where as far as the law is concerned, I accept c). The first is the case of rape. I believe consensual adult sex should be considered a type of natural contract. Both parties involved recognize the risk of pregnancy and the creation of a new person. Because of this “contact” the parents do not have the right to bail out the parents at the expense of the baby. Rape on the other hand is not a valid contract since one party was forced into it. Therefore I believe that in the legal sense, the mother should be allowed to abort the fetus, though I also feel that a “Good Samaritan” mother should not. But the law has no place forcing people to be “Good Samaritans”. Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “Famous Violinist” thought experiment is my basis for this position.

Another exception is in cases where the health of the mother is truely at risk. I use the basis of self-defense to defend this position. I do not think the fact that the fetus is innocent affects the right to self-defense. And again, I have great respect to mothers who decide to risk their health for the life of the baby, but I do not think the law has any right to force them to be self-sacrifising.

The final exeption, is a more unique one, and one I am not 100% committed on. It just follows my line of reasoning so I will present it. A legal minor should be allowed to abort a fetus if both the minor and the legal guardians agree to it. This simply follows the law that minors cannot legally consent to sex. I fully acknowledge that any line of legal adulthood is by definition very arbitrary, but I do believe that there is a point where children should be allowed to make controversial decesions for themselves, and deal with the consequences of those decisions. The age is different between two individuals and different between one indiviual making two decessions. I see no other option but to allow governments to set these lines. And once those lines are set, the application of the law should be consistant. In the case of a minor having sex, if by law she cannot consent to it then it follows that the “contract” I mentioned earlier is not valid. I am forced to make the same exception in this case as in the case of rape, even if the 15.5 year old really is mature enough to make the decesion to have sex despite the law saying she is not.

16

Axiomata, just to play devils advocate, do you believe, based on such subjective beliefs that government ought to intill laws forcing individuals from killing their baby?

Also, you mention that minors cannot legally consent to sex, even at 15.5 yrs. How is such a law even enforced? The current situation, when 17 year olds have sex w/15.5 year olds and get sent to juvenile homes or do community service does not seem to work - And since you believe that in the case of a minor (with respect to abortion), you believe that it should be allowed only if their guardian agrees to it. Why then, is it the responsibility of the adult to decide whether the baby is aborted, but in the case of legal consent to sex, there is no mention of adult responsibility? To what extent with such laws are we washing parents hands of responsibility, and simply saying there ought to be a law? One more thing - Would you say children are property of parents, or their own property? Assuming you cannot be fully responsible for something and not be under some form of ownership (if even temporary) of it.

17

Nikhil. Good points all! Individual rights should be the rule of the day. Any other system means ownership (even if temporary). Education in freedoms is missing in many places on this planet. It is up to all of us to teach these choices at home.

18

I’m not sure how subjective my viewpoint on the matter really is. It seems to me to be the logical end game of a few reasonable starting premises: 1) that a fetus is a living human which is scientifically true 2) that all living humans are indiviudal persons and should enjoy the natural rights associated with such a condition 3) that this new person is created as a direct result of an act of free choice between two other parties, what I termed a natural contract; and the parties to that contract have the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of that decision.

Based on this, yes, in the US, state governments ought to make laws outlawing abortion. Most of the exceptions deal with point 3) which is as far as I know, a new idea. The exceptions flow from basic preconditions that are necessary for a normal contract to be valid, i.e., non-coercion and legal age

I admit that the exception for minors is very shaky, but I think it is a reasonable position and thought I’d add it for discussion. As I mentioned originally, the legal ages, be they to drive, have sex, smoke, drink, vote, etc are essentially arbitrary. But until there is some mystical light over our kids heads that shows up when they go to purchase smokes once the reach the mental and emotional state where they have the capacity for such decisions, I don’t see any other way – and I acknowledge the enforcement of such arbitrary lines often does not work but I do not know what to do about it.

If a minor wants an abortion, and the parents refuse, then I believe the parents should be responsible for paying for the delivery and putting it up for adoption or raising it themselves (until the mother is of legal age and could be allowed to become the legal guardian of her child again). Adult responsibility is implicitly mentioned in the case of legal consent to sex in that only adults are legally obligated to uphold contracts that they agree to (minors can usually void their contracts if they wish before 18). Another reason why minors’ parents should play a role in the decesion for an abortion is because it is a medical procedure, and as it now stands medical procedures require the permission of a parent or legal guardian.

In general I am concerned with government doing the parenting for the parents, both because it has the capacity to go against the parents’ beliefs and because it tends to wash parents’ hands of responsibility. But since there is the life of a third party involved, I feel it complicates things but since one of the fundamental purposes of government, to protect individuals right to life, I think local governments have a role to play.

As for your last question, I am not exactly sure how to reply. I do not think parents own their children in the typical meaning of the word, it is a unique relationship. The parents ought to be reponsible to a degree for the actions of their children, but I wouldn’t consider it full responsibility.

19

Before Roe v Wade in 1973, most of the states did have laws against abortions. In my place in California, my friends would fly to France for their abortions, and if they were poor, they would use a knitting needle to pierce the wall of the uterus. I understand that most states had the same arrangement with many women bleeding to death in some dirty motel room.

My own mother who had studied classical piano for 20 years and often filled in as a pianist in the movie studios sound tracks. She was married when she was given the opportunity to tour Spain with a famous pianist doing two-piano work. Her schedule would take her out of the country for over a year. She found out she was pregnant and had an abortion. She returned from her tour and got pregnant and in 9 months had me. I was raised in the movie studios and saw many young well-trained actresses do the same thing when they found their birth control failed. You get one chance to show your talent and get that one audition or shot at fame.

I will never make a moral judgment against another person whether it is an abortion or a divorce. We should never set a standard for anyone else not even if we have walked in their shoes. I know that our human species has developed brains and should be aware of right and wrong. I am very unpopular with my opinions of trying to stop puting people under the authority of other people.

20

Sandra, you are in a unique position to answer this question: would it have been murder if your mother had aborted you?