Can you be pro-choice and a libertarian?

[heavenlyboy34]

Let us put all emotion aside, then. Let us look at the solid facts of the situation, from that determine the moral status of the various parties, and thus finally the moral realities which must be followed. 1, 2, 3. OK?

We are going to do this for the following situation: a mother has given birth 1 month ago to a baby that she and the father no longer wish to care for.

Solid facts:

1. The baby is a parasite upon the mother and father. They are supporting it.
2. The baby cannot support itself on its own.
3. If the parents remove their support, immediately evict the baby from their home, placing it in the waste receptacle, and do nothing else, the baby will die in short order.
4. The home, food, and other resources which the parents are using to support the baby are their own just property.
5. The baby lacks many of the defining characteristics of a human and will not acquire them for quite some time.

Moral Stati:

6. The parents are humans, with full human rights over all their property -- their bodies, their time, their food, their shelter, etc.
7. The baby, lacking many human characteristics, cannot be considered a full human in the same sense as the parents and humans in general.
8. The baby thus does not fully possess human rights.
9. However, the baby does possess the potential to become fully human, and given time he probably will. This potential humanity may or may not change the baby's moral status in your view. We will leave aside this question for the time being because it is complex.
10. The parents up to now have been closely associated with the baby, but now wish to end that association. So up to now, the parasite-host relationship has been voluntary and no trespass nor infringement has occurred. That has changed, however, as of now.

Moral Realities:

11. Libertarianism, as you said, and I agree, does not as a rule impose positive obligations. That means that the parents cannot be forced with violence into supporting the unwanted baby forever as an "obligation."
12. Libertarianism also mandates free association. That means the freedom to associate or to not associate. Since the parents now want to not associate with the baby, they should be free to disassociate themselves.
13. Libertarianism supports property rights. The parents are the just owners of all the the property involved -- diapers, breast milk, crib, house... -- except for the infant's body, which due to the unresolved ambiguity of #9, is of unknown status. The parents thus have the right to make decisions over all of the property, except, again, for the body and person of the infant itself.
14. The infant cannot really make choices in a human choice-making way as far as we know, or at least cannot make them known in a way that we understand. So the question of what the infant may justly do is meaningless. The infant cannot "do" anything, neither just nor unjust. The only question of justice then is what the parents may justly do, (and, if we want to complicate it, what other outside human actors may do in response).

So, what say you all (I wouldn't want to limit myself to osan)? What is the conclusion then? What may the parents justly do? May they take the initiative and actively kill the baby however they wish? Is that forbidden but they may passively kill it by placing it inconspicuously in the garbage or road-side and allowing nature to take its course? Or are both these courses forbidden by justice?

Good sir, "parasite" is a loaded word in this context. It is also subjective-not everyone agrees that a fetus is a "parasite", and biology doesn't not back the claim that it is. Since you are going for "solid facts", I would suggest something to the effect of "physical dependent".

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Good sir, "parasite" is a loaded word in this context. It is also subjective-not everyone agrees that a fetus is a "parasite", and biology doesn't not back the claim that it is. Since you are going for "solid facts", I would suggest something to the effect of "physical dependent".

It is, in fact, so physically dependent that it must be considered a parasite, negative connotations notwithstanding.

But I am not talking about fetuses.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It is, in fact, so physically dependent that it must be considered a parasite, negative connotations notwithstanding.

But I am not talking about fetuses.

Sorry. Beg yer pardon, sir.

To get OT a bit...

[h=2]par·a·site[/h] [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPAnoun1.an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the bodyof which it obtains nutriment.

2.a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving anyuseful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

3.


(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation,flattering remarks, etc.

You could argue that a fetus meets these definitions, but a fetus does more than this. Mothers recieve health benefits from their unborn children.
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-body/changing/benefits-of-pregnancy/
http://ic.steadyhealth.com/health_benefits_of_pregnancy.html

There are dozens of published articles and papers on the subject aimed at both laymen and professionals.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[osan]

Let us put all emotion aside, then. Let us look at the solid facts of the situation, from that determine the moral status of the various parties, and thus finally the moral realities which must be followed. 1, 2, 3. OK?

We are going to do this for the following situation: a mother has given birth 1 month ago to a baby that she and the father no longer wish to care for.

Solid facts:

1. The baby is a parasite upon the mother and father. They are supporting it.
2. The baby cannot support itself on its own.
3. If the parents remove their support, immediately evict the baby from their home, placing it in the waste receptacle, and do nothing else, the baby will die in short order.
4. The home, food, and other resources which the parents are using to support the baby are their own just property.
5. The baby lacks many of the defining characteristics of a human and will not acquire them for quite some time.

But it possesses perhaps the single most important characteristic: a claim to life, which it asserts in the ways babies do such as crying for food, attention. They will fight to live even in their tiny capacities.

Life is a compelling state of being.

Moral Stati:

6. The parents are humans, with full human rights over all their property -- their bodies, their time, their food, their shelter, etc.
7. The baby, lacking many human characteristics, cannot be considered a full human in the same sense as the parents and humans in general.
8. The baby thus does not fully possess human rights.
9. However, the baby does possess the potential to become fully human, and given time he probably will. This potential humanity may or may not change the baby's moral status in your view. We will leave aside this question for the time being because it is complex.
10. The parents up to now have been closely associated with the baby, but now wish to end that association. So up to now, the parasite-host relationship has been voluntary and no trespass nor infringement has occurred. That has changed, however, as of now.

Parents have full rights, yes, but having the child would appear to imply consent to all that child-rearing requires. I do not think one may simply leave the infant in the snow to die. They are entitled to change their minds, but are they entitled to murder the baby? This is a human child who, all else equal, will grow to adulthood if given even the minimal care.

The baby may not be "full human", whatever that may mean in the gory details, but is he human enough? What defines it and how do we know we are right?

Moral Realities:

11. Libertarianism, as you said, and I agree, does not as a rule impose positive obligations. That means that the parents cannot be forced with violence into supporting the unwanted baby forever as an "obligation."
12. Libertarianism also mandates free association. That means the freedom to associate or to not associate. Since the parents now want to not associate with the baby, they should be free to disassociate themselves.
13. Libertarianism supports property rights. The parents are the just owners of all the the property involved -- diapers, breast milk, crib, house... -- except for the infant's body, which due to the unresolved ambiguity of #9, is of unknown status. The parents thus have the right to make decisions over all of the property, except, again, for the body and person of the infant itself.
14. The infant cannot really make choices in a human choice-making way as far as we know, or at least cannot make them known in a way that we understand. So the question of what the infant may justly do is meaningless. The infant cannot "do" anything, neither just nor unjust. The only question of justice then is what the parents may justly do, (and, if we want to complicate it, what other outside human actors may do in response).

So, what say you all (I wouldn't want to limit myself to osan)? What is the conclusion then? What may the parents justly do? May they take the initiative and actively kill the baby however they wish? Is that forbidden but they may passively kill it by placing it inconspicuously in the garbage or road-side and allowing nature to take its course? Or are both these courses forbidden by justice?

I agree they cannot be justifiably forced, but neither do I think they may simply walk away.

I would say that these are justifiably forbidden because the claim to life is paramount and strong... is that an emotional argument?

I am thinking that all abortions should perhaps be conducted by inducing labor. If the expelled fetus can be saved and it is, the mother would have no rights to it in the event she changed her mind.

The whole deal is disgusting and with the day I had today, I don't really want to think on it anymore. Sorry.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Helmuth, can you clarify whether you're referencing "parasite" in the socially metaphorical sense that heavenlyboy is bringing up in the second definition of his quote below?

I meant in the social metaphorical sense.

If you're speaking metaphorically then I think you can get away with the comparison. If you're speaking in the true physical/medical definition (the first definition above), then you can't. It's because the infant is not physically attached to the host, it's merely involved in a dependency situation which requires the willingness of the host (or several hosts, perhaps including the father and extended family - or Hillary's "it takes a village") to satisfy the infant's dependency needs. True parasites (flukes, tapeworms, ticks, lice) are not in the same category, they penetrate and take without regard for the cooperation of the host. One can simply refuse to supply the infant's needs and it solves the issue of it's metaphorical parasitic behavior. One cannot refuse a true physical parasite - the only way to stop it's dependent behavior is to physically detach it, usually destroying it in the process.

Basically what I'm saying is that it's not the organism's "needs" that make it a "definition 1" parasite, but rather the actions it takes in satisfying those needs. An infant begs and pleads for its needs to be satisfied - a "definition 1" parasite actively penetrates, seizes and /or consumes without the cooperation of the host.

The "definition 2" parasite is merely a social metaphor for the physical parasite. The "definition 2" parasite" does require the cooperation of the host it feeds from. A more apt description is really "moocher".

heavenlyboy has come up with a definition that appears to be an amalgam of the two; and appears to be running ahead of the game by getting outside the G&A's you laid out (infant rather than fetus).

OK, OK; let's change it to moocher then. Or something. Dependent? I guess parasite wasn't the best term, since it does have the biological definition of burrowing ticks and tapeworms and such.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

But it possesses perhaps the single most important characteristic: a claim to life, which it asserts in the ways babies do such as crying for food, attention. They will fight to live even in their tiny capacities.

So this characteristic is very important, I take it? And it changes the moral status of the infant from expendable non-human to rights-bearing human?

What if a fetus could be shown to have a "claim to life"? What if a fetus were recorded in the womb asserting itself, trying to get attention, struggling against something trying to kill it, etc.? Would such footage change your mind about its moral status as well?

If the parents do have rights, but the infant has rights too, what is the proper resolution to the dilemma I posed? The parents must keep supporting the child until 18? Or they are free to throw it out in the snow? Or.... something else?

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[osan]

So this characteristic is very important, I take it?

Important? How, and to whom? In any event, I honestly cannot say as I am not quite that smart. I can speak only for myself. I see life there - what the Hindus call "atman". It is important to me. Beyond that I know nothing so well that I could speak for others. But right and wrong on this specific point seem to me irrelevant to the broader question at hand here: whether a parent may simply abandon a child to the winds. I see nothing that says they may not, but that does not mean I would agree with such an act. It only means that given my current understanding of things, which is woefully inadequate, I would not seek to punish someone for doing such a thing even though I might personally want to put one between their eyes. But I might take the child and raise it as my own. I COULD walk away, but do not think that I would, which probably reveals just what a rank fool I am, but that is how I am wired and I honor it by acting in accord with that inner voice which speaks very powerfully to me.

And it changes the moral status of the infant from expendable non-human to rights-bearing human?

It might... Again I am not smart enough to say and I patently distrust anyone who says that they are while their stated arguments, to my eyes, fail miserably to demonstrate the validity of their positions. This is particularly the case when such people seek to compel or prohibit behavior.

OTOH, I must ask whether there is a fundamental moral difference between abandoning a child such as we here discuss, and beating them. One is a negative act, the other positive, but does that really matter when the result is the same. OTOOH, negative acts cannot really be held against someone, can they? Consider the wholly idiotic charge of "depraved indifference". The concept implies a duty to act in a potentially self-sacrificing manner to aid another such that when such aid is withheld, the withholder is guilty of committing a felony. Is leaving a child to fend for itself a felony? I know I'd probably want to smack the crap out of someone who did such a thing, but is that a justifiable position?

What if a fetus could be shown to have a "claim to life"? What if a fetus were recorded in the womb asserting itself, trying to get attention, struggling against something trying to kill it, etc.? Would such footage change your mind about its moral status as well?

It would freak me the hell out. Regardless, would such discoveries suddenly place the obligations in question upon parents? The answer would appear to turn completely upon the fundamental assumptions under which one labored.

If the parents do have rights, but the infant has rights too, what is the proper resolution to the dilemma I posed?

Jesus my head is starting to hurt. The questions are valid and I'm just too dumb to know how to answer with certainty. I suspect that in the strictest and most coldly clinical sense, the parents are entitled to make the decision to walk away. That does not, however, mean such a decision would not piss off a lot of people.

The parents must keep supporting the child until 18?

Oh hell no. Here, I think the Jews have a good practical solution with the bar mitzvah in that at 13 one is considered to have become an adult, capable of understanding right, wrong, and the notion that actions have consequences.

Or they are free to throw it out in the snow? Or.... something else?

Tossing a small child into the snow seems inherently wrong, though I would have to give it some serious analytic consideration before being about to give an even semi-intelligent response. But I suspect the basic question is similar to that of having a guest on your boat, getting irritated with them and tossing them overboard 112 miles from the nearest spit of land.

 

[Theocrat]

"Pro-Choice" Advocates Are, De Facto, Libertines

No, you cannot. Being a libertarian means you believe that rights are inherent to our humanity and chief among those is the right to life from which all other rights are derived. If you reject the right to life you reject every other natural right.

Amen, my brother. Also, I believe that one's position on the sanctity of life really determines whether a person is truly a libertine, or truly a libertarian. "Pro-choice" advocates are what I would consider libertines. Why do I say that? It's because libertines believe that any action they take which increases their happiness, comfort, status, wealth, etc. is the right one, no matter if it is ethical by nature. In fact, the end justifies the means, for libertines.

So, when it comes to the decision of whether an unborn baby should be kept or killed, the libertine will choose to kill the baby because of the economic hardship the baby may cause, or the time that must be invested in raising a child, or any number of factors that detract from the life of the unborn baby which was conceived illicitly (usually). The libertine just cares about his own conveniences (mainly, the "freedom" to have sex with anyone and not have to deal with the consequences of such action), which shows his true nature--his irresponsibility and selfishness.

So, no, I agree with Eduardo. One cannot be "pro-choice" and a libertarian. One can be "pro-choice" and a libertine, though.

 

[Theocrat]

Those "Parasitic" Kids...

Sorry. Beg yer pardon, sir.

To get OT a bit...

You could argue that a fetus meets these definitions, but a fetus does more than this. Mothers recieve health benefits from their unborn children.
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-body/changing/benefits-of-pregnancy/
http://ic.steadyhealth.com/health_benefits_of_pregnancy.html

There are dozens of published articles and papers on the subject aimed at both laymen and professionals.

Yeah, not to mention, there are multitudes of toddlers who fit those definitions of "parasite." Does that justify killing them, too?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yeah, not to mention, there are multitudes of toddlers who fit those definitions of "parasite." Does that justify killing them, too?

That wasn't helmuth's argument. At all.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

Yeah, not to mention, there are multitudes of toddlers who fit those definitions of "parasite." Does that justify killing them, too?

Only if that toddler grows up one day to be gay.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Only if that toddler grows up one day to be gay.

Very tacky, but I must admit I chuckled.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[otherone]

libertines believe that any action they take which increases their happiness, comfort, status, wealth, etc. is the right one, no matter if it is ethical by nature.

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.
They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.
That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

- Rick Santorum

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Pregnancy, a condition that most women experience (billions upon billions of people); and there are only "dozens" of published articles and papers on the benefits?

Face it, the benefit of pregnancy is that you come out of it with a baby. That's usually only considered a benefit at the onset of a pregnancy if you indeed want the baby at the end of the pregnancy.

Other than that, though, it's the host in a parasitic relationship (I'm just following the thread) that determines whether the benefits outweigh the downside.

There are probably many more, but so what if there isn't? How many does it take to convince you?

 

[ProIndividual]

Evictionism, FTW.

 

[Vanguard101]

8 pages later

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx