Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism

[LibertyEagle]

A link = authority figure? Hahaha , that is your contention? Do you not understand what an "authority figure" is? Do you not understand basic English?

lol. Typical Conza. Insult, if all else fails.

I let the arguments I referred to in the OP speak for me yes.

Yes, we know. lol

You asked a question about what I thought of your summary. The summary you provided was gleaned from the video only was it not? Hence the non existence to any reference of text.

Wrong.

You didn't offer a response to the article, you didn't offer a rebuttal or critique. You didn't offer your thoughts as to why it is right, or wrong.

Oh, yes I did. And guess what, they were my own words. I didn't have to provide a link to express my own views.

 

[Conza88]

Wrong.

Wrong? Imo, you're a liar. Because if you had actually read the article; you wouldn't have made this most basic error.

I have personally emailed Walter Block about whether Ron Paul has heard this position before (it is relatively new), and Walter Block said he was unsure - but don't think he has. Not to his knowledge.

So maybe someone out there will read this, and ask him for his take on it... yeah? Because Ron Paul (unlike some here) is open minded and willing to change his position, i.e death penalty.

Doubtful, since he [Ron Paul] believes life begins at conception. lol

"Let us begin at the beginning. At what point does human life begin? There are really only two reasonable possibilities: at conception or at birth; all other points of development in between are merely points along a continuum which begins and ends with these two options. At any point before the fertilization, there is only a sperm and an egg. Neither, without the other, is capable of developing into anything else, let alone anything human.137 But the fertilized egg most certainly would become a human being, if kept in the womb for nine months.138 At any point after birth, there is similarly no question: if a baby is not a human being, then no one is.

So which is it? Does life begin at the beginning point of this nine month continuum or at the end of it? We take the former position. We maintain that the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species.139" ~ Excerpt from article, pg17, Walter Block.​

So does the evictionist position. I'm sorry... you were saying?

Explain that thanks... Ron Paul believes life begins at conception; so do evictionist supporters... / Walter Block... so tell me again why you doubt Ron Paul may not be swayed on the issue? Let the spin commence... lol

A suggestion: actually read the article this time before commenting.

 

[LibertyEagle]

So does the evictionist position. I'm sorry... you were saying? Don't say I didn't warn you:

Warn me of what? That you would use more quotes as a substitute for putting your own views into words? No surprise there. lol

The difference in what Block believes is that he apparently thinks it is fine to let the baby die, if technology does not exist to keep it alive and continuing to develop outside of the womb. To my knowledge, technology does not exist that will keep an embryo alive. Are you aware of any, Conza?

How would that square with Paul's belief that life begins at conception and should not be ended?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Wrong? Imo, you're a liar.

Yes, wrong.

How very surprising. Another insult from Conza.

 

[TruckinMike]

It only took 4 seconds --- The power of the rationalizing mind is amazing!

an evictionist: I'm not killing the baby,look, its just squirming around on the floor, it can do as it pleases, and it is...can't you see?

That mans mind is diseased with selfishness.

TMike

 

[Conza88]

Yes, wrong.

How very surprising. Another insult from Conza.

No argument, just a baseless assertion contrary to all evidence. LE, you didn't explain... you just asserted, as if that is enough - it isn't. How embarrassing... :o

How very unsurprising... another dodge. LE; if someone actually is lying, then calling them a liar is merely a statement of fact. I've provided evidence that results in the conclusion that you didn't actually read the entire document; because if you had - you wouldn't have made such a foolish mistake. Explain that.

There is no value judgement on my behalf... if however, you value the truth.. as do I.. then it's not good to be a liar.

The solution? Don't tell lies.

 

[Conza88]

It only took 4 seconds --- The power of the rationalizing mind is amazing!
an evictionist: I'm not killing the baby,look, its just squirming around on the floor, it can do as it pleases, and it is...can't you see?
That mans mind is diseased with selfishness.
TMike

Ad hominem fallacy, quite literally at the end. In terms of your take on what an evictionist would say... wrong & that is a strawman. If you understood the position; you'd know this because you'd have read this:

"Suppose one day you wake up to find yourself attached to another person, e.g., Thompson's143 by now famous violinist, through your kidneys. You have two healthy organs, and the other person has none that are functioning. During the night, while you slept, doctors performed an operation connecting that person to your kidneys through a sort of umbilical chord, and there you lie. This operation was conducted without the permission or even knowledge of either "patient."

What rights and obligations do you have with regard to this violinist? First, let us stipulate that the person in question is a complete innocent. Last night he was in a hospital bed; this morning he woke up in your bed attached to you. He is not a rapist. You were "raped," but this was not done by your bedmate; instead, it was the act of evil doctors who have since vanished from the scene. What you are confronted with is the result of the rape, namely, this person lying in bed with you attached to your kidneys144 completely dependent upon you for his life.

What can you do with this person? Suppose he goes back to sleep and is thus totally helpless. Can you just slit his throat? That would be murder and must therefore be opposed.145 Killing him is aggressive; it constitutes initiatory violence. Even if you can get away with it on practical grounds, it should certainly not be allowed on the basis of legal principles.

What can you do? Do you have to let him stay attached for nine months or for any particular length of time? Instead of slitting his throat, can you sever the connection between the two of you - which would also cause his death? If you did that, you would still be guilty of the initiation of coercion, surely a crime, specifically murder. What you must do is notify somebody - the association "Friends of Kidney Victims" or a hospital or the Salvation Army or the Church and have them sever the connection between you two, without thereby killing this dependant.

If a parent abandons a newborn in the woods or shoves a five-year-old out into a blizzard, he is doing something akin to that of slitting the chord between you and the kidney victim who is attached to you. It is incumbent upon the individual to at least make a phone call to an orphanage, or put the child on the proverbial Church steps,146 or be in touch with whatever organization functions in this capacity in any given society. It is only if no help is forthcoming from any such quarter that these actions can possibly not be interpreted as murder."

~ Excerpt, Walter Block, page 20.​

For an extension of this point; see the second article I cited in the OP that should be read. Should have used those extra 6 seconds Mike .

LE, what is your critique or rebuttal? Read the actual article yet?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...free-society&p=3333271&viewfull=1#post3333271



A few years ago I was completely unsatisfied with the arguments given on both sides of the isle, and couldn't grasp how to resolve the issue. Not cool with the wholesale thought that a fetus was somehow irrelevant until the moment they pop out, or that women must be forced to carry to term. That was one of the first papers I read when learning about libertarianism, and it really struck me how powerful applying libertarian principles and logic could solve some of life's most difficult problems in what is the most conscientious way possible, as far as I'm concerned.

It's unfortunate that we don't have the technology to save many fetuses, but we're continually getting better at it.

It was also unfortunate that children had to work to support their families (and they still do in poorer places), but the more prosperous we grow, the more trivial these problems become.

We need to work towards market solutions to problems, rather than relying on the use of force to solve them.

 

[fisharmor]

I am staunchly pro-life, and I agree with Block's assessment, but for a reason, and on a condition.

http://mises.org/daily/4276

"By 1860, there were more than 55,000 physicians practicing in the United States, one of the highest per capita numbers of doctors in the world (about 175 per 100,000). By 1870, approximately 62,000 physicians were in practice in the United States, roughly about 5,300 of which were homeopathic and about 2,700 eclectic...
...Schooling was plentiful and inexpensive, and entry to the most acclaimed schools was not exceedingly difficult."
"Wolinsky and Brune (1994) report that doctors were firmly in the lower middle class at the time of the AMA's founding and made about $600 per year. "

Under market conditions, the type of people who would enter medicine - i.e., the type of people who would voluntarily enter a grueling regimen of study that wouldn't stop after entering the workforce, for very little monetary reward - are not the type of people who would choose a profession which involves regularly watching a living fetus suffocate on the floor. The economic incentive for entering the field would not be money. It would be ethics.

In short, the "correct" libertarian position is not a scenario that would occur - at least not with regularity - if the market pressured medical practitioners to take the Hippocratic Oath seriously.

 

[erowe1]

When it comes to moral issues, appeal to authority is not a fallacy. The basis of all ethics is the authoritative fiat in phrases such as "Thou shalt not."

I don't claim to know anything at all about what it means to be a libertarian.

But it's incorrect to presume that a woman's body is solely her property. Other people also own property in her body, especially her children, for whom she is obligated to care. To say otherwise would not only allow for abortion, but also abandonment of one's children (as Rothbard admits is to be allowed according to his approach to ethics). This is plainly contrary to basic and incontrovertible principles of morality.

This is a non-fallacious appeal to an authority that every human recognizes, especially those who have kids.

 

[Conza88]

Do we really need to rehash the abortion argument for the 9 billionth time and why does there have to be a "correct libertarian position"? Why can't people just believe what they want to believe on the issue?

Because there are millions of lives at stake (/pro life talking points), as well as the rights of women (pro choice talking points). That's why.

See *Pg 27 - VII. Pragmatic Issues* of the OP article.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Warn me of what? That you would use more quotes as a substitute for putting your own views into words? No surprise there. lol

The difference in what Block believes is that he apparently thinks it is fine to let the baby die, if technology does not exist to keep it alive and continuing to develop outside of the womb. To my knowledge, technology does not exist that will keep an embryo alive. Are you aware of any, Conza?

How would that square with Paul's belief that life begins at conception and should not be ended?

Have you come up with an answer yet, Conza?

 

[axiomata]

"Eviction" might be an adequate rational for aborting pregnancies that are the result of rapes, but it certainly is not for consensual sex among adults.

The year is 2400 you live in an underwater biodome. There's a new invention that when activated grabs a random person from the mainland and transports him to the machine in your living room. Late one night you take a dare from a family member where if you roll a six you run the machine. The next sub transporting people and cargo back to the mainland is scheduled in 9 months. Knowing the consequences of the dare you voluntarily roll the die and get a six and transport a person. Are you justified in "evicting" this person from your home thereby drowning him?

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

To answer your question: Read the first line of the OP.If you're not interested in the discussion; then don't participate. Thank you for your useless contribution.

Why put forward a solution to the problem of 'abortion'? Because this position is the answer to the demonic political 'debate' between two false 'solutions'. Irrational A versus irrational B. A third way, the libertarian way - imo, solves the issue. As a result it trumpets the awesomeness of libertarianism - it brings people together. That's what liberty does.

Useless? If you want to discuss useless you should look in the mirror. I know for a fact that some people have come to this forum and seen your inane ramblings and those of people like you and they have decided that they should reconsider their support of Dr. Paul because of people like you. You know damn well that BS like this is detrimental to the campaign but you don't care because it seems like the only thing you are concerned about is yourself and trying to sway people to think exactly like you. So go ahead and -rep me again all you want because quite frankly if I am getting - reps from someone like you than I must stand for something pretty damn good.

 

[teacherone]

parasite killers for ron paul!

 

[The Free Hornet]

deleted post - I am going to walk from the issue - good luck all!

 

[teacherone]

Are you feeling a little bit blue? Retaining water? Nauseous in morning?

You just might have a parasite!

Well we have good news for you - introducing the EvictRight 2000.

With the EvictRight 2000 you can evict your parasite in minutes - no need to walk past screaming protesters on the way to the clinic!

Had too good of a night last month? One too many beers? Thought your boyfriend loved you but found out he was just a sweet talking libertarian?

Well now you can show him! Take that parasite he introduced and Evict it!

He might call it a "baby" but...If You Call It A Parasite...Use an EvictRight...Today!

 

[newbitech]

curious,

what other compromise positions do "correct libertarians" hold? From what I understand, Dr. Paul is running on "conviction". I am a little surprised to hear and read about his hard core support base discussing compromise as a "correct libertarian" position.

Is Ron Paul's support base eroding? I care less if Ron Paul is right or wrong. I support him because he is a man who stands behind what he believes, and doesn't change his belief for political or campaign advantages.

I hope what I am reading is just a few mis-guided supporters.

On the issue in the OP, didn't read the book, to busy trying to keep my head above the water, but I have plenty of material on the subject including first hand experience.

I believe the issue should be left to the couple with doctor and spiritual adviser as counsel. I would like to see this issue be as far removed from the courts as possible.

The couple should have the ability to make the decision without interference from gawkers and bystanders.

 

[Thread_Maker]

Is the op serious? The mother is the aggressor that forces a child, against it's will, into a prison for 9 months.

 

[dannno]

Is the op serious? The mother is the aggressor that forces a child, against it's will, into a prison for 9 months.

The end of the video is actually very interesting because it explains something that I often talk about but with a slightly different angle.

He uses the analogy that relates to the argument that you just used, that a mother essentially pushes the baby into the lake, therefore she is responsible to do whatever is within her power to get the child out of the lake.

Block argues that the mother never pushed the child into a lake. He argues that a child is better off being conceived and then aborted than never existing at all, because at least they had a chance for survival whereas without getting pregnant they had no chance for survival.. and I would add the caveate that this is true as long as the child does not suffer pain during the abortion. So obviously getting pregnant and then getting the fetus or baby to the point where it feels pain and then torturing it might be worse than never being born. But if you have the abortion before the child is self-aware and feels pain, then it is no different, imo, than never being born at all. The only argument I can see against this is something to do with Christianity and the child having a soul, and if only those people hadn't had sex the soul would have.....what? Been born to a different mother? But now because it died early it is guaranteed into the entrance of Heaven?

I dunno, I'm agnostic, but I've heard that the pineal gland develops and becomes useable at around 120 days (4 months). If a child gets a soul, I doubt it happens until the pineal gland has developed at around 120 days because this is where the spirit, if we have a spirit, resides.