Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism

[Thread_Maker]

That in no way adresses the indisputable fact that the mother forces the child into an involuntary situation, the only thing I posted about.

 

[dannno]

That in no way adresses the indisputable fact that the mother forces the child into an involuntary situation, the only thing I posted about.

Yes, but point was that the nature of that involuntary situation, existing for a short time, then not existing anymore without feeling pain, is not worse than never existing at all.

In other words, I guess it would suck to get aborted, but I don't see how that is any different than never existing as long as the existence isn't painful or distressing.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

Actually, the soul is related to the breath, and just like oxygen, it is carried in the blood. This is also why the biblical prohibition against eating animals that have been strangled (soul cannot escape) or animals that still have their blood in them. This is also why the heart is so important and considered the 'seat' of the soul.

The way I see it, mother and child's souls co-mingle from the point that the fetus develops a blood supply until the umbilical cord is severed. Therefore, if you want to specify a date before which a fetus is not 'a living soul' that would more accurately be 14 days, after which the fetus has developed it's own blood supply, and thus carries a soul by the agency of it's mother.

"The soul is in the blood" is so perfectly described in the bible, but most Christians don't get it. The Hebrew word for soul 'nephesh' is also the Hebrew word for breath. It can also be used to refer (tangentially) to blood.

This is one of the concepts that is supposed to be fundamental to Christianity but remains generally unknown because of how the Church has abandoned it's Hebrew roots.

 

[dannno]

Actually, the soul is related to the breath, and just like oxygen, it is carried in the blood. This is also why the biblical prohibition against eating animals that have been strangled (soul cannot escape) or animals that still have their blood in them. This is also why the heart is so important and considered the 'seat' of the soul.

Yes, the Bible does say that the life is the blood.. I'm not sure if that is a purely biological statement or whether the pineal gland is merely a communication mechanism for the soul through the blood.

The way I see it, mother and child's souls co-mingle from the point that the fetus develops a blood supply until the umbilical cord is severed. Therefore, if you want to specify a date before which a fetus is not 'a living soul' that would more accurately be 14 days, after which the fetus has developed it's own blood supply, and thus carries a soul by the agency of it's mother.

Possibly. I'd still guess that the blood is a 'cell mass' until the communication mechanism, the pineal gland, is functional. I don't know how souls actually work though.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, the Bible does say that the life is the blood.. I'm not sure if that is a purely biological statement or whether the pineal gland is merely a communication mechanism for the soul through the blood.

I would be more apt to say that the soul can not communicate with the mind until the pineal gland is formed and 'awakened.' It's not where the center of reason lives and it's not where the soul lives, it's more where the two of them get together and sit down for coffee and lunch.

Possibly. I'd still guess that the blood is a 'cell mass' until the communication mechanism, the pineal gland, is functional. I don't know how souls actually work though.

The soul operates much like breath, except that it remains in the body instead of going in and out through the lungs. It is not a component of the blood, it is more a 'rider' on the blood, a lot like oxygen rides on the blood to get to the parts of the body that need the oxygen.

Biblically, the context is that God breathed into Adam's nostrils and Adam became a living soul. The soul escapes the body through the dying breath and goes back to God. Soul/breath are easily conflatable. In the Hebrew, the same word is used to describe both, and only the context distinguishes them.

So a strict interpretation would show that the soul enters the baby's body through the mother in the womb with the fetal production of blood, resides in the blood in the same way that 'breath' (oxygen) resides in the blood, and escapes the body from the blood through the lungs with the last breath. From the "soul's" perspective, it proceeded from God in His breath, enters the corpse of Adam through his nostrils, was divided into Eve, and then further divided into all the children of mankind through the womb, and exits the body upon death and goes back to God. The soul now inhabiting your body is a small component of that which was exhaled from God's breath into Adam's nostrils, and has not seen the 'outside' of a human body since that time, and will not until you die and release your last breath.

If you consider 'breath' and 'soul' as nearly identical except that the breath is the physical means of oxygen delivery and the soul is the supernatural means of life delivery then you have a pretty good idea how the soul 'operates' from a strict biblical interpretation -- even if most Christians do not hold or understand that view.

As to the pineal gland, I understand the 'third eye' concept and do not really disagree with it, except to say that what is 'awakened' is not so much inside the pineal gland as much as the pineal gland is more of a 'meeting place' between soul and reason.

 

[Conza88]

​

I’m not at all emotionally invested like those of the “pro-life” or “pro-abortion” brigade, I’m predominately interested in the logic of it - which position is to be considered just. As it stands - neither of those positions are, they are both partly ‘right’ and partly ‘wrong’. The position I currently hold is the “Pro Property Rights” position, which is called evictionism [video]. 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)
  
  1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
  A. no
  B. no
  C. yes
  
  2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
  A. yes
  B. yes
  C. no
  
  3. 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

I don’t think there’s any conflict between Hoppe’s position -he is simply giving the private law framework- and Block’s, where he is specifically giving what he considers to be the ‘libertarian law code’ response. Here’s a great diagram that encapsulates what is meant. There need not be just one ‘law code’ that individuals voluntarily sign up to adhere by, but the libertarian principles of ‘self-ownership’ and ‘original appropriation’ naturally lay the foundation.

 

[Conza88]

But it's incorrect to presume that a woman's body is solely her property.

Ridiculous. Then you support some form of slavery.

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.

There is a difference between legality, and morality. As you said, you don't have any idea what libertarianism is.

That's pathetic. Maybe you should get a clue, yes? And understand the difference between morality/ethics and the question of legality.

You've addressed the morality, nor the legality - which is the only thing libertarianism (a political philosophy) is concerned about.

Try again.

parasite killers for ron paul!

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.

Lmao, what a crock of ____. Sweet ad hominems dude, haven't got any real arguments to use? Didn't think so.

The "evictionist" position is a remarkable solution and answer to a debate that no-one thinks can be solved. It shows the power of private property rights position. FREEDOM BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

 

[Conza88]

Have you come up with an answer yet, Conza?

Oh, I'm sorry... I forgot how slow you are. Did you miss this?

Interestingly enough this completely validates Block’s medical/technological point. In 2007, viable at 23 weeks and has survived. Who knows what it is now?

The market solution would be sped up incredibly to the point where fetuses can be viable much earlier. If the evictionist position is adopted... more children would be saved, but alas they continue to die because the deluded supporters of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are happy ranting at each-other with both implausible, incorrect and deluded positions which is why the debate stagnates are there appears to be no "solution", which is bs - because there is.

The pro-property rights position is correct.

 

[jason43]

I am an atheist and I'm pro-life. I'm also an anarchist...

My thoughts are that the fetus has its on DNA, and is therefore a unique 'person' from the mother and that the non-aggression principle applies to it. I do not think that there should be more laws about it though. I think the solution is doctors refusing to perform the procedure and a better economic situation and a stronger familial and moral bond.

Abortion is just sad to me honestly. No matter how many laws you make, it will continue to happen as society is now. I think that having a rational discussion on the subject and raising your children right would eventually bring it to an end rather than waiting on some supreme court .

 

[Wesker1982]

i know i disagree with conza on almost everything, but he is right on this one

merry christmas

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This is one of those issues that doesn't have one "correct libertarian position". One's presuppositions about exactly what individual liberty is and who has a right to it determine any one libertarian's position. For the pro-death (aka "pro choice") crowd, I submit this to you: If abortion is acceptable up to and including the last trimester, why not afterward? The infant is almost as dependent ("parasitic") on the parent/caretaker as the fetus is. The 9 year old is in its ~15th trimester. Why is killing this "parasitic" organism more evil than killing the same organism while in the womb?

 

[jason43]

This is one of those issues that doesn't have one "correct libertarian position". One's presuppositions about exactly what individual liberty is and who has a right to it determine any one libertarian's position. For the pro-death (aka "pro choice") crowd, I submit this to you: If abortion is acceptable up to and including the last trimester, why not afterward? The infant is almost as dependent ("parasitic") on the parent/caretaker as the fetus is. The 9 year old is in its ~15th trimester. Why is killing this "parasitic" organism more evil than killing the same organism while in the womb?

I've used this argument too. If the child is just a parasite, they continue to be so way after they are born. I know, I have two of them. haha!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I've used this argument too. If the child is just a parasite, they continue to be so way after they are born. I know, I have two of them. haha!

I look forward to Conza bravely quoting someone else to try and counter my argument.

 

[Conza88]

I look forward to Conza bravely quoting someone else to try and counter my argument.

In future if you want a faster response, quoting me generally compels one. When I'm not even the position you are referring to - (I'm not pro-choice), that's also grounds for not getting a response at all... since why should I defend something I don't agree with?

For you though, I'll make an exception and offer some originality.

This is one of those issues that doesn't have one "correct libertarian position". One's presuppositions about exactly what individual liberty is and who has a right to it determine any one libertarian's position. For the pro-death (aka "pro choice") crowd, I submit this to you: If abortion is acceptable up to and including the last trimester, why not afterward? The infant is almost as dependent ("parasitic") on the parent/caretaker as the fetus is. The 9 year old is in its ~15th trimester. Why is killing this "parasitic" organism more evil than killing the same organism while in the womb?

Again, I'm not the pro-death crowd. I'm the pro-property rights crowd. You're the pro-slavery crowd (If I had to give it an epitaph, just like you did).

[video=youtube;e5z94YJsS84]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e5z94YJsS84[/video]
​

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Justifying Libertarianism

The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Romania, on November 8-11, 2011 presents a colloquium with the author of “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism”, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the legacy of the private Mises Seminar in Bucharest. This is an excerpt where Hoppe talks about justifying libertarian norms and the a priori of argumentation. Those who attempt to defend anything but libertarian norms are engaged in a performative contradiction.
​

Regarding the ability to engage in argumentation, there are three possible states:

1. “none” (inanimate object, dead)
2. “potential” (babies: part of their nature), (knocked unconscious, coma patient, mentally handicapped: those that have shown at least once to be able to engage in argumentation, and may be able to do so again)
3. “always” (children, adults etc.)

So therefore, and this is both logically rigorous and accurate.

1. No Rights
2. “Guardianship” or “Trustee” Rights, until they show and claim 3.
3. Full self-ownership.

I wonder if you actually listened to the Hoppe video on abortion? He already answered your question there. Because the 9 year old is a human. Because the evictionist position ISN'T TO KILL, so you've ERECTED A STRAWMAN (if you are attacking evictionism, not pro-choice)... but in which case, you're wrong to ask me for a refutation since it's not a position I hold.

 

[axiomata]

Bumping for a response from an evictionist.

"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?

 

[Conza88]

Bumping for a response from an evictionist.

""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."

Begs the question.... oh, alright I suppose the paragraph below provides a justification for your reasoning? Let's check it out.

The year is 2400 you live in an underwater biodome.

Ohhh sweet, so by then thanks to medical and technological advancements fetuses could evicted from the womb and still viable at any stage... so there is no problem. Great!

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.

Against their will? Right, so kidnapping... it's taking someone who already exists. When sexual intercourse happens, there is no fetus, no-one exists yet. Life begins at conception, yes... you are NOT putting the fetus in a worse position; you are IPSO FACTO putting it in a BETTER POSITION. Analogy fail. And so we continue..

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?

The whole premise is comically inept. If you're assuming we're 400 years into the future living in biodomes... it's entirely accurate to suggest that by then fetuses could be aborted at any stage and still be viable. So there is literally no problem.

If you take the trajectory of current medical advancements and timeline which Block points out in the short clip; it'd be possible by then if not sooner. In 2007 fetuses were evicted at 23 weeks and survive! Five years on essentially, who knows what it is? In another 400!? lol...

To answer your inane question / lifeboat scenario - you evict them in the most gentlest means possible. In this case, they have a positive obligation - because they literally pushed someone overboard (engaged in a criminal act, kidnapping them). They're not at all justified in drowning them.

To give a more ACCURATE analogy: picture a cruise liner or your home - when an invited guest, for whatever reason, becomes uninvited and asked to leave, if they refuse - they then become a trespasser. Removing them in the gentlest manner is the evictionist position. On a boat, be it stowaway, or uninvited guest, that means waiting to the next port. Throwing them overboard right then and there would be the Pro-Choice position. Forcing the property owner to take the stowaway the entire trip (9 months), is the Pro-Life position. The eminently reasonable and common sense position is to remove them at the next port of call. COMMON SENSE FTW!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

In future if you want a faster response, quoting me generally compels one. When I'm not even the position you are referring to - (I'm not pro-choice), that's also grounds for not getting a response at all... since why should I defend something I don't agree with?

For you though, I'll make an exception and offer some originality.



Again, I'm not the pro-death crowd. I'm the pro-property rights crowd. You're the pro-slavery crowd (If I had to give it an epitaph, just like you did).

[video=youtube;e5z94YJsS84]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e5z94YJsS84[/video]
​

Regarding the ability to engage in argumentation, there are three possible states:

1. “none” (inanimate object, dead)
2. “potential” (babies: part of their nature), (knocked unconscious, coma patient, mentally handicapped: those that have shown at least once to be able to engage in argumentation, and may be able to do so again)
3. “always” (children, adults etc.)

So therefore, and this is both logically rigorous and accurate.

1. No Rights
2. “Guardianship” or “Trustee” Rights, until they show and claim 3.
3. Full self-ownership.

I wonder if you actually listened to the Hoppe video on abortion? He already answered your question there. Because the 9 year old is a human. Because the evictionist position ISN'T TO KILL, so you've ERECTED A STRAWMAN (if you are attacking evictionism, not pro-choice)... but in which case, you're wrong to ask me for a refutation since it's not a position I hold.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't attacking a strawman, sir. I was simply questioning the implications of what you said. I personally think Hoppe has a good argument. Not everyone will accept it, but the great thing about voluntary society and private law is that we can have differences of opinion and still generally get along. Agreed?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That in no way adresses the indisputable fact that the mother forces the child into an involuntary situation, the only thing I posted about.

Could it not be argued that in certain situations (like rape), the father forces the child into an involuntary situation? This doesn't invalidate evictionism, of course, but adds more nuance to the issue.

 

[kuckfeynes]

After skimming it, it does seem to be a good answer.
I'll have to read it more carefully later and give it some serious thought.
I certainly do not believe that the mother has no moral responsibility to her offspring.
Facing the conception/birth dichotomy I instinctively feel obligated to err on the side of life.
But at the same time, I've always had a difficult time believing this...

...can really be considered a human.

 

[Conza88]

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't attacking a strawman, sir. I was simply questioning the implications of what you said. I personally think Hoppe has a good argument. Not everyone will accept it, but the great thing about voluntary society and private law is that we can have differences of opinion and still generally get along. Agreed?

Hehe, well you called me out... and the position you elaborated wasn't my own. Anyway, yes, indeed. Hoppe's argument is different to Block's. Hoppe's is the framework (foundation), it's great a clarification... and Block's is a specific type of law code (libertarian), but sure - there would be other types of law codes people voluntarily sign up for.