One "wedge issue" I will not compromise on

[Mini-Me]

Forget the unborn, according to the NAP we are well within our rights to evict infants into the street in the dead of winter.

So any moral requirement that thinks others have a claim on you, no matter how in need they are, is outside of the NAP.

Move the debate to children, figure out why you can't let children die, then worry about why you can't let a foetus die.

You make a good point in general that requires addressing, but your specific example doesn't actually fall outside the NAP. There's a difference between:

• letting someone die when there was no express or implied agreement to do otherwise (this may be a stranger within eyesight at one extreme, or it may be someone on the complete opposite side of the world at another extreme)
• letting someone die after implicitly or explicitly taking responsibility for their well-being
• killing someone yourself (as in abortion)

The latter two are probably a lot more similar to each other in most cases than the first two, because evicting infants into the street in the dead of winter is an awful lot like "killing them yourself." There's a difference between someone who is cold-hearted but within their rights saying, "I don't want this baby to be my problem anymore, so I'm going to drop it off at a shelter" and someone who wants to commit murder in all but the most technical sense saying, "I'm going to pretend to all the world that this baby is in good hands, and I'm going to hide it away from anyone else who might save it, but then I'm going to sit and watch it starve or freeze to death because I can." When you take a baby into your care, and it's exclusively under your care, you've made a non-verbal contract with the baby and everyone else around you that you're responsible for it. The same goes for children in general. A cold-hearted person might be technically in their rights to end that responsibility as quickly as possible, but it's not really something you can legitimately get out of by evicting it straight into the lonely street in the dead of a cold winter night. If a person dies under your care, when they wouldn't have died if you never took them under your care, that's not exactly an "efficient breach" of contract that cleanly ends your responsibility.

That said, you nevertheless make a good point about the NAP's incompleteness. A more correct complaint against the NAP's incompleteness would be that it may arguably permit "negligent homicide" in the case where two strangers have no implicit or explicit agreement with each other, and one drowns to death while the other sits on his ass and watches. (The operative question might be if being the only other person in the vicinity reasonably implies a non-verbal contract to help if needed...probably not, but it may depend on further context.) The NAP is pretty excellent at defining consistent interpersonal boundaries between strangers in a world where other moral [secular] standards fail to establish strict boundaries at all (permitting, in the end, gross abuse and arbitrary inconsistencies)...but it's not complete: It omits all guidance regarding how a person ought to act on behalf of others absent express or implied contracts, and it also omits all guidance regarding issues like verbal abuse, manipulation, etc. (although certain kinds of manipulation may be viewed as fraudulent). Unfortunately, if you try to patch these holes up by demanding positive action to the point of allowing coercion to enforce those demands, it destroys the consistency of the moral system in an effort to attain completeness (this is once again reminding me of Gödel). Practically speaking, this is another reason why I defer to the Golden Rule on issues where the NAP is silent. It's not going to keep other people from committing terrible sins of omission, but it's going to help you pick up the slack. As far as I can see, it's the best we can do without legitimizing the kind of thought that leads [consistently] to the leviathan state.

Back on topic:

I don't think there's sensible disagreement at all.

Once early in my marriage my wife was using a paper bag in the middle of the road as an analogy for something (don't recall what, it isn't important). She stated as part of her soliloquy "...because you don't just drive over a bag in the middle of the road" and I added "yeah, because there might be a baby in it".
She blinked a couple times, incredulously, and said "Well, I was going to go with a bag of nails, but, sure, there could be a baby in it."
I was recalling an actual case I heard about in New Orleans when I was a kid, wherein someone had found an abandoned baby in a paper bag.

I had assumed driving over a road obstacle would have a negative effect on someone else, and my wife assumed driving over a road obstacle would have a negative effect on her. But neither of us thought that driving over the bag would be a good idea.

Abortion proponents say exactly that. "I don't know what's in that bag, I admit freely to not knowing what's in that bag, but I'm not turning this wheel or hitting the brake - I'm driving straight the eff over it."

The ones that claim to know when life begins are even worse, because they have put the thought into it and realize that they can't drive over a bag with a baby in it, but they've come up with a cockamamie, totally subjective definition of when life begins strictly to be able to support abortion.

If one can say with a straight face that one either doesn't care when life begins or has a subjective definition for it, then that is irreconcilable with libertarian thought. And I don't see what can be sensible about it.

This is an important argument, and I actually agree with it: When you consider the stakes underlying the question of when personhood begins, the implications of "What if I'm wrong?" are so much more dire for people who lean pro-choice than people who lean pro-life that I can't personally justify not erring on the side of caution. It's a bit like a Schrödinger's Baby scenario. At the same time, if someone considers the probability that personhood begins at conception to be infinitesimally low compared to it starting at e.g. brain waves, they could argue it reaches the same probability of you accidentally dropping and killing a baby every time you hold one...that is, too negligible to impact your decision-making. I don't make this argument, so I can't say where they'd be deriving probabilities from or how effective the argument would be, but that also means I don't currently have grounds to reject it either, so I have to still concede there's room for debate.

the reality for as long as we've stood on two feet is that there will be abortions, no matter how you or anyone or *everyone* feels about it.

to me it's a matter of whether or not you want to make it happen with a coat-hanger, or allow it to happen in a doctor's office.

Imagine your 15-year old sister gets knocked up, and she has decided she doesn't want to have it - for whatever reason. Maybe she doesn't even tell you or your parents about it. Coat-hanger or clinic?

You find out about it after the fact. Are you going to label her a murderer and throw her in prison?

me... I would rather it be a clinic, and leave the judgement call to God.

To me it still comes down to the all-important question, "Are you killing a person or a sack of tissue?" If you're just killing a sack of tissue, you should be able to do it as safely as possible. If you're killing another human being, it should probably come with a degree of personal risk. Still, even if you don't know for sure it's a baby, if you're really cold enough to go ahead with it with no regard for the implications of what you may be doing, then do you really deserve absolute safety yourself? I mean, when it comes down to it there's a really easy solution to avoiding death by coat hanger: Don't kill babies, who are a lot more young, vulnerable, and scared than you are. My hypothetical 15-year-old pregnant sister might be young and scared, but she's not simultaneously smart enough to think, "Get it out with a hanger" and stupid enough to think, "I have no idea what's in there, but I need to get it out." If abortion were made illegal, anyone who thinks, "I'm going to get this thing out of here with a coathanger" probably has a pretty good idea what they're trying to kill, along with an inkling about why abortion was made illegal in the first place.

The alternative today is that society's pro-choice concept of when life begins is so absurd that scared teenagers recognize it makes no sense that the baby suddenly becomes a person when the head comes out. Therefore, if abortions up until that moment are just fine, what's wrong with flushing the baby down the toilet or bashing its head in after birth? It's only a difference of a few seconds, right? The sick thing is, they're right! It really isn't any "more" wrong. They diagnose the logical inconsistency so effortlessly...but in their panic, after a lifetime of bizarre and confusing mixed cultural signals about when it's okay to kill a baby and when it's not, they "fix" the logic in the worst way possible. Kermit Gosnell didn't really see the difference either. (On the subject of calling them murderers and sending them to prison, how would you handle these particular scenarios? When does a baby finally possess individual rights worth defending? When the head comes out, just because? Only after another person feels love for it? After a baptism? When it can talk and walk and say "No" in English? When it turns 18?)

The "prohibition doesn't work" argument doesn't apply to violent acts for two reasons: First, the factual statement that prohibition doesn't work is most true when it comes to laws that people can't personally justify by their own morality. (Would you drink alcohol under 21? Probably. Would you kill thirty people for kicks? Probably not...a "slightly" smaller number of people will do that.) The screwed up scenario above demonstrates that cultural attitudes toward abortion do in fact affect people's behavior, and fewer people are going to attempt abortion (especially late-term) if they're surrounded by a culture that reinforces the belief that they're killing a baby than if they're surrounded by a culture that reinforces the belief they're killing soulless tissue. There will always be abortions, but there have never been this MANY of them. The past century has ushered in the transition from "Every once in a while there's a back alley abortion" to, "Full-blown [dis]assembly lines operating in parallel with maximum throughput." Second and more importantly, tolerating and even protecting violent crime "just because it's going to happen anyway" leads to the wholesale abolition of justice. I mean, even if prohibition doesn't work, I don't see anyone saying that since serial killers are always going to murder, we might as well set up legal clinics for them to bring their victims to kill them in a controlled environment without risk of getting hurt. Granted, I DO dispute the argument that abortion is murder, because few who do it actually acknowledge the reality of what they're doing, and the harshness of judgment has to reflect that. I'd call it manslaughter rather than murder at least, and an appropriate sentence has to consider the perpetrator's intent, as well as considering the stage of pregnancy (I can't justify abortions, but I can't justify throwing people into prison for doing it early in the first trimester either). At the same time, if you really think someone's killing babies, making it as safe for them as possible probably shouldn't be "priority one." There are more pressing considerations in that case.

 

[PierzStyx]

I am confused. Are you saying you are an anarchist that thinks both doctors and women should go to government jails if they participate in abortions? Please explain.

If I shoot a baby should I be imprisoned? I think you would say yes. Well human life is human life and it should always be protected, no matter how young, innocent, or unable to defend itself, pre-natal or post natal. As for government prisons, well I think prisons should be privatized.

 

[Christian Liberty]

the reality for as long as we've stood on two feet is that there will be abortions, no matter how you or anyone or *everyone* feels about it.

to me it's a matter of whether or not you want to make it happen with a coat-hanger, or allow it to happen in a doctor's office.

Imagine your 15-year old sister gets knocked up, and she has decided she doesn't want to have it - for whatever reason. Maybe she doesn't even tell you or your parents about it. Coat-hanger or clinic?

You find out about it after the fact. Are you going to label her a murderer and throw her in prison?

me... I would rather it be a clinic, and leave the judgement call to God.

I don't have a sister, but regardless... yes... she'd be a murderer.

You are still my friend but I just don't think you can make abortion illegal. Too many people see it as a right. I am not saying it is right but you won't win and any movement against it will not win how ever unfortunate it is.

Because I know how hard headed and hearted people are about this wedge issue I think the more we make a big deal of it and keep it in the political arena the worse the fight will get and abortion will still go on abortion has been around probably almost since the beginning of humans it was just not something people made a political issue of or spoke much about until the last half of the past century.

I think the real issue is sexual morals and men are just as much a part of the problem as women. If you don't like abortions then take responsibility for your actions and teach your children to respect their bodies and life by your example this is how you fight and win the abortion issue. Don't just expect that they will have sex expect that they won't have sex and when they get to the age of puberty do not abandon them because they still need you in their life to guide them.

You're probably right that it will never happen. I doubt an end to taxation will ever really happen either. So what?

Off-topic, but:

Is it just me, or did FF's post #28 break the browser rendering on this thread? Everything on my end got funky after that one.

EDIT: So it's not just me. Apparently, Mini-Me is getting the same thing. Weird.

Yes, it did something weird. Not sure why. If a mod could fix it tht would be great; I don't know how to.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Here's my 0.02 FRNs-worth on just a few of the many interesting & thought-provoking items in Mini-Me's commentary ...

There's a "first cause," an "unmoved mover" outside the system: Absurd? This is only solvable by handwaving and invoking a transcendental entity whose reason for existence is somehow itself, for reasons we cannot further explain. We can call this entity God by convention, but there's no reason it has to be the Christian God or even a sentient entity at all. It's just something that "is" for no reason, which evades further explanation by virtue of being outside our comprehension. We're talking about a hypothetical entity that by definition does not obey the laws of logic, so it's a tossup whether we call this absurd (because it doesn't obey logic) or not (because by definition it logically wouldn't). Unfortunately, even if this is the solution, we still can't be certain of its specific parameters. (For the record, I lean toward this solution.)

Another approach - one to which I very strongly incline - is simply to say that existence is a metaphysical given beyond which there is no possibility of going. "Existence exists" - and that is all there is to say about it (at the most fundamental level). There is no "why" or "how" to it. Questions like "why" and "how" require a larger context in which they are to be understood - but there is no possibility of any "larger context" when the object of our consideration is "all of existence" or "existence in and of itself." It just "is" - and that is all. (This has the virtue of avoiding both circular question-beggings and infinite regresses. It will, however, fail miserably in satisfying those who wish for some grand "explanation of it all" - but one of the more obvious and infamous features of existence is that it is in no way obliged to respect or indulge our wishes.)

The fundamental and non-explicable fact of existence is the ultimate starting point (or ending point, depending on how you look at it) for any and all "deep" inquiries and investigations into the various aspects of existence we might wish to conduct. It is the "root" context for all other contexts - it is the "Ur-context," so to speak - and it does not have (nor by its nature can it have) any larger context of its own. Thus, any attempt to "go beyond" this Ur-context (such as positing a "Creator" for it) is entirely superfluous.

This is why questions such as "where did the universe come from?" are really just instances of deceptively meaningless gibberish. There can be no "from" (that is, no larger context) from which the "universe" could have "come," since the "universe" (i.e., "all of existence") is itself the "set of all 'froms'," as it were. (And it is very important to note that I am here using "universe" as meaning "all of that which exists." There are various physical theories which posit that there might be other "alternate" or "parallel" universes, but those would just be parts of the "universe" I am talking about. In light of those theories, those who wish to insist upon a more strictly precise & physicalist nomenclature can replace the word "universe" in what I have said here with "multiverse" or "polyverse" or some other suitable term.) It isn't that there is some "answer" to the question and that we just can't ever really "know" what that "answer" is (or might be). It's that there is not even a real and meaningful question to begin with - just a string of words followed by a question mark. (One might as well ask: Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?)

When it comes to certainty, there's pretty much only one thing I know for sure: "I think, therefore I exist," as René Descartes said. It's technically possible that I'm just a brain in a jar being fed external stimulus from a totally alien outside world. It's even technically possible that my mind is the only thing in all of existence, has no reason for existing beyond absurdity, and that it's dreaming everything else up and trying to make sense of something that never will...and similarly, from your perspective, the same could be true for you. These are very bizarre possibilities, and they're just two out of a potentially infinite number of realities, so I'd consider them pretty unlikely. I don't take the position of philosophical skepticism, but...I can't disprove it either.

And if any of those other possibilities turned out to be the case, it still wouldn't make any actual difference to the fundamental point. Even if you were just a "brain" in some mad scientist's vat, Descartes' cogito would still apply. You would merely possess an "incomplete" and/or not entirely "correct" view of the world and reality. But when you get right down to it, how is that really any different from NOT being a "brain in a vat" (that is, how is it really any different if it turns out that the "real" world is just as it appears to be)? This is why I don't have much patience with philosophical skepticism. It's good at concocting interestingly bizarre scenarios, but little else. At best, it serves as a "point of departure" for getting into something of actual substance. It is otherwise sterile and useless.

For all we know, there may be universal moral statements that are also true but unprovable...but if this is the case, how do we arrive at them? If we're going to arrive at unprovable truths, we have no choice but to use imperfect means to arrive at tentative conclusions, which is how I arrive at self-ownership and the NAP. It's pretty much how you arrive at Biblical belief too...just with a different balance of self-consciousness and self-certainty.

I believe (or very strongly suspect) that it is the case there are "universal" or "objective" moral standards. But for "Gödelian" reasons, I do not think that any moral system can ever be both "complete" and "consistent" - which is to say that there are moral truths that can never be proven, but that are nonetheless still true. But while we cannot "prove" them, we can at least "approach" them by "successive approximation," so speak - for example, by the application of inductive principles (such as Occam's Razor) and the like.

This indicates that there is more than one way to effectively and usefully seek or access moral truths, without having to be bound to any one person's or group's dictum of "do it this way." This is why I reject assertions to the effect that one cannot claim any basis for objective morality unless one believes in some particular god, prophet or holy book. (By the same token, I also reject "atheistic" claims that religion is somehow not valid as means of accessing or expressing moral truths.) It is also why I have never been terribly impressed with alleged "gotchas" like the so-called "is-ought gap" (which seems to be one of the favorite weapons of those stuck in an impoverished arch-deductionism which insists that a thing can be neither meaningful nor true unless it can be "proven").

The NAP is pretty excellent at defining interpersonal boundaries between strangers in a world where other moral [secular] standards fail to establish strict boundaries at all (permitting, in the end, gross abuse and arbitrary inconsistencies). It's consistent, but it's not complete: It omits all guidance regarding how a person ought to act on behalf of others, and it also omits all guidance regarding issues like verbal abuse, manipulation, etc. Unfortunately, if you try to patch these holes up by demanding positive action to the point of allowing coercion to enforce those demands, it destroys the consistency of the moral system in an effort to attain completeness (this is once again reminding me of Gödel). Practically speaking, this is another reason why I defer to the Golden Rule on issues where the NAP is silent. It's not going to keep other people from committing terrible sins of omission, but it's going to help you pick up the slack. As far as I can see, it's the best we can do without legitimizing the kind of thought that leads [consistently] to the leviathan state.

Here you have touched upon just the sort of thing I meant when I referred to "'monistic' Rothbardianism" in one of my earlier posts. There are some who seem to think that the NAP is or can be the sole source & arbiter of what people "ought" (or not) to do - and that it is to be employed primarily in a preemptive or ante hoc fashion. I believe that this is a mistake (for reasons I have elaborated upon elsewhere, so I will not go into them here). The NAP is critical and central (especially as a post hoc jurisprudential principle), but it is not all-encompassing, nor is it uniquely or solely dispositive.

 

[Dogsoldier]

I believe in karma to my very core. It is because of this that I can say with confidence that whether abortion is illegal or not doesn't matter. A woman who has an abortion WILL SUFFER FOR IT THE REST OF HER LIFE. We don't even need the state to punish her. She will pay for it the rest of her life anyway in ways that we could not understand.

Every action as an equal and opposite reaction.

Its not a wedge issue for me.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If you replace "abortion' with "infanticide" would you still hold the same viewpoint, dogsoldier?

 

[MRK]

Why do people keep negrepping FF? It looks like he's lost 3 bars in the last 3 days alone, as if he's getting neg-rep DDoS'd all of a sudden. I always thought neg rep was for trolls/spammers/low-quality or misleading arguments or some literal shenanigans. Why use it when you just disagree with an opinion? If I neg repped everyone on this forum who I disagreed with I wouldn't have any hours left in the day to sleep. I suppose there's different ways to use the system.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why do people keep negrepping FF? It looks like he's lost 3 bars in the last 3 days alone, as if he's getting neg-rep DDoS'd all of a sudden. I always thought neg rep was for trolls/spammers/low-quality or misleading arguments or some literal shenanigans. Why use it when you just disagree with an opinion? If I neg repped everyone on this forum who I disagreed with I wouldn't have any hours left in the day to sleep. I suppose there's different ways to use the system.

I have at least 10 +reps for every neg rep. I suspect I know why I lost them but I'll let Bryan clarify.

 

[Mini-Me]

Occam's Banana: Your argument that existence is the Ur-context beyond which all questions lose meaning is just sublime. I want to argue against it in favor of the possibility that greater cosmological questions could have meaning and [unprovable] answers, but you've persuasively demonstrated the absurdity of appealing to meaning within a "greater" context. When I ask, "Why does anything exist at all?" I want to argue that this question could have meaning transcending existence, but this would contradict the meaning of existence being the Ur-context altogether. I'd just be punting, because I'd end up asking the same question about any "outer" existence containing the inner existence it's supposed to "transcend." Like you say, the question loses all meaning. That's pretty infuriating actually...great job.

 

[Cabal]

The NAP is pretty excellent at defining interpersonal boundaries between strangers in a world where other moral [secular] standards fail to establish strict boundaries at all (permitting, in the end, gross abuse and arbitrary inconsistencies). It's consistent, but it's not complete: It omits all guidance regarding how a person ought to act on behalf of others, and it also omits all guidance regarding issues like verbal abuse, manipulation, etc. Unfortunately, if you try to patch these holes up by demanding positive action to the point of allowing coercion to enforce those demands, it destroys the consistency of the moral system in an effort to attain completeness (this is once again reminding me of Gödel). Practically speaking, this is another reason why I defer to the Golden Rule on issues where the NAP is silent. It's not going to keep other people from committing terrible sins of omission, but it's going to help you pick up the slack. As far as I can see, it's the best we can do without legitimizing the kind of thought that leads [consistently] to the leviathan state.

Here you have touched upon just the sort of thing I meant when I referred to "'monistic' Rothbardianism" in one of my earlier posts. There are some who seem to think that the NAP is or can be the sole source & arbiter of what people "ought" (or not) to do - and that it is to be employed primarily in a preemptive or ante hoc fashion. I believe that this is a mistake (for reasons I have elaborated upon elsewhere, so I will not go into them here). The NAP is critical and central (especially as a post hoc jurisprudential principle), but it is not all-encompassing, nor is it uniquely or solely dispositive.

Just to touch on this, as I think it is an important observation in any discussion on morality regarding application of NAP. As was mentioned, many seem to believe the NAP alone is adequate in determining what someone ought, or ought not to do for all situations. But I think this is a misunderstanding of sorts. I don't think the NAP is meant to be such--it is not intended to be the sole determining consideration about what a person ought to do in all situations, but specifically what they ought not to do with consideration to property rights. The NAP is solely concerned with property rights (which is something of a given seeing as how NAP extends from self-ownership), and thus it is solely concerned with prescribing how people ought to respect each other's property, and thus not initiate aggression against another's property. And while I suspect this is probably understood by the quoted posters, I wouldn't necessarily agree that this makes NAP inadequate or incomplete, FWIW--rather, NAP is just fairly specific, by design, in what it means to address and deal with.

NAP doesn't necessarily comment on a lot of things. Discrimination, for instance is entirely permissible according to NAP alone. This is not to say that discrimination is moral, or good, or right; simply that NAP does not suggest that one should or should not discriminate. So, I guess what I'm trying to illustrate here is that I'm not sure it's fair to deem NAP inadequate or incomplete as a total theory of morality because I'm not so sure it's meant to be a total theory of morality to begin with. The fact that NAP is derived from other premises (self-ownership, for instance) should be somewhat indicative of this--NAP is not a starting point, but rather a conclusion reached regarding property and property rights.

There are other factors that usually accompany NAP too--equitable defensive violence, third-party defensive violence, responsibility for the effects of actions, the role that consent plays and its independence from time, etc. These things are not specifically or explicitly understood or stated by NAP alone, but tend to be attached to it nevertheless. In any case, I suppose the point I'm attempting to make here is that I wouldn't necessarily consider the NAP's lack of commentary on a particular situation or subject that does not revolve around the issue of property rights as a shortcoming of NAP.

 

[Dogsoldier]

"If you replace "abortion' with "infanticide" would you still hold the same viewpoint, dogsoldier?"

Its murder plain and simple. The people that participate in it will never get away with it. They will pay for it no matter what the government does or doesn't do.

That's how karma works.

If I could stop murders from happening I would. The way I fight it is by condemning it and non participation. I don't care which way you vote your never getting rid of abortion. because at least half the country are for it. What happens if they did make it illegal? Then we gotta round up all the murderers,doctors,mothers and throw them in jail. That's an awful lot of people to round up.

 

[gusbaker]

I am confused. Are you saying you are an anarchist that thinks both doctors and women should go to government jails if they participate in abortions? Please explain.

I'm not an anarchist, but that sounds like a good idea to me, but like most things, cut the weed at the root, pretty sure if you started arresting doctors the issue would (mostly) go away.

 

[Acala]

Abortion is a problem. But it is a problem that government cannot solve.

Millions of reasonable, honest, peaceful Americans think abortion is murder.

Millions of reasonable, honest, peaceful Americans think abortion is a right.

Please tell me how government can resolve this? It cannot.

Don't bother claiming that abortion is like murder. It isn't. While it might be the same in YOUR philosophy (and maybe mine also), the fact that millions of people disagree makes it unlike murder as currently defined. Nearly everyone agrees that murder as currently defined is wrong. Even most murderers know it is wrong. Because essentially everyone agrees that murder is wrong, government can prohibit it. People don't consider murder to be wrong because government prohibits it. Government prohibits it (and can only do so) because everyone agrees it is wrong. Not true with abortion so the analogy fails.

Not only can government not solve the problem of abortion, its every attempt makes the problem worse by further polarizing the factions.

Given that abortion is a problem, given that government cannot solve the problem, and given that every attempt to use government to solve the problem only makes the problems worse, what is to be done?

The problem of abortion can ONLY be solved by cultural change. Cultural change comes through education and persuasion. Cultural change takes a long time and a lot of work. This is why people so often try to take the short cut of government force and inevitably fail. Government never leads cultural change, it only follows it. The problem of abortion will be solved when the culture changes and not a moment before no matter what government does.

Government cannot solve the problem of abortion BUT politicians can and do use the issue to factionalize the population and divert attention from issues government can address. Don't help them do this. Whenever someone raises the issue of abortion in a political context, explain that it is a cultural issue that government cannot solve. This does not mean that you need to condone abortion or stop speaking against it, it merely means that you recognize that there is no POLITICAL solution to the problem and pretending otherwise makes it harder to address issues for which there IS a political solution.

 

[pcosmar]

Period.

Ok, and I understand your opposition to Abortion.

But KNOW this
Abortion will never be made illegal again. The issue will be used to "sell" other stuff and to elect people that will screw you.

If you truly oppose it,, then attack it from another direction.
Convince young people. give them advice, give them help,, and give them other choices.

I would love to see every abortion clinic close due to lack of business.

But politics will just use it to use you.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't think the NAP is meant to be such--it is not intended to be the sole determining consideration about what a person ought to do in all situations, but specifically what they ought not to do with consideration to property rights.
...it is solely concerned with prescribing how people ought to respect each other's property, and thus not initiate aggression against another's property.

Actually, it's not even that. The NAP just defines what actions are prosecutable. As Occam's Banana said, it is about post-, not pre-. The NAP defines: "OK, you just did this, can we respond in violence?"

The NAP is a punishment code, not a moral code. The NAP doesn't say what people ought to do. It doesn't say that people ought to respect each other's property. You may be able to come up with scenarios in which a person ought to not respect someone else's property. The NAP just says when people can be punished. The NAP says: "OK, that disrespect occurred -- forcibly stopping the suicider, or not letting go of the railing of the tenth floor balcony after the owner demanded you do so, or whatever -- and so now you are liable for what you did. You may be punished. Perhaps you did the right thing. But now you need to accept the punishment (which in both of the given examples would be minimal) should the victim be a jerk and so choose."

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I have very much enjoyed this thread for the brilliant essays by Mini-Me and also the insights from Occam's Banana. There's also been good thoughts by others. I just wanted to make that known. Thanks, Mini-Me!

 

[gusbaker]

Abortion is a problem. But it is a problem that government cannot solve.

Millions of reasonable, honest, peaceful Americans think abortion is murder.

Millions of reasonable, honest, peaceful Americans think abortion is a right.

Please tell me how government can resolve this? It cannot.

Don't bother claiming that abortion is like murder. It isn't. While it might be the same in YOUR philosophy (and maybe mine also), the fact that millions of people disagree makes it unlike murder as currently defined. Nearly everyone agrees that murder as currently defined is wrong. Even most murderers know it is wrong. Because essentially everyone agrees that murder is wrong, government can prohibit it. People don't consider murder to be wrong because government prohibits it. Government prohibits it (and can only do so) because everyone agrees it is wrong. Not true with abortion so the analogy fails.

Not only can government not solve the problem of abortion, its every attempt makes the problem worse by further polarizing the factions.

Given that abortion is a problem, given that government cannot solve the problem, and given that every attempt to use government to solve the problem only makes the problems worse, what is to be done?

The problem of abortion can ONLY be solved by cultural change. Cultural change comes through education and persuasion. Cultural change takes a long time and a lot of work. This is why people so often try to take the short cut of government force and inevitably fail. Government never leads cultural change, it only follows it. The problem of abortion will be solved when the culture changes and not a moment before no matter what government does.

Government cannot solve the problem of abortion BUT politicians can and do use the issue to factionalize the population and divert attention from issues government can address. Don't help them do this. Whenever someone raises the issue of abortion in a political context, explain that it is a cultural issue that government cannot solve. This does not mean that you need to condone abortion or stop speaking against it, it merely means that you recognize that there is no POLITICAL solution to the problem and pretending otherwise makes it harder to address issues for which there IS a political solution.

While I agree politicians just use this with no real plan or itention of acutally doing something about it I think you are wrong, considering how many murders there are in the world everyday I would say your statement that "everyone agrees" murder is wrong is simply not true. I don't think govt can fully solve rape, theft, or murder, but I also think it's dangerous to say we shouldn't legally forbid it. Yes, it will still happen, but I guarantee you it will decrease significantly. History has shown time and again you can convince people that any atrocity is OK.

I will also agree with you, we do need to change people's minds. I think motherhood insticts are one of the most powerful emotions most women have but instead of focusing on that people just kept on the with the "hellfire and brimstone" which turned people off and gave the left the narrative of the "evil, oppressive, white male Christian" against the "poor helpless woman". Most people who support abortion don't even know what it is, they are completely unaware of the physical and emotional problems women have afterward, they just have it in their head that they are "fighting for rights".

 

[Cabal]

Actually, it's not even that. The NAP just defines what actions are prosecutable. As Occam's Banana said, it is about post-, not pre-. The NAP defines: "OK, you just did this, can we respond in violence?"

The NAP is a punishment code, not a moral code. The NAP doesn't say what people ought to do. It doesn't say that people ought to respect each other's property. You may be able to come up with scenarios in which a person ought to not respect someone else's property. The NAP just says when people can be punished. The NAP says: "OK, that disrespect occurred -- forcibly stopping the suicider, or not letting go of the railing of the tenth floor balcony after the owner demanded you do so, or whatever -- and so now you are liable for what you did. You may be punished. Perhaps you did the right thing. But now you need to accept the punishment (which in both of the given examples would be minimal) should the victim be a jerk and so choose."

Yeah, I don't think I agree with this, and I'm not sure what makes you think this is the case.

NAP is about right and wrong within the context of applications of violence and property rights. Right: equitable defensive violence; wrong: initiation of violence or coercion (aggression). This, by definition, makes it an principle of morality concerning property rights and the just application of violence. NAP simply says: you are not justified in initiating violence or coercion; it is immoral to initiate violence or coercion. Moreover, NAP is certainly concerned with respect for property seeing as how it is a principle derived from property rights theory.

I'm not even sure that NAP necessarily comments on punishment, beyond perhaps what punishments ought not be applied, either. Defense in the moment to stop initiated violence? Sure. But punishment after the fact? I'm not so sure. NAP is used to judge the morality or immorality of applied violence against persons/property, so it can tell you who is at fault. So, I'm really not sure why you'd think it's a 'punishment code'.

 

[JK/SEA]

organized religions aren't doing enough to at least slow down the MIC and wars...

there, how's that for a wedge issue....

 

[Christian Liberty]

Actually, it's not even that. The NAP just defines what actions are prosecutable. As Occam's Banana said, it is about post-, not pre-. The NAP defines: "OK, you just did this, can we respond in violence?"

The NAP is a punishment code, not a moral code. The NAP doesn't say what people ought to do. It doesn't say that people ought to respect each other's property. You may be able to come up with scenarios in which a person ought to not respect someone else's property. The NAP just says when people can be punished. The NAP says: "OK, that disrespect occurred -- forcibly stopping the suicider, or not letting go of the railing of the tenth floor balcony after the owner demanded you do so, or whatever -- and so now you are liable for what you did. You may be punished. Perhaps you did the right thing. But now you need to accept the punishment (which in both of the given examples would be minimal) should the victim be a jerk and so choose."

OK, so does the NAP tell us that refusing to accept the punishment is immoral?

I have very much enjoyed this thread for the brilliant essays by Mini-Me and also the insights from Occam's Banana. There's also been good thoughts by others. I just wanted to make that known. Thanks, Mini-Me!

I thought his post was really good too, I am going to get to responding to it eventually since I still think he's wrong, but its going to take me a long time