One "wedge issue" I will not compromise on

[Christian Liberty]

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

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

I agree, most churches are pathetic, and its something that bugs the living daylights out of me. I think it bugs SF too although he hasn't given me a straight answer to all of my questions about the issue.

But, that doesn't say anything about Christianity.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[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

I just added more arguments actually...ugh...whenever I remember something I left out, it just nags at me forever until it's fixed.

 

[Cabal]

There are a number of different groupings to the abortion issue. The one I have the most difficulty with is the group that argues abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape or incest. It infers that some abortion is tolerable - so it's not a pro-life position. It doesn't establish a point of human development at which the human organism is imbued with human rights and protections. It seems, to me at least, to be most interested in the conditions under which a sexual encounter occurred - as if it's appealing to the state to enforce an unsigned social contract, "Your punishment for conceiving a child from a consensual sexual encounter is to be forced to carry the fetus to term and raise it."

And the special treatment of incest is also something I don't follow. Incest in the case of rape is at least logically consistent with the "rape exception" (that would be covered under "rape" itself)- but why should consensual incest be a special class of sex that gets a bye on the abortion issue? The rationale seems to be that it's a special class of icky, socially-unacceptable sex and the whole idea of inbreeding.

So the position seems to be that abortion should be illegal except in cases of icky, socially-unacceptable sex. It kind of makes me wonder if a case could be made for pregnancies resulting from adulterous relationships (because it seems to fall into the same class of sex).

Unfortunately, consistency is irrelevant to many, it seems.

 

[Deborah K]

Are you a Rothbardian monocentric natural law anarchist? As opposed to a polycentric law anarchist, that is.

I am confuse.

 

[Acala]

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".

Let me remind you: we TRIED making abortion illegal. If that had solved the problem we WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM NOW! And we tried making it a right. If that had solved the problem, we WOULDN"T HAVE A PROBLEM NOW!

Making it illegal again will simply further galvanize the opposition. If you think a law is going to solve this problem, or do anything but make it worse, you have serious illusions about the nature of government and its power.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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'.

Obviously morality and concepts of right and wrong play into any theory addressing what humans should and should not do. And the NAP certainly does make claims as to what humans should and should not do. Let us say, then, that it is a subset of morality, dealing with a very limited sphere (think of a Ven diagram with a little circle -- libertarianism -- inside a much bigger circle -- morality). But it is not a general moral code. It deals only with the question: when is it OK to use force and violence to punish people? Libertarianism, as Walter Block says, is fundamentally a punishment theory. Whether the action was right or wrong in light of other considerations outside the scope of libertarianism does not play into it. If it was an aggression according to the rules of libertarianism, then it is punishable. That aggression may have been "right" in the judgment of the aggressor (and perhaps in the judgment of many). But that doesn't really matter.

 

[gusbaker]

There are a number of different groupings to the abortion issue. The one I have the most difficulty with is the group that argues abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape or incest. It infers that some abortion is tolerable - so it's not a pro-life position. It doesn't establish a point of human development at which the human organism is imbued with human rights and protections. It seems, to me at least, to be most interested in the conditions under which a sexual encounter occurred - as if it's appealing to the state to enforce an unsigned social contract, "Your punishment for conceiving a child from a consensual sexual encounter is to be forced to carry the fetus to term and raise it."

And the special treatment of incest is also something I don't follow. Incest in the case of rape is at least logically consistent with the "rape exception" (that would be covered under "rape" itself)- but why should consensual incest be a special class of sex that gets a bye on the abortion issue? The rationale seems to be that it's a special class of icky, socially-unacceptable sex and the whole idea of inbreeding.

So the position seems to be that abortion should be illegal except in cases of icky, socially-unacceptable sex. It kind of makes me wonder if a case could be made for pregnancies resulting from adulterous relationships (because it seems to fall into the same class of sex).

That's a good point.

 

[Cabal]

Let us say, then, that it is a subset of morality, dealing with a very limited sphere

That's basically the point I was making in my first post, except I'd say it specifically deals with property rights, not punishment.

Block is kind of hit or miss (especially when it comes to morality, he's better at argument from effect), so he may not be the best to defer to on subjects of morality.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[pcosmar]

Let me remind you: we TRIED making abortion illegal. If that had solved the problem we WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM NOW! And we tried making it a right. If that had solved the problem, we WOULDN"T HAVE A PROBLEM NOW!

Making it illegal again will simply further galvanize the opposition. If you think a law is going to solve this problem, or do anything but make it worse, you have serious illusions about the nature of government and its power.

I did some research into that a while back.
It may have been "illegal" but I could not find any prosecutions for it. Only one,, where a doctor was charged,, and that for a botched surgery (malpractice).

It just was not done,, except in rare cases. It was morally repugnant,, more than it was illegal. And no respectable Doctor would consider it,, no respectable woman would ask for it.

It was relegated to witches in the swamp and butchers in back rooms,, because is was not socially acceptable.

Until it was pushed by the Eugenics movement. (the same movement that inspired Adolf Hitler)

Since it was made "legal",, it has become socially acceptable.
You are not going to reverse that with laws.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Mini-Me]

In a contractual sense, the individual the FEMALE made the compact with was not the blastocyst, the fertilized egg or even the sperm, but rather the MALE sexual partner. If both the MALE and the FEMALE had agreed that the FEMALE would become pregnant and carry the resulting unborn human organism to term, then the contractual basis of the argument could be considered to be valid. In general, that's not the case in the circumstances of most abortions. An abortion requires the consent of at least the female party that made the decision to engage in sex (and in general, both parties are in agreement).

Block's evictionism argument is at best a simplistic and emotional metaphor. It falls apart in the sense that the associate the invited MALE brought to the FEMALE's home is not simply refusing to leave the house - but has tapped into the home owner's blood supply, is extracting nutrition from her body and is dumping wastes into it. I've heard that the progressive's are working on a biological evolution that acts in a similar fashion and will allow welfare recipients to tap into the productive members of society and feed on them and dump wastes into them in the same fashion (another simplistic metaphor that really only partially applies, but conveys an emotional rather than logical message).

There can be no contract between the FEMALE and the unborn human organism within her; that organism is simply incapable of making such a contract. It wasn't invited to implant itself in the FEMALE's womb, it simply did so without consideration to consent (there was no negotiation between the Blastocyst and the FEMALE). There might be a case to be made that the FEMALE's acquiescence to the fetus being implanted in her womb for a given period of time constitutes consent to it being there - but it's the same type of logic used by squatters attempting to seize the property of someone else.

Without a consensual agreement, I fail to see where the FEMALE is under any obligation to continue feeding the unborn human organism (UHO - an acronym that saves me typing) or accepting waste products from the UHO. Given that, what method of separating the two would be acceptable? Would simply severing the umbilical cord and leaving the UHO intact be sufficient (or would that be an act of aggression - seeing how umbilical cells are of the UHO's DNA)? Could we sever the placenta at the decidual layer (where some of the cells are maternal cells and others are those of the UHO). Or do we have to resort to surgically severing cells which only belong to the FEMALE? In any event, you eventually get to some act of separation that is not an act of aggression to the UHO (but which poses greater and greater risks to the FEMALE).

I can't make a case that the FEMALE can be construed to be under any obligation to go through the birth process to expel the detached UHO (birth being a riskier endeavor for her than abortion - and her medical choices are hers to make in any event). The scenario becomes one of a UHO detached from its nutrition source but still in the womb, and dumping its wastes into that womb (and isn't that an act of aggression by the "innocent" UHO against the FEMALE). Does the FEMALE have to wait for infection and sepsis to begin before defensive action can be taken against the source of the infection?

Basically, we're not talking about an associate of an invited guest who's refusing to leave your home. It's much more complicated than that - the metaphor fails.

I tend to agree with Wendy McElroy's reasoning on abortion (here and here). It's emotionally troubling, particularly in the case of later term abortions; but appeals to emotion should not over-shadow self proprietorship. Ultimately what a typical pregnancy is about is an autonomous individual continuously consenting to host a non-autonomous individual until it becomes autonomous - no contract involved. Once autonomy of the UHO is achieved, responsibility for the now-born (but still dependent) human organism can be transferred to others if need be. But until that point, biological reality leaves the FEMALE host as the only option - and its the choice of that FEMALE Host as to whether she wants to consent to the next microsecond of hosting the non-autonomous UHO.

Thought experiment:
A home invader breaks into your home in the middle of the night and drops an enormous oversized baby into your living room without your consent, then leaves. Do you:

• a.) remove the baby from your home as gently as possible, inflicting a minimum of harm? Note this very large baby is much wider than the doorway to your home, so it may cause some damage. (If the baby's inability/refusal to move itself becomes an issue, try replacing "baby" with "fat old man who had his limbs chopped off by the home invader who dropped him off." He's helpless, you can't lift him, and he can't fit through your doorway. Getting rid of him intact is going to be a real pain in the ass, but he's still alive, and it wasn't his choice to break into your home; the actual home invader just left him there. Are you justified in killing him and cutting him into pieces to get rid of him? Why or why not?)
• b.) kill the baby first, cut it into pieces, throw the pieces into a blender, and dump the contents into the window air conditioning unit to spray out of your house in the form of red mist? This ensures no damage to you or your home.

In other words, the problems of rape and lack of contractual obligation to the unborn baby are both red herrings with respect to abortion. They're irrelevant. If we get to the point where we agree it's a baby (a person with rights), it still has a right to life (right not to be killed, i.e. self-ownership) even if it doesn't have a right to be where it is right now. As a result, abortion simply becomes unconscionable at that point, at least aside from the scenario of the mother's life being in danger (medical triage scenario).

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Mini-Me]

BTW: You do recognize the quoted passage above as a false dilemma fallacy, correct?

You're misunderstanding the point of the analogy here when you view it in any context other than the arena of rights. Whether my particular scenario is a false dilemma or not is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is that - if you concede for the sake of argument that an unborn baby is a living person - we can disentangle the situation from the "but it's just a fetus argument" by comparing it to some other hypothetical scenario (no matter how unrealistic) in which your options are presumed to be limited to the following:

• Suffer the temporary inconvenience of an innocent person who is accidentally encroaching upon your body and property in a way they cannot control and which requires no active participation from you.*
• Get them out of your house/body/whatever and stop the encroachment in the way that does the least bodily violence to them
• Take the easy way out and violently murder them outright by chopping them into pieces, burning them to death, jamming scissors into the back of their head, etc. (i.e. actual abortion methods)

The particulars of the analogy fail to actually limit your options accordingly, but you're supposed to pretend as though they do for the sake of examining the moral dilemma of abortion in a context with less baggage. Otherwise we'd be sitting here all day trying to come up with a more "water-tight" analogy which turns out to be no more useful for examining the core issue.

Obviously the circumstances of my scenario are contrived and unrealistic as well. For instance, "How could he have gotten there if it's so hard to get him out?" Maybe he grew bloated and swollen from being beaten to a pulp in your living room, and the swelling isn't going to go down by itself, and there's a magical force field that keeps doctors out. Also, his very presence within the house creates another magical force field that drains 50% of your energy, whether you're inside the house or not. You feel drained, sluggish, and heavy with the old man in your living room, because...magic. Does it really matter?

*Key point: You seem to be under the impression that carrying an unwanted baby means the baby is somehow forcing you to actively provide an ongoing service, but that's a mischaracterization. This is an important moral distinction preserved by the analogy: The baby and/or old man do not demand active participation on your part, and they do not demand you perform any action. Their encroachment (when unwanted) constitutes a violation of your rights of course, but your suffering is purely passive and occurs by default in the absence of any further action on your part. Even if your bodily subsystems are performing an involuntary service, it doesn't count as demanding active participation, because your bodily subsystems are not dependent upon human action/choice. (If they were, you could simply direct them to stop participating at any time.) For that reason, speaking in terms of "obligations" is confusing moral concepts. From a libertarian standpoint, your only obligation is the same as always in any scenario: Do not initiate aggression, and do not commit disproportionate aggression in the process of defending against someone else's aggression. Outside those prohibitions, no one else has the right to stop you from acting in your best interests...as always.

The purpose of the analogy above is solely to consider another scenario that shares these characteristics with someone carrying an unwanted child:

• The passive encroachment on your rights may be physically draining or damaging, but it's temporary and non-life-threatening. (I concede that in the life-threatening scenario, abortion becomes a matter of medical triage. Further elaboration: The accidental aggressor's degree of encroachment is relevant to the kind of defensive actions you can take, but it's not relevant to the question of "Am I within my rights to violently kill them?" unless their encroachment is permanently debilitating or imminently life-threatening. Within the context of that question, it doesn't matter whether someone is just temporarily chained down to your living room floor, or if a baby is temporarily stuck inside you and taking nutrients from an umbilical cord: Either way, violently killing the source of your discomfort is disproportionate aggression, i.e. not self-defense.)
• All of your options suck, so there's no "painless" way of ending your discomfort short of murder...
• ...but there technically IS another option, if you just can't bear to suffer the passive encroachment: Evict the source of your discomfort without causing unnecessary bodily harm.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

That's basically the point I was making in my first post, except I'd say it specifically deals with property rights, not punishment.

It does deal specifically with property rights, however I narrow its scope even further. It deals with punishment in regards to property rights. It doesn't need to take a position on whether a given violation of property rights is "right" or "wrong". It simply says that it's "punishable."

Here is a simple explanation, from Block since I mentioned him. 24:12 - 28:30: