So how much longer until after-birth abortions are legal?

[Murray N Rothbard]

Walter Block made the evictionism argument recently at the RP rally in Tampa.

Overall it is not a new idea to circles of hardcore Libertarians. If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will. Although it seems right that the act of consensual sex should mean an agreement to carry fetus to term, this is ultimately just a promise, and irrelevant to the matter of enforceable contracts. First, the fetus is not a contracting agent- it did not even exist at the time of this "contract" being entered into, so it is far from being a voluntary and conscious action on its part. Second, even if such a contract were created, it would be invalid because the mother's will and right of self-ownership is inalienable, ie she can't enslave herself. She can try, pretend that she is selling herself into slavery, and a slave-like situation can happen, but the fact that she always has an inherent right to break off the deal always remains. These contracts are not enforceable because their enforceablility depends upon the very same rights that they serve to violate. That is the nature of a contract, its power comes from the voluntarily exercised free will of the two contracting agents. Thus any "contract" that destroys the foundation from which its validity is derived is necessarily null and void and impossible. It's like dividing by zero.

 

[DamianTV]

...

If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will.

...

+Rep

Wins Thread!

 

[idiom]

Has an an-cap really made that argument? Whom?

Its the essence of Walter Blocks argument. He claims a moral requirement on trying to re-home the child. However if you can't re-home the child the child still can't steal from your property.

I don't think his moral requirements argument follows from Rothbards axioms very well at all though.

The NAP has no positive moral requirements as formulated by Rothbard. Its one of its features, but it also leads to odd conclusions.

These are generally address by asserting a vauge moral culture which An-capism is supposed to be nested inside, but it is not actually defined.

 

[dbill27]

Walter Block made the evictionism argument recently at the RP rally in Tampa.

Overall it is not a new idea to circles of hardcore Libertarians. If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will. Although it seems right that the act of consensual sex should mean an agreement to carry fetus to term, this is ultimately just a promise, and irrelevant to the matter of enforceable contracts. First, the fetus is not a contracting agent- it did not even exist at the time of this "contract" being entered into, so it is far from being a voluntary and conscious action on its part. Second, even if such a contract were created, it would be invalid because the mother's will and right of self-ownership is inalienable, ie she can't enslave herself. She can try, pretend that she is selling herself into slavery, and a slave-like situation can happen, but the fact that she always has an inherent right to break off the deal always remains. These contracts are not enforceable because their enforceablility depends upon the very same rights that they serve to violate. That is the nature of a contract, its power comes from the voluntarily exercised free will of the two contracting agents. Thus any "contract" that destroys the foundation from which its validity is derived is necessarily null and void and impossible. It's like dividing by zero.

This argument seems to give no denial that the fetus inside a mother is a human being. Does this mean that violating anyones property or rights in any way warrants the victim to use lethal self defense against the violator?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

This argument seems to give no denial that the fetus inside a mother is a human being. Does this mean that violating anyones property or rights in any way warrants the victim to use lethal self defense against the violator?

The position is actually predicated on the life in the womb being a human being; the idea is that, since no human being has the right to have another person care for it, logically the fetus also possesses no such right.

Block's ideas are an expansion of Rothbard's thoughts, an attempt to fuse Rothbard's ideas with the future advancements of technology and come up with a practical outcome.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

..

 

[Raudsarw]

Walter Block made the evictionism argument recently at the RP rally in Tampa.

Overall it is not a new idea to circles of hardcore Libertarians. If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will. Although it seems right that the act of consensual sex should mean an agreement to carry fetus to term, this is ultimately just a promise, and irrelevant to the matter of enforceable contracts. First, the fetus is not a contracting agent- it did not even exist at the time of this "contract" being entered into, so it is far from being a voluntary and conscious action on its part. Second, even if such a contract were created, it would be invalid because the mother's will and right of self-ownership is inalienable, ie she can't enslave herself. She can try, pretend that she is selling herself into slavery, and a slave-like situation can happen, but the fact that she always has an inherent right to break off the deal always remains. These contracts are not enforceable because their enforceablility depends upon the very same rights that they serve to violate. That is the nature of a contract, its power comes from the voluntarily exercised free will of the two contracting agents. Thus any "contract" that destroys the foundation from which its validity is derived is necessarily null and void and impossible. It's like dividing by zero.

Brilliantly put.

 

[AlexAmore]

Walter Block made the evictionism argument recently at the RP rally in Tampa.

Overall it is not a new idea to circles of hardcore Libertarians. If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will. Although it seems right that the act of consensual sex should mean an agreement to carry fetus to term, this is ultimately just a promise, and irrelevant to the matter of enforceable contracts. First, the fetus is not a contracting agent- it did not even exist at the time of this "contract" being entered into, so it is far from being a voluntary and conscious action on its part. Second, even if such a contract were created, it would be invalid because the mother's will and right of self-ownership is inalienable, ie she can't enslave herself. She can try, pretend that she is selling herself into slavery, and a slave-like situation can happen, but the fact that she always has an inherent right to break off the deal always remains. These contracts are not enforceable because their enforceablility depends upon the very same rights that they serve to violate. That is the nature of a contract, its power comes from the voluntarily exercised free will of the two contracting agents. Thus any "contract" that destroys the foundation from which its validity is derived is necessarily null and void and impossible. It's like dividing by zero.

I see what you're saying. The contract doesn't exist and so this exchange is outside the law. Now we must carefully navigate through the waters of lawlessness to come up with the right response. We can't just allow ourselves to go hog wild as soon as someone puts themselves outside the law. Whether it's voluntary or in this case involuntary and unconsciously from no action of it's own. We need parameters for OUR response....even though THEY are outside the law.

Interestingly enough Rothbard says

"Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum? What we might call the "maximalist" position goes as follows: by stealing the bubblegum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.

I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper's right to his bubblegum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man's – including the urchin's – right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another's property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one's own?

I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.[5] From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment – best summed up in the old adage: "let the punishment fit the crime.""

I also think you're setting the precedent that Mens Rea is of no use or at least a lower value. I think it's extremely important, and should be given the highest levels of respect and I think any libertarian would agree.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I see what you're saying. The contract doesn't exist and so this exchange is outside the law. Now we must carefully navigate through the waters of lawlessness to come up with the right response. We can't just allow ourselves to go hog wild as soon as someone puts themselves outside the law. Whether it's voluntary or in this case involuntary and unconsciously from no action of it's own. We need parameters for OUR response....even though THEY are outside the law.

Interestingly enough Rothbard says

"Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum? What we might call the "maximalist" position goes as follows: by stealing the bubblegum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.

I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper's right to his bubblegum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man's – including the urchin's – right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another's property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one's own?

I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.[5] From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment – best summed up in the old adage: "let the punishment fit the crime.""

I also think you're setting the precedent that Mens Rea is of no use or at least a lower value. I think it's extremely important, and should be given the highest levels of respect and I think any libertarian would agree.

Indeed, proportionality would likely negate using chemicals or instruments to kill the life in the womb, provided the life of the mother isn't in danger from the live presence of the fetus. Merely removing the fetus would be appropriate, however.

 

[Tankbot85]

I still don't get why people are so hung up about abortion.

We have much bigger problem facing us as a nation that we need to take care of.

Stop worrying about what others do in their private lives. It's none of your concerns.

Lets get our government back in shape the way it needs to be, then and only then can you take on your personal crusades like this.

 

[tod evans]

All of the arguments in this thread focus on mother and fetus...

What about the father?

 

[AlexAmore]

I still don't get why people are so hung up about abortion.

We have much bigger problem facing us as a nation that we need to take care of.

Stop worrying about what others do in their private lives. It's none of your concerns.

Lets get our government back in shape the way it needs to be, then and only then can you take on your personal crusades like this.

I think this has a wider range of implications. How much do people value life? Under what circumstances can a life be killed? Can someone deem another as less than human and under what circumstances (neural capacity, physical form, location...etc)?

"We're overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die." - Ron Paul

I don't think we're going to change the nation until we can change the nation's morals. We're a nation that doesn't value responsibility and accountability, the two tenets of libertarianism. The vast majority of abortions are because the mother is inconvenienced. So we're teaching our youth that this life has less value and is fine to kill because your lifestyle is more important. I think this is the mindset that got us into the messes we're dealing with.

 

[moostraks]

I think this has a wider range of implications. How much do people value life? Under what circumstances can a life be killed? Can someone deem another as less than human and under what circumstances (neural capacity, physical form, location...etc)?

"We're overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die." - Ron Paul

I don't think we're going to change the nation until we can change the nation's morals. We're a nation that doesn't value responsibility and accountability, the two tenets of libertarianism. The vast majority of abortions are because the mother is inconvenienced. So we're teaching our youth that this life has less value and is fine to kill because your lifestyle is more important. I think this is the mindset that got us into the messes we're dealing with.

You are absolutely right on this. Well said!

 

[staerker]

If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will.

The above argument agrees a fetus is a person, so:

A woman makes a voluntary action to put a human life inside her body, by becoming impregnated, without consent from the individual being involuntarily subjected to her body. She is justified in killing it?

Should a woman be allowed to put her born baby back inside her body, and then kill it?

In both situations, the woman puts a life inside her body, and claims it is impermissible.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

I think this has a wider range of implications. How much do people value life? Under what circumstances can a life be killed? Can someone deem another as less than human and under what circumstances (neural capacity, physical form, location...etc)?

"We're overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die." - Ron Paul

I don't think we're going to change the nation until we can change the nation's morals. We're a nation that doesn't value responsibility and accountability, the two tenets of libertarianism. The vast majority of abortions are because the mother is inconvenienced. So we're teaching our youth that this life has less value and is fine to kill because your lifestyle is more important. I think this is the mindset that got us into the messes we're dealing with.

+ Rep
Thread winner!

 

[James Madison]

So is a load of sperm then

Except sperm are genetic clones of the father (well, clones with half the genetic material of normal cells). So, they belong to the father. The law of self-ownership would dictate the father has the right to do with these cells as he pleases. And from a scientific perspective, sperm by themselves are a dead-end; they are incapable of sustaining long-term homeostasis and cannot reproduce. Their stasis as being 'alive' is questionable.

 

[tod evans]

In both situations, the woman puts a life inside her body,

Ya'll keep neglecting to address "The Father".....

It takes two to tango or in this instance create a fetus.

Without debating the moral implications of abortion how is it justified leaving the father out of any pre-birth decisions relevant to the fetus he contributed equally in creating?

It is well settled that after birth a father is responsible to care for his offspring but during gestation he gets no say in the matter.

I believe that by granting fathers equal responsibility for the fetus 90% or more of abortions wouldn't even be considered.

Everyone who engages in intercourse understands that pregnancy is a possibility, so granting sole decision making to the mother during gestation neglects the fathers rights to care for his progeny.

If a person doesn't want children sterilization is an option for either sex prior to intercourse so by not choosing to have themselves sterilized both parents are entering into their tryst knowing pregnancy is possible.

This of course leads to the social net provided by the taxpayers, welfare/food-stamps/free medical etc.... I'd vote to end every bit of it! If parents can't accept responsibility for their children then they'd have only two options, watch their kids starve or sign them over to somebody who could care for them.

By ending tax-payer funded breeding and granting fathers equal rights to all prenatal decisions I really don't think any of these abortion discussions would take place.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Ya'll keep neglecting to address "The Father".....

It takes two to tango or in this instance create a fetus.

Without debating the moral implications of abortion how is it justified leaving the father out of any pre-birth decisions relevant to the fetus he contributed equally in creating?

It is well settled that after birth a father is responsible to care for his offspring but during gestation he gets no say in the matter.

I believe that by granting fathers equal responsibility for the fetus 90% or more of abortions wouldn't even be considered.

Everyone who engages in intercourse understands that pregnancy is a possibility, so granting sole decision making to the mother during gestation neglects the fathers rights to care for his progeny.

If a person doesn't want children sterilization is an option for either sex prior to intercourse so by not choosing to have themselves sterilized both parents are entering into their tryst knowing pregnancy is possible.

This of course leads to the social net provided by the taxpayers, welfare/food-stamps/free medical etc.... I'd vote to end every bit of it! If parents can't accept responsibility for their children then they'd have only two options, watch their kids starve or sign them over to somebody who could care for them.

By ending tax-payer funded breeding and granting fathers equal rights to all prenatal decisions I really don't think any of these abortion discussions would take place.

Exceptionally good points and not often considered.

 

[AlexAmore]

Ya'll keep neglecting to address "The Father".....

It takes two to tango or in this instance create a fetus.

Without debating the moral implications of abortion how is it justified leaving the father out of any pre-birth decisions relevant to the fetus he contributed equally in creating?

It is well settled that after birth a father is responsible to care for his offspring but during gestation he gets no say in the matter.

I believe that by granting fathers equal responsibility for the fetus 90% or more of abortions wouldn't even be considered.

Everyone who engages in intercourse understands that pregnancy is a possibility, so granting sole decision making to the mother during gestation neglects the fathers rights to care for his progeny.

If a person doesn't want children sterilization is an option for either sex prior to intercourse so by not choosing to have themselves sterilized both parents are entering into their tryst knowing pregnancy is possible.

This of course leads to the social net provided by the taxpayers, welfare/food-stamps/free medical etc.... I'd vote to end every bit of it! If parents can't accept responsibility for their children then they'd have only two options, watch their kids starve or sign them over to somebody who could care for them.

By ending tax-payer funded breeding and granting fathers equal rights to all prenatal decisions I really don't think any of these abortion discussions would take place.

Great points. I have thought about father's side of things and think they should have a say, but I appreciate the more indepth thought process for it.

Yes if we simply brought about a free market, I'm positive abortion would be at an all time low. If we look at rich people they tend to wait and have one child, while poor people have higher rates of abortion or rush to churn out as many babies as possible. As a society we reward this behavior

 

[idiom]

It is well settled that after birth a father is responsible to care for his offspring but during gestation he gets no say in the matter.

An-caps would disagree with you on the well settled bit. Why should anyone have any rights over anyone else?