(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate

[KAYA]

.....ok you believe in bodily ownership so you can't call yourself pro-life. Or you don't believe in bodily ownership, which you've already said you are pro-life so you don't. If women own their own bodies, why shouldn't they be able to abort? I understand a fetus is a living human being, I don't understand how libertarians can say they believe in bodily ownership and be pro-life. It's inconsistent. "I believe a woman owns her body, unless there's a fetus inside..." *door opens for exceptions*

This reasoning is ridiculously flawed. To be pro-life one cannot believe in bodily ownership? This is inconsistent? Are you kidding? What about the body of the unborn?

This unborn life is its own sovereign being and has a right to life endowed by its creator (unless of course you believe rights come from government). That's the whole point of abortion, to exterminate another body, another life. Its an abortion not an amputation.

 

[ChaosControl]

Re: Abortion.

You have bodily ownership and can do with it what you want UNLESS you are harming another person's freedom when you do something with it. You aborting is violating someone's right to life, which is of higher priority than your comfort or convenience.

 

[eOs]

re: abortion.
You've signed the proverbial contract when you had sex and conceived a human inside your own body. Your body now houses another life, how can someone think it's OK to murder him/her just because of where he/she lives?

 

[KAYA]

You can't murder another human being. I can't believe you're comparing a fetus inside a woman to a roommate. Not even comparable.

How can they be equal? The woman is denied her right to liberty and to pursue happiness/own her body as long as the fetus is inside? How are the woman's rights not violated if she is FORCED to remain pregnant?

You are subject to the consequences of your own actions!

What about parents who already have children? What if they want to take all of their hard earned money and spend it on their own pleasures and pursuits? Should they be FORCED to feed, cloth and spend time taking care of these children if its gets in the way of their own selfish pursuits? Don't they "own" their own bodies and fruits of their labor?

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Re: Abortion.

You have bodily ownership and can do with it what you want UNLESS you are harming another person's freedom when you do something with it. You aborting is violating someone's right to life, which is of higher priority than your comfort or convenience.

What about the fact that if the woman does not want the baby in her body, the baby is violating her property rights. If you believe in property rights, women need to be allowed to decide who they want to have/keep in their body. And if you're a libertarian and don't believe in positive obligations, abortion has to be allowed. I don't like abortion either, but I don't think forcing women to keep the baby is the right answer.

 

[FrankRep]

What about the fact that if the woman does not want the baby in her body, the baby is violating her property rights. If you believe in property rights, women need to be allowed to decide who they want to have/keep in their body. And if you're a libertarian and don't believe in positive obligations, abortion has to be allowed. I don't like abortion either, but I don't think forcing women to keep the baby is the right answer.

Abortion uses aggressive force and violates the rights of the baby.

 

[EN81]

What about the fact that if the woman does not want the baby in her body, the baby is violating her property rights. If you believe in property rights, women need to be allowed to decide who they want to have/keep in their body. And if you're a libertarian and don't believe in positive obligations, abortion has to be allowed. I don't like abortion either, but I don't think forcing women to keep the baby is the right answer.

That argument would hold up if the baby had invaded the woman's body, without invitation. That's never the case, however. When a woman engages in the act of procreation, she must realize that procreation might take place. Having an abortion is a cheap way of trying to evade personal responsibility for her own actions.

 

[malkusm]

That argument would hold up if the baby had invaded the woman's body, without invitation. That's never the case, however. When a woman engages in the act of procreation, she must realize that procreation might take place. Having an abortion is a cheap way of trying to evade personal responsibility for her own decisions.

So in other words, you would be ok with abortion in the case of rape?

 

[ChaosControl]

What about the fact that if the woman does not want the baby in her body, the baby is violating her property rights. If you believe in property rights, women need to be allowed to decide who they want to have/keep in their body. And if you're a libertarian and don't believe in positive obligations, abortion has to be allowed. I don't like abortion either, but I don't think forcing women to keep the baby is the right answer.

It isn't a positive obligation. It is a "Do no harm" obligation.

Life > Property.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Abortion uses aggressive force and violates the rights of the baby.

If there's someone on property that I don't want and who won't leave, force is entirely justified to enforce my property rights. It just comes down to whether you believe 100%ly in property rights or not.

 

[eOs]

So in other words, you would be ok with abortion in the case of rape?

In cases of rape, I would be OK with a woman having an abortion.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

It isn't a positive obligation. It is a "Do no harm" obligation.

Life > Property.

[/QUOTE]

So if I'm starving, it is justified for me to steal your stuff and I should not get punished for that? So if a population is in a food-shortage, it is also justified for the government to confiscate the food and try to issue it in the way they think most people will get it? Sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you on that issue.

If there's someone on my property, I can kick him off. If you think that I have the obligation to keep that person on my property so it can stay alive, that is a positive obligation.

 

[MRoCkEd]

How does the property rights argument apply to a born baby?

You don't want it in your house, so can you kill it, or just physically remove it (leave it outside)?

 

[RM918]

So in other words, you would be ok with abortion in the case of rape?

Abortion involving cases of rape, incest, or genetic defects are only 1% of abortions performed.

If there's someone on property that I don't want and who won't leave, force is entirely justified to enforce my property rights. It just comes down to whether you believe 100%ly in property rights or not.

What if that person is on your property because you forcibly brought them there and then you caused a condition in which if they left your property, they'd die?

This isn't, "You either believe in property rights or you don't," this is an extraordinary situation and immediate danger to life has a higher priority than property.

 

[EN81]

So in other words, you would be ok with abortion in the case of rape?

I think the woman should have a choice if the pregnancy is forced upon her, against her will, yes. If she decides to have an abortion in such a case, the rapist bears full moral responsibility for the loss of life.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

What if that person is on your property because you forcibly brought them there and then you caused a condition in which if they left your property, they'd die?

If you believe life starts at conception, then the child was not "forcibly brought" there, but its existence began there.

 

[ChaosControl]

So if I'm starving, it is justified for me to steal your stuff and I should not get punished for that? So if a population is in a food-shortage, it is also justified for the government to confiscate the food and try to issue it in the way they think most people will get it? Sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you on that issue.

If I am starving, you can be certain I would steal if I had to. And I should not be put to death for that.

The situation isn't that you actively have to be a decent person and try and help someone, the situation is just that you don't be an evil person and try and kill someone who is just trying to live.

But the baby didn't even do anything wrong.

 

[RM918]

If you believe life starts at conception, then the child was not "forcibly brought" there, but its existence began there.

The child was. If there wasn't any unmitigated copulation, in which the owner had to agree to to occur, that child wouldn't be there. The child had no choice in the matter. The property owner is responsible for that child's condition. The child wasn't hiding in the bushes and jumped in her womb unawares, then forced the mother to carry it around for 9 months like a parasite. It was an active decision on her part to allow the circumstances to be as they are.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

If I am starving, you can be certain I would steal if I had to. And I should not be put to death for that.

Of course you would steal, but that doesn't mean that you were acting ethically correct and therefore you would be punished for that theft (not put to death of course, because killing someone for stealing food is not an appropriate "use of force" in general).

The situation isn't that you actively have to be a decent person and try and help someone, the situation is just that you don't be an evil person and try and kill someone who is just trying to live.

But if that person completely depends on you and only on positive behavior from your part can stay alive. It's the same as if you're in a relationship and you want to leave your partner, but the partner says "If you leave me, I'll suicide, I can't live with you!" - should you be forced to stay with her even if you know that doing so will result in her death? The libertarian answer would clearly be no.

But the baby didn't even do anything wrong.

Yes, and that's why I oppose abortion on a moral level. But a woman needs to have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body and who she allows to be in it.

 

[RM918]

Yes, and that's why I oppose abortion on a moral level. But a woman needs to have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body and who she allows to be in it.

She does, the only difference is that instead of making that choice at the right time - by having intercourse responsibly - she decided she'd rather wait until her decision resulted in someone's life being lost.