(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate

[LibertarianfromGermany]

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.

You can't use force on someone that doesn't exist. The child's existence began after the point of time where you assert forced was used on it. Also, "The property owner is responsible for that child's condition" clearly asserts that you believe in positive obligations. You may of course do so, but that has nothing to do with libertarianism or free choice at all.

In my earlier example with the partner that says "If you leave me, I'm gonna kill myself" you could also say that starting the relationship was an active decision. Does that mean that you have to keep the relationship going forever or until the partner also agrees to stop it? Again, no real libertarian would answer yes to that question.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

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.

So if I decide that I want to burn down my house, but wait a few months and by the time I decide to burn my house, you are currently visiting me there. You don't want me to burn my house and don't leave. Should I be forced to keep that house forever now, bring you food and fresh clothing, don't do anything irresponsible that might endanger the house, because of your unwillingness to leave?

 

[RM918]

You can't use force on someone that doesn't exist. The child's existence began after the point of time where you assert forced was used on it. Also, "The property owner is responsible for that child's condition" clearly asserts that you believe in positive obligations. You may of course do so, but that has nothing to do with libertarianism or free choice at all.

In my earlier example with the partner that says "If you leave me, I'm gonna kill myself" you could also say that starting the relationship was an active decision. Does that mean that you have to keep the relationship going forever or until the partner also agrees to stop it? Again, no real libertarian would answer yes to that question.

That analogy doesn't fly because said partner is extremely responsible for that circumstance, since they're trying to force the other into complying with that. There was no way you could've known at the beginning they'd act like that, as well.

With pregnancy, the lines are pretty clear. You won't get pregnant if you don't have sex, and the child created by it has no choice on where it's created because the act of creating it was decided by the property owner and another party. The property owner engaged in an act that made the child exist in that circumstance to need to be reliant upon her in order to live.

 

[ChaosControl]

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).

So you think killing someone who is just trying to stay alive is wrong and yet at the same time you also believe that killing someone who is just trying to stay alive is acceptable. Which is it?

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.

If you don't feed your born child, is that okay? That child depends on you too and will die if you don't feed him or her. Or is it only okay when you cannot see their face yet, when they aren't cute enough for you? There is two parts to this issue.

First is the do no harm. This should be a general philosophy people have. Abortion is a violent act, it is an infringement on not causing harm to others. It is violating someone else's liberty. Pretty anti-libertarian really.

Second is parental obligation. You have a duty as a parent to take care of your child. There are situations, such as rape, where you didn't ask for the child, and that is unfair, but it is still your child in the end and your obligation doesn't end just because the father was a scumbag.

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 has that right, but like any right, once it infringes on the right of another she no longer has it.

 

[ChaosControl]

Seriously though if this is your idea of "libertarians". That property > *. Then yeah I will say I am certainly not a propertarian.

 

[RM918]

So if I decide that I want to burn down my house, but wait a few months and by the time I decide to burn my house, you are currently visiting me there. You don't want me to burn my house and don't leave. Should I be forced to keep that house forever now, bring you food and fresh clothing, don't do anything irresponsible that might endanger the house, because of your unwillingness to leave?

I chose to go on your property, I have the ability to leave completely at my discretion. I think the right decision is to have me forcibly removed (Since I'd be fine if I was), but I think burning a house down on me is rather overzealous.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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

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.

But this is the same reasoning that has defacto gotten us elective abortion under general circumstances. Arguing that the life/health of the mother and rape cases are legitimate objections has given pro-abortion forces the leeway (from Doe v Dalton on) to stretch the definition of the "physical health" to psychological health impact on the mother. Rape cases that can traumatize have been stretched to mean any circumstance that the mother says traumatizes her are legit grounds for abortion.

The bad exceptions create a precedent for abortion on demand. Where does a commitment to legal protection for the pre-born ever begin, if 100% of the discussion excludes defining it, and dwells only on the mother? The chief extraordinary danger to life that is to be avoided is destroying the innocent pre-born child, who is done to death in every instance of abortion, and so has a higher priority than circumstances the child is not guilty of causing.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

That analogy doesn't fly because said partner is extremely responsible for that circumstance, since they're trying to force the other into complying with that. There was no way you could've known at the beginning they'd act like that, as well.

Moral responsibility is completely irrelevant in that case - and what would be if said partner just went through a really tough time losing half of her family, circumstances which she clearly isn't responsible for. What if she doesn't try to force me into staying with her by threatening suicide, but I know that she plans to do if in case I left her? Should I then be forced to stay with her?

With pregnancy, the lines are pretty clear. You won't get pregnant if you don't have sex, and the child created by it has no choice on where it's created because the act of creating it was decided by the property owner and another party. The property owner engaged in an act that made the child exist in that circumstance to need to be reliant upon her in order to live.

Well, if you want to avoid a situation as described by me above, it's also simple: Don't start a relationship at all! Just because I create something doesn't mean that I automatically agree to keep it forever (or until it wants to leave on its own). And usually in cases of abortion, the mother didn't even intend to create the child, it happened by accident.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

I chose to go on your property, I have the ability to leave completely at my discretion. I think the right decision is to have me forcibly removed (Since I'd be fine if I was), but I think burning a house down on me is rather overzealous.

Of course it is extreme, but it is not like the mother has a real alternative that would protect her property rights and keep the child alive anyways. Let's hope science will find a solution like this soon so this debate can become meaningless, but until then I stand with the rights of a woman to exert full control over her own body.

 

[RM918]

Moral responsibility is completely irrelevant in that case - and what would be if said partner just went through a really tough time losing half of her family, circumstances which she clearly isn't responsible for. What if she doesn't try to force me into staying with her by threatening suicide, but I know that she plans to do if in case I left her? Should I then be forced to stay with her?

Then that is her choice. She has the ability to choose to do so. She is the one purposefully relying on you to prolong her life and has set the criteria for it, and you didn't force the situation to become as such. You both have free will, the child doesn't and you're one of two parties completely responsible for that.

Well, if you want to avoid a situation as described by me above, it's also simple: Don't start a relationship at all! Just because I create something doesn't mean that I automatically agree to keep it forever (or until it wants to leave on its own). And usually in cases of abortion, the mother didn't even intend to create the child, it happened by accident.

If she chose to have sex, it wasn't an accident. Accident or no, she knew what that behavior could produce and caused it anyway. Relationship or no, you aren't directly responsible for your spouse's existence or circumstances.

 

[justinc.1089]

The judge and Ron Paul are true libertarians when it comes to abortion.

All men have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


Hmm... I wonder when does life truly begin? Its great that we have this thing called science now that can look at cells and clearly show when the human being begins to form, so now we can define the point where life begins! It makes it easy to understand where life begins now, so that we know when we have to start defending an individual's right to live.



But on another note, Ron Paul himself has said that libertarians are divided on the issue of abortion, and he is correct. I'm a libertarian and I'm also pro-life because defining life as beginning anywhere other than the first human cell formed doesn't make much sense to me really, and it would also be incredibly difficult to determine if there was truly a person formed yet or not.

So... technically the "true" libertarian position according to libertarians themselves is that there's not one because we have no agreement about it.

But I still argue the true position is pro-life because all individuals have a natural right to life, and science easily shows where life begins. There is no "right to choose," because a right to choose is really a right to choose to kill or not to kill if you extend the statement to actually make sense, and not just be ambiguous about what is being chosen by not saying kill or not kill.

I mean seriously, its even considered killing a person legally if you kill a pregnant woman's baby somehow, but yet its not if the woman decides for that to happen herself? Abortion is a political agenda and people need to realize that.


Finally, does Freedom Watch come on tonight later than 8? Because I missed it now and will be working later tonight at 8.

 

[RM918]

Of course it is extreme, but it is not like the mother has a real alternative that would protect her property rights and keep the child alive anyways. Let's hope science will find a solution like this soon so this debate can become meaningless, but until then I stand with the rights of a woman to exert full control over her own body.

I also hope technology will make the argument bunk at some point, but immediate concern for human life trumps property rights especially when that very condition was created due to the property owner doing so of their own free will. In a sense, I agree that a woman has the ability to exert full control over her body - I just think her choice in the matter should have been made before she knowingly engaged in an act she knew would create the child.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Then that is her choice. She has the ability to choose to do so. She is the one purposefully relying on you to prolong her life and has set the criteria for it, and you didn't force the situation to become as such. You both have free will, the child doesn't and you're one of two parties completely responsible for that.

But in an abortion, the reason why the fetus dies is not that you want to kill it, but that its physical composition needs at the time requires the positive behavior of a mother for staying alive. And yes, in he above example she is the one relying on you t prolong her life, but it is the same with the child. On its own, the child can't survive, it is relying on the mother for creating the circumstances at where life for the child is possible.

If she chose to have sex, it wasn't an accident. Accident or no, she knew what that behavior could produce and caused it anyway. Relationship or no, you aren't directly responsible for your spouse's existence or circumstances.

Of course it can still be an accident. A maybe more likely accident than in the first case, but still an unintended consequence and therefore an accident. And just like you shouldn't be held responsible for your partner's existence, the same applies to your offspring. If you were, that'd be a positive obligation.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

I also hope technology will make the argument bunk at some point, but immediate concern for human life trumps property rights especially when that very condition was created due to the property owner doing so of their own free will. In a sense, I agree that a woman has the ability to exert full control over her body - I just think her choice in the matter should have been made before she knowingly engaged in an act she knew would create the child.

But then she doesn't have full control. I agree that it would be preferable if women (and men) always acted morally responsible, but they don't and it's wrong to use force to get them to do so. And unless she explicitly agrees to take care of the child, she has not made that choice. This discussion reminds me of when people bring up the "social contract" that somehow says that people agree to government by acting in within society where a government is present. I think the concept of implied contracts is very authoritarian at its core.

 

[RM918]

But in an abortion, the reason why the fetus dies is not that you want to kill it, but that its physical composition needs at the time requires the positive behavior of a mother for staying alive. And yes, in he above example she is the one relying on you t prolong her life, but it is the same with the child. On its own, the child can't survive, it is relying on the mother for creating the circumstances at where life for the child is possible.

Of course it can still be an accident. A maybe more likely accident than in the first case, but still an unintended consequence and therefore an accident. And just like you shouldn't be held responsible for your partner's existence, the same applies to your offspring. If you were, that'd be a positive obligation.[/QUOTE]

I see it as two parties. You have the child, who had no choice in its creation, no choice in its predicament, no choice in whether it should live or die. None, not a bit. On the other hand, you have the mother who had complete control over whether or not it would be created, and was one of two parties utterly responsible for its existence. If she did not engage in the act she knew would result in this circumstance, it wouldn't have happened.

The actions and wants of one party, who will die if removed, are completely irrelevant. The actions of another, who will not die if the child is removed, is paramount. They decided to engage in behavior to create the other party. They weren't forced into this circumstance. I can't stand on the side of allowing one party to be killed even though the other party already had multiple choices in this matter when a life was at stake, through no fault of the child.

But then she doesn't have full control. I agree that it would be preferable if women (and men) always acted morally responsible, but they don't and it's wrong to use force to get them to do so. And unless she explicitly agrees to take care of the child, she has not made that choice. This discussion reminds me of when people bring up the "social contract" that somehow says that people agree to government by acting in within society where a government is present. I think the concept of implied contracts is very authoritarian at its core.

It has nothing to do with morals in my opinion, it has to do with taking away someone's life even though that person had complete control of whether that person would be reliant on them for their life.

I think the mother's property rights already had the decision to be made, and she chose to cede them by engaging in risky behavior.

 

[specsaregood]

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

If you outlawed abortion, there would be a helluva lot more and a spike in claims of rape.

 

[RM918]

If you outlawed abortion, there would be a helluva lot more and a spike in claims of rape.

True on a pragmatic point, but that's why I support letting the states take care of it as far as actual policy.

 

[LibertarianfromGermany]

see it as two parties. You have the child, who had no choice in its creation, no choice in its predicament, no choice in whether it should live or die. None, not a bit. On the other hand, you have the mother who had complete control over whether or not it would be created, and was one of two parties utterly responsible for its existence. If she did not engage in the act she knew would result in this circumstance, it wouldn't have happened.

She did not have complete control and you can be sure that the mothers that do have "complete control" won't have an abortion because it is a rather painful procedure. Usual abortions happen because of mistakes. Again, to the other example: In a relationship it is very possible that the other person becomes dependent on you - one has to know that it is a possibility and that the result of the relationship could end in such a way (even if rather unlikely).

Still, in both cases the unwanted result is an accident and in both cases the question, whether force should be used to prevent the first partner or the mothers from exercising their self-determination rights to their bodies. If you answer yes, you are arguing for positive obligations.

The actions and wants of one party, who will die if removed, are completely irrelevant. The actions of another, who will not die if the child is removed, is paramount. They decided to engage in behavior to create the other party. They weren't forced into this circumstance. I can't stand on the side of allowing one party to be killed even though the other party already had multiple choices in this matter when a life was at stake, through no fault of the child.

That is a moral judgment and I agree with it. However, I also want human beings to always have the right of self-determination. The woman also didn't make the choice to create the child, but made the choice to have sex with the child's creation as an unintended consequence. Also, the baby is not killed, but it dies (by not being able to be kept alive through the mother's life support).

It has nothing to do with morals in my opinion, it has to do with taking away someone's life even though that person had complete control of whether that person would be reliant on them for their life.

That is just not the case. If the mother had complete control and she didn't want a child, the child wouldn't have come into existence. The only possible characterization of the incident would be as accident.

 

[RM918]

She did not have complete control and you can be sure that the mothers that do have "complete control" won't have an abortion because it is a rather painful procedure. Usual abortions happen because of mistakes. Again, to the other example: In a relationship it is very possible that the other person becomes dependent on you - one has to know that it is a possibility and that the result of the relationship could end in such a way (even if rather unlikely).

Still, in both cases the unwanted result is an accident and in both cases the question, whether force should be used to prevent the first partner or the mothers from exercising their self-determination rights to their bodies. If you answer yes, you are arguing for positive obligations.



That is a moral judgment and I agree with it. However, I also want human beings to always have the right of self-determination. The woman also didn't make the choice to create the child, but made the choice to have sex with the child's creation as an unintended consequence. Also, the baby is not killed, but it dies (by not being able to be kept alive through the mother's life support).



That is just not the case. If the mother had complete control and she didn't want a child, the child wouldn't have come into existence. The only possible characterization of the incident would be as accident.

I think she did have complete control, because if she said 'No', it wouldn't have happened.

We're just going to keep arguing in circles if this continues, so I'm just going say that I don't think holding my position goes against property rights because I believe this to be a specific circumstance where one party is choosing to completely eliminate the property rights of another, even though that party is responsible for things even getting to that point to begin with and the party losing their life is not responsible at all.

I don't see a violation of property rights because I don't see it as a violation at all. I suppose I could take my stance further involving rape & incest, but that's not an area I feel like getting into an ideological quagmire with. I can only hope technology makes this particular area of the argument obsolete, and soon.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

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.

Ok, so instead of abortion, how about if women just remove the fetus from their bodies. It dies? So that'd be okay. Letting it die. But saying you are obligated to give the fetus your resources for 9 months because you had sex is bullshit. Rothbard sums up the abortion debate quite nicely. It may be harsh, but no one has the right to use your body without your consent. Period. Just like if someone is on your property you dislike, you can kick him off. Even if you invite him on, you aren't forced to accommodate him. You can't kill him, but since fetuses that are aborted couldn't survive out of the womb anyhow, sadly there isn't another choice. (Unless you think it should just be removed and you could watch it die)

You can say you do not believe in bodily ownership, and that's fine. But if you believe a woman can't get an abortion, you should also believe it should be illegal to drink alcohol when pregnant, eat certain foods, do certain activities, etc. And all of it is anti-liberty. Someone's rights have to take priority here. You can say the fetus trumps a grown human being, but realize it is what you're saying, and that's anti-liberty.