Walter Block: Cheered at Paul Festival, booed at official Ron Paul rally

[phill4paul]

Question: There are some 1.3 million abortions per year. Let's just say 1 million. It is estimated that it takes an average of $225,000 to raise a child from birth to 18 years of age (Doesn't include cost of college.) Who takes care of these children? The state? If the state then that would be at a cost of about 225 billion per year. Who takes care of these children. Serious question. Not trolling. Just wondering what the plan is after the fetus is 'saved.'

 

[jmdrake]

Well I think the characterization of the natural propagation of a species as a parasite is ridiculous and repugnant. And I know you disagree. That's the beauty of Walter Block's proposal. It gets beyond such petty disagreements. It also ends the need of trying to figure out such esoteric concepts as "when is it human" and "when does it have rights"? Brain waves can be detected as early as 6 weeks. (See: http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm) That's still in the first trimester. How many people on the pro-choice side would really be happy with a compromise that said "No abortions after 6 weeks"? But if the baby can be safely removed (and I realize that is not currently feasible that early in the pregnancy), than what is the harm to a woman's liberty to say "You don't have to carry that baby to term, but you can't kill it either"?

I've heard the libertarian argument before comparing abortion to a stowaway on a boat and making the argument that you shouldn't have to keep the stowaway on your boat. But in any nation o earth that I can think of, if you throw a stowaway overboard in shark invested waters, baring some affirmative defense like he was trying to kill you, you will be charged with murder. Walter Block's proposal is like saying "Don't throw him to the sharks. But him in a life raft".

I do not agree with evictionism in its entirety. I do not believe it is compatible with libertarian philosophy, and is a bad compromise.

I do however agree that the rights of the woman to her body (property) must be balanced against those of the fetus. I also believe that murder and torture are worse transgressions of an individual's rights than trespassing.

So an unwanted fetus is trespassing on the woman's property. The woman that aborts the fetus is sometimes causing great harm/pain/torture to the fetus, and then killing it.

The second part is the point that I believe evictionism fails to address adequately.

To me then, the key question becomes: At what point should the fetus be considered a human being, and be afforded all the rights that libertarians generally agree upon?

My answer to this question, is that the fetus should be considered a human being when its brain and nervous system have developed to the point where it can feel pain. I do not know what age this is. It may even be different for each fetus. So I would advocate that scientists and doctors define that policy, which may not be one-size-fits-all.

Anyway, to my mind, before this cut-off point, the woman should have every right to rid her body of the unwanted organism (parasite) via day after pill, surgical procedure, or whatever available technology. After the cut-off, it is legally a feeling human being, and the woman should be held accountable for murder (lowest degree) if she aborts it.

It is the woman's responsibility then to monitor her body after engaging in intercourse, so that she becomes aware of the pregnancy before the cut-off point. Failure to do so would be considered negligence, and therefore not a justification for committing murder after the cut-off point.

This assumes of course, that technology is available that can inform the woman she is pregnant before the cut-off point is reached. I am not a doctor and the cut-off point is undefined in this argument, but I do believe that today's technology is sufficient and affordable for most women.

I actually believe that the same notions about "can feel pain" can actually be applied towards our treatment of animals also. I think that is a related, but tangential discussion, and any comprehensive libertarian answer regarding abortion should address both from the same root principles.

thoughts?


I actually heard Walter's speeches, and wanted to talk to him about my approach, but other great speakers were lined up after him.

 

[idiom]

I'm still mistified how someone who beleives in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be against the same things for a baby. A bigger question would be when does that baby get its own rights? Coneception, 3rd trimester, birth, 5 yrs old, 18, 40? Heck you can't make a contract with someone under the age of 18 why should they have any rights at all?

In the Rothcap circles a lot of people think children don't have rights until they leave home and take ownership of themselves because they consider rights to come from property and your rights to come from self-ownership.

Its a pretty hard sell to get up and say a mother has no moral obligation to make sure an infant stays alive and is kept warm and fed.

Question: There are some 1.3 million abortions per year. Let's just say 1 million. It is estimated that it takes an average of $225,000 to raise a child from birth to 18 years of age (Doesn't include cost of college.) Who takes care of these children? The state? If the state then that would be at a cost of about 225 billion per year. Who takes care of these children. Serious question. Not trolling. Just wondering what the plan is after the fetus is 'saved.'

The evictionalism position doesn't require that the baby has a home to go to. It says that if you don't want to adopt all the babies then you have no right to make other people adopt all the babies. It assumes that if you are so opposed to abortion then you will happily adopt any baby that needs adopting.

If there is no one to adopt the baby then clearly nobody cares that the infant dies. Its a put up or shut up position.

 

[jmdrake]

Question: There are some 1.3 million abortions per year. Let's just say 1 million. It is estimated that it takes an average of $225,000 to raise a child from birth to 18 years of age (Doesn't include cost of college.) Who takes care of these children? The state? If the state then that would be at a cost of about 225 billion per year. Who takes care of these children. Serious question. Not trolling. Just wondering what the plan is after the fetus is 'saved.'

Well first of all, it's the state's fault that children are an expense instead of a benefit. Child labor laws should be repealed. (Now with Obama saying kids on farms can't even do chores that situation will only get worse).

That said, such a proposal would force pro lifers to put their money where their mouths are. Let's say if it worked like this. Right now people pay top dollar to adopt infants. If artificial womb technology got good enough, might some parents see prenatal adoption as the preferred route? You don't have to worry about the artificial womb drinking or using drugs. Soothing classical music can be played to junior via the artificial womb. You can be sure that junior is getting at the proper nutrition he/she needs. Maybe some adoptive mothers might decide to have junior implanted into their own wombs? And yeah, there is the real possibility of market failures where junior is found to have a debilitating genetic disorder and no one wants to adopt him/her. Hopefully as artificial womb technology grows, the possibility to fix genetic defects in utero will grow as well. And yes, that opens up a whole different can of worms. (Adoptive parents decide they want junior to be "super junior"). There are some "kinks" to work out and this should be an incremental process if it is adopted (no pun intended) at all.

 

[LBennett76]

I don't think he was whining at all. I think he was explaining what happened and why (he knows we're out here) and was apologizing. He'd given a similar speech about the same topic at Paulfest to better reception. What would give him cause to think it wouldn't go over well at the rally? Regardless, the response of the crowd did show the diversity of Ron Paul's supporters.
In the end, what I got from it was that he felt horrible about it and wanted everyone to know how the situation came about. Don't be hatin' on the poor guy. I'd never heard of his idea before. I think I may do some research on it. So see, I've learned something new to go look up and educate myself on. Thanks, Walter.

 

[phill4paul]

Well first of all, it's the state's fault that children are an expense instead of a benefit. Child labor laws should be repealed. (Now with Obama saying kids on farms can't even do chores that situation will only get worse).

That said, such a proposal would force pro lifers to put their money where their mouths are. Let's say if it worked like this. Right now people pay top dollar to adopt infants. If artificial womb technology got good enough, might some parents see prenatal adoption as the preferred route? You don't have to worry about the artificial womb drinking or using drugs. Soothing classical music can be played to junior via the artificial womb. You can be sure that junior is getting at the proper nutrition he/she needs. Maybe some adoptive mothers might decide to have junior implanted into their own wombs? And yeah, there is the real possibility of market failures where junior is found to have a debilitating genetic disorder and no one wants to adopt him/her. Hopefully as artificial womb technology grows, the possibility to fix genetic defects in utero will grow as well. And yes, that opens up a whole different can of worms. (Adoptive parents decide they want junior to be "super junior"). There are some "kinks" to work out and this should be an incremental process if it is adopted (no pun intended) at all.

So basically this is just an intellectual exercise and has not been thought out to the end? He is just taking a specific part of the debate and giving an alternative to what has previously been an either-or choice.

 

[jmdrake]

I just Googled prenatal adoption. Seems like the transfer of an embryo from one woman to another happened way back in 1983!

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/14/s...bjective-of-new-technique.html?pagewanted=all

So why am I just now hearing about this? By the description this sounds like it would only work for very early pregnancies. So the babies that live to six money can be covered by c-section and incubator. The (few day old?) embryos can be covered by embryo transfer. The big question would be all of the babies in between....which make up most abortions.

 

[danda]

I meant the rights that libertarians generally agree upon for individuals. natural rights, property rights.

the definition of an individual is the question we are addressing.

Libertarians don't generally agree. That's the problem. Some use first heartbeat, some use brain activity, some use arbitrary dates (first trimester, second trimester), some use conception, etc.

 

[jmdrake]

So basically this is just an intellectual exercise and has not been thought out to the end? He is just taking a specific part of the debate and giving an alternative to what has previously been an either-or choice.

Hey, give me a break. I've only understood this for a few hours. Walter Block has probably thought this through a lot more. But it's important to note that, as idiom pointed out, if you're following libertarian principles you aren't going to turn around and force everyone to take care of these children either. Tell me this. Let's say the solution is if the fetus isn't adopted within a certain period of time it is allowed to die, what idiom seemed to be implying, would you have a problem with that, even if it meant that a huge percentage of the babies that now die from abortion would instead live?

 

[idiom]

Having a theoretical off-topic discussion in the middle of a pep rally?

Better yet lets have one about the following:

Make Abortion Illegal.
Encourage pre-mature births.
Make abandoning your infant legal.
Close Government orphanages.
Hope the market steps in to save infants from dying in the snow.

Look at my amazing proposal to solve the abortion debate!

Interesting discussion about a society that doesn't use force, maybe. Good topic for national television? Lets tell the nation that Ron Paul stands for abandoning infants?

Block actually proposes that if people really really believe in not letting zygotes die they will happily donate to cover the cost of freezing all non-implanted embryos that are developed in labs and keep them on ice forever. This is better than making it illegal (using force) to create excess embryos in the lab.

I am not making this up. This is the discussion he decided to have on C-Span at a Ron Paul Pep rally.

 

[danda]

Neither evictionism nor your reply address the core point I was making, which is that we should not be ripping apart or dissolving human beings that can feel themselves being ripped apart or dissolved. As I understand it, evictionism DOES endorse this as it endorses abortion until the point when a fetus is viable outside the womb, which is long after the approx 6 weeks others have stated that a fetus begins to feel pain. So I view evictionism as less humane, and also less in accordance with libertarian principles, at least as I understand them.

Well I think the characterization of the natural propagation of a species as a parasite is ridiculous and repugnant. And I know you disagree. That's the beauty of Walter Block's proposal. It gets beyond such petty disagreements. It also ends the need of trying to figure out such esoteric concepts as "when is it human" and "when does it have rights"? Brain waves can be detected as early as 6 weeks. (See: http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm) That's still in the first trimester. How many people on the pro-choice side would really be happy with a compromise that said "No abortions after 6 weeks"? But if the baby can be safely removed (and I realize that is not currently feasible that early in the pregnancy), than what is the harm to a woman's liberty to say "You don't have to carry that baby to term, but you can't kill it either"?

I've heard the libertarian argument before comparing abortion to a stowaway on a boat and making the argument that you shouldn't have to keep the stowaway on your boat. But in any nation o earth that I can think of, if you throw a stowaway overboard in shark invested waters, baring some affirmative defense like he was trying to kill you, you will be charged with murder. Walter Block's proposal is like saying "Don't throw him to the sharks. But him in a life raft".

 

[phill4paul]

Hey, give me a break. I've only understood this for a few hours. Walter Block has probably thought this through a lot more. But it's important to note that, as idiom pointed out, if you're following libertarian principles you aren't going to turn around and force everyone to take care of these children either. Tell me this. Let's say the solution is if the fetus isn't adopted within a certain period of time it is allowed to die, what idiom seemed to be implying, would you have a problem with that, even if it meant that a huge percentage of the babies that now die from abortion would instead live?

Heh, no worries. I appreciate you answering my question to the extent of your knowledge.

 

[danda]

I'm not sure you understood me correctly. Apologies if I was unclear.

In no way did I intend to imply that evictionists think the fetus is the mother's property. Rather I mean that the woman's body is her own property, and the fetus can be thought of as trespassing on that property, which is something I clearly remember Walter Block stating in his speech.

I then compared the crime of trespass (by the fetus) to the crimes of torture and murder (by the mother when aborting a fetus with sufficiently developed nervous system).

It seems you have misstated the evictionist position. The evictionists generally argue not that the fetus is the mother's property, but that it occupies the woman's body which is her property.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't think he was whining at all. I think he was explaining what happened and why (he knows we're out here) and was apologizing. He'd given a similar speech about the same topic at Paulfest to better reception. What would give him cause to think it wouldn't go over well at the rally? Regardless, the response of the crowd did show the diversity of Ron Paul's supporters.
In the end, what I got from it was that he felt horrible about it and wanted everyone to know how the situation came about. Don't be hatin' on the poor guy. I'd never heard of his idea before. I think I may do some research on it. So see, I've learned something new to go look up and educate myself on. Thanks, Walter.

Right, exactly. He did what he was asked, it didn't go well, and he was explaining the situation. Best to have it all out in the open, and openness and honesty is Walter's style. I think it's unfortunate that there were Ron Paul supporters in the crowd who would behave that disrespectfully. And some apparently are on this forum and have no remorse about it, they still don't understand. We've got to expand our own minds, guys. We've got to be open to new ideas. We shouldn't be angry or threatened by something just because it's totally new and we've never heard it before or it sounds weird or bad. That's for the Fox News crowd. For us, it's all about ideas. Ron Paul understands that. We should, too.

 

[jmdrake]

Well that's probably because my understanding of what I'm calling "prenatal adoption" doesn't preclude your position.

Let's say we were going to adopt prenatal adoption legislation. It could be worded (at least) two ways.

1) A fetus shall not be forcibly removed from a mother unless the procedure is done in a good faith effort to preserve the life of the fetus nor shall a fetus be purposefully killed in utero.

Under that there's no "ripping apart" of the fetus. Such a proposal preserves life all the way back to conception. Oh yeah, and as I posted above, even embryos can be removed. It's the later pregnancies (but before 6 months) that's the problem ares.

2) If a fetus can be removed and live, it must be given a chance at life.

That's the way the federal late term abortion ban should have been written.

3) It shall be the policy of this government to encourage prenatal adoption by..................................

The "................." could include public awareness, research, financial incentives, simply allowing the free market to work etc.

This is clearly a complex issue. Which is more the reason to overturn Roe v. Wade so that different states can experiment with how to get out of the abortion morass.

Neither evictionism nor your reply address the core point I was making, which is that we should not be ripping apart or dissolving human beings that can feel themselves being ripped apart or dissolved. As I understand it, evictionism DOES endorse this as it endorses abortion until the point when a fetus is viable outside the womb, which is long after the approx 6 weeks others have stated that a fetus begins to feel pain. So I view evictionism as less humane, and also less in accordance with libertarian principles, at least as I understand them.

 

[jmdrake]

I guess Walter Block has become the Jesse Ventura of 2012? (Only a more kindler, gentler, humbler version. ) Seriously though, why do we think "pep rallies" will change the direction of this country? It didn't get in the mess that it's in through pep rallies. It did by our enemies coming together and having "think tanks" where they discuss their ideas and the best way to present them to the public. Sure we thrash around ideas here, but people are more rude to each other than those who booed Walter. (And before some random person attacks me, let me add that I rough and tumble with the best and worst of them). Face to face, and behind closed doors, we should talk about these ideas. Nothing should be off the table.

Having a theoretical off-topic discussion in the middle of a pep rally?

Better yet lets have one about the following:

Make Abortion Illegal.
Encourage pre-mature births.
Make abandoning your infant legal.
Close Government orphanages.
Hope the market steps in to save infants from dying in the snow.

Look at my amazing proposal to solve the abortion debate!

Interesting discussion about a society that doesn't use force, maybe. Good topic for national television? Lets tell the nation that Ron Paul stands for abandoning infants?

Block actually proposes that if people really really believe in not letting zygotes die they will happily donate to cover the cost of freezing all non-implanted embryos that are developed in labs and keep them on ice forever. This is better than making it illegal (using force) to create excess embryos in the lab.

I am not making this up. This is the discussion he decided to have on C-Span at a Ron Paul Pep rally.

 

[Revolution9]

Because he is trying to save them instead of kill them, while still allowing the mother control over her body. Right now, the choices seem to be - 1.) Carry to full term 2.) Kill the baby.

He is offering - 3.) Allow the baby to be removed early and remain living.

Mommy then is tubes and a respirator. Wonderful entrance to its new world. Very Borg-esque..Frikkin' rationalism was rife when Rome went down the toilet too.

Rev9

 

[alex_florida]

I believe that this will put him on Jesse's list of people who can't be associated with the campaigns, yes.

Too many people have already been on the Benton's and Taft's list. Tom Woods was not invited to speak at RP Rally because these two do not like him though he and RevolutionPac contributed may be more then Jesse, to support RP during the primaries. Do they want to bring RNC to the libertarian creed or RNC to co-opt CFL? After the speech of Rand I think the latter.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Mommy then is tubes and a respirator. Wonderful entrance to its new world. Very Borg-esque..Frikkin' rationalism was rife when Rome went down the toilet too.

Rev9

Ever been to a children's hospital? You'll likely find some kids there hooked up to machines to be kept alive from the day they were born. (all kinds of weird genetic diseases and such out there) The sort of evictionism mentioned in this thread isn't exactly rationalism IMO.

 

[king_nothing_]

It was a REPUBLICAN gathering

...it was?



You honestly scare me.