[quote]Makavali wrote:
Abortion isn’t a form of birth control.[/quote]
I disagree.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Abortion isn’t a form of birth control.
I disagree.[/quote]
I re-word for you. It’s not a primary form of birth control. If you’re not using a condom or the pill, then you’re incredibly retarded.
Not you personally, but the person in that situation.
So if I ran up to a pregnant women and kicked her in the stomach causing her to lose the baby do I get charged with murder and assult or just assult.
[quote]John S. wrote:
So if I ran up to a pregnant women and kicked her in the stomach causing her to lose the baby do I get charged with murder and assult or just assult.
[/quote]
In a libertarian society you would not be charged but rather fined after having your ass kicked by the victim’s family.
In an anarchist society you would be killed by the family of the victims after they kill your family no questions asked.
In our society it would take four months for the DA to invent charges to bring you up on. Most likely you are looking at second degree murder and assault and battery and probably also have to deal with the grief stricken victim’s family.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Abortion isn’t a form of birth control.
I disagree.
I re-word for you. It’s not a primary form of birth control. If you’re not using a condom or the pill, then you’re incredibly retarded.
Not you personally, but the person in that situation.[/quote]
Anyone who thinks killing an unborn human is a valid form of birth control is beyond retarded.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
What do you mean “force women to carry a fetus to full term”? A woman is going to carry the baby al 9 months unless she deliberately kills the baby or naturally the baby dies. If she does not kill the child nature will take its course and the baby will be born. Since a child can not protect its right to live someone else has to whether the pregnancy is wanted or not.
That is the only way to stop her from having an abortion. You need to physically hold a gun to her head.
But really, first you need to steal my money to hire an armed government thug to hold the gun and then you need to steal some more of my money to pay for the woman’s prenatal care as well as hire another armed thug to make sure she is getting the prenatal care her fetus needs.
That is how it works in a liberal, entitlement society. Any more questions?[/quote]
That isn’t holding a gun to her head…all you have to do is threaten ramifications for a persons actions and if they commit murder in this case of a fetus then you punish those that break the law. There is no stealing of money. People generally pay for their own health care and no one was holding a gun to her head while she was getting pound.
Why is it so hard for some people to see that the choice we make have consequences and society should force people to live with these consequences. Not government, but society.
I haven’t read through the entire thread, so just ignore this if it has already been covered.
Orion, what would happen to your argument if modern technology developed to a point where an artificial womb was created to allow the fetus to develop in the mother’s absence?
Would you then be completely opposed to abortion?
[quote]orion wrote:
This is mainly an argument aimed at conservatives and as far as I am aware it was first made by Rothbard in the “Ethics of Liberty”:
Let us assume, for discussions sake that an embryo was a human being with all inherent rights.
What is the nature of these rights? Are they positive, i.e. must they be provided by others, or negative, i.e. only need to be respected by others?
That is important distinction, because the same conservatives who would object to the idea that they are forced at gunpoint to provide for the needs of others, expect a mother to keep a child alive.
That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.
Therefore, let us separate the child from the mother and see if it lives.
If it doesn´t, the child´s right to live was never violated, it could exercise that right if it had only the power to do so, alas it hasn´t. It basically is in the same position like a person dying of diseases or of old age.
So, the real question for a conservative is, how he can be against abortion and also against welfare when forcing a woman to keep a child alive she does not want basically is welfare?
[/quote]
I see this as a dilemma for a libertarian who believes abortion should be illegal; but not necessarily for a conservative who believes abortion should be illegal. A conservative might believe the government has the right to extract taxes to help the poor, but wary that anything more than a minimalist, decentralized welfare state will do more harm than good. A conservative might also believe that it is ok for the government to impose basic legal obligations on individual persons based on family relationships.
But assuming that the embryo or fetus is a human person with a negative right to life, even a purist libertarian should agree that certain common methods of abortion should be illegal. Throwing an unwelcome neighbor whose house just burned down out into the freezing cold in northern Alaska is one thing; ripping the unwelcome neighbor’s head, arms, and legs off to make it easier to fit him through the door is quite another.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
She is not obliged to take care of the child. She can give it up for adoption. If the child dies in her care then she would be guilty of neglect.[/quote]
And she would be guilty of murder - because she would knowingly cause the death of a human being.
And she is obligated to take care of her child - Morality demands it.
This is a foolish question, because there is no need to have positive rights “all of the time” or “none of the time”. Some situations in the human experience are appropriate, and some aren’t.
How does a “conservative” - or anyone else - determine which cases are “special”? The application of Reason and Morality - neither of which seems to be in the toolbox of the coffee house anarchist.
[quote]orion wrote:
It is Rothbard´s argument so what he thinks is kind of relevant.[/quote]
But I thought it was “your very own abortion thread!”…?
If I am interested in your opinion, perhaps I should just consult Uncle Murray.
This doesn’t answer the question I raised - why couldn’t a mother who didn’t want to take care of a 9 month old child have the right to kill it on the spot?
Irrelevant - what mother is going to kill her 9 month old in the public square of a major city?
The question is one of rights - if the child has no right to be protected inside the womb, what right does it have outside of it if all the same reasons (the mom doesn’t want to take care of it) apply?
If it is because a child in the womb is part of the woman’s body, then you are arguing that a fetus is property - but a week old is just as dependent on the mother’s body as a baby at the end of a 10 month gestation (breastfeeding has replaced the umblilical)…
…is a week old property as well?
Libertarian theory - and I emphasize theory, because that is all it ever is - takes some good ideas and drives them into absurdities.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
So if I ran up to a pregnant women and kicked her in the stomach causing her to lose the baby do I get charged with murder and assult or just assult.
In a libertarian society you would not be charged but rather fined after having your ass kicked by the victim’s family.
In an anarchist society you would be killed by the family of the victims after they kill your family no questions asked.
In our society it would take four months for the DA to invent charges to bring you up on. Most likely you are looking at second degree murder and assault and battery and probably also have to deal with the grief stricken victim’s family.[/quote]
So its murder if I take out the child. But if the mother decides to off the child it isn’t a child anymore? Something doesn’t make sense here.
BUT IT’s NOT A HUMAN BEING LAWLZ
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
So then the question is what is more important your morals or you ethics?
How can you know that your morals are correct if you do not have an ethic to base it on?[/quote]
If your so-called ethics lead you to a conclusion that is clearly immoral, then what good are the ethics?
While I would never support an abortion as such, I’m not the person to tell others what to do in that situation.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
If your so-called ethics lead you to a conclusion that is clearly immoral, then what good are the ethics?[/quote]
Well, Lifticus has assured us in the past - at great and droning length - that there was no such thing as a prevailing Truth, and thus, there was no overarching “ethic” we must all abide by.
As such, there was no universal rule - and now, apparently, there is one.
Just give Lifticus another week, and he’ll change his mind again.
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
BUT IT’s NOT A HUMAN BEING LAWLZ[/quote]
what the fuck is it, a lizard?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
While I would never support an abortion as such, I’m not the person to tell others what to do in that situation.[/quote]
quote]Makavali wrote:
While I would never support an abortion as such, I’m not the person to tell others what to do in that situation.[/quote]
I am very mush a liberty oriented person. I am for people doing what ever the fuck they want as long as other people are not hurt by it. Abortion is not one of those things. You have to ask yourself in all seriousness, is abortion terminating a human life. If so, then terminating that life isn’t anymore a private matter, it’s a public one, just like any other circumstance where a human life is purposely terminated.
I somebody walks into your neighbor’s house and kills him, can you say with honesty that no part of that is your problem?
I think it’s murder. I can’t take the private stance because people need to stand up for others who can not stand for themselves.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465296,00.html
Does the woman carrying the baby have the right to abort the baby, the woman who?s ovary the egg came from, or does the baby have the right to live?
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If you can’t tell the difference between state run welfare, and the natural resulting life produced through the act of procreation…
I can, but I also know that a natural right must be absolute and universal.
Insofar, no one, not even a new born baby can have the right to be kept alive because very often that is simply not possible.
It always has the right not to be killed because that is always possible, under any circumstances.
I belive the embyro has a right to life, exactly where nature placed it. Can’t get anymore natural than that.
An embryo is born with an inherent property title to its mothers womb?
Is that your argument?
Property? There are no property rights to life. Property is a man made circumstance.
Hardly.
First, even animals have territorial instincts and children develop that distinction pretty early and second you would not except that you do not belong to you by right of birth.
And again, we hold these truths to be self evident…
Territorial instincts and property are two different things. A baby in the womb is no more the property of the mother then your own foot. Yes it is a part of you, but it is not property. Property would be things like you house, land, you wallet. Your body, mind, baby is not yours at all. It is just life. If you want to stretch it then fine we will say your foot is your “property”, but if that is your argument then a baby and their body is their own property.
Could you at least pretend to follow the argument.
I stated from the beginning that an embryo has the right to live in Rothbard´s scenario. Obviously the embryo owns itself, just like you own yourself.
Therefore you may not kill it.
But, equally obvious, that right can only be a negative right, not a positive one.
If an embryo was property, there´d be no discussion.
Ok so you just squashed lifty’s property of contract argument, thanks.
But you haven’t answered how do you remove an unborn child without mutilating it’s tissue.
so your claim goes from a passive to an aggressive.
Your argument is null.
I am thoroughly confused how you are still arguing given the fact that your arguments have been trumped in numerous instances.
[/quote]
My argument has been repeatedly misrepresented, but not been trumped once.
The only two arguments I seriously consider to be a challenge so far are that
a) the mother caused the situation of the child, so she might have the obligation to see the pregnancy through.
b) it is difficult to homestead an abandoned child that is on someones else´s property.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Here is an interesting right to life thought.
If life is a natural right, then too the right not to live is covered by that right. So, I could say, commit suicide, or take large risks with my life.
If the right to life is also the right not to live, it is as much a violation to create a life as to take one.
Parents in essence disturb the natural order of things by giving a child life to begin with. Because the parents did not have the right to interfere in the life status of an un-conceived child.
Many people come to believe at some point it would be better if they were never born, as they are subjected to pain and misery in life. What right did the parents have to bring you into this world?[/quote]
You cannot violate the right of a non-entity.
You cannot have the right to not-live because then you would not be a creature that is able to have rights.
Once you have that right though you can do with it whatever you want, including suicide.