My Very Own Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
So if I lock an adult in a cellar with no food or water, then I simply removed them from their life support system, right? No killing involved.

Uhhhh… that is aggression and is immoral. You would be violating that person’s rights by removing his liberty.

A more apt corollary would be that you are free to step over a homeless man starving in the street and not give him any of your money to keep him “alive”. You did not infringe on his right to life. If he lives he lives.

You would certainly see the ethical side of the argument if an armed police officer forced you at gun point to give him one of your dollars.

Except a grown homeless can fend for himself a baby cannot.

So do helpless people do have a positive right to be kept alive?

Clothed, fed, sheltered?

Do I have the right, a RIGHT, NO LESS, to hold a gun to your head and make you work until the last helpless person has been clothed, fed and sheltered?

Do helpless people have any other rights and where does that leave your rights?

Like I said the government should only use tax money (forced by gun scenario) to help those that NEED the help as long as they did not put themselves in that situation. A drug addict can either a) fend for themselves, B) get help via charity or c) go find a nice rock to crawl under and die, but a child that can’t take care of themselves should be provided for.

every child? Wherever it lives?

What about people who had a stroke or stepped on a land mine?

Wait, I know the last answer:

Those who planted the mines should pay for it, right?

And of course for the removal.

Every child under that particular government yes.

People have health care for strokes.

If you step on a land mine you are not going to live 9 times out of 10.

The ones that plants the mines usually pay with their lives in jail or in battle.

Why only under a particular government? What if they have no health care because they could not afford it?

Doesn´t that seem a little arbitrary do you?

Do women outside the US have the right to abort?

Does crossing an imaginary line also change the ethics of the situation for them?

And does an American bomber pilot have to pay for people in Laos that have no legs if he is not dead?

I mean, he put them into a situation they did not deserve. Should he not provide for them.

I don’t care what other countries do or do not do they have to live with the consequences.

I believe abortion is wrong universally.

Governments are created specifically to help her people. If you want the US to help everyone maybe we should the United States of the World instead of America.

How do you know the guy that has his legs blown off didn’t deserve it? His government shouldn’t have fought against ours and since his government went to war and he lost his legs as a consequence they can pay for his care.

Laos never went to war against you, but even if, how was it any peasants fault if his government had done that?

They question remains, why do embryos rights do not stop at arbitrary lines yet innocent wounded people´s do?

Is it a coincidence that that is the result that this is the most convenient for you and that you fail for the second time now to explain the ethical principle behind the distinction you make?

What the fuck does Laos have to do with whether or not abortion is the taking of a human life?
Next thing you know, the Crusades! Because there were crusades, abortion is not murder.[/quote]

It has to do with his unwillingness to stick to an ethic principle he has built himself a few seconds ago once it is shown that it leads to consequences he does not like.

His “ethic principles” are not universal and absolute, they aplly to everyone else, not him.

242

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
An animal has a life, in the sense that you can’t own it. As in, you can’t live take it, and live it’s life. Are you a vegetarian?

Actually, all animals that are not in the wild are owned by someone else. Consequently, all animals in the wild that are now owned are on someone else’s property so it is not problem that I eat other animals – at least in the libertarian la la land that I inhabit.

That doesn’t address the problem. Humans can and have owned other humans as property. So, if you’re talking about the act of capturing and/or purchasing a person, they can be someone’s property.

Your response shouldn’t be to eat the owned animals, but to demand that they are set free.[/quote]

Ethics as Rothbard understands it deals with human behavior towards humans.

Animals can have rights if they are able to petition for them.

If sheep developed an ethic however it would have to allow for the fact that they are regularly eaten by predators.

243

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:

By this logic, liberal thinking folk have no right to life since they make themselves willingly dependent on others for their own survival.

And you despise it and yet follow the same logic when it comes to an embryo.

I despise it because it’s idiotic, contradictory, self-aggrandizing, illogical, and dysfunctional in concept and reality. Just like this lame attempt at “logic” being used in this thread.
the whole burden on the mother thing is completely irrelevant to the topic if the thing you are killing is a human being. Prove it’s not and I won’t give a fuck what you do with it.

The only thing that matters in the abortion debate is whether or not the pre-born child is a human life or not. The rest is just linguistical gymnastics designed to make one feel better about killing another human being.
It’s murder plain and simple. Prove it’s not and we have a real debate, otherwise this is utter bullshit.
[/quote]

I already have.

That you do not want to get the distinction between killing someone and not keeping him alive is hardly my problem.

244

[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:

By this logic, liberal thinking folk have no right to life since they make themselves willingly dependent on others for their own survival.

And you despise it and yet follow the same logic when it comes to an embryo.

I despise it because it’s idiotic, contradictory, self-aggrandizing, illogical, and dysfunctional in concept and reality. Just like this lame attempt at “logic” being used in this thread.
the whole burden on the mother thing is completely irrelevant to the topic if the thing you are killing is a human being. Prove it’s not and I won’t give a fuck what you do with it.

The only thing that matters in the abortion debate is whether or not the pre-born child is a human life or not. The rest is just linguistical gymnastics designed to make one feel better about killing another human being.
It’s murder plain and simple. Prove it’s not and we have a real debate, otherwise this is utter bullshit.

I already have.

That you do not want to get the distinction between killing someone and not keeping him alive is hardly my problem.

[/quote]

Except not keeping a fetus or new born alive is killing them. So there is no distinction.

245

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
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]

I am not opposed to abortion, but for different reasons than Rothbard.

He just demonstrates that even IF embryos were human beings with all natural rights, forcing a woman to deliver it would still be unethical.

What your though experiment shows however is that their is a clear difference between killing an embryo or just stopping to carry it in your womb.

I actually already addressed that, saying that there are embryos (6 months and above) who survive the separation from the mother.

I think we would all agree that forcing a mother to deliver a child would be wrong if there are alternative means.

Most posters however cannot see beyond the fact that separating a women from the embryo leads to the embryos death in most cases but is obviously NOT THE SAME AS KILLING IT BECAUSE IT NOT ALWAYS DOES.

246

[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
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?

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]

Agreed.

247

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

It is Rothbard´s argument so what he thinks is kind of relevant.

But I thought it was “your very own abortion thread!”…?

If I am interested in your opinion, perhaps I should just consult Uncle Murray.

He distinguishes between ethics, that more or less cover human interactions based on natural rights, and morality, which would be how you exercise your rights.

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?

If the child is born, you, or anyone else, is perfectly free to step in and preserve the child´s live though.

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]

Come on, you´re smarter than that.

Killing someone is not the same as not caring for someone.

248

[quote]John S. wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]

That´s because the law makes no sense.

Don´t blame him.

249

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:

By this logic, liberal thinking folk have no right to life since they make themselves willingly dependent on others for their own survival.

And you despise it and yet follow the same logic when it comes to an embryo.

I despise it because it’s idiotic, contradictory, self-aggrandizing, illogical, and dysfunctional in concept and reality. Just like this lame attempt at “logic” being used in this thread.
the whole burden on the mother thing is completely irrelevant to the topic if the thing you are killing is a human being. Prove it’s not and I won’t give a fuck what you do with it.

The only thing that matters in the abortion debate is whether or not the pre-born child is a human life or not. The rest is just linguistical gymnastics designed to make one feel better about killing another human being.
It’s murder plain and simple. Prove it’s not and we have a real debate, otherwise this is utter bullshit.

I already have.

That you do not want to get the distinction between killing someone and not keeping him alive is hardly my problem.

Except not keeping a fetus or new born alive is killing them. So there is no distinction.[/quote]

That is not true, because if you separate a woman from an 7 month old embryo it will live on its own.

250

Since interesting questions have been raised I have contacted Prof Block who I consider an authority in libertarian ethics regarding this topic and he has pointed me in this direction:

http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf

; http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do?containerType=Issue&containerId=18709; http://www.walterblock.com/publications.php#recent-arts;
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-children.pdf

Those were the ones with a hyperlink.

251

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:

By this logic, liberal thinking folk have no right to life since they make themselves willingly dependent on others for their own survival.

And you despise it and yet follow the same logic when it comes to an embryo.

I despise it because it’s idiotic, contradictory, self-aggrandizing, illogical, and dysfunctional in concept and reality. Just like this lame attempt at “logic” being used in this thread.
the whole burden on the mother thing is completely irrelevant to the topic if the thing you are killing is a human being. Prove it’s not and I won’t give a fuck what you do with it.

The only thing that matters in the abortion debate is whether or not the pre-born child is a human life or not. The rest is just linguistical gymnastics designed to make one feel better about killing another human being.
It’s murder plain and simple. Prove it’s not and we have a real debate, otherwise this is utter bullshit.

I already have.

That you do not want to get the distinction between killing someone and not keeping him alive is hardly my problem.

Except not keeping a fetus or new born alive is killing them. So there is no distinction.

That is not true, because if you separate a woman from an 7 month old embryo it will live on its own.

[/quote]

Not for very long unless the mother or someone else takes care of it.

If you separate a man and his leg he will live through it, but only for a little while. That is still murder isn’t it?

252

If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?

The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.

Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.

253

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?

The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.

Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.[/quote]

Whether abortion is a natural act is irrelevant.

If a child dies that is not cared for, blame nature.

A mother could be removed from a child for all kinds of reasons, leading to the child’s death.

I am glad that we have established that removing a child from the womb and killing it is not one and the same.

One is the unwillingness to care for a child that might or might not result in a death, the other is an act of aggression.

254

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:

By this logic, liberal thinking folk have no right to life since they make themselves willingly dependent on others for their own survival.

And you despise it and yet follow the same logic when it comes to an embryo.

I despise it because it’s idiotic, contradictory, self-aggrandizing, illogical, and dysfunctional in concept and reality. Just like this lame attempt at “logic” being used in this thread.
the whole burden on the mother thing is completely irrelevant to the topic if the thing you are killing is a human being. Prove it’s not and I won’t give a fuck what you do with it.

The only thing that matters in the abortion debate is whether or not the pre-born child is a human life or not. The rest is just linguistical gymnastics designed to make one feel better about killing another human being.
It’s murder plain and simple. Prove it’s not and we have a real debate, otherwise this is utter bullshit.

I already have.

That you do not want to get the distinction between killing someone and not keeping him alive is hardly my problem.

Except not keeping a fetus or new born alive is killing them. So there is no distinction.

That is not true, because if you separate a woman from an 7 month old embryo it will live on its own.

Not for very long unless the mother or someone else takes care of it.

If you separate a man and his leg he will live through it, but only for a little while. That is still murder isn’t it?
[/quote]

Irrelevant, because the man has a property right to his body, an embryo no property right to his mothers body.

255

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
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]

Your scenario seems to be one of the keystones for libertarian debate.

256

Another thought experiment:

Suppose one day you wake up to find yourself attached to another
person, e.g., Thomp~on’s"~by now famous violinist, through your kidneys.
You have two healthy organs, and the other person has none that are
functioning. During the night, while you slept, doctors performed an
operation connecting that person to your ludneys through a sort of umbilical
chord, and there you lie. This operation was conducted without the
permission or even knowledge of either “patient.”
What rights and obligations do you have with regard to this violinist?
First, let us stipulate that the person in question is a complete innocent.
Last night he was in a hospital bed; this morning he woke up in your bed
attached to you. He is not a rapist. You were “raped,” but this was not
done by your bedmate; instead, it was the act of evil doctors who have
since vanished fiom the scene. What you are confronted with is the result
of the rape, namely, this person lying in bed with you attached to your
kidneys1" completely dependent upon you for his life.

Copied from Blocks links above.

257

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?

The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.

Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.

Whether abortion is a natural act is irrelevant.

If a child dies that is not cared for, blame nature.

A mother could be removed from a child for all kinds of reasons, leading to the child’s death.

I am glad that we have established that removing a child from the womb and killing it is not one and the same.

One is the unwillingness to care for a child that might or might not result in a death, the other is an act of aggression.

[/quote]

No we did not establish removing a child and killing it are two different things. How often do you think aborted fetuses live through the abortion?

I’m not even going to look the numbers up because I doubt any do and if they survive for even a short period of time they are so tiny due to premature removal that they would have all sorts of problems. Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.

How can you say if abortion is an unnatural act it is irrelevant then immediately say if the baby dies blame nature? What kind of logic is that? Why would I blame nature? Human beings are not designed to be able to protect themselves directly after birth.

Look at a lot of other animals. They survive birth or the hatching process and need no help from their parents to survive. Human beings can not. A baby can not crawl to a near by tree and eat the leaves. Nor can it create its own milk to feed itself. Why do you think women naturally secrete milk during pregnancy and after birth? That is nature?s way of say “hey care for your kid”. It is most definitely relevant.

No a mother can not be removed for all kinds of reasons. A woman can have a miscarriage, an abortion, give birth, or be killed resulting in the infants death. So the only way to remove a baby unnaturally from their mother is to either kill her or cut the baby out. Both of which are wrong.

258

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:

By this logic, liberal thinking folk have no right to life since they make themselves willingly dependent on others for their own survival.

And you despise it and yet follow the same logic when it comes to an embryo.

I despise it because it’s idiotic, contradictory, self-aggrandizing, illogical, and dysfunctional in concept and reality. Just like this lame attempt at “logic” being used in this thread.

the whole burden on the mother thing is completely irrelevant to the topic if the thing you are killing is a human being. Prove it’s not and I won’t give a fuck what you do with it.

The only thing that matters in the abortion debate is whether or not the pre-born child is a human life or not. The rest is just linguistical gymnastics designed to make one feel better about killing another human being.

It’s murder plain and simple. Prove it’s not and we have a real debate, otherwise this is utter bullshit.

I already have.

That you do not want to get the distinction between killing someone and not keeping him alive is hardly my problem.

Except not keeping a fetus or new born alive is killing them. So there is no distinction.

That is not true, because if you separate a woman from an 7 month old embryo it will live on its own.

Not for very long unless the mother or someone else takes care of it.

If you separate a man and his leg he will live through it, but only for a little while. That is still murder isn’t it?

Irrelevant, because the man has a property right to his body, an embryo no property right to his mothers body.

[/quote]

I would argue an embryo does have a “property” right to the womb because the embryo did not crawl up there for fun, but was put there by the mother and father. Why should a living being have less of a right its life support system then the woman who created the being that needs the life support system?

The property argument is such a joke. We aren’t talking about a homeless guy living in your basement, but a life created by you in your womb.

259

[quote]orion wrote:
Another thought experiment:

Suppose one day you wake up to find yourself attached to another
person, e.g., Thomp~on’s"~by now famous violinist, through your kidneys.
You have two healthy organs, and the other person has none that are
functioning. During the night, while you slept, doctors performed an
operation connecting that person to your ludneys through a sort of umbilical
chord, and there you lie. This operation was conducted without the
permission or even knowledge of either “patient.”
What rights and obligations do you have with regard to this violinist?

First, let us stipulate that the person in question is a complete innocent.
Last night he was in a hospital bed; this morning he woke up in your bed
attached to you. He is not a rapist.

You were “raped,” but this was not
done by your bedmate; instead, it was the act of evil doctors who have
since vanished fiom the scene. What you are confronted with is the result
of the rape, namely, this person lying in bed with you attached to your
kidneys1" completely dependent upon you for his life.

Copied from Blocks links above.[/quote]

What is this a fucking sci fi channel weekend special or something?

For any surgery consent would be required before a doctor could do anything. Consent from you or consent from your legal guardian. A fetus doesn’t get to consent to abortion and last time I check a doctor is legally obligated to help someone in need not hurt them.

Honestly abortions should b against the doctor moral code because they are sworn to help protect life not take it away.

Why not put them on mars where they only get to use one hand to perform the surgery while you?re at it.

260

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If nature is allowed to take its course then a pregnant woman will more then likely give birth to a child. Abortion is an unnatural act forcing separation and death to the child. Who is the victim in this case?

The women who had her rights taken away by being forced to carry a child she helped create or the child that is killed? Even if the child lives without further assistance the child will die. That is how nature works.

Just because we are a society of supposed thinkers doesn’t change the fact that a mother and a father of a child have a moral obligation to care for their child. Ethics be damned. I’m glad Orion said I have no ethics at least my moral compass points in the right direction.

Whether abortion is a natural act is irrelevant.

If a child dies that is not cared for, blame nature.

A mother could be removed from a child for all kinds of reasons, leading to the child’s death.

I am glad that we have established that removing a child from the womb and killing it is not one and the same.

One is the unwillingness to care for a child that might or might not result in a death, the other is an act of aggression.

No we did not establish removing a child and killing it are two different things. How often do you think aborted fetuses live through the abortion? I’m not even going to look the numbers up because I doubt any do and if they survive for even a short period of time they are so tiny due to premature removal that they would have all sorts of problems. Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.

How can you say if abortion is an unnatural act it is irrelevant then immediately say if the baby dies blame nature? What kind of logic is that? Why would I blame nature? Human beings are not designed to be able to protect themselves directly after birth.

Look at a lot of other animals. They survive birth or the hatching process and need no help from their parents to survive. Human beings can not. A baby can not crawl to a near by tree and eat the leaves. Nor can it create its own milk to feed itself.

Why do you think women naturally secrete milk during pregnancy and after birth? That is nature?s way of say “hey care for your kid”. It is most definitely relevant.

No a mother can not be removed for all kinds of reasons. A woman can have a miscarriage, an abortion, give birth, or be killed resulting in the infants death. So the only way to remove a baby unnaturally from their mother is to either kill her or cut the baby out. Both of which are wrong.
[/quote]

A) You say it yourself and I quote:

Removing a fetus from the womb even at 8 month results in death more times then not.

So the removement of an embryo does not equal killing it, QED.

B) You brought up that unattended babies die. They do, but only because they have the right but not the power the live.

Whether you can force someone to provide for someone else at gunpoint is the question here.

Usually conservatives are adamantly against that.

C) She can die at childbirth, alone in the woods.