PDA

View Full Version : Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Counts Of Murder




Zatch
01-20-2011, 02:16 AM
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 02:39 AM
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

“I am aware that abortion is a hot-button topic,” said District Attorney Seth Williams. “But as district attorney, my job is to carry out the law.A doctor who knowingly and systematically mistreats female patients, to the point that one of them dies in his so-called care, commits murder under the law. A doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is committing murder under the law.”

Gosnell is facing charges of murder in the third degree for the death of 41-year- old Karnamaya Mongar.* Mrs. Mongar died on November 20, 2009, when she was overdosed with anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell.* He is also facing seven murder charges for the deaths of infants who were killed after being born viable and alive during the sixth, seventh, or eighth month of pregnancy. Gosnell is also facing numerous other charges.


What's even more sick and twisted than a doctor cutting a babies spinal cord in half when it is born are the people who think it is somehow "okay" to cut the baby's spinal cord in half a few minutes before its born...or a few weeks...or a few months....

Look deep inside yourselves and look at the brutality of abortion.

low preference guy
01-20-2011, 02:43 AM
What's even more sick and twisted than a doctor cutting a babies spinal cord in half when it is born are the people who think it is somehow "okay" to cut the baby's spinal cord in half a few minutes before its born...or a few weeks...or a few months....


how is it more twisted? at most, it would be equally twisted.

JohnEngland
01-20-2011, 02:51 AM
All abortion doctors are murderers and should be thrown in jail for crimes against humanity.

TheTyke
01-20-2011, 02:52 AM
how is it more twisted? at most, it would be equally twisted.

To pretend it's different is adding deception onto murder so it doesn't bother the conscience. "More" makes sense to me in that context.

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 02:56 AM
One day history will look back at how we brutalized the most innocent and defenseless people in our society, and turned a blind eye to the brutality... much like we are now speechless in amazement at how Germany could define Jews as sub-human, or slave-owners could define blacks as sub-human.


And it's not just history that is judging us, it will be the Lord Himself. If you want to live in the fantasy world where you think God does not judge nations for rejecting Him, fine...go for it.


We, as a nation, will have deserved every calamity that is soon to befall us....I promise you.

EDIT: BTW, I wasn't talking about this "end times" nonsense, I was talking about the end of America. Rome fell because it was a welfare-state, empire-burdened, morally bankrupt basketcase. America will be the same way. When the Germanic hordes were overtaking Rome, the people were still begging for games to be held. Abortion, prostitution, corruption, theft, murder, were all rampant. Rome fell from within.

Kids here act like it is some accident of history that America was the most blessed nation in the world...lol.

dannno
01-20-2011, 02:56 AM
To pretend it's different is adding deception onto murder so it doesn't bother the conscience. "More" makes sense to me in that context.

lol, no, he's saying it is at most equally as twisted, which would fit under your definition.. (it's just semantics, not really that important) However others may disagree and think it is less twisted to have an early term abortion. I know I'm in that camp. Early term abortion > Late term abortion. Additionally, both acts can still be wrong, with one being less twisted than the other.

low preference guy
01-20-2011, 02:56 AM
To pretend it's different is adding deception onto murder so it doesn't bother the conscience. "More" makes sense to me in that context.

so thinking that it's ok to cut a baby's spinal cord before he is born is worse than actually cutting the spinal cord of a born baby?

ok. i guess i'm just going to recognize the disagreement and quit the discussion.

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 03:00 AM
so thinking that it's ok to cut a baby's spinal cord before he is born is worse than actually cutting the spinal cord of a born baby?

ok. i guess i'm just going to recognize the disagreement and quit the discussion.

I do think that the conviction in people that cutting the spinal cords of babies is "okay" is in some ways more twisted than doing it. I mean, a person can murder a baby but know it is wrong. To believe it is OKAY to murder a baby and then do it or support policies that support it....that is really evil.

But I don't want to quibble about "more" or "equal"... I'd rather get your opinion on the story.

Andrew-Austin
01-20-2011, 03:00 AM
One day history will look back at how we brutalized the most innocent and defenseless people in our society, and turned a blind eye to the brutality... much like we are now speechless in amazement at how Germany could define Jews as sub-human, or slave-owners could define blacks as sub-human.


And it's not just history that is judging us, it will be the Lord Himself. If you want to live in the fantasy world where you think God does not judge nations for rejecting Him, fine...go for it.


We, as a nation, will have deserved every calamity that is soon to befall us....I promise you.

Yeah!! God will punish everyone for what some people have done!! Fire, brimstone, bring it.

Oh wait, you are that guy who thinks beating kids is virtuous (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?274842-Video-Uncle-whips-nephew-live-over-webcam-for-pretending-to-be-a-gangster/page3). Just like how people today look back at slavery in revulsion, people in the future will look back on people like you in disgust for being so gleeful about hitting kids. If you are a fetus, then Aquabuddha has you covered. If you are a child, then you better cower in fear, all the abuse from the ignorant parenting of yesteryear may be inflicted upon you.

Bman
01-20-2011, 03:02 AM
lol, no, he's saying it is at most equally as twisted, which would fit under your definition.. others may disagree and think it is less twisted to have an early term abortion. I know I'm in that camp. Early term abortion > Late term abortion. Additionally, both acts can still be wrong, with one being less twisted than the other.

Me too. I find what happened here to be disgusting, but very early on in a pregnancy when the cells have yet to take shape I have little problem with abortion. However it's a very small window.

dannno
01-20-2011, 03:08 AM
Me too. I find what happened here to be disgusting, but very early on in a pregnancy when the cells have yet to take shape I have little problem with abortion. However it's a very small window.

Well when you consider how many women who are trying to have children end up having miscarriages, which to me is a lot more sad than a woman who doesn't even want the child having an abortion, especially if having abortions is really bad.. are those deaths not on God's hands? :eek:

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 03:22 AM
Yeah!! God will punish everyone for what some people have done!! Fire, brimstone, bring it.

Oh wait, you are that guy who thinks beating kids is virtuous (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?274842-Video-Uncle-whips-nephew-live-over-webcam-for-pretending-to-be-a-gangster/page3). Just like how people today look back at slavery in revulsion, people in the future will look back on people like you in disgust for being so gleeful about hitting kids. If you are a fetus, then Aquabuddha has you covered. If you are a child, then you better cower in fear, all the abuse from the ignorant parenting of yesteryear may be inflicted upon you.


How old are you? Serious question...

Vessol
01-20-2011, 03:32 AM
Yeah!! God will punish everyone for what some people have done!! Fire, brimstone, bring it.

Oh wait, you are that guy who thinks beating kids is virtuous (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?274842-Video-Uncle-whips-nephew-live-over-webcam-for-pretending-to-be-a-gangster/page3). Just like how people today look back at slavery in revulsion, people in the future will look back on people like you in disgust for being so gleeful about hitting kids. If you are a fetus, then Aquabuddha has you covered. If you are a child, then you better cower in fear, all the abuse from the ignorant parenting of yesteryear may be inflicted upon you.

+1.

I'm not sure where I stand on abortion, I tend to think very early term abortion is not as morally reprehensible as the abortion of a developed fetus which I am hugely against.

However, saying


I think this is great.

It is a shame that his real Dad is not administering the lashing, imo.

I remember a good many lashings like this when I was growing up.:) My Dad did it because he loved me more than anything.

I'm glad that you enjoyed your father beating you. My parents loved me more than anything, funny thing is that they never showed it to me by violently beating me.

TheTyke
01-20-2011, 03:37 AM
I think this thread is being derailed...

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 03:47 AM
I think this thread is being derailed...

Haha...it is being derailed.

I think it is being derailed in part because even the supporters of abortion, when faced with its brutality, can't help but change the subject to anything but the issue before them.

You can really understand the soul of a person when you discover the things he tries to avoid.

Vessol
01-20-2011, 03:48 AM
Haha...it is being derailed.

I think it is being derailed in part because even the supporters of abortion, when faced with its brutality, can't help but change the subject to anything but the issue before them.

You can really understand the soul of a person when you discover the things he tries to avoid.

Like the fact that killing an unborn child is morally reprehensible(which I actually agree with, don't try to shove us all into your stereotype), yet violently assaulting children isn't morally reprehensible?

Yeah, that does show a person's soul.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-20-2011, 03:51 AM
Haha...it is being derailed.

I think it is being derailed in part because even the supporters of abortion, when faced with its brutality, can't help but change the subject to anything but the issue before them.

You can really understand the soul of a person when you discover the things he tries to avoid.

You brought up God and it's enivitable punishment of all persons for the actions of a few. You brought up the brutality of abortion (which I agree with you), but yet you cannot reoncile that with your professed belief in the brutality of beating, hitting, & assaulting a child. You never need to hit a child. My father never hit me, but just his intimidation and presence made me straighten up very fast, and I was always taught to be courteous in public and with family with no attendent beatings to learn this. Abuse is abuse, and you do not own your child. The child owns himself. Anyways, I guess God allows beatings of children, killing innocent people for the actions of others, and yet, is quite the compassionate when it comes to the unborn. Odd, that.

Oh and by the way, I am neither pro-life, nor pro-choice, I am anti-murder (Mother has right to evict, but not kill, just like you can evict trespassers on your property, but you cannot kill them just because they stepped on your property. In Christian terms this is called proportional use of force).

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 03:59 AM
Like the fact that killing an unborn child is morally reprehensible(which I actually agree with, don't try to shove us all into your stereotype), yet violently assaulting children isn't morally reprehensible?




I don't accept your arbitrary and irrational "morality" lol. I don't accept the claim that spanking or whipping your children with a belt is wrong. That is just psycho-babble, and it actually hurts children when they are not punished appropriately.

I have a Biblical morality...I don't accept your arbitrary version of "morality". If I wanted to keep this discussion going, I could ask you, given your presuppositions of atheism, how you could justify ANY violent act against a person as ultimately "wrong". You can't.


LOL...I never said that God condones child abuse, as some of you suggested. A father spanking his child is NOT child abuse. You've let these worldly, feminized, preachers of psychobabble brainwash your mind:).

Andrew-Austin
01-20-2011, 04:59 AM
How old are you? Serious question...

No, it isn't. Its irrelevant to the discussion unless you want to argue that ad hominem attacks are valid.



I think it is being derailed in part because even the supporters of abortion, when faced with its brutality, can't help but change the subject to anything but the issue before them.

I brought up the other subject because you claiming the moral high ground in such an outlandish manner, while holding such views as you do on beating kids, to be laughable.

As for the doctor in the story, it sounds like he is a murderer, and I'm glad he was rightfully convicted.

As for abortion, I use to lean "pro-life", now I lean "pro-choice", but I don't really care about the issue that much. I do tend to care more about kids than fetuses. Big whoop.



You can really understand the soul of a person when you discover the things he tries to avoid.

Avoid the abortion issue? I've discussed it before just fine and I can do so again, its not like this was the first time it was brought up, its been endlessly discussed. One subject that has hardly been touched is how to treat kids, and I'm just more interested in your blatantly contradictory moral positions.

So you can't harm a fetus because it has rights, but once that fetus is born and develops an intelligence beyond that of a small animal, harming the child is actually moral. This is bizarre, sounds like the type of view passed on by ignorant men from a time when beating your wife was also considered good or at least not bad.



I don't accept your arbitrary and irrational "morality" lol. I don't accept the claim that spanking or whipping your children with a belt is wrong. That is just psycho-babble, and it actually hurts children when they are not punished appropriately.

I have a Biblical morality...I don't accept your arbitrary version of "morality". If I wanted to keep this discussion going, I could ask you, given your presuppositions of atheism, how you could justify ANY violent act against a person as ultimately "wrong". You can't.

You can't prove that your morality is not arbitrary, since you can't prove God exists or that God wrote the bible through the minds of men. You have nothing to stand on by bringing up the bible, I don't know why you would pretend otherwise.



LOL...I never said that God condones child abuse, as some of you suggested. A father spanking his child is NOT child abuse. You've let these worldly, feminized, preachers of psychobabble brainwash your mind.

Can you form some coherent argument that hitting helpless kids is not immoral, and that it somehow helps them? Or are you just going to randomly throw around words like "feminized" and "psychobabble"? Spanking is a form of beating, some parents hit their kids on the ass, some across the face. Beating is physical abuse, you can't look up any definition of "physical abuse" that does not clearly include beating. And it has been proven extensively (through methods called empiricism and research that I know you hate so much) that beating also traumatizes them, so it can also be considered emotional/psychological abuse.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-20-2011, 06:14 AM
I don't accept your arbitrary and irrational "morality" lol. I don't accept the claim that spanking or whipping your children with a belt is wrong. That is just psycho-babble, and it actually hurts children when they are not punished appropriately.

I have a Biblical morality...I don't accept your arbitrary version of "morality". If I wanted to keep this discussion going, I could ask you, given your presuppositions of atheism, how you could justify ANY violent act against a person as ultimately "wrong". You can't.


LOL...I never said that God condones child abuse, as some of you suggested. A father spanking his child is NOT child abuse. You've let these worldly, feminized, preachers of psychobabble brainwash your mind:).

So, if I start spanking a random person, or even those in my family without their permission, it isn't considered assault? That's news to me. Hitting anyone without their permission is blatantly an initiation of violence and the antithesis of liberty and self-ownership. The child owns himself, just like you own yourself, and thus it is his right to decide if he will allow someone to hit him or not, and if you violate Natural Law you are no better than any other batterer. I think it is absolutely wrong to believe that you own your child. Apparently at some mythical point he goes from being a slave to owning himself, and that isn't arbitrary?

I would also like to hear your defense how self-ownership is arbitrary.

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 06:42 AM
So, if I start spanking a random person, or even those in my family without their permission, it isn't considered assault? That's news to me. Hitting anyone without their permission is blatantly an initiation of violence and the antithesis of liberty and self-ownership. The child owns himself, just like you own yourself, and thus it is his right to decide if he will allow someone to hit him or not, and if you violate Natural Law you are no better than any other batterer. I think it is absolutely wrong to believe that you own your child. Apparently at some mythical point he goes from being a slave to owning himself, and that isn't arbitrary?

I would also like to hear your defense how self-ownership is arbitrary.


Let's explore what you are saying here.

If self-ownership precludes any initiation of force from parent to child, can a parent grab a child and yell at them, when the parent thinks that by doing so it will help them learn something? Can a parent force their child to get braces even though the kid doesn't want them? Can a parent force their child to get a shot if the child doesn't want one? Shots hurt, and my parents forced me to undergo many shots. Can I sue them now?

Can a parent NEVER spank their child even if the parent thinks it is right? Furthermore, what Federal agency do you favor to enforce this regulation against what parents have done for centuries?

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 06:50 AM
LOL. What initiation of force from government do you favor to stop the "initiation of force" by a parent spanking their child out of love and concern for them?


According to Scripture, if you "spare the rod, you spoil the child". So according to my religious worldview (and most Americans), spanking is acceptable and encouraged. So what government agency do you propose to enforce this against the wishes of parents?

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-20-2011, 06:54 AM
Let's explore what you are saying here.

If self-ownership precludes any initiation of force from parent to child, can a parent grab a child and yell at them, when the parent thinks that by doing so it will help them learn something? Can a parent force their child to get braces even though the kid doesn't want them? Can a parent force their child to get a shot if the child doesn't want one? Shots hurt, and my parents forced me to undergo many shots. Can I sue them now?

Can a parent NEVER spank their child even if the parent thinks it is right? Furthermore, what Federal agency do you favor to enforce this regulation against what parents have done for centuries?

Obviously any case brought about with such distances of time elapsed it would be impossible to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and not to mention there is a statute of limitations (though I am opposed to such things). I also think all those things are wrong, but again, you apparently do not. I suppose you think it is ok to circumcise your child without his consent. I am glad my mother is quite libertarian on a host of issues and she gave me the choice for me to make. This principle (self-ownership) is without restraint. Of course you are always welcome to make it known that if the child wishes to reside with you that he is essentially agreeing to a slave contract (And the Government has created this scenario of course, with Child Labor Laws, minimum wage, and a long laundry list of other ridiculous laws). I was made known at a quite early age (~11 ish), that I was free to leave at any time, but if I were to stay I would have to abide by patriarchal/matriarchal rule. Of course it was under duress because of the conditions the Government created with their laws (Especially the Fugitive Slave Act, cough *Child* Slave Act). That's why as soon as I could work at the 'legal' age of 14 I did so.


Furthermore, what Federal agency do you favor to enforce this regulation against what parents have done for centuries?

None. I don't think courts are exactly a new agency, but who knows...I thought this was an absurd question since courts all ready enforce battery, assault, etc.

PS: You know that cliche about teens? That is usually about when it truly dawns on them that they are slaves. They rebel just like Nat Turner, no fucking clue why this is a mystery when the relationship is truly master-slave. How about you allow your children their rightful autonomy and you will find that they aren't so rebellious when they become more free. It is also why when most children leave the home the relationships between the parents and the child markedly improve. I still find it so curious as to why people cannot see the plain truth when it is so widespread.

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 07:11 AM
AED,

I like you. More than most people here. You are one of my favorite posters. But think about it bro... Parents can't force their 2 year child to get a shot that will save his life when he is sick? That is a little overboard bro....I think you know that.

In fact, wouldn't the parents be neglectful if they didn't force their child to get a shot, against the 2 year olds wishes, to save their childs life?

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-20-2011, 07:11 AM
LOL. What initiation of force from government do you favor to stop the "initiation of force" by a parent spanking their child out of love and concern for them?


According to Scripture, if you "spare the rod, you spoil the child". So according to my religious worldview (and most Americans), spanking is acceptable and encouraged. So what government agency do you propose to enforce this against the wishes of parents?

LOL. What initiation of force from government do you favor to stop the 'initiation of force' by an owner spanking their property/slave out of love and concern for them?

According to the Constitution, you have the right to own another person, and the majority of Americans agree with that principle, and it is acceptable and encouraged. So what Government agency do you propose to enforce this against the wishes of the owners?

- Well, that wasn't so hard - The relationships between child and parent in today's world are literally identical to that of the owner and the slave in our early history. There are Fugitive Slave laws (Oh I am sorry, they don't exactly call them that these days), where if your child runs away from you, the police, and other Government agencies will chase them down for you and return them to you. They are forced to do everything you say, because after-all, you are allowed, actually encouraged and accepted to spank them and punish them if they do not. Of course, this is all out of love & concern.

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 07:16 AM
LOL. What initiation of force from government do you favor to stop the 'initiation of force' by an owner spanking their property/slave out of love and concern for them?

According to the Constitution, you have the right to own another person, and the majority of Americans agree with that principle, and it is acceptable and encouraged. So what Government agency do you propose to enforce this against the wishes of the owners?

- Well, that wasn't so hard - The relationships between child and parent in today's world are literally identical to that of the owner and the slave in our early history. There are Fugitive Slave laws (Oh I am sorry, they don't exactly call them that these days), where if your child runs away from you, the police, and other Government agencies will chase them down for you and return them to you. They are forced to do everything you say, because after-all, you are allowed, actually encouraged and accepted to spank them and punish them if they do not. Of course, this is all out of love & concern.


Parenthood does not equal slavery and spanking does not equal child abuse.

The analogies are not valid.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-20-2011, 07:18 AM
AED,

I like you. More than most people here. You are one of my favorite posters. But think about it bro... Parents can't force their 2 year child to get a shot that will save his life when he is sick? That is a little overboard bro....I think you know that.

In fact, wouldn't the parents be neglectful if they didn't force their child to get a shot, against the 2 year olds wishes, to save their childs life?

Thank you. I quite like you too, but as a person who lived this and who had parents who were quite libertarian when it came to parenting (I wish I was unschooled though), can vouch for many of these things. Of course, as an on-looker with a firm set of principles I can critique and analyze these relationships too.

How is that overboard? Remember the Swine Flu-shot? I thought you were against the mandated shot by the Government because it violated self-ownership principles. Replace Government with Parent and it is the exact same situation. I do not like inconsistency. Principles are rock-solid, and contradictions in beliefs create so many problems. I think it is a little disingenuous to say that the Government or any other person cannot force someone to take treatment that could save their life, but yet the Parent has this 'right'. I used to work in the health-care field, and DNR's were used all the time. Are you for or against DNR's? At what point do you elevate life above liberty? Tyranny to save lives is tyranny nonetheless.

PS: Using a 2 year is disingenuous to the conversation, because they do not have the faculties to assert their wishes, and just like the vegetable has Power of Attorney, and delegates his rights to another, so too does the child before his faculties are developed where he can articulate his wants and needs (this is subjective here at what age a child has these capabilities just like you don't say all persons over 75 are senile). It is therefore assumed the parent has PoA, and all such other things until the child becomes acute. In most children this age is around five or six.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-20-2011, 07:24 AM
Parenthood does not equal slavery and spanking does not equal child abuse.

The analogies are not valid.

So, if a parent were to make their child learn a lesson in work ethic, and told him or her, they weren't going to get any food unless they did their 'chores' is that acceptable? Where do you draw the line Aqua? Do you think parents who practice this (and many do), should be held accountable to justice? What about parents who abuse (sorry, spank), their children if they behave in ways they do not approve of (And I am not talking either about rude or prudish behavior, but just everyday likes, dislikes, preferences, etc.)? What about all the kids who get punished for not doing their chores, or not eating the right food, or refusing to eat food they don't like, or a whole litany of abuses?

I know it is a tough revelation, but it is nonetheless quite the 'Gods' honest truth that the parent-child relationship is master-slave.

TheTyke
01-20-2011, 07:27 AM
Ok.... first, killing and punishment are COMPLETELY different level of severity, so this is a complete derailing of the topic. Maybe it should have been discussed in the other thread. The majority on this board acknowledge this by disliking capital punishment, but approve prison sentences.

Second, my sister generally, as you would say, respects her children's "self-ownership." You know what the result is? They're constantly running around screaming, interrupting, talking over people and *gasp* occasionally initiating force against each other. Countless attempts to rationally explain why they shouldn't behave like this were utterly fruitless to children who hadn't even reached the age of reason or grasped the language. How many times do we see kids misbehaving in stores and parents impotently pleading with them to behave? Finally realizing that this "freedom" was destructive even to their own children, my relatives are finally trying discipline - though not as much as I had or is necessary to teach civilized interaction with other humans.

I'm not sure what the ultimate answer is for dealing with children and when certain rights assert themselves - but I'm steadfastly opposed to killing them OR letting them turn into brats.

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 07:29 AM
Thank you. I quite like you too, but as a person who lived this and who had parents who were quite libertarian when it came to parenting (I wish I was unschooled though), can vouch for many of these things. Of course, as an on-looker with a firm set of principles I can critique and analyze these relationships too.

How is that overboard? Remember the Swine Flu-shot? I thought you were against the mandated shot by the Government because it violated self-ownership principles. Replace Government with Parent and it is the exact same situation. I do not like inconsistency. Principles are rock-solid, and contradictions in beliefs create so many problems. I think it is a little disingenuous to say that the Government or any other person cannot force someone to take treatment that could save their life, but yet the Parent has this 'right'. I used to work in the health-care field, and DNR's were used all the time. Are you for or against DNR's? At what point do you elevate life above liberty? Tyranny to save lives is tyranny nonetheless.

The analogy is again not valid. Parents, not government, have a responsibility to care for their children.

Government forcing children to get vaccines is wrong, especially when the parents object! The parents are in the situation to protect the child from government!

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-20-2011, 07:37 AM
Ok.... first, killing and punishment are COMPLETELY different level of severity, so this is a complete derailing of the topic. Maybe it should have been discussed in the other thread. The majority on this board acknowledge this by disliking capital punishment, but approve prison sentences.

Second, my sister generally, as you would say, respects her children's "self-ownership." You know what the result is? They're constantly running around screaming, interrupting, talking over people and *gasp* occasionally initiating force against each other. Countless attempts to rationally explain why they shouldn't behave like this were utterly fruitless to children who hadn't even reached the age of reason or grasped the language. How many times do we see kids misbehaving in stores and parents impotently pleading with them to behave? Finally realizing that this "freedom" was destructive even to their own children, my relatives are finally trying discipline - though not as much as I had or is necessary to teach civilized interaction with other humans.

I'm not sure what the ultimate answer is for dealing with children and when certain rights assert themselves - but I'm steadfastly opposed to killing them OR letting them turn into brats.

I believe I clarified my position that addressed your second paragraph. Obviously if a child has not yet learned the English language, and is incapable of articulating their wishes, desires, wants, needs, etc. then it is assumed the Parent has PoA and the delegation of the child's rights until the time the child has the capabilities to assume their own rights. Just as when an adult is in a coma, that PoA is assumed Next of Kin, and if the person awakes, they retain all their rights and liberties. At what age this occurs in each child is entirely individualized. At some it may not be until 8, and in some it could be when they are 6. Though again, the laws are as they are, quite against the rights of individuals if you are under a certain arbitrary age that the Government deems (they let you have a little more liberty when you turn 16 or so, and then 18, and then 21, but after that well, they aren't 'giving' you any more, and they of course retain the force and 'law' to take those away quite easily).

Also, the parents role is to be the child's pedagogical mentor. Learning has never, ever, required hitting someone, unless of course you want to teach them that violence is ok, but then the Parent when confronted with a violent child will revolt just as has been done here. Hitting is wrong, unless I do it. Children do realize how hypocritical this is by the way.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-20-2011, 07:43 AM
The analogy is again not valid. Parents, not government, have a responsibility to care for their children.

Government forcing children to get vaccines is wrong, especially when the parents object! The parents are in the situation to protect the child from government!

So it is not force that is wrong, it is merely the Government? Because if the force was wrong, then it would also be wrong for the Parent to force their child, which was exactly my point. Well, socialists say that you are wrong, and the Government has an obligation to provide for the welfare of the people, and your argument against this is to point to a Bible passage, or say that Parents have the right of force, but Governments shouldn't or do not. Well, that isn't exactly a powerful argument. Now, if you argued against the initiation of force you would be consistent and a constant defender of liberty of all persons. It isn't a large jump from Parent to Government who is authorized to use force, since the Government is all ready authorized to initiate force because it is in their founding charters!! So, again, your argument falls flat when this is brought up. Why against this initiation of force, but not the initiation of force called taxation? As I said, your position is the arbitrary one :p

As they say -- Justice is Blind. It matters not if you are 85, 23, 7, or 134.


PS: I am well aware I am in a very small minority on this position.

PPS: I guess I have always been a natural-born libertarian seeing as when I was 10 or so I threatened my parents if they didn't let go of me with calling the Police on them. Looking back in retrospect I wonder if there aren't strong genetic links on how individuals reason and think, with their political, philosophical, and economic persuasions. Funny that.

torchbearer
01-20-2011, 07:50 AM
to be consistent, shouldn't they arrest the women who hired him?
i mean, let's not by hypocritical here. if its murder, the woman hired the hitman.
can't wait until we start putting teen age girls in prison. that'll teach them.
we will force them to be moral.

TheTyke
01-20-2011, 08:46 AM
to be consistent, shouldn't they arrest the women who hired him?
i mean, let's not by hypocritical here. if its murder, the woman hired the hitman.
can't wait until we start putting teen age girls in prison. that'll teach them.
we will force them to be moral.

I can't wait till we start putting killers in prison. That will force them to behave. Oh wait... should we just overlook it and hope they behave in the future? Did you really wanna go there?

While you sarcastically highlight the political obstacles to stopping the use of deadly force against others, you are also forgetting to include the men and families who pressure them into it because they don't want to be bothered or spend money.

AED: My niece can speak English at 2, but sure as heck hasn't reached the age of reason. If a child is walking towards a cliff, will you say it's their decision and you can't initiate force to stop them? This is a completely illogical premise! They haven't learned the concept of consequence, or what can hurt them - this is really the point of punishment.

NYgs23
01-20-2011, 08:55 AM
Using a 2 year is disingenuous to the conversation, because they do not have the faculties to assert their wishes, and just like the vegetable has Power of Attorney, and delegates his rights to another, so too does the child before his faculties are developed where he can articulate his wants and needs (this is subjective here at what age a child has these capabilities just like you don't say all persons over 75 are senile). It is therefore assumed the parent has PoA, and all such other things until the child becomes acute. In most children this age is around five or six.

Wait a second. So doesn't that mean it is okay to spank a child under five or six since their rights have be delegated?

psi2941
01-20-2011, 09:01 AM
how come cutting a human baby is not ok but cutting a baby pig or cow ok?

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 09:03 AM
how is it more twisted? at most, it would be equally twisted.

It is more twisted, because Doctors take an Oath to do no harm.
And because Doctors are (as a rule) trusted to preserve life.

But then it is not unexpected when you look at recent history. medical ethics has become highly questionable.
From the eugenics programs in the US. the Nazi"medical" experiments and the scum that were imported here during Operation Paperclip..
The Tuskegee experiments, and more recent revelations of similar in South America..
Not to mention MK Ultra.

The ethics are questionable, and the "trust" undeserved.

angelatc
01-20-2011, 09:05 AM
AED,

I like you. More than most people here. You are one of my favorite posters. But think about it bro... Parents can't force their 2 year child to get a shot that will save his life when he is sick? That is a little overboard bro....I think you know that.

In fact, wouldn't the parents be neglectful if they didn't force their child to get a shot, against the 2 year olds wishes, to save their childs life?

I think most people who believe in unlimited rights for children don't actually have any children.

angelatc
01-20-2011, 09:07 AM
It is more twisted, because Doctors take an Oath to do no harm.
And because Doctors are (as a rule) trusted to preserve life.

But then it is not unexpected when you look at recent history. medical ethics has become highly questionable.
From the eugenics programs in the US. the Nazi"medical" experiments and the scum that were imported here during Operation Paperclip..
The Tuskegee experiments, and more recent revelations of similar in South America..
Not to mention MK Ultra.

The ethics are questionable, and the "trust" undeserved.

This is the same situation that Barack Obama voted for in Illinois. Abortion doctors can't be held responsible for the deaths of babies born alive during the procedure. What the hell is wrong with people?

jmdrake
01-20-2011, 09:18 AM
to be consistent, shouldn't they arrest the women who hired him?
i mean, let's not by hypocritical here. if its murder, the woman hired the hitman.
can't wait until we start putting teen age girls in prison. that'll teach them.
we will force them to be moral.

Well legally if the women hired him to kill the babies before they left the womb, and he killed them after they left the womb he technically committed a different act. So he is and should be the only one on the hook. It would be like someone working at an animal shelter and instead of putting the animals to sleep sold them to a restaurant that served dogs and cats. On the surface that would be the same act assuming the animals were killed in the same way. Legally it's a different matter.

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 09:20 AM
Single issues ?
Not to me. And the folks here should be looking at a larger picture. Many of these "single" issues are related and share the same phylosophy.
An anti-liberty philosophy. A collectivist philosophy.

Whether Abortion, Gun Control, or the War on Drugs or Police State. They all have the same roots.

Socialism. and Control.

:mad:

Kylie
01-20-2011, 09:30 AM
Until children are old enough to reason, it is sometimes necessary to use force to keep them safe.

If my 2 year old ran out in the street and didn't run back when I called them, I would whoop them out of fear of them returning to the street and getting hit and dying.

Once they are old enough to reason, you can usually talk to them and make them understand the "WHY" of any situation. I have a three year old granddaughter that has been cognizant since she was two. Until that time, she would get her hand smacked or her butt when necessary.

My 12 and 14 year olds, though, don't have hands put upon them. Why? Because I shouldn't have to do that. They are old enough to use their critical thinking skills and determine the end result of their actions. I have raised my to believe that they should respect me enough to not force me, by their actions, into using force against them. I surely do not want to use force, so please do not force my hand. Use your brain and your words instead.

As far as this abortion doctor, he needs to fry. IMO, it's sick what he did. You can't take an oath to do no harm and then cut the necks of newborns with a pair of scissors. I wonder if he handed the babies and the scissors to the mother if they would have been able to do what he has done, with a clear conscious? I bet not.

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 10:01 AM
how come cutting a human baby is not ok but cutting a baby pig or cow ok?

Because humans are made in the image of God, and have God's spiritual imprint of reason imputed to them..animals do not.

If you accept the irrational worldview of atheism, I agree that you would have to construct a strange logical wormhole to get out of that:)

specsaregood
01-20-2011, 10:03 AM
---
AquaBuddha, I would suggest following Cowlesy's advice in my signature.

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 10:08 AM
G
I think most people who believe in unlimited rights for children don't actually have any children.

Yes:)

But I still really like AED. He strives for consistency when others don't even care. I really appreciate that commitment to logic and reason.

__27__
01-20-2011, 10:12 AM
Abortion is a pretty tough subject that can be debated and supported thoroughly from both sides through libertarian principle.

Because of this, I find it more practical to worry about the millions of fully grown humans government murders each year. When we stop those murders I'll be glad to get down to the nasty business of debating abortion.

Sola_Fide
01-20-2011, 11:00 AM
Single issues ?
Not to me.

*And the folks here should be looking at a larger picture. Many of these "single" issues are related and share the same phylosophy. An anti-liberty philosophy. A collectivist philosophy.*

Whether Abortion, Gun Control, or the War on Drugs or Police State. They all have the same roots.

Socialism. and Control.

:mad:


Threadwinner^^^

Brian4Liberty
01-20-2011, 11:47 AM
Where does the AMA stand on this? Who licenses or certifies these doctors? This guy should be in serious violation of medical ethics, and never licensed to practice again.

TheTyke
01-20-2011, 11:56 AM
Abortion is a pretty tough subject that can be debated and supported thoroughly from both sides through libertarian principle.

Because of this, I find it more practical to worry about the millions of fully grown humans government murders each year. When we stop those murders I'll be glad to get down to the nasty business of debating abortion.

I agree it's a tough issue to work through, and a divisive one. Strategically, maybe it's best not to get worked up over it and cause divisions and bad feelings in the liberty movement.

But on the other hand, I feel vexation when it is downplayed as a small issue. Since Roe v. Wade, 55 million babies have been killed in this country alone. It's got to be one of the greatest slaughters in human history, and it's going on every day in the "land of the free." God bless Ron Paul, though for just saying what he believes in The Revolution... Even if I grit my teeth at how he often hurts his chances of election, he has made a lot of people think, including myself. (I was always a pro-lifer, but now have followed that to its logical conclusion of being non-interventionist as well.)

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 12:05 PM
Where does the AMA stand on this? Who licenses or certifies these doctors? This guy should be in serious violation of medical ethics, and never licensed to practice again.

Have they pulled many licenses?

From another Line of Study, but focusing on the ethics of the medical community. (or lack thereof)
http://www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg


The participation of psychiatrists and medical schools in mind control research was not a matter of a few scattered doctors pursuing questionable lines of investigation. Rather, the mind control experimentation was systematic, organized, and involved many leading psychiatrists and medical schools. The mind control experiments were interwoven with radiation experiments, and research on chemical and biological weapons. They were funded by the CIA, Army, Navy, Air Force, and by other agencies including the Public Health Service and the Scottish Rite Foundation. Page F

The psychiatrists, psychologists, neurosurgeons, and other contractors conducting the work were imbedded in a broad network of doctors. Much of the research was published in medical journals. The climate was permissive, supportive, and approving of mind control experimentation. P. F, 1

The work of the mind control doctors did not occur in a vacuum. The importation of Nazi doctors to the US through secret programs like PAPERCLIP is part of the context. After the end of World War II, German scientists and technical experts were being held in detainment camps. The British, French, Americans, and Russians became embroiled in highly competitive recruiting efforts to secure the services of these German specialists. The prospect of losing the industrial and scientific services of these German experts lead to the creation of Project PAPERCLIP. [3][4][5] P. 1, 3

Over 1,000 German scientists were secretly brought into the US without State Department approval. The most famous individual brought over in this manner was Werner von Braun, the rocket scientist. Von Braun was the head of the German V2 rocket program. The NASA rockets that took Neil Armstrong to the moon were built by von Braun and his colleagues. Medical doctors also came over under PAPERCLIP. P. 3, 4

Likewise, the Tuskeegee Syphilis Study helps us understand how mind control experimentation was not only tolerated by medical professionals, but published in peer-reviewed literature. [6][7] The Study, started in Alabama in 1932, was run by the Public Health Service. 399 illiterate, poor rural black men with syphilis were recruited as subjects, along with 201 controls without syphilis. The purpose of the Study was to make sure the 399 men never got treatment. The subjects and their families weren’t told they had syphilis and didn’t know it was treatable. They were told that they had bad blood. P. 1, 9, 10

The cure for syphilis, penicillin, was introduced in the early 1940’s. It was withheld from the Tuskeegee men for 30 years. The published results of the Study showed the men with untreated syphilis were sicker and died younger than controls. [8] How many women were infected with syphilis because these men were deliberately not treated? How many children were born with syphilis because of the Study? P. 11

The Tuskeegee Syphilis Study was eventually shut down in 1972 because of the efforts of an investigative journalist. There is no evidence to suggest that the government or the medical progression had any intention of closing the study as of 1972. People and organizations that knew about the Study included the Surgeon General, the American Heart Association, and the Center for Disease Control. Throughout its 40-year course, the Tuskeegee Study was praised and received various honors. P. 9-13

The Tuskeegee Study establishes that a large network of doctors and organization were willing to participate in, fund, and condone grossly unethical medical experimentation into the 1970’s. The Study proves that considerable external pressure is often required before the medical profession takes the necessary action to terminate such experimentation. P. 14

Unethical radiation experiments were conducted on about 600 subjects [9][10][11] in the US beginning in the 1940’s and running into the 1970’s. Many people were injected with plutonium and exposed to other forms of radiation without their informed consent. 18 patients were injected with plutonium in an experiment run by the MANHATTAN PROJECT. Prisoners in Washington and Oregon state prisons were paid to have their testicles irradiated. They got $5 a month for the irradiation. During the experiment, which ran from 1963 to 1971, the subjects’ testicles were exposed to 600 roentgen of radiation, which is 100 times the maximum recommended dose. P. 15-17

Clouds of radioactive material were released into the atmosphere and tracked as they moved downwind, often through populated areas. In one experiment code-named GREEN RUN, radioactive iodine-131 released from the Hanford Nuclear Facility drifted over Spokane. The cloud contained hundreds of times as much radiation as was released accidentally at Three Mile Island in 1979. P. 17

As was true of mind control and biological weapon research, radiation research experiments were conducted on children and unwitting civilians. In 1961, researchers at Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Boston University School of Medicine gave radioactive iodine to seventy retarded children at Wrentham State School. At Fernald School, MIT gave radioactive substances to children by putting it in their food. No risks of radioactivity were mentioned in the consent form signed by the parents. The consent form stated that the purpose of the experiments was “helping to improve the nutrition of our children.” P. 15, 18

Dr. Saul Krugman of New York University and his staff deliberately injected severely mentally retarded children at Willowbrook State School with hepatitis virus in the 1950’s and 1960’s, [12] funded by the Army Medical Research and Development Command. To date there has been no compensation for victims of unethical biological experiments. P. 18, 19

Army doctors were actively involved in LSD testing at least until the late 1970’s. Subjects of LSD experiments included children as young as five years old, and brain electrodes were implanted in children as young as 11 years of age. Four of the CIA’s MKULTRA Subprojects were on children. The mind control doctors included Presidents of the American Psychiatric Association and psychiatrists who received full-page obituaries in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Responsibility for the unethical experimentation lies first with the individual doctors, but also collectively with the medical profession and with academia as a whole. P. 21

torchbearer
01-20-2011, 12:23 PM
Well legally if the women hired him to kill the babies before they left the womb, and he killed them after they left the womb he technically committed a different act. So he is and should be the only one on the hook. It would be like someone working at an animal shelter and instead of putting the animals to sleep sold them to a restaurant that served dogs and cats. On the surface that would be the same act assuming the animals were killed in the same way. Legally it's a different matter.

so, the woman hiring a hitman to kill the baby in one way, the doctor does it another way. this then makes her no longer liable for hiring the hitman?
I hire you to kill my boss, i tell you i want it done at his office. You end up killing him at his home. therefore, you didn't follow the contract, so i'm no longer considered a part of the murder?

RyanRSheets
01-20-2011, 12:28 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how thoroughly off topic threads here go.

torchbearer
01-20-2011, 12:29 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how thoroughly off topic threads here go.

you haven't been here long enough. give it time- it will cease to amaze you.

pcosmar
01-20-2011, 12:32 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how thoroughly off topic threads here go.

Off topic?
The legal issues.?
Or the ethical issues?

The moral issues have long been debated.

RyanRSheets
01-20-2011, 01:04 PM
Off topic?
The legal issues.?
Or the ethical issues?

The moral issues have long been debated.

A thread initially about a particularly brutal method of abortion turned into a slappy fight over child abuse. Stabbing a baby in the spinal cord is on a different level than spanking your child.

As for abortion, I think there are only 3 relevant facts:
1) The mother generally consents to sex. Is she consenting to the possibility of pregnancy? Did she waive her right to decide?
2) The baby is living. If you could extract it from the mother without killing it, it would have the same rights as you or I.
3) Pregnancy is a physical burden. Does the mother have the right to opt out of the burden, even though she consented to the possibility of it by consenting to sex, and her opting out would mean taking the life of the baby?

Personally, I think the answer is that abortion should be considered murder in any society that punishes murder. However, that rests on the contract I believe is made, and ignores that it would be a wild goose chase just like the drug war, to try and prosecute such a thing.

RonPaulFanInGA
01-20-2011, 01:15 PM
The child owns himself, just like you own yourself, and thus it is his right to decide if he will allow someone to hit him or not, and if you violate Natural Law you are no better than any other batterer. I think it is absolutely wrong to believe that you own your child. Apparently at some mythical point he goes from being a slave to owning himself, and that isn't arbitrary?

I would also like to hear your defense how self-ownership is arbitrary.

Absurd. Children can't smoke, drink, vote, own a gun, join the miltary, etc.; nor should they be legally able to. Nor does anyone outside a really small fringe minority even think they should.

A child doesn't have "ownership." If you think they do, let a six year old in which you're the legal guardian break the law on their own free choosing (murder, drinking, whatever) and see who's the one hauled off to jail. Not them.

RyanRSheets
01-20-2011, 01:36 PM
Absurd. Children can't smoke, drink, vote, own a gun, join the miltary, etc.; nor should they be legally able to. Nor does anyone outside a really small fringe minority even think they should.

A child doesn't have "ownership." If you think they do, let an 8 year old in which you're the legal guardian break the law on their own free choosing (murder, drinking, whatever) and see who's the one hauled off to jail. Not them.

What age should they get their rights at, though? People reach mental maturity at different ages. We say 18 because it seems to work most of the time, but there are countless examples of the arbitrary designation of adulthood giving people who aren't mentally mature rights and denying people who are fully mature rights. In high school, I had friends who basically already lived on their own freshman year, and other friends who still can't live on their own (I'm 23).

There was one girl who wanted to drop out. She lived with her older boyfriend and had no desire to continue her education. While this obviously would have been a bad decision, she was a bright young woman and she seemed to be fully capable of living on her own. She wouldn't have a diploma, thus it would be harder for her to find employment, but she had all the street smarts she needed to make it, so why is it any of our business if she wants to quit school? Should I be robbed to pay for an education she does not want?

Looking back on it, I really didn't learn much of value in high school. I learned a lot from interacting with peers, and I learned a lot from my own attempts to learn, but being in that box all day was no more beneficial than working at a younger age would have been.

jmdrake
01-20-2011, 02:24 PM
so, the woman hiring a hitman to kill the baby in one way, the doctor does it another way. this then makes her no longer liable for hiring the hitman?
I hire you to kill my boss, i tell you i want it done at his office. You end up killing him at his home. therefore, you didn't follow the contract, so I'm no longer considered a part of the murder?

It all depends. Is killing your boss at the office legal? If yes then it makes a difference. If no then it doesn't. Are you arguing that the laws on infanticide and late term abortion laws should be reconciled? I have no argument against that, but that is a different question from the decision to prosecute under the current law.

Icymudpuppy
01-20-2011, 02:47 PM
Folks, some of you seem to think that spanking is used as a method of teaching.

I have been spanked, and I give spankings. But it was not for teaching, it was punishment for crime.

I was spanked quite hard I remember clearly at the age of about 6 for breaking a window in my house. That is vandalism, and destruction of my parent's property. Another time I threw a table knife at my sister and also received corporal punishment. These are just two examples. I am much happier that my parents acted as Police, Jury, Judge, and Sentence carrier, than if they had called 911 to report me as a vandal or for assault with a weapon. Can you imagine?

Likewise, When my own children initiate aggression by stealing from, destroying the property of, or assaulting another person, you can bet that I will act as their judge and impose corporal punishment. I feel that is much better than calling the police.

Timeout also known as incarceration doesn't work on one of my children and is simply an invitation to more assaults, and more vandalism as he will kick, hit, the person who tries to put him in a corner, and break any objects including doors, drywall, chairs, etc that he can get to. I can't afford a padded cell, so I use Corporal punishment immediate attitude adjustment tool that actually works.

Meanwhile, my other child is not violent at all, and when caught doing wrong accepts his time-out and cries about his feelings for a while. I think he has only ever been spanked once.

Those of you who say a parent cannot punish their children are advocating for the government to step in and teach civility to wayward children. Violence doesn't have to be learned, indeed it is the natural method of obtaining your desires that all animals are born with. Nature dictates that some people are born ready to use violence to get what they want. Nurture is how we teach them that humans don't act that way, and that if you continue to be violent, then someone with more power than you will put a stop to your violent tendencies usually by inflicting your violence right back at you.

Deborah K
01-20-2011, 02:52 PM
Folks, some of you seem to think that spanking is used as a method of teaching.

I have been spanked, and I give spankings. But it was not for teaching, it was punishment for crime.

I was spanked quite hard I remember clearly at the age of about 6 for breaking a window in my house. That is vandalism, and destruction of my parent's property. Another time I threw a table knife at my sister and also received corporal punishment. These are just two examples. I am much happier that my parents acted as Police, Jury, Judge, and Sentence carrier, than if they had called 911 to report me as a vandal or for assault with a weapon. Can you imagine?

Likewise, When my own children initiate aggression by stealing from, destroying the property of, or assaulting another person, you can bet that I will act as their judge and impose corporal punishment. I feel that is much better than calling the police.

Timeout also known as incarceration doesn't work on one of my children and is simply an invitation to more assaults, and more vandalism as he will kick, hit, the person who tries to put him in a corner, and break any objects including doors, drywall, chairs, etc that he can get to. Corporal punishment actually works as an immediate attitude adjustment.

Meanwhile, my other child is not violent at all, and when caught doing wrong accepts his time-out and cries about his feelings for a while.

When my kids were little (all grown and gone now), I gave them freedom of choice:

Either listen with your ears, or listen with your behind!

oyarde
01-20-2011, 03:50 PM
I am speechless . Severing babies spinal cords with scissors , that pretty well left me dumbfounded.

Deborah K
01-20-2011, 03:53 PM
I am speechless . Severing babies spinal cords with scissors , that pretty well left me dumbfounded.

Sadly, that is how the partial birth abortion procedure is conducted and has been for well over a decade. Say what you want about Former Senator Rick Santorum, he fought hard to get a ban on it, and creeps like my two Senators here in Cali, have consistently voted against it. The ban never passed.

torchbearer
01-20-2011, 05:13 PM
It all depends. Is killing your boss at the office legal? If yes then it makes a difference. If no then it doesn't. Are you arguing that the laws on infanticide and late term abortion laws should be reconciled? I have no argument against that, but that is a different question from the decision to prosecute under the current law.

oh, ok. i see your point now. as in accordance to how the laws are now.

__27__
01-20-2011, 10:19 PM
A thread initially about a particularly brutal method of abortion turned into a slappy fight over child abuse. Stabbing a baby in the spinal cord is on a different level than spanking your child.

As for abortion, I think there are only 3 relevant facts:
1) The mother generally consents to sex. Is she consenting to the possibility of pregnancy? Did she waive her right to decide?
2) The baby is living. If you could extract it from the mother without killing it, it would have the same rights as you or I.
3) Pregnancy is a physical burden. Does the mother have the right to opt out of the burden, even though she consented to the possibility of it by consenting to sex, and her opting out would mean taking the life of the baby?

Personally, I think the answer is that abortion should be considered murder in any society that punishes murder. However, that rests on the contract I believe is made, and ignores that it would be a wild goose chase just like the drug war, to try and prosecute such a thing.

Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty:

First, let us begin with the prenatal child. What is the parent's,
or rather the mother's, property right in the fetus? In the first place,
we must note that the conservative Catholic position has generally
been dismissed too brusquely. This position holds that the fetus is a
living person, and hence that abortion is an act of murder and must
therefore be outlawed as in the case of any murder. The usual reply is
simply to demarcate birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing
natural rights, including the right not to be murdered; before
birth, the counter-argument runs, the child cannot be considered a living
person. But the Catholic reply that the fetus is alive and is an imminently
potential person then comes disquietingly close to the general
view that a newborn baby cannot be aggressed against because it is a
potential adult. While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation,
the usual formulation makes birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks
sufficient rational groundwork in the theory of self-ownership.

The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's
absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman
has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion
over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses
are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation,
but the fetus is there by the mother's freely-granted consent. But should the
mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the
fetus becomes a parasitic "invader" of her person, and the mother has the
perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be
looked upon, not as "murder" of a living person, but as the expulsion of
an unwanted invader from the mother's body.2 Any laws restricting or prohibiting
abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.

It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to
the conception, the mother has therefore "contracted" its status with the
fetus, and may not "violate" that "contract" by having an abortion. There
are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we
shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract:
contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit
theft, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, there is
obviously no "contract" here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly
be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly
as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability
of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary
slave contracts. Even if this had been a "contract," then, it could not be enforced
because a mother's will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately
be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.

Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a living
human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of human beings.
Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are
human beings-or, more broadly, potential human beings-and are
therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask,
have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling
human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a
fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.

The anti-abortionists generally couch the preceding argument in
terms of the fetus's, as well as the born human's, "right to life." We have
not used this concept in this volume because of its ambiguity, and because
any proper rights implied by its advocates are included in the concept of
the "right to self-ownershipf'-the right to have one's person fiee from
aggression. Even Professor Judith Thomson, who, in her discussion of the
abortion question, attempts inconsistently to retain the concept of "right
to life" along with the right to own one's own body, lucidly demonstrates
the pitfalls and errors of the "right to life" doctrine:

In some views, having a right to life includes having a right
to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued
life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum
a man needs for continued life is something he has no right
at all to be given? If I am sick unto death, and the only thing
that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand
on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be
given the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on my fevered
brow. It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the
West Coast to provide it. . . . But I have no right at all against
anybody that he should do this for me.

In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term "right to life," to
give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that
life. In our terminology such a claim would be an impermissible violation
of the other person's right of self-ownership. Or, as Professor Thomson
cogently puts it, "having a right to life does not guarantee having
either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued
use of another person's body-even if one needs it for life itself.'I3

Suppose now that the baby has been born. Then what? First, we
may say that the parents-or rather the mother, who is the only certain
and visible parent-as the creators of the baby become its owners. A
newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore,
either the mother or some other party or parties may be the baby's
owner, but to assert that a third party can claim his "ownership" over
the baby would give that person the right to seize the baby by force
from its natural or "homesteading" owner, its mother. The mother, then,
is the natural and rightful owner of the baby, and any attempt to seize
the baby by force is an invasion of her property right.

But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of
the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre
state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute
and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the
parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited
in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in
the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or
torture his or her children.

We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership
is not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. In short, every
baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his
mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a
separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a
violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person
by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very
concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's
action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore
have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the
compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual
being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property
(i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that
anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone
would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that
would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary
this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with
the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade
the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to
respect the other man's rights.

robert68
01-20-2011, 11:22 PM
...
As for abortion, I think there are only 3 relevant facts:
1) The mother generally consents to sex. Is she consenting to the possibility of pregnancy? Did she waive her right to decide?
2) The baby is living. If you could extract it from the mother without killing it, it would have the same rights as you or I.
3) Pregnancy is a physical burden. Does the mother have the right to opt out of the burden, even though she consented to the possibility of it by consenting to sex, and her opting out would mean taking the life of the baby?

Personally, I think the answer is that abortion should be considered murder in any society that punishes murder. However, that rests on the contract I believe is made, and ignores that it would be a wild goose chase just like the drug war, to try and prosecute such a thing.

All of those scenarios rest on the predicate that embryos are “babies.” And reality isn’t determined by “pro-life” assertions.

A society that treated all deliberate pregnancy terminations from conception on as murder, wouldn't be a libertarian one, and most libertarians have always believed that.

Vessol
01-21-2011, 12:09 AM
I don't accept your arbitrary and irrational "morality" lol. I don't accept the claim that spanking or whipping your children with a belt is wrong. That is just psycho-babble, and it actually hurts children when they are not punished appropriately.

I have a Biblical morality...I don't accept your arbitrary version of "morality". If I wanted to keep this discussion going, I could ask you, given your presuppositions of atheism, how you could justify ANY violent act against a person as ultimately "wrong". You can't.

LOL...I never said that God condones child abuse, as some of you suggested. A father spanking his child is NOT child abuse. You've let these worldly, feminized, preachers of psychobabble brainwash your mind:).

You know what's funny. I was never physically assaulted when I was a child. When I got in trouble, I got time out, I stern glare, something taken away from me or as I got older, I was actually reasoned with. I was one of the most polite and well-behaved children growing up, I remember my mother told me on my first day of school in kindergarten I walked up and politely shook hands with my teacher and told her "it's nice to meet you". I was raised with proper discipline, love, and respect.

Do you know why my mother never punished me with violence? Because when she was younger, her mother(a devout Catholic) would beat her senseless when she wouldn't light a cigarette for her, and she would beat her some more when she accused my grandfather of raping her. My father was beaten regularly as a child and his parents would only let him eat a meal a day when he got bad grades in middle school, oh yeah and his parents were very religious Lutherans as well.

My cousins, on the other hand, were raised by two evangelical Christians who believed that physical force was the only way to teach a child. I remember those two(both a boy and a girl), whenever they came to our house they were often caught trying to steal stuff from our house. And when they got caught, they were spanked and beaten some more. My male cousin at the age of 11 decided to stab my aunt when he got a bad grade and she was going to call my uncle to bring the belt to whoop him good. My female cousin got pregnant at the age of 14 and was hospitalized for suicidal depression a year later.

Correlation does not equal causation, beating children does not always bring this as a result. However you seem to think that the only way a child can be raised is through physically beating. I'm a contradiction of that idea. If I, and many others, can be raised to be independent, intelligent, well-behaved children, without using physical violence, then what justifies it? I think it's lazy parenting.
I'm also of the firm belief that the reason why so many people accept the State using violence in order to extort funds and enforce laws is because people view the State as an extension of their parents. Many parents use violence to control their children, and even though some are choosing not to, they are instead not instilling independence in their children which makes the State more of an extension of mummy and daddy always taking care of them. Either way, raising a child through violence or without teaching independence is very damaging to progressing the ideas of liberty.

Notice that I linked each and every one of these abusers as being very religious. What does that have to do with the topic? Absolutely nothing. I just did it to raise you're ire, I don't think religious people are bad or inherently abusive.
I'm tired of being attacked on the basis of my lack of faith which you seem to believe means I have no moral standards and that I cannot claim to desire liberty.
I've never once attacked you for your religious beliefs, yet you seem so eager to somehow label me and collectivize me so you can marginalize my arguments instead of directly debating them.

low preference guy
01-21-2011, 12:15 AM
^ great post. people in favor of using physical violence against their children are psychos.

Vessol
01-21-2011, 04:13 PM
I used to be fairly ambivalent towards child abuse, thinking it was unimportant in the large scale of things.

That was until I watched the Bomb in the Brain series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-ukfhM

Say what you want about Stefan, he doesn't go into any particular ideology in this series, but rather he just shows the cold hard data gathered from the ACE(Adverse Childhood Experience) Study.

oyarde
01-21-2011, 04:21 PM
You know what's funny. I was never physically assaulted when I was a child. When I got in trouble, I got time out, I stern glare, something taken away from me or as I got older, I was actually reasoned with. I was one of the most polite and well-behaved children growing up, I remember my mother told me on my first day of school in kindergarten I walked up and politely shook hands with my teacher and told her "it's nice to meet you". I was raised with proper discipline, love, and respect.

Do you know why my mother never punished me with violence? Because when she was younger, her mother(a devout Catholic) would beat her senseless when she wouldn't light a cigarette for her, and she would beat her some more when she accused my grandfather of raping her. My father was beaten regularly as a child and his parents would only let him eat a meal a day when he got bad grades in middle school, oh yeah and his parents were very religious Lutherans as well.

My cousins, on the other hand, were raised by two evangelical Christians who believed that physical force was the only way to teach a child. I remember those two(both a boy and a girl), whenever they came to our house they were often caught trying to steal stuff from our house. And when they got caught, they were spanked and beaten some more. My male cousin at the age of 11 decided to stab my aunt when he got a bad grade and she was going to call my uncle to bring the belt to whoop him good. My female cousin got pregnant at the age of 14 and was hospitalized for suicidal depression a year later.

Correlation does not equal causation, beating children does not always bring this as a result. However you seem to think that the only way a child can be raised is through physically beating. I'm a contradiction of that idea. If I, and many others, can be raised to be independent, intelligent, well-behaved children, without using physical violence, then what justifies it? I think it's lazy parenting.
I'm also of the firm belief that the reason why so many people accept the State using violence in order to extort funds and enforce laws is because people view the State as an extension of their parents. Many parents use violence to control their children, and even though some are choosing not to, they are instead not instilling independence in their children which makes the State more of an extension of mummy and daddy always taking care of them. Either way, raising a child through violence or without teaching independence is very damaging to progressing the ideas of liberty.

Notice that I linked each and every one of these abusers as being very religious. What does that have to do with the topic? Absolutely nothing. I just did it to raise you're ire, I don't think religious people are bad or inherently abusive.
I'm tired of being attacked on the basis of my lack of faith which you seem to believe means I have no moral standards and that I cannot claim to desire liberty.
I've never once attacked you for your religious beliefs, yet you seem so eager to somehow label me and collectivize me so you can marginalize my arguments instead of directly debating them.

Why only one meal a day ?

Vessol
01-21-2011, 04:23 PM
Why only one meal a day ?

His parents grew up in Texas in the Dust Bowl during the Depression. They thought that an excess amount of food creates slothness. I remember when I was younger there was no snacks or cookies to be had at their house. It was dinner, and if you didn't like it you went hungry. I remember once they served a green bean casserole I didn't like(I was a picky eater when I was much younger) and later in the night when I was really hungry they told me to eat the leftover casserole or nothing else, I then cried and called my mother who got on their case and they made me a can of soup. Don't get me wrong, they weren't that bad of people IMO from my childhood memories I still loved them, but they had very backwards ideas.

oyarde
01-21-2011, 04:24 PM
I know some Lutherans , none like that . i HAVE TO GUESS THAT IS NOT RELATIVE TO RELIGION , BUT MAYBE A SCREW LOOSE .

oyarde
01-21-2011, 04:25 PM
His parents grew up in Texas in the Dust Bowl during the Depression. They thought that an excess amount of food creates slothness. I remember when I was younger there was no snacks or cookies to be had at their house. It was dinner, and if you didn't like it you went hungry. Don't get me wrong, they weren't that bad of people IMO from my childhood memories I still loved them, but they had very backwards ideas.

sO EVERYBODY IS JUST EATING DINNER ?

ammorris
01-21-2011, 04:28 PM
You know what's funny. I was never physically assaulted when I was a child. When I got in trouble, I got time out, I stern glare, something taken away from me or as I got older, I was actually reasoned with. I was one of the most polite and well-behaved children growing up, I remember my mother told me on my first day of school in kindergarten I walked up and politely shook hands with my teacher and told her "it's nice to meet you". I was raised with proper discipline, love, and respect.

Do you know why my mother never punished me with violence? Because when she was younger, her mother(a devout Catholic) would beat her senseless when she wouldn't light a cigarette for her, and she would beat her some more when she accused my grandfather of raping her. My father was beaten regularly as a child and his parents would only let him eat a meal a day when he got bad grades in middle school, oh yeah and his parents were very religious Lutherans as well.

My cousins, on the other hand, were raised by two evangelical Christians who believed that physical force was the only way to teach a child. I remember those two(both a boy and a girl), whenever they came to our house they were often caught trying to steal stuff from our house. And when they got caught, they were spanked and beaten some more. My male cousin at the age of 11 decided to stab my aunt when he got a bad grade and she was going to call my uncle to bring the belt to whoop him good. My female cousin got pregnant at the age of 14 and was hospitalized for suicidal depression a year later.

Correlation does not equal causation, beating children does not always bring this as a result. However you seem to think that the only way a child can be raised is through physically beating. I'm a contradiction of that idea. If I, and many others, can be raised to be independent, intelligent, well-behaved children, without using physical violence, then what justifies it? I think it's lazy parenting.
I'm also of the firm belief that the reason why so many people accept the State using violence in order to extort funds and enforce laws is because people view the State as an extension of their parents. Many parents use violence to control their children, and even though some are choosing not to, they are instead not instilling independence in their children which makes the State more of an extension of mummy and daddy always taking care of them. Either way, raising a child through violence or without teaching independence is very damaging to progressing the ideas of liberty.

Notice that I linked each and every one of these abusers as being very religious. What does that have to do with the topic? Absolutely nothing. I just did it to raise you're ire, I don't think religious people are bad or inherently abusive.
I'm tired of being attacked on the basis of my lack of faith which you seem to believe means I have no moral standards and that I cannot claim to desire liberty.
I've never once attacked you for your religious beliefs, yet you seem so eager to somehow label me and collectivize me so you can marginalize my arguments instead of directly debating them.

Valuable and thoughtful post, though I disagree with the poster's position.


^ great post. people in favor of using physical violence against their children are psychos.

Not a valuable or thoughtful post.

Vessol
01-21-2011, 04:29 PM
If you read the full extent of my message, I stated that religion has nothing to do with it. I just was bringing that up to drive the point that using the basis of faith to attack someone(as Aquabuddah constantly does) is insulting and useless.

And yes, he would go to school during the day without any money to buy food there(but from what I understand he got friends to give him food), he would come home and he then was locked in his room for the rest of the night and checked on regularly to make sure he was studying. He could come out for dinner and when he requested a bathroom break.


Valuable and thoughtful post, though I disagree with the poster's position.

What part do you disagree with? Because I, and many others, are raised as excellent well-behaved children without violence. I doubt I'm the exception, I don't feel that violence is needed to successfully raise children. Not only that, but using violence and other abuse on a child has been confirmed by long term studies to have devastating effects on a persons remaining life.

oyarde
01-21-2011, 04:29 PM
Excess food contributing to sloth ? Interesting ... is it possible that was just all the food there was ?

oyarde
01-21-2011, 04:31 PM
If you read the full extent of my message, I stated that religion has nothing to do with it. I just was bringing that up to drive the point that using the basis of faith to attack someone(as Aquabuddah constantly does) is insulting and useless.

And yes, he would go to school during the day without any money to buy food there(but from what I understand he got friends to give him food), he would come home and he then was locked in his room for the rest of the night and checked on regularly to make sure he was studying. He could come out for dinner and when he requested a bathroom break. I agree with your assesment that using religion as a basis of attack gets nowhere . I imagine his friends probably did help feed him . I know I would have for any of my school mates .

Vessol
01-21-2011, 04:34 PM
Excess food contributing to sloth ? Interesting ... is it possible that was just all the food there was ?

No. My grandfather was a university professor for engineering and mathematics. He was on the team that created Bank of America's first computer. He easily had a three figure income. They also had 6 other kids and lived in a house with 10 bedrooms.
There was never any lack of money.

It was just their warped sense of discipline and raising children. They didn't raise their children very successfully.

Let's see..out of 7 total..
2 committed suicide
1 is a wanted felon with 5 ex-wives who fled to Mexico and hasn't been heard from in years.
1 became anorexic and was actually hospitalized because she was so weak from lack of food.
1 is in a mental institute for schizophrenia
My father and my uncle are the only ones whom still even talk to them and have normal lives.

oyarde
01-21-2011, 04:36 PM
No. My grandfather was a university professor for engineering and mathematics. He was on the team that created Bank of America's first computer. He easily had a three figure income. They also had 7 other kids and lived in a house with 10 bedrooms.

Amazing ....

ammorris
01-22-2011, 03:34 PM
What part do you disagree with? Because I, and many others, are raised as excellent well-behaved children without violence. I doubt I'm the exception, I don't feel that violence is needed to successfully raise children. Not only that, but using violence and other abuse on a child has been confirmed by long term studies to have devastating effects on a persons remaining life.

Specifically, I'm inclined to disagree with this:


I'm also of the firm belief that the reason why so many people accept the State using violence in order to extort funds and enforce laws is because people view the State as an extension of their parents. Many parents use violence to control their children, and even though some are choosing not to, they are instead not instilling independence in their children which makes the State more of an extension of mummy and daddy always taking care of them. Either way, raising a child through violence or without teaching independence is very damaging to progressing the ideas of liberty.

I know quite a few home-schoolers and other dissenters who make judicious use of corporal punishment, and their kids have turned out to be independent and well adjusted. I know plenty of parents who--if they could--might literally hand their children over for the state to raise and who never use any form of meaningful discipline (physical or otherwise), and those children, predictably, exhibit a mindset of dependence on government.

Really, my position on corporal punishment is that it may be beneficial for some children and parents, and it may not work for others. The research I have seen on this matter isn't all that conclusive or convincing, and leaves plenty of room for interpretation. There are plenty of parents on both sides who have turned out well-adjusted, responsible, polite children. There are also parents on both sides who are abject failures at child-rearing. If you listen to your conscience, use common sense, and make sure that you are making decisions with your children's best interests in mind and not for self-serving reasons, you will probably be okay. Abuse (and I think what your parents went through would qualify) is another matter altogether.

Anyway, I'm repping you for posting thoughtfully and raising the level of discourse in this thread.

idirtify
01-22-2011, 04:43 PM
And it's not just history that is judging us, it will be the Lord Himself. If you want to live in the fantasy world where you think God does not judge nations for rejecting Him, fine...go for it.


We, as a nation, will have deserved every calamity that is soon to befall us....I promise you.

EDIT: BTW, I wasn't talking about this "end times" nonsense, I was talking about the end of America. Rome fell because it was a welfare-state, empire-burdened, morally bankrupt basketcase. America will be the same way. When the Germanic hordes were overtaking Rome, the people were still begging for games to be held. Abortion, prostitution, corruption, theft, murder, were all rampant. Rome fell from within.


I see you included prostitution as one of the things you think is immoral and for which you think God is coming to punish the nation. I’m curious if you left out some other reasons, which normally go with that paradigm (“biblical morality”). Do you feel the same way about drugs and gambling? What about sex out of wedlock? What about cursing and using the name of god in vain? What about believing in the wrong god? What about drunkenness? Do you feel all those things are also immoral and causing god punish the nation with “every calamity that is soon to befall us”?

I realize this thread is about abortion, but I think your opinion on prostitution is worthy of further elaboration regarding some insight into your position on abortion.

idirtify
01-22-2011, 04:46 PM
how come cutting a human baby is not ok but cutting a baby pig or cow ok?

Because they are not members of our species, let alone persons with rights.

TheTyke
01-22-2011, 06:58 PM
Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty: Parasites etc.[/i]

I'll see your Rothbard and raise you a Ron Paul:

"I have heard the arguments in favor of abortion many times, and they have always disturbed me deeply. A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the child in the womb as a "parasite" that the woman has the right to expel from her body. But the same argument justifies outright infanticide, since it applies just as well to the infant outside the womb: newborns require even more attention and care, and in that sense are even more 'parasitic.'

"If we can be so callous as to refer to a growing child in a mother's womb as a parasite, I fear for our country's future all the more. Whether it is war or abortion, we conceal the reality of violent acts through linguistic contrivances meant to devalue human lives we find inconvenient. Dead civilians become 'collateral damage,' are ignored altogether, or are rationalized away on the Leninist grounds that to make an omelet you have to break some eggs. (The apostled Paul, on the other hand, condemned the idea that we should do evil that good may come." People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted. In both cases, we try to make human life into something less than human, simply according to our will." - Ron Paul, The Revolution

There is a lot more, dealing with his direct experiences and reasons for knowledge the the unborn are indeed human beings. I recommend it. He is obviously familiar with Rotherbard's arguments, but did not accept this particular one...

__27__
01-22-2011, 07:24 PM
I'll see your Rothbard and raise you a Ron Paul:

"I have heard the arguments in favor of abortion many times, and they have always disturbed me deeply. A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the child in the womb as a "parasite" that the woman has the right to expel from her body. But the same argument justifies outright infanticide, since it applies just as well to the infant outside the womb: newborns require even more attention and care, and in that sense are even more 'parasitic.'

"If we can be so callous as to refer to a growing child in a mother's womb as a parasite, I fear for our country's future all the more. Whether it is war or abortion, we conceal the reality of violent acts through linguistic contrivances meant to devalue human lives we find inconvenient. Dead civilians become 'collateral damage,' are ignored altogether, or are rationalized away on the Leninist grounds that to make an omelet you have to break some eggs. (The apostled Paul, on the other hand, condemned the idea that we should do evil that good may come." People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted. In both cases, we try to make human life into something less than human, simply according to our will." - Ron Paul, The Revolution

There is a lot more, dealing with his direct experiences and reasons for knowledge the the unborn are indeed human beings. I recommend it. He is obviously familiar with Rotherbard's arguments, but did not accept this particular one...

Like I said, it can be supported very thoroughly from BOTH sides by libertarian principle. It is in NO WAY a cut and dry issue, I don't claim by any stretch that anti-abortion arguments are clearly against NAP and libertarianism, nor do I accept any argument that abortion is clearly against NAP and libertarianism. Murray and Ron were very close friends, and I'm sure they had this discussion on more than one occasion. The bottom line is that we all agree that governments are murdering full grown adults right now, so lets try and stop that first. If we can manage to stop all of those murders and have the luxury of debating this, I'll be glad to do so.

TheTyke
01-22-2011, 07:38 PM
Like I said, it can be supported very thoroughly from BOTH sides by libertarian principle. It is in NO WAY a cut and dry issue, I don't claim by any stretch that anti-abortion arguments are clearly against NAP and libertarianism, nor do I accept any argument that abortion is clearly against NAP and libertarianism. Murray and Ron were very close friends, and I'm sure they had this discussion on more than one occasion. The bottom line is that we all agree that governments are murdering full grown adults right now, so lets try and stop that first. If we can manage to stop all of those murders and have the luxury of debating this, I'll be glad to do so.

I see it as a fairly straightforward issue. All that remains now is to inform and get acceptance that human life begins at conception, proven scientifically here: http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html And due to Ron Paul and others, public opinion is swinging in that direction - legislatively though, the pro-life movement is way off track, and millions are still dying.

In any case, I will gladly work with anyone to end the wars and government sponsored killing. I have been arguing non-interventionism a lot with friends and family lately, and many are starting to come around. It's part of the same principle for me. :)

__27__
01-22-2011, 07:50 PM
I see it as a fairly straightforward issue. All that remains now is to inform and get acceptance that human life begins at conception, proven scientifically here: http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html And due to Ron Paul and others, public opinion is swinging in that direction - legislatively though, the pro-life movement is way off track, and millions are still dying.

What you provided is neither straightforward or scientifically proven. Regardless of when a human life begins, by libertarian principle you are not guaranteed life, least of all guaranteed life by initiating force on another human life. Just as the example Rothbard quotes, "If I were deathly ill and the only thing that could save my life were the touch of Henry Fonda's hand, I have no right to demand such a touch. It would be terribly nice of him to provide it, but I certainly have no claim to it."


In any case, I will gladly work with anyone to end the wars and government sponsored killing. I have been arguing non-interventionism a lot with friends and family lately, and many are starting to come around. It's part of the same principle for me. :)

Here we are of course, in complete agreement. The more people we can get to stand up against the initiation of force in principle, not just in politic, the better we all will be.

robert68
01-22-2011, 10:39 PM
... But the same argument justifies outright infanticide, since it applies just as well to the infant outside the womb: newborns require even more attention and care, and in that sense are even more 'parasitic.'...


Mothers aren’t forced to care and provide for newborns, they can put them up for adoption. So the claim is fundamentally flawed.



I see it as a fairly straightforward issue. All that remains now is to inform and get acceptance that human life begins at conception, proven scientifically here: http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

From a bio of Dr. Dianne Nutwell Irving (http://www.lifeissues.net/writer.php?ID=irv) of "Libertarians For Life":

She represented the Catholic Medical Association of the United States, and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, at the Scientific Conference in Mexico City, Mexico, October 28, 1999 and presented a paper on "The Dignity and Status of the Human Embryo".

A Catholic supporting the Catholic position on abortion. What a surprise.

Sola_Fide
02-04-2011, 01:11 PM
I'll see your Rothbard and raise you a Ron Paul:

"I have heard the arguments in favor of abortion many times, and they have always disturbed me deeply. A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the child in the womb as a "parasite" that the woman has the right to expel from her body. But the same argument justifies outright infanticide, since it applies just as well to the infant outside the womb: newborns require even more attention and care, and in that sense are even more 'parasitic.'

"If we can be so callous as to refer to a growing child in a mother's womb as a parasite, I fear for our country's future all the more. Whether it is war or abortion, we conceal the reality of violent acts through linguistic contrivances meant to devalue human lives we find inconvenient. Dead civilians become 'collateral damage,' are ignored altogether, or are rationalized away on the Leninist grounds that to make an omelet you have to break some eggs. (The apostled Paul, on the other hand, condemned the idea that we should do evil that good may come." People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted. In both cases, we try to make human life into something less than human, simply according to our will." - Ron Paul, The Revolution

There is a lot more, dealing with his direct experiences and reasons for knowledge the the unborn are indeed human beings. I recommend it. He is obviously familiar with Rotherbard's arguments, but did not accept this particular one...


Bump.