PDA

View Full Version : Why Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are both incomplete Positions (Video)




AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 11:35 AM
I saw this issue stirring up again in a few threads, so I thought I'd direct everyone to this video where I discuss the issues complexity cause it's not about who's rights we recognize and who's we won't, we should recognize this issue as a property rights conflict between the property of two individuals and try to solve it in a way that preserve the property rights of both parties as much as possible. In some cases this conflict may be more difficult than others... but that's what you have judges for.

Evictionism, Abortion, and Privatizing Foster Care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvq81WRxJZY

Why Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Activist should be Concerned about Obamacare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDmr0Gra5Nc

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 06:09 PM
If you believe a person has the right to life, liberty, and personal property (or the pursuit of happiness)
AND
you believe that a fetus is a living human person, not just a growth inside a woman,

then you must be pro-life.

dannno
03-09-2011, 06:12 PM
you believe that a fetus is a living human person, not just a growth inside a woman,


What if you don't believe that a very early stage fetus is a living person? Then they should be arrested and put in a cage?

That is sort of the whole point of the OP. If you believe what you say, then you shouldn't have an abortion.

FrankRep
03-09-2011, 06:16 PM
What if you don't believe that a very early stage fetus is a living person?

Just remember, Ron Paul supports the idea that Life begins at conception.


http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Picture-140.png
Ron Paul, CPAC 2011 Straw Poll Winner (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6299-ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-vote)


H.R.1094 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show)

Sponsor: Ron Paul

(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure:

(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

dannno
03-09-2011, 06:17 PM
Another thing to take away from the OP: Can you be pro-life and allow others to make their own decision on the matter? Or does pro-life necessitate continually fighting to eradicate abortions worldwide?

Did Jesus go around the world trying to eradicate abortions, or was he trying to teach people about love, peace and understanding?

dannno
03-09-2011, 06:18 PM
Just remember, Ron Paul supports the idea that Life begins at conception.


Ya, he's also Christian and I'm agnostic. I agree with Ron Paul pretty much 100% politically, at the federal level, and probably 95-99%+ at the state level.. but neither of those even have to do with religion.

ClayTrainor
03-09-2011, 06:19 PM
Just remember, Ron Paul supports the idea that Life begins at conception.

;)

Just remember, it's important to think for yourself, before drawing conclusions.

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 07:14 PM
What if you don't believe that a very early stage fetus is a living person? Then they should be arrested and put in a cage?

That is sort of the whole point of the OP. If you believe what you say, then you shouldn't have an abortion.

Who should be arrested and put in a cage?

Mahkato
03-09-2011, 07:22 PM
"If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate."

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 07:28 PM
Just remember, Ron Paul supports the idea that Life begins at conception.

Shameless appeal to authority. Logical fallacy. Irrelevant.

All rights are property rights. If the mother deems the child to be a violator of her property right of self-ownership (and, absent a better word, deems the fetus as a parasitic entity), then she has every right to evict it if she desires. If it dies as a result, this is unfortunate, but *no human has the right to live at the expense of another human*.

THIS IS SLAVERY, and antithetical to the concept and philosophy of liberty.

Never mind the unintended consequences outlawing abortion would cause, while not fixing the problem and making it dissappear.

doctor jones
03-09-2011, 07:35 PM
The problem I see is that the baby has no choice in conception. Most of the time the mother has the choice in conception. So even though the baby is "invading her private property" the problem is, she was the one who allowed the baby to enter her private property... to do what then... kill it?

I'm not a staunch pro-life person but I do know we'd be much better off if people took responsibility for their actions.

nobody's_hero
03-09-2011, 07:40 PM
THIS IS SLAVERY, and antithetical to the concept and philosophy of liberty.


So at some point in your existence, you were essentially a slave master, if we are to go with your analogy.

doctor jones
03-09-2011, 07:41 PM
Also I must point out that Ron Paul doesn't believe you can stop all abortions all the time nor does he want to (he wishes people would freely decide not to have an abortion) because that would mean a government big enough and intrusive enough to monitor your every move, even inside the privacy of your own home.

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 07:41 PM
I'm not a staunch pro-life person but I do know we'd be much better off if people took responsibility for their actions.

I agree, the problem is this is not the role of government to try to force people to be responsible.

Also, even if I invite someone on my property, and then decide I want them to leave (because they said something I don't like, or put on a hat I find offensive), they do not have a right to stay on my property. I have every right to force them off of my property if need be.

If they can't sustain life on their own, I may be obligated to offer assistance, but they have no right to my assistance - that's my choice. Slavery is slavery.

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 07:42 PM
So at some point in your existence, you were essentially a slave master, if we are to go with your analogy.

Expand.

dannno
03-09-2011, 07:44 PM
The problem I see is that the baby has no choice in conception. Most of the time the mother has the choice in conception. So even though the baby is "invading her private property" the problem is, she was the one who allowed the baby to enter her private property... to do what then... kill it?


Well, the way I see it, and this only applies before the child has any sort of awareness, is that using a condom is no different than an extremely early term abortion, like within the first month or two. Both cases the potential life that the child could enjoy is ended, neither case was the child ever aware of its existence.

dannno
03-09-2011, 07:45 PM
So at some point in your existence, you were essentially a slave master, if we are to go with your analogy.

That's only true if the person was an unwanted child and the mother didn't have an abortion due to abortion laws.

doctor jones
03-09-2011, 07:46 PM
I agree, the problem is this is not the role of government to try to force people to be responsible.

Also, even if I invite someone on my property, and then decide I want them to leave (because they said something I don't like, or put on a hat I find offensive), they do not have a right to stay on my property. I have every right to force them off of my property if need be.

If they can't sustain life on their own, I may be obligated to offer assistance, but they have no right to my assistance - that's my choice. Slavery is slavery.

I don't think you can use that analogy in this situation. If you conceive of a child do you not recognize some obligation of it's well being until it can be reasonably independent. Otherwise to your argument even after you've given birth to a child and you decide you don't want him in your house as it's your property and your infant who can't walk won't leave so you force him out and place him on the street to die. I mean unless that's the liberty loony world you want to live in.

nobody's_hero
03-09-2011, 07:47 PM
Expand.

You were 'living off of the resources of another being', 'invading her property,' and yet, you never asked permission.

Of course, she never asked you if you wanted to be born either, so basically, she made a decision for you which you had no say in. This is the definition of tyranny, I say.!

QueenB4Liberty
03-09-2011, 07:48 PM
I agree, the problem is this is not the role of government to try to force people to be responsible.

Also, even if I invite someone on my property, and then decide I want them to leave (because they said something I don't like, or put on a hat I find offensive), they do not have a right to stay on my property. I have every right to force them off of my property if need be.

If they can't sustain life on their own, I may be obligated to offer assistance, but they have no right to my assistance - that's my choice. Slavery is slavery.

This is what I'm saying.

doctor jones
03-09-2011, 07:49 PM
Well, the way I see it, and this only applies before the child has any sort of awareness, is that using a condom is no different than an extremely early term abortion, like within the first month or two. Both cases the potential life that the child could enjoy is ended, neither case was the child ever aware of its existence.

Let's not dabble there. I believe I said conception -- when the male sperm fertilizes the female egg. Before then we are what? Not human.

dannno
03-09-2011, 07:50 PM
Who should be arrested and put in a cage?

The person performing the abortion and/or the mother. Women often used to perform their own abortions in small societies where becoming pregnant was looked down on. When abortion was illegal in some areas, women would perform their own abortions or do it away from areas where they or the doctor could be prosecuted, often referred to as back alleys.

I don't see any point to only putting doctors in jail for performing abortions if the woman is compelling them to do it.. it's like when you pay a hitman to kill somebody, the hitman and the person paying for the hit both get charged with murder.

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 07:50 PM
You were 'living off of the resources of another being', 'invading her property,' and yet, you never asked permission.

Of course, she never asked you if you wanted to be born either, so basically, she made a decision for you which you had no say in. This is the definition of tyranny, I say. :p

The difference here is that it was voluntary. She did not object to my presence. So there is no coercion.

As for tyranny in my conception, it can't be tyrannical if I'm a bundle of cells and have no mental faculty whatsoever of the concept of 'choice'. This would be like saying I am aggressing against my fingernails when I snip them off.

of course, I know you're being tongue in cheek.

douche.

;P

dannno
03-09-2011, 07:52 PM
Let's not dabble there. I believe I said conception -- when the male sperm fertilizes the female egg. Before then we are what? Not human.

Why not dabble there? If you are going to arrest somebody at put them in jail for essentially doing the same thing as wearing a condom then I think it should be justified.

I don't think a sperm and an egg together are human.. I don't think the fetus is human until it is aware, and maybe even later when they become 'more' aware, though I can't really say for sure.. but I can say that before they are aware, I see no difference between using a condom and abortion.

doctor jones
03-09-2011, 07:54 PM
Why not dabble there? If you are going to arrest somebody at put them in jail for essentially doing the same thing as wearing a condom then I think it should be justified.

A) Who said anything about arresting someone?
B) I don't equate wearing a condom with aborting a child.
C) I don't want the job of judgment on the latter

VBRonPaulFan
03-09-2011, 07:55 PM
it takes a live sperm and a live egg to make a live ovum. it's a living thing the second conception occurs in my mind. i'm definitely pro-life, although I think abortion itself is a completely private and personal choice between the mother and a care provider who is willing to do the procedure.

doctor jones
03-09-2011, 07:57 PM
A) Who said anything about arresting someone?
B) I don't equate wearing a condom with aborting a child.
C) I don't want the job of judgment on the latter

I should clarify B)

Aborting a child is morally wrong in my opinion. I don't think anyone from the government should prohibit it however.

Wearing a condom is no different from whacking off which I have no moral qualms about.

nobody's_hero
03-09-2011, 07:58 PM
The difference here is that it was voluntary. She did not object to my presence. So there is no coercion.

As for tyranny in my conception, it can't be tyrannical if I'm a bundle of cells and have no mental faculty whatsoever of the concept of 'choice'. This would be like saying I am aggressing against my fingernails when I snip them off.

of course, I know you're being tongue in cheek.

douche.

;P

Can fingernails grow up to be a person, though?

I am a man because I was once a child. I was a child because I was once an infant. I was an infant because I was once a "bundle of cells with no mental faculty whatsoever of the concept of 'choice'."

All of these were stages of my existence.

I suggest to you this, but it won't hurt my feelings if you choose not to read it:

Open letter to Eddie Vedder (http://www.l4l.org/gary/index.html)

These arguments typically go in circular fashion, so I'll leave it at that. Agree to disagree? (or not, the choice is yours)

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 08:00 PM
it takes a live sperm and a live egg to make a live ovum. it's a living thing the second conception occurs in my mind. i'm definitely pro-life, although I think abortion itself is a completely private and personal choice between the mother and a care provider who is willing to do the procedure.

It's too bad most pro-life people aren't this reasonable.

But isn't a joined sperm/egg just as 'alive' as any other replicating cells on your body? Skin cells, for example? A tumor, even?

Isn't what constitutes a 'human being' based in sapience?

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 08:05 PM
Can fingernails grow up to be a person, though?

I am a man because I was once a child. I was a child because I was once an infant. I was an infant because I was once a "bundle of cells with no mental faculty whatsoever of the concept of 'choice'."

All of these were stages of my existence.

I suggest to you this, but it won't hurt my feelings if you choose not to read it:

Open letter to Eddie Vedder (http://www.l4l.org/gary/index.html)

These arguments typically go in circular fashion, so I'll leave it at that. Agree to disagree? (or not, the choice is yours)

Valid points. But some reductio ad absurdum is perhaps in order.

I am a man because I was once a child. I was a child because I was once an infant. I was an infant because I was once a "bundle of cells with no mental faculty whatsoever of the concept of 'choice'." I was once a "bundle of cells with no mental faculty whatsoever of the concept of 'choice'", because I was once a sperm and an egg. I was once a sperm and an egg because I was once digested food. I was once digested food because I was once whole food. I was once whole food because I was once the dirt in the ground, or parts of an animal carcass.

On this logical basis you've ascribed to, should we grant all of these things 'rights'?

This would show that this is not a legitimate logical basis to determine the presence of natural rights.

It always seems to come down to a question of 'what is a human being'? Apart from the slavery issue and violation of property rights, which I feel is profound and of utmost importance in this context of determining what is 'just', I believe a 'human being' is based in the capacity for sapience, or rather - beings get their rights from their 'sapience'.

nobody's_hero
03-09-2011, 08:15 PM
Valid points. But some reductio ad absurdum is perhaps in order.

I am a man because I was once a child. I was a child because I was once an infant. I was an infant because I was once a "bundle of cells with no mental faculty whatsoever of the concept of 'choice'." I was once a "bundle of cells with no mental faculty whatsoever of the concept of 'choice'", because I was once a sperm and an egg. I was once a sperm and an egg because I was once digested food. I was once digested food because I was once whole food. I was once whole food because I was once the dirt in the ground, or parts of an animal carcass.

On this logical basis you've ascribed to, should we grant all of these things 'rights'?

I should have known better than to read an abortion thread, this always goes into like a 50 page thread with 3 or 4 people commenting to each other back and forth, lol.

But I'll admit, I've never seen digested food as a stage of my existence (morphing from digested food into an egg cell, would be something to see). It might fuel my existence, though. On a similar note, I've never sat down to a meal of human zygotes, either.

I know that you were thinking molecular level, but digested food will not grow to be a child. It's genetically impossible. It can, however, be broken down into nutrients to be used by a child.

Edit: okay okay, this is really my last post in this thread. lol

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 08:21 PM
I should have known better than to read an abortion thread, this always goes into like a 50 page thread with 3 or 4 people commenting to each other back and forth, lol.

But I'll admit, I've never seen digested food as a stage of my existence (morphing from digested food into an egg cell, would be something to see). It might fuel my existence, though. On a similar note, I've never sat down to a meal of human zygotes, either.

I know that you were thinking molecular level, but digested food will not grow to be a child. It's genetically impossible. It can, however, be broken down into nutrients to be used by a child.

Edit: okay okay, this is really my last post in this thread. lol

Except, digested food absolutely was a stage of your and everyones' existence. You were assembled from digested food. Digested food (broken down into molecules by bodily processes) does grow into a child, DNA is merely the blueprint on how the digested food is organized into a fetus, which grows into a child, etc.

KurtBoyer25L
03-09-2011, 08:30 PM
Sentient nails it. At it's core, the "human life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder" concept is a religious one. Logically it fails to an infinite regress fallacy. Human life begins with human life past. It's a cycle. What we should be doing is protecting all sentient human life. I would support a ban on second and third trimester abortions, but not morning-after abortions.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 08:34 PM
Did anyone in this thread watch the video before posting the typical counter arguments to claims I did not make in the OP

My argument is:

- the a women has a right to decide whether she wants to CARRY the child, not to kill the child

- the child has a right to live, but has no right to impose on the mothers property

SO...

in the case in which the mother does not want to carry the child, she's in her right to have the child removed alive no questions asked

But...

If the child cannot be removed alive, then there is a conflict of rights, and a judge should make a decisions based on the severity of the conflict (for example the fetus threatens the life of the mother, then the resolution is a bit clearer, while if a 13 year old makes a mistake, the judge may ask her to carry the child long enough so it can be removed alive)

Then...

I go on to discuss what would happen to the child after being removed, how would the mother transfer title of the child (a child is legally property till the age of adulthood, just property with it's own rights). So keeping this in mind I make a case for privatizing Foster Care, and allowing for profit care for these children and I go into a long speal about that which is probably the most controversial point of the video.

Also I make a point, that if you want to end abortion, the better way of doing it is to invest in safe sex education and into technology which makes it easier to remove the child safely earlier in the pregnancy.

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 08:45 PM
I disagree. If you believe that someone has a right to his/her life *at the expense of* another person (without their consent, which is slavery, through and through), this seems to be a slippery slope to advocate for things like socialist welfare for the poor at the expense of those with additional wealth.

If she removes the child, and it results in the child's death - she is not killing the child, she is abandoning it, it just cannot sustain it's life. By surviving off of the mother, the fetus is committing a *positive act* against the mother (the concept of positive vs negative rights is important here, as positive rights, apart from self-defense, can only justly be created through voluntary contract), and thus violating her rights.

Mr. Merced, as a fellow Rothbardian... Rothbard weeps. :(

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 08:46 PM
Neglect and abandonment of a child are also crimes.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 08:54 PM
I disagree. If you believe that someone has a right to his/her life *at the expense of* another person (without their consent, which is slavery, through and through), this seems to be a slippery slope to advocate for things like socialist welfare for the poor at the expense of those with additional wealth.

If she removes the child, and it results in the child's death - she is not killing the child, she is abandoning it, it just cannot sustain it's life. By surviving off of the mother, the fetus is committing a *positive act* against the mother (the concept of positive vs negative rights is important here, as positive rights, apart from self-defense, can only justly be created through voluntary contract), and thus violating her rights.

Mr. Merced, as a fellow Rothbardian... Rothbard weeps. :(

I never said she can't abandon the child, but like any property you must find someone to transfer title to it. Now you can make the argument that the child is her property, like any property she is free to destroy it although there is some definite problems with that logic.

When there is conflict between the property of two individuals, sometimes there is no voluntary resolution, so the dispute goes to arbitration I'm not saying she can't remove the child if it's not possible to do it safely, but since it is a rights dispute, it should be at least heard out in an arbitration. If you had a rights conflict with someone, you wouldn't let the other party to the conflict make an arbitrary decision as the resolution, you'd take it to a neutral third party like a court or arbitration panel to render a decision.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 08:57 PM
Neglect and abandonment of a child are also crimes.

Well, she can have the child removed, but she'd still have to find someone to take title to the child in the same way you just can't leave you car abandoned on someone elses property, although many states take title to the child no questions asked, I'd rather hospital have arrangements with for profit companies who get paid to get babies adopted and if they don't raise them to be super smart. I discuss how that would work in the video.

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 08:58 PM
Neglect and abandonment of a child are also crimes.

Child-parent relationships should be voluntary ones like any other ones, IMO. Parents have a moral obligation to support their children, much like a mother has a moral obligation to not abort her child - but children do not have a 'right' to their parents' care. Again, this is slavery.

Smoking pot is a 'crime', but that doesn't make it 'just'. Children should be able to adopt new parents if they really want to (and would only prefer to do so if they really, really, were in a bad situation - and even then sometimes they still don't), with the new potential parents voluntarily accepting and agreeing to such an adoption, and parents should be able to transfer their children to other parents as well. This would be better for the children anyways - as parents who really want children would necessarily provide better, more loving care as well compared to those parents who clearly do *not* want them.

I've gotten much deeper into my opinions on this in another thread... but I digress...

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 09:04 PM
Well a Child is initially the property of it's birth mother, cause she's the one who homesteaded the child (even if she didn't meant to) this is why the women has more say in the decisions, cause it's technically her property if you believe in homesteading. Although she's got to find someone to transfer the property to.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 09:05 PM
Child-parent relationships should be voluntary ones like any other ones, IMO. Parents have a moral obligation to support their children, much like a mother has a moral obligation to not abort her child - but children do not have a 'right' to their parents' care. Again, this is slavery.

Smoking pot is a 'crime', but that doesn't make it 'just'. Children should be able to adopt new parents if they really want to (and would only prefer to do so if they really, really, were in a bad situation - and even then sometimes they still don't), with the new potential parents voluntarily accepting and agreeing to such an adoption, and parents should be able to transfer their children to other parents as well. This would be better for the children anyways - as parents who really want children would necessarily provide better, more loving care as well compared to those parents who clearly do *not* want them.

I've gotten much deeper into my opinions on this in another thread... but I digress...

I agree children shouldn't necessarily be differentiated from adults

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 09:11 PM
The concept of not counting an unborn child as a person with full rights smacks of slavery.

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 09:20 PM
The concept of not counting an unborn child as a person with full rights smacks of slavery.

I agree, but that's are current legal system, child ren are property, if they run away you can have force used to bring them back, if they damage someone else property you are responsible in same way if you dog had.

It is in a way child slavery... without the cheap labor part...

robert68
03-09-2011, 09:20 PM
..

AlexMerced
03-09-2011, 09:24 PM
although even an unborn child must have it's rights conflicts litigated, it'd create a new field of fetus lawyers who'd represent the fetus in these kind of disputes paid for by pro-life funds.

Just saying, I'm just treating this issue as what it is, a rights conflict.

LibertyEagle
03-09-2011, 09:27 PM
Shameless appeal to authority. Logical fallacy. Irrelevant.

On the contrary, since this is RON PAUL FORUMS, it is completely germane to the conversation. Lest someone read this thread and think that those who believe in murdering babies are representing Ron Paul's stance on the subject. They are not.


All rights are property rights. If the mother deems the child to be a violator of her property right of self-ownership (and, absent a better word, deems the fetus as a parasitic entity), then she has every right to evict it if she desires. If it dies as a result, this is unfortunate, but *no human has the right to live at the expense of another human*.

THIS IS SLAVERY, and antithetical to the concept and philosophy of liberty.

Never mind the unintended consequences outlawing abortion would cause, while not fixing the problem and making it dissappear.

I beg to differ. There is no liberty without responsibility for one's own actions. Neither does your liberty extend to the point that it infringes on another's liberty. If you engage in behavior that is known to produce a baby, then it is your responsibility to allow the baby to be born.

I frankly cannot believe we have become such a spoiled, selfish people that we find it so very troubling to carry a baby to term for 9 lousy months. Nine months. It's not a lifetime. No, instead some would rather just murder the consequence of their own actions. Just dandy.

Sentient Void
03-09-2011, 09:33 PM
The concept of not counting an unborn child as a person with full rights smacks of slavery.

You seem to be missing the point. He may have full rights, just like any individual has full rights. I'm not saying he doesn't have full rights. I'm saying the mother also has full rights - and like any other individual with full rights, you cannot force an individual to support another individual against their will.

*THAT* is slavery.

realtonygoodwin
03-09-2011, 09:34 PM
I think we will just have to agree to disagree. :)

doctor jones
03-10-2011, 02:31 AM
On the contrary, since this is RON PAUL FORUMS, it is completely germane to the conversation. Lest someone read this thread and think that those who believe in murdering babies are representing Ron Paul's stance on the subject. They are not.



I beg to differ. There is no liberty without responsibility for one's own actions. Neither does your liberty extend to the point that it infringes on another's liberty. If you engage in behavior that is known to produce a baby, then it is your responsibility to allow the baby to be born.

I frankly cannot believe we have become such a spoiled, selfish people that we find it so very troubling to carry a baby to term for 9 lousy months. Nine months. It's not a lifetime. No, instead some would rather just murder the consequence of their own actions. Just dandy.


+1

robert68
03-10-2011, 11:41 AM
...

I beg to differ. There is no liberty without responsibility for one's own actions. Neither does your liberty extend to the point that it infringes on another's liberty. If you engage in behavior that is known to produce a baby, then it is your responsibility to allow the baby to be born....



You’re simply making claims that deliver the result you want. There’s no consistent libertarian principle underpinning your claims.

robert68
03-10-2011, 11:45 AM
Religious “Pro-lifers” who believe that human life begins at conception have something significant in common with atheism. Atheists believe human beings have no soul, spirit or mind distinct from the body, and the aforementioned “pro-lifers” believe all that’s needed for there to be a human being is a human zygote, and nothing else.

Sentient Void
03-10-2011, 02:10 PM
“Pro-lifers” who believe that human life begins at conception have something significant in common with atheists. Atheists believe human beings don’t have a soul, spirit or mind distinct from the body, and “pro-lifers” believe all that’s needed for there to be a human being is a human zygote, nothing else.

There's a lot of dogmatic belief between the two (atheists and theists). One claims God does exist through dogmatic belief in something without any need for proof. One claims God does *not* exist through a dogmatic belief in something without the need for proof.

It's better to just say - "I don't know, and can't possibly know, there's more important things to focus attention on'.

Krugerrand
03-10-2011, 02:23 PM
“Pro-lifers” who believe that human life begins at conception have something significant in common with atheists. Atheists believe human beings don’t have a soul, spirit or mind distinct from the body, and “pro-lifers” believe all that’s needed for there to be a human being is a human zygote, nothing else.

Your presumption that atheists are not pro-life is wrong.

I believe a baby chick inside an egg is the same baby chick after it hatches from the egg. Its stage of existence does not change what it is. In the same way, a human child after it is born is the same human child before it is born. There is nothing soul, spirit, or religious about that.

Krugerrand
03-10-2011, 02:27 PM
There's a lot of dogmatic belief between the two (atheists and theists). One claims God does exist through dogmatic belief in something without any need for proof. One claims God does *not* exist through a dogmatic belief in something without the need for proof.

It's better to just say - "I don't know, and can't possibly know, there's more important things to focus attention on'.

You may be right on that last part - but can you possible know that for sure? :eek:

ChaosControl
03-10-2011, 02:52 PM
Not everything is about property. I don't like the idea of thinking about life in the context of property rights.

TheTyke
03-10-2011, 02:52 PM
A human is a human is a human. http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

Fairly disturbing how casually people can justify murder for convenience. That's taking away life, and with it liberty and every other right! How people who call themselves libertarian can preach this, I will never understand.

There should be laws and punishment for murder. And if 55 million people being killed since Roe v. Wade (dwarfing every other slaughter I know of) in ONE country with government sanction, protection and funding isn't an important issue, I don't know what is. I would ask the people that object to our killing 1 million+ overseas to be consistent on this - just as I ask pro-lifers to be on the costs of war.

We can work together on the issues we agree, to reduce government generally, and maybe it's best politically to avoid dividing issues, but don't ever act like even one life, let alone incomprehensible millions, is not really that important.

ChaosControl
03-10-2011, 02:54 PM
*no human has the right to live at the expense of another human*.

Children live at the expense of their parents. So is it always acceptable for the parents to just toss out the children onto the street?

Sentient Void
03-10-2011, 03:08 PM
Children live at the expense of their parents. So is it always acceptable for the parents to just toss out the children onto the street?

IMO, they do not have the *right* to live at the expense of their parents. The point is, is that this relationship between children and parents is *voluntary*. If it's voluntary, then it's all good - and there is no violation.

If a parent(s) tossed their child(ren) out on the street. They would rightly deserve scorn for it. They are morally obligated to take care of their children, but children do not have a right to the care of their parents. I and others should plead with them not to do so, and socially ostracize them if they do. Apart from the fact that the vast majority of parents *do not* want to do this, there is also social pressures for them not to do it as well. But if parents do, then other, more loving and caring parents would come along to take care of them. There are *plenty* of couples out there who are dying to adopt. There is quite the shortage of babies to adopt, btw.

Do you support coercing parents who hate their children and want nothing to do with them (so much so that they want to abandon them or even hurt them) into taking care of their children? Seriously?

I would rather allow the bad parents to voluntarily transfer their children to a more loving, caring home that would better support the needs of the children - emotionally, mentally, physically (and probably financially). I do not support someone taking these children by force, (of course unless the children are being *legitimately* abused) but I do support children voluntarily leaving their parents to seek out better parents, or parents transferring their children to other better ones.

How can anyone argue against this and supposedly be 'for the children'?

osan
03-10-2011, 03:14 PM
.. Nm

Corto_Maltese
03-10-2011, 05:22 PM
I guess this is the issue that splits this community the most.
Im raised in Sweden and here this is a non-issue. There are no politicians that I know of that want to outlaw abortion and I havent met a person that wants that either. There are laws against late term abortions, which most ppl support here, where the mothers life has to be in danger for an abortion. Thats cause many concider the fetus a human at that stage since its almost completely developed and could survive to early birth.
That makes me follow the debate in america over the issue. I do see the points made by the pro-life ppl, but I just cant concider a week old fetus a human with rights and feelings. If the woman really doesnt want the child, then I see greater benefit in it being used in development of new medicines against alzheimers and such. I guess some of you have a problem seeing it that way, but im not religious and to me it only seems logical if the mother just will neglect her kid. To me an unwanted child is the worst. 18 years of suffering when the child actually feels it.

ChaosControl
03-10-2011, 05:28 PM
IMO, they do not have the *right* to live at the expense of their parents. The point is, is that this relationship between children and parents is *voluntary*. If it's voluntary, then it's all good - and there is no violation.

If a parent(s) tossed their child(ren) out on the street. They would rightly deserve scorn for it. They are morally obligated to take care of their children, but children do not have a right to the care of their parents. I and others should plead with them not to do so, and socially ostracize them if they do. Apart from the fact that the vast majority of parents *do not* want to do this, there is also social pressures for them not to do it as well. But if parents do, then other, more loving and caring parents would come along to take care of them. There are *plenty* of couples out there who are dying to adopt. There is quite the shortage of babies to adopt, btw.

Do you support coercing parents who hate their children and want nothing to do with them (so much so that they want to abandon them or even hurt them) into taking care of their children? Seriously?

I would rather allow the bad parents to voluntarily transfer their children to a more loving, caring home that would better support the needs of the children - emotionally, mentally, physically (and probably financially). I do not support someone taking these children by force, (of course unless the children are being *legitimately* abused) but I do support children voluntarily leaving their parents to seek out better parents, or parents transferring their children to other better ones.

How can anyone argue against this and supposedly be 'for the children'?

Yes, they are morally obligated to. I disagree in that I think children do have aright to be taken care of by their parents. I think it is perfectly justifiable to punish parents who toss their kids out on the street. Yes, sometimes the children are better off in the care of people other than their birth parents, but the parents still hold the responsibility of providing in some way and if they do not they should be punished. Sometimes though that responsibility can mean realizing you're not ready and giving the child up for adoption, as long of course that in the process of doing so you make sure the child is in a good home rather than just tossing them out on the street and expecting society to take care of it for you.

goldencane
03-10-2011, 05:41 PM
I think if you believe abortion is murder, it should be illegal for everyone. I personally would never kill a person and I don't think someone else has the right to kill another person.

nobody's_hero
03-10-2011, 05:45 PM
Religious “Pro-lifers” who believe that human life begins at conception have something significant in common with atheism. Atheists believe human beings have no soul, spirit or mind distinct from the body, and the aforementioned “pro-lifers” believe all that’s needed for there to be a human being is a human zygote, and nothing else.

What if you are an athiest pro-lifer?

www.l4l.org

crazyfacedjenkins
03-10-2011, 05:49 PM
IMO, they do not have the *right* to live at the expense of their parents. The point is, is that this relationship between children and parents is *voluntary*. If it's voluntary, then it's all good - and there is no violation.

If a parent(s) tossed their child(ren) out on the street. They would rightly deserve scorn for it. They are morally obligated to take care of their children, but children do not have a right to the care of their parents. I and others should plead with them not to do so, and socially ostracize them if they do. Apart from the fact that the vast majority of parents *do not* want to do this, there is also social pressures for them not to do it as well. But if parents do, then other, more loving and caring parents would come along to take care of them. There are *plenty* of couples out there who are dying to adopt. There is quite the shortage of babies to adopt, btw.

Do you support coercing parents who hate their children and want nothing to do with them (so much so that they want to abandon them or even hurt them) into taking care of their children? Seriously?

I would rather allow the bad parents to voluntarily transfer their children to a more loving, caring home that would better support the needs of the children - emotionally, mentally, physically (and probably financially). I do not support someone taking these children by force, (of course unless the children are being *legitimately* abused) but I do support children voluntarily leaving their parents to seek out better parents, or parents transferring their children to other better ones.

How can anyone argue against this and supposedly be 'for the children'?

Best point of all.

dannno
03-10-2011, 05:58 PM
Yes, they are morally obligated to. I disagree in that I think children do have aright to be taken care of by their parents. I think it is perfectly justifiable to punish parents who toss their kids out on the street. Yes, sometimes the children are better off in the care of people other than their birth parents, but the parents still hold the responsibility of providing in some way and if they do not they should be punished. Sometimes though that responsibility can mean realizing you're not ready and giving the child up for adoption, as long of course that in the process of doing so you make sure the child is in a good home rather than just tossing them out on the street and expecting society to take care of it for you.

Ya, see that is essentially advocating slavery..

A better option would be to allow children to run away from their parents. You can setup the same system you would to take in children who the state deems the parents being neglectful and take in kids who choose to be there or who have been "thrown out". If kids who don't have it very bad run away thinking they will have a better life with different parents, they will probably find that they were better off with their regular parents and return soon after.

ChaosControl
03-10-2011, 05:59 PM
Y'all really overuse the word "slavery".

dannno
03-10-2011, 06:19 PM
Y'all really overuse the word "slavery".

Well I'm just saying there are better options..The other problem is that it isn't very far from advocating the government go in a kidnap "neglected" children.. What is a neglected child, one who is starving, or one who doesn't have a cell phone or a computer in their house?

I mean, imagine if you had a kid and you were living somewhere and a crazy flood came through and destroyed your neighborhood and a good portion of the state.. You might not be able to take care of your child very well, you might be homeless, but you will probably do a better job than somebody else because you have a connection with that child. Should the state confiscate neglected children after disasters? What about personal disasters? If the parent wants to give up their kid, or the kid decides that they would be better off leaving their parents, then they should be able to do that. As long as the parent isn't abusing the child I'm not a big fan of intervening in those relationships.. even in the case of abuse I'd want to see some really substantial proof, and/or have the kid testify against the parents, or simply let the child decide if they want to leave and find other parents.

Sentient Void
03-10-2011, 06:26 PM
Y'all really overuse the word "slavery".

Slavery is slavery. You are saying that one individual has a *right* to another's life, liberty and property. You are advocating slavery. If that's making you uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be advocating it.

madfoot
03-10-2011, 06:42 PM
Shameless appeal to authority. Logical fallacy. Irrelevant.

All rights are property rights. If the mother deems the child to be a violator of her property right of self-ownership (and, absent a better word, deems the fetus as a parasitic entity), then she has every right to evict it if she desires. If it dies as a result, this is unfortunate, but *no human has the right to live at the expense of another human*.

THIS IS SLAVERY, and antithetical to the concept and philosophy of liberty.

Never mind the unintended consequences outlawing abortion would cause, while not fixing the problem and making it dissappear.

I disagree. I am pro-choice, but with the premise that a fetus is not a person (non-sentient, non-concious). If a fetus was a person, it would be a minor, and the mother would have a moral (if not legal) responsibility to its well-being.

Edit: Also, another thought. If the fetus is a person, doesn't it have self-ownership? Why does the mother have a right to live at the expense of her child? :p

Sentient Void
03-10-2011, 06:45 PM
Also, another thought. If the fetus is a person, doesn't it have self-ownership? Why does the mother have a right to live at the expense of her child? :p

?????? How is the mother living at the expense of the fetus ?????????

madfoot
03-10-2011, 06:52 PM
As a hypothetical, if the fetus could "evict" the mother, would you be ok with that, on account of self-ownership? I'm just trying to understand the logic here. Doesn't that violate NAP?

Maybe that's a bad road to go down because a fetus is a parasite and not an equal being.

Krugerrand
03-11-2011, 08:00 AM
Ya, see that is essentially advocating slavery..

A better option would be to allow children to run away from their parents. You can setup the same system you would to take in children who the state deems the parents being neglectful and take in kids who choose to be there or who have been "thrown out". If kids who don't have it very bad run away thinking they will have a better life with different parents, they will probably find that they were better off with their regular parents and return soon after.

It used to be fairly common for people who could not raise their children to send them to orphanages. I think the orphanages had a place in society that is being missed now.

Also - let birth mothers be financially compensated for turning over their infants for adoption and the abortion numbers would drop significantly.

AlexMerced
03-11-2011, 08:08 AM
It may be an unromantic way to look at it, but it's appropriate and consistant.

For example:

Don't you own your life, don't you feel someone has TAKEN something if someone takes a life?

When your married, arn't we SHARING our lives with someone?

We all intuitively accept life is property, although not all porperty is created equal, which is why legal systems and neuteral third parties are needed to resolve rights disputes. More often than not, I'd figure a judge would say the child would have great claim, although I'm sure there are times when the women may have the better claim it's got to be done case by case.

AlexMerced
03-11-2011, 08:11 AM
Children live at the expense of their parents. So is it always acceptable for the parents to just toss out the children onto the street?

Well, if there is differention between a child and an adult, then technically they have the right to do so (but like any right, just cause you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD)

Although historically and even Rothbards work there is a differention between a child and adult (although when one becomes the latter I am yet to see a solid definition), the child usually ends up being a type of property by the parent, and this is how law treats it currently.

AlexMerced
03-11-2011, 08:15 AM
Yes, they are morally obligated to. I disagree in that I think children do have aright to be taken care of by their parents. I think it is perfectly justifiable to punish parents who toss their kids out on the street. Yes, sometimes the children are better off in the care of people other than their birth parents, but the parents still hold the responsibility of providing in some way and if they do not they should be punished. Sometimes though that responsibility can mean realizing you're not ready and giving the child up for adoption, as long of course that in the process of doing so you make sure the child is in a good home rather than just tossing them out on the street and expecting society to take care of it for you.


The questions isn't whether it's morally wrong, it's whether the act constitutes a violation of the childs rights or an agression on child. If it's not an aggression on the child then force can't be used by punishment, but there are plenty of voluntary punishments that are arguably worse such as shunning the person, refusing to do business with the person etc.

There are ways to punish immoral behavior in moral ways.

robert68
03-11-2011, 01:38 PM
Your presumption that atheists are not pro-life is wrong.

I believe a baby chick inside an egg is the same baby chick after it hatches from the egg. Its stage of existence does not change what it is. In the same way, a human child after it is born is the same human child before it is born. There is nothing soul, spirit, or religious about that.

It wasn’t my intention too, and I’ve since changed “pro-lifers” to “religious ‘pro-lifers’” to hopefully take care of it.

I’ll give you this; you’re a consistent non-believer in the soul and spirit, unlike the religious "pro-lifers" who believe all that’s needed for there to be a human being is a human zygote.

AlexMerced
03-11-2011, 03:07 PM
It wasn’t my intention too, and I’ve since changed “pro-lifers” to “religious ‘pro-lifers’” to hopefully take care of it.

I’ll give you this; you’re a consistent non-believer in the soul and spirit, unlike the religious "pro-lifers" who believe all that’s needed for there to be a human being is a human zygote.

While we may disagree on moral implications, I think mostly agree, a federal bann or a protection would be unproductive.

Sentient Void
04-13-2011, 01:58 PM
threaaaaddd NECROMANCY!! Brawww!!

nobody's_hero
04-13-2011, 03:04 PM
threaaaaddd NECROMANCY!! Brawww!!

On this we agree.

Brawwww!!!

sevin
04-13-2011, 03:13 PM
I agree, the problem is this is not the role of government to try to force people to be responsible.

Also, even if I invite someone on my property, and then decide I want them to leave (because they said something I don't like, or put on a hat I find offensive), they do not have a right to stay on my property. I have every right to force them off of my property if need be.

If they can't sustain life on their own, I may be obligated to offer assistance, but they have no right to my assistance - that's my choice. Slavery is slavery.

This is one of the craziest arguments I've ever heard. If you invite someone onto your property, they can either agree to enter or not. Just as they can decide whether to leave if you ask them to. An unborn baby has no choice in the matter.

A more appropriate analogy would be: You forcibly drag someone in from off the street, then when you don't want them there anymore you execute them.

Sentient Void
04-13-2011, 04:07 PM
This is one of the craziest arguments I've ever heard. If you invite someone onto your property, they can either agree to enter or not. Just as they can decide whether to leave if you ask them to. An unborn baby has no choice in the matter.

A more appropriate analogy would be: You forcibly drag someone in from off the street, then when you don't want them there anymore you execute them.

Actually, a more accurate analogy would go like this...

Even if you brought someone (like getting pregnant) who is a mental vegetable (has no ability to make choices, speak, etc, like a Fetus), stuck in a wheelchair (can't move on his own anywhere, like a fetus), voluntarily onto your property (your body). Then, for whatever reason decided you didn't want him there anymore, while you may have a *moral obligation* to not put him out in the cold where he may or may not survive (if you can get someone to pick him up, great, like the ability to abort a fetus into medical life support to sustain him on the outside), he does not have a legitimate right to you, your food, or your property (your body's nutrients, and the space in your body itself), and it would be perfectly within your right to evict him. If you're saying he does - then you are advocating what is in fact slavery, and is antithetical to liberty. You may have a moral obligation to voluntarily help him in these ways, but again, he has no actual right to these things.

There's no way around it.

Rothbard was solid on abortion as a property right issue. All rights are ultimately property rights, derived from the property right of self-ownership.

Apart from the practical reasons against outlawing abortion (it would just be driven into the black market or be self-performed), to say that the fetus has a right to live at the expense of the mother when the mother does not want it to, is slavery - through and through.

If a woman deems a fetus to be a parasite - then it is a parasite, and she has every right to evict it.

You, nor the State, has no right to tell her what she can nor can't do with her body. This assumes that you or the State has more of a right to her body, labor, and resources than she has herself.

sevin
04-13-2011, 05:16 PM
Actually, a more accurate analogy would go like this...

Even if you brought someone (like getting pregnant) who is a mental vegetable (has no ability to make choices, speak, etc, like a Fetus), stuck in a wheelchair (can't move on his own anywhere, like a fetus), voluntarily onto your property (your body). Then, for whatever reason decided you didn't want him there anymore, while you may have a *moral obligation* to not put him out in the cold where he may or may not survive (if you can get someone to pick him up, great, like the ability to abort a fetus into medical life support to sustain him on the outside), he does not have a legitimate right to you, your food, or your property (your body's nutrients, and the space in your body itself), and it would be perfectly within your right to evict him. If you're saying he does - then you are advocating what is in fact slavery, and is antithetical to liberty. You may have a moral obligation to voluntarily help him in these ways, but again, he has no actual right to these things.

There's no way around it.

Rothbard was solid on abortion as a property right issue. All rights are ultimately property rights, derived from the property right of self-ownership.

Apart from the practical reasons against outlawing abortion (it would just be driven into the black market or be self-performed), to say that the fetus has a right to live at the expense of the mother when the mother does not want it to, is slavery - through and through.

If a woman deems a fetus to be a parasite - then it is a parasite, and she has every right to evict it.

You, nor the State, has no right to tell her what she can nor can't do with her body. This assumes that you or the State has more of a right to her body, labor, and resources than she has herself.

If you have an invalid in your home who's not capable of leaving on their own, you have no right to kill them. What you're describing is a perversion of the idea of property rights.

dannno
04-13-2011, 05:22 PM
If you have an invalid in your home who's not capable of leaving on their own, you have no right to kill them. What you're describing is a perversion of the idea of property rights.

They never said you have a right to kill them, they said you have a right to evict them. That was the whole point of the entire post that you were supposed to get out of it.

dannno
04-13-2011, 05:26 PM
If you have an invalid in your home who's not capable of leaving on their own, you have no right to kill them. What you're describing is a perversion of the idea of property rights.

Expanding on my last point with regards to eviction vs. killing, you might say that abortion kills the baby before eviction. The difference is that with the invalid, if you toss them on the street, somebody might drive by and decide to take care of them. If you toss an early term fetus out into the street there isn't anything anybody could do to help it survive. Technically, I suppose, you could have fetuses surgically removed and placed in a bin outside of the abortion clinic so that anybody who wants can try and revive the fetus, but I don't think that is plausible. So for the sake of convenience, the fetus is killed before it is removed, because it makes no difference which order it is performed.

Wesker1982
04-13-2011, 05:27 PM
Great post, SV.


They never said you have a right to kill them, they said you have a right to evict them. That was the whole point of the entire post that you were supposed to get out of it.

qft

AlexMerced
04-13-2011, 06:55 PM
Since you guys have revived this thread, here's my newest video on the topic focusing on ways Lifers and Choicers can work together to reduce the amount of abortions through educationa and investment


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEnBcKQbse4

Sentient Void
04-13-2011, 08:48 PM
They never said you have a right to kill them, they said you have a right to evict them. That was the whole point of the entire post that you were supposed to get out of it.

^^^This...


Expanding on my last point with regards to eviction vs. killing, you might say that abortion kills the baby before eviction. The difference is that with the invalid, if you toss them on the street, somebody might drive by and decide to take care of them. If you toss an early term fetus out into the street there isn't anything anybody could do to help it survive. Technically, I suppose, you could have fetuses surgically removed and placed in a bin outside of the abortion clinic so that anybody who wants can try and revive the fetus, but I don't think that is plausible. So for the sake of convenience, the fetus is killed before it is removed, because it makes no difference which order it is performed.

... and This ^^^ .

sevin
04-14-2011, 07:14 AM
They never said you have a right to kill them, they said you have a right to evict them. That was the whole point of the entire post that you were supposed to get out of it.

I know.


Expanding on my last point with regards to eviction vs. killing, you might say that abortion kills the baby before eviction. The difference is that with the invalid, if you toss them on the street, somebody might drive by and decide to take care of them. If you toss an early term fetus out into the street there isn't anything anybody could do to help it survive. Technically, I suppose, you could have fetuses surgically removed and placed in a bin outside of the abortion clinic so that anybody who wants can try and revive the fetus, but I don't think that is plausible. So for the sake of convenience, the fetus is killed before it is removed, because it makes no difference which order it is performed.

Well, that's what I'm saying. One can try to justify abortion by saying it's no different than evicting someone who can't survive on their own, but it's not the same at all. Like you said, someone could come by and help the invalid. With abortion, it's like kicking someone off an airplane and saying, "I didn't kill them, I just evicted them from my airplane."

reillym
04-14-2011, 09:34 AM
It is very scary that some of you are so vehemently against abortion. Chile banned abortion, all abortion. Look up what is happening to the women there. It will change your tune. Facts have weird effects like that.

Women will always want abortions. Banning it, or making it difficult, will simply cause more pain.

KAYA
04-14-2011, 10:01 AM
My argument is:

- the a women has a right to decide whether she wants to CARRY the child, not to kill the child

- the child has a right to live, but has no right to impose on the mothers property



To this specific point, which is the foundation of your greater point.

Using the logic that the child has a right to live but no right to impose on the mother's property. Then a mother could decide that she no longer wants her 2 year old child in her home (her private property), and no longer wants the burden to care for this child with her time, money, resources, etc, (her private property), and therefore there is nothing wrong with this mother removing her child from her private property by driving 2 hours away from her home and dropping this 2 year old child off at the corner Crack St, and Pimp Blvd, so long as she does not directly kill the child in the process. No questions asked.

That's some pretty twist, f'd up logic there.

And I just have to say one more thing here. Nothing about liberty says that we can also be free from the natural consequences of our actions. And we all know that with sex we run the risk of pregnancy. In fact that is the ultimate biological purpose of sex, for those who don't know.

juleswin
04-14-2011, 10:05 AM
Just remember, Ron Paul supports the idea that Life begins at conception.


http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Picture-140.png
Ron Paul, CPAC 2011 Straw Poll Winner (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6299-ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-vote)




And thank god we are not all Ron Paul drones who just believe something because Ron Paul believes it. I believe a growing fetus is a parasite that has no right of its own. Ron Paul uses the argument that if you hurt a pregnant woman, you would be charged with double homicide. But its that just a man made law and that my itself doesn't make it right, the law could be changed tomorrow that committing the same act would be regarded as multiple homicide since the woman and the fetus could have gone on to produce multiple babies. Anyway I think this is a moot point because if it was left to state right as he suggested, people who need and perform abortions would travel to the states that allow it for their services.

One last thing, if abortions were truly murder, why even leave it to the states?

KAYA
04-14-2011, 10:13 AM
When does this "parasite" turn into that mother's son or daughter?

ChaosControl
04-14-2011, 10:26 AM
I dislike the concept of breaking everything down a property rights issue. I don't think most things are simply about property rights.

juleswin
04-14-2011, 10:33 AM
IMO, they do not have the *right* to live at the expense of their parents. The point is, is that this relationship between children and parents is *voluntary*. If it's voluntary, then it's all good - and there is no violation.

If a parent(s) tossed their child(ren) out on the street. They would rightly deserve scorn for it. They are morally obligated to take care of their children, but children do not have a right to the care of their parents. I and others should plead with them not to do so, and socially ostracize them if they do. Apart from the fact that the vast majority of parents *do not* want to do this, there is also social pressures for them not to do it as well. But if parents do, then other, more loving and caring parents would come along to take care of them. There are *plenty* of couples out there who are dying to adopt. There is quite the shortage of babies to adopt, btw.

Do you support coercing parents who hate their children and want nothing to do with them (so much so that they want to abandon them or even hurt them) into taking care of their children? Seriously?

I would rather allow the bad parents to voluntarily transfer their children to a more loving, caring home that would better support the needs of the children - emotionally, mentally, physically (and probably financially). I do not support someone taking these children by force, (of course unless the children are being *legitimately* abused) but I do support children voluntarily leaving their parents to seek out better parents, or parents transferring their children to other better ones.

How can anyone argue against this and supposedly be 'for the children'?

You couldn't have said it any better. Life is hard already with 2 loving parents but some people in their quest to "protect" kids would want nothing more than put them at the mercy of a parent who doesn't want (to the point of considering abortion) them. If any set of people should understand this, it is libertarians. Freedom is a double edge sword, it has its good and its bads and part of it is the ability to terminate and unwanted human growth in your body.

Btw if a fetus has equal rights as the mother, then why is it ok to allow abortion in situations were the mothers life is in danger? or in case of saimese twins where one twin is killed off to save the other.

Krugerrand
04-14-2011, 10:39 AM
And thank god we are not all Ron Paul drones who just believe something because Ron Paul believes it. I believe a growing fetus is a parasite that has no right of its own. Ron Paul uses the argument that if you hurt a pregnant woman, you would be charged with double homicide. But its that just a man made law and that my itself doesn't make it right, the law could be changed tomorrow that committing the same act would be regarded as multiple homicide since the woman and the fetus could have gone on to produce multiple babies. Anyway I think this is a moot point because if it was left to state right as he suggested, people who need and perform abortions would travel to the states that allow it for their services.

One last thing, if abortions were truly murder, why even leave it to the states?

That's not Ron's argument. RP points to that as where we are right in protecting the unborn human life ... and he is pointing out the inconsistency in the law. He's not saying that we should protect all of the unborn BECAUSE we protect some of the unborn.

Wesker1982
04-14-2011, 10:48 AM
One last thing, if abortions were truly murder, why even leave it to the states?

This.

imo, it can be concluded that the reasoning Ron Paul uses to advocate this as a states issue would naturally conclude him to advocate it as a community issue, or as local as possible.

This issue cannot be dealt with by centralized authority. I think Ron Paul knows this and advocates it to be dealt with on a state level only as opposed to a federal level. I think he would support the issue to be dealt with as locally as possible, like on a community level etc. The state is an arbitrary cutoff point, whatever reason one uses to support problems to be dealt with at a state vs federal level can be used to advocate problems to be dealt with at a community level vs state etc.

The issue is similar to policing the world. Once we quit thinking of everything in terms of states, it becomes easier to understand. Even though there are injustices all over the world, it is unrealistic to think it is possible to change peoples values and customs by force. The logic is similar for why we shouldn't search the Amazon Jungle for injustices to prevent. Let people live where their customs and values are common and understand that you can't change people's values by force.

In before: "so murder on a local level is ok?!"

The difference between abortion and murder in this sense is that the vast majority of the human population views outright murder (as in shooting someone in the head for fun) as immoral and wrong. There wouldn't be very many communities where murder is ok. For one, their population would dwindle pretty fast, and secondly only crazy people would live there so who cares. Also, this sociopathic community would be economically ostracized from the rest of civilization, it would not last.

The abortion issue is not so clear cut, people are so divided on it that it makes any attempt to deal with it on a central level futile.

Krugerrand
04-14-2011, 10:59 AM
One last thing, if abortions were truly murder, why even leave it to the states?

Because that's where murder charges constitutionally belong. 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder all can vary from state to state. Mental insanity can vary by state. Accidental/premeditated varies by state. It just isn't under the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.

Brooklyn Red Leg
04-14-2011, 11:07 AM
Always a sticky issue.

Fact: Biologically (and ONLY Biologically) speaking, "life" begins at conception.
Fact: You're considered deader than fucking fried chicken (in the legal sense) and therefore not a person when your brain functions stop. Shouldn't there be symmetry to the law that says you are alive (in the legal sense) and therefore a person when your brain functions start?
Fact: The human brain starts developing around the 6th week after conception when the brain stem forms. By the 10th week, the brain is fully functioning and neurons are forming. (Mayo Clinic)

Abortion should ONLY be allowed in all but the most exigent circumstances BEFORE the 6th week after conception. Before then, you are (right or wrong) not legally considered a person. After that date, unless something severe has happened (no brain stem etc) then you are a viable human being and someone forcibly evicting you (to put it in a property rights vein) in an effort to kill you is committing an act of murder.


Will Science Trump Politics
in Resolving Abortion Debate?


by Wendy McElroy (wendy@zetetics.com)
by Wendy McElroy

Artificial wombs will be "reality" within 20 years, according to the London Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2-1755908%2C00.html). Indeed, 20 years seems a conservative estimate given an earlier report (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html) in The Guardian, another UK newspaper, which predicted them for 2008.



Discussion of ectogenesis (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPST/ectogenesis/introduction.html) – growing an embryo outside the mother's womb – may sound wildly futuristic. But a few years ago, cloning (http://www.arhp.org/patienteducation/onlinebrochures/cloning/index.cfm?ID=282) and genetic modification seemed impossible. A few years before that, the idea of a 66-year-old woman giving birth was absurd; it happened (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=18957) last January. And only last week, British scientists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1566144,00.html) received an official go-ahead to create human embryos from two mothers.



For better or worse, new reproductive technologies are redefining the ground rules of reproduction. (And, no, the force of law can not hold back scientific 'progress,' as authorities have discovered repeatedly since Galileo's day.)



New reproductive technologies may also redefine the politics surrounding reproduction, including the issue of abortion. I welcome the prospect. It is difficult to believe that science could do a worse job with the issue than courts and fanatic rhetoric. At the very least, science may offer new methods of ending a pregnancy without destroying an embryo or fetus.



This possibility becomes more likely in the presence of two factors.


First, viability is being established at ever-earlier stages of pregnancy.


Recently, doctors have been successful in administering perflubron – a liquid that replaces the amniotic fluid – to babies as young as 23-weeks-old, with a 70 percent survival rate.


Second, ectogenesis (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPST/ectogenesis/introduction.html) seems to be experiencing breakthroughs.


In 2002, a team at Cornell University used cells from a human uterus to grow an artificial womb (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurebody/dc8d9371b1d75010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html). When a fertilized human egg was introduced, it implanted itself in the uterus wall as in a natural pregnancy. After six days of gestation, the experiment was halted due solely to legal constraints.


Meanwhile, half-a-world away, Dr. Yoshinori Kuwabara (http://www.thebatt.com/media/paper657/news/2003/09/30/Opinion/A.Scientific.Compromise-508045.shtml) of Juntendo University in Japan has been removing fetuses from goats and keeping them alive for weeks in clear plastic tanks of amniotic fluid with machine-driven 'umbilical cords'.


Frida Simonstein, of Ben Gurion University in Israel, stated at a recent conference on ethics and emerging medical technologies, "Society now expects better outcomes for premature babies. Society also demands improvement in IVF effectiveness. Yet society should be equally aware that these demands require research that leads to the development of an artificial womb."


She concluded, "We must start discussing this topic now while we have still enough time to decide what we may want, and why."


Abortion activists, both pro-choice and pro-life, should heed Simonstein's warning. Science has sped past the current state of debate, and those stuck behind in the rut of discussing Roe v. Wade may find themselves obsolete. Whether or not ectogenesis is ever able to sustain a nine-month human pregnancy, one thing is clear: key issues like viability are being redefined by science. The abortion debate must move into the 21st century, where it may be possible for many pro-choice and pro-life advocates to find common ground.


Science will not make the abortion debate go away. The conflict is too deep and involves such fundamental questions of ethics and rights as, "What is a human life?" "Can two 'human beings' – a fetus and the pregnant woman – claim control over the same body?" and "When does an individual with rights come into existence?" These questions are beyond the scope of science.


Nevertheless, technology can impact the debate in at least two ways. First, it can explore ways to end a pregnancy without destroying the fetus, which may then be sustained; if such procedures became accessible and inexpensive (or financed by adoptive 'parents'), then abortion rates would likely decline...and sharply.


Second, it may offer "an out" for activists on both sides who sincerely wish to resolve the debate and not merely scream at each other at ever increasing shrillness.


Many pro-choice women, like me, have been deeply disturbed by ultrasound scan photos (http://www.layyous.com/ultasound/fetalbehavior.htm) that show fetuses, at earlier than once thought periods of gestation, sucking their thumbs, appearing to smile and otherwise resembling a full-term baby. Many of us would welcome alternate procedures and forms of ectogenesis as long as they remained choices. And as long as both parental rights and parental responsibilities could be relinquished.


For their part, pro-life advocates who are sincerely bothered by the totalitarian implications of monitoring pregnant women and demolishing doctor-client privilege might well jump at a technological solution.


Such activists may be surprised to find allies where enemies once existed.


Of course, some pro-choice feminists will reject the possibility without discussion, and for one reason. Many states ban abortion once the fetus has achieved viability. Since ectogenesis pushes viability back to the embryo stage, all abortions might become illegal. That would constitute a catastrophic political defeat.


Moreover, many pro-life advocates will oppose new reproductive technologies as dehumanizing, unnatural, and against their religious beliefs.


To date, the most notable thing about activists' response to new reproductive technologies has been the lack of it, especially when compared to the clamor surrounding every other aspect of abortion. It sometimes seems as though the two extremes want to shout rather than consider solutions.

And so the debate will continue among those unwilling to explore any 'solution' not fashioned from their own ideology.


But the extent of the problem may well be diminished by science, by new reproductive technologies that sustain the viability of fetuses removed from women who do not wish to become mothers. Like heart transplants or intrauterine operations to correct birth defects, ectogenesis may taken for granted some day.


The most optimistic scenario is that a not-too-future generation will look back on abortion as a barbaric procedure, and learn the terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' from a history text.


More realistically, new reproductive technologies will just help a bad situation. But help should not be dismissed lightly.

September 22, 2005
I love this article because it lays it out plain and simple. Once the technology becomes viable to do this, then the proof will be in the pudding. Any mutherfucker that favours abortion after it becomes possible to safely and viably remove a fetus and/or baby is either a sick fuck who enjoys the thought of murder or is simply using the issue as a political bomb to lob at 'the opposition'. When abortion becomes obsolete, then we will be living in a better world I believe.

juleswin
04-14-2011, 11:10 AM
Because that's where murder charges constitutionally belong. 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder all can vary from state to state. Mental insanity can vary by state. Accidental/premeditated varies by state. It just isn't under the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.

But he supported the Civil right act sections that dealt with Jim Crow laws. Those Jim Crow laws were supported by a majority of the states and by his logic should be left to the states. Btw I know his reasoning behind it, but my point is that he himself knows that the argument of when life starts hasn't been settled (unlike an unprovoked killing of another living human being) and he by leaving it to the states is to leaving it up to interpretation.

Under the constitution, govt cannot infringe of one right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness I think.

KAYA
04-14-2011, 11:16 AM
Fact: You're considered deader than fucking fried chicken (in the legal sense) and therefore not a person when your brain functions stops. Shouldn't there be symmetry to the law that says you are alive (in the legal sense) and therefore a person when your brain functions start?
Fact: The human brain starts developing around the 6th week after conception when the brain stem forms. By the 10th week, the brain is fully functioning and neurons are forming. (Mayo Clinic)


While I think you make a fair point overall and set the stage for an area where enough people could agree to a viable compromise. That being that abortion could be performed before the brain develops at the 6 week mark and that abortions should be illegal after the brain starts developing at this 6 week mark.

But to address what you said in the quote above. The difference is that one is on course to a healthy developing brain, while the other is a brain that has discontinued functioning and has no potential to ever function again. There is a difference from a brain that "stops" and one never given the chance to start.

sevin
04-14-2011, 11:25 AM
It is very scary that some of you are so vehemently against abortion. Chile banned abortion, all abortion. Look up what is happening to the women there. It will change your tune. Facts have weird effects like that.

Women will always want abortions. Banning it, or making it difficult, will simply cause more pain.

I don't think the government should ban it when there's no consensus as to whether a fetus is a human life. However, I personally think it is wrong.

Krugerrand
04-14-2011, 11:27 AM
But he supported the Civil right act sections that dealt with Jim Crow laws. Those Jim Crow laws were supported by a majority of the states and by his logic should be left to the states. Btw I know his reasoning behind it, but my point is that he himself knows that the argument of when life starts hasn't been settled (unlike an unprovoked killing of another living human being) and he by leaving it to the states is to leaving it up to interpretation.

Under the constitution, govt cannot infringe of one right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness I think.

Life starts at conception. To suggest otherwise would be like me saying the boiling point of water hasn't been settled because I refuse to believe it. The eviction argument of the thread is one that generally acknowledges this fact. Using denial phrases ("unlike an unprovoked killing of another living human being") does not change the fact either.

What I like about the eviction argument, while I don't buy it, is that it puts the abortion conversation into an rational context for discussion.

Krugerrand
04-14-2011, 11:34 AM
Always a sticky issue.

Fact: Biologically (and ONLY Biologically) speaking, "life" begins at conception.
Fact: You're considered deader than fucking fried chicken (in the legal sense) and therefore not a person when your brain functions stop. Shouldn't there be symmetry to the law that says you are alive (in the legal sense) and therefore a person when your brain functions start?
Fact: The human brain starts developing around the 6th week after conception when the brain stem forms. By the 10th week, the brain is fully functioning and neurons are forming. (Mayo Clinic)

Abortion should ONLY be allowed in all but the most exigent circumstances BEFORE the 6th week after conception. Before then, you are (right or wrong) not legally considered a person. After that date, unless something severe has happened (no brain stem etc) then you are a viable human being and someone forcibly evicting you (to put it in a property rights vein) in an effort to kill you is committing an act of murder.

I love this article because it lays it out plain and simple. Once the technology becomes viable to do this, then the proof will be in the pudding. Any mutherfucker that favours abortion after it becomes possible to safely and viably remove a fetus and/or baby is either a sick fuck who enjoys the thought of murder or is simply using the issue as a political bomb to lob at 'the opposition'. When abortion becomes obsolete, then we will be living in a better world I believe.

The reality behind this technology argument should send shivers down the spine of any lover of liberty. Technology to create and develop human life outside of the womb is advancing - and advancing quickly. It is exceptionally likely that a human child could someday be brought forth entirely outside of a human womb. Let's assume this will happen. At what point does this human creature get to be (in the abortion advocate's mind) it's own person? Who has parental responsibility for person? Is this child simply property of laboratory until they take it out? What if technology can keep the human person artificially 'enwombed' past 9 months - say for 2 years, or 5 years? Can it be killed after while artifically enwombed for 2 years and then have its organs sold?

BrendenR
04-14-2011, 11:39 AM
What if technology can keep the human person artificially 'enwombed' past 9 months - say for 2 years, or 5 years? Can it be killed after while artifically enwombed for 2 years and then have its organs sold?

Not if you take the reasonable approach that the festu's/child's rights begin when the brain is formed, according to a previous poster, at six weeks. After that point you'd be violating it's rights.

Krugerrand
04-14-2011, 11:46 AM
Not if you take the reasonable approach that the festu's/child's rights begin when the brain is formed, according to a previous poster, at six weeks. After that point you'd be violating it's rights.

This is true. Brooklyn Red Leg's post had me thinking technology. Yet my point was directed as those advocating an unborn child is not a person until it is born. Non sequitor on my part. Yet, still valid for those to whom I had intended to direct the point.

Sentient Void
04-14-2011, 12:03 PM
The whole debate of 'when life begins' is an abstract and pointless debate. Even *if* we say life *does* begin at conception, the issue is still not about if it's actually a person or not. It's a self-ownership issue in regards to the mother (best explained through property rights, as in, the property right of self-ownership of the mother).

Sentient Void
04-14-2011, 12:07 PM
I dislike the concept of breaking everything down a property rights issue. I don't think most things are simply about property rights.

It is all about property rights. All rights are an extension of the property right of self-ownership. it would follow that all rights are ultimately property rights.

The concept of private property solves all disputes. It is the negation of property rights, where problems arise (tragedy of the commons, abortion, public property and free speech, etc).

Krugerrand
04-14-2011, 12:20 PM
It is all about property rights. All rights are an extension of the property right of self-ownership. it would follow that all rights are ultimately property rights.

The concept of private property solves all disputes. It is the negation of property rights, where problems arise (tragedy of the commons, abortion, public property and free speech, etc).

How is freedom of speech a property right?

Wesker1982
04-14-2011, 12:23 PM
How is freedom of speech a property right?

How is it not? If I say you aren't free to speak in my house, you don't really have the freedom of speech because it conflicts with my property right etc.

Sentient Void
04-14-2011, 12:31 PM
How is it not? If I say you aren't free to speak in my house, you don't really have the freedom of speech because it conflicts with my property right etc.

Exactly. There is no 'freedom of speech' - there is only 'freedom of property'. You can't go into someone's house, or movie theater, and have a right to say or yell what you want. You can't yell 'FIRE!' in a movie theater - not because you're saying 'fire', but because you're disturbing the session on terms of you being on someone else's property. You could yell 'BLAHHHHHHHHH!' and be booted out all the same.

The only reason you have some nebulous, alleged 'freedom of speech' in the public sphere is because it is the 'tragedy of the commons'. There are no clear property rights. Who owns public property? The taxpayers? What does that even mean? Me? You? but our rights to speak and kick people off of our property are in conflict with eachother. the government makes this clear when they kick your ass off of public property when you say something people don't like. They may or may not allow you to say what you want.

So who owns it? You? Me? 'All of us'? The government? A small group of representatives of the government? There are no clear property rights, and that's whyt here are so many problems with the issue of 'freedom of speech' on public property (protests at cemetaries, White House, etc).

Again, all right are property rights extending from the right of self-ownership.

goldencane
04-14-2011, 12:34 PM
Just as there is no way to absolutely prove that life begins at conception, there is also absolutely no way to prove that it does not. Thus, I think it is better to assume that life begins at conception. If we assume that it does not, then it might be likely that we are allowing murder and depriving a human the right to life.

I admit that I just sped read up to this point, but I do see some people using the property rights argument and i think that is a faulty argument. The fetus does not choose to be on the mother's "property". It is forced to be there because of the mothers decisions and actions. If any of us brought someone on life support on our property and neglected them (or killed them because we din't want them there after we brought them there), we all know that is murder (or at least man slaughter). The only way the property rights argument might work is if the fetus magically got inside the mother with out the mother doing something to put it there.

teacherone
04-14-2011, 12:40 PM
All rights are property rights. If the mother deems the child to be a violator of her property right of self-ownership (and, absent a better word, deems the fetus as a parasitic entity), then she has every right to evict it if she desires. If it dies as a result, this is unfortunate, but *no human has the right to live at the expense of another human*.

THIS IS SLAVERY, and antithetical to the concept and philosophy of liberty.

Never mind the unintended consequences outlawing abortion would cause, while not fixing the problem and making it dissappear.

this argument could just as easily be made to defend parents murdering their children who violate their property rights by living in their homes and feeding off their labor.

by this logic a seven year old is also a parasite whom parents should be able to evict at whim.

Krugerrand
04-14-2011, 12:43 PM
this argument could just as easily be made to defend parents murdering their children who violate their property rights by living in their homes and feeding off their labor.

by this logic a seven year old is also a parasite whom parents should be able to evict at whim.

Only the second part is valid per the property rights argument. In fact, we were better off when private orphanages readily took children that parents chose to no longer raise for whatever reason.

teacherone
04-14-2011, 12:58 PM
Only the second part is valid per the property rights argument. In fact, we were better off when private orphanages readily took children that parents chose to no longer raise for whatever reason.

oh.... so libertarians are for abortion and child abandonment.

Wesker1982
04-14-2011, 01:06 PM
this argument could just as easily be made to defend parents murdering their children who violate their property rights by living in their homes and feeding off their labor.


This is either a strawman or you do not accurately understand the position you are arguing against.

teacherone
04-14-2011, 01:11 PM
This is either a strawman or you do not accurately understand the position you are arguing against.

i refuse to be a slave and work to support the parasite living in my house.

i will starve that little parasite, maybe it will leave on its own.

if not-- out the door in a snow storm for you little one.

goldencane
04-14-2011, 01:18 PM
i refuse to be a slave and work to support the parasite living in my house.

i will starve that little parasite, maybe it will leave on its own.

if not-- out the door in a snow storm for you little one.

That might make sense if the "parasite" chose to be in your house. You forced it to be there, thus you can not kill it. You can't go to a hospital, take someone off life support, bring them to your house, and then kill them because you don't want them there (or even just let them die for that matter).

teacherone
04-14-2011, 01:20 PM
That might make sense if the "parasite" chose to be in your house. You forced it to be there, thus you can not kill it. You can't go to a hospital, take someone off life support, bring them to your house, and then kill them because you don't want them there (or even just let them die for that matter).

you people are retarded.

the parasite forced itself inside my body so i can kill it but i forced it inside my home so i can't...

genius work there!

goldencane
04-14-2011, 01:23 PM
you people are retarded.

the parasite forced itself inside my body so i can kill it but i forced it inside my home so i can't...

genius work there!

Maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about. I don't think you can kill it if it is inside your body.

Sentient Void
04-14-2011, 01:23 PM
Unbelievable teacherone, et al. Your strawmen and 'begging the question' fallacies are absurd. Please stop.


by this logic a seven year old is also a parasite whom parents should be able to evict at whim.

I've also been over this, teacherone...


IMO, they do not have the *right* to live at the expense of their parents. The point is, is that this relationship between children and parents is *voluntary*. If it's voluntary, then it's all good - and there is no violation.

If a parent(s) tossed their child(ren) out on the street. They would rightly deserve scorn for it. They are morally obligated to take care of their children, but children do not have a right to the care of their parents. I and others should plead with them not to do so, and socially ostracize them if they do. Apart from the fact that the vast majority of parents *do not* want to do this, there is also social pressures for them not to do it as well. But if parents do, then other, more loving and caring parents would come along to take care of them. There are *plenty* of couples out there who are dying to adopt. There is quite the shortage of babies to adopt, btw.

Do you support coercing parents who hate their children and want nothing to do with them (so much so that they want to abandon them or even hurt them) into taking care of their children? Seriously?

I would rather allow the bad parents to voluntarily transfer their children to a more loving, caring home that would better support the needs of the children - emotionally, mentally, physically (and probably financially). I do not support someone taking these children by force, (of course unless the children are being *legitimately* abused) but I do support children voluntarily leaving their parents to seek out better parents, or parents transferring their children to other better ones.

How can anyone argue against this and supposedly be 'for the children'?

teacherone
04-14-2011, 01:27 PM
lol at ostracism, peer pressure, and pleading to stop murder and abandonment.

too funny.

goldencane
04-14-2011, 01:31 PM
IMO, they do not have the *right* to live at the expense of their parents. The point is, is that this relationship between children and parents is *voluntary*. If it's voluntary, then it's all good - and there is no violation.

If a parent(s) tossed their child(ren) out on the street. They would rightly deserve scorn for it. They are morally obligated to take care of their children, but children do not have a right to the care of their parents. I and others should plead with them not to do so, and socially ostracize them if they do. Apart from the fact that the vast majority of parents *do not* want to do this, there is also social pressures for them not to do it as well. But if parents do, then other, more loving and caring parents would come along to take care of them. There are *plenty* of couples out there who are dying to adopt. There is quite the shortage of babies to adopt, btw.

Do you support coercing parents who hate their children and want nothing to do with them (so much so that they want to abandon them or even hurt them) into taking care of their children? Seriously?

I would rather allow the bad parents to voluntarily transfer their children to a more loving, caring home that would better support the needs of the children - emotionally, mentally, physically (and probably financially). I do not support someone taking these children by force, (of course unless the children are being *legitimately* abused) but I do support children voluntarily leaving their parents to seek out better parents, or parents transferring their children to other better ones.

How can anyone argue against this and supposedly be 'for the children'?

With just about every abortion, they kill the fetus before the remove it. Do you think this is ok? Or should they do a c-section type procedure and if the baby lives, good, if not, too bad? With your analogy, I think the child has a right not to be murdered.

juleswin
04-14-2011, 01:33 PM
oh.... so libertarians are for abortion and child abandonment.

oh.... libertarians are for racism and segregation.

Rachel Maddow said hi :)

ChaosControl
04-14-2011, 01:41 PM
It is all about property rights. All rights are an extension of the property right of self-ownership. it would follow that all rights are ultimately property rights.

The concept of private property solves all disputes. It is the negation of property rights, where problems arise (tragedy of the commons, abortion, public property and free speech, etc).

Any kind of system can solve disputes, the only difference is what the solution is or how it is solved, but it'll be solved regardless. No matter the system though, someone is going to be unhappy, including using "private property" to solve things.

I don't really think of self-ownership as a property thing. I do not consider a person a property. Now if you want to say all rights come from self-ownership, I think I could agree with that. This may just be an issue with words though rather than a disagreement of ideology, not sure.

Edit: Actually I don't even like the term self-ownership, it sounds too much like a self, like a person or life, can be owned. Oh well...

teacherone
04-14-2011, 01:43 PM
oh.... libertarians are for racism and segregation.

Rachel Maddow said hi :)

uhhh... hi!

do you have a point?

Sentient Void
04-14-2011, 01:45 PM
With just about every abortion, they kill the fetus before the remove it. Do you think this is ok? Or should they do a c-section type procedure and if the baby lives, good, if not, too bad? With your analogy, I think the child has a right not to be murdered.

This is a strawman. It is an argument about how many abortions are performed - it is not an argument against abortion (through eviction) in and of itself.

Sentient Void
04-14-2011, 01:46 PM
lol at ostracism, peer pressure, and pleading to stop murder and abandonment.

too funny.

Great. Whatever. Check out Chile and see how banning abortion turned out.

Prohibition doesn't work. Period. The unintended consequences are above and beyond worse than the alternative.

teacherone
04-14-2011, 01:48 PM
Great. Whatever. Check out Chile and see how banning abortion turned out.

Prohibition doesn't work. Period. The unintended consequences are above and beyond worse than the alternative.

strawman.

we are debating the ridiculous "property rights" as defense of abortion not chile's prohibition.

Sentient Void
04-14-2011, 01:48 PM
Any kind of system can solve disputes, the only difference is what the solution is or how it is solved, but it'll be solved regardless. No matter the system though, someone is going to be unhappy, including using "private property" to solve things.

I don't really think of self-ownership as a property thing. I do not consider a person a property. Now if you want to say all rights come from self-ownership, I think I could agree with that. This may just be an issue with words though rather than a disagreement of ideology, not sure.

Edit: Actually I don't even like the term self-ownership, it sounds too much like a self, like a person or life, can be owned. Oh well...

Rothbard weeps.

Private property is the best system available that solves disputes.

Too many people here are being excessively eristic and engaging in severe adhockery.

ClayTrainor
04-14-2011, 01:51 PM
I don't really think of self-ownership as a property thing. I do not consider a person a property. Now if you want to say all rights come from self-ownership, I think I could agree with that. This may just be an issue with words though rather than a disagreement of ideology, not sure.

Edit: Actually I don't even like the term self-ownership, it sounds too much like a self, like a person or life, can be owned. Oh well...

To me, rejecting self-ownership is to reject the entire concept of liberty.

The term self-ownership means individuals own themselves, which also means that humans cannot own other humans as a form of property.

Who owns your arms? Who owns your brain?

moostraks
04-14-2011, 01:52 PM
Prohibition doesn't work. Period. The unintended consequences are above and beyond worse than the alternative.

Which unintended consequences would be worse in your opinion?

juleswin
04-14-2011, 01:52 PM
uhhh... hi!

do you have a point?

The point is that you are using Rachel argument to demonize freedom lovers. Just because you support freedom of speech doesnt mean you support everything someone does with that right. Same goes for this discussion about abortion and child neglect.

teacherone
04-14-2011, 01:54 PM
To me, rejecting self-ownership is to reject the entire concept of liberty.

The term self-ownership means individuals own themselves, which also means that humans do not own other humans as a form of property.

but the argument here is that the parasite is the property of the mother and can therefore be evicted at whim.

being her property, the parasite can also be abandoned or abused or sold or transferred--

of course the parents might have to put up with some "pleading" and "ostracism" from internet anarchists...

juleswin
04-14-2011, 01:54 PM
Which unintended consequences would be worse in your opinion?

pregnant women going to quack doctors, taking dangerous pills, commiting sucide, etc etc which most of the time end up killing the mother AND the baby. But I guess for some here, that is the price we have to pay to protecting some unborn children

goldencane
04-14-2011, 02:01 PM
This is a strawman. It is an argument about how many abortions are performed - it is not an argument against abortion (through eviction) in and of itself.

I wasn't really using that as an argument against abortion, I was just curious of you opinion on it, because I do see a distinction.

As for my argument against it, it probably isn't one that will convince you as it is a result of differing interpretations. I personally believe that the right to life includes the right to be taken care of until you can somewhat take care of yourself and that it is the responsibility of the the people who created you to do that or to find someone who will. For most kids this is probably around 4 or 5, but I hesitate to put an arbitrary age limit on it.

Wesker1982
04-14-2011, 02:02 PM
but the argument here is that the parasite is the property of the mother and can therefore be evicted at whim.


You don't even understand what you are replying to, and this is proof. The eviction right comes from the mothers right to property in herself.

Wesker1982
04-14-2011, 02:05 PM
I personally believe that the right to life includes the right to be taken care of

No one has the right to live at the expense of someone else. This is the foundation of liberty.

teacherone
04-14-2011, 02:07 PM
You don't even understand what you are replying to, and this is proof. The eviction right comes from the mothers right to property in herself.

and "parasites" have no rights...

neither do enemy combatants.

semantics is fun!

moostraks
04-14-2011, 02:09 PM
pregnant women doing to quack doctors, taking dangerous pills, commiting sucide, etc etc which most of the time end up killing the mother AND the baby. But I guess for some here, that is the price we have to pay to protecting some unborn children

So your argument would be the death of the mother is more tragic than the death of the child? It could be said that by protecting the unborn at the expense of the type of mothers who take drastic actions such as you propose, you are improving the species, even if they both ultimately die due to her recklessness. Has society been improved by the acceptance of abortion as a necessary evil? How has it changed the behavior and mindset of men and women and their attitudes towards their children and families?

teacherone
04-14-2011, 02:11 PM
No one has the right to live at the expense of someone else. This is the foundation of liberty.

exactly my point. since my seven year old is living at my expense and i'm sick of her i'll throw her out in the snow storm.

glad we agree.

moostraks
04-14-2011, 02:11 PM
No one has the right to live at the expense of someone else. This is the foundation of liberty.

What expense does the fetus suffer by a woman who is irresponsible?

juleswin
04-14-2011, 02:16 PM
So your argument would be the death of the mother is more tragic than the death of the child? It could be said that by protecting the unborn at the expense of the type of mothers who take drastic actions such as you propose, you are improving the species, even if they both ultimately die due to her recklessness. Has society been improved by the acceptance of abortion as a necessary evil? How has it changed the behavior and mindset of men and women and their attitudes towards their children and families?

If you actually cared about improving the species, you would quit forcing women who have serious mental/emotional issues into delivering their children. Their childeren most likely would inherit whatever trait is it that makes his/her mom unable to see the humanity in the child. This world would be so much better if busy bodies just minded their own business.

goldencane
04-14-2011, 02:16 PM
No one has the right to live at the expense of someone else. This is the foundation of liberty.

I understand where yall are coming from, I really do. And I've asked it before, but ill ask it again since i didn't really get an answer. If you take a person from a hospital without their consent, bring them to your property, and let them die, are you not responsible for their death? I know some of yall will claim strawman, but I don't think it is. If you create a life, knowing that it will not be able to support itself for several years, you are responsible if it dies due to neglect.

goldencane
04-14-2011, 02:19 PM
If you actually cared about improving the species, you would quit forcing women who have serious mental/emotional issues into delivering their children. Their childeren most likely would inherit whatever trait is it that makes his/her mom unable to see the humanity in the child. This world would be so much better if busy bodies just minded their own business.

Why don't we just kill off all the people with mental/ emotional problems before they can even get pregnant? That would help the species as well, wouldn't it?

moostraks
04-14-2011, 02:25 PM
If you actually cared about improving the species, you would quit forcing women who have serious mental/emotional issues into delivering their children. Their childeren most likely would inherit whatever trait is it that makes his/her mom unable to see the humanity in the child. This world would be so much better if busy bodies just minded their own business.

But that isn't what is happening. It was your point that weak minded women would not cope and would thus be a danger to themselves and their unborn if they did not have an abortion. What you have now is a hardening of society and people are intellectualizing selfish behavior and promoting it. So weak minded people are not doing anything more than having children at will when they see fit and killing them when it is convenient.

Wesker1982
04-14-2011, 02:25 PM
If you take a person from a hospital without their consent, bring them to your property, and let them die, are you not responsible for their death?

This would be an act of aggression (kidnapping). This person's existence was not violating your right of self-ownership in any way.

juleswin
04-14-2011, 02:26 PM
Why don't we just kill off all the people with mental/ emotional problems before they can even get pregnant? That would help the species as well, wouldn't it?

That would be murder, at least lets not force them into delivering a baby they clearly want to abort. Btw I wasnt the one who brought up the "improving the species" issue, you did.

ClayTrainor
04-14-2011, 02:27 PM
but the argument here is that the parasite is the property of the mother and can therefore be evicted at whim being her property, the parasite can also be abandoned or abused or sold or transferred--

The fundamental argument, as I understand it, is that women own their bodies. Once a woman evicts something from her body, it is no longer her property.



of course the parents might have to put up with some "pleading" and "ostracism" from internet anarchists...

Are "internet anarchists" the only ones who frown upon abortion? Do you favor state prohibition of abortions?

teacherone
04-14-2011, 02:32 PM
Do you favor state prohibition of abortions?

of course not!

i want to abandon my seven year old parasite out in a snow storm.

Sentient Void
04-14-2011, 02:34 PM
strawman.

we are debating the ridiculous "property rights" as defense of abortion not chile's prohibition.

I've completely given up on the property rights debate. I've gone around in circles, and I'm repeating the same shit over and over and refuting the same fallacious arguments over and over in this thread, when you, et al, could have just read them from earlier in the thread.

I'll just point to Chile from now on.

juleswin
04-14-2011, 02:35 PM
But that isn't what is happening. It was your point that weak minded women would not cope and would thus be a danger to themselves and their unborn if they did not have an abortion. What you have now is a hardening of society and people are intellectualizing selfish behavior and promoting it. So weak minded people are not doing anything more than having children at will when they see fit and killing them when it is convenient.

The reason why most people are having babies they cannot take care of is because of govt hands aka welfare. Take that away from the equation and you would see far less teen and out of wedlock pregnancies (which i presume amounts to the majority of abortions in this country).

ClayTrainor
04-14-2011, 02:37 PM
of course not!

i want to abandon my seven year old parasite out in a snow storm.

Are you just trying to be funny, at this point?

That's a gross misrepresentation of what you're trying to argue against.

Wesker1982
04-14-2011, 02:38 PM
I've completely given up on the property rights debate. I've gone around in circles, and I'm repeating the same shit over and over and refuting the same fallacious arguments over and over in this thread, when you, et al, could have just read them from earlier in the thread.

I'll just point to Chile from now on.

He is obviously not interested in a serious discussion about this, no need to pay any attention to him.

teacherone
04-14-2011, 02:38 PM
of course not!

i want to abandon my seven year old parasite out in a snow storm.


Are you just trying to be funny, at this point?



nope... seriously, she's driving me crazy.

Sentient Void
04-14-2011, 02:39 PM
He is obviously not interested in a serious discussion about this, no need to pay any attention to him.

I know. He's just being eristic and engaging in ad hoc BS, strawmen, and begging the question sophistry.

Aristotle weeps.

teacherone
04-14-2011, 02:43 PM
wow... you all gave up at once...

jesus. too easy.

guess it's too difficult to decide when a parasite stops being a parasite.

when one person's property rights trump another's self ownership.

guess the whole property rights defense of abortion is indefensible...

ClayTrainor
04-14-2011, 02:44 PM
nope... seriously, she's driving me crazy.

The only thing I can be sure of, is that you're not making a very convincing case against property rights nor are you presenting a convincing case as to how the state will magically solve this problem by writing and enforcing a prohibition law.

ClayTrainor
04-14-2011, 02:48 PM
wow... you all gave up at once...

jesus. too easy.

guess it's too difficult to decide when a parasite stops being a parasite.

No it isn't. The definition of parasite is quite clear and scientific.

Parasite: "an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host" - Princeton.edu Dictionary

When it is evicted from your body, it is no longer a parasite. Clear enough for ya?

teacherone
04-14-2011, 02:51 PM
No it isn't. The definition of parasite is quite clear and scientific.

Parasite: "an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host" - Princeton.edu Dictionary

When it is evicted from your body, it is no longer a parasite. Clear enough for ya?

sounds like my seven year old still fits that description so we're cool.

moostraks
04-14-2011, 02:53 PM
The reason why most people are having babies they cannot take care of is because of govt hands aka welfare. Take that away from the equation and you would see far less teen and out of wedlock pregnancies (which i presume amounts to the majority of abortions in this country).

??? Out of wedlock pregnancies that result in abortion only provide a very limited time of support. Teens are the parents burden to support.

ClayTrainor
04-14-2011, 02:53 PM
sounds like my seven year old still fits that description so we're cool.

You either don't understand the definition, or your 7 year old is still living inside your womb.

teacherone
04-14-2011, 02:55 PM
You either don't understand the definition, or your 7 year old is still living inside your womb.

don't have a womb but she's in my house and if i've got to wake up every morning to earn money and feed her than she's bloody well is a parasite and i'm her slave.

thanks for clearing it all up for me!

ClayTrainor
04-14-2011, 02:58 PM
don't have a womb but she's in my house and if i've got to wake up every morning to earn money and feed her than she's bloody well is a parasite and i'm her slave.

thanks for clearing it all up for me!

Thanks for confirming that you didn't understand the definition. I provided the biological definition of parasite, not the economic one. ;)

teacherone
04-14-2011, 02:59 PM
Thanks for confirming that you didn't understand the definition. I provided the biological definition of parasite. ;)

no problem!

since i own my home and she's unwanted i can force her to abandon the premises right?

juleswin
04-14-2011, 03:01 PM
don't have a womb but she's in my house and if i've got to wake up every morning to earn money and feed her than she's bloody well is a parasite and i'm her slave.

thanks for clearing it all up for me!

I can just imagine you having a laugh at all those people unfortunate enough to take you seriously. Nothing like a good ole wind up

ClayTrainor
04-14-2011, 03:05 PM
I can just imagine you having a laugh at all those people unfortunate enough to take you seriously. Nothing like a good ole wind up

lol, We is gettin' trolled??? :D

teacherone
04-14-2011, 03:06 PM
I can just imagine you having a laugh at all those people unfortunate enough to take you seriously. Nothing like a good ole wind up

not even my seven year old takes me seriously...

that's why her bags are packed.

ClayTrainor
04-14-2011, 03:22 PM
no problem!

since i own my home and she's unwanted i can force her to abandon the premises right?

Since she is not a biological parasite living in your body, she is a complete individual with self-ownership. As you have recognized, Young Children are economic parasites, and will die if the necessities of life are not provided to them by elders.

If you voluntarily assume responsibility for this child, by choosing to take it home instead of giving it someone else, (adoption, foster care, etc) than it becomes your responsibility to take care of it.

If you abdicate this responsibility and knowingly put the child in harms way, you ought to be held fully accountable.

Brooklyn Red Leg
04-14-2011, 03:25 PM
Great. Whatever. Check out Chile and see how banning abortion turned out.

Prohibition doesn't work. Period. The unintended consequences are above and beyond worse than the alternative.

Sorry, but that is absurd. Abortion is not a victimless crime as it is murdering another viable human being after 6 weeks time. If the 'unintended consequences' is a woman dies from sticking a coat hanger in her uterus, then she dies from her own stupidity. Your arguing from a Nanny-Statist position that people have to be taken care of else they will hurt themselves.

Abortion after 6 weeks time violates The Non-Aggression Principle until such time as science renders abortion a moot point. As others have said, it is akin to inviting someone into your house, tying them up and then shooting them in the face. Conceiving a child is a contractual agreement, in point of fact, between 3 people: mother, father and potential child. All 3 have rights that cannot be infringed upon. The mother and father agreed to the penalties stipulated in the contract when they decided to do the horizontal hokey-pokey. The child is forced into the contract by the parents and they cannot simply renege on their agreement by using force.

Brooklyn Red Leg
04-14-2011, 03:29 PM
lol at ostracism, peer pressure, and pleading to stop murder and abandonment.

too funny.

Won't be funny when they can't get medical treatment, buy food or stick their faces outdoors because of protests due to ostracism. Remember, an anarchistic society means people have the right to refuse service to someone else for any and all reasons. That includes an EMT who decides she won't help an Abortionist who just got shot in the testicles. The unlamented Tiller the Baby-Killer might have faced far more consequences in his life for his medical decisions in an anarchistic society.

ChaosControl
04-14-2011, 03:35 PM
To me, rejecting self-ownership is to reject the entire concept of liberty.

The term self-ownership means individuals own themselves, which also means that humans cannot own other humans as a form of property.

Who owns your arms? Who owns your brain?

I didn't mean I rejected it. I just meant I disliked the term. I dislike the idea of ownership in relation to people. Self-ownership just makes it sound like someone can be owned at all. It is just a word thing is all.

ChaosControl
04-14-2011, 03:37 PM
Rothbard weeps.

Private property is the best system available that solves disputes.

Too many people here are being excessively eristic and engaging in severe adhockery.

I support private property and I support using it for framing many laws and such, but I don't agree that our rights are based on it. Another society could decide not to have private property, yet the people could still have rights and there could still be a system in place that solves disputes and such could work fine for them. It isn't necessarily what I want, but it may be what another group wants. I don't think there is necessarily a universal best system, just what one group or another prefers.

Rights in general though are kind of iffy, considering they are infringed on and taken away all the time, do rights even exist at all?

Sentient Void
04-14-2011, 04:06 PM
Sorry, but that is absurd. Abortion is not a victimless crime as it is murdering another viable human being after 6 weeks time. If the 'unintended consequences' is a woman dies from sticking a coat hanger in her uterus, then she dies from her own stupidity. Your arguing from a Nanny-Statist position that people have to be taken care of else they will hurt themselves.

Abortion after 6 weeks time violates The Non-Aggression Principle until such time as science renders abortion a moot point. As others have said, it is akin to inviting someone into your house, tying them up and then shooting them in the face. Conceiving a child is a contractual agreement, in point of fact, between 3 people: mother, father and potential child. All 3 have rights that cannot be infringed upon. The mother and father agreed to the penalties stipulated in the contract when they decided to do the horizontal hokey-pokey. The child is forced into the contract by the parents and they cannot simply renege on their agreement by using force.

LOL! Most of your post is absurd.

I'm a nanny-Statist? And by extension - *ROTHBARD* is a nanny-statist??!

6 weeks is the cutoff point for when the fetus becomes a human with rights? How arbitrary!

The act of engaging in sex is a contract between *3 people*? WTF are you talking about?

How the hell are you going to enforce prohibition against abortion anyways in an AnCap society (considering you have an 'ancap flag' under your name)???

Goddamnitt, Rothbard would fucking weep endlessly at that post you just made. He's rolling in his fucking grave. How you can claim at all to be an AnCap is beyond me.

goldencane
04-14-2011, 04:17 PM
That would be murder, at least lets not force them into delivering a baby they clearly want to abort. Btw I wasnt the one who brought up the "improving the species" issue, you did.

I never brought up improving the species, that must have been someone else.

And because we can not prove a fetus is not a living human, we must assume that killing it would be murder also.


This would be an act of aggression (kidnapping). This person's existence was not violating your right of self-ownership in any way.

I don't think that how you forced them to be on your property matters, but I do understand what you mean by self ownership.

I've got another hypothetical, which I know some people don't like, but i think they are helpful to understand peoples positions. Say there were conjoined twins, but one of them needed the other to survive. It could still think and act on its own however, the only problem is that this person relies on the others heart perhaps. Would the person with all the organs be able to remove the other, even though they have their own fully functioning brain and are able to communicate?

Wesker1982
04-14-2011, 05:14 PM
How the hell are you going to enforce prohibition against abortion anyways in an AnCap society???


This would be dependent on local values and customs but I wouldn't say discouraging abortion is necessarily incompatible with a stateless society. Either way, you won't be able to change people's minds by force. People who feel strongly enough about it one way or another would probably live in communities where their view is commonly shared. I could see abortion being discouraged through ostracism.

The question would then become: How do you stop anti-abortionists from ostracizing pro-abortionists out of their community in an anarcho-capitalist society? You couldn't. Unlike rape, murder, theft, etc., people are greatly divided on abortion. One size will not fit all.


Won't be funny when they can't get medical treatment, buy food or stick their faces outdoors because of protests due to ostracism. Remember, an anarchistic society means people have the right to refuse service to someone else for any and all reasons. That includes an EMT who decides she won't help an Abortionist who just got shot in the testicles. The unlamented Tiller the Baby-Killer might have faced far more consequences in his life for his medical decisions in an anarchistic society.

This could work imo in a community where people are strongly anti-abortion. Say a community of hardcore Christians etc.

See my earlier post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?282937-Why-Pro-Choice-and-Pro-Life-are-both-incomplete-Positions-(Video)&p=3208194&viewfull=1#post3208194




Conceiving a child is a contractual agreement

I agree with Rothbard on this point though.


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.

Brooklyn Red Leg
04-15-2011, 03:04 AM
LOL! Most of your post is absurd.

I'm a nanny-Statist? And by extension - *ROTHBARD* is a nanny-statist??!

Saying that we have to allow abortions because of unforeseen consequences (translation: women will get back alley abortions) is a Nanny-Statist position. If they want to do something as goddamn dumb as stick a coat-hanger up their snatch, that's their business if they die. We cannot protect people from their own stupidity.


6 weeks is the cutoff point for when the fetus becomes a human with rights? How arbitrary!You apparently failed to read anything I wrote. There has to be symmetry. 6 weeks is when modern science has determined that brain functions start.


The act of engaging in sex is a contract between *3 people*? WTF are you talking about?No, conceiving a child is a contract between 3 people.


How the hell are you going to enforce prohibition against abortion anyways in an AnCap society (considering you have an 'ancap flag' under your name)???

The same way you do with murder: exile would be the easiest. Ostracism is another one.


Goddamnitt, Rothbard would fucking weep endlessly at that post you just made. He's rolling in his fucking grave. How you can claim at all to be an AnCap is beyond me.I don't know, how can you? You're the one saying its perfectly legitimate to initiate force against another human being if they are merely inconveniencing someone that entered into a contract with them.

jmdrake
04-15-2011, 05:09 AM
I disagree. If you believe that someone has a right to his/her life *at the expense of* another person (without their consent, which is slavery, through and through), this seems to be a slippery slope to advocate for things like socialist welfare for the poor at the expense of those with additional wealth.

If she removes the child, and it results in the child's death - she is not killing the child, she is abandoning it, it just cannot sustain it's life. By surviving off of the mother, the fetus is committing a *positive act* against the mother (the concept of positive vs negative rights is important here, as positive rights, apart from self-defense, can only justly be created through voluntary contract), and thus violating her rights.

Mr. Merced, as a fellow Rothbardian... Rothbard weeps. :(

While someone has probably already answered this, I don't feel like reading through the rest of the thread to find out. But this is not the "slippery slope" you falsely claim it is. Welfare is taking money from a responsible person and giving it to some stranger that they had no responsibility for. In this case, unless the mother was raped, she is at least partially responsible for this new life. A more apt analogy is the fact that if the mother chooses not to have an abortion, the father can be put into "slavery" as you call it all the way through college. Nobody ever considers that in these threads. Economically the woman gets off easy. Even without the choice of an abortion, she can give the baby up for adoption and be totally free financially. The dad is stuck. Even if he says "I was drunk and she took advantage of me and I don't want anything to do with this kid", he's still stuck from birth through college. (Yes. Child support can extend into college). Now before someone gets the wrong idea, I agree with fathers being responsible. I just detest the double standard that whines about a woman being a slave for 9 months but could care less about a dad being a slave for 21 years. And I know that many libertarians are against government forced child support and you may be in that category. But most abortion supporters are not.

jmdrake
04-15-2011, 05:26 AM
Did anyone in this thread watch the video before posting the typical counter arguments to claims I did not make in the OP

My argument is:

- the a women has a right to decide whether she wants to CARRY the child, not to kill the child

- the child has a right to live, but has no right to impose on the mothers property

SO...

in the case in which the mother does not want to carry the child, she's in her right to have the child removed alive no questions asked

But...

If the child cannot be removed alive, then there is a conflict of rights, and a judge should make a decisions based on the severity of the conflict (for example the fetus threatens the life of the mother, then the resolution is a bit clearer, while if a 13 year old makes a mistake, the judge may ask her to carry the child long enough so it can be removed alive)

Then...

I go on to discuss what would happen to the child after being removed, how would the mother transfer title of the child (a child is legally property till the age of adulthood, just property with it's own rights). So keeping this in mind I make a case for privatizing Foster Care, and allowing for profit care for these children and I go into a long speal about that which is probably the most controversial point of the video.

Also I make a point, that if you want to end abortion, the better way of doing it is to invest in safe sex education and into technology which makes it easier to remove the child safely earlier in the pregnancy.

Your first video was 23 minutes long. I read and digested this post in about 2 minutes. You'll have to forgive people for having short attention spans. ;) That said you raise some valid points. The pro life side does need to acknowledge that there is a real burden on the pregnant mother. (And everybody ignores the burden on the father. Should fathers be able to get out of paying child support if they offer to pay for an abortion and the mother refuses?) But the pro-choice side sometimes gets ridiculous when it begins comparing a developing human life to "fingernails" or "parasites" or "tumors". As pointed out in this thread, a fetus has brainwaves in the first trimester. Has anyone hooked an EEG up to his fingernail? :rolleyes: The fact is that for all of our science, we don't know when what we would all agree is "human life" actually begins. So why let the federal government make the decision?

jmdrake
04-15-2011, 05:35 AM
pregnant women going to quack doctors, taking dangerous pills, commiting sucide, etc etc which most of the time end up killing the mother AND the baby. But I guess for some here, that is the price we have to pay to protecting some unborn children

You mean like doctors who eat their fetuses (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44777)? Or a doctor with staff with no medical training who delivered babies alive and then killed them with scissors (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41154527/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)? That happened in the U.S., not Chile. Now you may say "But both of these doctors lost their medical licenses and one was arrested". Great. But I thought libertarians were against government regulation?

Anyhow, this is a straw man argument. I know of no pro lifers in the liberty movement that support a total federal ban on abortion. Most think the decision should be left up to the states. If it was then some states would bar abortions and some wouldn't. Vote with your feet. Further if you got rid of the FDA then more and more safe and legal abortion pills (as opposed to "poison pills") would be available. Now if an abortion pill was legal in say, California, do you really think it wouldn't be able to find its way to Mississippi despite the best efforts of state officials there? Getting the federal government out of the abortion question is the best thing that could happen to this country period.

teacherone
04-15-2011, 05:56 AM
Since she is not a biological parasite living in your body, she is a complete individual with self-ownership. As you have recognized, Young Children are economic parasites, and will die if the necessities of life are not provided to them by elders.

If you voluntarily assume responsibility for this child, by choosing to take it home instead of giving it someone else, (adoption, foster care, etc) than it becomes your responsibility to take care of it.

If you abdicate this responsibility and knowingly put the child in harms way, you ought to be held fully accountable.

oh... so i can kill the baby i voluntarily decided to conceive, but not the child which keeps trying to get back in...... one minute--

" I TOLD YOU THE CONTRACT IS OVER! YOU'RE TRESPASSING ON MY PROPERTY! NOW GET OUT AND EARN A LIVING LIKE THE REST Of US YOU SEVEN YEAR OLD PARASITE!"

ok...back. think that did it. can barely hear her cries now.