PDA

View Full Version : A Rational Endorsement on Ron Paul's Pro-Life and Anti-Euthanasia




judejin
07-02-2013, 12:40 AM
---A Rational Refutation on Objectivists' Support for Abortion and Euthanasia

Ayn Rand personally stated her support for women’s abortion rights. “Abortion is a moral right--which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved.” “Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being.”

From my understanding of Objectivism, Rand means to say an embryo is not yet a human being, a rational animal and only a rational animal has its rights to life. If we agree to this, we should not hesitate to call patients fallen into vegetative state “not an actual being” because they have lost brain activities, rational thinking and thus they cease to be rational animals and have lost all rights to life. In this way of reasoning, both the embryos and patients in vegetative states only have potential to becoming rational animals and potentials can be killed off by actual human beings, rational animals at will. So most often Objectivists are both pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia to protect the rights of an actual human being at the expenses of the potentials.

To refute the Objectivists’ view on these issues, we have to remember that Objectivism is based on the fundamental logical axiom - A is A and cannot be a non-A at the same time.

First of all, an embryo is not merely a body part of the woman carrying it, or a parasite feeding on the woman, or the sole property of the woman at the sole discretion of the woman. An embryo is owned by the father and the mother from the very beginning because an embryo requires contribution from a father and a mother. For example, with modern technology, lab-produced embryos have become quite common. I think most Objectivists would agree such embryos are owned by both parents. But are these embryos essentially different from embryos naturally produced? When husbands are divorcing pregnant wives, shouldn’t they be required to provide for the future of both the women and the children as well? If an embryo is sole property of the woman, why does it suddenly become a property/responsibility to the father once it is born?

Secondly, from time immemorial, laws in almost all countries punish murderers who killed a pregnant woman more severely in order to protect this potential to an actual being. From time immemorial, a pregnant woman on the death row is spared death at least until she gives birth.

Up to this point, we can clearly sense the inconsistency in how rational animals deal with embryos. The logical conflict lies in that when rational animals do not want the child they claim that the embryo is a body part of the woman at her sole discretion and when rational animals do want the child they claim the embryo is life to be protected at all cost.

So A is A and a non-A at the sole discretion of rational animals on the issues of embryos.

I do not want to provide a final answer to whether abortion is a right of the woman. I only want to point out the logical essence of the abortion debate.

Now, turn to the issue of euthanasia. Objectivists claim that a rational animal has the rights to life including the right to terminate its own life.

First, rights to life begin with life and end with life, as clearly demonstrated by Objectivists’ view on embryo and patients in vegetative states. The right to terminate one’s own life is the right to terminate all rights to life. Is the right to terminate all rights still a valid right? It is not. A is A and cannot be Non-A at the same time.

One may commit suicide in private, to exercise this non-right. But once the suicide is discovered anyone is free to obstruct it even by force. Such an obstruction of someone’s right to take own life is clearly not an offense. Saving a person’s life is restoring all the rights to his/her life, which cannot be an offense. Rather, it is a heroic act. Thus, the right to commit suicide is not an enforceable right. A non-enforceable right is not a valid right. But suicide is not a crime either, since it is merely exercising a non-right, or a self-negating act. So, we do not punish people who commit suicide and at the same time we try to prevent people from committing it at all costs.

Euthanasia is assisted suicide. Since suicide is not a right, assisted suicide becomes even more questionable. Instead of trying to prevent a person from jumping off a bridge, should anyone offer to give him/her the final push that he/she may not be brave or capable enough to carry out on his/her own? Clearly not! A dying and suffering patient who wants to die to shorten the suffering is no different from a person suffering from severe mental trouble who wants to jump off a bridge. Who is to judge whether this person cannot be saved for one more day? Who has the right to offer the final push? How to differentiate a vicious murder from a “friendly” push? A patient dying on hospital bed begging for euthanasia is no different from a psychotic on the edge of a bridge who is pleading for the police to let him jump. Even worse, agreeing to and carrying out euthanasia is no different from pushing the psychotic off the bridge when the psychotic may not have mustered all the courage to take the final step.

Just like we try to stop suiciders at all costs sometimes even when the suiciders are murderers on the run, modern medicine exhausts human’s best efforts to alleviate physical and mental pains to fight against certain death. Fight against death and fight for life at all costs is the only logically consistent rational action.

I can only think of one scenario where assisted suicide is rational. When a soldier falls into enemy’s hands and is tortured mercilessly and faces certain death, the warden may out of sympathy help him to take his own life. In this case, the soldier is a situation where the enemy wants to take his life and make him suffer. Here, the warden is a hero.

But a doctor that administers a euthanasia is certainly not a hero because a doctor’s responsibility is to fight death and prolong life at all costs. The patient is not in a situation where some enemy wants to make him suffer and die intentionally. The patient is in a hospital where everyone is supposed to help fight death and prolong life at all costs. Allowing euthanasia fundamentally alters the situation. Allowing euthanasia creates an incentive to shorten a patient’s life on very questionable excuses. To take someone’s life on dubious excuses is almost like a murder. For example, a doctor out of ulterior motives could potentially stop trying his best to alleviate the pains and induce the patient to opt for euthanasia to shorten the pains. Who can be there to judge and protect the patient from such murderous practices? Furthermore, given the euthanasia option, the patient may give up fighting against death much earlier than when the option is not there.

Furthermore, a contract to hire somebody to euthanize the patient is not a valid contract because taking the patient’s life is ending all his rights to life. A contract to end all the rights to one party is a void contract because anyone can obstruct it from executing. For example, a patient’s relative who disagrees with the euthanasia decision hijacks the patient and hide the patient in another hospital for better treatment. Should we criminalize such act? Of course not! The relative is a hero same as someone who risks his own life to save a psychotic from jumping off a bridge!

Finally, what about euthanasia for a patient in vegetative state? How can we be absolutely certain the patient will not wake up? Who is there to judge? How to tell whether a euthanasia decision has ulterior vicious motives?

A philosophy that is based on the fundamental logical axiom and is logically consistent throughout is pro life no matter how early it is (embryo) and against death no matter how close it is (dying patient) – this is my best answers to the debate of abortion and euthanasia. Objectivism is such a philosophy. I think the fact that Ayn Rand herself got it wrong on abortion and many Objectivists got it wrong on both abortion and euthanasia illustrates the complexities and difficulties of applying Objectivism to real life dilemmas, but by no means proves Objectivism itself is flawed.

Check your premises and check your logic. Double check!
(I am prompted to write this essay when I discovered that Ayn Rand supports abortion. I admire Ayn Rand so much that I want to help correct her inconsistency that she was not aware of. Full disclosure, I am an atheist and Chinese raised in Shanghai and educated in NYC. I am a believer in Objectivism and Austrian School of Economics and Libertarian ideas. I regard Ron Paul as the greatest politician ever lived because he's the most consistent in applying Libertarian ideas and Objectivism and Austrian School of Economics to real world problems! This article is a salute to him!)

AlexAmore
07-02-2013, 01:57 AM
Wow great first post! I would love to read anything more you have on deck.

I disagree with the suicide and assisted suicide part, but still enjoyed reading it.

It's almost 4AM so I apologize in advance if what I write is illogical. I don't think about assisted suicide much, but it's a fascinating topic.

If suicide and assisted suicide is bad because it's an aggression on the part of one's life, does that mean boxing is bad on a lesser level? Here we have two men beating the life out of each other and at times outright dying. Is this a fair analogy in your opinion? Would you ban boxing?

In my opinion I'm for anything as long as all parties are consensual and are not affecting anyone else's liberty. Just because society as a whole does not respect that in their legal process, doesn't mean they're right.

A man who helps nudge a man off a bridge because he wants to commit suicide is a lot different than writing out contracts and going through a scientific process to determine a person's mental state and the appropriateness of suicide. It's probably a similar process to determining if a child/teenager/adult is right for a full sex change operation. I'm not saying that helping by nudging a suicidal man off a bridge is "bad", but it simply brings more legal liability to the nudger.

judejin
07-02-2013, 03:54 AM
professional boxing is physical competition between two assenting adults with no intention to kill or injure one another. although the actual results are sometimes very harmful or even fatal. but aren't many competitional sports hazardous to the participants as well?

judejin
07-02-2013, 04:00 AM
and the rules in professional boxing prohibit a lot of harmful maneuvers exactly to protect the participants. nudge a psychotic off a bridge to help him finish the suicide, i'd say it's still "murder maybe with a good intention". but in reality, this act is so logically wrong, i don't think it ever happened in human history. if it did happen, the nudger should be mentally evaluated too!

judejin
07-02-2013, 04:08 AM
a contract to have one party killed is a void contract because how can anyone be sure whether this contract is entered upon willingly without any intimidation or seduction or fraud or vicious motives? for example, when a doctor's paid to do a euthanasia, how can we be sure whether this doctor is conducting this euthanasia for money's sake and nothing else? what about a doctor who's euthanasia specialist? this doctor is basically paid to kill. somebody evaluate and decide upon the euthanasia decision, this doctor carry out. how is this doctor different from a professional assasin? logically, it is the same! to avoid all moral or legal difficulties, euthanasia should be banned. when dealing with life and death, no compromise should be made. this should be understood by all citizens!

judejin
07-02-2013, 04:21 AM
i have read someone saying that euthanasia is shortening the process of dying. i almost fell off my chair. at any minute, every one is moving closer to one's ultimate fate, death, in this sense, everyone is in the process of dying. my answer may sound like joke. but my answer is logically sound. hospitals and doctors are supposed to cure the patient and fight against death and prolong "the process of dying" as much as possible while keeping the suffering as little as possible. introducing euthanasia into hospitals fundamentally change the purpose of hospitals. modern medicine has advanced so much that physical and mental pains can be alleviated to the minimum. beyond that, doctors and nurses and relatives and friends and the patients themselves should unite and fight together. furthermore, a patient's mental resolve to fight against death sometimes means cure or death or many more years of living. allowing euthanasia greatly compromised the resolve of everyone. so in this sense, euthanasia is allurement to death, softening of morale! in this sense, euthanasia is very evil!

AlexAmore
07-02-2013, 04:31 AM
I think this just gets into the realm of a 3rd party saying "This is what you can and cannot do with your body". Perhaps a person desires to commit suicide because of religious beliefs. There is also suicide to protest and attract attention to oppressive governments. If a suicide is done to save a life or stop an abuse, is that wrong?

I see that you think mental illness is a cause for concern. I think this is again easily rectified with a health professional examining the patient similar to a sex change operation. If the health professional deems the patient an acceptable candidate for assisted suicide then that doctor thinks the reward outweighs the risk of liability. That means the doctor is pretty damn sure for him/her to put his career or his own life on the line. If the doctor didn't find the patient a good candidate, then that candidate can go elsewhere.

In the end this seems to be a pretty good system, rather than putting government and laws in the middle of the patient-doctor relationship.

EDIT: To answer a question I didn't see at first. I think doctors video tape A LOT of the interaction between them and the patient including the actual assisted suicide. So it's all on tape and the patient can be seen consenting. There is also usually a 3rd party present of a professional/arbitrator/family member...something like that. I can't remember the details, it's probably different depending on the country.

judejin
07-02-2013, 04:45 AM
i'm not saying whether suicide is right or wrong. one may commit suicide for good cause but once this suicide is discovered anyone will rush to save him! i'm just trying to prove suicide is a non-right because to remove all rights to life is not a right. please re-read my essay on suicide.

judejin
07-02-2013, 04:46 AM
you still don't understand the logical conflicts or conflict of interest in euthanasia.

judejin
07-02-2013, 04:51 AM
so in your view, we should let the psychotic to jump off the bridge without interfering? so mental hospitals putting physical restraints onto a patient keen on commiting suicide is commiting a crime? so a hero trying to save a man jumping off a bridge(for good cause) is violating this man's right to commit suicide? your logic is wrong, ok. that's all i'm trying to point out.

judejin
07-02-2013, 04:54 AM
so in your view, we should let the man who is trying to jump off a bridge for a good cause to jump? anyone obstructing him by force is evil or violating his right to commit suicide? So the man saved can go to a court and charge the hero who saved him for violating his right to commit suicide? are you serious?

judejin
07-02-2013, 04:56 AM
if you are still serious about the man's right to commit suicide, you have the wrong definition of "rights". please check your premise. please think hard. because everyone on this forum is talking about rights, yet many have the wrong definition of "rights".

judejin
07-02-2013, 05:01 AM
interfering with one's suicide act is fundamentally different from meddling with one's rights to handle one's body, or own property. "because saving someone is restoring his rights to life. once he's dead, all his rights to life is finished! saving his life thus is not a violation! the right to commit suicide is to terminate all rights. thus it is a non-right. " (barring the saving is part of torturing like in water-boarding). please read over the above lines in quotation again and again.

judejin
07-02-2013, 05:08 AM
there's a research paper on the internet on euthanasia: dangers of assisited suicide. http://www.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dangers-assisted-suicide.pdf my analysis is more harsh because in some cases i compare euthanasia to murder. but the essentials are the same.

JCDenton0451
07-02-2013, 06:43 AM
All of this amounts to Evangelicalism apologetics. It allows certain church-going people to claim libertarian credentials, all the while holding onto their ancient religious prejudices as well as the medeval view of human sexuality. Reproductive rights are an essental element of personal freedom. You lose credibility as frend of Liberty if you're willing to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

There is nothing Christian about Libertarianism. It's a secular philosophy. Please, don't bring your Christian "pro-life" agenda into it.

Scrapmo
07-02-2013, 06:55 AM
All of this amounts to Evangelicalism apologetics. It allows certain church-going people to claim libertarian credentials, all the while holding onto their ancient religious prejudices as well as the medeval view of human sexuality. Reproductive rights are an essental element of personal freedom. You lose credibility as frend of Liberty if you're willing to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

There is nothing Christian about Libertarianism. It's a secular philosophy. Please, don't bring your Christian "pro-life" agenda into it.

He is not a Christian.



I am an atheist and Chinese raised in Shanghai and educated in NYC.

erowe1
07-02-2013, 07:01 AM
Contrary to the last line, there is no possible way Ron Paul is an Objectivist.

erowe1
07-02-2013, 07:02 AM
All of this amounts to Evangelicalism apologetics. It allows certain church-going people to claim libertarian credentials, all the while holding onto their ancient religious prejudices as well as the medeval view of human sexuality. Reproductive rights are an essental element of personal freedom. You lose credibility as frend of Liberty if you're willing to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

There is nothing Christian about Libertarianism. It's a secular philosophy. Please, don't bring your Christian "pro-life" agenda into it.

What the?

Did you read the OP before you wrote this or just the thread title?

And why are you here again?

judejin
07-02-2013, 07:39 AM
i'm applying pure logic to these fundamental issues. libertarian philosophy is based on pure logic. the fetus is not just a body part of the woman. it never is. can a husband just walk away from a pregnant wife? of course not! can a pregnant prisoner on the death be sent to the death squad? of course not! why??? if one can't answer to these fundamental issues, one is not a mature libertarians because he can't think logically. all such a libertarian does is to recite some slogans that he can barely defend. that's why i spend time to write this essay because i want my fellow libertarians to be able to think logically, especially on these issues concerning life and death!

judejin
07-02-2013, 07:43 AM
i hate to hear people denouncing ron paul because he's pro-life and anti-euthanasia. i admire ron paul even more after i thought through and found out he is so consistent in all of his political views! i'm not even an american citizen. i was born and raised in shanghai growing up dreaming of going to america and went to school in nyc and lived there for 12 years. i now reside in shanghai. but i admire ron paul. leaders like him(very few) plus libertarians who are able to think logically are the only hope of this planet.

erowe1
07-02-2013, 08:26 AM
i'm applying pure logic to these fundamental issues. libertarian philosophy is based on pure logic.

Both of these claims are illogical. One of my biggest pet peeves about Objectivists is that they say things like this with straight faces.

Smart3
07-02-2013, 08:32 AM
This was not rational and demonstrates a complete ignorance of the difference between death with dignity (the right-to-die) and euthanasia as a whole.

Euthanasia has three forms - voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. Virtually no one is proposing involuntary euthanasia. Instead, we propose that as rational beings capable of controlling every aspect of our lives and bodies, we should also be able to end our life prematurely to avoid inevitable pain and suffering (including blindness, deafness, etc). Would you rather die peacefully or choking on your own blood? Six months of pain and anguish only to die a gruesome death or a simple speeding up of the natural process of death?

Death is not the end, it is the start of a new cycle. It's not an inherently bad thing and I'm reminded of a quote by Mark Twain:

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

Death can be a beautiful thing if you want it to be. Do you want your loved ones to remember you the way you were in life or in your last few months permanently confined to a bed with tubes all over your body?

___________

Now with respect to "regular" euthanasia - that is the choice to end your life even though you don't have a terminal illness, it's much more complicated an issue. I'm sure most are aware of the case in Belgium of two deaf twins who were losing their sight - the very thought they'd never see each other again was too much to handle, so they opted to end their lives holding hands and giving a final farewell to their family.

I don't have an issue with this kind of euthanasia either, it's ultimately not up to me to decide any more than the abortion issue is. It's not my body and it sure isn't what I would choose.

_______

Last but not least the issue of coma patients and those in permanent states (in other words, not even with futuristic medicine could they be brought back to normal), it's ultimately up to the person they designated in such a scenario. If for some strange reason they do not have a spouse, parent or adult child who can make that decision for them, then we should only keep them alive if they have the money to pay for it and still have a chance of waking up.

If the doctors are in unanimous agreement that the patient won't return to normal, then it is not unethical to "kill" them. It would be a mercy killing.

I personally haven't made up my mind what I want done in that situation, I would hate waking up from a coma twenty years later but I'm personally opposed to suicide so I'm not sure.

Smart3
07-02-2013, 08:34 AM
As for the lab-grown embryos, they still should belong only to the woman who provided the egg.

judejin
07-02-2013, 08:45 AM
you completely ignore the fact that modern medicine already minimizes pains as much as possible and already gives a dying patient as much dignity as possible. what my essay is trying to say is euthanasia creates moral dangers. the mere existence of the euthanasia option may soften not only the patient's resolve but also the resolve of everybody surrounding the patient to fight against the disease. you admit yourself that you don' want to leave out the last slightest chance of surviving. a patient with lower pain threshold may opt for euthanasia very quickly. a panel of doctors may conspire together to make the patient die earlier than he's supposed. but first of all, one has to recognize the fact that suicide is not a RIGHT! a whining patient on the deathbed begging for euthanasia or a panel of doctors announcing the best option is to euthanize can be challenged by anyone who cares and doesn't want the patient to die! just like anyone can save a man from jumping off a bridge. one can commit suicide in private without anyone around. but this is merely exercising a non-right, a self-negating act, a self-destruction! killing oneself is not a crime but it is a right either! this is the real point i'm trying to say!

judejin
07-02-2013, 08:48 AM
i'm not referring to the case when the sperm was donated anonymously. i'm referring to cases when couples go to a lab when they can't conceive in a natural way.

judejin
07-02-2013, 08:51 AM
this may not be a good example. but what about the other examples concerning the embryo i gave in the essay?

judejin
07-02-2013, 08:53 AM
if libertarians all agree that the fetus is a property of the woman only, then the guys can just walk away from the pregnant woman. "hey, not mine! yours only!"

Danan
07-02-2013, 09:02 AM
if libertarians all agree that the fetus is a property of the woman only, then the guys can just walk away from the pregnant woman. "hey, not mine! yours only!"

So?

This would btw also be the case if the fetus is a human being.

Rothbard would even say that both the father and the mother can just go away. Both the father and the mother would only be obliged to stay if they contractually agreed to this, for instance in a marriage contract.

judejin
07-02-2013, 09:08 AM
i don't think so. one has be consistent in his views. a fetus is either an independent life with all the rights to life or a body part, but can't be both. my essay is just trying to say, all the pro-abortion folks are conflicting themselves. when they want the child the fetus is life, when they don't want it they dispose it at will.

judejin
07-02-2013, 09:11 AM
so in your view, leaving infants behind, leaving them to starvation is not a crime?

judejin
07-02-2013, 09:13 AM
you definitely misread rothbard. starving infants to death is a crime from time immemorial.

Smart3
07-02-2013, 09:18 AM
you completely ignore the fact that modern medicine already minimizes pains as much as possible and already gives a dying patient as much dignity as possible. what my essay is trying to say is euthanasia creates moral dangers. the mere existence of the euthanasia option may soften not only the patient's resolve but also the resolve of everybody surrounding the patient to fight against the disease. you admit yourself that you don' want to leave out the last slightest chance of surviving. a patient with lower pain threshold may opt for euthanasia very quickly. a panel of doctors may conspire together to make the patient die earlier than he's supposed. but first of all, one has to recognize the fact that suicide is not a RIGHT! a whining patient on the deathbed begging for euthanasia or a panel of doctors announcing the best option is to euthanize can be challenged by anyone who cares and doesn't want the patient to die! just like anyone can save a man from jumping off a bridge. one can commit suicide in private without anyone around. but this is merely exercising a non-right, a self-negating act, a self-destruction! killing oneself is not a crime but it is a right either! this is the real point i'm trying to say!
The slippery slope idea is BS on this issue just like it is on every other issue. Legal euthanasia does not lead to murder. End of story, do some research.

judejin
07-02-2013, 09:20 AM
why is it a crime? because when the infants are left behind to starve to death, the parents basically disown the infants. when they disown the infants, who is left to defend the infants? infants themselves are defenceless. so someone has to defend them. in a human world, laws prohibit such actions in order to defend the rights of the infants. otherwise, parents can kill their infants at will with immunity.

Danan
07-02-2013, 09:21 AM
so in your view, leaving infants behind, leaving them to starvation is not a crime?

I never said that. All I'm trying to point out that believing the fetus is a human being or not has nothing to do with whether or not the parents can leave. You can leave your property, you can also leave a human being.

You say it's logically inconsistent to be libertarian and to believe that abortion is not a crime. That is not the case. In fact, I don't see how this follows from strict libertarian principles at all. You can never be obliged to help someone under strict libertarianism. You also didn't sign an implicit contract with the fetus during conception, because in order to agree to a contract you have to exist beforehand. So no matter how you spin it, I believe libertarian logic alone isn't enough to say that abortion is a crime. You'd have to add something else to the equation. And you might argue that this is the right thing to do and libertarianism is just not sufficient to deal with this issue. But that's not the point here.

Also, of course it's a crime to stop someone from killing themselves and also to initiate violence on those who help others to kill themselves. You own your body and you can do with it whatever you want. However, all this means is that if someone tries to kill themselves and you forcefully prevent them from doing so they should have the right to sue you for damages. Chances are that they are either thankful that you saved their life or they will just kill themselves the next day and won't bother with a law suit against you.

judejin
07-02-2013, 09:23 AM
giving the patient a smaller dose of pain killer to induce the patient to opt for euthanasia, this all sounds like murder! unless, you and i come from different planets.

judejin
07-02-2013, 09:27 AM
first of all, i didn't say abortion is a crime. this is a very thorny issue. my essay is just trying to alert people to give this issue more thoughts. people do sometimes regard the fetus as if it is already human being, sometimes regard it as a mere body part. but logically, A is A and can't a non-A at the same time. nowhere in my essay did i deliver a final verdict on this issue. please do not accuse me of something i didn't say in my article.

Danan
07-02-2013, 09:29 AM
you definitely misread rothbard. starving infants to death is a crime from time immemorial.

I most definetely have not misread Rothbard:


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

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[6] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

Danan
07-02-2013, 09:31 AM
first of all, i didn't say abortion is a crime. this is a very thorny issue. my essay is just trying to alert people to give this issue more thoughts. people do sometimes regard the fetus as if it is already human being, sometimes regard it as a mere body part. but logically, A is A and can't a non-A at the same time. nowhere in my essay did i deliver a final verdict on this issue. please do not accuse me of something i didn't say in my article.

You are right that people sometimes do this. Personally, I've not made up my mind about any of this.

Smart3
07-02-2013, 09:32 AM
giving the patient a smaller dose of pain killer to induce the patient to opt for euthanasia, this all sounds like murder! unless, you and i come from different planets.

Apparently we do not come from the same planet. Euthanasia is a blessing, not a curse. 80%+ of Americans support death with dignity.

NIU Students for Liberty
07-02-2013, 09:36 AM
you completely ignore the fact that modern medicine already minimizes pains as much as possible and already gives a dying patient as much dignity as possible.

Tell that to my grandfather (or anyone for that matter) who died from pancreatic cancer a few years ago. He was given just about every modern treatment remedy available to "ease" the pain but yet continued to wither away until his oxygen tank was removed and died as peacefully as you can in that physical state.

Unfortunately with that type of cancer, the patient is essentially handed a death sentence. Why prolong that suffering? It's their body, they have a right to do whatever they want, so long as they don't harm another party.

And if you're going to say that they don't have that right because they're emotionally hurting their friends and relatives, you might as well say that an individual does not have the right to consume whatever food/drug they want due to the physical and mental hazards to one's health.

judejin
07-02-2013, 09:39 AM
the majority of american are fine with social securities and federal reserve too. majority doesn't equal correct.

judejin
07-02-2013, 09:48 AM
i'm sure when the oxygen tank was removed, your grandfather was virtually dying and already in a coma. but euthanasia in many other cases are not. so it should be case by case and handled extremely carefully, almost to the point that everyone involved is guilty until proven otherwise. while legalizing it and making it into standardized procedure would create a lot of dangers. basically, everyone should fight against death till the last minute. i'm sure in your grandfater's case, he has done so!

Smart3
07-02-2013, 09:51 AM
i'm sure when the oxygen tank was removed, your grandfather was virtually dying and already in a coma. but euthanasia in many other cases are not. so it should be case by case and handled extremely carefully, almost to the point that everyone involved is guilty until proven otherwise. while legalizing it and making it into standardized procedure would create a lot of dangers. basically, everyone should fight against death till the last minute. i'm sure in your grandfater's case, he has done so!
Who died and made you God? You don't make decisions for me or anyone else.

PSYOP
07-02-2013, 09:51 AM
*editing*

Danan
07-02-2013, 09:53 AM
i'm sure when the oxygen tank was removed, your grandfather was virtually dying and already in a coma. but euthanasia in many other cases are not. so it should be case by case and handled extremely carefully, almost to the point that everyone involved is guilty until proven otherwise.
You can hold that position, but it doesn't follow from libertarian first principles. If I own my body I can do with it whatever I want - including destroying it at free will.


while legalizing it and making it into standardized procedure would create a lot of dangers.
So would legalizing herion.


basically, everyone should fight against death till the last minute.
Why should? Where does this obligation come from? Of course you can believe that this morally ought to be the case, but if you want to inject this into libertarian legal ethics, that most certainly creates inconsistencies and problems.

judejin
07-02-2013, 09:55 AM
besides, my main point is to prove suicide is not a valid right. but everyone pro-euthanasia is invoking the right to commit suicide as the logic behind euthanasia. furthermore , susppose a relative of your grandfather, who loves your grandfather so much that he/she wants to keep him alive as long as possible took your grandfather and kepthim in a secret hospital.do you think this relative is commiting a crime against your grandfather?

judejin
07-02-2013, 10:02 AM
you can do whatever you want in private. but once suicide is discovered , anyone is free to stop you even by force. suicide is not a valid right. but consume heroine is a valid right. but consume too much heroine almost to the point of killing oneself is not a valid right because then anyone is free to stop the person from doing so. why can't people focus on my logic instead of the conclusion? a hero who saved you from committing suicide is violating your rights? can you go ahead to sue him?

judejin
07-02-2013, 10:05 AM
i'm sure people will take my sentence out of context. "you can do whatever you want in private". i meant to say you can harm or kill yourself in private when nobody is around. but as soon as someone finds you, he'll try to save you! so forget about your rights to harm or kill yourself! this right does not exist!

judejin
07-02-2013, 10:06 AM
abortion and euthanasia is fundamentally related. if you can get one wrong, you usually get both wrong. if you can get either one right, you can probably think thru and get the other right too.

NIU Students for Liberty
07-02-2013, 10:07 AM
i'm sure when the oxygen tank was removed, your grandfather was virtually dying and already in a coma. but euthanasia in many other cases are not. so it should be case by case and handled extremely carefully, almost to the point that everyone involved is guilty until proven otherwise. while legalizing it and making it into standardized procedure would create a lot of dangers. basically, everyone should fight against death till the last minute. i'm sure in your grandfater's case, he has done so!

He was actually in a coma. But my point was that he had to endure so much physical and emotional pain before entering that state (and he knew it would only worsen) that it shouldn't have come to that in the first place.

I don't think anyone here who supports the right to euthanasia is saying that it is an easy decision to make. It does vary case by case. However, the decision should be left to the person experiencing the pain, not his/her family. I can't even imagine the emotional and physical pain a cancer patient has to endure, especially when they are told they have X amount of months to live. I can see it and I can react to it but I can't feel the same pain they feel. Empathy in that situation can only go so far and that's what makes it difficult for family and friends of a loved one experiencing pain to intervene.

I just can't trust the State to determine who gets to live and who is granted the privilege to die (it ceases to be a right when a politician's judgement supercedes an individual's freedom of choice).

Although he talks about it in a lighthearted manner, Doug Stanhope discusses his mother's illegal euthanasia treatment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kWEQG2RXuM

Smart3
07-02-2013, 10:15 AM
besides, my main point is to prove suicide is not a valid right. but everyone pro-euthanasia is invoking the right to commit suicide as the logic behind euthanasia. furthermore , susppose a relative of your grandfather, who loves your grandfather so much that he/she wants to keep him alive as long as possible took your grandfather and kepthim in a secret hospital.do you think this relative is commiting a crime against your grandfather?

It's really simple. If there is a right to life there must also be a right to control that life in the way one sees fit. To me, death with dignity is no different than getting a tattoo. It's a permanent mark on your body that no one can take away from you. It's special to you and to those who you choose to share in it.

Right to die, rather than being a negation of the right to life is a logical extension of that right thanks to modern medicine allowing us to speed up our imminent demise.

As for a relative keeping someone alive, as long as the person in question didn't ask to die in that scenario, it's OK. If his/her wishes are being disrespected by that relative then yes he/she is committing a crime on that person. We will likely have to decide what punishments are necessary in that scenario.


abortion and euthanasia is fundamentally related. if you can get one wrong, you usually get both wrong. if you can get either one right, you can probably think thru and get the other right too.
They're not even remotely related. Abortion is no different ethically from chemotherapy. Euthanasia should be legal even if it is unethical.

judejin
07-02-2013, 07:40 PM
no. a tattoo is very different from suicide! you still don't get it! why are they fundamentally different? because when one commits suicide, one is terminate one's life and thus terminates all rights to life at the same time! get it? so a hero that come to save your life can't be charged for violating your right, get it? if you still don't get get it, we come from different planets!

erowe1
07-02-2013, 07:44 PM
you definitely misread rothbard. starving infants to death is a crime from time immemorial.

You're right that abandoning one's child is obviously a crime. But you're wrong about Rothbard. That was his position.

Danan
07-02-2013, 07:58 PM
besides, my main point is to prove suicide is not a valid right. but everyone pro-euthanasia is invoking the right to commit suicide as the logic behind euthanasia. furthermore , susppose a relative of your grandfather, who loves your grandfather so much that he/she wants to keep him alive as long as possible took your grandfather and kepthim in a secret hospital.do you think this relative is commiting a crime against your grandfather?

Yes, if he is against it or previously stated that he does not want to have his life artificially prolonged in cases where he is unconscious then that would be a crime and also morally wrong, imho.

judejin
07-02-2013, 08:02 PM
well, rothbard is not god. even god make mistakes if god exists at all. ayn rand got it wrong on abortion rights. rothbard got it wrong on this infant/parent issue. i have read many rothbard books and have not read this part. he's wrong. i'm going to write something to prove he's wrong! don't treat authorities like ayn rand, rothbard, even ron paul as demi god! quoting them is not enough. one has to be able to tell whether they are wrong o not. rothbard is wrong on infant/parent relationship because infants/children are not adults. he's treating infants as if they are adults in a contract/commercial relationship. this is fundamentally wrong. infants are defenseless and vulnerable and require special treatment. because they can't feed themselves and when left alone will die. so parents stop feeding the infants can' t say they don' intend to kill the baby. i'm not trained in law. but by applying simple logic and reasoning, i'm sure the parents are guilty of neglect! so rothbard is very wrong here! again check your premise and logic! double check!

judejin
07-02-2013, 08:03 PM
i don't think a saved person can charge a hero who saved him.

Danan
07-02-2013, 08:13 PM
you can do whatever you want in private. but once suicide is discovered , anyone is free to stop you even by force. suicide is not a valid right. but consume heroine is a valid right. but consume too much heroine almost to the point of killing oneself is not a valid right because then anyone is free to stop the person from doing so. why can't people focus on my logic instead of the conclusion? a hero who saved you from committing suicide is violating your rights? can you go ahead to sue him?

Yes you should be able to sue him.

Your deductions might be valid (I don't say all of them are), but I don't attack the conclusions themselves, just because I don't like them. I attack your premises and/or your leaps of logic.

Libertarianism is a legal/political philosophy that only talks about negative rights. Basically, just one very complex negative right: The right to have your property not coerced against by others against your will.

Your body is your property because, according to libertarian property theory you homesteaded it. Being the property owner of something means that you can do whatever you want with your property - including destroying the property. It's as simple as that. The only way to stop someone from destroying their property is to initiate violence against them and therefore to violate the NAP, thus making it lawful to stop you with physical force from stopping someone else from killing themselves.

judejin
07-02-2013, 08:16 PM
a person trying to jump off a bridge stated his intention too! focus on the logic please.

judejin
07-02-2013, 08:17 PM
if you can give me one freaking example, where a saved person successfully sued the hero and the hero was punished for saving him. i'll shut up.

Danan
07-02-2013, 08:26 PM
well, rothbard is not god. even god make mistakes if god exists at all. ayn rand got it wrong on abortion rights. rothbard got it wrong on this infant/parent issue. i have read many rothbard books and have not read this part. he's wrong. i'm going to write something to prove he's wrong! don't treat authorities like ayn rand, rothbard, even ron paul as demi god! quoting them is not enough. one has to be able to tell whether they are wrong o not. rothbard is wrong on infant/parent relationship because infants/children are not adults. he's treating infants as if they are adults in a contract/commercial relationship. this is fundamentally wrong. infants are defenseless and vulnerable and require special treatment. because they can't feed themselves and when left alone will die. so parents stop feeding the infants can' t say they don' intend to kill the baby. i'm not trained in law. but by applying simple logic and reasoning, i'm sure the parents are guilty of neglect! so rothbard is very wrong here! again check your premise and logic! double check!

You are doing exactly what you accuse others of. Namely tailoring your premises and twisting your logic so that they fit your desired conclusions.

I'm not quoting Rothbard because I tread him like a God. Please don't assume stuff about me. I did it because Rothbard fundamentally defined formal deontological libertarianism/libertarian ethics. If people today speak of libertarian philosophy, they most likely mean something he conceptualized or some other theory building on it. You can refute the individual arguments of Rothbard because he has written them down and chances are that many people criticized his work already.

What you've been saying most certainly hasn't convinced me that strict libertarianism (NAP+libertarian property rights theory) allows for the use of force against suicidal people or abortionists. Again, there can be arguments made on why libertarianism is not sufficient to base a legal system uppon, in which case I'd like to see them. That has to be done very carefully, since it's a hell of a slippery slope to inject everyone's pet issues into it. But that's another issue.

Danan
07-02-2013, 08:32 PM
if you can give me one freaking example, where a saved person successfully sued the hero and the hero was punished for saving him. i'll shut up.


the majority of american are fine with social securities and federal reserve too. majority doesn't equal correct.

Similarly, just because no one ever has done so, doesn't mean no one should have the right to sue. Also, you assume that we already live in libertopia where unsuccessfully suicidial people would actually be allowed to sue the person violating their rights.

I<3Liberty
07-02-2013, 10:44 PM
Another endless thread of argument confined to side taking and black and white thinking. Great. :rolleyes:

So, the main 4 issues within medicine that concern most "pro-life" persons, would include: embryonic stem cell research, IVF, abortion, and euthanasia. While I don't dislike Ron Paul or Rand Paul for having pro-life and anti-euthanasia positions, I do dislike some of their rhetoric. They never mention alternatives. Rand will be on twitter just BSing about how he cares so much about life, but he never mentions specifics or moral alternatives.

The alternative to euthanasia: sedation to unconsciousness and removal of life support (with proper consent from the patient.) This would allow terminally ill persons to die peacefully without the assistance of another being.

The alternative to embryonic stem cell research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell

IVF can be done morally by fertilizing one embryo for implantation (the most expensive alternative) or freezing the remaining embryos. The frozen embryos do have a shelf life, so knowing this, some people would say that's not "pro-life", but you could also make the argument that there is no exact expiration date for these embryos, so we can't exactly have a "use by" date for frozen embryos. Knowing this, we could then make the Kantian argument that no one intended to destroy an embryo -- the consequences were just displaced from our intentions and control.

Abortion probably has the most comprehensive solution. Extremes will only concern themselves with the mother or the unborn, but you MUST take both into consideration.

Firstly, better contraceptives (especially the newer ones that are said to be 100% effective) would allow the women to have a choice that does not interfere with that of the unborn. Public health campaigns and education would also have to occur in tandem in order to increase compliance.

Secondly, more help (via non-profits) for people that are already struggling with an unplanned pregnancy they can't afford.

Thirdly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectogenesis Yes, it's a while away, but scientists have had some success raising non-human animals through it. This would also help premature infants have a more realistic chance at life and avoid the complications of being born prematurely.
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/S-SciRulesBillNye.gif

judejin
07-03-2013, 12:39 AM
well, accepting your logic, how can a saved person charge the hero for damage? the judge just tell the saved person, you win and then go ahead to commit suicide and die! do you really want to go through the legal proceedings in order to end dead? what should be the punishment to the hero? the right to self-destruct is a self-negating right, thus a non-right! it is fundamentally different thing from property rights. the split second, one commits suicide, one's giving up all his rights right there right that split second!

The Bavarian
07-03-2013, 05:38 AM
you completely ignore the fact that modern medicine already minimizes pains as much as possible and already gives a dying patient as much dignity as possible.

I take it you've never been to a cancer ward.

Scrapmo
07-03-2013, 06:26 AM
I take it you've never been to a cancer ward.

Or worked an LTAC.

judejin
07-03-2013, 07:18 AM
the other day, i saw a person with half of his face blown away finally got an artificial replace after many years! who suffers more? patients in cancer ward, or this person with half a face??

judejin
07-03-2013, 10:17 AM
i meant to say the saved person can sue the hero, but the hero won't be punished for saving him. the saved person may even win the case but there won't be any punishment for the hero. i meant to say the hero is not guilty of anything. nobody can be guilty of saving other people! saving other people's lives can never ever be a crime(in a friendly environment, excluding hostile environment like water-boarding repeated suffocating and bring the person back to life)