Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 100

Thread: Evictionism - Abortion and Libertarianism

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Ohhh sweet, so by then thanks to medical and technological advancements fetuses could evicted from the womb and still viable at any stage... so there is no problem. Great!

    The whole premise is comically inept. If you're assuming we're 400 years into the future living in biodomes... it's entirely accurate to suggest that by then fetuses could be aborted at any stage and still be viable. So there is literally no problem.

    If you take the trajectory of current medical advancements and timeline which Block points out in the short clip; it'd be possible by then if not sooner. In 2007 fetuses were evicted at 23 weeks and survive! Five years on essentially, who knows what it is? In another 400!? lol...
    It's almost like you've never seen an ethical thought experiment before. A biodome in 2400 is the stage, the ethical dilemma is timeless. It just simply does not matter what the age of viability is in the year 2400 since thought experiment isn't addressing abortion directly. You wasted four paragraphs on nothing. I could have said it took place 70 years ago in a steam punk biodome and your rant would not apply.

    Finally, you start criticizing the actual meat of the analogy...

    Against their will? Right, so kidnapping... it's taking someone who already exists. When sexual intercourse happens, there is no fetus, no-one exists yet. Life begins at conception, yes... you are NOT putting the fetus in a worse position; you are IPSO FACTO putting it in a BETTER POSITION. Analogy fail. And so we continue..
    I wrestled with the machine creating a person ex nihilio but in the end I figured justice is not dependent on past condition. If you give (not lend) a shivering homeless man a jacket and then come back the next day and try and take it back is he justified in resisting? Even if by taking it back you are simply returning him to the state he was in before you gave him the jacket in the first place? I think he is.

    To answer your inane question / lifeboat scenario - you evict them in the most gentlest means possible. In this case, they have a positive obligation - because they literally pushed someone overboard (engaged in a criminal act, kidnapping them). They're not at all justified in drowning them.

    To give a more ACCURATE analogy: picture a cruise liner or your home - when an invited guest, for whatever reason, becomes uninvited and asked to leave, if they refuse - they then become a trespasser. Removing them in the gentlest manner is the evictionist position. On a boat, be it stowaway, or uninvited guest, that means waiting to the next port. Throwing them overboard right then and there would be the Pro-Choice position. Forcing the property owner to take the stowaway the entire trip (9 months), is the Pro-Life position. The eminently reasonable and common sense position is to remove them at the next port of call. COMMON SENSE FTW!
    Your cruise analogy is fine, but it is not more accurate. First, a cruise ship passenger can voluntarily leave and survive. He can either jump overboard or get off at the next port of call (usually the next day). A zygote/embryo/fetus does not have that luxury. Neither does someone 10,000 leagues under the see in a biodome.

    Second, if you would like your analogy to be more accurate the owner of the ship would also be the captain, and would be the person, along with a male accomplice, who forced the guest on board. (The guest didn't object but it was not his choice.) The captain would have also have invited the guest for the full length of the trip (unless eviction was required to save the life of the captain.)

    Also, the next port of call is not a night of cruising away, nor simply the equivalent age of potential viability for a fetus since potentiality implies that there is still a significant risk of death. At the very least evictionism requires a very high probability of survival and the mother and father would share liability for the medical costs required in order to ensure survival.
    Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,--
    Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
    Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
    ‫‬‫‬



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Actually, the soul is related to the breath, and just like oxygen, it is carried in the blood. This is also why the biblical prohibition against eating animals that have been strangled (soul cannot escape) or animals that still have their blood in them. This is also why the heart is so important and considered the 'seat' of the soul.

    The way I see it, mother and child's souls co-mingle from the point that the fetus develops a blood supply until the umbilical cord is severed. Therefore, if you want to specify a date before which a fetus is not 'a living soul' that would more accurately be 14 days, after which the fetus has developed it's own blood supply, and thus carries a soul by the agency of it's mother.

    "The soul is in the blood" is so perfectly described in the bible, but most Christians don't get it. The Hebrew word for soul 'nephesh' is also the Hebrew word for breath. It can also be used to refer (tangentially) to blood.

    This is one of the concepts that is supposed to be fundamental to Christianity but remains generally unknown because of how the Church has abandoned it's Hebrew roots.
    I've hear similar explanations from Jehovah's Witnesses. Are you against blood transfusions for the same reason?

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    It's almost like you've never seen an ethical thought experiment before. A biodome in 2400 is the stage, the ethical dilemma is timeless. It just simply does not matter what the age of viability is in the year 2400 since thought experiment isn't addressing abortion directly. You wasted four paragraphs on nothing. I could have said it took place 70 years ago in a steam punk biodome and your rant would not apply.

    Finally, you start criticizing the actual meat of the analogy...
    Not a rant, a refutation of your flawed scenario given it's premises. It absolutely matters, and your dismissal does not change that. I completely addressed your ethical dilemma as an aside. In 400 years, given current medical advancements - this wouldn't even be a problem. Your inability to comprehend that is shameful.

    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    I wrestled with the machine creating a person ex nihilio but in the end I figured justice is not dependent on past condition. If you give (not lend) a shivering homeless man a jacket and then come back the next day and try and take it back is he justified in resisting? Even if by taking it back you are simply returning him to the state he was in before you gave him the jacket in the first place? I think he is.
    Justice is not dependent on past condition? Absurd. Yes, he is justified in resisting. If you gave it to hi, (transferred property titles) absolutely, if you stated it was conditional and you'd be back for it (then no).

    You more than likely have absolutely no understanding of contract theory, and that wouldn't surprise me.

    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Your cruise analogy is fine, but it is not more accurate. First, a cruise ship passenger can voluntarily leave and survive. He can either jump overboard or get off at the next port of call (usually the next day). A zygote/embryo/fetus does not have that luxury. Neither does someone 10,000 leagues under the see in a biodome.
    It is more accurate. In 400 years a zygote/embyro/fetus would be able to and 'have that luxury'. At 23 weeks they can - as of 5 years ago...

    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Second, if you would like your analogy to be more accurate the owner of the ship would also be the captain, and would be the person, along with a male accomplice, who forced the guest on board. (The guest didn't object but it was not his choice.) The captain would have also have invited the guest for the full length of the trip (unless eviction was required to save the life of the captain.)
    There is no 'forcing' a passenger onboard. Force implies against ones will. The fetus/embyro/sperm would certainly CHOOSE TO BE IN THAT SITUATION, i.e be on the path to being BORN. They are PUT IN A BETTER POSITION. But speaking of "force" is retarded, because it is AGAINST ONES WILL. A fetus doesn't have a will to begin with, so fail on two accounts.

    There is no contract at all - hence not invitation to speak off. It could be a result of a rap, or a mistaken pregnancy. Uninvited from the get go.

    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Also, the next port of call is not a night of cruising away, nor simply the equivalent age of potential viability for a fetus since potentiality implies that there is still a significant risk of death. At the very least evictionism requires a very high probability of survival and the mother and father would share liability for the medical costs required in order to ensure survival.
    The age of viability is continually falling. The costs would come down, given medical advancements, given the free-market in medicine, no taxes, competition etc. The costs of sustaining life would also be reduced. Given the 400 years (lol). You don't even know what $#@! will be like in 5 years so, lolz to that notion of speaking comprehensibly about 400.

    If someone dies whilst being evicted in the most gentlest means possible, i.e they have a heart attack on the plank leaving at the next port of call, whilst being wheel chaired out because they are fragile... that's a tragedy. And yet it is a continuation problem. Advancements - and an ACCEPTANCE OF EVICTIONISM WOULD SPEED THE WHOLE PROCESS UP OF THOSE ADVANCEMENTS.

    Think about all the money spent lobbying FOR abortion, or AGAINST it... it's a joke, and then put that money from both sides into these advancements, it'd go a long way to save lives FOR BOTH SIDES.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Not a rant, a refutation of your flawed scenario given it's premises. It absolutely matters, and your dismissal does not change that. I completely addressed your ethical dilemma as an aside. In 400 years, given current medical advancements - this wouldn't even be a problem. Your inability to comprehend that is shameful.
    I'll leave it to other readers to realize the unimportance of the setting 400 years in the future. For you, who thinks its a key sticking point I'll change my analogy to a steam-punk 1930.


    Justice is not dependent on past condition? Absurd. Yes, he is justified in resisting. If you gave it to hi, (transferred property titles) absolutely, if you stated it was conditional and you'd be back for it (then no).

    You more than likely have absolutely no understanding of contract theory, and that wouldn't surprise me.
    Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. I clearly said that the jacket was given and not lent.

    Your debate technique is juvenile. 1) Misread 2) Call misreading absurd 3) Insult. I'm done after this post.

    It is more accurate. In 400 years a zygote/embyro/fetus would be able to and 'have that luxury'. At 23 weeks they can - as of 5 years ago...
    You think a 23 week old fetus can voluntarily choose to leave a womb?

    There is no 'forcing' a passenger onboard. Force implies against ones will. The fetus/embyro/sperm would certainly CHOOSE TO BE IN THAT SITUATION, i.e be on the path to being BORN. They are PUT IN A BETTER POSITION. But speaking of "force" is retarded, because it is AGAINST ONES WILL. A fetus doesn't have a will to begin with, so fail on two accounts.
    It matters not that could a fetus choose and act on that choice, it would likely choose to be in that situation. I have no interest in forcing you to take your medicine even though my intervention objectively puts you in a better position. A fetus a day before birth and a baby a day after both have no meaningful free will as in an adult's reasoning, choosing, and acting. They both may "choose" to suck their thumb but its animalistic. But to say that forcably removing said thumb from the mouth is not "force" is silly. You can be forced to do something against your will or without your consent.

    There is no contract at all - hence not invitation to speak off. It could be a result of a rap, or a mistaken pregnancy. Uninvited from the get go.
    I believe voluntary sex between competant adults is an implied contract. In my original post I accepted the rationale for eviction in the case of rape.

    ... to bored to go on.
    Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,--
    Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
    Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
    ‫‬‫‬



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    If you havent read it yet, check out Paul's book: Abortion and Liberty
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...l=1#post727717
    "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."
    -- Patrick Henry (speech in the Virginia Convention, 23 March 1775)

  8. #66
    This evictionism is splitting hairs... seriously ridiculous. By eviction, as in the case of baby and mother, one does kill. Personally, I could care less whether anyone has an abortion, by eviction or clothes hanger, I just don't want to be made "implicit" by my tax dollars. Wow.... 7 pages on this. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Seriously, the rape case is the strongest pro-abortion argument that can be made. I wonder, statistically, how many abortions are provided via tax dollars in cases not involving rape. Simple way to avoid abortion... don't $#@!. If you choose to $#@! you have exercised your personal liberty to copulate. If you become pregnant as a result of your own personal choices, then best of luck... don't take my money to murder your baby. Thanks. In the case of a "successful eviction" (LOLOLOLLOLOLLOLOLLLOLOLOL) one that even promises preserve the babies liberty and life, who pays for that? Don't want a baby? don't stick it in or receive it. Simple, pure, logic.
    Last edited by bolil; 12-27-2011 at 07:48 PM.
    Best of luck in life.

  9. #67
    Your entire post is guilty of the argumentum ad nauseam fallacy. Repeated, didn't address jack squat.

    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    I'll leave it to other readers to realize the unimportance of the setting 400 years in the future. For you, who thinks its a key sticking point I'll change my analogy to a steam-punk 1930.
    You're leaving them to laugh at your position. It shatters your premises, and yet I go on to refute them even if taken as granted. A


    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. I clearly said that the jacket was given and not lent.

    Your debate technique is juvenile. 1) Misread 2) Call misreading absurd 3) Insult. I'm done after this post.
    Sweet ad hominem's dude. I respond with the level of respect ones position deserves. Do you play wilfully ignorant often? This is what I said:


    "Justice is not dependent on past condition? Absurd. Yes, he is justified in resisting. If you gave it to him (transferred property titles) absolutely, if you stated it was conditional and you'd be back for it (then no).

    You more than likely have absolutely no understanding of contract theory, and that wouldn't surprise me."


    Right, so you asked a question. I answered it beyond clearly... and you failed to keep the follow up on track. What? Did you think I was going to provide you with something to attack? But now you can't, because you figured wrong?

    Thought so.


    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    You think a 23 week old fetus can voluntarily choose to leave a womb?
    You think a fetus however old has a will? It choosing is immaterial. A stowaway doesn't want to leave. An uninvited guest doesn't want to leave. If asked and they refuse they become a trespasser. So go "ask" a fetus to leave... and when it doesn't acknowledge you, then it is time to evict in the most gentlest means possible - as you'd do for the stowaway and uninvited guest.

    What is so hard to understand?


    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    It matters not that could a fetus choose and act on that choice, it would likely choose to be in that situation. I have no interest in forcing you to take your medicine even though my intervention objectively puts you in a better position. A fetus a day before birth and a baby a day after both have no meaningful free will as in an adult's reasoning, choosing, and acting. They both may "choose" to suck their thumb but its animalistic. But to say that forcably removing said thumb from the mouth is not "force" is silly. You can be forced to do something against your will or without your consent.
    Your definition of "force" here is comical. Yes and the question is whether it is JUSTIFIED OR NOT. Trespassing makes it so. The woman owns her womb, it is her body, her property. And yet the baby, fetus also owns his body as well!

    Quote Originally Posted by axiomata View Post
    I believe voluntary sex between competant adults is an implied contract. In my original post I accepted the rationale for eviction in the case of rape.

    ... to bored to go on.
    Right, you have no idea of contract theory. Implied contracts exist due to explicit ones. Furthermore, voluntary sex - doesn't translate into pregnancy at all ipso facto.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by bolil View Post
    This evictionism is splitting hairs... seriously ridiculous. By eviction, as in the case of baby and mother, one does kill.
    So a festus/baby is evicted "removed from the womb in the most gentlest means possible", it survives and grows up to be a fully fledged human being with self ownership. THAT IS KILLING? Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by bolil View Post
    Personally, I could care less whether anyone has an abortion, by eviction or clothes hanger, I just don't want to be made "implicit" by my tax dollars. Wow.... 7 pages on this. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Seriously, the rape case is the strongest pro-abortion argument that can be made. I wonder, statistically, how many abortions are provided via tax dollars in cases not involving rape. Simple way to avoid abortion... don't $#@!. If you choose to $#@! you have exercised your personal liberty to copulate. If you become pregnant as a result of your own personal choices, then best of luck... don't take my money to murder your baby. Thanks. In the case of a "successful eviction" (LOLOLOLLOLOLLOLOLLLOLOLOL) one that even promises preserve the babies liberty and life, who pays for that? Don't want a baby? don't stick it in or receive it. Simple, pure, logic.
    Sex doesn't ipso facto imply pregnancy. Do you not know about the 'birds and the bees'?

    Did you miss Hans-Hermann Hoppe's video on the subject? That the state has absolutely no role? Your questions are answered.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  11. #69
    I think Block's arguments make a great basis for starting a discussion. I don't go along with the entire premise, but it's a great starting point. Deep in my postings you can find a number of times when I've referenced him.

    Things to keep in mind in the discussion.... don't get bogged down with things like 'morality' 'faith' 'person' and other buzz words. There are lots of atheists out there who are pro-life; do not paint all pro-lifers as fighting for some religious dogma. "Person" is a word of convenience. People try way too hard to put more meaning into it. Think 7th grade biology. It's pretty simple to identify when a new human organism enters into existence. It's also just as easy to identify when a new chicken organism enters into existence. Both happen when the egg is fertilized. It's mighty dangerous when we allow people of power to decide when some human organisms are not 'people.'

    Of course, that's separate from Block's point ... which is why I consider his approach worth discussing.

    AND - a great PRACTICAL way to deter abortion is to allow mothers to profit from turning their children over for adoption. There are lots of other people making a living out of the adoption process ... yet the one who has the hardest part of the process gets (virtually) nothing. It's crazy that we have people on long waiting lists for adoptions while we have people paying tons of money for intensive fertility treatments while we have other people aborting their children. A little bit of free-markets injected into that mix would mean a huge decrease in abortions. Drop the number of abortions, and you'll see the profit sucked out of the industry. Take out the profit (and of course the government funding) and the industry would go away pretty quickly.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    So a festus/baby is evicted "removed from the womb in the most gentlest means possible", it survives and grows up to be a fully fledged human being with self ownership. THAT IS KILLING? Huh?



    Sex doesn't ipso facto imply pregnancy. Do you not know about the 'birds and the bees'?

    Did you miss Hans-Hermann Hoppe's video on the subject? That the state has absolutely no role? Your questions are answered.
    As soon as you provide me with evidence that "eviction" does not kill/harm (possibly including a wide range of negative psychological effects) the baby, I will cease to consider it ridiculous. The sex act may not, ipso facto, cause pregnancy but pregnancy IS, ipso facto, caused by sex (To appease your fiery and observant intellect you can substitute "sex" with "penetration" as would be the case invitro). How much money would it require for technology to effectively and efficiently mimic the natural growth of a fetus in the womb? More than you have to fund it. Even if you were Bill Gates you could not buy natures methods. Time and again nature has reduced our attempts to mimic her into foul, vulgar, mockeries (like Dolly, the cloned lamb).
    Best of luck in life.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by bolil View Post
    As soon as you provide me with evidence that "eviction" does not kill/harm (possibly including a wide range of negative psychological effects) the baby, I will cease to consider it ridiculous. The sex act may not, ipso facto, cause pregnancy but pregnancy IS, ipso facto, caused by sex (To appease your fiery and observant intellect you can substitute "sex" with "penetration" as would be the case invitro). How much money would it require for technology to effectively and efficiently mimic the natural growth of a fetus in the womb? More than you have to fund it. Even if you were Bill Gates you could not buy natures methods. Time and again nature has reduced our attempts to mimic her into foul, vulgar, mockeries (like Dolly, the cloned lamb).
    The burden of proof rests with you. You're the one supporting unjustified use of force.

    But really how about you actually read the friggin' journal article document. The whole thing. But since you won't, go look at *Pg 27 - VII. Pragmatic Issues*.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    The burden of proof rests with you. You're the one supporting unjustified use of force.

    But really how about you actually read the friggin' journal article document. The whole thing. But since you won't, go look at *Pg 27 - VII. Pragmatic Issues*.
    I read it, don't make an ass of you and me. However, it is my contention that, the technology necessary to properly abandon a baby via "eviction" is impractical at the least. One might say, "The machines that keep premature babies alive is proof that the technology necessary for eviction exists and, as evidenced by the increase in premature survival, the technology has been developed in a way that is compliant with libertarian views (that is out of necessity to preserve life, and therefore individual liberty)." Yet this technology still does not have a very promising success rate (h tt p://www.preemiesurvival.org/info/index.html). The mother, being owner of the fetus, has a responsibility, if not the natural inclination, to improve that fetus; as is the case with land ownership, a loose parallel drawn in the article. Should she fail in this out of no fault of her own, as would be the case in accidental or third party trauma, miscarriage, et al then she has upheld her responsibility to the best of her ability. Should she CHOOSE to fail in this and opt for an "eviction" and the result of that eviction, as is likely, is death or developmental harm then she is responsible for the death or harm as her chosen course of action ensured it. The burden of proof rests with me? See the former website for some. Where in the above do I promote the unjust use of force?
    Best of luck in life.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of
    abortion."However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or
    fetal health is "best handled at the state level." He believes that, for the
    most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

    Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view,
    recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his
    instructors during his residency, It was pretty dramatic for me to see a
    two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket. During a
    May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that
    his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you
    can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in
    this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians
    should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a
    fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.

    Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant
    the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the
    federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.

    More about Ron Paul and the abortion issues:
    http://www.ronpaulgrassrootshq.com/r..._abortion.html

    See how Ron Paul defines abortion
    http://wholeworldinhishands.com/worl..._abortion.html

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by bolil View Post
    I read it, don't make an ass of you and me.
    Then stop acting as if you haven't. Did you read the footnotes as well then? That specifically refer to others about this exact medical issue and the research that is going on. You exude ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by bolil View Post
    However, it is my contention that, the technology necessary to properly abandon a baby via "eviction" is impractical at the least. One might say, "The machines that keep premature babies alive is proof that the technology necessary for eviction exists and, as evidenced by the increase in premature survival, the technology has been developed in a way that is compliant with libertarian views (that is out of necessity to preserve life, and therefore individual liberty)." Yet this technology still does not have a very promising success rate (h tt p://www.preemiesurvival.org/info/index.html).
    Arguments against the technology, not legal position. Survival is survival. The risks/chance of success will always change. To point to some rate now, is irrelevant given in the future it will be different. The principle remains the same. In fact, if you want the success rate to increase - you should be adopting the evictionist position (for the numerous reasons outlined by Block in the article - you've said you have read).

    Quote Originally Posted by bolil View Post
    The mother, being owner of the fetus, has a responsibility, if not the natural inclination, to improve that fetus; as is the case with land ownership, a loose parallel drawn in the article. Should she fail in this out of no fault of her own, as would be the case in accidental or third party trauma, miscarriage, et al then she has upheld her responsibility to the best of her ability. Should she CHOOSE to fail in this and opt for an "eviction" and the result of that eviction, as is likely, is death or developmental harm then she is responsible for the death or harm as her chosen course of action ensured it. The burden of proof rests with me? See the former website for some. Where in the above do I promote the unjust use of force?
    Your premise is flawed. You don't own a fetus. If you did, then you can do whatever the hell you want with it - it's your property. You can blow up your house for all anyone cares, as long as you aren't going to collect insurance claim fraudulently, or it doesn't injure anyone else.. then there is no problem.


    It is worth mentioning that the ownership right stemming from production finds its natural limitation only when, as in the case of children, the thing produced is itself another actor-producer. According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else. Hence, not only can a child expect not to be physically aggressed against but as the owner of his body a child has the right, in particular, to abandon his parents once he is physically able to run away from them and say "no" to their possible attempts to recapture him. Parents only have special rights regarding their child - stemming from their unique status as the child's producers - insofar as they (and no one else) can rightfully claim to be the child's trustee as long as the child is physically unable to run away and say "no."[8] ~
    Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, n.9 to ch. 2, on p. 212; emphasis added.


    Yes the burden of proof rests with you, not me. When you use force (unjustified) against a woman to do something against their will. When you put the gun to the head of a captain of a ship, and force him to carry a stowaway the entire journey... when he can legitimately remove them at port.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessie Clyde View Post
    Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of
    abortion."However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or
    fetal health is "best handled at the state level." He believes that, for the
    most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

    Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view,
    recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his
    instructors during his residency, It was pretty dramatic for me to see a
    two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket. During a
    May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that
    his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you
    can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in
    this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians
    should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a
    fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.

    Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant
    the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the
    federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.

    More about Ron Paul and the abortion issues:
    http://www.ronpaulgrassrootshq.com/r..._abortion.html

    See how Ron Paul defines abortion
    http://wholeworldinhishands.com/worl..._abortion.html
    Congratulations, you have added absolutely nothing to the discussion. Sweet appeal to popularity fallacy as mentioned in OP.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  19. #76
    I blog with many liberals and work really hard to get them to consider Ron Paul. His stand on abortion is the one thing that holds many people back from supporting him.The more vocal feminist viciously attack him on this. Saying he is for civil rights yet is against my civil right to have an abortion. When I am the only person countering this stand it makes me sound weak and silly to liberals.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    I blog with many liberals and work really hard to get them to consider Ron Paul. His stand on abortion is the one thing that holds many people back from supporting him.The more vocal feminist viciously attack him on this. Saying he is for civil rights yet is against my civil right to have an abortion. When I am the only person countering this stand it makes me sound weak and silly to liberals.
    Indeed. This is a massive selling/draw card for liberty. If only Ron knew of the position. It accepts all his premises. Life begins at conception. Property rights. Non aggression.

    (@General - And don't think that is why I've come to adopt and defend this position). It's because it's right. Which is why it should appeal to all. FREEDOM BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER.

    Low and behold - those who want to kill fetuses, and those who want to hold guns to the heads of woman and tell them how to use their body object!
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Indeed. This is a massive selling/draw card for liberty. If only Ron knew of the position. It accepts all his premises. Life begins at conception. Property rights. Non aggression.
    You don't think Ron has ever heard of it before?

  22. #79
    Property rights are superseded by rights to life. The fetus has a right to life as a developing human. Therefore its rights to life superseded the mother's privacy or property rights except in such a case where it would possibly mean her death. Since one can kill in self-defense then abortion can take place to preserve a mother's life. All other cases fall under the right to life issue.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Congratulations, you have added absolutely nothing to the discussion. Sweet appeal to popularity fallacy as mentioned in OP.
    Oh yes he did. Since you have flat out lied about Paul's position, he was posting it for those who wanted to read Dr. Paul's own words. That's a good thing.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Oh, I'm sorry... I forgot how slow you are. Did you miss this?
    Apparently, you cannot count. You, whose behavior resembles a horse's ass. The post you link to above was your post #22. Mine was #23. You never answered my post.

    Interestingly enough this completely validates Block’s medical/technological point. In 2007, viable at 23 weeks and has survived. Who knows what it is now?

    The market solution would be sped up incredibly to the point where fetuses can be viable much earlier. If the evictionist position is adopted... more children would be saved, but alas they continue to die because the deluded supporters of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are happy ranting at each-other with both implausible, incorrect and deluded positions which is why the debate stagnates are there appears to be no "solution", which is bs - because there is.

    The pro-property rights position is correct.
    So, apparently you are fine with murdering babies, until the market develops a solution to keep them alive if prematurely removed from the womb.

    Okey dokey. But, that is your own disgusting belief. It is certainly not the one held by Dr. Paul.
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 12-30-2011 at 11:05 PM.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Cutlerzzz View Post
    You don't think Ron has ever heard of it before?
    No. Since he has never addressed it, even referenced any kind of acknowledgement. It's not big in the libertarian movement either, hardly anyones has heard of it. Walter Block who I specifically asked aswell, doesn't think he has either.

    Which is why when someone posted a thread about what to ask RP, I said that.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Property rights are superseded by rights to life. The fetus has a right to life as a developing human. Therefore its rights to life superseded the mother's privacy or property rights except in such a case where it would possibly mean her death. Since one can kill in self-defense then abortion can take place to preserve a mother's life. All other cases fall under the right to life issue.
    There is no such thing as a "right to life". Therefore your position is erroneous and completely untenable. Please define "right" and "life"... alter "life" with "education", whatever else you think is 'appropriate' welcome to statism/socialism.

    You haven't made the case, you have merely asserted. Fix that.

    No abortion is illegitimate, so is pro-choice. You can evict the baby to try save the mothers life.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Oh yes he did. Since you have flat out lied about Paul's position, he was posting it for those who wanted to read Dr. Paul's own words. That's a good thing.
    Oh no he didn't. How have I lied about RP's position? Bs lady. More lies by you, which is standard fare. And who here doesn't know Ron Paul's position on abortion already?! Get a grip sweat-heart.


    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    The difference in what Block believes is that he apparently thinks it is fine to let the baby die, if technology does not exist to keep it alive and continuing to develop outside of the womb. To my knowledge, technology does not exist that will keep an embryo alive. Are you aware of any, Conza?

    How would that square with Paul's belief that life begins at conception and should not be ended?
    The difference is, you result to strawman to convince yourself that you have the moral high ground. You don't. No, he thinks its a tragedy and morally repugnant. All your pro-life rhetoric crap, whichever way you spin it, comparing it to the holocaust.. great, he accepts that (if you read the friggin document).. which you haven't and won't... you'd know that.

    The issue is the legality.

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    "To my knowledge, technology does not exist that will keep an embryo alive"
    That's because you're ignorant as %)()#$. Links to serious medical journals which does talk about the technology, go read and learn something LE - for once? Aye?

    There is nothing to 'square', life can be saved and evicted at the same time. How do YOU square that with Ron Paul's acceptance of private property rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Apparently, you cannot count. You, whose behavior resembles a horse's ass. The post you link to above was your post #22. Mine was #23. You never answered my post.
    Yes, which shows how demented your question was... since the answer I had already given to it. Are you clinically handicapped, or just a compulsive liar? My advice would be to sort your life out by considering whether your compulsion to lie is something that is healthy or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    So, apparently you are fine with murdering babies, until the market develops a solution to keep them alive if prematurely removed from the womb.

    Okey dokey. But, that is your own disgusting belief. It is certainly not the one held by Dr. Paul.
    No, see trying to save a fetus does not equal murder. You're fine with putting a gun to the head of a woman to carry a baby that is the product of rape. Would you personally pull the trigger LE? If the mother wants to go ahead with it, evict - and try save the baby, you would put a gun to her head to stop her?

    You're belief is erroneous, and criminal. The only reason Ron Paul doesn't hold this position is because he's never heard of it.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  28. #84

    Debunking Walter Block's Eviction Theory

    Some Ground Rules here, that I hope people will respect, show the world we can govern ourselves here.

    While I am calling this "Debunking Walter Block's eviction theory", and that is in fact my goal with this OP, it is perfectly legitimate to either try to debunk Or defend eviction theory in this thread. While the OP will be trying to debunk Eviction Theory, if you support it, feel free to debunk my debunking.

    While I do intend to give this thread some level of effort, I am not a philosopher, nor do I claim to be (That was redundant, but still.) I have no doubt there are people here who could argue against, or for, this theory better than I can. My OP is simply intended to start a dialogue and provide some things to think about. It is NOT the "Be all, end all." Feel free to expound upon, or contradict, anything I say here.

    Since the topic here is eviction theory itself, and not abortion in general, let's agree to assume that life does indeed begin at conception. Not all libertarians agree with this point, but most do (Even most pro-choice leaning ones, such as Rothbard, Block, exc.), and we have zero point of agreement here if we do not take this one as a given. If you don't believe life begins at conception, at least pretend you do, or accept it as an axiom, for the sake of this thread. I will point out that both typical pro-life AND "Evictionist" theory are in agreement on this point...

    At this point, I move into subjective theory, feel free to contradict, or expound upon, anything I say below...

    Evictionists claim that, as no positive rights exist, the unborn has no right to exist in the womb. I typically agree that there is no such thing as positive rights, but I draw the line for this principle at adulthood (For the sake of argument, let's just assume that this happens sometime between 12-21, which should be a big enough range for everyone here, with some wiggle room. Obviously birth comes before adulthood, so we don't need to consider age of culpability and all that here.) I do believe children have a right to basic care and support From their parents. Note, I do not think a child has any intrinsic right to care from someone other than the parents. In at least the vast majority of cases, a person who is not the parent did not consent to the child's creation. If a child in California is born out of wedlock, I certainly did not choose to create that child. Two parents in California did (Assuming a typical situation, I will get to rape later.) I may morally owe that child assistance, but legally, I cannot be culpable for something I did not consent to.

    I would argue, by contrast, that the parents did consent to the creation of a child, when they had sex. Natural law tells us this much. We know, at this point, and even if contraception is used, nature gives us no guarantee that the act will not lead to pregnancy. This is a risk that one knows, or should know, when he/she engages in sexual intercourse. As such, there is an implied contract created with the fetus, even though he does not exist yet, that the parents will ensure that the child does not die. To deny this is to deny nature itself, and to effectively justify child neglect at any point in any point in time. Even Walter Block, who is much more RADICALLY libertarian than I am, does not go this far, and confers a positive obligation on the parents to at least notify the world that they are abandoning the child and if someone is willing to take care of that child, the parents must step aside and allow them to do so. While I have no problem with this in normal sitatuons, after all, a parent can certainly transfer the responsibility of raising a child to a different, willing adult, I would disagree with Block's assertion that if nobody "Steps forward" as it were, the child can legitimately be starved to death. I honestly, functionally, see no difference between this and stabbing the child through the heart, except the latter is more humane. I no more want to be part of a system that allows this than I do the current, statist system that we endure under now, and I suspect most others would not either. Any argument for the NAP where violation of the NAP would be more humane than to follow the NAP seems flawed to me. This is very different in the case of adults, since, if nothing else, they can legitimately consent to be euthanasized.

    Now, I propose a hypothetical situation that, I feel, proves the eviction theory's basic axioms wrong. Let's imagine, for a moment, that there is a huge blizzard, subzero temperatures, near hurricane force winds, snow three feet high, the whole deal. A five year old stumbles through your doorstep, freezing cold and dying of hypothermia. Can you just throw the child out in the snow to die? It seems like Walter Block, to be consistent, would have to say yes. Yet this is clearly wrong, and not just morally, like drug abuse, prostitution, or other vices are. To throw her out at this point would be to murder her, the results would be the same. If it were a sunny spring day in the middle of the city, the situation would be different. In that case, someone else could easily find, and take care of the child (And, as stated before, it is the parents who have the LEGAL obligation to do so) but in the middle of a deadly blizzard, I don't think you can just throw a child out of your house to die. I might, MIGHT agree to your right to do that to an adult, who is at least actually culpable for tresspassing, although I would consider anyone who did so morally despicable and would probably pardon the vigilante who killed the despicable person, but a five year old child, who is to young to actually consent to... anything? Its clearly absurd.

    All the more so the unborn fetus. The five year old, while too young to consent, has SOME ability to move freely. The fetus, by contrast, simply appeared there. Only the mother and father took action to place the fetus in the womb. The fetus literally took NO action to end up there. As such, the fetus is even less of a tresspasser than the five year old child we discussed before. How can someone who literally does not even yet have feet to walk be guilty of tresspassing? Its absurd. Yet this is exactly what Murray Rothbard and Walter Block believe. Granted, I respect both of these men tremendously, although I'll take Ron Paul over either of them any day of the week (Assuming Murray were still alive), but I think their positions on this issue are not really defendable. Both men admit that life begins at conception. Both are pro-choice. This boggles my mind.

    The eviction theory is the most logical, well defended pro-choice theory I have ever heard. Every other theory logically leads to hunting being a violation of the NAP, which is ludicrous, or at least not libertarianism.) Human exceptionalism is implicit in libertarian philosophy. So far, the eviction theory is the only pro-choice theory I have seen that seems to recognize this. Therefore, I think it is an improvement over other pro-choice theories. Nonetheless, for the reasons I discussed above, I think it is completely inadequete.

    What about rape? I promised I would address this, so I will. I return to my five year old example. A burgler breaks into your house with a pistol. He doesn't kill anyone, but he barges in with a gun and a five year old hostage, may or may not steal something, (Its irrelevant), throws the five year old on the floor in your house, and barges out the door. Now, I suspect that most, although maybe not all RPF members would approve of the right to kill the burgler to stop him from looting, or certainly to stop him from hurting anyone in the house. If he's fleeing with any property, I absolutely approve of your right to shoot him in the back. Nonetheless, this is not the question. The question is, since the five year old came into the house through a traumatic circumstance, can you now throw her out to the blizzard, to die? No ,you still can't. You see, the five year old took no criminal action. Tresspassing is, in fact, occurring, but it is the burgler who is the tresspasser. I have no problem with holding the burgler liable for any food or shelter you give the five year old, but you cannot just throw him/her out to die. The five year old did nothing wrong. Frankly, if libertarian theory would seriously allow this murderous action, I would go back to being a conservative in a heartbeat. Fortunately, it does not. Even if keeping the five year old for several days while the snowstorm died down gave you horriffic memories of being burglarized, even if it drove you to near suicide, murdering the five year old is still not acceptable, whether you kill him/her yourself or throw him/her into a snowstorm that is certain to kill.

    What if the mother's life is in danger? For this, let's say the five year old had a gun in his/her hand. Let's assume the robber gave it to her, or some other reason, it doesn't matter. Let's say, unthinkingly, she pointed it at your wife. You happened, for some bizarre reason, to have a pistol in your hand. You also happened to know that if you didn't shoot, the five year old would. This is, admittedly, a bizarre scenario, but even thought the fiive year old is innocent, in this case, I would say you do, in fact, have a right to use force. Not because of guilt, but because the right to defend your own life or a loved one's is, in fact, a right. I would not necessarily morally condone exercising this right, but I do think it exists.

    I'll stop here, reply away...
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I'm surprised anyone has paid attention to Block since he penned that ridiculous evictionism argument in the abortion debate. And that was like 15 years ago.
    I actually looking up this thread by accident looking for the original evictionism (which I can't find for some odd reason). I LIKE that argument and I'm starting to think it might be the only way forward on abortion. We have this conundrum of the idea that abortion is murder at least at some point up against the idea that not allowing abortion always restricts a woman's freedom and sometimes endangers a woman's life or health. Take for instance this recent story of a Tennessee woman who claims that not being able to abort a fetus who's was developing without a skull was not connected destroyed her ovaries.

    https://www.newsweek.com/tennessee-w...ed%20pregnancy.

    We can always think of exceptions we want to carve out whether it's rape or incest (I disagree with those exceptions) or life (I agree with that one) or health (unsure). But if, at anytime in the pregnancy, a fetus could be "evicted" to an artificial womb, besides the fact that artificial wombs just seem "creepy" and science fiction, what's the harm? I think that the real concern is that mothers who don't want an abortion but don't like being pregnant either will start using them...but is that a bad thing?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I actually looking up this thread by accident looking for the original evictionism (which I can't find for some odd reason). I LIKE that argument and I'm starting to think it might be the only way forward on abortion. We have this conundrum of the idea that abortion is murder at least at some point up against the idea that not allowing abortion always restricts a woman's freedom and sometimes endangers a woman's life or health. Take for instance this recent story of a Tennessee woman who claims that not being able to abort a fetus who's was developing without a skull was not connected destroyed her ovaries.

    https://www.newsweek.com/tennessee-w...ed%20pregnancy.

    We can always think of exceptions we want to carve out whether it's rape or incest (I disagree with those exceptions) or life (I agree with that one) or health (unsure). But if, at anytime in the pregnancy, a fetus could be "evicted" to an artificial womb, besides the fact that artificial wombs just seem "creepy" and science fiction, what's the harm? I think that the real concern is that mothers who don't want an abortion but don't like being pregnant either will start using them...but is that a bad thing?
    Hard cases make bad law.

    I think part of the issue is that, as far as my understanding takes me, we generally discuss what should and should not be controlled by statute. I don't think anything should be controlled by statute. I think we should have common law courts handle all cases and we should apply common law everywhere, so that we can allow for hard cases to be treated specially, without having the state create artificial support for the idea of abortion, the way it does now.

    If the woman legitimately *has* to have one, and the physician knows that he's going to be defending his action in front of a court that may or may not decide in his favor, then "health and safety of the mother" takes on an entirely new realism that doesn't currently exist.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Hard cases make bad law.

    I think part of the issue is that, as far as my understanding takes me, we generally discuss what should and should not be controlled by statute. I don't think anything should be controlled by statute. I think we should have common law courts handle all cases and we should apply common law everywhere, so that we can allow for hard cases to be treated specially, without having the state create artificial support for the idea of abortion, the way it does now.

    If the woman legitimately *has* to have one, and the physician knows that he's going to be defending his action in front of a court that may or may not decide in his favor, then "health and safety of the mother" takes on an entirely new realism that doesn't currently exist.
    Okay. But you didn't describe the problem you have with evictionism. I'm genuinely curious about that. If a woman who doesn't want to carry a baby to term can stop carrying the baby without killing the baby the harm in that is.....?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Okay. But you didn't describe the problem you have with evictionism. I'm genuinely curious about that. If a woman who doesn't want to carry a baby to term can stop carrying the baby without killing the baby the harm in that is.....?
    Under evictionism, who is legally responsible to provide for the baby's needs after being evicted from the womb?

    If the answer is nobody (which I suspect is Block's view) then it seems to me that it's still a de facto pro-choice position, as the evicted baby can then legally just be left to starve, as long as it isn't actively killed.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    Under evictionism, who is legally responsible to provide for the baby's needs after being evicted from the womb?

    If the answer is nobody (which I suspect is Block's view) then it seems to me that it's still a de facto pro-choice position, as the evicted baby can then legally just be left to starve, as long as it isn't actively killed.
    You know there are waiting lists of people wanting to adopt right? People going all way to China and Russia to adopt? Right now there are "safe harbor" laws in most states that allow mothers of newborns to abandon their babies as certain designated spots (like at the door of a fire station) without any recriminations.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You know there are waiting lists of people wanting to adopt right? People going all way to China and Russia to adopt? Right now there are "safe harbor" laws in most states that allow mothers of newborns to abandon their babies as certain designated spots (like at the door of a fire station) without any recriminations.
    That doesn't answer the question.

    Who would be legally obligated to provide for the evicted baby?

    Sure, some evicted babies would have adoptive parents who would voluntarily take on that obligation. But unless that's legally a prerequisite to the eviction, I think the question still needs to be answered.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Can Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism Peacefully Cohabit an Anarchic Society?
    By Quark in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-06-2013, 12:47 PM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 04:16 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-18-2012, 10:58 AM
  4. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-30-2010, 03:03 PM
  5. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-01-2009, 10:09 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •