I saw a thread recently titled "Murray Rothbard On Abortion." Last year I read an article by Walter Block that was in the Appalachian Journal of Law found here. My response to this article is below. Where would my position be incorrect from a libertarian or Austrian standpoint?
"I certainly agree with you that human life starts at conception. For me, with the application of the non-aggression axiom, the case stops here. The fetus is a human worthy of protection under the axiom, thus abortion is violence initiated against it. Period, case closed. However, since you take the case further with the ideas of trespassing and eviction, I will go further as well."At the outset of my response let me be perfectly clear that I agree with you that the womb is the private property of the woman and cannot be violated by any trespasser. Where I do not agree with you is the idea that the fetus is a trespasser. A trespasser, by definition (Merriam-Webster.com) is one who “makes an unwarranted or uninvited incursion.” A trespasser must possess the ability to make a conscious choice to make the incursion, as well as the physical ability to act on that decision (Basic Misesian Praxeology). If the fetus were a trespasser, it would have had to have made its way into the womb on its own recognizance as a direct result of its decision to do so. Since this in impossible, I absolutely dismiss the idea that the fetus is a trespasser. I will also say that the fetus’s presence in the womb is not without warrant or invitation. The woman, assuming the sexual intercourse is voluntary, “lets it in” via reception of the other half of what makes the fetus’s presence possible: sperm. If she did not want to warrant or invite the fetus in, she would abstain from sexual intercourse, or utilize some manner of birth control. This is her opportunity to keep the fetus out. However, if contraception does not occur, the fetus is right at home in the womb, warranted with an invitation."Regarding involuntary sexual intercourse, the case of a rape, the fetus is mischaracterized as a trespasser. The trespasser in the case of rape would be the transmitter of the sperm, namely the rapist. The fetus, since it is an individual human, as we both agree, is again, not “the” trespasser, or “a” trespasser. It is the child of the trespasser. Again, the fetus does not possess the faculties to trespass (decision to voluntarily act). If someone trespassed in my home, I would not kill his child in or ex utero. Or, if a trespasser forced their child into my house, I would again not kill the child. The child in both examples, as well as in the case of a rape, does not have the ability to choose to trespass. Killing it in all scenarios is a violation of the non-aggression principle."The next idea is that of abortion as an eviction. Since the fetus is not a trespasser, I also hold that it is not a contractual tenant, who, when in breach of a contractual arrangement, would be the recipient of an eviction. Clearly the fetus has no capability to enter into a contractual arrangement to occupy the space. Thus, killing it in the name of eviction would again be a violation of the non-aggression axiom. Additionally, if the fetus would be classified as a tenant, it is occupying the space with warrant and invitation (as mentioned earlier of the woman’s permitting the sperm to enter her body). Again in this case, “evicting” it via abortion would violate the non-aggression axiom."
"La cuestión es siempre la misma: que el gobierno o el mercado. No hay tercera solución." -Ludwig von Mises
If I am to be true to my beliefs then abortion does violates the non-aggression axiom. The questions that will be argued is the determination of the whens. I have previously written with regards to this subject but not within this forum. If I take the stand that the fetus has rights, as I do, then when the question of abortion comes up I look at the circumstances (rape, mistake, unwanted) and must consider three not two individuals. If the mother has been forced upon and chooses not to want to keep the fetus this does not preclude the right of the child to exist and, as such means that to relate this only to the mother the fetus must be removed. This then brings the father into the picture. If he is not present a new question is raised. Should the welfare of the child be gifted to another until such time as the child can take both responsibilities and vocalize decisions? It can not be forced upon another but equally remains the responsibility of those involved unless both the parents elect donation and suitable person(s) accept the new responsibility. If another party can not be agreed upon the father (in the case of rape) remains responsible. In the instances of rape the retribution for the father's act of force would, of course, be the maintaining of the child funding and payment for care.
My original essay went further into detail but the above is a representation of the key points.
Steve
I certainly agree with you that human life starts at conception
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:I certainly agree with you that human life starts at conception you are wrong.
Just 'cause you say? Reason enough for me, Dr. Juan!
At what time does the fetus become human?
How is it not human?
My personal view as a conservative and a Christian(1) is that the fetus is human and is a life, and that taking it is immoral. However, I stipulate that the spirit cannot dwell in the body until there is a nervous system capable of supporting whatever interaction exists between the unknown and the physical world. If you want a non-Christian explanation, then imagine the brain as a computer. Neurulation gives the fetus its first transistor, or its first spark of intelligence.
Even so, after the initial neurulation process the fetus' ability to process information is shockingly close to nil. My personal estimate is that until around four months the fetus is more or less insect-like in mental facilities and - as I smash bugs all the time - it is not immoral to terminate it. It's still sad, but if circumstances make it so, then I say it's up to the mother.
After that point I would rather not see abortions performed, but I will defer to the decision of the mother in most situations.
At the point where you enter the late stage - 8 months and counting, perhaps earlier - it becomes absolutely immoral to terminate a fetus. After 8 months it is still possible to remove the fetus and using medical equipment deliver the child to a full and healthy life. I know a few people born a month early. After the terminus of the seventh month, abortion becomes murder. Plain and simple. The only case in which it becomes tolerable is when the mother's life is in peril due to complications in the pregnancy.
1) I do not give a damn what you think about Christianity. It's what I believe and it has a good set of morals and ideals, and like it or not the majority of people subscribe to a form of Judaeo-Christian ethics. If you want to start bashing religion, I suggest you go find someone who cares. I don't.
Salamanca34:"I certainly agree with you that human life starts at conception. For me, with the application of the non-aggression axiom, the case stops here. The fetus is a human worthy of protection under the axiom, thus abortion is violence initiated against it. Period, case closed.
Ok so... the fetus is human life, and thus it has full property rights?
How can you contend that an individual has a right to anothers life?
Salamanca34:. If she did not want to warrant or invite the fetus in, she would abstain from sexual intercourse, or utilize some manner of birth control
Sexual intercourse and pregnancy are two different states. Where was the fetus when the agreement to have sexual intercourse was resolved? The answer: Nowhere. Therefore the fetus is not a party within sexual intercourse therefore trying to say that the fetus was voluntarily agreed upon as having some form of right to occupy the womb is backwards causation. And what if the women engages in birth control yet it fails?
Salamanca34:This is her opportunity to keep the fetus out. However, if contraception does not occur, the fetus is right at home in the womb, warranted with an invitation.
That is ridiculous. The fetus is at no time apart of the agreement towards sexual intercourse. See above.
Salamanca34:The child in both examples, as well as in the case of a rape, does not have the ability to choose to trespass. Killing it in all scenarios is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
You completely miss the point of eviction-ism. Walter Block wants to expel the fetus from the womb. Not necessarily maliciously end its life.
Salamanca34: I also hold that it is not a contractual tenant, who, when in breach of a contractual arrangement, would be the recipient of an eviction.
First you say that the fetus is allowed into contractual agreement by consensual sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, now you say it isn't apart of that agreement?
Salamanca34:Clearly the fetus has no capability to enter into a contractual arrangement to occupy the space. Thus, killing it in the name of eviction would again be a violation of the non-aggression axiom
If it has no right to occupy the womb then clearly evicting it isn't a crime.
Salamanca34:Additionally, if the fetus would be classified as a tenant, it is occupying the space with warrant and invitation (as mentioned earlier of the woman’s permitting the sperm to enter her body).
So it has no contractual agreement to be there, it has no ability to act, yet it is a tenant that has a space and 'invitation' and can not be expelled from what you recognized as another person's private property?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Salamanca, I cropped, re-sized and uploaded a local copy of your avatar. The image you were linking to was pretty huge.
If that is a problem, let me know and I can restore the old one, or re-size the old one without cropping the top.
General Rule on Abortion
Theists are against it. Atheists are not.
Abortion is most definitely the taking of a life, one that has a possibility of coming into being from actions taken.
Abortion is no different than stressed out mothers drowning their children, or animal abusers snapping dogs necks when they are no longer convenient.
Human fetuses (fetus being the latin for baby), develop a neural network relatively quickly. This is in no way a religious issue.
If I choose to babysit for my friends, and I contract someone to snap their necks because I find them inconvenient, shouldn't I be liable? If I have small children that I choose to desert who end up dieing of starvation from my actions, shouldn't society be able to exert its power against me for directly/indirectly committing murder?
Choice on whether or not a preborn baby may be given the right to inhabit a woman's womb is given at the time of sexual intercourse. Any other set of rules to live by, in my mind, make the entire argument too arbitrary. A 6 month old is just as helpless to feed and protect itself as a preborn.
What does it matter if it violates the "non-aggression axiom"? The non-aggression axiom will not stop people from having them. It also will not stop people from killing people who perform them. And in a free-society it is impossible to know what the market would decide.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Ryan: This is in no way a religious issue.
This is in no way a religious issue.
Are theist or atheist?
Caley McKibbin:Are theist or atheist?
It doesn't matter.
Say that again when he answers theist.
While religion often comes with a moral code, the lack of the former in no way implies a lack of the latter(self-described 'nontheist' talking).
Ryan: Abortion is no different than stressed out mothers drowning their children, or animal abusers snapping dogs necks when they are no longer convenient.
Actually it is more like a homeless man/woman who trespasses on your property.
BioTube: While religion often comes with a moral code, the lack of the former in no way implies a lack of the latter(self-described 'nontheist' talking).
What is your answer to the title question, Mr. Atheist?
Conza88: Salamanca34:"I certainly agree with you that human life starts at conception. For me, with the application of the non-aggression axiom, the case stops here. The fetus is a human worthy of protection under the axiom, thus abortion is violence initiated against it. Period, case closed. Ok so... the fetus is human life, and thus it has full property rights? How can you contend that an individual has a right to anothers life?
Evictionism ftw!
McKibbin: abortion == murder. Plain enough for you?