If you believe that a woman has a right to abort her fetus then do you believe she has the right to eat her fetus or perhaps sell it to a supermarket or a butchers?
Obvious troll is obvious. ;)
That brings in the ethical and moral question of cannibalism, regardless if it is her property. The case for abortion, as Rothbard put it, is that you have a parasite living off inside of you, you should have the right to rid your body of it. That doesn't take in part the eating of an aborted fetus. Then again, in the wild it's known for animals to kill and try to eat their offspring.
CrazyCoot: If you believe that a woman has a right to abort her fetus then do you believe she has the right to eat her fetus or perhaps sell it to a supermarket or a butchers?
I am pro-choice, although I admit that I have not really looked into the ethical arguments for or against as much as I probably should have, but I affiliate with Rothbard's argument: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
The question is a bit odd, but it's not meant as a troll question. Just because someone asks a question that's beyond the accepted limits doesn't mean he's a troll.
CrazyCoot: The question is a bit odd, but it's not meant as a troll question. Just because someone asks a question that's beyond the accepted limits doesn't mean he's a troll.
Well, it's posed in such a way that it is a non-sequitor, and at least severely misinterprets the libertarian argument for abortion.
It's a non sequitur.
Lets cut the bs. Even if abortion were an easily solvable moral problem, there could still be others that our societies have to contend with, in which rights become muddled and unclear.
How do you solve a problem that is by design unsolvable? Spaghettio.
CrazyCoot:Just because someone asks a question that's beyond the accepted limits doesn't mean he's a troll.
It's not beyond the accepted limits. It is just uncomfortable for people who don't use reason in debate.
It's not really the question that's a troll question I think it's the way it's phrased. Almost like you're saying "You pro-choicers are baby eaters!"
It's at least inflammatory.
"That brings in the ethical and moral question of cannibalism, regardless if it is her property."
What is the basis for the ethical and moral issues with regards to cannibalism. If it is indeed her property shouldn't she have full control over her property; even if that includes baby back ribs?
And the libertarian position on abortion is frankly muddled. Frankly Block's evictionism strikes me as being pro-life while trying to be pro-choice at the same time, at least until science progresses enough. And pro-choicers seem to gloss over whether the baby is a human being and at what time exactly a fetus becomes a human being.
I would see no major problems with selling an aborted fetus. It is a disgusting premise, but if a woman wants to earn a living by growing fetuses to supply cannibal meat in a niche market, it would be her right.
If i decided to cut off my arm and sell it to cannibals, it would be the same situation.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
bloomj31: It's not really the question that's a troll question I think it's the way it's phrased. Almost like you're saying "You pro-choicers are baby eaters!" It's at least inflammatory.
He's trying to perform a reductio, and while some say it was a non-sequitur, that only may be due to the fact he doesn't understand the evictionism argument.
liberty student: He's trying to perform a reductio, and while some say it was a non-sequitur, that only may be due to the fact he doesn't understand the evictionism argument.
If he's going to perform a proper reductio he will need a better wand!
Harry Potter reference, I'm cool.
Interestingly enough, I just watched a youtube video where Block talks about evictionism.
"He's trying to perform a reductio, and while some say it was a non-sequitur, that only may be due to the fact he doesn't understand the evictionism argument."
Well then explain the evictionism argument to me. And the question was for people who define themselves as pro-choice; which doesn't include all libertarians.
There are not much arguments that cannibalism is wrong. The only major ethical problem would be the situation in which the cannibalism takes place. If done out of consent or after death it is fine. Murdering a person to eat them is wrong.
The problem of when a fetus becomes a person and selling it for cannibalism does not matter. Murder is wrong, but eating the flesh of whom you murdered is no crime. In fact, it would be justifiable. You labored to end a life and devoid it of consciousness, turning it into an object, have you not the right to the fruits of your labor?
CrazyCoot:Well then explain the evictionism argument to me.
Basically, you own your body, and you can tell the fetus to leave at any time. It's not a question of whether the fetus was invited (like a house guest) or is a real person yet (has a soul etc), but that you are sovereign over your body, and like any other property, you can tell people when to stop using it.
The parallel for changing minds on a wanted pregnancy is inviting a guest into your home, and then asking the guest to leave halfway through dinner. This is entirely within your rights.
I don't subscribe to this argument. On nearly all matters pertaining to children and the unborn, I don't have a firm stance at this time.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
CrazyCoot: And pro-choicers seem to gloss over whether the baby is a human being and at what time exactly a fetus becomes a human being.
And pro-choicers seem to gloss over whether the baby is a human being and at what time exactly a fetus becomes a human being.
That is because it's a red herring. The argument is centered around the womb being the women's property (not the fetus). She is either a self-owner who has the right to evict the fetus, or a dehumanized vessel bound to slavery. The pro-life territory is a desert of special pleading, which you can't set foot in without conceding that the fetus has more rights than the woman.
"
I don't subscribe to this argument. On nearly all matters pertaining to children and the unborn, I don't have a firm stance at this time."
Yes, but if you check out some videos on Block describing evictionism he seems to be saying that the mother has the right to evict, but not to kill.
CrazyCoot: Yes, but if you check out some videos on Block describing evictionism he seems to be saying that the mother has the right to evict, but not to kill.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
CrazyCoot:Yes, but if you check out some videos on Block describing evictionism he seems to be saying that the mother has the right to evict, but not to kill.
Dr. Block has a some very solid arguments, and some very fragile ones. This is why I stay out of discussions about children and fetuses. I don't think libertarian theory is developed enough to deal with them, and much of what is offered is a compromise on libertarianism in return for social acceptance.
Something is either right or wrong, and the case isn't clear to me yet.
"That is because it's a red herring. The argument is centered around the womb being the women's property (not the fetus). She is either a self-owner who has the right to evict the fetus, or a dehumanized vessel bound to slavery. The pro-life territory is a desert of special pleading, which you can't set foot in without conceding that the fetus has more rights than the woman. "
If you invite somebody into your house and then kill them would anybody say that you had the right to do so? Or are you merely going to limit the use of abortion to rape? And what about scenarios where the woman becomes accidentally pregnant? Does a woman have the right to use deadly force in non-self-defense circumstances? My point about the Block video was that he recognizes the right to evict, but he does not recognize the right to kill. So while in the future evictionism will make medical sense at this point it does not because most cases of eviction at this time will result in death.
CrazyCoot: The parallel for changing minds on a wanted pregnancy is inviting a guest into your home, and then asking the guest to leave halfway through dinner. This is entirely within your rights
The parallel for changing minds on a wanted pregnancy is inviting a guest into your home, and then asking the guest to leave halfway through dinner. This is entirely within your rights
False analogy. For the sake of argument, let's suppose life begins at conception (blastocysts are people). Nobody was invited into the womb, unless you want to argue that the sperm is a person. You're also begging the question that sex is consent to pregnancy.
This is just becoming a repeat of past abortion threads, which all ended with alot limping after Knight_of_Baawa descended there from the heavens.
We're not going to agree on this subject. I'll agree with you on the right to evict, but not the right to kill in this situation.
CrazyCoot: We're not going to agree on this subject. I'll agree with you on the right to evict, but not the right to kill in this situation.
Most of these discussions turn out to be a complete waste of time with nearly all parties feeling bad.
Then by your logic I am a murderer if i stop funding welfare programs; consequently resulting in people dying of hunger. I am eternally bound by slavery and positive rights, until my life is threatened. Then I do have a right to "kill" which cause that whole right to claim to fall flat on its face. It's the lifeboat situation all over again in different clothing.
There is a difference between killing somebody directly, i.e. using aggression against them, and not coming to the aid of somebody in trouble. That and your welfare argument ignores 2 points 1) Whose to say that the transfer of money through government force doesn't result in death or other negative outcomes 2) The use of private charity to ameliorate such situations. Most libertarians I know of don't believe in the concept of a duty to act, but not acting is not the same as actively aggressing.
What criteria would you use in the lifeboat situation? And frankly the lifeboat situation brings up issues of life and death; the issue of abortion isn't always about the life and death of the mother.
Yes.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Of course she has.
Abandonment of offspring and, occasionally, their consumption thereafter are common place in nature.
I for one find the prospect of abortion morally abhorrent and it should be, at most, reasonably discouraged. But I am not a woman and I do not wish to impede upon the rights of others. My feelings on this matter are out of personal experience, and nothing more.
If you only have the right to eviction, then you would not have the right to eat it.
Hard Rain: Abandonment of offspring and, occasionally, their consumption thereafter are common place in nature. I for one find the prospect of abortion morally abhorrent and it should be, at most, reasonably discouraged. But I am not a woman and I do not wish to impede upon the rights of others. My feelings on this matter are out of personal experience, and nothing more.
You mean you do not wish to impede upon the right of others not to get prosecuted for something by third parties that have no standing in the matter?
Agreed.
You have the right to evict. If the fetus survives outside the womb, then that is fine. If a charitable organization donates mechanical lungs or status to help the fetus live, again that should be allowed as it is a fair use of property by the owners. The woman does not have the right to kill the fetus, nor does she have the right to eat it or whatnot once it is outside of her.
I think the analogy of the house guests is more that during your dinner, you decide to change your mind and evict the guests. Unfortunately it is freezing outside and they may not surivive the night. I don't think this is the "right" think to do in this situation, but I do think it is within the rights of the property owner to indeed evict these people who may or may not then die. I don't think I would call this 'to kill'.
As far as I know no actual abortion is an eviction.
davulf:You have the right to evict.
Based on?
davulf:If a charitable organization donates mechanical lungs or status to help the fetus live, again that should be allowed as it is a fair use of property by the owners.
But is it fair use of the fetus?
davulf:The woman does not have the right to kill the fetus, nor does she have the right to eat it or whatnot once it is outside of her.
If evicting kills the fetus, which is it? Because under such a circumstance, she does have a right to kill the fetus.
davulf:I don't think I would call this 'to kill'.
So if I invited you on my jet plane, and then once we were in the air I asked you to leave without giving you a parachute, isn't this evictionism?
I know the last example isn't the same as abortion because the pro-choice folks don't see the baby as invited. But I think it is consistent with the dinner guest analogy.
Libertarian theory on abortion and children in general is underdeveloped, arbitrary and self-contradicting. This area needs a ton of work.
Yes. Without that right you could not do things such as cultivate stem cells.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Conza88:
Walter Block in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM: An other objection to my [...] theory is that, if I push some one into the water and, then, he starts to drown, then, I owe a positive obligation which otherwise I wouldn't owe a positive obligation to. So what they're trying to say is that, by having a child, you're putting him at risk and therefore you owe him to keep him alive for nine months. My claim is that, by giving birth to a child, you're not harming him, you're not putting him in a worse position, you're putting him in a better position, because, before the sperm and the egg meet, there's no person at all. Surely it's better to have, be a person for a little time than not at all. So I reject the analogy that you're throwing some one into the water and therefore you have an obligation to save him.
An other objection to my [...] theory is that, if I push some one into the water and, then, he starts to drown, then, I owe a positive obligation which otherwise I wouldn't owe a positive obligation to. So what they're trying to say is that, by having a child, you're putting him at risk and therefore you owe him to keep him alive for nine months. My claim is that, by giving birth to a child, you're not harming him, you're not putting him in a worse position, you're putting him in a better position, because, before the sperm and the egg meet, there's no person at all. Surely it's better to have, be a person for a little time than not at all. So I reject the analogy that you're throwing some one into the water and therefore you have an obligation to save him.
If you save a man who, if you were to not have saved him, would have drowned, do you now have the "right" to, at any time thereafter, push him into a similarly dangerous or even slightly less dangerous venue? If not, his above defense vis-à-vis that objection is inadequate.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
It is an undeniable truth that you can't force a woman to carry her fetus without violating the non-aggression principle. The life dependency of the fetus on the mother is a hard fact of reality created by nature and not some human society. Nature has entrusted the mother with this hard decision and not with you!
If you believe in God, then it is this God that has created this reality and you are neither his delegate nor his representative. You are entitled to believe that it is immoral but any violent action you take action against the mother is sheer statist barbarism.