Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Abortion

This post has 89 Replies | 12 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 268
Points 5,220
SirThinkALot Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010 9:39 AM

I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but I'm curious to see some thoughts on this, as I havent been able to find much on the subject from a libertarian perspective.  

 

I personally think that abortion is  morally wrong, and should not be allowed/accepted.  Although there are situations where it might be justifiable/acceptable(such as to save the mother's life), but these are exceptions, and dont apply to over 90% of abortions performed today.  

An obvious response(from a libertarian perspective anyway) is why should abortion be prohibited?  After all, in a free society  I could choose not to get an abortion(not to difficult given that  I lack a womb, but thats beside the point), and I could choose not associate with people who perform and/or recieve them.  This is a perfectly reasonable position for drugs, or other such things were the only 'victims' are people who willingly choose to participate.  But in the case of abortion I think its different, because of the possibility that the act is the termination of a life.  

 

I think it would uncontrovercial to say that the non-aggression principal applies even to people who are mostly(if not wholly) dependant on others for their very survival.  For example: it would would be wrong to harm a three year old baby.  Or to kill a man in a coma without his permission(though a living-will or some other such document) or at the very least talking to his friends and family about what he would want.  So the question is: is a baby still in its mother's womb as 'alive' as either of these examples?  Imo the entire debate about abortion comes down to this question, any arguments about women's rights are red herrings.  I agree 100%(as I think would most self-proclaimed 'pro-life'ers) that if the answer is 'no' then abortion is perfectly acceptable, moral and should not be prohibited.  And I think most self-proclaimed 'pro-choice'=ers would agree that if the answer is 'yes' then it is wrong and should not be allowed.  

 

Unfortunitly for both sides the answer to that question is....unknown.  No matter how you look at it, there really hasnt been any clearly definitive answer to when a person achieves something we can call 'human life.'  Part if is almost certainly the incoherence of the question itself (how do you determine when something is 'alive'),  But regardless, I think given that, and the implications of the act of abortion, I think its best to 'err on the side of caution' on this issue.  

 

Also, one more thing:  Although I'm against abortion, I'm not too fond of the idea of government enforced prohabition, while it sounds good in principal(as does a lot of state actions), I'm well aware that state actions always comes with hidden costs, not just financial costs, but also costs to our liberty and freedom.  But I wonder:  How would a truly free society handle an issue like this?  Or could it?(I still think liberty is preferable to tyrany, but I'm curious how this might delt with in principal).  

 

I dont know how much of what I said was clear, but I hope I can at least provoke some discussion.  

OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you preface everything you say with the phrase 'studies have shown...' people will believe anything you say no matter how ridiculous. Studies have shown this works 87.64% of the time.
  • | Post Points: 185
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290

I personally agree that abortion is murder.  I think the issue should be decentralized and then see which side actually turned out to be right.   The family, or friends, or churches, rather than a centralized state, should also play a role in stopping abortions and care for the newborn.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 785
Points 13,445

I cannot consider abortion objectively wrong in a moral sense as I don't believe in objective morality, but personally I start to object to abortion after about 7 months. This being said in the free society I believe that abortions would probably be available no matter what the age of the fetus it would be extremely difficult to track/control and the will to enforce it would (I think) be comparatively small when compared to most other laws that would be enforced in the free society. I consider the major argument for abortion being permitted that fetus' are utterly unintelligent, especially in the earlier stages of development.

"Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it." -Thus Spake Zarathustra
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 10:13 AM

This forum is filled with abortion threads.

No State should control a woman's sexual organs, and nor should it not allow a woman to rid herself of someone that is living off of her.  She is her own property, and if she wants to rid herself of someone that she doesn't want living off her like a parasite then she should have that choice.  Who are you to say that she has to take care of that child, or even have it in that case?

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 342
Points 6,665

Let me see if I can clarify.

Is it acceptable to no longer take care of a man in a coma? He can't take care of himself, he is dependent on somebody else for survival, and he is obviously a human life.

Am I on the hook for murder or any other crime if a person in a coma under my care runs out of funds, I discontinue care of him, and unplug the life support that I own? Have I aggressed against him? Would that not be a positive obligation on someone else?

Now, how is that any different then detaching a placenta from the mother and removing the fetus from the mother's womb?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290
No2statism replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 11:33 AM

I've always considered abortion a positive right, because it requires a life to be sacrificed for someone else.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 342
Points 6,665

Yes, never mind the argument that it isn't a sacrifice, and is actually a discontinuation of sacrifice by the mother for the offspring. We're just going to continue to say it's a sacrifice of the baby, and not actually address the argument.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 349
Points 5,915
Mtn Dew replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 11:39 AM

A better analogy would be to take a gun and blow the coma patient's brains out. Or stabbing a kid to death that's wandered onto your lawn. Abortion isn't simply eviction. 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 12:57 PM

Abortion bothers me personally, but I still think women have that right to make decisions.  If I knew somebody who was going to get an abortion, I would attempt to change her mind, but I would not use force to stop her.

 

If you're going to use morality in an argument, it's not the morality/immorality of an act, it is the morality/immorality of using force against an immoral act.  Where do you draw that line?  Lying and murder are immoral, but not equally so.

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

I consider the major argument for abortion being permitted that fetus' are utterly unintelligent, especially in the earlier stages of development.

People who are mentally retarded are utterly unintelligent too. Is it moral to kill them too?

Who are you to say that she has to take care of that child, or even have it in that case?

No one said she has to take care over it. People are always looking for children to adopt. Unless she was raped, no one made her have sex, which she knew could possibly cause her to be pregnant, no matter what precautions she took.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 342
Points 6,665

A better analogy would be to take a gun and blow the coma patient's brains out. Or stabbing a kid to death that's wandered onto your lawn. Abortion isn't simply eviction. 

Maybe Partial birth abortions are, but if they simply disconnect the placenta and then remove the fetus, then eviction is exactly what it is.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 618
Points 10,170
Southern replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 3:12 PM

Maybe Partial birth abortions are, but if they simply disconnect the placenta and then remove the fetus, then eviction is exactly what it is.

If that is all that is done, then I agree.  But many abortions by and large includes the dismemberment of the trespasser.  So by using the eviction argument would those abortions be criminal?  The equivalent of murder?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 875
Points 14,180
xahrx replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 3:24 PM

"A better analogy would be to take a gun and blow the coma patient's brains out. Or stabbing a kid to death that's wandered onto your lawn. Abortion isn't simply eviction." - Mtn Dew

No, it isn't.  But those options are perfectly acceptable if that is what is necessary to achieve an eviction.

Is your body your property?  Do you or do you not have the right to allow and/or deny access to your property as you see fit?  Do you or do you not have the right to change your mind and if you allow access, in the future disallow it, regardless of the effects on the person being evicted by whatever means?  As a matter of principle and logic my right to allow and disallow access to my property isn't contingent upon a previous allowance nor is it contingent upon the affects eviction will have on the evicted party, nor is it contingent upon the means necessary to achieve eviction.  Now, that doesn't mean someone could judge me to be a scumbag for the way I handle myself, but a criminal?  Not in any way I can see.

"I was just in the bathroom getting ready to leave the house, if you must know, and a sudden wave of admiration for the cotton swab came over me." - Anonymous
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 618
Points 10,170
Southern replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 4:01 PM

Is your body your property?  Do you or do you not have the right to allow and/or deny access to your property as you see fit?  Do you or do you not have the right to change your mind and if you allow access, in the future disallow it, regardless of the effects on the person being evicted by whatever means?  As a matter of principle and logic my right to allow and disallow access to my property isn't contingent upon a previous allowance nor is it contingent upon the affects eviction will have on the evicted party, nor is it contingent upon the means necessary to achieve eviction.  Now, that doesn't mean someone could judge me to be a scumbag for the way I handle myself, but a criminal?  Not in any way I can see.

I pretty sure throwing someone from your speeding car and killing them as a result of their eviction, simply because you beleive you have the right to evict someone from your property come hell or high water would be seen as criminal.  Especially if there were other options available and even more so if you had initially agreed to give them a ride to the grocery store then changed your mind on I-95.  Or maybe someone dosent leave your property fast enough.  Does that now give you unlimited freedom to evict them with extreme prejudice? 

I am willing to bet consideration for the circumstances and consequences of the eviction will be considered when determining if how you evicted the trespasser is legitamite or not not.  Your right to evict is absolute, but that doesnt mean you can evict them in a body bag just because you dont have to take into consideration the effects of your actions. 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

I pretty sure throwing someone from your speeding car and killing them as a result of their eviction, simply because you beleive you have the right to evict someone from your property come hell or high water would be seen as criminal.

Excellent point. Plus, all of this 'eviction' talk is really taking away from the sanctity of human life. I would hardly classify killing an unborn child in the same category as kicking someone out of your house.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 266
Points 4,465

FACT: Fetuses have hearbeats when they are 18 days old.

So yes, I'd say this is a living thing and it has it's own rights.  BUT, I do think that in extreme situations (rape, possible death, under-18 pregnancies, the mother's life takes precedence and she should be able to abort.  It is a pretty sick process, though, as Ron Paul said in The Revolution when he talked about why he was pro-life.  Given that there is a government, I think there should be some laws restricting abortions.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 618
Points 10,170
Southern replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 5:46 PM

Excellent point. Plus, all of this 'eviction' talk is really taking away from the sanctity of human life. I would hardly classify killing an unborn child in the same category as kicking someone out of your house.

Truth be told, I im a bit partial to the eviction arguement.  But if you take the eviction stance the vast majority of abortions that take place today would be criminal.  Abortion as it stands today is not eviction.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 468
Points 8,085
Wibee replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 9:42 PM

I can give you the best of how I came to terms with it.  Abortion seems to have multiple meanings.  But basically, abortion is the extraction of the fetus from the mother's body.  Which puts the fetus in the same boat as the poor kid in africa that will starve to death if you don't donate to the childrens fund.  

Basically, it is dying of natural causes.  The mother chose not to act to save the child.  

Fee market will minimize abortions.  Adoption incentives, paying mother to carry child, etc.  

Just because something is legal does not make it right.   

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 468
Points 8,085
Wibee replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 9:48 PM

With that speeding car point...   If someone invaded my car, I will kick them out no matter what speed of my car.  The key is, if they refuse to get out themselves.  Like a robber who breaks into home and refuses to leave.  

That is what the fetus does, it feeds on the mother.  Ever hear the term "eating for two?"  Plus, the mother's actions are restricted.  hormonal issues, sickness.  The birth of the child.  The mother should be forced by gunpoint to go through all of this?  

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 268
Points 5,220

That is what the fetus does, it feeds on the mother.  Ever hear the term "eating for two?"  Plus, the mother's actions are restricted.  hormonal issues, sickness.  The birth of the child.  The mother should be forced by gunpoint to go through all of this?  

 

Leaving aside the fact that nobody is suggesting to force women at gunpoint to keep their child....Unless the woman was raped(which currently accounts for less than 5% of abortions performed today), she made the choice to have sex knowing that it could possibly result in pregnency.  Are you suggesting she shouldnt take responsibility for her choices?  

OBJECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you preface everything you say with the phrase 'studies have shown...' people will believe anything you say no matter how ridiculous. Studies have shown this works 87.64% of the time.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 98
Points 2,205

Every time I hear "the woman has the right to choose what to do with her body" argument I have to kinda chuckle in agreement, but for different reason. She has the right and ability to choose to not engage in risky sexual behavior. A woman understands the risks of engaging in intercourse well in advance. The child she conceives did not bring him or herself into existence, the mother and her partner did.

I read a post on here a while back where someone claimed that Rothbard viewed a child in the womb as a sort of parasite that lives off the mother's body. Because of this the mother should be able to choose whether or not the child should be carried to term. If Rothbard in fact said something to this affect, and as much as I agree with him on the things I know about him and his views I think his argument is a flawed regarding this. A child cannot be compared to a parasite because a parasite is uninvited. Yes, a woman may not want to become pregnant but she knows the risks of engaging in sexual behavior prior to.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 333
Points 6,365
garegin replied on Mon, Jul 26 2010 10:22 PM

from a blockean "legal libertarian" point of view the abortion debate is moot. the fetus cannot press criminal charges or ask others to press charges on her behalf. as an ethical debate, its another story.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 12:12 AM

I'd say this is a living thing and it has it's own rights.

As does the mother.  She has the right to decide whether or not she wants her body to go through the physical impairment of carrying a child for nine months, and to raise that child.  If she does not want the child, and would prefer abortion, why would she be coerced to give birth, if she has no interest in raising it or will give it up for adoption?

Are you suggesting she shouldn't take responsibility for her choices?

Abortion is a choice she'll choose responsibly.

 

I read a post on here a while back where someone claimed that Rothbard viewed a child in the womb as a sort of parasite that lives off the mother's body.

It was probably me.  It's in For A New Liberty.  His exact words are:

Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being — i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus [p. 108] as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being's body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person, and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body.

Also, from the feminist perspective, I generally hear/read the pro-life leaning stance from men who obviously can't give birth.  Claiming the child as rights while bypassing the woman's right to her own body and the actions she'll take with it.  Making the argument that the woman voluntary had sex and knew the consequences, well, what if she was using protection and it didn't work?  What about the male?  He has a part in this too.  Since it takes a male and female to make a child, what if both agree that abortion is the solution?  Now it's technically, two against "one", or rather "one to be".  It's as the blame will be placed on the woman if she wants an abortion.  I come across libertarians who believe that abortion is wrong, and something should be done about it.  Interesting enough they'll fall back on the State to make it illegal.  Even if the State was decentralized, would you call a PDA on someone for having an abortion?  How would you enforce that as some sort of law?  If someone has an abortion will you put them in jail for murder?

Now, I don't have a problem with people who are pro-life, that's not the issue, it's whether or not someone is going to use force to keep someone from having an abortion.  One can be pro-life, while still allowing other people to have abortions, they just don't have them (given that the person is a female, I'd assume).

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 12:59 AM

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

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 80
Points 1,530

1)Rights are derived from the ability to reason.

2)A fetus can not reason.

3)A fetus does not have rights.

And of course the response is "BUT OH! THERE'S POTENTIAL". That can also be applied to sperm, and I don't think anyone would consider masturbation mass murder. In theory the hair on my arm could be cloned and made into a human. The argument doesn't work. Also, the fetus being in the mothers constitutes aggression.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 1:47 AM

My view on abortion is here.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 280
Points 5,590
Zavoi replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 1:52 AM

Bert:
Making the argument that the woman voluntary had sex and knew the consequences, well, what if she was using protection and it didn't work?

Even so, she would have had the opportunity to abort the embryo all throughout its non-rights-worthy stage, but chose not to.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 2:02 AM

Even so, she would have had the opportunity to abort the embryo all throughout its non-rights-worthy stage, but chose not to.

Chose not to?  The point I'm making is that she would have the choice to have an abortion, but a potential argument against abortion is that she consented to have sex and knew the possible consequences, and pregnancy is one of them.  If the woman safeguarded herself against becoming pregnant, she obviously does not want to become pregnant, and her last chance to rid herself of pregnancy and a child is abortion.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 19
Points 305

I can't wait for the state to get out of my way on this one. I have a 1 year old daughter with special needs who doesn't contribute anything to the productivity of my household. I want to evict her. I'll just put her outside and let her die of natural causes. Nothing violent, mind you. Just not intervening to save her life.

p.s. Why didn't this post the first time I tried? - a n00b.

Being unadvisable and being unlibertarian are two entirely different things. - cporter

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 280
Points 5,590
Zavoi replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 3:00 AM

Bert:
If the woman safeguarded herself against becoming pregnant, she obviously does not want to become pregnant, and her last chance to rid herself of pregnancy and a child is abortion.

That's why I specified "throughout its non-rights-worthy stage." If the woman chooses not to abort during the early stages when abortion is uncontroversially legitimate (or, at least, uncontroversial insofar is "potentiality" is rejected, as MisguidedThoughts argues), and then waits until the fetus is a sentient being, she is then in no position to claim that she "didn't want" the child.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 4:21 AM

"I can't wait for the state to get out of my way on this one. I have a 1 year old daughter with special needs who doesn't contribute anything to the productivity of my household. I want to evict her. I'll just put her outside and let her die of natural causes. Nothing violent, mind you. Just not intervening to save her life."

Nice name. You've erected a strawman though.

Try again... this time without the ignorance.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 4:30 AM

"1)Rights are derived from the ability to reason.

2)A fetus can not reason.

3)A fetus does not have rights."

Nope. I guess temporarily unconscious people have no rights then! no

"And of course the response is "BUT OH! THERE'S POTENTIAL". That can also be applied to sperm, and I don't think anyone would consider masturbation mass murder. In theory the hair on my arm could be cloned and made into a human. The argument doesn't work. Also, the fetus being in the mothers constitutes aggression."

No, it can't be applied to sperm actually. The argument does work. Have you even read the paper on it?

"Let us begin at the beginning. At what point does human life begin? There are really only two reasonable possibilities: at conception or at birth; all other points of development in between are merely points along a continuum which begins and ends with these two options. At any point before the fertilization, there is only a sperm and an egg. Neither, without the other, is capable of developing into anything else, let alone anything human.13' But the fertilized egg most certainly wdl become a human being, if kept in the womb for nine months.'38 At any point after birth, there is similarly no question: if a baby is not a human being, then no one is."

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 80
Points 1,530

The unconscious person DOES have the ability to reason, it's just been suspended. It's like comparing a person who's legs are tied down to a person who simply lacks legs. In the case of a fetus, it simply lacks the ability to reason.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 80
Points 1,530

Also, nothing to say on the cloning idea?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 5:44 AM

"The unconscious person DOES have the ability to reason, it's just been suspended."

So their rights have been suspended as well?

Surely that is the position you must hold if you are to be logically consistent. Or is "suspension", your differing version of "potential" aye?

Do they, in that point of time have the ability to reason? Yes or no. Personally, since they are unconcious I don't think they would have the ability to reason: ("base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relationships among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Identity)". Since that would require conciousness, no? lol

An individual who is in a coma. Do they, or do they not have the ability: ("the quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something") to reason? (whilst in their current state). Terri Schiavo.

I'd say they have the potential, and in that time - they get "guardianship" rights. Same with babies, children, coma, knocked out etc. They all have the potential.

Maybe you should go ahead and define "ability" and "reason".

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 166
Points 2,355
Marked replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 7:22 AM

Personally, I view it as morally reprehensible and akin to murder. However, like murder, there are cases in which it might be seen as justifiable for the mother. I still wouldn't agree with the conclusion, but I would accept it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 875
Points 14,180
xahrx replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 7:59 AM

"I pretty sure throwing someone from your speeding car and killing them as a result of their eviction, simply because you beleive you have the right to evict someone from your property come hell or high water would be seen as criminal. Especially if there were other options available and even more so if you had initially agreed to give them a ride to the grocery store then changed your mind on I-95.  Or maybe someone dosent leave your property fast enough.  Does that now give you unlimited freedom to evict them with extreme prejudice?" - Southern

That would depend on the circumstances.  If it was Rutger Hauer from the original Hitcher movie, I'd say you'd be justified.  I can see your point, but then what is the consequence other than the state, or in a free society an arbitrator of some kind, forcing you to let others use your property against your will.

"Your right to evict is absolute, but that doesnt mean you can evict them in a body bag just because you dont have to take into consideration the effects of your actions."

Granted, but if there is no other alternative than the body bag simply because of circumstance, as is the case with many abortions, what then?  Does your right to evict no longer apply simply because circumstances, engineered or not, do not allow for what most would consider a reasonable eviction?  Suppose a squatter makes his home in a building you own and you find out in the winter and want to kick him out, and he'd almost certainly die with shelter.  Does he all of a sudden become a rightful tennant?  What you seem to be saying is if a person can make it hard to evict them, or that it might be hard to do so simply by random circumstance and chance, your right to evict is gone.

"Excellent point. Plus, all of this 'eviction' talk is really taking away from the sanctity of human life. I would hardly classify killing an unborn child in the same category as kicking someone out of your house." - Brian

Why?  What's the difference?  If you prefer another analogy consider a mentally retarded person wandering in, or being invited in, to a cabin on a winter night during a bad storm.  You have a helpless, some might say innocent person who is entirely dependent on the host for survival who did not ask to be in that situation and probably couldn't understand it anyway.  Does that mean the host loses the right to evict?

"FACT: Fetuses have hearbeats when they are 18 days old." - resist272727

FACT: All mammals have heartbeats.  And when at the fetus stage many of them look remarkably similar too.

" It is a pretty sick process, though, as Ron Paul said in The Revolution when he talked about why he was pro-life.  Given that there is a government, I think there should be some laws restricting abortions."

If you give the government the power to restrict abortion you also by default give them the power to encourage abortion.  The government will not take a specific power, it will take the general power and exercise it in accordance with the ideals of the ruling elite at the time.

"Leaving aside the fact that nobody is suggesting to force women at gunpoint to keep their child....Unless the woman was raped(which currently accounts for less than 5% of abortions performed today), she made the choice to have sex knowing that it could possibly result in pregnency.  Are you suggesting she shouldnt take responsibility for her choices?" - SirThinkALot

So what?  I ask once more, does inviting someone in negate your right to uninvite them later?

"I was just in the bathroom getting ready to leave the house, if you must know, and a sudden wave of admiration for the cotton swab came over me." - Anonymous
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 618
Points 10,170
Southern replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 8:09 AM

If someone invaded my car, I will kick them out no matter what speed of my car.  The key is, if they refuse to get out themselves.  Like a robber who breaks into home and refuses to leave.  

If we look at it from an eviction angle there is a problem with your statement.  The problem is that the fetus is passive.  It did not invade anything.  It ,in and of itself, has not threatened you or refused to comply with your order to leave.  It lacks the ability.  You have the ability and right to evict.  But once again the method you use to evict the invalid can be justified or not.  If you have non violent methods at your disposal to remove the trespasser yet choose to use lethal force while not threatened with lethal force, then you would be a criminal. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 618
Points 10,170
Southern replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 8:31 AM

That would depend on the circumstances.  If it was Rutger Hauer from the original Hitcher movie, I'd say you'd be justified.  I can see your point, but then what is the consequence other than the state, or in a free society an arbitrator of some kind, forcing you to let others use your property against your will.

If your life is threaten then yes you have the right to use lethal force.  The problem is that the fetus did not force itself on anyone, does not threaten anyone with death should you try to remove them.  It is not some bloodthirsty killer that you are defending yourself against.  Once again you have the right to evict but not the right to use any method to evict.

You don't have to have the state to convict people of crimes.  In a free society you might have a couple of choices.  Carry the baby to term, have the fetus removed without dismembering or killing it in the process, or have its brains sucked out and potentially be charged with murder.

Granted, but if there is no other alternative than the body bag simply because of circumstance, as is the case with many abortions, what then?  Does your right to evict no longer apply simply because circumstances, engineered or not, do not allow for what most would consider a reasonable eviction?  Suppose a squatter makes his home in a building you own and you find out in the winter and want to kick him out, and he'd almost certainly die with shelter.  Does he all of a sudden become a rightful tenant?  What you seem to be saying is if a person can make it hard to evict them, or that it might be hard to do so simply by random circumstance and chance, your right to evict is gone.

I don't think you would be held responsible for what occurs after the eviction.  Only what occurred during the eviction.  In your squatter scenario.  You discovered the squatter and he has gotten sick since the time he began squatting and when you discovered him.  He is so weak that he cannot walk.  You decide to evict him which is your right.  You order him to leave and cannot comply.  So you throw him out the 5th story window.  Clearly, you just murdered him.  Versus, you carry him to edge of your property and leave him to his fate.  Not actual murder, but awfully disgusting.

You have the right to evict but not the right to kill in the process..... unless deadly force is being used to resist the eviction.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 618
Points 10,170
Southern replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 8:35 AM

So what?  I ask once more, does inviting someone in negate your right to uninvite them later?

If by inviting them on a scenic plane ride and then uninviting them by throwing them out of your plane at 30,000 feet, then yes.

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 3 (90 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS