I know. Uh-oh. Just hear me out.
Aside from the morality arguments regarding abortion, many people oppose it not only due to religion but because they view it as murder and an act of force/aggression.
How would the laws be formed in an anarcho-capitalist society if some people do see it that way? Would abortion opposers have a right to use violence against those performing/desiring an abortion, calling it a type of defense for a fetus that cannot fight back itself? Again, this isn't about the morality involving abortion, it's just about what would happen. The Nazis thought killing Jews wasn't necessarily 'murder', but clearly it is.
How would this play out?
Implementation of any law in real life requires a lot of decency and restraint, even when dealing with a serial child murderer. Police officers in civilized western nations are expected to keep their emotions in check, arrest the suspect by procedure, and detain him under secure conditions.
The same is expected even of common citizenry, and too often the very wrong argument is made in favour of violence in any "self-defense" story. See Muneer Hussein and the excellent judgment of English courts in arresting him for his over the top vigilante justice.
It is a bad idea to use anything more than very very restrained force in any act of defense. If the rule of law existed for the sake of citizenry, should we terrorize that very citizenry for their own sake?
I read that story about Munir Hussain. I think it's completely acceptable and appropriate what he did. And you think it wasn't?
If a criminal tries to rape a man's wife and he stops the criminal, you think the man should just pin the criminal to the floor politely until police arrive?
Prohibition on abortion will have exactly the same effect like prohibition on drugs - crime and lower quality service/merchandise which results in higher mortality than under free market conditions. I will never take drugs nor will abort any of my children, but there are people that will have their own reasons for doing it no matter what laws are there. Thus this problem will be never solved by law.
I realize this. What I'm saying, though, is that many people consider it to be murder. Basically "murder" is the trunk of the tree while it branches out to other types of murder (i.e. shooting someone, stabbing someone, abortion, electricuting someone, etc.), so to them, not necessarily my opinion, legalizing abortion is the equivalent of legalizing 'stabbing someone', saying that only shooting someone is committing murder. In that way it's different than drugs in the sense that someone is harming another person (again, assuming that a fetus and an embryo are people for this discussion). So, yes, there would be lower quality service, but if the person is considered a murderer than it doesn't really matter what happens to them as far as that society would care.
I would imagine there would be competing law systems, some tolerant of abortion and some not. Individuals could band together and form communities under law systems which are pro life. These communities can then enforce anti abortion laws by paying PDA's in that area to uphold their laws. Anyone who disagrees with the views of these particular communities is more than welcomed to leave and live somewhere else.
I do not think that it is justifiable to force individuals to accept your views on what should be considered "moral". I would condemn anyone who used violence to try and stop abortion, and I say this coming from a very "pro life" position.
I have a so called pro life view, though I see abortions before 3 months as not murder. My main problem would be: how would be able to stop people from doing abortions without invading privacy?
As for the words pro life, I really hate that phrase. It's so useless. I mean, who isn't for protecting life? Who isn't for personal freedom? Not in action, but just words. It's just bypassing the issue.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I see abortion as being a bit savage and uncivilized. It's no secret how babies are made, everybody knows what causes them. If you're not responsible enough for sex, then keep your clothes on. I'll go with the 90 day window though, any longer than that is murder to me.
I'm an atheist by the way. My views are not religious.
What about rape victims? Or when pregnancy is direct risk to mothers life? If there will be no consensus on whether abortion is wrong or not then people that want to do it will do it where abortion is legal rendering all prohibition ineffective (thats how it works in reality today).
I read that story about Munir Hussain. I think it's completely acceptable and appropriate what he did. And you think it wasn't? If a criminal tries to rape a man's wife and he stops the criminal, you think the man should just pin the criminal to the floor politely until police arrive?
It was not acceptable. In defending his family at home, he did the right thing. But in gathering his brother, relatives, and neighbours to corner the armed burglar in the garden and systematically beat him in the head with a cricket bat until the man was beaten into virtual retardation, he committed a serious crime.
Let's remember that Munir Hussein was a decent, peaceful man who had always been charitable to his community and poorer Pakistanis. He was not a person who had been angry or violent in his life ever before. We can forgive him for losing his temper the first time the life of his family was at stake. But not for going beyond that.
I don't think we appreciate why the law enforcement is a monopoly on violence. It is so that nobody else commits violence. Of any kind, to any excess, for any reason. Even self-defense is supposed to be a thin excuse, and the burden of proof will be on you to prove it was so. That is how civilized nations have worked for centuries.
I've always felt the victim has more authority over the punishment that is being carried out, and noone else.
Enforcement of the laws will always be up to the victim, in the case of abortion the victim is the child who is unable to defend itself. The only way for the child to receive any justice would be if some charity group put up funds on the child's behalf.
Ultimately, the laws will be be made when a person signs a contract with their defense agency. Some agencies might ban abortion, others might allow it. What happens when the two agencies butt heads will be the result of negotiations. Possibly Block's evictionism as a compromise?
At least he wasn't a Keynesian!
What about rape victims? Or when pregnancy is direct risk to mothers life?
You punish the child for the crimes of its father? Not very Libertarian.
If there will be no consensus on whether abortion is wrong or not then people that want to do it will do it where abortion is legal rendering all prohibition ineffective (thats how it works in reality today).
Using this logic then what the point of any law? Should murder or theft not be prohibited?
People will always commit crimes... the point of outlawing certain behaviour is not prevent certain behaviour. It is to provide a guide for how we as humans interact and when someone violates what is accepted it allows for some sort of remedy to those who were wronged.
But not for going beyond that.
I completely praise him for doing what he did. He could have gone further and I wouldn't have cared one bit. What did the criminal expect him to do by invading his home and threatening his family? If people are just caught and have nothing terrible inflicted upon them from the victim, what's the deterrent? It makes it even better than he was a good man and businessman before this happened. I wish we had more people like him to stand up for innocents.
Code of Hammurabi style. My opinion varies here regarding rape, which I know contradicts my other feelings, so I'm not sure how I feel about it.
It's not really debatable whether partial-birth abortions are murder. They are. I don't know why people dispute that. However, I realize we're talking about regular "short-term" (again, for lack of better words) abortions. In that case, who decides what how long is too long for the mother to wait to decide?
EDIT: If someone killed a woman while she was pregnant, therefore killing her unborn baby as well, would he be charged for the second murder of the unborn baby in a society where abortion is legal?
^I agree with the Brian's opinion on Munir Hussain. How else do you expect property rights to be respected in a free society?
There is no such thing as a free society, because there is no such thing as a perfect, decent human being.
I merely mention what is done by sane people, knowing full well the constraints of existing immorality and harsh behaviour among many people.
I know there is no guarantee that we three would not be as vengeful if someone were to break in to our house and tie us up, but just remember that you'll be setting up a new precedent in your behaviour if you decide to violently butcher the man who broke in.
Even if we don't see criminals on the same level as people in legitimate work or animals on the same level as humans, consider - if you saw me repeatedly hitting a dog with a shoe after it did something wrong, you would question my intelligence and judgment. If a society of 150 IQ people decided to detain a 60 IQ person and make sure to execute him for a mere theft, you'd question their judgment. And if you personally saw an honest husband and a father savagely beating up a career criminal, like many of Hussein's neighbours did, you'd question his judgment.
The world of overeager vigilante justice and brutal law enforcement is not a pretty one - in my home state of Bihar, villagers hold up a thief, bring in a special leaf, secrete a liquid from that leaf into his eye to blind him. Much that way, American police officers have been known to cuff up and haul away an elderly man on the mere suspicion that he is connected to violent drug cartels and have shot down an entire family in the notorious Ruby Ridge case. I used to be like you guys, before I saw for myself what it's like to see a criminal treated harshly. You will not feel happy or vindicated that someone got punished.
if you saw me repeatedly hitting a dog with a shoe after it did something wrong, you would question my intelligence and judgment. If a society of 150 IQ people decided to detain a 60 IQ person and make sure to execute him for a mere theft, you'd question their judgment.
These two examples clearly both have much, much, much lower cognitive abilities than a human being (for the dog example), and an average (even below average) human being for the second example.
And if you personally saw an honest husband and a father savagely beating up a career criminal, like many of Hussein's neighbours did, you'd question his judgment.
I don't question his judgement at all. He's protecting his family and property. Family is everything, and it's disgraceful to say that Hussein shouldn't have done what he did. Are we supposed to feel bad for the criminal because he didn't get away with it? The fact that people now know that they do not violate the rights of his family without being severely punished is a great thing. If you were forced to hurt a random girl for some reason and given two choices, you'd pick the one who doesn't have any brothers who would come after you. That's a great deterrent.
The world of overeager vigilante justice and brutal law enforcement is not a pretty one - in my home state of Bihar, villagers hold up a thief, bring in a special leaf, secrete a liquid from that leaf into his eye to blind him.
I don't know the specifics of that case, but would you have rathered he rob them poor? Again, I'm not sticking up for their actions or going against them. I don't know if he was a one-time thief or kept robbing people.
Much that way, American police officers have been known to cuff up and haul away an elderly man on the mere suspicion that he is connected to violent drug cartels and have shot down an entire family in the notorious Ruby Ridge case.
There are two problems in that scenario. One is that they are taxpayer-funded police officers. There's no control over what they do and nothing it necessarily personal. Not saying that all police officers are corrupt, because I know that many of them really care about protecting the community. The second problem is that it's suspicion instead of a 100% for sure thing.
Where I grew up, a guy tried to rape a girl from my school, and her brothers nearly beat him to death. No one there would ever even think of questioning that because we stick up for each other. That's family. Hussein did what was right. He loves the right things.
Southern: What about rape victims? Or when pregnancy is direct risk to mothers life? You punish the child for the crimes of its father? Not very Libertarian.
I have never stated that I'm in favor of abortion so please drop judgments that are unfair to me. Still what about mother that did not want to have children and does not want to carry it? There are 3 sides in this situation. Your response does not answer my second question.
Southern: If there will be no consensus on whether abortion is wrong or not then people that want to do it will do it where abortion is legal rendering all prohibition ineffective (thats how it works in reality today). Using this logic then what the point of any law? Should murder or theft not be prohibited?
Point is murder and theft are illegal everywhere (there is consensus here), abortion is not and that creates situation where people that want to do it can do so without any consequence. You don't go to another country to steal - it is illegal everywhere. You can go to another country to do abortion - if it is legal there.
Southern: People will always commit crimes... the point of outlawing certain behaviour is not prevent certain behaviour. It is to provide a guide for how we as humans interact and when someone violates what is accepted it allows for some sort of remedy to those who were wronged.
Really? I thought that punishment and restitution act as deterrents too. Law that does not prevent crime is not efficient. I would rather live in society where there are strong anti-incentives to committing crime (including laws that discourages it) to prevent it as much as possible.
Murder and theft are illegal everywhere? You may need to rethink that.
Where are they legal? Somalia?
US.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
You are right, my apologies. The mother has the right to have the baby removed nothing more. An eviction.... But she does not have the right to evict the child and kill it in the process. If the child is not viable outside of her body and dies then there is no rights violation. If it is a viable and no one voluntarily takes care of the child then again no rights violation.
There is no consensus as to what constitutes murder or theft. For example, in some places if you shoot and kill someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night you will be charged with murder.... In other places you will be commended. Another example is.... well abortion. Some places it is considered murder.... other places it is not.
Besides a consensus has nothing to do with the law. There does not have to be or will there ever be a consensus. If there were then there would be no need for law. Everyone would behave as expected by everyone else. The law exists because there is no consensus.
Efficiency has nothing to do with the law. The punishments for breaking the law do act as deterrents, but that is not the point of the law. Again it is to create a guideline for behavior between individuals. The point is to publicly declare what is expected of people and what will happen if that expectation is violated.
If the point of the law was to discourage crime... why not make the death penalty the punishment for everything. That would certainly make everyone think twice before stepping out the door in the morning.
The point is not are murder and theft illegal. It is that what constitutes murder and theft changes from place to place.
boniek wrote the following post at 10-10-2010 6:15 PM:
Prohibition on murder will have exactly the same effect like prohibition on drugs - crime and lower quality service/merchandise which results in higher mortality than under free market conditions. I will never take drugs nor will I murder anyone but there are people that will have their own reasons for doing it no matter what laws are there. Thus this problem will be never solved by law. [Therefore, murder should be permissable, and no actions should be taken against the aggressor.] Logical problem here?
Seraiah:Logical problem here?
Yes, it is in your argument. It's a false analogy. The victim in your murder example did not live inside the body of the murderer. No conflict or potential conflict of property rights existed.
Logic is not on your side on this issue. Whether it is right or wrong boils down to a discussion over personal values and nothing more.
DD5 wrote the following post at 05-12-2011 1:15 PM:
It is not logical to assume that a mother has more of a right to her body than the child has to its life and body. Could you prove that this is the case?
You are right to point out a conflict of property rights, but that does not lead us to a pro-abortion conclusion
Seraiah:You are right to point out a conflict of property rights, but that does not lead us to a pro-abortion conclusion
It is a 1st step to at least recognize the fallacy in the "pro-life" argument, which relies on the exact equivocation that you have just made.
Seraiah:It is not logical to assume that a mother has more of a right to her body than the child has to its life and body. Could you prove that this is the case?
The absolute right to self ownership means that every woman has a right to her own body (including everything within it). This includes the fetus. The fetus is there by the mother's consent. (it cannot be the other way around). Should the mother decide she does not want the fetus any longer, the fetus becomes an invader living off the mother parasitically. The mother then has a right to force out the "invader" like in any other case when property is invaded. This doesn't mean it's moral to do so. It just means that has a right to do so.
DD5 wrote the following post at 05-12-2011 1:44 PM:
I don't find Hoppe's argument convincing, and its simply because it posits that a mothers self-ownership trumps the babies life and body. Which you still haven't supported. If a baby will one day have the ability to exercise its rights, it has the same protections as any other human being. The mother *is* the slave to the baby until the baby is born, at which point the mother must not put the baby in harms way. This is not ideal, but it is a fact of human development. Mothers property rights < (Babies rights + life)
imo people would migrate to communities where their most critical values and customs are commonly held.
If enough people in a certain geographical area are willing to fund violence to stop abortion, why would any pro-choicers stick around? For reasons explained a thousand other times, it wouldn't be practical for a community where abortion is a crime to produce a super army of pro-lifers to take over the rest of civilization. I think there would be a natural segregation of hardcore pro-lifers and everyone else.
Seraiah:If a baby will one day have the ability to exercise its rights, it has the same protections as any other human being. The mother *is* the slave to the baby until the baby is born, at which point the mother must not put the baby in harms way.
If the argument against abortion is based on future rights, then abortion is OK so long as we can reasonably know that it won't have one day have the ability to exercise those rights. Like if prenatal monitoring determines that the baby will be born with serious defects, making it unlikely to live more than a year after birth. Since that baby won't one day have the ability to exercise its rights, then we can abort it, right?
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
If a baby will one day have the ability to exercise its rights, it has the same protections as any other human being. The mother *is* the slave to the baby until the baby is born, at which point the mother must not put the baby in harms way. This is not ideal, but it is a fact of human development. Mothers property rights < (Babies rights + life)
Morality, ethics and law are not precisely the same things, though they do inform each other.
The law is the enforcement of ethical principles between legal subjects. The trouble is that it is extremely problematic to describe a person who does not exist as a legal subject. Therefore, though abortion may violate an ethical principle, it cannot violate a legal principle due to the absence of an infringed interest on the part of an existing person. The law can only employ fictions to allow otherwise.
A similar situation would exist in the hypothetical case that someone is murdered, and he has no heirs, relatives or anyone willing to prosecute on his behalf. Private law might be inapplicable against the murderer, but he obviously violated an ethical principle. Abortion is no different, except that in every case there will be no one who can file suit on behalf of the child, so abortion is never illegal as a principle, as sobering as this observation may be.
To employ a religious metaphor, one might say that there are certain crimes only God can judge.
mikachusetts wrote the following post at 05-12-2011 3:09 PM:
That would be up to the mother. As an added point, it seems like it would be perfectly legitimate for a mother to pass on the costs of child birth to the child when he/she becomes independent. The begging question though is, "How much should we be willing to pay on the childs behalf?" and there's no easy answer other than, "However much you would be willing to pay to save your own life?" "Private law might be inapplicable against the murderer..." This is an interesting point that has broader implications. Can anyone prosecute another person on the victims behalf, even without the victims permission? It would seem to me that you can. After all, right, wrong, and justice are not dependent on anyones permission. I think the important thing to note is that the problems revolving around particular circumstances can really be resolved another time. When a mother kills a perfectly healthy baby under normal conditions it is an act of murder against another human being. There are alot of gray areas in life, but this is not one of them, and incidentally this is the case of the vast majority of abortions. We really don't need to get into debates like, "If you know the baby is going to kill billions of human beings, is it alright to abort him in the womb? Given that you absolutely know it's true." Abortion is wrong in princible, I'll put it that way.
"Private law might be inapplicable against the murderer..." This is an interesting point that has broader implications. Can anyone prosecute another person on the victims behalf, even without the victims permission? It would seem to me that you can. After all, right, wrong, and justice are not dependent on anyones permission.
This is an interesting point that has broader implications. Can anyone prosecute another person on the victims behalf, even without the victims permission? It would seem to me that you can. After all, right, wrong, and justice are not dependent on anyones permission.
In criminal law as it currently stands, cases are normally referred to as "The State/Sovereign v The Accused".
Who exactly takes the place of the state or sovereign under a system of exclusively private law? Even the present system recognises that you can't prosecute a case if you don't have a valid legal interest, or aren't representing someone who does, which is why there's the fiction of the state for purposes of public criminal law.
Still, it's not like you or a whole private community can't kick someone out of your property for violating your terms of occupancy.
I think the important thing to note is that the problems revolving around particular circumstances can really be resolved another time. When a mother kills a perfectly healthy baby under normal conditions it is an act of murder against another human being. There are alot of gray areas in life, but this is not one of them, and incidentally this is the case of the vast majority of abortions. We really don't need to get into debates like, "If you know the baby is going to kill billions of human beings, is it alright to abort him in the womb? Given that you absolutely know it's true." Abortion is wrong in princible, I'll put it that way.
Abortion is wrong in princible, I'll put it that way.
This isn't just an unsolved problem from a modern libertarian perspective. The Roman law jurists had to invent the "nasciturus fiction" to allow for an unborn child to be considered alive for legal purposes when it is subsequently born alive, and where to do so would be to the benefit of the child, e.g. to allow them to inherit.
It's called a "fiction" because it envisions the existence of a person who does not exist at the time a cause of action arises, and that's not logical.
Seraiah:I don't find Hoppe's argument convincing,
Not familiar with Hoppe's argument
Seraiah:The mother *is* the slave to the baby until the baby is born
On the basis of your arbitrary values perhaps, but not on the basis of property rights. Slavery (involuntary servitude) on the basis of a right to self-ownership is a contradiction in terms.
You ended up supporting my argument. The fetus is there by consent of the mother. If the mother withdraws this consent, and force or threat of force is used against her in order to prevent her exercise of free choice to expel the "intruder", then she effectively becomes a slave. But not a slave to the fetus (that's another fallacy of yours), but to those aggressors that are now preventing her right to exercise her free will regarding her own body.
You forget that the right to self-ownership and property is conditioned on not violating others's rights.
Oh boy, where to begin. "Not familiar with Hoppe's argument" You're not or I'm not? If you're not it's strangely almost identical. If you believe I'm not, well that's you're opinion. "On the basis of your arbitrary values..." Pointless statement. What values are not arbitrary? Including respecting another persons personal property. I'll take it that you're just throwing jabs at me for no real reason. If so *jab back.* haha... "Slavery (involuntary servitude) on the basis of a right to self-ownership is a contradiction in terms." There is a conflict not a contradiction. I stated that the mothers right to self ownership is not absolute when concerning both the babies right to self ownership and its life. On the one hand you're respecting the mothers rights to self ownership and on the other hand you don't respect the childs rights to self ownership or even its life, would you please distinguish why you don't respect the childs rights or life? "Not a slave to the fetus..." Mere semantics. One must make decisions on behalf of the child. If the mother does not respect the childs life then others are morally obligated to step in and protect the child. Whether you want to say the child is enslaving the mother or others are enslaving the mother is really unimportant. Perhaps I have made an incorrect assumption here. Do libertarians value human life? I would like to note again that under ideal conditions where people just popped into existence fully formed none of this would be an issue and you could make up absolutes like, "A mother has complete authority over her own body." and such, but the fact of the matter is that we don't come into this world fully formed. It is an imperfect system, right in the beginning both the childs rights and the mothers rights are infringed upon. For more than a decade we are inherently dependent on others for our survival. They need us and we are obligated to help them. I'm sure this is very much common sense in your personal life, so I struggle to see why it's so controversial in philosophical discourse.
"It's called a 'fiction' because it envisions the existence of a person who does not exist at the time a cause of action arises, and that's not logical." Neat. I don't agree with the Romans though. A fetus did not give birth to me. I was once a fetus. You were once a fetus. A fetus is the early stage of a person, followed by baby, toddler, adolescant, adult, and elderly. That's all there is to it. "Who exactly takes the place of the state or sovereign under a system of exclusively private law?" Well if it's considered legitimate for a state to prosecute those murders, then its legitimate for private law to prosecute those murders. If you don't think it's legitimate, then how can you argue that a family has legal standing? They weren't murdered, nor was their personal property effected.
Seraiah:"On the basis of your arbitrary values..." Pointless statement. What values are not arbitrary? Including respecting another persons personal property.
Pointless statement. What values are not arbitrary? Including respecting another persons personal property.
You asked about the perspective of libertariansim. If you wanted to hear just more arbitrary values that do not respect persons and property, why did you ask your question here?
Seraiah:would you please distinguish why you don't respect the childs rights or life?
It is nonsense to claim that human life is always and everywhere sacred. No conflicts could be resolved.
An intruder has no rights to his own body when you attempt to expel him. A rapist has no rights to his own body when you attempt to defend yourself.
What distinguishes the intruder from a guest?
What distinguishes the rapist from a lover?
A: One simple word: Consent!
Seraiah:Perhaps I have made an incorrect assumption here. Do libertarians value human life?
Empty rhetoric. Even a thief and a rapist can value human life if they object to killing their victims.
Libertarians value self-ownership.
You know, reactions like yours are funny. I suppose statists that basically force you to finance abortions value life more.
I'm on board with the idea that the mother has a right to her own body. No issue. I'm also on board with the idea that I have a right to my own home. They're both one's property.
The problem I have is with the idea that if some kid comes to my house selling Girl Scout cookies that I have the right to murder them and dump their body in the street. I mean, they're violating my property and I can expel them, right?
Mtn Dew: I'm on board with the idea that the mother has a right to her own body. No issue. I'm also on board with the idea that I have a right to my own home. They're both one's property. The problem I have is with the idea that if some kid comes to my house selling Girl Scout cookies that I have the right to murder them and dump their body in the street. I mean, they're violating my property and I can expel them, right?
This is the same problem I have with pro abortion arguements as well. This a subject where the idea of proportionality is ignored. As a property owner you have the right to remove an unwanted tresspasser at will. But you do not have the right to do so by any means neccessary. The only time lethal force is justifiable is if the trespasser uses lethal force to remain.
If applied to abortion then the woman has a right to remove the child intact. But killing the baby in the womb and then removing the dead body is beyond the rights of the woman.
Mtn Dew:The problem I have is with the idea that if some kid comes to my house selling Girl Scout cookies that I have the right to murder them and dump their body in the street.
non-sequitur.
You also, have put forward a false analogy. The girl is only an intruder if you do not consent to here presence and she refuses to leave.
Also, proportional reaction and response to property violators is another issue. I don't believe there is a formula you can use to figure out what is appropriate and what is not. The market would have to sort out what is acceptable and what is not.
However, a proper analogy would be as follows: The girl by some means, permanently attaches herself physically to your body living off you parasitically and there is no possible way to ever expel her without killing her.