You asked me to cite, and I did. Now I ask you to, again, because your first response—"Rothbard (I'm fairly sure) agrees with me in his chapter on abortion"—won't do. What does Rothbard have to say about the property rights of fetuses?
hashem:
As far as I've read, he only touches on the subject when addressing abortion, and he leaves the question unanswered. He does this because he's writing about abortion, and in that context, it doesn't matter. A fetus would not have the right to stay inside the mother either way. He does, however, write that potential adults are self-owners and that all self-owers have the right to be free from aggression.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Fair enough, I'll cite my claim:
Let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beings—or, more broadly, potential human beings—and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.
Rothbard concedes with my argument that, even though fetuses have full human rights, they can be evicted from the body of their "unwilling human host."
He does, however, write that potential adults are self-owners and that all self-owers have the right to be free from aggression.
This. Exactly what I was getting at.
JackCuyler, you are lying and you don't know anything about Rothbard's position, that's why you won't quote him.
In fact, he has a lot to say about the fetus, and his answer is solid, not "unanswered". Ironically for you, but not surprisingly for libertarianism, he agrees with me explicitly in several areas that are key to his overall argument.
First, you explicitly lied about what Rothbard said. You said, "He does, however, write that potential adults are self-owners." But Rothbard said the newborn is not a self-owner: "it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner" and "A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense". He also said the newborn is a potential adult, so it is because the newborn is a non-self-owner, potential-adult that your statement is explicitly the polar opposite of Rothbard's position: "In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult."
And if a baby is not a self-owner, then a fortiori neither is the fetus: "no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either."
Rothbard argues that once a fetus becomes an individual baby, quote, "as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within the mother's body", it therefore has the right of self-ownership. Thus, abortion is the mother's property right, and only once a baby is a born individual "must it therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person."
This all leads to RothbadDisciple's wild misrepresentation of Rothbard, where he quoted Rothbard to try to say that Rothbard was saying precisely ther opposite of what he did in fact say. That is why in RD's quote, Rothbard says, "let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beings—or, more broadly, potential human beings—and are therefore entitled to full human rights." He is conceding strictly for the sake of argument, because his actual position is explicitly that fetuses don't qualify for human rights, and human rights are just property rights (thus the following chapter on Human Rights as Property Rights). Take together with the next chapter, the argument can be summed as follows: fetuses don't qualify for property rights, because they aren't individuals and "human rights" are actually property rights for individuals.
But, of course, his argument was that fetuses definitely don't have property rights. And his argument was also consistent with mine because he ultimately agrees with his conclusion: "For the child has hisfull rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature."
That's what I've been saying. A fetus doesn't have property rights, but an acting individual thereby gains them.
You guys have it so backwards you're literally quoting the authority who agrees with me to show that he agrees with you.
Hashem-
A few issues with your points. Rothbard does in fact write: "every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult." I concede to this. However, that does not imply Rothbard does not see fetuses' as also having rights. That's where I think you are wildly wrong. I think that Rothbard actually does believe that fetuses have full rights, just like all other people. It would, indeed, be a contradiction to say otherwise. For a fetus, too, is a potential adult. The reason the "seperateness" of the mother and fetus is important -- contrary to hashem's emphasis that the seperation is necessary for the fetus to have a property right in his person -- is that the fetus is no longer violating the mother's right to self-ownership by being an "invader" within her womb. (Note how Rothbard uses terms such as "invader" to show how he is applying equal rights to the fetus). What Rothbard says about self-ownership in the passage I quoted is specifically intended to emphasize the parent's absolute negative obligation not to kill or maim their new baby. I believe that, according to Rothbard's theories, the parents have the same negative obligation toward the fetus. For example, it would clearly be legal to pull the fetus parasite out of the womb, but there is a negative obligation not to shoot the dying fetus when it is outside the womb. It would, in fact, clearly be illegal by Rothbardian ethics to shoot a dying fetus, external to the womb. And, lastly, you quote when Rothbard says "the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature." But you misinterpret this too. Note that Rothbard says "FULL" (emphasis added) rights of self-ownership. This goes back to the concept that children are non-fee-simple property of the parents; there are certain rules and conditions which they cannot break as terms of being on their parents' property. So, to repeat, Rothbard is merely clarifying when the child has his rights in full. Contrary to you, Rothbard is not implying that babies or fetuses have no rights because they haven't rationally acted and demonstrated them yet; he is merely saying they have partial rights.
I think that Rothbard actually does believe that fetuses have full rights, just like all other people. Except that he says precisely the opposite, and the burden of quote is on you. Clearly, the entire point of the chapter is to distinguish fetuses/children from "all other people", to determine when and how a human get rights: "There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership?"
It is noteworthy that when he says "we have established", he was referring to previous chapters, where we learn that rights are property rights for acting individuals based on our needs in a social environment of scarcity. Thus the point of this chapter on children and rights. And his conclusion is that "the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature."
We know that he doesn't believe a fetus has greater rights than the newborn who hasn't demonstrated his self-ownership, becuase of another quote, "Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either."
Stop trying to claim that Rothbard supports your view when he explicitly and manifestly supports my view. Especially if I'm providing the quotes that show his support of my side, while you are telling us what you "think that Rothbard actually does believe" based on no quotations and against quotes already provided.
Um...OK. Relax. Look, I provided great analysis of the passage above, and you've yet to refute my points. I showed how you were misinterpreting the quotes YOU provided based upon analysis of subtle details in the quotes, which you clearly missed.
Look, you've yet to provide any evidence for your view either. Just as I have not been able to find a quote that states more or less "fetuses have rights," you have not been able to find a quote that says "fetuses don't have rights." You are also basing your view on interpretation of his arguments, which (I think) is the wrong interpretation. And I use phrases such as "I think" and "I believe" just as Rothbard used phrases such as "in my opinion" when he thought things were absolutely true. It's because I'm not wanting to come across as arrogant or conceited in my interpretation. I'm genuinely enjoying this discussion with you.
Again, relax. We're two Rothbardians who are both pro-choice. We just have different interpretations of the text, in which we are trying to find out what Rothbard implicitly means (rather than explicitly states). In my opinion, Rothbard would agree that it would be contradictory under any argument for abortion not to suppose the fetus as having limited self-ownership rights. Because, just like the infant, the fetus is a potential adult. The only difference is the separation, which, in my opinion, you are over-emphasizing. I showed why I think Rothbard put the idea about separation of the baby from the womb in the text. In my view, the fact that Rothbard thinks the baby has limited rights is the most damaging blow to your side. For the baby is not a rational actor either, but a potential self-owner. This is the same with the fetus. Does your view reject Rothbard's view that babies have limited rights? Seeing that you keep bringing up this argument that the child ONLY has self-ownership rights when he demonstrates them in nature. But wait. Rothbard didn't say that. He said that's when children have FULL self-ownership rights. That's a bit of a different statement than what you suppose. He implicitly states (!) that people who haven't acted yet (fetuses and newborns!) have PARTIAL self-ownership right. You have to understand this.
If Rothbard actually supports your view, I'm willing to change my mind. I'm simply unconvinced of your argument, due to the many arguments I brought up which refuted your arguments.
"Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either."
Rothbard's stating what no human would have a right to, thereby implying that fetuses do have some limited rights. For example, if a fetus could live outside of the womb, there would clearly be negative obligations on how you could treat it, just as Rothbard say there would be negative obligations with infants. For instance, if the fetus was living extra-uterine, you could not stab the fetus. That would be a violation of its limited self-property-right, in the Rothbardian ethic system.
"While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formulation makes birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork in the theory of self-ownership."
This quote I provided specifically refutes your view on Rothbard's theory. The usual formulation - of which Rothbard speaks - is the pro-abortionist view that the fetus is NOT an imminently potential person. Rothbard, by saying that this view/formulation is arbitrary, also implies that he thinks it's arbitrary to see fetuses as NOT-imminently-potential-persons. This is how you see fetuses, and this is exactly what he sees as being arbitrary. He sees it as arbitrary to say that fetuses don't have property rights in their person before birth. That's why he proposes his NEW system of demarcation, in contrast to your old one. He wants to show that, even though fetuses have property in their person, they are still not being aggressed against by being evicted.
hashem, I have been nothing but civil to you, and I'm politely asking for civility from you. That precludes name-calling and attacks on my personal character. If I make a factually incorrect statement, or misinterpret a quote, it's simply because I'm wrong or have made an error, not because I'm lying. You could have accused me of making an honest mistake, being misinformed, being ignorant, misreading, being just plain wrong, but instead you chose to attack my character. It does not reflect well on you. I am not a liar, and I have not lied one in these forums. I'm here to learn. I have nothing to gain from lying. In short, lighten up. ;-)
Now that that's out of the way, I'd like you to take a look at what I wrote, and when necessary, compare it to what Rothbard wrote:
Me: As far as I've read, he only touches on the subject when addressing abortion, and he leaves the question unanswered.
You cannot refute the first sentence without knowing what I have read. I assure you it is absolutely true. If he has written on the subject of fetal rights outside of the context of abortion, I am not aware of it, and I'd love to read it.
You have to take the second part of that sentence along with the next two, as I explain what I meant in the latter two:
Me: He does this because he's writing about abortion, and in that context, it doesn't matter. A fetus would not have the right to stay inside the mother either way.
No where in The Ethics of Liberty or in Children and Rights does Rothbard ever specifically claim that a fetus has or does not have rights. His position is, consistently, a woman has a right to remove the fetus from her body regardless of whether the fetus has rights or not. He leaves the question of fetal rights unanswered because it is immaterial to the question of abortion.
You responded to this with four quotes.
“no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either."
“it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner."
"A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense"
"In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult."
The first quote is an odd choice, as in that section, Rothbard is conceding, for the sake of argument, that the unborn are “entitled to full human rights...” He goes on to say, born humans with full human rights do not have the “right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host,” so neither would the unborn with full human rights.
You left off the end of the second quote, so I added it back in for you, with my bolding, Rothbard's italics. When you include the left-off part of the quote, it's exactly what I have been saying all along – babies are potential self-owners.
The third quote is also consistent with my statement, as it is merely a restatement of the second quote, existent meaning currently or actually, as opposed to potentially.
I'm surprised by your choice of posting the fourth quote, as it refutes your position entirely. Here Rothbard explicitly states that newborn babies have the right of self-ownership because newborn babies are potential adults.
You are reading too much into my reply. I'm not claiming Rothbard wrote that a fetus was a self-owner. He didn't, as far as I know. However, he did explicitly call a new born baby, “as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body,” a self-owner, and gave the reason as because it is a potential adult.
My own belief, which is taking Rothbard's statements further than he probably intended, is that all potential adults, even the unborn, also possess the right to self-ownership. This in no way conflicts with his position on abortion. A woman has the right to remove a parasite regardless of the status of that parasite's rights.
You guys are dumb, and I mean that literally, not as a personal attack. This isn't even worth the time.
Rothbard so obviously supports my position, that anyone who can read that chapter will know this. I have quoted half the chapter in my posts, and somehow you feel that Rothbard supports YOU, which is ludicrous.
Rothbard's position is like my position: The mother has the right to abort, and the fetus doesn't have property rights, and it doesn't even get property rights until it acts as an individual.
The end.
The chapters prior to this one deduce why rights are property rights for acting individuals based on our needs in a social environment of scarcity. That's why this chapter exists in the first place: to distinguish between "all other people" and fetuses/newborns, because as Rothbard said, we know that acting individuals have rights, now HOW and WHEN do they get them. His answer is that they get them by acting as individuals. Fetuses don't have property rights.
If Rothbard thinks exactly and only this, then WHY does he clearly say a newborn - who has not yet acted! - has self-ownership property rights, and that you have a negative obligation not to aggress against the newborn?
Thanks for calling us dumb, but Jack explicitly explained why you are being obtuse, as did I. We're just trying to learn and have a friendly conversation. As Jack said, lighten up.
You guys are dumb, and I mean that literally, not as a personal attack.
How could you possibly know if I have the ability to speak?
Well I feel like I'm talking with three year olds, so if you ask me to lighten up, then pardon me for asking you to listen up.
WHY does he clearly say a newborn - who has not yet acted! - has self-ownership property rights This is a good question, the passage you are referencing answers the question, all you have to do is actually read it:
Thus, the answer to your question "why does he hsay a newborn has self-ownership rights", is because the newborn is, quote, "therefore...a separate entity and a potential adult."
He never says you have an obligation not to damage the fetus. He DOES say, that once the fetus becomes a newborn self, that it "therefore" has self-ownership rights, and—these are his words—"It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person."
His argument is entirely that humans get property rights AFTER they are born individuals. You would know this if you read the previous chapters, where he thoroughly examines WHY we have rights. This chapter goes over HOW we get rights, the previous chapters discuss WHY we have rights.
Follow the therefores. Trace the origin and role of property rights.
So after a newborn is born, but BEFORE it rationally acts, it has rights? How is this possible? Rothbard answers this with what I've been saying all along: Potential rational actors have rights. I've yet to see your take.
As an aside, I was wrong about him leaving the question of fetal righs unanswered. He clearly says that rights are aquired at birth. I was not lying. I was wrong. I was spot on when I said that Rothbard wrote that potential adults have rights. He says repeatedly.
JackCuyler You may be the first person in history to admit fault on the internet. Respect.
Anyways, according to you Rothbard said two different things. Given the history of people misrepresenting Rothbard, I will assume you're wrong until you provide the relevant passage for each: "Potential rational actors have rights." "potential adults have rights."
Notice, Rothbard does a weird thing. He distinguishes between A) "the right of self-ownership", which a newborn has "by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult", and B) "full rights of self-ownership" which are acquired "when he demonstrates that he has them in nature."
What he is saying is that an individual human gains the right to a property in his person, but he gains full property rights when he acts as an individual. So an individual human is a self-owner once he acts, and therefore has property rights beyond the property in his person. So yes, an individual potential adult has a right—the right of self-ownership. But an individual self-owner has full property rights.
Hashem,
As you have so perfectly stated, all rights are property rights. I cannot answer your question because I do not see a difference between the two. All others, including parents, do not have the right to aggress upon the person of a newborn. That is all any property right would ever demand. What would make this right, "full"?
As an aside, I was wrong about him leaving the question of fetal rights unanswered. He clearly says that rights are aquired at birth.
But you missed the reason why Rothbard makes this distinction. He does this because this is when the right actually comes into its own, i.e., when it actually matters.
Rothbard, I am certain, would agree with me that an extra-uterine fetus, on which you can pull the plug, could not be shot with a shotgun. Because all potential human adults have self-ownership rights, including fetuses. The thing is, there are no positive obligations, only negative ones. Because, in this day and age, birth becomes the time when negative obligations really matter, that's why Rothbard makes the distinction. Just like infants, there are certain negative obligations with fetuses. I wish Rothbard would have elaborated on this more, but I'm 100% sure he'd agree if it was possible to ask him right now.
Negative obligations apply to fetuses, they just aren't being violated by abortion. And that is what I think Rothbard meant. Negative obligations exist in the womb, but in reality this distinction is not generally applicable. Hence Rothbard's use of "therefore" that you brought up.
I'd like to see a citation where Rothbard says there are no negative obligations toward the fetus. Because I think there are.
I made the claim that Rothbard left the question of fetal rights unanswered. I was simply correctting my error. You posted the answer without the question. He writes, "[B]irth is indeed the proper line of demarcation...." in answer to, "But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?"
Hey Jack. I wrote about my own views on Rothbard's line of demarcation (in its specific context) a few posts ago. I think it is textually supported.
ME: "This quote I provided specifically refutes your view on Rothbard's theory. The usual formulation - of which Rothbard speaks - is the pro-abortionist view that the fetus is NOT an imminently potential person. Rothbard, by saying that this view/formulation is arbitrary, also implies that he thinks it's arbitrary to see fetuses as NOT-imminently-potential-persons. This is how you see fetuses, and this is exactly what he sees as being arbitrary. He sees it as arbitrary to say that fetuses don't have property rights in their person before birth. That's why he proposes his NEW system of demarcation, in contrast to your old one. He wants to show that, even though fetuses have property in their person, they are still not being aggressed against by being evicted."
I think you and I are taking Rothbard's ideas to their logical conclusion, but that doesn't mean we are in agreement with him. He drew the line, arbitrarily in my opinion, at birth. It's not that first time I've disagreed with Rothbard, but it's a rare occourance. I'm okay with that.
I'd like to see a citation where Rothbard says there are no negative obligations toward the fetus. Because I think there are. Again with the no-quote thinking. If you think Rothbard supports negative obligations to the fetus, then prove it, don't say you think so. Although—and I don't mean to beat a dead horse—the flow of the chapter is to show the mother's rights against the fetus AND the newborn, and if Rothbard has so much to say on the negative obligations toward a fetus then show us.
JackCuyler, I've read a decent amount of Rothbard and my understanding is that yes, all rights are property rights. The distinction that he appears to be making then is specific to a newborn: it has a property right in its person—"the right of self-ownership", the right to not be aggressed against—by virtue of being an individual human being, but it doesn't have the right to property in other things (the "full rights of self-ownership") until it acts. Maybe That's an hour after its born, maybe its a month, Rothbard doesn't say. An important point remains that there are other factors in the property rights equation.
Thus, the rest of the book. Particularly the preceeding chapters. Notice again, he begins this chapter by reminding of the previous chapters: "We have now established...There remains, however, the difficult case..."
As far as babies owning property goes, I'm not sure I agree, though I'm not even sure with whom I'm possibly disagreeing. It's quite a dilema. There have been some libertarian writings mentioning inherritance rights of children, even the unborn, though they are few and far between. That's why I wondered aloud earlier if Rothbard had ever touched on the subject of unborn rights outside of the context of abortion.
I'm just thiking virtually out loud here, so feel free to ignore...
A baby cannot mix its labor with the land, so it certainly cannot homestead anything. Can someone own a gift without acting? It's conceiveable. I would think that a newborn owns its first teddy bear, even if its never seen it yet. On the other hand, I suppose a baby's parents/guardians could confiscate any gifts and justify it as rent or some similar concept, so that pretty much covers gifts, anyway.
Actually, if you are interested in Rothbard's opinions on child raising, and specifically his ideas of when a child sheds the custodial/trusteeship ties to his parents, check out the Kid Lib section of Egalitarianism as a Revold Against Nature and Other Essays. His writing in this is much more conversational and less textbooky, and he gets pretty snarky at times. I find this style much more pleasurable to read than some of his other works. I really enjoyed those other works,. too, but this one is just that much better. The man certainly had a gift when it came to communicating his ideas.
But suppose that technology has advanced to the point where the aborted fetus could be kept alive in a "test tube". Should the mother or the parents have a legally enforceable obligation to keep the now separated fetus alive? But, once again, this brings us to the general problem of the sick or the helpless. How much resources are the parents to be coerced into committing in order to keep the fetus alive? Two trillion dollars? We are back, in short, to the important lesson of the Karen Quinlan case--that there can be no legal obligation (though there may be a moral one) to keep "the plug" in place: that is, in short, a vital philosophical distinction--and one particularly vital to libertarians--between murder, a violent act of aggression, and "pulling the plug", that is, deciding not to commit resources--not to engage in further positive actions--to keep someone else alive. Murder is criminal, pulling the plug is licit. Even if, in cases as the fetus or Karen Quinlan, the distinction seems to make little difference to the dying person, it obviously makes a great deal of difference to the alleged "murderer."
WRONG AGAIN. THAT ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY WE HAVE NEGATIVE OBLIGATIONS TOWARD A FETUS.
I am not sure Rothbard wrote the article you're referencing. Anyways, I read the article. It is about the property rights of the mother.
As a side note, if fetuses have so much property rights, where's all the writing on them? This article was written because "The abortion question continues to be a difficult one for many libertarians, and hence deserves some extended analysis." Well, if the property rights of—and negative obligations toward—fetuses was a difficult one for libertarians, then we should expect to see many articles extending analysis there. Where are they....? We don't find them in the writings of Rothbard, because anyone who has actually read a lot of his stuff will understand that he doesn't believe fetuses have property rights or that we have negative obligations towards them.
My argument is consistent with Rothbard's, and I didn't even get it from him. It's just based on standard libertarian views on the origins and role of property rights. You should go back and re-study about that, because you are making mistakes. All anti-abortionist "libertarians" are making mistakes. The fetus doesn't have property rights. The end. The reference you cited is near the end of the article. It says that IF there was ever a world where fetuses could be kept alive in test tubes, that we would THEN have an obligation not to attack the fetus, but we would not be obligated NOT to pull the plug. It doesn't say anything about normal fetuses, and rightly so.
Rothbard doesn't argue that we have negative obligations against fetuses.
You guys are talking past each other. Disciple is using the strange term extra-uterine fetus (outside of the uterus) . That means it was born somehow -- premature natural birth, some kind of induced labor or a Caesarian? Is there another way? In any event, if the fetus is still alive and on the outside, it has the right to be free from aggression. I wouldn't call killing it abortion, though.
I would include that the umbilical cord needs to be cut. The point of an individual is that it is entirely separate (in the way white is entirely void of black). But the umbilical cord represents a significant connection, for many reasons other than the fact that it is literally a live support mechanism that joins them.
All anti-abortionist "libertarians" are making mistakes. The fetus doesn't have property rights. The end.
I'm not an anti-abortionist, though.
(1) The reference you cited is near the end of the article. It says that IF there was ever a world where fetuses could be kept alive in test tubes, that we would THEN have an obligation not to attack the fetus, but we would not be obligated NOT to pull the plug. It doesn't say anything about normal fetuses, and rightly so. (2) Rothbard doesn't argue that we have negative obligations against fetuses.
(1) The reference you cited is near the end of the article. It says that IF there was ever a world where fetuses could be kept alive in test tubes, that we would THEN have an obligation not to attack the fetus, but we would not be obligated NOT to pull the plug. It doesn't say anything about normal fetuses, and rightly so.
(2) Rothbard doesn't argue that we have negative obligations against fetuses.
Proposition (2) contradicts proposition (1). Rothbard specifically states that, in this particular case, there are negative obligations with fetuses. What he is talking about is a fetus: simply an extra-uterine one. This also applies with normal fetuses, except that normal fetuses are parasitic invaders, so this nuanced point is rendered moot. I've acknowledged this the whole time. Also, Rothbard did write that article for sure. Please do your own research on things of that nature, if you like.
What he is talking about is a fetus: simply an extra-uterine one. No. The distinction is not "simply" that the fetus happens to be outside the uteris! The X (call it whatever you want), being as it is A) outside of the mother's body, B) not depending on her, and C) not physically connected to her with living tissue, has the right of self-ownership; that is, the right of an individual potential adult to be free from agression
Again, he is not arguing about the rights of fetuses, he isn't even writing about negative obligations towards "fetuses proper". He is writing about the application of property rights in a situation that he admits is purely hypothetical. In fact, the whole entire point of mentioning the extreme hypothetical is to distinguish (that is, to point out the distinct difference) between normal fetuses. The difference, of course, is that a normal fetus is not an individual.
HE NEVER ARGUES THAT WE HAVE NEGATIVE OBLIGATIONS TOWARDS FETUSES (INSIDE A MOTHER'S WOMB).
Rothbard's position on child neglect was backed up with substantial logic. He outlined two principles: (1) Person A being helpless does not entail that Person B is responsible for Person A, and (2) Person B being the creator of Person A does not entail that Person B has a responsibility to provide for Person A. This is following strict voluntarist logic: there is no initiation of force involved in child neglect. The child does not have the "right" to shelter, food, etc. since these are positives, and "rights" is a negative term. If there is a disagreement with principle 1, there is no problem with socialism. If there is a disagreement with principle 2, parents must always be forced to provide for their offspring throughout their entire lives. It's notable, however, that child neglect would be scarce in a free society since selling children would be permissible, and everyone who doesn't care about their children that much would sell them to make a few bucks.
On the other hand, there is a contradiction with his abortion position. He lays out the fallacious line of though that pregnancy is a positive and abortion is a negative when, in fact, the opposite is true. Let me lay out a parallel analogy: you own yourself, you own your labor, and therefore own the fruits of your labor, thus establishing private property rights. You have ownership of your property just as you have ownership of your person. Let us imagine you have your baby in your car. You are on the highway going 70mph and the baby keeps crying -- he won't shut up! Because this is a LONG road trip and there is no way to stop the motion of your vehicle until you arrive to your destination, you take the baby and throw him out of your car window. The grabbing and throwing of the baby is the initiation of aggression and is therefore illegal in a voluntarist society. You have just effectively murdered your baby. Another parallel analogy: you live in Hawaii with a balcony over a volcano. One night, you have a cocktail party and realize one person on your balcony is VERY annoying. You push him into the volcano. Again, this is what we call "murder." Following Rothbard's principle that you would be violating your children's rights by stabbing him, even if on your property, abortion must also be illegal.
A counter argument that was made to me for this was that property is alienable, while man's will is not. However, the pregnancy is not the initiation of force to curve the woman's will. The woman has the right to not consume the necessary nutrients to keep the baby alive. The woman has the right to not do anything during labor. Both these things would be extremely idiotic, but she has the right to do it, nevertheless. What the woman does not have the right to do is aggress upon the innocent child via "pushing him into hot lava."
Josh,
You're missing Rithbard's point that rights (the obligations of others to refrain from aggression) are aquired at birth. If you assign rights to those Rothbard does not, it's likely you will disagree. However, to your point, would you consider a Caesarian to be analogous to throwing a baby out a car window or putting a tresspaesser in your home out on the sidwalk as gently as possible?
JackCuyler: Josh, You're missing Rithbard's point that rights (the obligations of others to refrain from aggression) are aquired at birth. If you assign rights to those Rothbard does not, it's likely you will disagree.
You're missing Rithbard's point that rights (the obligations of others to refrain from aggression) are aquired at birth. If you assign rights to those Rothbard does not, it's likely you will disagree.
This is his view, but makes no argument for it because, as he admits, there is absolutely no rational argument to make that would reach such a conclusion. This is why all his abortion arguments are assuming that the fetus has the same rights as any other person. From Ethics of Liberty:
"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership."
Scientifically, it's irrefutable: a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. Drawling a line of obtaining rights contingent on the baby reaching a certain age is merely arbitrary.
However, to your point, would you consider a Caesarian to be analogous to throwing a baby out a car window or putting a tresspaesser in your home out on the sidwalk as gently as possible?
It's putting a person gently on the sidewalk (although "trespasser" would be a fallacious term in regard to the baby within the mother).
A counter argument that was made to me for this was that property is alienable, while man's will is not. However, the pregnancy is not the initiation of force to curve the woman's will.
Josh- The issue here is that you are not seeing the fetus as a parasitic invader, hence initiating a grave degree of force against the mother's body by coercively leeching off the host. I note body because that is where the difference between the alienability of property and the inalienability of person comes up.
Hashem- Practically (note practically), I agree with what you are saying about Rothbard's stance, but for slightly different reasons. Fetuses practically have no rights, since you can consider their rights nullified: they are parasitic invaders of a person's body. And that's what Rothbard says, clearly. Fetuses have already aggressed against an unwilling mother, hence why the mother can thus evict them. And, like I said, practically this amounts to a nullification of the fetuses' rights. But, in my view, if someone took a shotgun to a woman's womb, that would both be aggression against the fetus as a potential self-owner and the mother, presuming she didn't consent.
RothbardsDisciple:Josh- The issue here is that you are not seeing the fetus as a parasitic invader, hence initiating a grave degree of force against the mother's body by coercively leeching off the host. I note body because that is where the difference between the alienability of property and the inalienability of person comes up.
"Body" and "will" are not the same thing. Your body is your property, just as property that you have acquired with the labor of your body is your property. To claim otherwise would be to say that you can't donate a kidney, since the property can never be transferred if it is part of the body (or, at least, you would have the "right" to claim your kidney back at any time).
But, in my view, if someone took a shotgun to a woman's womb, that would both be aggression against the fetus as a potential self-owner and the mother, presuming she didn't consent.
How is it aggression against the child? According to your logic, the baby is a mere "intruder" (false) and can be killed as an act of self-defense (although you advocate for proportional punishment and having no such right to kill intruders in any other circumstance). Therefore, the man shooting the baby would simply be saving the woman from the intrusion.
Applying this principle that you can't shoot innocent babies (what a concept!), then you must be opposed to stabbing them. When fetuses get too big, their lower bodies can be pulled out of the womb, but their head won't fit (worth noting that they're fully conscious and aware at this point). Abortionists pull out the lower part of the body, and what do they do to make the head fit? They take a sharp object and jab it through the neck of the baby, crushing its skull in, and then sliding the baby out this way. This is called partial-birth abortion and was outlawed in 2003. Now, there is a contradiction: is partial-birth abortion murder, since you do not have the right to stab fetuses, or is it within the woman's rights, since it's "slavery" if she is "forced" to carry the fetus?
Newbie here. Question, Does the mother have any responsibility to the fetus because of the fact that she most likely had before hand knowledge of the possibility that she could become pregnant from having intercourse? I don't see how a fetus can be compared to a parasite(in the sense that it is unwanted) if the mother willingly took part in the action of intercourse while having before hand knowledge that it could lead to pregnancy. Isn't that kind of like saying if someone jumps off a freeway overpass onto my car with the intent to commit suicide while I drive down the freeway and it kills them that I murdered them? Or like if I tell you to punch me in the face, you do it, then I accuse you of assault for giving me a black eye even know I full well knew that you punching me in the face could give me a black eye before hand?
Josh:"Body" and "will" are not the same thing.
Fair point. Let me elaborate. To be more general, the person is inalienable, as an extension of the will. So, for example, if I signed a contract that said you could legally chop my arm off 3 months from now, that contract could not be enforced; for to do so, in violating my physical body, you have violated the objection of my (current) will. The will is mutable and ever changing. That is why the individual as a whole, in addition to the individual's will, is inalienable. Now let me add that this is presuming your body is attached to you, and you have not legally sold a part of your body to someone else as property. Once a body part is no longer attached to you the individual, it is no longer ipso facto attached to your will.
Josh:How is it aggression against the child?
Good question. This once again relates to the matter of the inalienable will and person. If the mother's will is not to have the fetus in her womb - that the fetus is a parasitic invader of her person - the fetus can be evicted. So it's merely a matter of if a woman wants an abortion. Now, if the woman wants the child in her own womb (inside her body according to her will), it would be a violation of the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother for a man to shoot the fetus in the womb. I see the mother as having some property right in the fetus, as well as the self-ownership of her womb. The fetus is not a parasitic invader if the mother does not want to evict it from her own person, and hence is entitled to the full negative obligations of any other individual. The moment the mother does not want it, however, it becomes a parasitic invader, as it violates her right in her person.
EDIT- You ask about my proportionate punishment stance with relation to this. Well, you see, the fact that the fetus violates the mother's very will and body makes this different than any other scenario. If a man climbed into your stomach and decided to live there, I would say you could evict him, even if this killed him. Why? Simple. He's violating your inalienable traits, which is a far greater offence than violating that which is alienable. Consider the difference of degree between theft and murder. One of the chief differences between the two is that the latter violates entirely the individual's body and will. The same could be said of why slavery is so great a crime. Now, how great a crime is the fetus'? Well, we know one thing. What the fetus did, the mother can do in proportion. The fetus appeared in the womb, due to intercourse, so the mother can do the opposite and proportionate act: evict it from the womb. This is regardless of whether it dies or not. Now, you may apply this to property owners', and ask me such questions. Well, the thing is that property, contrary to the person, is alienable.
You ask about partial-birth abortions. My stance is if the mother consents or not. If the mother consents, it is legal to evict the parasitic invader however she pleases.
RothbardDisciple, It is well that you practically agree with me; and to the extent that you don't you are wrong.
I never denied that Rothbard says a mother may legitimately evict the fetus, because it is the mother's property right to do so. But that isn't the only way to attack the abortion argument. Rothbard BUILDS my case piece by piece throughout that chapter as I've shown, without stating it step by step explicitly.
He couches his argument in my rhetoric. His argument is that a Mother has the right to evict. But WHILE he is building that case, he points towards all the pieces with which I build mine: rights are for self-owners, the the right of self-ownership is acquired at birth, in other words fetuses don't have rights so abortion is legitimate de facto—that is, as a matter of objective fact, given the definitions of things like individual, property, action, and so on.
So...Do you think that Rothbard would argue that someone who kills a fetus (against the mother's consent) is violating only the mother's property right? I see it as three things: murder of a potential self-owner, violation of the mother's property right in the baby, and violation of the mother's body. Clearly, the reason why Rothbard doesn't think fetuses have rights is ipso facto that they are a parasitic invader. The other reasons are but ancillary to this one. If a fetus is not a parasitic invader, according to the mother, why has it not the legal rights of any other potential self-owner? Again, if a man poisons a fetus in the womb without the mother's consent (using an abotifacient let's say), is he not legally a murderer?
RothbardsDisciple:To be more general, the person is inalienable, as an extension of the will.
So your will controls your body, so your body is an extension of your will, and therefore it's just as inalienable as will? Isn't all property that is acquired through labor or voluntary trade the extension of the will? Without will, property would be impossible to obtain. How is your body an extension of your will but your property that isn't your body not? Where's the distinction?
Now, if the woman wants the child in her own womb (inside her body according to her will), it would be a violation of the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother for a man to shoot the fetus in the womb. I see the mother as having some property right in the fetus, as well as the self-ownership of her womb. The fetus is not a parasitic invader if the mother does not want to evict it from her own person, and hence is entitled to the full negative obligations of any other individual. The moment the mother does not want it, however, it becomes a parasitic invader, as it violates her right in her person. ... EDIT- You ask about my proportionate punishment stance with relation to this. Well, you see, the fact that the fetus violates the mother's very will and body makes this different than any other scenario. If a man climbed into your stomach and decided to live there, I would say you could evict him, even if this killed him. Why? Simple. He's violating your inalienable traits, which is a far greater offence than violating that which is alienable. ... What the fetus did, the mother can do in proportion. The fetus appeared in the womb, due to intercourse, so the mother can do the opposite and proportionate act: evict it from the womb. This is regardless of whether it dies or not. Now, you may apply this to property owners', and ask me such questions. Well, the thing is that property, contrary to the person, is alienable. ... You ask about partial-birth abortions. My stance is if the mother consents or not. If the mother consents, it is legal to evict the parasitic invader however she pleases.
...
EDIT- You ask about my proportionate punishment stance with relation to this. Well, you see, the fact that the fetus violates the mother's very will and body makes this different than any other scenario. If a man climbed into your stomach and decided to live there, I would say you could evict him, even if this killed him. Why? Simple. He's violating your inalienable traits, which is a far greater offence than violating that which is alienable.
What the fetus did, the mother can do in proportion. The fetus appeared in the womb, due to intercourse, so the mother can do the opposite and proportionate act: evict it from the womb. This is regardless of whether it dies or not. Now, you may apply this to property owners', and ask me such questions. Well, the thing is that property, contrary to the person, is alienable.
So, a few premises you propose: 1.) The criteria for being an intruder is being unwanted by the property owner.* 2.) Even though peacefully climbing into someone is not proportionate to the act of killing someone, there's an exemption in this case because it interferes with will; therefore, the proportionality doctrine can only be used for property rights. 3.) Evicting a person, even if it leads to his/her inevitable death (e.g., pushing someone into a volcano) is proportional to the intrusion, but property is alienable, so you can't proportionally punish the aggressor.
[Following premises 2 and 3, the proportionality theory is void.]
4.) The woman can evict the "intruder" however she pleases, even if that means killing the baby prior to the eviction.
Premise 4 is very important because it's conceding that the entire argument that pregnancy is a positive and discontinuing that pregnancy is a negative as irrelevant and/or not true.
*The OED definition of "intruder":
a person who intrudes
Definition of "intrude":
put oneself deliberately into a place or situation where one is unwelcome or uninvited: he had no right to intrude into their lives; she felt awkward at intruding on private grief.
Also, it defines "invade" as:
(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it: Iraq's intention to invade Kuwait
Since the fetus undeniably does not enter the womb, nor does it deliberately place itself there, it is wrong, by definition, to label the fetus as an invader or intruder.
*So...Do you think that Rothbard would argue that someone who kills a fetus (against the mother's consent) is violating only the mother's property right? Precisely. Also, Rothbard NEVER argues that fetuses have property rights. He DOES argue that NEWBORN INDIVIDUAL BABIES have THEREFORE gained the right to self-ownership by BECOMING INDIVIDUALS, but that they are "IN NO SENSE A SELF-OWNER" and he argues almost to the letter "therefore, a fetus doesn't have any rights a newborn individual baby doesn't".
SUMMARY: So far we have reminded repeatedly that A) Rothbard says both babies and fetsuse are "in no sense a self-ownwer", but that by virtue of being a born individual human being (strictly as opposed to a fetus in the mothers womb) it has gained the RIGHT of self-ownership, B) Rothbard explicitly argues that fetuses don't have any rights that newborn individuals don't have, C) Rothbard NEVER argues that fetuses have property rights.
*why has it not the legal rights of any other potential self-owner?
For the reason Rothbard has been pointing out: IT ISN'T AN INDIVIDUAL. Property rights are for individual human beings.
Ok man. You win, mostly. =/ Just calm down, calm down. I've held this opinion for a long time, apparently only getting one side of Rothbard's argument. Sorry.
Let's move on to more interesting discussion, then. I think I figured out a reason that Rothbard doesn't bring up, which is logically consistent to me, and which I think is part of the backdrop of his thought. A fetus cannot homestead it's right to self-ownership inside the womb of another (since you cannot homestead inside another's inalienable person). Hence, explaining why fetuses don't have rights. Does that argument make sense? And that seems to make the foundation for your point of view a bit more cohesive. "It's not an individual" is too vague. I think it is an individual, simply within another. Because it is inside another (not "separate," as Rothbard puts it), it does not have any rights, as it cannot homestead its own rights. So, in sum, individual's within other individuals are incapable of establishing their property right to self-ownership. In my opinion, Rothbard's line of reasoning about the inalienability of the will expounds this view.
EDIT- I'll add: If you're defining being an individual in terms of "separateness," I agree with you. You're 100% right. The reason it has no rights is the fetuses lack of ability to homestead, though. You're correct, I just think I provided the remedy to some degree of vagueness in your point. It's not an individual contingent on its lack of ability to homestead, as a being within another being, who has only ever been within that being.
PS- I hope you don't think I'm dumb, still? >_>