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

Search

  • Re: Murray Rothbard on abortion

    anenome, thanks for sinthethyzing the point I've tryed to make a with my posts. you are right: essentially, all boils down to this. if we are to accept any law that prescribes the killing (or abandonment) of small children to be a crime, we are bound to apply the same principle to unborn children as well. period. The only congruent stances are the
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by ToxicAssets on Sun, Mar 4 2012
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on abortion

    " You abort a fetus. " Nope. Fetus is the name of living creature in a given stage of its development. Like child, adult, etc. You can't abort a stage. You abort a process. In that case the process aborted, a priori, is the pregnancy of the mother. And a fortiori, the life of the human being carried by the pregnant woman is also aborted
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by ToxicAssets on Tue, Jan 31 2012
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on abortion

    “ You insist on conflating the issues. Since, in your scenario, the only two entities that exist that have the capacity for natural rights and self ownership are me and the mother, then IF we both share in common the value of the baby's demise, then, as a matter of fact, the baby will die. This is the values-free prediction from natural rights
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by ToxicAssets on Tue, Jan 31 2012
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on abortion

    “ A newborn human baby is no more a self-owner than a newborn baby animal, by any outwardly observable objective standard. As you say, it is also demonstrably incapable of rights. It therefore becomes the natural (conflict-free) property, by original appropriation, of the mother. If abandoned, it becomes the property of whomever first claims it
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by ToxicAssets on Mon, Jan 30 2012
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on abortion

    “That's like talking about water, but calling it steam because you expect it to become steam. No. Water is water, a fetus is a fetus.” Words are not absolutes, they are contextual. It is very easy to say in an internet forum that a fetus is a fetus, when it is only cheap talk. When our goal is to look intellectually consistent. Go tell
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by ToxicAssets on Mon, Jan 30 2012
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on abortion

    Well, the same could be said of abortionists calling unborn children fetuses just to dehumanize them. Since it is easier to kill what we cannot picture as having a face, or eyes, or fingers. But I liked your post, because it recognizes that the fact that our somewhat irrational or aesthetical feelings are powerful deterrents when it comes to slay babies
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by ToxicAssets on Sun, Jan 29 2012
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on abortion

    Hashem, " You guys are muddying the issue when you keep accidentally calling the fetus a baby. Anti-abortionists always do this, they are scared to death of anyone considering the fetus as a fetus and not a baby. The baby is the born, non-fetus, ex-fetus. Usually at this point the umbilical cord is cut and the baby becomes an individual. "
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by ToxicAssets on Sun, Jan 29 2012
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on abortion

    vikingvista, I can relate to what you’ve said. My point has been that rights are not dissociated things from values. Values are distilled by tradition. Throughout history, many system of values were adopted, and only a few of those values persisted. We cannot know what values we are going to spouse in the future. That’s subject to speculation
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by ToxicAssets on Sun, Jan 29 2012
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on abortion

    Natural rights people seem to believe that rights are physical possessions of individuals. You either have them or you don’t, and it does not have anything to do with what other people believe. This is not completely bad as a frame of reverence in certain instances. But it is necessary to understand that a right is a perception upon what is righteous
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by ToxicAssets on Sun, Jan 29 2012
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on abortion

    “ I think you are too quick to denounce things without asking for clarifications. When referring to by reason, I'm referring to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics. If what counts for you is a cultural value-judgment, no sense in arguing about that. We just make different value-judgments. I think reason based arguments most-certainly can be made
    Posted to Political Theory (Forum) by ToxicAssets on Fri, Jan 27 2012
Page 36 of 37 (367 items) « First ... < Previous 33 34 35 36 37 Next > | More Search Options