I was just recently thinking about something I heard the ACLU defending. This was parodied in a Fox News show, so the details may or may not be accurate, but it was a case dealing with pregnant mothers who were using cocaine.
In an anarchic society, how could you protect the safety of the unborn? Is a pregnant mother consuming alcohol aggressing against the child even though the child is dependent on the mother for its well-being? I mean, taking into account how many anarchic theories would support a woman's right to carry out an abortion, could you be consistent in saying that a PDA could legally reprimand the female who is damaging the developing human being? Why would abortion be legal if the latter is deemed illegal?
Bump
Frankly, I don't understand either. But right from the start we have at least two options. Either the baby is sovereign or someone else's property. It clearly is not sovereign.
The only question is to whom does the baby belong to? Is it someone else other than the mother? If you can do whatever you like with your own property and the baby counts as owned property, then the conclusion is clear.
I don't exactly like where this leads, however. I have a solution in mind, albeit a somewhat unacceptable solution these days. *Cough* *Cough*
Abortion is thought of as a contest between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. This is a mistake. The actual contest is between the mother and the father or whoever is advocating that the child be carried to term. It is just as much aggression to force a woman to bear a child she would rather not have inside of her body as it is against the child to abort it assuming that, ex post, it would not have wanted to be aborted were it allowed to live to the age where it could have a say in the matter.
After a certain point in the pregnancy, abortion only results in the death of the fetus as a matter of choice. This is where viability comes in. If the child is viable - meaning it would more likely live than die were it extracted in a non-destructive manner - then the choice of whether the child will be removed destructively or not may constitute aggression on the part of the mother against the interests of the father in the survival of his offspring. In this case, the father's right to petition that the child be removed in a non-destructive manner ought to be acknowledged (assuming he was aware of the pregnancy... another separate issue altogether). However, prior to the point of viability, there doesn't seem to be any way to balance the father's interests in his potential offspring's survival against the mother's interest in controlling her own body without violating the interests of one or the other. Since a mother's interest in materially controlling her own body clearly takes precedence over a father's interest in the survival of his offspring which she is carrying, the mother should have plenary power to decide to abort.
Similarly, issues of child rearing and abuse should be analyzed as disputes between the potential guardians of the child, not necessarily as disputes between the child itself and its custodian/guardian. This will permit social/legal norms regarding what is permissible treatment of children to emerge in a way that preserves the natural interests of parents and other biological relatives of children in the health and welfare of those children.
There is no contest between the rights of the mother and the fetus because the fetus is simply incapable of asserting its rights. The root problem is that the fetus cannot speak for itself, so we cannot know its wishes or desires. Instead, the fetus has advocates - its father or grandparents, etc. In the case of disputed abortion, these advocates are in a dispute with the mother, it is the mother who will be coerced if a ruling is in favor of the advocates of the fetus and it is these advocates who will be restrained - by force, if necessary - from coercing the mother to continue the pregnancy if a ruling is in her favor. In this regard, a fetus is in the same position as any other entity on behalf of which people want to advocate, such as an animal. Rothbard says of animal rights (Ethics of Liberty):
"There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them." The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their "rights" is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human being. And if it be protested that babies can't petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not."
Where I differ with Rothbard is that I think that animals likely would, in fact, have rights in a real natural order legal system for the same reasons that children and, to an extent, unborn fetuses would have rights - people are willing to fight for those rights. If you kick your dog, you are likely to end up in a dispute with someone who thinks you oughtn't be mistreating the animal that way. The purpose of the law is to resolve disputes without martial contest and, unless this dispute is resolved by violence, it may have to be resolved through the legal system. That is, I may file suit against you for your treatment of your dog, seeking to seize the dog from you. Unlike human offspring, no one has any better claim to advocate for the dog than anyone else so there are no natural limitations on who may sue.
Fetuses and animals are in the same logical category, they are both mute entities. They are, therefore, incapable of participating in legal disputes and their rights, therefore, extend only so far as those who advocate on their behalf are willing to fight for them. To paraphrase Rothbard, "We will recognize the rights of unborn fetuses whenever they petition for them." But fetuses would likely have rights in a real natural order legal system for precisely the same reason animals would likely have rights. That is, if you go to abort your fetus, you are likely to end up in a dispute with someone who believes you oughtn't abort the fetus. Unlike in the case of a dog, however, there is a natural division between who has higher and lower claims to advocate for the well-being of the fetus, so not everyone may sue. I believe the point of viability would be a crucial dividing line in a natural order legal system.
To specifically answer your question, a mother drinking is not aggression against the fetus but it may be actionable by other family members who have an interest in the welfare of the child. Now, you might say that if the mother can abort the pregnancy without contest at any time before viability, then it is a moot point whether she drinks before viability but it's not that simple. At each point in time, either the mother is intending to bring the child to term or she is not. If she is intending to bring the child to term, then abusive actions toward the fetus (such as drinking) are actionable. The mother can't both claim that she intends to bring the child to term and that she doesn't have to be concerned with the welfare of the fetus. So, if she chooses to abort, let her abort. If she will not abort it, then she can't abuse the fetus without consequence. Other relatives of the fetus should have standing to sue the mother (of course, non-legal measures may be preferable/more effective).
Clayton -
In an anarchic society, how could you protect the safety of the unborn? Is a pregnant mother consuming alcohol aggressing against the child even though the child is dependent on the mother for its well-being? I mean, taking into account how many anarchic theories would support a woman's right to carry out an abortion, could you be consistent in saying that a PDA could legally reprimand the female who is damaging the developing human being?
You couldn't do anything because you have no standing. If you are the father or a grandparent then it could be different.
Unless the mother is in a marriage contract, the unborn is entirely hers to do as she decides.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I think that it all boils down to when does a human become a human. Is it once the baby leaves the mothers body? What about thirty seconds prior to leaving the womans body? What about a bundle of cells that do not resemble a human in any way? People will disagree and Im not sure there is any objective way to tell.
I think most likely there will not be any one point at which a human comes into being agreed upon. Some places might say at conception, other might say once the child is a year or two old. So whether or not drinking or using drugs while pregnant would be seen as aggression against another human being.... who knows. It would depend on the community in which you live, and the laws accepted in that community.
What Clayton said.
Also, Southern is right too. Same ambiguity arises about consent laws. In what age a boy or a girl can consent to have sex? etc etc etc. It's impossible to draw the line, so I think it is better no line, than arbitrary laws, like we have now, which imprison non-violent people as rapists and damages their future. This line should be a private matter. A contract maybe.. I don't quite know, but I don't see it as some big issue.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
MrSchnapps:Frankly, I don't understand either. But right from the start we have at least two options. Either the baby is sovereign or someone else's property. It clearly is not sovereign.
How is the baby not sovereign? How are you defining "sovereign"?
On another note, though, I've been told by several women that as many as one-third of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage. So I think an interesting question to ponder is this: Should a woman be liable for murder in the event of a miscarriage? And why or why not?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
MrSchnapps:Frankly, I don't understand either. But right from the start we have at least two options. Either the baby is sovereign or someone else's property. It clearly is not sovereign. How is the baby not sovereign? How are you defining "sovereign"?
Is there any way to objectively determine this?
I think this might be carrying things a little too far. A miscarriage is something a woman has no control over. That is unless she actively trying to induce a miscarrigage which I would think no longer would be characterized as a miscarriage and be described as an abortion.
And then we would jump right back into an abortion debate.
Southern:I think this might be carrying things a little too far. A miscarriage is something a woman has no control over. That is unless she actively trying to induce a miscarrigage which I would think no longer would be characterized as a miscarriage and be described as an abortion. And then we would jump right back into an abortion debate.
Right, my point was to show that miscarriages could throw a wrinkle into the idea that terminating a pregnancy is (tantamount to) murder. On the other hand, the concept of intent or mens rea would still factor in.
The miscarriage thing is a red herring. Let's use this analogy: a woman is the owner of a house (her body) and a family member (the child) dies in the house. If the person dies of natural causes there's no crime. The tricky issue is to prove it was a miscarriage and not an abortion.
However, no system is perfect. I would say though that a system which allows a woman to murder "her" unborn child is too flawed a system to be allowed in a civil society.
I really see no difference between a baby "in" a woman's property (her body) and a baby "on" her property (her home). If she can kill it one place she be allowed to kill it in the other.
But should she be allowed to remove the baby from either?
faber est suae quisque fortunae
well because of neuroscience we know for a fact that fetal thalamocortical connections begin to form at about 26 weeks, and as nature would have it, the limit of viability is around that time also. Before 26 weeks, the fetus can't be considered human at all as it does not even have the capacity for perception, let alone consciousness, it is merely a lump of cells and we are free to remove a lump of cells from our body. After 26 weeks, the fetus is human and abortions not done for medical reasons would be murder as you would actually have to kill it to abort it or else it would survive outside of the womb.
tl,dr: before 26~ weeks, parasite removal; after 26 weeks, trespass to the person. problem solved.
"But should she be allowed to remove the baby from either?"
Should a woman that lives in the woods be allowed to put a 6 week old out in cold to die of exposure?
Abortion is not eviction, let's be honest about that aspect of it. Many ignorant people talk as if the baby is kindly asked to leave and then birthed. No, the baby is violently disemboweled or worse.
I am inclined to side with you that abortion is not eviction. But If we were to treat the rights conflict between a mother and child the same as between any other two people in the case of an eviction then an agreeable solution to the abortion issue could be reached for most.
I think the mother should beable to have the child removed, but all care would have to be taken to not dismember or kill the baby in the process. Once the child is removed then it is up to someone else to voluntarily assume care of the child. If no one is willing then if the child dies, or if the child or fetus is simply not viable outside the mothers body then no ones rights have been violated.
If you force a woman to carry the baby to term no matter what, or suck the babys brains out through a tube then someones rights have been violated.
Who cares.
After 26 weeks, the fetus is human and abortions not done for medical reasons would be murder
Why would the fact that there are "medical reasons" make it something other than murder? It seems a bit contradictory.
After 26 weeks,..... you would actually have to kill it to abort it or else it would survive outside of the womb.
I believe that viability is about the only way to determine whether it is human or not. If it is not viable then its not a human and has no rights. If it is then it is a human and has rights.
before 26~ weeks, parasite removal
It bothers me to no end when people refer to a baby (or fetus for that matter) as a parasite. It is nothing but a miss use of a word to invoke a certain reaction from others. In no way is it a parasite. The relationship between an organism and its offspring is a sybiotic relationship. The offspring get sustanance and the mother gets to pass on her genes.
Of course though, Southern, the passing on of genes is not an "objectively" good thing depending on the wants of the mother. It may be something like that in the wild, but the human sphere has different priorities.
I could see the objection coming up about the "wantedness" of the child, and I kind of even agree with that in principle. Yet it does seem inconsistent to say that if an agent is wanted by something in society that it gets special privileges over those who are unwanted, at least from a Natural Law perspective. I don't know how many here are proponents of Natural Law or some system of rights, but to me it would be akin to saying that non-aggression only applies to those who society likes at-large. Or I could be wrong, maybe somebody could show me where.
If carrying the fetus to term would harm or kill the mother then aborting it even when it's viable is not murder at all. It would be self defense. I fail to see how it's contradictory. It just depends on how you define murder.
But how could it be self-defence when fetus doesn't have ability to act or initiate violence. Why it must die to save the mother? Why can't mother die to save fetus?
I agree with you. I was taking a strictly evolutionary / natural point of veiw. (i assume we are talking about the whole parasite thing)
It actually depends on how you define self defense. You say a woman has a right to defend herself, even against her unborn child. Why may she only exercise that right when her life in in danger? Why not when she simply no longer wishes to carry another being inside of her? She is a self owner only when her life is threatened?
But how could it be self-defence when fetus doesn't have ability to act or initiate violence.
Defending onself does not necessitate another entity purposfully initiating violence.
Don't be ridiculous, an abortion is never self-defense.
It's always self-defense.
Being totally and completely dependent on someone else for basic day-to-day survival is the very antithesis of all things sovereign. The baby cannot express itself, and cannot assert itself in any way.
It was brought into being and is continually sustained by the mother.
I suppose chemotherapy is also self-defense.
For the sake of arguement, let's just say that you're sitting in a park somwehere, and for some magical reasons, another individual who's extremely radioactive becomes attached to you. Even though he might be too sick to act or initiate violence, his presence is a clear and present danger to your life. It would be ridiculous to say that you can't use force to detach him from your body.
Self defense does not require the assailant to have the ability to act. If the fetus, by merely existing ,threatened the life of the mother, then the mother is essentially being forced to choose between the life of herself or that of her unborn's.
Why must the murderer die to save the murdered? Why can't the murdered die to save the murderer? Yeah well he can, if he was a pacifist. No one is saying that the fetus "must" die to save its mother. The mother should be able to freely choose between sacrificing herself for her child or aborting her child in self denfense. That's what it's all about, the freedom to defend yourself should you choose to.
At what point can the fetus be considered human? Is it at birth? At the limit of viability, or when it starts to develop the capacity for consciousness? You can easily answer your own question when you consider what makes the fetus human.
Being totally and completely dependent on someone else for basic day-to-day survival is the very antithesis of all things sovereign. The baby cannot express itself, and cannot assert itself in any way. It was brought into being and is continually sustained by the mother.
If that's how you define individual sovereignty then by your definition, people with developmental disabilities whose very existence is dependent on their caregivers are not sovereign at all. Since they're not sovereign, we should be free to kill them all right?
I suppose chemotherapy is also self-defense. Clayton -
cancer cells don't have "rights".
Ok, MSN live, I can agree with that... but still it looks far fetched justification for "abortion in fetus harming mother" than regular abortion (because accidentaly woman got pregnant, for example)..
But human cells have?
It actually depends on how you define self defense. You say a woman has a right to defend herself, even against her unborn child. Why may she only exercise that right when her life in in danger? Why not when she simply no longer wishes to carry another being inside of her? She is a self owner only when her life is threatened? At what point can the fetus be considered human? Is it at birth? At the limit of viability, or when it starts to develop the capacity for consciousness? You can easily answer your own question when you consider what makes the fetus human.
Say it's at the moment of conception. So what? You've aknowledged that a woman has the right to protect her body from the other human living inside of it. I'm asking why she only has the right to evict that other human when her life is in danger, as opposed to whenever she feels like it. The moment she decides that other human is no longer welcome within her body, that other human becomes a tresspasser. Why must her life be threatened by said tresspasser before she may force the trsspasser to leave? Do I have the right to send a guest out of my home for any reason, or just when that guest is threatening my life? If for any reason, how is the woman's body any different? If it's only when threatened, what gives the guest the right to remain?
In other words, does she have the exclusive right of control over her body or not?
I tend to believe that abortion is murder, but I don't think the Federal government should have anything to do with the issue.
A fetus is an innocent life, even if it's not fully developed.
Also, I believe the fetus is sovereign to him/herself, as it's not right to say it's sovereign to the mother exclusively, when the fetus also has a father. Why should the mother be sovereign over it, but not the father?
I'm not trying to be paternalistic anything. I don't think the father should be sovereign over the fetus either, of course.
One more thing, I believe abortion issue can be easily dealt with in free society thorugh contracs for example. A woman, who is getting medical insurance etc signs also a contract to never do an abortion. If she does - she must pay damages yada yada yada. No need for violence. No need for monopoly on medical care. Everybody's happy.
What's to stop insurance companies from offering contracts without this non-abortion clause, or even offering to cover abortions? There obviously is a market for such services.
Mtn Dew:The miscarriage thing is a red herring. Let's use this analogy: a woman is the owner of a house (her body) and a family member (the child) dies in the house. If the person dies of natural causes there's no crime. The tricky issue is to prove it was a miscarriage and not an abortion.
Just so you know, I didn't mean it intentionally as a red herring. I realized my mistake in bringing it up with Southern's reply. All manslaughter/homicide is not murder. For it to be murder, there must be intent (mens rea). Obviously a non-induced miscarriage, being a purely biological process, cannot have intent.
That being said, your analogy is sound. :)
Mtn Dew:However, no system is perfect. I would say though that a system which allows a woman to murder "her" unborn child is too flawed a system to be allowed in a civil society.
I think the reason why abortion is such a contentious issue is because the developing fetus is one of the areas where our conventional moral reasoning breaks down. In other words, it's a boundary condition on morality. Human life and consciousness (as they're typically defined, however implicitly) are emergent phenomena.
I really see no difference between a baby "in" a woman's property (her body) and a baby "on" her property (her home). If she can kill it one place she [should] be allowed to kill it in the other.
Very good point. But what about eviction? Although it can (seem to) lead to death, it's not killing per se.
MSN live:well because of neuroscience we know for a fact that fetal thalamocortical connections begin to form at about 26 weeks, and as nature would have it, the limit of viability is around that time also. Before 26 weeks, the fetus can't be considered human at all as it does not even have the capacity for perception, let alone consciousness, it is merely a lump of cells and we are free to remove a lump of cells from our body. After 26 weeks, the fetus is human and abortions not done for medical reasons would be murder as you would actually have to kill it to abort it or else it would survive outside of the womb. tl,dr: before 26~ weeks, parasite removal; after 26 weeks, trespass to the person. problem solved.
Of course, it all depends on how "human" is defined, doesn't it? What's to prevent someone from defining "human" as "belonging genetically to the species Homo sapiens"?
JackCuyler: One more thing, I believe abortion issue can be easily dealt with in free society thorugh contracs for example. A woman, who is getting medical insurance etc signs also a contract to never do an abortion. If she does - she must pay damages yada yada yada. No need for violence. No need for monopoly on medical care. Everybody's happy. What's to stop insurance companies from offering contracts without this non-abortion clause, or even offering to cover abortions? There obviously is a market for such services.
that's my point. If some people are concerned about abortions, then they can sign a contract which forbids it and even promote their way of living peacfully. There are other group people, who are concerned with freedom of choice, so they doubtly will sign such a contract.