nfactor13:1. Should intent ever play a role in deciding ethical questions?
Yes, but in this case it's not really relevant.
nfactor13:2. My question was trying to draw out if you think past conditions never matter.
Why would you want to go that broad when we're focusing on something specific?
Maxliberty:Lets review. I take position A, you and your partner take postion B. You also state another person more famous than you also has position B so therefore position A is wrong.
False. Ergo: strawman.
You REALLY need to take Logic 101.
Maxliberty:Wrong again. Rothbard did not believe that life begins at conception
Wrong again.
Jon Irenicus:My "partner"
oooo
looks like you won't have to worry about any abortions.
Peace
nfactor13:2. One other main point of disagreement seems to be the relationship between past events and actions and present circumstances (and the implied ethical rights of those involved). I get the impression that supporters of women's right to abort believe ethical decisions require one only to know present conditions.. somewhat like a physics problem where you only need to know current velocities and masses and forces, but whatever happened in the past to get the billiard balls to this configuration is meaningless to solving the problem itself.. If that's not correct, my apologies, but that's just the impression I got. So let me ask this then.. if one uses their property in such a way that it impacts someone else, does that ever create an obligation on your part? What situations might those be, if yes?
In order for aggression to occur, rights must exist to be aggressed upon, and since aggression is the only unethical form of action it is therefore the only form of action that entails an obligation upon the aggressor. People who think that conception entails certain obligations upon the parents to their child, therefore, must belive conception is aggressive. However, this is simply not true. In order for aggression to occur, the violation of a right must occur, and in order for the violation of a right to occur, a right must exist. If rights dont exist until the baby exists (at conception), no right has been violated by conception, and therefore there is no legal action that can be taken against the parents for not caring for their baby and no obligation for the parents to do so.
I bet that's another pet peeve of ML's.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Nonsense. Rothbard clarifies that he thinks that the Catholic position is too easily brushed aside. What he does do, though, is go on to demonstrate how this view still is not sufficient to outlaw abortion. He takes the premise you take for granted as securing a victory for your anti-abortion position, and turns it on its head. It's not Rothbard, or Knight_of_BAAWA or myself that is wrong: it's you. -Jon
Nonsense. Rothbard clarifies that he thinks that the Catholic position is too easily brushed aside. What he does do, though, is go on to demonstrate how this view still is not sufficient to outlaw abortion. He takes the premise you take for granted as securing a victory for your anti-abortion position, and turns it on its head. It's not Rothbard, or Knight_of_BAAWA or myself that is wrong: it's you.
It is not possible that we have the same view since we do not agree on the outcome. Rothbard's views have certain underlying assumptions which are false. As I have previously demonstrated, you are unable to explain the contradictions in your position so you lamely try and use Rothbard as your shield. Rothbard doesn't explain the contradictions either.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:Wrong again. Rothbard did not believe that life begins at conception Wrong again.
Where does it say that Rothbard believed life begins at conception?
banned: In order for aggression to occur, rights must exist to be aggressed upon, and since aggression is the only unethical form of action it is therefore the only form of action that entails an obligation upon the aggressor. People who think that conception entails certain obligations upon the parents to their child, therefore, must belive conception is aggressive. However, this is simply not true. In order for aggression to occur, the violation of a right must occur, and in order for the violation of a right to occur, a right must exist. If rights dont exist until the baby exists (at conception), no right has been violated by conception, and therefore there is no legal action that can be taken against the parents for not caring for their baby and no obligation for the parents to do so.
Because the "contradictions" are of your own imagination. As I said, he takes your view (and his too, apparently) and goes on to show how the conclusion does not entail outlawry of abortion. You may not like the outcome, but you share the same premise.
Jon Irenicus: Because the "contradictions" are of your own imagination. As I said, he takes your view (and his too, apparently) and goes on to show how the conclusion does not entail outlawry of abortion. You may not like the outcome, but you share the same premise. -Jon
He looks at the Catholic Church view and then based on his underlying assumptions comes to the same false conclusion you do, which I have already demonstrated why that is inherently contradictory. So go back to polishing your Rothbard statue and try again when you can actually defend your arguement with more than Rothbard groupie nonsense.
It's sad that so many people cannot tell the difference between justice and morality.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Maxliberty:Where does it say that Rothbard believed life begins at conception?
In the quote. You actually need to read it.
When you retract the statement to the effect that you've demonstrated a "contradiction". You haven't.
I appreciate the responses from Max and Knight and banned. I've read what everyone's saying, and I'm trying to formulate my own views. I can't take either side's view completely because it always seems something is left out if I do. Here's my attempt to explain what I think is both good and bad on each side:
a. The abortion rights side is rightly concerned with rights to property, rights to one's own body, quality of life, and the right to personal autonomy. What I'm unclear on is why the property rights as such can so easily, without even the slightest qualification, trump the life of the fetus. While this side tends to see life as a continuum, it seems property rights have such an absolute nature to them that they automatically win, even when a life is threatened by enforcing those rights. No consideration is required. It also seems to take no consideration for the fact that in many cases the woman had an active role in putting the fetus in the position it's in, but then has no responsibility towards it any more than one would to a tumor. It gives the impression of a very mechanistic world-view where life is of minor importance at best compared to concepts of ownership. Perhaps that's overly harsh, but it's been pointed out several times that the only consideration required comes down essentially to 'who owns the womb?' No other information is relevant.
b. The anti-abortion side seems to hold life in high value and concludes that women cannot arbitrarily take action that ends another life, even if it's exercising another normally legitimate right. There seems to be a hierarchy of rights perhaps. (Not meaning to put words in anyone's mouth, that's just my own subjective impression.) However, there seems to be no consideration of quality of life. For some women, pregnancy is terrifying, and I've known at least one who had such a morbid fear of it (to the point of believing that she would die or go insane if it ever happened) that an abortion would count as self defense as far as she was concerned. (I should add that she would probably only ever risk pregnancy through something like rape, but the point still stands.) The position also relies on a decision about when life begins, and unfortunately, that's a very arbitrary thing. At one point it was thought that the sperm were the living entities, and that the womb simply provided a space for the homunculus to grow in. By that account, all ejaculations were mass murder. Now the story is that it's at conception. That may change even still. It's not a clear cut thing, and honest people can disagree on it.
I think both positions have taken good values and advanced them to an extreme that leaves other good values in the dust. Preserving life is important, but so is quality of life. Recognizing that there's a meaningful difference between a sperm&egg, a fertilized egg, a 3-month fetus, a 6-month fetus, and one just an hour from birth shows discernment. Likewise, having the power to create life, having the equivalent of a magic button you can push to create someone, shouldn't be set aside as irrelevant. Part of being human is having the capacity to be responsible for one's plans and actions, and treating ethical decisions in a kind of snapshot, only-in-the-moment way does not reflect human experience authentically. Women should not be slaves, but neither should they be capricious in how they treat life. It's a matter of balance, and I think that both positions I've heard are out of balance in their own ways. There must be some middle path. I don't know exactly how to articulate it, but I don't hear either side giving a full account, either. Does anyone else think similarly, or is this a question where it's either one way or the other, no other way out?
thanks,
Nathan
nfactor13:I appreciate the responses from Max and Knight and banned. I've read what everyone's saying, and I'm trying to formulate my own views. I can't take either side's view completely because it always seems something is left out if I do. Here's my attempt to explain what I think is both good and bad on each side: a. The abortion rights side is rightly concerned with rights to property, rights to one's own body, quality of life, and the right to personal autonomy. What I'm unclear on is why the property rights as such can so easily, without even the slightest qualification, trump the life of the fetus.
a. The abortion rights side is rightly concerned with rights to property, rights to one's own body, quality of life, and the right to personal autonomy. What I'm unclear on is why the property rights as such can so easily, without even the slightest qualification, trump the life of the fetus.
There's no such thing as the right to life. Further, not considering the property right of the woman to her womb makes her a slave. Not going to happen.
Knight_of_BAAWA: There's no such thing as the right to life. Further, not considering the property right of the woman to her womb makes her a slave. Not going to happen.
What's the foundation of property rights if not life? Perhaps you'd say that doesn't matter, but if life is essential to a meaningful understanding of a right to property (and a right to one's self), I don't see how one can set it aside so easily, either.
I should say that I do consider the woman's right, and I don't take it lightly. I'm just suggesting that it's an important thing to consider rather than the only thing.
Knight_of_BAAWA:There's no such thing as the right to life. Further, not considering the property right of the woman to her womb makes her a slave. Not going to happen.
nfactor13:What's the foundation of property rights if not life?
In a teeny-tiny nutshell: that you homestead your body and assert control over it. A right to life means a positive obligation upon others to provide it for you.
Maxliberty:The obligation of the mother occurs after conception.
Obligation procedes from aggression.
Maxliberty:A relationship forms between two people and we can examine this relationship as we would examine any other relationship.
A relationship not linked to contract does not create an obligation. It's merely a relationship based on promise and tradition and can be severed at any moment, as it's termination is not an aggressive act upon the property of either party.
The mother can stop providing for her child and insist on it's removal from her internal premise at any time, legitimately.
nfactor13: b. The anti-abortion side seems to hold life in high value and concludes that women cannot arbitrarily take action that ends another life, even if it's exercising another normally legitimate right. There seems to be a hierarchy of rights perhaps. (Not meaning to put words in anyone's mouth, that's just my own subjective impression.) However, there seems to be no consideration of quality of life. For some women, pregnancy is terrifying, and I've known at least one who had such a morbid fear of it (to the point of believing that she would die or go insane if it ever happened) that an abortion would count as self defense as far as she was concerned. (I should add that she would probably only ever risk pregnancy through something like rape, but the point still stands.) The position also relies on a decision about when life begins, and unfortunately, that's a very arbitrary thing. At one point it was thought that the sperm were the living entities, and that the womb simply provided a space for the homunculus to grow in. By that account, all ejaculations were mass murder. Now the story is that it's at conception. That may change even still. It's not a clear cut thing, and honest people can disagree on it.
Since I am pro-life, I would like to respond to these comments.
First of all, Ron Paul never saw an instance where the baby so threatened the life of the mother that an abortion would be needed. Now, that is not a scientific survey, as such it is not necessarily very relevant. However, I have yet to see any evidence of an instance where an abortion is needed to protect a mother's life.
Second of all, as to when life begins, a sperm will always die unless it is given an egg and an egg will die unless it is given a sperm. An embryo on the other hand, will grow to an adult human as long as its life is not ended. But to call an embryo a baby at three months as opposed to conception is just arbitrary. I could just as easily claim an embryo is not a human until at 25 years old.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
nfactor13:What I'm unclear on is why the property rights as such can so easily, without even the slightest qualification, trump the life of the fetus.
Easy, if abortion is the only available immediate means in ridding oneself of an invader. In other words, if abortion is the only viable option for the mother, it is totally and completely within her ethical right to employ it. If abortion is not the only available means a woman has, it is a murderous act. But as of now, it's the only known method of fetus removal (and still, the fetus dies without support).
nfactor13:The anti-abortion side seems to hold life in high value and concludes that women cannot arbitrarily take action that ends another life, even if it's exercising another normally legitimate right.
If someone is in your home, stealing your things, and the only way you can stop them from doing it is by killing them, you are within your right to kill them. Of course, you'd have to prove that that was the only option you had, but that is hardly relevant here.
banned:If someone is in your home, stealing your things, and the only way you can stop them from doing it is by killing them, you are within your right to kill them. Of course, you'd have to prove that that was the only option you had, but that is hardly relevant here.
Right, but if you invite someone into your home, then later want them to leave and they cannot, you do not have the right to kill them where they stand. or do you?
Let's try to remember that pregnancy more times than not, is not something that occurs beyond the mother's control. If a woman engages in activity leading up to pregnancy, and allows the pregnancy to persist until the child is somewhat developed, I think it becomes very messy when minds change and a late term abortion is made.
Knight_of_BAAWA: In a teeny-tiny nutshell: that you homestead your body and assert control over it. A right to life means a positive obligation upon others to provide it for you.
If we were siamese twins, would I have the right to kill you as a means of separating myself from you? Let's assume that there's no other means that would preserve your life.
I'm not using very precise language here, but to borrow your terminology, it seems that in pregnancy, the woman is generating a co-homesteader of a sort. I'm sure you'd object to that, but it's the best analogy I can think of for now. I would argue that the woman has the stronger claim even so, but at the same time has created a legitimate competing interest as well. I think that makes the most sense of the 'continuum of life' element because it means the embryo-->fetus-->baby has a non-zero and increasing claim as time goes on. Unless you're willing to say that a woman has a full right to abort one hour before conception.. and perhaps you are. But I find that a very untenable argument. And I picked one hour arbitrarily. Move the time frame as small as you like.
As for a 'right to life' being a positive obligation, I don't think it would have to be.. I think it could be stated negatively, just as property rights don't have to be positive, though they could be stated that way: 'I have a right to some property' (Georgist, or whatever).
Knight_of_BAAWA: A right to life means a positive obligation upon others to provide it for you.
No, it means others cannot actively engage in direct actions that would end it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:In a teeny-tiny nutshell: that you homestead your body and assert control over it. A right to life means a positive obligation upon others to provide it for you.
nfactor13:If we were siamese twins, would I have the right to kill you as a means of separating myself from you? Let's assume that there's no other means that would preserve your life.
No, and the woman is not generating a co-homesteader. It's her womb.
nfactor13:As for a 'right to life' being a positive obligation, I don't think it would have to be.. I think it could be stated negatively, just as property rights don't have to be positive, though they could be stated that way: 'I have a right to some property' (Georgist, or whatever).
If you have a right to life, then someone has to provide the upkeep for the life to you. You can't have a negative right to life, for it means you must be kept alive until you die naturally.
Spideynw:No, it means others cannot actively engage in direct actions that would end it.
No, that's a right to your body processes. A right to life is a positive obligation.
liberty student:Right, but if you invite someone into your home
Why is this false analogy still being used? No one was invited into the womb.
Knight_of_BAAWA: liberty student:Right, but if you invite someone into your home Why is this false analogy still being used? No one was invited into the womb.
I didn't read the whole thread, correct me if I am wrong, but short of immaculate conception or rape, women usually invite conception.
Well alright, say there is a negative right to life. All it means is one's life is one's own to direct, and for all practical purposes this amounts to self-ownership (the Aristotelian defence of libertarianism indeed is grounded in the basic, negative right to liberty and the corollary right to one's life and one's property.) The problem is, of course, you'd still have to show why this is relevant. All it does is switch the phrase from "self-ownership" to "right to life", assuming we're referring to a negative variant. Whilst this matters for justificatory purposes (as in, how self-ownership is justified), it does not alter the role either concept plays in this debate (because the end result is the same.)
banned:Easy, if abortion is the only available immediate means in ridding oneself of an invader.
How can someone be an "invader" that you invited into your body?
Spideynw:How can someone be an "invader" that you invited into your body?
Maybe because a fetus is not invited?
liberty student: I didn't read the whole thread, correct me if I am wrong, but short of immaculate conception or rape, women usually invite conception.
And even in these cases, it is not like the baby "invaded" the woman's body. The man who raped her did, and he is the one who should be punished, not the baby.
banned: Spideynw:How can someone be an "invader" that you invited into your body? Maybe because a fetus is not invited?
Don't make me explain the birds and bees to you young man!
banned:Maybe because a fetus is not invited?
Well, it sure as hell is not an "invader". The egg started out there.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Why is this false analogy still being used? No one was invited into the womb.
liberty student:I didn't read the whole thread, correct me if I am wrong, but short of immaculate conception or rape, women usually invite conception.
1. They merely invite the sex.
2. There is no "someone" until the sperm and egg meet, and even then there's no "contract" between them. So it's a non-starter.
Spideynw: Second of all, as to when life begins, a sperm will always die unless it is given an egg and an egg will die unless it is given a sperm.
But to call an embryo a baby at three months as opposed to conception is just arbitrary.
I could just as easily claim an embryo is not a human until at 25 years old.
Knight_of_BAAWA: 2. There is no "someone" until the sperm and egg meet
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Knight_of_BAAWA:1. They merely invite the sex. 2. There is no "someone" until the sperm and egg meet, and even then there's no "contract" between them. So it's a non-starter.
You could argue that the sex is only the start, not an end unto itself.
Let's not kid ourselves (pun intended), sex is the only way I know to create a baby. Unless you are aware of something I am not...
Juan:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination ?
Well, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that. It's the act of intentionally trying to have an placed in you for the purpose of having a baby.
liberty student:You could argue that the sex is only the start, not an end unto itself. Let's not kid ourselves (pun intended), sex is the only way I know to create a baby. Unless you are aware of something I am not...
Yeah: in vitro fertilization.