T Nation

My Very Own Abortion Thread

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why would it be ok to kill the child in the womb, when you purposefully created a child?[/quote]

The argument it that it would just be removed and not “killed”. If it lives, it lives.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why would it be ok to kill the child in the womb, when you purposefully created a child?

The argument it that it would just be removed and not “killed”. If it lives, it lives.[/quote]

So, killed. Like shooting someone and killing them. Unless they happen to live.

This is why I can’t stand Rothbard.

Embryo’s arent made on their own. If you can’t handle the consequences of sex (children) then don’t have sex. If you cant handle kids the woman should use the pill and the guy should use a condom. That strategy will reduce you chances down to like .00001.

[quote]orion wrote:
This is mainly an argument aimed at conservatives and as far as I am aware it was first made by Rothbard in the “Ethics of Liberty”:

Let us assume, for discussions sake that an embryo was a human being with all inherent rights.

What is the nature of these rights? Are they positive, i.e. must they be provided by others, or negative, i.e. only need to be respected by others?

That is important distinction, because the same conservatives who would object to the idea that they are forced at gunpoint to provide for the needs of others, expect a mother to keep a child alive.

That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.

Therefore, let us separate the child from the mother and see if it lives.

If it doesn´t, the child´s right to live was never violated, it could exercise that right if it had only the power to do so, alas it hasn´t. It basically is in the same position like a person dying of diseases or of old age.

So, the real question for a conservative is, how he can be against abortion and also against welfare when forcing a woman to keep a child alive she does not want basically is welfare?

[/quote]

You are over complicating a very simple issue to make yourself feel good. The nice thing about abortion topic is that is really it is not about liberal vs. conservative, atheist vs. religios. The argumment centers around two fundamental points. Is the taking of a human life acceptable at any point and is the abortion the taking of a human life…

Your assigning a value on the human life based of what it is dependent on is utter stupidity. We are all dependent on each other as well as basic fundamental things. Take those away, you will die too.
So is taking a human life the right thing to do?

Let me ask some novice to hike a desert with me, as a challenge. However, once deep into it’s interior, I’ll grab all the food, water, communcations, and maps in the middle of the night and leave him stranded. If he dies, he dies. If he lives, he lives.

[quote]orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Don’t make them think. They’ll just hurt themselves.

thinking must hurt or else you don´t grow.

[/quote]

Maybe you should try it.

[quote]orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.

Would this same rule apply to a mother and her nine month old? Would she have no obligation to “keep alive” a nine month old that only really has the “right to live”?

If a woman can abort at 3 months from conception, why can’t she abort 3 months after birth, given the parameters of survival - the child is completely dependent on the mother - are the same?

Exactly. This has been covered time and again in this forum. The child will not survive on it’s own for a pretty long time even after birth, so while we are rendering rights relative, we can just as easily do so with yours. Can we not force the mother to care for her child after it is born?

Anyway the child still has the negative right to life (its own), so the mother voluntarily aborting it (murder) violates that right. The negative right to life overrules her positive right to not be inconvenienced.

And again.

The embryo is cleanly separated from his Mother. It is not killed in any way. If it lives, it lives.

That does not take anything away from its absolute right to live, it just removes the mother from the equation.

And a negative right can never overrule anything except an assault on that right, which is why it is a negative right.

[/quote]

I don’t think you understand surgical abortion at all. It is not an embryo when aborted. They have to allow it to develop to ensure a successful killing or they can botch it.

They allow it to develop, then suck it out piece by piece. The equivalent outside the womb would be taking and infant, hacking it up into pieces, and throwing it out the window if you don’t want to take care of it anymore.

The biggest part everyone is missing is that a decision was made by the mother to create the child (except in cases of rape). She created the life and in doing so forfeits her right to be un-obligated of caring for another person.

I think I should also point out that making the argument you “liberals” are, you should be adamantly pro-life. Are you? Are you arguing that both conservatives AND LIBERALS undermine their own beliefs on this issue?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let me ask some novice to hike a desert with me, as a challenge. However, once deep into it’s interior, I’ll grab all the food, water, communcations, and maps in the middle of the night and leave him stranded. If he dies, he dies. If he lives, he lives.[/quote]

Exactly. Argument from the point of dependency is just plain dumb. A born child is no less dependent on it’s parents. A toddler cannot survive with out supervision, prepubesent children cannot survive without being provided for even though they can feed and dress themselves, adults cannot survive without the means to provide for themselves. We are all dependent on things. Without the things we are dependent on we all die.

That on which we are dependent, does not define what we are.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why would it be ok to kill the child in the womb, when you purposefully created a child?

The argument it that it would just be removed and not “killed”. If it lives, it lives.

So, killed. Like shooting someone and killing them. Unless they happen to live.

This is why I can’t stand Rothbard.[/quote]

It’s because you don’t like being faced with logical arguments that you cannot refute.

What is the ethical basis for forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term? Is that not a positive right that is being provided to the embryo that must be enforced by government? What is the distinction between this positive right and any form of welfare, for example?

At the very least, Rothbard forces you to admit you have inconsistent beliefs.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why would it be ok to kill the child in the womb, when you purposefully created a child?

The argument it that it would just be removed and not “killed”. If it lives, it lives.

So, killed. Like shooting someone and killing them. Unless they happen to live.

This is why I can’t stand Rothbard.

It’s because you don’t like being faced with logical arguments that you cannot refute.

What is the ethical basis for forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term? Is that not a positive right that is being provided to the embryo that must be enforced by government? What is the distinction between this positive right and any form of welfare, for example?

At the very least, Rothbard forces you to admit you have inconsistent beliefs.[/quote]

This Rothbard guy sounds like an idiot. The ethical basis for carrying a child to term is because to do otherwise willfully is to commit murder.
There’s plenty of people in my life who make my life uncomfortable and I would be better off if they did not exist, but I can’t go and blow them away.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
So if I lock an adult in a cellar with no food or water, then I simply removed them from their life support system, right? No killing involved.

Uhhhh… that is aggression and is immoral. You would be violating that person’s rights by removing his liberty.

A more apt corollary would be that you are free to step over a homeless man starving in the street and not give him any of your money to keep him “alive”. You did not infringe on his right to life. If he lives he lives.

You would certainly see the ethical side of the argument if an armed police officer forced you at gun point to give him one of your dollars.[/quote]

I didn’t claim it was moral. But it is not immoral on the same grounds as killing, according to the OP’s original argument. The only immoral part is the captivation of the adult. The fact that the adult would later die is irrelevant to the kidnapping.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What is the ethical basis for forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term? Is that not a positive right that is being provided to the embryo that must be enforced by government? What is the distinction between this positive right and any form of welfare, for example?

At the very least, Rothbard forces you to admit you have inconsistent beliefs.[/quote]

I suppose if you want to reduce a child in the womb into some kind of squatter, an unwanted trespasser. This is Rothbardian ethics?

I wonder how much land Rothbard owned? If he had ever found an unconcious and badly injured man on his land, out of sight of passerbys from outside the property’s borders, I guess he could let fate determine if the man lives or dies. If he dies, he dies…

[quote]pat wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why would it be ok to kill the child in the womb, when you purposefully created a child?

The argument it that it would just be removed and not “killed”. If it lives, it lives.

So, killed. Like shooting someone and killing them. Unless they happen to live.

This is why I can’t stand Rothbard.

It’s because you don’t like being faced with logical arguments that you cannot refute.

What is the ethical basis for forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term? Is that not a positive right that is being provided to the embryo that must be enforced by government? What is the distinction between this positive right and any form of welfare, for example?

At the very least, Rothbard forces you to admit you have inconsistent beliefs.

This Rothbard guy sounds like an idiot. The ethical basis for carrying a child to term is because to do otherwise willfully is to commit murder.
There’s plenty of people in my life who make my life uncomfortable and I would be better off if they did not exist, but I can’t go and blow them away. [/quote]

Do you admit your beliefs are inconsistent if you do not agree with welfare but you believe that a woman must be forced to carry a fetus to term?

The distinction is that no one can force you to take care of anyone else that you do not want to. You do so voluntarily because you fell there is a moral obligation on your part. That is a wholly different argument.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Do you admit your beliefs are inconsistent if you do not agree with welfare but you believe that a woman must be forced to carry a fetus to term?

The distinction is that no one can force you to take care of anyone else that you do not want to. You do so voluntarily because you fell there is a moral obligation on your part. That is a wholly different argument.[/quote]

They are 2 different arguments, a woman being responsible for her actions or someone forcing you to do something you had no choice in.

I did not choose for someone else to need help, but the woman did choose to have sex which in turn produced a baby.

Also welfare doesn’t not require a baby carryin your genes to be killed or surgically removed from you and killed.

Sounds like people who on’t believe in the responsibility of their own actions.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I wonder how much land Rothbard owned? If he had ever found an unconcious and badly injured man on his land, out of sight of passerbys from outside the property’s borders, I guess he could let fate determine if the man lives or dies. If he dies, he dies…[/quote]

But you must come to terms with the distinction between voluntary and involuntary action.

Is it moral for you to use government to force this hypothetical person to care for a sick man found on his property?

We can talk all day about the morality of the man who choses to let an other man die if he can help the matter any and it doesn’t change the fact that aggression is aggression. If aggression is immoral, then what is the ethical basis that allows an other man to be forced to care for someone else?

Also, if there exists an ethical basis to force a woman to carry a fetus to term does the fetus’ rights trump the mother’s?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why would it be ok to kill the child in the womb, when you purposefully created a child?

The argument it that it would just be removed and not “killed”. If it lives, it lives.

So, killed. Like shooting someone and killing them. Unless they happen to live.

This is why I can’t stand Rothbard.

It’s because you don’t like being faced with logical arguments that you cannot refute.

What is the ethical basis for forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term? Is that not a positive right that is being provided to the embryo that must be enforced by government? What is the distinction between this positive right and any form of welfare, for example?

At the very least, Rothbard forces you to admit you have inconsistent beliefs.

This Rothbard guy sounds like an idiot. The ethical basis for carrying a child to term is because to do otherwise willfully is to commit murder.
There’s plenty of people in my life who make my life uncomfortable and I would be better off if they did not exist, but I can’t go and blow them away.

Do you admit your beliefs are inconsistent if you do not agree with welfare but you believe that a woman must be forced to carry a fetus to term?

The distinction is that no one can force you to take care of anyone else that you do not want to. You do so voluntarily because you fell there is a moral obligation on your part. That is a wholly different argument.[/quote]

That’s an idiotic argument which actually has no bearing on the actual issue. There is no inconsistency in my argument what so ever. The pre-born child is still a human being. To terminate the pregnancy is to kill a human being.
The issue is this, plain and simple, is abortion the killing of a human being. If so, then I am 100% against the taking of a human life.

Nobody can force anybody to do anything, that point is irrelevant.

Remember Susan Smith? The bitch who drowned her 2 kids? You above argument is an attempt to justify her actions as well. After all, she was sick of taking care of them and did not want to anymore. Why should she be forced to? The kids were her’s, can she not do with them what she pleases? Can you see the flaw in that line of reasoning?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why would it be ok to kill the child in the womb, when you purposefully created a child?

The argument it that it would just be removed and not “killed”. If it lives, it lives.

So, killed. Like shooting someone and killing them. Unless they happen to live.

This is why I can’t stand Rothbard.

It’s because you don’t like being faced with logical arguments that you cannot refute.

What is the ethical basis for forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term? Is that not a positive right that is being provided to the embryo that must be enforced by government? What is the distinction between this positive right and any form of welfare, for example?

At the very least, Rothbard forces you to admit you have inconsistent beliefs.

This Rothbard guy sounds like an idiot. The ethical basis for carrying a child to term is because to do otherwise willfully is to commit murder.
There’s plenty of people in my life who make my life uncomfortable and I would be better off if they did not exist, but I can’t go and blow them away.

Do you admit your beliefs are inconsistent if you do not agree with welfare but you believe that a woman must be forced to carry a fetus to term?

The distinction is that no one can force you to take care of anyone else that you do not want to. You do so voluntarily because you fell there is a moral obligation on your part. That is a wholly different argument.[/quote]

Because a decision was made in one that caused the situation. There are a lot of decisions a person can make that void certain rights. If you commit a crime it can void your right to most of your freedoms. If you trespass it can void your right to life. If you assault someone it voids your right to not be assaulted.

The child is not trespassing because it was invited so to speak. If I invite you into my home, I cannot then shoot you for trespassing.

The other major difference is dependency. Supporting someone who has the same ability to care for themselves that I do is inherently different than caring for something incapable of survival on it’s own.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy, it would seem liberals think you should be forced to care for people able to care for themselves and not for ones you chose to create that are entirely dependent for survival.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I wonder how much land Rothbard owned? If he had ever found an unconcious and badly injured man on his land, out of sight of passerbys from outside the property’s borders, I guess he could let fate determine if the man lives or dies. If he dies, he dies…

But you must come to terms with the distinction between voluntary and involuntary action.

Is it moral for you to use government to force this hypothetical person to care for a sick man found on his property?

We can talk all day about the morality of the man who choses to let an other man die if he can help the matter any and it doesn’t change the fact that aggression is aggression. If aggression is immoral, then what is the ethical basis that allows an other man to be forced to care for someone else?

Also, if there exists an ethical basis to force a woman to carry a fetus to term does the fetus’ rights trump the mother’s?[/quote]

If you are the person that maimed the man, then dragged him onto your property and out of view of the public, then the situation is similar to abortion. The dependency would have to be the result of the property owners actions the way it is with abortion.

And yes in this case other people have the right to intervene on behalf of the rights of the now dependent person.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Sounds like people who on’t believe in the responsibility of their own actions. [/quote]

That is a different moral question altogether.

The question we are trying to answer is whether there exists an ethical basis to force a mother to carry a fetus to term.

For our argument we can even say that the mother is indeed the most immoral person on the planet for choosing to abort her fetus but it does not change the question of whether we would be acting immorally by forcing her to continue to carry it to term.

The implications of the answer given will indicate whether it is the fetus or mother who has any rights.

The fetus cannot be given rights without taking them away from the mother.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Sounds like people who on’t believe in the responsibility of their own actions.

That is a different moral question altogether.

The question we are trying to answer is whether there exists an ethical basis to force a mother to carry a fetus to term.

For our argument we can even say that the mother is indeed the most immoral person on the planet for choosing to abort her fetus but it does not change the question of whether we would be acting immorally by forcing her to continue to carry it to term.

The implications of the answer given will indicate whether it is the fetus or mother who has any rights.

The fetus cannot be given rights without taking them away from the mother.[/quote]

What people are arguing though is she willfully entered into an agreement with the embryo/fetus upon conception, a contract if you will. Even though it is unwritten the impetus is still there.

Technically speaking the father also entered into a contract with this fetus.

By your argument a father who does not wish to pay child support should not have to, and the government has no right to force him to, simply because the mother chooses to keep the baby.

Breach of contracts usually carry ramifications.