My Very Own Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[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]

Every punishment for a violation of any law, much less a right voids your own rights. Get caught speeding and you have to pay a fine, but wait, I have a right to property. By your argument, we would have to stop all punishments no matter what a person does.

42

That does not compute. It doesn’t follow the Rothbardian directive to it’s logical conclusion. Does not compute, does not compute, does not compute!

Anyways, let’s take my unconscious injured man scenario. But, let’s say he was positioned on the Rothbardian’s property so he could be seen by passerby’s outside of the borders. And, the Rothbardian owner is nowhere to be found. So, a crowd has assembled to watch this man die. Yet, a few have decided to violate the property’s borders and render aid. How do you tell who in the crowd are most likely Rothbardians themselves? They’d be the ones screaming at the would be rescuers about trespassing.

43

If Lifty is arguing on your side of the argument, You have a pretty fucking stupid argument.

Why not make the argument that an embryo is nothing more than an unwanted parasite? No crime in flushing a tapeworm.

Rothbard absolves the murderous mother from any responsibility she would bare for the same actions if the child were outside the uterus.

A child is the responsibility of the parents - regardless of gestational geography.

Liberty has dick to do with the issue. It’s about responsibility, and the lack thereof.

44

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I cannot agree with this because conception is not a necessary feature sexual intercourse. There can be no contract with a fetus because it does not exist prior to conception. In other words, a contract only exists when individuals willfully enter into it. It is a nonsensical argument to suggest that the fetus is a contractor.

In fact, we would consider a fetus the property which comes about because of a man’s and a woman’s decision to enter into a contract – that being a sexual relationship. In this regard, the two individuals who entered into it get to decide what to do with their property, the fetus.

45

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Liberty has dick to do with the issue. It’s about responsibility, and the lack thereof. [/quote]

Maybe you should read the question posed before you open your ignorant mouth. Now run along and let the grown ups talk.

46

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
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.

I cannot agree with this because conception is not a necessary feature sexual intercourse. There can be no contract with a fetus because it does not exist prior to conception. In other words, a contract only exists when individuals willfully enter into it. It is a nonsensical argument to suggest that the fetus is a contractor.

In fact, we would consider a fetus the property which comes about because of a man’s and a woman’s decision to enter into a contract – that being a sexual relationship. In this regard, the two individuals who entered into it get to decide what to do with their property, the fetus.[/quote]

Um, then when do property rights end?

So you are your parents’ property? they have the right to kill you as an infant, or even now?

47

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If Lifty is arguing on your side of the argument, You have a pretty fucking stupid argument.

Why not make the argument that an embryo is nothing more than an unwanted parasite? No crime in flushing a tapeworm.

Rothbard absolves the murderous mother from any responsibility she would bare for the same actions if the child were outside the uterus.

A child is the responsibility of the parents - regardless of gestational geography.

Liberty has dick to do with the issue. It’s about responsibility, and the lack thereof. [/quote]

RJ for president!

48

[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]

This is such a ridiculous argument.

You CHOOSE to have sex knowing the possible repercussions of said intercourse is a child. If you can’t sack up and take care of a child then you have no business having sex.

If I knocked up a girl I guarantee you my life would change greatly and I’d give the best effort I could to make that child’s life as good as possible given the circumstances. I know the possible consequences of having sex and I’d take accountability for my actions.

49

[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]

Bumped. No one addressed this.

50

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Um, then when do property rights end?

So you are your parents’ property? they have the right to kill you as an infant, or even now?[/quote]

Technically speaking I ceased being their property when they voluntarily let me leave the “nest”; though, we could argue that a person becomes his own person when he is able to assume responsibility for his own actions.

For certain, the fetus cannot be considered anything more than property because it does not have its own existence without the mother’s womb. Where does the distinction of property end? At birth?

But you do pose a really good question, the implications of which I need to consider more fully. Can I think about it some more and get back to you?

51

[quote]Gael wrote:
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.

Bumped. No one addressed this.[/quote]

Yeah, that has been brought up in numerous was and avoided by the anti-pro-lifers.

52

[quote]Gael wrote:
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.

Bumped. No one addressed this.[/quote]

Stealing is unethical.

53

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
This is such a ridiculous argument.

You CHOOSE to have sex knowing the possible repercussions of said intercourse is a child. If you can’t sack up and take care of a child then you have no business having sex.

If I knocked up a girl I guarantee you my life would change greatly and I’d give the best effort I could to make that child’s life as good as possible given the circumstances. I know the possible consequences of having sex and I’d take accountability for my actions.[/quote]

The argument is so ridiculous you choose not to address it and instead offer up a red herring.

54

[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]

Very good.

55

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
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.

Bumped. No one addressed this.

Stealing is unethical.[/quote]

Yeah, but it’s not stealing if none of the stuff belonged to the novice in the first place.

56

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Um, then when do property rights end?

So you are your parents’ property? they have the right to kill you as an infant, or even now?

Technically speaking I ceased being their property when they voluntarily let me leave the “nest”; though, we could argue that a person becomes his own person when he is able to assume responsibility for his own actions.

For certain, the fetus cannot be considered anything more than property because it does not have its own existence without the mother’s womb. Where does the distinction of property end? At birth?

But you do pose a really good question, the implications of which I need to consider more fully. Can I think about it some more and get back to you?[/quote]

lol, yeah. So if I invented an injection that slowed the aging process, anyone who took it and lived off my invention is my property and I have the right to take their life as I see fit because I gave it to them?

You could argue genetic identity as a property right, but then ownership never ends, and children are unique from there parents anyway.

You have to remember I almost consider myself an anarchist, and I think mothers should be forced to carry children to term, other than rare circumstances.

57

It seems no one understands the distinction between positive and negative rights.

If it is permissible to force a woman to carry a fetus to term is it also permissible to force someone else to raise the child after it’s birth?

58

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
AssOnGrass wrote:
This is such a ridiculous argument.

You CHOOSE to have sex knowing the possible repercussions of said intercourse is a child. If you can’t sack up and take care of a child then you have no business having sex.

If I knocked up a girl I guarantee you my life would change greatly and I’d give the best effort I could to make that child’s life as good as possible given the circumstances. I know the possible consequences of having sex and I’d take accountability for my actions.

The argument is so ridiculous you choose not to address it and instead offer up a red herring.[/quote]

Actually he brings up a good point about conservatives. Conservatives promote personal responsibility for your own actions. In the case of abortion that would apply to the mother. In the case of welfare that ideology would apply to the welfare recipient. So there is no inherent ideological conflict.

59

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
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.

Bumped. No one addressed this.

Stealing is unethical.[/quote]

What if it was all mine? What if I, the veteran hiker, said, “I’ll bring tents, communications, first aid, food and water, and maps and compasses. You just bring a couple changes of clothes and some bug repellent.” I made no promises he’d be allowed to use my property. Or, if allowed to use my property, that he’d be able to keep using it to sustain himself if I just up and decided to leave him to his fate in the middle of the night.

60

[quote]Gael wrote:
Yeah, but it’s not stealing if none of the stuff belonged to the novice in the first place.[/quote]

So then the man may or may not be acting immorrally depending on who owns the property that is taken.

The question is then: is the man obliged to stay and help the other man or is he free to leave and be on his own?

Does anyone have the right to force the one man to stay and cooperate with the other? That is the essential question we are trying to answer.