free market abortion

Reply

Constittuionalist Posted: Thu, Dec 23 2010 1:54 PM

rated by 0 users

Are austrians divided on the subject of weather or not abortion is killing an innocent person? If technically we were to achieve an anarcho capitalist society, would there actually be such a thing as "free market for abortions"?

Just thinking but if someone was found guilty of rape or some other heinous crime and sentenced to death, would the courts allow puiblic executions? Would it be considered immoral? I don't think so.

Any thoughts?

Reply

filc replied on Thu, Dec 23 2010 2:06 PM

rated by 0 users

Constittuionalist:

are austrians divided on the subject of weather or not abortion is killing an innocent person?

Austrian economics has nothing to say about this. This is not an economically relevant question, but a political philosophy question. If what you meant was, are libertarian's divided regarding abortions, I'll answer with this.

Some are against it.

Some are for eviction.

Some are for it.

You can search the forums and see many of the heated debates that have been held regarding abortion.

Just a reminder however, Austrian Economics is not a political philosophy, where Libertarianism is.

Reply

GooPC replied on Thu, Dec 23 2010 2:30 PM

rated by 0 users

There would likely become a “free market for abortions” absent a state. There would also likely be a free market for babies, offering an alternative to abortion.

Regardless of the morality involved, absent a state, supporters of abortion could be subject to ostracization which could make getting an abortion or performing an abortion a “costly” choice. Private “police” companies might have enough social and financial (remember no taxes!) support to actively prosecute abortion doctors/mothers. These are all issues that are outside of the morality of abortion and are issues which can be settled by market forces.

The Possibility of Private Law

Chaos Theory

Reply

Brian LaSorsa replied on Thu, Dec 23 2010 3:56 PM

rated by 0 users

There would likely become a “free market for abortions” absent a state. There would also likely be a free market for babies, offering an alternative to abortion.

Once it becomes possible to care for a fetus inside of some kind of apparatus (as opposed to inside of the mother), assuming both parents want to get rid of the baby, that's when it will get down to whether abortion breaks the non-aggression principle. Right now a lot of the debate should be about whether a father and mother should have equal say in the abortion. If only one of them want one, it's tricky because you have to ask if the unborn child is property of the parents.

Reply

MaikU replied on Thu, Dec 23 2010 4:12 PM

rated by 0 users

My view:

as long as it (fetus) is in mother's body, it is her property, just like her other body part is her property. Also, I think father has a right to say his opinion of abortion, but he has no right to force woman to commit or not to commit abortion, because its her body, not his. He can only peacfully persuade.

Once baby is born, it becomes self-owner (so to speak) and both parents become rightful guardians of the baby. I would strongly disagree with anyone, who said, that mother has "more right" to baby (born baby, not fetus) than a father. They are both equally responsible, because it is their voluntary creation (in this case, I think, that rape vitcims become the only rightful owners of their babies, if they are born).

However, creation, as mr. Kinsella countless times pointed out to delusion people, believing in imaginary things, is not sufficient attribute so that baby could be considered a rightful property of parents. But that's the other topic (children rights).

P.S. oh, and there would be market for abortions just like it is now, even in statist society, there is no doubt about that :)

Reply

Constittuionalist replied on Thu, Dec 23 2010 5:07 PM

rated by 0 users

I generally meant with regards to political philosophy as to weather libertarians are divided on the subject of abortions. Although could abortion be an economic issue?

Reply

filc replied on Thu, Dec 23 2010 5:15 PM

rated by 0 users

Constituionalist:

abortion be an economic issue

I don't think so. GooPC had a good response. The task of economics isn't to identify ethical problems. Economics will show that it's possible to vend and distribute abortion, if there is market demand for it. IT makes no judgement calls as to whether or not the abortion market is "ethical" or not.

Reply

onebornfree replied on Fri, Dec 24 2010 8:23 AM

rated by 0 users

There is already a free market for abortions.

It is a wholly black market existing outside of state regulation in every community where abortions are closely regulated/controlled or  prohibited by the state.

Its methods range from the use of herbs such as Pennyroyal oil to surgery, and its practioners from dishonest charlatans to genuine business persons interested in profiting through the providing of a reputable service to those that need it.

Sleazons Greedings, www.onebornfree.blogspot.com

Reply

GooPC replied on Fri, Dec 24 2010 9:08 AM

rated by 0 users

abortion be an economic issue

I don't think so. GooPC had a good response. The task of economics isn't to identify ethical problems. Economics will show that it's possible to vend and distribute abortion, if there is market demand for it. IT makes no judgement calls as to whether or not the abortion market is "ethical" or not.

I don’t mean in the sense that economists can rule on the morality of abortion, but market forces can determine to what extent and in what ways abortion is practiced in society. I don’t think it’s very useful to spend time specify every detail of libertarian ethics, it’s more important that we remove the state’s monopoly on judicial and defense services and let the market settle the details. Murphy makes a great point on this topic:

There is widespread distrust of allowing the market to "determine" something as crucial as, say, prohibitions on murder. But "the market" is just shorthand for the totality of economic interactions of freely acting individuals. To allow the market to set legal rules really means that no one uses violence to impose his own vision on everyone else.

Murder isn’t wrong merely because it fails the market test; of course not. But its intrinsic immorality will find expression through market forces. We can all agree -- contractually -- to refrain from murder, and to abide by the decisions made by an arbiter should we be tried for such a crime. In this way, we know we are not violating anyone’s rights.

Now, after we have reached such agreement and are secure in our lives, we can let the philosophers and theologians argue about why murder is wrong. Legal scholars offering a priori constructions of just law would certainly have a place in market anarchy; after all, their tracts might influence the judges’ decisions.