Abortions

Reply

grant.w.underwood Posted: Thu, Aug 2 2012 10:29 PM

rated by 0 users

This is a response to Wheylous who had asked me how i changed from being kind of unopinionated on the abortion issue before my introduction to libertarianism/AE to being pro-life.  when he was introduced to this forum he ended up becoming solidly pro-choice.  Personally i believe this huge issue on freedom/liberty and i dont think in the theory of freedom we should be in disaggreement.  So i wonder what yalls opinion on the subject is.  If you are pro-choice/pro-life please state circumstances to better understand your posistion.

*side note on a previous post i had said i was 100% pro-life so i begin with a little back pedalling to clarify my position.

wheylous - now im not some wacko as in 'condoms kill babies' im all for birth control to prevent conception.  now that im thinking about it i shouldnt of said 100%.  I forget there are some crazy people out there.  Some people even believe jerking off is murder. 

if they find out that the child is going to kill the mother if carried to term then surgery should be allowed, but i think everything should be done to save the child.  Doctors should keep the baby in the womb until they determine it is imminent danger to the mother to carry it any longer.  Before any prochoice ppl ask, i can justify it.  If a mental retard has a machine gun and is shooting at me, but literally has no mental ability to know what he is doing (like he thinks its a game or something) then i have a right to defend myself and shoot him in self defense.  A baby also isnt trying to kill its mother, but sometimes it does.  So that type of abortion would be considered self defense.  I also dont like giving an opinion on abortion in cases of rape.  That is just a tragic situation though i think a lot can be done to prevent a pregnancy after rape and should be done in rape cases.  I'm interested in opinions, and i know this is a pretty big contradiction, but what can i say im human and i think rape is dispicable.  If i was forced to make a decision that i have to live with then im pro-life even in rape cases.

Virtually everything else im prolife after conception.

I feel that if you believe in liberty we have to protect the liberties of people who are too weak to protect themselves.  That means standing up for an unborn child.  Its a difficult subject and i dont really assert my belief on other people unless asked.  After conception its not like the baby can turn into a plant or a typewriter.  It will be human and there is no changing that.  A fetus is inherently human using this as evidence.  It should have the same protections as all humans.

Let me ask you this.  I normally ask this question to pro-choice people (at least with those people who are being rational and truly want to understand the other side of the argument).  A woman goes into labor and she decides right then that she wants an abortion.  Can you justify that?  Do you really believe she should have that right?  Or if labor is too late to decide what about 5 minutes before labor?  A week before? two weeks?  Everytime i ask that question they will say 'no!' and really be disgusted that i would even suggest such a thing.  If that is so disgusting how can we morally define when it becomes a child if it IS a child a day before labor?  Whats different about a baby that has been in the belly for 9 month than 8 months? 8 and 7? 7 and 6? Some people suggest abortions before a child gets a nervous system, but do nerve endings make you human?  Sure it can be considered more 'humane' to abort a baby before it can feel, but if i put someone unconscious then killed him/her is that any less of a murder?  Maybe suggest abortions before they develope brain function? but is it the mind that makes us human? are vegetables in a coma any less human than you and me?  Maybe abortions before the fetus starts looking human?  ive seen some ugly people in this world that look more like rodents or horses with stange skin conditions can we morally kill them?!  Do we all not cry when Shredder almost kills Master Splinter?  I refuse that any one person can prove when that fetus becomes a human.  Lets assume if the definition that a fetus becomes human when it gets a nervous system then you mean to tell me that 10 seconds after nerve ending development that child has all rights of a human that 11 seconds prior they werent human?  *apply this to any definition

this country we still have 3rd trimester abortions.  With todays medicine (im not a doctor and im just guessing) most of those babies can survive outside the womb with medical treatment.  Some babies can survive even with out doctors help.  They dump the moving and living aborted baby in trashbags.  How can we say that a woman has a RIGHT to chose to do that?  If a doctor can save a child before or after an abortion how is that not murder if they kill it?

All pro-'choice' people should really be honest with themselves and decide what they believe, and not just 'well i believe in freedom and that means freedom to choose!'  Give it deep thought.  40 something million babies are aborted and killed every single year.  Thats not a medical practice, its genocide.  They deserve to have a voice.  If the Mises Institution is going to be a mecca for liberty migration i dont think this is a subject that we can disagree on (as our philosophy as a whole obviously as individuals we will always disagree on things).  I know I sound like my mind is made up on pro-life, but I'm always open to opinions on why you think a woman has a right to abortion.  You'll just have to have some definitive proof or a very abstract way of looking at it that i havent thought of to convince me.  If you think that a woman can abort during labor or the day before labor then dont bother because that discussion will go no where fast.  Hopefully you dont believe that, and if you dont then we can have a discussion and i would really like to know.

****I am by no means an expert in this subject.  There is a TOOOONN of propaganda out there that are outright lies.  So if you believe anything im suggesting as facts are wrong i would also like to know.

Reply

Kelvin Silva replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 10:34 PM

rated by 0 users

http://carm.org/abortion

if tldr: http://carm.org/logical-argument-against-abortion

If a fetus is not a human in nature, then what is it? Why is it not okay to kill a baby right before it comes out of the vagina, but its ok to kill it 2 or 3 months after sexy time?

Is the line between the vagina and the doctor's hand the only justification one can make for X baby being a human life?

Pro choicers would say of course not, we dont want to abort the few oz heavy baby, its only ok to kill a small fetus etc etc-

Then at which time is the threshold between it being a human and not being a human?

I think abortions do trespass the NAP, but in an anarcho capitalist society theres no one to stop you; heck, even with a state, if abortions are outlawed there will still be black market abortion clinics.

Reply

cab21 replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 10:41 PM

rated by 0 users

one idea i have seen is a woman can have the baby evicted then people that want to take care of the baby can take care of the baby.

what system of policing the ishue of abortions  could be libertarian? it seems abortions would need to be prevented through ideas and trade and not force?

Reply

Kelvin Silva replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 10:46 PM

rated by 0 users

Adoption is always an option. Im sure there will be many more charitites in an anarcho capitalist system.

Just like everyone here agrees that the revolution for an anarchy shouldnt be a bloody violent revolution (i hope most agree on this), but a revolution of the mind, persuasion, education, which is why this institution was funded in the first place, to educate, i think we should do the same in terms of educating people about abortion. You cant use laws or government to stop anyone from doing anything. Even if we have anti abortion laws, people will do abortion regardless.

Reply

grant.w.underwood replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 11:01 PM

rated by 0 users

the system of policing would be the same for any crimes in a libertarian society.

id think it can/should be policed by force just like any crime of violence.  Obviously everyone (besides the baby) will be willing participants so policing would be difficult.

I also dont mind the idea in the book 'chaos theory' where everyone in a neighborhood will sign contracts to outlaw the practice and if you believe in abortion then you cant live there.  So at least those people participating in abortions are not in your society/community.

Reply

Kelvin Silva replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 11:19 PM

rated by 0 users

But it gets iffy though, if the crime is agaisnt the baby who will you repay yor debt to? Yourself? Husband? There will be a very low chance of going to jail; no one would pay for it.

You cant pay restitution to a baby, especially a dead baby; i guess you can pay restitution to your own family members, but they being your own family members would most likely not put any penalties or fines at all.

Reply

cab21 replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 11:40 PM

rated by 0 users

with some of the definitions of life, such as the moment the sperm hits the egg, it seems there are many natural miscarrys. it seems many people would be put on trial for misscarries and would have to submit all sorts of medical records to society. either that or people will have a hard time with these investgations of proving a abortion rather than miscarry.

Reply

grant.w.underwood replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 11:51 PM

rated by 0 users

well if you really believe that then the probability of an anarchy society has a pretty big gap in there.  I mean virtually everyone poor without family can be murdered or enslaved risk free.

I dont think there is that loophole however.  Do you honestly believe people wouldnt throw money in defense to a child? Murphy talked about it in chaos theory about defenses for crimes committed against children, but i cant remember exactly what he wrote.  There would also probably be a requirement for prison facilities to accept inmates that committed crimes against person(s) who has no one to stand in their defense.  Not of course out of charity, society would agree upon a set price to 'overpay' the jailer as an insurance to keep inmates that committed crimes against people like that.  It would be very rare that the mother wouldnt have insurance since it would be deemed socially unacceptable to not have it.  In that case her insurance company is liable for the crime.

I agree though that it would be very difficult to figure out who should receive financial payment for the crime.  Crimes against ppl without anyone to stand in their defense wouldnt be that rare so im sure the market would come up with something.

Reply

grant.w.underwood replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 11:55 PM

rated by 0 users

i dont think so.  obviously miscarriages happen all the time for natural reason and unnatural like drug abuse.  Only reason an investigation would occur is with probable cause.

Just because things are difficult doesnt mean we should accept it.

Reply

cab21 replied on Fri, Aug 3 2012 1:39 AM

rated by 0 users

so with some market justice system, a person who thought abortion was ok would choose a justice system where it is ok, and people that don't think it's ok would choose a justice system where it's not ok. if everything is free market, someone who beleives abortions are ok could reasonable do all business with other business that think abortion is ok and would not need to trade with people that think abortion is not ok. why would someone who beleives abortion is ok submit to someone elses court where abortion is not ok and how would such a person be forced to enter a court? it seems war is the only option if someone were to want to abolish abortion from societys that would choose abortion in the free market?

Reply

grant.w.underwood replied on Fri, Aug 3 2012 10:21 AM

rated by 0 users

good questions.  I think if we had a market justice system tomorrow, yes you could possibly be living next to abortionists (if think America is around a 50/50 split on abortion), but as the governments fog of morality begins to clear i believe people as a whole will wake up and start defining their own morals begin choosing one side of the issue. 

Lets take bible belt Mississippi, there isnt a doubt in my mind that abortion would be considered illegal there by a huge majority.  The prochoice people will begin being weeded out of the area with contracts.  If you shop here you have to be prolife, in order to buy this house you have to be prolife and you can only sell this house to someone thats prolife by rules of the home owners association of mississippi, by opening up a new medical practice in the region of mississippi you cant perform abortions, ect. 

Yes there could be places with vastly different opinions of what should be legal.  I cant think of a great example, but lets take southern california (liberal) and northern california (conservative).  Southern Cali would have a justice system that would allow abortions and northern cali would be prolife. So the justice system would take into consideration laws of the region that the alleged crime took place.

Now you bring up my point on why society will end up being prolife, trade.  You are suggesting that people will take up both sides and only trade amongst themselves.  I dont believe that can occur.  We know competition will be much tougher in a free society so do you really believe people will suffer in poverty by their convictions on this issue?  Think about your own life, if you were prochoice, would you honestly refuse to conduct business with someone that is prolife?  I dont think so.  I dont think a man (im sure there is a very small percentage) would be so strong in his convictions on being prochoice that they would do this.  They will ask themselves if it is worth losing all this business all that money that they could spend on their family because they believe in a woman's right to abort a baby?  Why would any man be willing to give up his money, his prosperity, his life, his families life, for a woman he doesnt even know who could of used a condom, could of used spermicide, could of used a diaphragm, could of taken birth control pills, could of had surgery to not have kids, could of done all this combined to prevent conception, could give he baby up for adoption, OR even NOT have had sex in the first place?  Now for women, why would a woman do the same?  Why would a woman who uses protection and takes precautions to prevent conception be willing to pay for someone else to have abortions?  i will agree there would be more women than men that would sacrafice there prosperity, but i dont believe a vast majority of them would.  Why would they give so much to people that werent even willing to protect themselves to get LAID.  I mean come on.  It would be crazy.

Now the other side of the fence.  Would a man be willing to give up his morality, his convictions on this issue?  If a man believes abortion is murder how can he morally enrich someones life they believe to be a murderer?  even worse, a murderer of children?  They wouldnt, they cant go against a belief of theirs that is SO fundamentally wrong as murder.  They would not trade with them, they would not live next to them, they would not hire them, and they would be willing to sacrafice a lot in order to save lives.

And i think a free market would figure this out in less than a couple of years once people realize that they are contributing to abortions by trading with them and giving up their own lives by trading with them.