The One Minute Case For Abortion Rights
JackSkylark:If you are sleeping on my couch, and I tell you to leave but you are unresponsive - property rights grant me justification for eviction, but not for murder.
How about I have a strange illness that if woken, I'll die, and that illness won't go away for 9 months?
Also, Block's argument only applies in the case where the act of aborting the child is fatal. Usually in practice (in the case of partial birth abortions) is the child is put to death before it is removed, however if the fetus is extracted in a way that does not directly kill it (though it would die from lack of incubation), there is no legal justification for charging the mother with murder or any other sort of crime.
Block has an interesting opinion on this. He basically says it like this: If you invite a person into your home, but after a while you decide you would like them to leave, you can ask them to leave. If they do not leave, you can force them to leave your property. Similarly, if the mother decides that she no longer wishes to have the baby in her womb, in her property, then she also has the right to displace the baby. Now, this is where Block's belief is different than most arguments that I have heard. He defends the right of the mother to evict the baby from the womb, however the mother does not have the right take the baby's life away. He called this "eviction" rather than abortion. I agree with Block's position on a theoretical level, however, given the current limits of medical technology, it is not immediately practical. Therefore, the mother does not have the right to take the baby's life away, but the baby does not have the "right" to stay in the mother's womb. This is kind of complicated, but basically abortion is an unjustifiable action, and until the day that Block's "eviction" becomes a medical possibilty, the mother's choices are extremely limited.
There is one main exception to what I mentioned above. That is a situation in which the mother's life is seriously threatened. In this situation imagine the guest you invited into your house pulled a gun and threatened to shoot you when you asked him to leave. You could now justify taking the life of the guest to protect your own.
EDIT: I'm sorry, I did not realize Block's opinon had already been discussed. Better read the whole thread instead of skimming it eh?
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
HeroicLife:The One Minute Case For Abortion Rights
Here are a few:
1) " Rights derive from the fact that human beings need freedom from the coercion of others in order to live."
That is not always true. I certainly do want the freedom from the coercion of others but I am still able to live with coercion.
2) "Two properties are essential for a being to possess rights: physical independence and the capacity for rational thought."
Sure, we tend to make those assumptions but they are nowhere near self-evident as we libertarians like to believe nor are they very meaningful.
No thoughts can objectively be deemed to be irrational -- Mises said that. "Rational and irrational always mean: reasonable or not from the point of view of the ends sought. There is no such thing as absolute rationality or irrationality." (Omnipotent Government)
What does "physical independence" mean? If you put me in solitary confinement, I would likely go mad. Most people do. I would certainly not be very happy.
3) "The most fundamental of rights is the right to one’s own life, which means the right to own one’s body."
I like that but outside of libertarian circles, not everybody agrees. Observations of the entire history and current human behavior suggests that most people feel they have the right to coerce their neighbors.
Ancien Regime:And it can be argued that the parents have an obligation to the child by virtue of forcibly placing it in a defenseless state of being
In order for an obligation to exist, aggression must occur. 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.
As a Christian-Taoist, I have been conflicted on this issue: what is more important, an unborn child's right to life, or a woman's right to her body.
After meditating on this, I have come to the conclusion that the right to life is paramount. One can argue that this is not life, merely potential life, but denying someone's right to life before they can even experiance that right.
That being said, I really do not believe that we should force this moral on others. I believe pro-lifers like myself should try to convince others of this belief, but NEVER use government force to abuse it.
When you look back on the Romanization of Christianity under government enforcement as well as all the wars fought in the name of preserving peace, we can see how enforcing a moral through government power often leads to the corruption of that moral.
If Pro-Life was enforced, those who chose to abort anyway would go to underground through dangerous means to abort. This would not be good.
If abortion is left legal, however, we are free to offer the pro-life choice as well as voluntary money and emotional support to mothers and convince people that we are right without resorting to force.
With Pro-Life Forced, pro-lifers would not have as great of an incentive to give support to pregnent women.
In all, I believe Pro-Life is right, but Enforcing Pro-Life is wrong and will only lead to trouble.
The truth is that there is not enough of the right kind of freedom, the fundamental freedom to choose to be free or not to be free, according to one's preference.
GilesStratton: It's murder. And Rothbard is wrong, the parents accept responsiblity for the child and the positive rights that go with it.
It's murder. And Rothbard is wrong, the parents accept responsiblity for the child and the positive rights that go with it.
If the woman was raped, she did not accept anything.
Besides, It seems to me that your argument is the same as for voluntary slavery. To be consistent, you must also support voluntary slavery. Do you?
mr_anonymous:He defends the right of the mother to evict the baby from the womb, however the mother does not have the right take the baby's life away. He called this "eviction" rather than abortion.
I've long been a proponent of Caesarian on demand.
"Abortion, Abandonment, and Positive Rights: The Limits of Compulsory Altruism" by Roderick Long.
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap