Natural Rights

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Sandra — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 16:05:05 GMT

Thank you David. I have to be able to walk and drive before I can move to California. I am scheduled for my hip replacement on the12th and then a couple of months of physical therapy and I will be out of here. These people still believe Obama was born in Kenya. We might have better opinions if Rush would hang up his mike. I'm voting LP until I get back to California.

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

David James — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:32:45 GMT

sorry I have been out of the loop for so long i am a carpenter and I work for my self and there is finally some work so I have been busy Sandra I wish you the best of luck with your move I feel that you will be happier in CA

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Sandra — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:38:01 GMT

Yikes, remind me to read before I post. Please change the above to "pursuit" instead of "persuit" Sorry!

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Sandra — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:29:43 GMT

Oh my. I wish him luck in his persuit for a strong set of moral values. I'm heading for the high desert of Palm Springs.

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

kritarchist — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:15:50 GMT

Sandra:
I'm going home to California where we are individuals and responsible only to the California state laws. ... I seem to have been a Libertarian a lot longer than many on this forum.

Indeed. Callidus Asinus lists himself as an 18 year old male from Santa Rosa, CA. Perhaps you'll be neighbors.

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Sandra — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:38:39 GMT

Tell me why you "Callidus Asinus" cannot find your own set of moral values and simply live by them? You may be opposed to many of the rights of others and when it comes to abortion or homophobia, cannot you simply live by your concepts and leave the rest of us to ours? I have many friends who are metaphysically based in Christian doctrine and they find gays living the lives of abomination. I personally have no such restrictions and my life is filled with cultural aspects of art, music and literature instead of judging where and with whom my friends sleep. You assume all humans live in a certain culture and we do not! Even the way we go to war is different. Many nations take great joy in raping and killing with women of their enemies. This seems to be a human failure.

When we speak of social issues in America we look to our individual states which allows us to live in states that suit our life styles. I have always been drawn to a more formal culture where the arts, theater and music can be developed. You seem to prefer a Christian type of government control where the Commandments are used as state laws. Our federal government is not designed to tell us what not to do.

In America, we have many states who are found in the bible belt. I gave Arizona 8 years to show me individual freedoms and I will not live here any longer than necessary. I'm going home to California where we are individuals and responsible only to the California state laws. It is one hell of a challenge to keep the individual choices free from the supernatural religious right. I am also involved in "Compassion and Choices" which came from the death with dignity keeping the government out of our final choices. We do not mandate anything involving how the individual chooses to die. I seem to have been a Libertarian a lot longer than many on this forum.

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Callidus Asinus — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:06:45 GMT

My problem with your view is that if the concept of "natural rights" is entirely a social construct with no metaphysical basis, then any set of rights becomes arbitrary and open to change with the hearts of the population that upholds them. If society decides to stop recognizing the right of a person to own himself, then there is no basis on which to prevent the tyranny of the majority that ensues. What, I ask, is to stop anyone from deciding that he has the "right" to steal another's possessions? The commandment that states "Thou shalt not steal?" If you try to construct a legal system that is entirely without metaphysical basis, then no laws will withstand the whims of the majority. The moral basis of the law will fall to pieces. You mentioned that the law should not prohibit morally wrong choices such as the use of drugs, prostitution, gambling and the like. However, is the right of a person to own himself not in itself without a moral foundation? In the end, without a metaphysically grounded set of laws, there will be nothing to protect the right of the prostitute to rent her body to horny young men or the right of stoner to purchase a joint, just as now there is nothing to protect unborn fetuses from being killed by their fearful or inconvenienced mothers. Rather, laws will shift with the tides of the moral views of the majority.

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

kritarchist — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:15:03 GMT

Aquila, unlike you, I am unfamiliar with Evictionism. Thanks for providing the link. In the other forum you said you had rejected it, but your postscript here says you now accept it. What happened to change your mind?

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Kris Morgan — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:06:56 GMT

the only legitimate argument in favor of abortion is the woman's right to her body... which is the only reason I think in a libertarian society, people would have legal right to have abortions... however, I do think it'd be a situation where people who have abortions are frowned upon and perhaps even ostracized by the public, even though not sanctioned by the state... because to love liberty is to love life

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Kris Morgan — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:00:21 GMT

I don't see it that way. I see abstinence and birth control methods as the way to attempt at determining size of family. I agree, women should have the right to take steps, such as birth control, getting tubes tied, etc. to control family size and so forth, but just as with any other right, your rights end when they interfere with the rights of others. The right to determine family size does not involve the right to take the lives of family members away. If that were so, should my mother be able to kill me now if she decides she only wants 2 sons instead of 3? Of course not. And I am allowed to disagree with the Libertarian Party... In fact, there are numerous things I disagree with the LP on... the most fundamental is that I don't believe taxation is a legitimate means to fund government, I think they do. That is just an example.

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Aquila — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:36:24 GMT

I made this post back in February in a thread entitled "Are you pro-death or anti-choice?":

I frequently encounter the assumption that libertarians, being broadly opposed to government involvement in most everything, must support abortion "rights." Just as frequently, I am appalled by it.

The "right" to terminate a fetus implies that the fetus is the property of the mother. Thus, the only feasible reason a mother should be stopped from having an abortion would be if the fetus is no longer her property and has become an individual entitled to individual rights and thus worthy of homesteading his or her own body.

The point in question, therefore, should not be "A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body," for this is a straw man. The government has absolutely no control over the person or property of women or anyone else--all individuals own their own bodies. The term "reproductive rights" is absurd, there is no such thing (just as there are no "women's rights," or "minority rights," or any other type of group-based distinction in regards to natural rights). There are only individual rights, and all of these apply to all individuals regardless of which groups they belong to. No true libertarian contests this point. Rather, the question should be, "Who (or what) qualifies as an individual," or in other words, "At what point does a fetus become a human being and thence worthy of acquiring its own body as property?" For if we vest in government a monopoly on violence, then it is the government's primary duty to protect property and prevent individuals from exercising violence against each other. It follows from this that the minarchist government is entirely justified in forbidding the practice of killing a fetus/toddler/child/teen/adult/senior or at whatever point humans become human.

A human being is entitled to human rights regardless of how much it weighs or how human it looks or where it is located (that is, inside or outside of its mother's womb). But this is an utterly stupid thing to say, for it takes for granted that a fetus is indeed human, something entirely impossible to prove, because there are no objective criteria for the determination of humanity. So perhaps we should just legalize all abortion. But this is equally absurd, for if a human, blob of cells, or whatever the hell it is becomes a human at some point inside the womb, then a mother is committing parricide by killing her child. The government has a duty, a mandate to protect children from being murdered by parents (or anyone from being murdered by anyone, for that matter). But this is equally absurd, for we do not know with any degree of certainty that abortion of any sort is parricide, and one cannot prosecute on speculation. But speculation is all we have, and by legalizing abortion we risk legalizing parricide, and thus preventing fetuses from living out the rest of their lives.

So, when is the point at which a human becomes a human and is thus endowed with natural rights? Is it when 23 male chromosomes combine with 23 female chromosomes at fertilization? Is it when the fetus begins to take the form of a human? Is it at the first heartbeat, first brainwaves first breath, first meal, first steps, first words, first slice of bread consumed, first job acquired, first STD acquired, first signs of balding, first signs of dementia, first (insert arbitrary criterion)? The problem is that we have no objective means by which to determine at which point a person acquires individual rights and thence becomes entitled to the protection of his body from external harm by others--that is, from a violation of his property rights. We cannot have no standards whatsoever whereby we may reach a conclusion. If society is to function with any degree of sanity, we have to have some standard of who is a person and who is not.

Taking all this into consideration, it is perfectly understandable that reasonable, intelligent people disagree and will continue to disagree on the issue of abortion. I have to admit that this understanding has led me to sympathize with both sides. In spite of this, I respect neither, for neither recognizes the points I am making here as valid. Both continue to spout vain and presumptuous arguments in order to avoid a nihilistic hopelessness surrounding this issue (humans seem to despise uncertainty). It is my current state of mind that the agnostic approach is the most rational--that is, an approach of Socratic ignorance that takes claims from all fronts with equal skepticism and challenges them all with equal vigor. I simply do not see how any universal ethical principle (NAP) can apply to abortion, an issue with profound metaphysical questions that are impossible to answer with certainty by their very nature.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/14514/305188.aspx#305188

p.s. I have since adopted the middle ground of evictionism:

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Sandra — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:40:15 GMT

Kris, abortion is the key to giving all humans, even women, the right to determine the size of the family. This does not say that you, as an individual can chose to force an unwanted pregnancy on your own family. Freedom is the choice to allow all individuals to make the personal decisions; not the government. If you try to legislate your own opinions, it will bring on a tyrannical government force that is not wanted in a free nation. In my world, thie LP is against federal mandates that involve personal decisions.

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Kris Morgan — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:27:30 GMT

I see this discussion as being in the context of Abortion as it relates to natural rights. Not what birth control methods may be applicable in a dying society.

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

Kris Morgan — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:26:30 GMT

When I blog on here, I do so from the perspective of a libertarian society, not the perspective of our own society, which is involved in self-destruction due to immorality. I agree that people should take caution about having kids if they're not capable of supporting them... but I also think that in a libertarian society, people would have way more than they have now, and would be able to afford to have kids. However, when someone is already pregnant, in my view, abortion is not the way to go. People who love life are willing to fight for it to work. If you're a person who loves life, but doesn't see a way to afford to have children, then abstinence and birth controls are fine... but once that human being exists, the path has been laid as far as i'm concerned. You may disagree with me and say that abortion is fine and so forth... and that's ok. We're allowed to disagree. I just happen to think that ending life through abortion is... well... low. Of course you will argue that having a child you're not ready for is wrong; and we go from there.

Re: Natural Rights & Abortion

kritarchist — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:51:12 GMT

Libertarianism is about respecting every person. The problem is in defining who is a person and who isn't. This thread has been an attempt to make the arguments for whether a fetus is an individual based on natural law, a position I argued for. However, it is clear that not all (to say the least) are persuaded by my arguments, nor does this surprise me at all. We humans are an amazingly diverse lot, and I rejoice in that. We are in general agreement that a person has the right to live by the time they are born, though some argue that that is not the case for some period of time both before and after birth. Regardless, libertarian thought says that no single position can be enforced on those who disagree. Thus, any attempt to prohibit abortion universally by positive law is just as wrong as a universal positive law permitting abortion, since this last position would prevent some individuals from having their values reflected in positive law. Where there is such disagreement, the positive law should be made at the lowest possible level of society. Libertarianism is not about everyone agreeing on what universal positive law should be, but about agreeing to respect every person regardless of their position on such things.