Regarding the issue of abortion, there seems to be multiple natural rights approaches, including:
a. The mother owns the fetus and thus can expel it. Once the fetus is born it gains the normal rights of a human being.
b. The mother owns the fetus and thus can expel it. Once the fetus is born it does not gain the normal rights of a human being.
c. The fetus has the right of self-ownership, but the mother can have an abortion because the fetus is inside the mother's body.
d. The fetus has the right of self ownership and thus the mother cannot have an abortion.
Which one do you support and why?
Political Atheists Blog
My views on this issue aren't fully developed, but since I think that rights are ultimately derived from the capacity of rationality, abortions before the deveopment of the frontal cortex (I think around the end of the first trimester) are definitely non-aggressive. After that, I think that it becomes more fuzzy, but I generally agree with Long's view that late abortions are allowed because to prohibit them would be to invade the woman's body. Such abortions may be criticized on other moral grounds, but they are not aggressive.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
C. There is no person to speak of when conception takes place, so the mother has no obligation to retain its presence within her body, even if that results in its death.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
If we agree that a child is property of their parents, then we'd have to agree that children are not property of themselves, and therefore, the parents would have the right to kill their child at any stage. However, if this is the case, then to what extent can this occur? It then wouldn't necessarily be criminal for parents to kill their infants or toddlers, or even 17 year olds (assuming we agree that adulthood starts at 18). Therefore, saying that the child is the parents property doesn't seem to make all that much sense.
It seems to flow into the concept that though the fetus may have human rights, it is the responsibility of the parents (both) to ensure the fetus and child develop, which tends to make a more of an issue of responsibility than 'who owns who.' However, that being the case, it doesn't mean that any outside entity (namely government) has the automatic right to determine whether or not abortion is legal or illegal.
The idea is so subjective that we can't really establish laws in either sense that benefit either side since government has no business making value judgment claims in people's lives, and therefore, both "pro-life" & "pro-choice" arguments would be wrong. Neither side in politics should actually exist.
This kind of question makes me an even greater believer in panarchy (extraterritorial government).
To start with, for various reasons that I will not enumerate here, we must assume that we (the human race) will never, ever, ever, agree on this question. Some will see murder in any cessation of life from the zygote on. Others will find some other point (or none at all) at which to say what is murder and what is not. It is just the way it is.
Given that, the dilemma arises if you assume a monopoly government, where it must be either one or the other, for everyone. But, if you have extraterritorial government (panarchy), where you have multiple governments that are voluntary associations and inhabit the same territory (like we have today with churches), then the dilemma disappears. Those who believe abortion is murder enact penalties that apply to the members of their government only. And vice versa.
You have two groups (just to keep things simple here) that disagree, not on the right to life, but when life begins. That is the reality. The interesting thing would be to see, over time, which group is more successful in their pursuit of happiness.
Hmm, Kritarchist, wouldn't this only further expand the control of government though? In the church example you proposed, though I can see where you're coming from, isn't church influence just community influence? Is it necessarily equivalent to an actual government (force) who can imprison, or even kill the "wrong doer" for breaking their laws, within another government that can do the same for the same or other laws (Perhaps the well known story of how a mere speeding ticket can lead to a chain of events that get the "offender" killed by government regulators)?
It seems like this concept may be introducing government to greater opportunities to take liberties through laws at each level of government, double jeopardy, even more taxation, even more stifling of business practices, etc.
On the other hand, where we leave it to the communities and individuals to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable, this may be able to maintain social order while not stifling liberties. For example, do we really need a local ordinance that says a property owner cannot clutter their lawn, or will a community, affected by the eye-sore, eventually pressure that owner to either clean their premises, or even help in decluttering, if they cannot do it themselves? Will the community notice businesses that abuse their workers, and decide to shop elsewhere? Can community influence, watch groups, at the local level, coupled with an individual's natural right to protect him or herself, deter crime in a community (without a bureaucratic system of state, city & county police)?
We used to have this concept in America at one time (and still have it in many parts of the world), where individual and local responsibility ruled, and police, courts or other regulators authorized to use force were an absolute final action. (For example/ Children acting up in school - the teacher was allowed to use corrective action measures on the child, who would then go home, and receive more from the parents - Today, the teacher is put in jail and the parents must pass ownership of that child to the state, who places the child in therapy - A lose, lose, lose situation).
I know this is supposed to be about abortion, but we could apply these examples to the subject, and probably come up with a similar conclusion.
Nikhil, let me put it this way and see if it makes sense to you. My understanding of libertarian thought is that it is centered around individual liberty, and that the state violates this liberty because it is a territorial monopoly of coercion. It maintains that monopoly by refusing to allow any individual the real option to leave its control. Through panarchy, every person maintains the right to leave the government he has chosen for himself. So, basically, this turns government into a free market, and not a monopoly of coercion within any particular territory. If you believe in the value of the free market, you should be able to see that the ability of a person to choose one government over another, taking with him whatever income the government might expect from him (not so much taxes at that point but fees-for-service) would have a tremendously curative effect on government, and what it could do. What government would deal harshly with one of its citizens, absent real proof of guilt, if they knew that that citizen could, within a year's time, take his business elsewhere?
And as for the other comments in regard to abortion, natural law cannot determine when a person exists, since that is a question of biology. (From the stage of the zygote, when two parental cells merge, you have a distinct individual, and everything subsequent to this is mere development, including the possibility of identical twins emerging from the zygote. Many contend, and I agree with them, that you have nothing less that a distinct new human being from the zygote stage onward.) Neither can natural law determine definitively when a murder takes place when we are dealing with the unborn. What it can and does say decisively is that every human being has a right to live that others cannot take away. (The only exception might be when an individual cannot otherwise be prevented from continuing to do harm to others.) People will always disagree about when the child in the womb is a person with rights, and people deserve the right for their opinions to be tolerated. No one has the right to force their opinion on another. That too is clear from natural law.
I see, this clarifies a lot, thanks. There are a few things though - You say "What government would deal harshly with one of its citizens, absent real proof of guilt, if they knew that that citizen could, within a year's time, take his business elsewhere?"
However, we see this in the US - people have been not only free to take their business elsewhere, but they've been able to take their business elsewhere and live comfortably in many other places in the country, depending on where they're from (or even more to another country). They choose not to though. How would a system like this not either create excessive laws, or push these mini-governments to collectively merge? Isn't this kind of (on a larger level) similar to the way Europe is formed? EU on a large macro level, nations on a smaller macro level, and so on and so on? Do you think this system would work in the absence of a federal government (though I couldn't really conceive how that would possibly work)?
Great explanation on the abortion issue by the way.
I apologize. I used a colloquialism when I should have spoken plainly. When I said "take their business elsewhere", I really meant that they would no longer be a part of Government A, but would change their affiliation to Government B instead. And this is clearly NOT happening anywhere on the planet at this moment. But this is exactly what panarchy is about: having a choice in governments without leaving where you are.
An example is called for. Let's say my town of about 90,000 inhabitants allowed alternative governments. The current government we will call Government A. It presently controls all government functions, including police, fire, schools, garbage collection, etc. Let's say they allow some number of us in my town the ability to form an alternative government for our town, called Government B. We would cooperate with Government A on most everything except the schools, prorating our taxes proportionately by government department. What is allocated for the schools we would handle entirely separately. (As I understand it, there is a precedent for this in Quebec, where, at least at some point, there were separate school systems for the English and French speakers.)
So, when I said "take their business elsewhere", I meant that they would switch their membership (and thus some part of their taxes) from one government to another. Now expand this concept to every level of government in society, and you have the picture I was trying to express.
As for mergers of such governments, since each government is made up of voluntary participants, they could choose to merge if it made sense to them, just as many churches are now doing. Once you get rid of the monopoly aspect of government, the powers of the free market take over.
Federal governments are voluntary associations, but they must remain so to work properly. In the US, where we once had a federal government, we lost that trait in our so-called Civil War, when states were not allowed to leave the union. Since then we have a national, but not a federal, government.
There is another issue regarding abortion that is missing on this thread. Trying to have abortions labeled "murder" has physically and emotionally hurt many women. Being a woman, I decided to join this group for another side of the coin.
Many women conceive quickly and many experience natural abortions when something goes wrong within the process and a fetus is expelled by Mother Nature? God? who knows? This is never explained in organized religion but women are often accused of expelling at their own will. I'm not talking about that but have experienced many natural abortions myself and one caused by a fall. Many religions will blame the woman when this happens and many bring on guilt to the point of suicide.
When we ask the federal or state government to set these values for us, we become slaves to the government. I figured this out at the age of 9. I stood up to the Bishop of our Ward and said "no thank you" to being baptized. The older I get, the more I want my rights as a human being to be respected. This has caused me to be a hard-core Atheist and a Libertarian.
We come down to the endgame of choice. There are unlimited choices that can be ours in a free society but it takes education to understand freedom and liberty.
Sandy
Sandra, your comments bring up the very reason why every person deserves the right to choose his government, just as you once chose your religion. We are fortunate in the US to have a free market in religion, where you are free to choose which religion, including none at all, you ascribe to. That is the way it should be. That is also the way it should be with government. Rothbard's definition of government as territorial monopolies of coercion helps us to see that the problem is the monopoly aspect. When government can be freely chosen by every person (as panarchists support), no one is forced into any situation they do not agree with.
The flip side is that no one can force their opinions on another. Your freedom, therefore, comes at the cost of granting the same freedom to others. Even when you are "right". Even when they are "wrong".
As I stated earlier, natural law cannot determine at what specific point it can be said that a murder takes place if an intended abortion (murder requires intent) is performed. What it can say definitively is that each human being has the right to choose his government based on his own definition of what is right and what is wrong. Some governments will see all pre-birth intentional abortions as murder. Others may not call it murder even after birth (assisted suicide, for example). The choice of government should, according to natural law, be yours to make for yourself.
Thank you Kritarchist for your reply. I actually do live in a government of my own choosing and I am in a minority of thought in my own choices. I am on the Board of Directors of N.W. Phoenix "Death with Dignity." My being a Hospice worker in two states showed me the horrors of having this final choice taken to the Supreme Court during the Shaivo case in Florida. I mention this to define my work which is far more than a stand against the state, but a stand for individual freedoms.
I am very old and look back at my own choices for survival and ignored the hell out of the State and Federal Laws. In the mid 1950s when my children were born I decided to rid the home of the television and instead read to the kids. I found private Christian schools for both girls for the first 6 years and then transfered them to a secular college prep. My purpose was to introduce them to both sides of the coin. Ayn Rand guided us into ethics and the respect for the individual. Orwell guided us out of any thought of slavery.
It is possible for anyone to develop a center of right versus wrong and ignore the bible and the government. I never believed that any human can sin and destroy others and ask for forgiveness and enter the gates to heaven. We trained horses and dogs and I turned this training on my kids. Using my instincts to develop their survival instincts that gave them a sense of individual warning signs of a wrong and harmful action. We lived on the San Andreas Fault and went through many training exercises that came with my Red Cross Disaster skills.
In my opinion, removing the terrorism that came with the government and the churches was the answer to our daily lives. The very idea that a group of like-minded individuals would make for a happy community. I have never found a community like this. I went on line but hit a series of stone walls that demanded I follow the laws of the majority. One site after another banned me and I realized how sad American values had slipped and individual rights would never be possible.
I'm getting too old to fight and have become a hermit livinfg with my books and CDs of Bach. I now laugh at the slaves who choose for themselves they mentally changed existence. Am I a snob? hell yes!
kritarchist: Sandra, your comments bring up the very reason why every person deserves the right to choose his government, just as you once chose your religion. We are fortunate in the US to have a free market in religion, where you are free to choose which religion, including none at all, you ascribe to. That is the way it should be. That is also the way it should be with government. Rothbard's definition of government as territorial monopolies of coercion helps us to see that the problem is the monopoly aspect. When government can be freely chosen by every person (as panarchists support), no one is forced into any situation they do not agree with. The flip side is that no one can force their opinions on another. Your freedom, therefore, comes at the cost of granting the same freedom to others. Even when you are "right". Even when they are "wrong". As I stated earlier, natural law cannot determine at what specific point it can be said that a murder takes place if an intended abortion (murder requires intent) is performed. What it can say definitively is that each human being has the right to choose his government based on his own definition of what is right and what is wrong. Some governments will see all pre-birth intentional abortions as murder. Others may not call it murder even after birth (assisted suicide, for example). The choice of government should, according to natural law, be yours to make for yourself.
Sandra, you are very fortunate to live in a government of your choosing. I guess you are alright with being a minority voice within it.
Many people around the world do not live in governments of their choosing. I do not. Recently I went to the Holy Land, and saw what it is like living with the prospect of war constantly. And in how many places do people live in daily dread of the real terrorism that governments inflict on their own people?
Such ownership by government is immoral and contrary to the dignity of human beings. You have struggled throughout your life to do the right things for yourself and your children, and that is very commendable. But you also have resigned yourself to a hermit's life because you cannot face the sorrows that government confronts you with. I can understand that too. I still have some energy left in me, and intend to continue the good fight for real freedom of choice. I suspect you haven't completely given up the fight either.
I went on line in 1993 in hopes that finally I might locate this freedom group and I could add to it. It did not exist. In 1999 I attended a conference in Atlanta Georgia and met Lew Rockwell along with the CATO Institute, Ron Paul and many others who made up the leadership in the LP. They were supporting Gov. Bush from Texas. I had not voted Republican since 1992 as Perot made much sense to me at the time. My husband was LP but we were not speaking much in those days.
I will be 76 in a couple of months and have been aware of my memory slipping and my looks degenerating through gravity. I will not give in to depression or whining! I am delighted to have found this site where I will be respected for my outrageous points of view.
Typically d), sometimes c).
a) and b) are not acceptable to me because a fetus is a living human, and I believe all living humans should by law be considered persons and enjoy the right of self ownership and protection from infringement. I do acknowledge that 99% of the debate can be boiled down to whether a given person believes a fetus is a person, and those who share my general pro-life viewpoint should work to convince others to believe this opinion.
That said, there are a number of specific cases where as far as the law is concerned, I accept c). The first is the case of rape. I believe consensual adult sex should be considered a type of natural contract. Both parties involved recognize the risk of pregnancy and the creation of a new person. Because of this "contact" the parents do not have the right to bail out the parents at the expense of the baby. Rape on the other hand is not a valid contract since one party was forced into it. Therefore I believe that in the legal sense, the mother should be allowed to abort the fetus, though I also feel that a "Good Samaritan" mother should not. But the law has no place forcing people to be "Good Samaritans". Judith Jarvis Thompson's "Famous Violinist" thought experiment is my basis for this position.
Another exception is in cases where the health of the mother is truely at risk. I use the basis of self-defense to defend this position. I do not think the fact that the fetus is innocent affects the right to self-defense. And again, I have great respect to mothers who decide to risk their health for the life of the baby, but I do not think the law has any right to force them to be self-sacrifising.
The final exeption, is a more unique one, and one I am not 100% committed on. It just follows my line of reasoning so I will present it. A legal minor should be allowed to abort a fetus if both the minor and the legal guardians agree to it. This simply follows the law that minors cannot legally consent to sex. I fully acknowledge that any line of legal adulthood is by definition very arbitrary, but I do believe that there is a point where children should be allowed to make controversial decesions for themselves, and deal with the consequences of those decisions. The age is different between two individuals and different between one indiviual making two decessions. I see no other option but to allow governments to set these lines. And once those lines are set, the application of the law should be consistant. In the case of a minor having sex, if by law she cannot consent to it then it follows that the "contract" I mentioned earlier is not valid. I am forced to make the same exception in this case as in the case of rape, even if the 15.5 year old really is mature enough to make the decesion to have sex despite the law saying she is not.
Axiomata, just to play devils advocate, do you believe, based on such subjective beliefs that government ought to intill laws forcing individuals from killing their baby?
Also, you mention that minors cannot legally consent to sex, even at 15.5 yrs. How is such a law even enforced? The current situation, when 17 year olds have sex w/15.5 year olds and get sent to juvenile homes or do community service does not seem to work - And since you believe that in the case of a minor (with respect to abortion), you believe that it should be allowed only if their guardian agrees to it. Why then, is it the responsibility of the adult to decide whether the baby is aborted, but in the case of legal consent to sex, there is no mention of adult responsibility? To what extent with such laws are we washing parents hands of responsibility, and simply saying there ought to be a law? One more thing - Would you say children are property of parents, or their own property? Assuming you cannot be fully responsible for something and not be under some form of ownership (if even temporary) of it.
Nikhil. Good points all! Individual rights should be the rule of the day. Any other system means ownership (even if temporary). Education in freedoms is missing in many places on this planet. It is up to all of us to teach these choices at home.
I'm not sure how subjective my viewpoint on the matter really is. It seems to me to be the logical end game of a few reasonable starting premises: 1) that a fetus is a living human which is scientifically true 2) that all living humans are indiviudal persons and should enjoy the natural rights associated with such a condition 3) that this new person is created as a direct result of an act of free choice between two other parties, what I termed a natural contract; and the parties to that contract have the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of that decision.
Based on this, yes, in the US, state governments ought to make laws outlawing abortion. Most of the exceptions deal with point 3) which is as far as I know, a new idea. The exceptions flow from basic preconditions that are necessary for a normal contract to be valid, i.e., non-coercion and legal age
I admit that the exception for minors is very shaky, but I think it is a reasonable position and thought I'd add it for discussion. As I mentioned originally, the legal ages, be they to drive, have sex, smoke, drink, vote, etc are essentially arbitrary. But until there is some mystical light over our kids heads that shows up when they go to purchase smokes once the reach the mental and emotional state where they have the capacity for such decisions, I don't see any other way -- and I acknowledge the enforcement of such arbitrary lines often does not work but I do not know what to do about it.
If a minor wants an abortion, and the parents refuse, then I believe the parents should be responsible for paying for the delivery and putting it up for adoption or raising it themselves (until the mother is of legal age and could be allowed to become the legal guardian of her child again). Adult responsibility is implicitly mentioned in the case of legal consent to sex in that only adults are legally obligated to uphold contracts that they agree to (minors can usually void their contracts if they wish before 18). Another reason why minors' parents should play a role in the decesion for an abortion is because it is a medical procedure, and as it now stands medical procedures require the permission of a parent or legal guardian.
In general I am concerned with government doing the parenting for the parents, both because it has the capacity to go against the parents' beliefs and because it tends to wash parents' hands of responsibility. But since there is the life of a third party involved, I feel it complicates things but since one of the fundamental purposes of government, to protect individuals right to life, I think local governments have a role to play.
As for your last question, I am not exactly sure how to reply. I do not think parents own their children in the typical meaning of the word, it is a unique relationship. The parents ought to be reponsible to a degree for the actions of their children, but I wouldn't consider it full responsibility.
Before Roe v Wade in 1973, most of the states did have laws against abortions. In my place in California, my friends would fly to France for their abortions, and if they were poor, they would use a knitting needle to pierce the wall of the uterus. I understand that most states had the same arrangement with many women bleeding to death in some dirty motel room.
My own mother who had studied classical piano for 20 years and often filled in as a pianist in the movie studios sound tracks. She was married when she was given the opportunity to tour Spain with a famous pianist doing two-piano work. Her schedule would take her out of the country for over a year. She found out she was pregnant and had an abortion. She returned from her tour and got pregnant and in 9 months had me. I was raised in the movie studios and saw many young well-trained actresses do the same thing when they found their birth control failed. You get one chance to show your talent and get that one audition or shot at fame.
I will never make a moral judgment against another person whether it is an abortion or a divorce. We should never set a standard for anyone else not even if we have walked in their shoes. I know that our human species has developed brains and should be aware of right and wrong. I am very unpopular with my opinions of trying to stop puting people under the authority of other people.
Sandra, you are in a unique position to answer this question: would it have been murder if your mother had aborted you?
Murder? absolutely not! I feel that the mother is the host to a growing fetus. If for some personal reason the mother is not ready for the 18 year coimmitment, it can be put off. We are talking about a 17 or 18 year full-time commitment which means 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I raised 3 children and wanted all three. Had I been forced to make such a commitment for a mistake, I would not have done a good job as a mother. Neither of my daughters wanted c hildren. Both are high achievers and professional women. None of us are the same as ouir brains and bodies are different and we all must do as our hearts and minds direct. I come from a long line of classical musicians but I lost part of my right hand in a car accident. So I promote music rather tham perform,. Do I ever feel that the driver of my car murdured my chances of a musical career?
Why does everything have to fit in somebody' elses category? We are all individuals and not the subjects of some moral/religious culture. I see much in our society that feels necessary to form one model of women and one model of men. If you are more comfortable in being a number rather than an individual person, then sobeit.
I have been an addicted reader for 70 years and every essay, every book intoduces me to someone else. 'I've seen this "one size fits all" culture demoralize American values. Apparently the latest thing is to label others as being weaker in morals than others. Your comment was an insult to my being a member of this forum.
I was mistaken in believing Mises Forum was boarder in members than the usual right wing losers. Apparently we are all eager to categorize each other with labels. I'm too old for this crap.
Sandra, I'm not sure why you think I insulted you. I was just asking a question that is absolutely relevant, given the topic. No harm was meant.
Throwing words like "murder" around is the ultimate insult. Rand wrote much on the subject of defining the terms of a debate. She wanted all debates to go beyond simple label making words. For some reason, this is becoming more difficult even here where all discussions are brought down to a simple level of thought.
Apparently it is not possible for you to put yourself into a position of donating 20 years to perfect your art and then be forced to give it up for a birth control failure. It makes me wonder if you ever watched a talented musician or actor make such a commitment. Some how in your mind, humans must live by rules set down by the great unwashed law makers. Read up on the Inquisition movements in Spain, France and Italy. They took your attitude to a new high and gave the courts full authority over the individual citizens. Every sperm just be given a name and number. Women were simply brood mares increasing the numbers.
It is taking too much of my time to have to deal with childish questions from others who apparently have not lived lives of accomplishment.
Sandra, you misunderstand me entirely. First of all, I have no intention of forcing anyone to do anything. If I believed it was right to push one's own agenda on another, I wouldn't be here.
In previous posts on this thread I stated that natural law has nothing to say about when murder occurs or when life begins. Biology states that human life begins with the zygote, where the DNA materials of two people, male and female, merge and form a new and distinct individual. From that point, everything is development. Some people say that any intentional taking of life from that stage onward can be considered murder. Others, such as yourself, have differing opinions. All of these opinions should be respected. You seem not to agree with that, but would have only people who agree with you be heard. I think you should continue to stay on this site and express your opinions, and I think you should allow me to state mine as well. Much can be learned from the exchange.
I did not use the word murder to insult you (or anyone else) or to frame the terms of the debate. The word comes up naturally in any discussion of abortion, which is what we happen to be discussing. Murder, or more correctly, when killing is murder, is something defined, not by natural law, but by positive law, though natural law says that a person has a right to live and not be killed except when they behave in a way that engenders the taking of their life, the exception that applies in self-defense, for example. Since people can disagree rationally about whether abortion is murder, all such positions are proper according to natural law. People must be respected.
My question to you was simply to ascertain whether you would consider your mother's act of abortion a murder. Clearly that is not the case. But your further explanation provides a great deal of material for thought about this. We all hear of people who give their own lives for another, and consider them heroic. If your mother had aborted you as well, your career, your children, the whole tree of descendants would not exist. You put a 20 year music career on one side of the scale, and the entire lives of at least one person (perhaps many people), on the other, and see the music career as being the greater of the two. I find that quite extraordinary.
Perhaps you would have given your life for your mother's career (which would have been heroic), but you weren't asked. Neither was the sibling who preceeded you. Of course, having to ask would preclude abortion entirely. So that would imply a kind of ownership by the mother, who may make life and death decisions about the child in the womb, which is, of course, your argument. And perhaps you are right. Still, the same weighing of benefits must occur: this child's life (and all its accomplishments and its descendants) for my life or some part of it. I do not say that I am right and you are wrong. Both positions have every right to be respected. As I said before, you will never get complete agreement on this issue. But it is worth discussing.
I tend to lean toward D, personally. Though I should note that I do make a distinction between a fetus and an embryo, or the embryonic stage of development which is approximately 8-11 weeks immediately following conception, prior to the embryo becoming a fetus.
I take this position because I do believe the fetus inherits natural rights by virtue of being human. It seems to me that a human is defined by appearance, biology and cognizance--all traits which fetuses seem to have as well. How are they different in appearance from a human baby? They're simply smaller. They have a distinguishable head, housing a brain; body, housing a heart; fingers and toes; eyes and ears, etc. How are they biologically much different? They have developed the same biological systems as humans. How are they any less cognizant than a human baby? They act, they move, they respond to stimuli.
So, humanity is established, IMO, along with the natural rights which accompany the fetus by virtue of being human.
But what about the mother? She has natural rights too, and it is her body, after all.
The mother has engaged in a specific number of sequential actions to have produced a fetus. For one, the mother had to have engaged in sexual intercourse to conceive--most likely unprotected. Various forms of birth control are readily available, but it is true they are not necessarily 100% effective. Nevertheless, this is common knowledge--it is a given that BC is not 100% effective. Next, the mother has either taken action to become aware of conception by way of doctor and/or home pregnancy test which can typically be determined very immediately after conception, now a days. If she has not taken action to become aware, and has instead ignored the possibility, this is still action. Next, the mother would have to allow for the embryo to develop over a period of 8-11 weeks as mentioned before in order for the embryo to become a fetus. This is also action--and perhaps one of the more important actions the mother takes as it relates to my position on this issue. By allowing the embryo to become a fetus--by not aborting prior to conversion to the fetus stage--the mother, it seems, has entered into a contract with the fetus. The mother has effectively accepted the fetus within her by way of her own actions--invited it even--to stay and "make itself at home" for as long as it requires until it is ready to leave. Since there can be no direct communication between mother and fetus, this contract cannot be altered any further after the fetus has accepted the same contract. If the mother did not want to enter into this contract; it seems to me she would have otherwise taken action to disengage the contract--either by way of abortion in the embryonic stage, or through proper use of contraception prior to (or even after) the act of conception.
As an aside, the father is also disregarded from the other three arguments. If it is argued the mother has ownership of the fetus, why is it not also argued that the father has partial ownership of the fetus? His labor and part of his property was required to create the fetus, after all.
To further illustrate my main point about the contract, I'll refer to an analogy:
Lets say I invite someone into my home and tell them they are free to whatever is inside while they remain inside my home, for as long as they'd like. Lets say this person accepts my offer, enters my home, and makes himself/herself at home--just as I have suggested they do. They eat my food, sleep under my roof and drink my water--all things which I have given them permission to do. Eight to eleven weeks of this goes on, and then one morning I wake up, decide that this person is violating my property rights by being in my home, take a shotgun and pump two shells into the person's chest as they're sleeping in my living room without so much as a word. They're now dead in a bloody mess.
This is essentially what aborting a fetus amounts to--absent of any direct and immediate danger to the mother, and perhaps also in cases of rape. The mother violates the agreed-upon contract, just as I did in the above analogy, at the expense of an innocent life. The mother has initiated aggression, just as I did in the above analogy, and is thus acting immorally.
Some would argue it is the fetus who initiates aggression, but I find this to be an absurd argument. The fetus did not choose to be conceived in any particular mother, or womb. The fetus does require a womb, however, and accepted the womb the mother offered to it upon entering into the contract between them. There is no initiation of aggression on behalf of the fetus, unless, again, the fetus poses a direct threat to the life of the mother.
To address the opposing argument of: The fetus is a guest in the mother's property, therefore the mother has the right to eject the fetus whenever she wishes. I would suggest this is also absurd, because then this would mean that say... a two year old is subject to the same disposal at the whim of the mother, simply because the two year old lives in the mothers home.
I realize this is an unpopular stance to take for a libertarian, but I've yet to hear any arguments or reasoning to convince me that this is not an acceptable, reasonable, logical or moral position. This position, as well, also allows for a bit of compromise. Eight to eleven weeks the mother has to decide if she wants to retain the baby, or be rid of it without acting immorally.
I say that the fetus is a body, discrete in its own right. That it depends on the mother inside the womb does not change its dignity, which is fixed and constant, regardless of its dependency status.
One way to look at it is to correctly order the state with respect to abortion, as should other practices which destroy human flesh, with tax money:
NO TAXATION FOR MUTILATION - No state money for abortion, torture, circumscision, sterilization, sex-reassignment surgery, human experimentation or any destruction of flesh.
How's that for keepin' it simple?
Robert,
It seems you misunderstand what this discussion thread is about. We are not talking about positive law (no taxation for mutilation), but how natural law relates to the act of abortion. Positive law is the type of law enacted by parliaments, etc. Natural law is the immutable law that relates to our being human. Our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, for example, are unalienable because they are ours by nature. What is being thrashed out here is the somewhat tricky situation where you have two (really three) lives that are directly affected by an abortion, and the apparent clashing of natural rights that results.
I am not convinced by Rothbard's take on this, which I reckon would fall under the option c.So the embryo is inside the mother's body but who put it there? Embryo did not do anything to get itself there. So it can not be an intruder. Lets imagine you offer a travelling person lodging for the night, but then you wake him up in the middle of it and throw him out in the rain. Would this traveller have the right to complain? I think he would.
Of course you can say that it is not the same since the traveller was an invited guest whereas the embryo is "an accident". But is that really important? If you get drunk and damage somebodies property by accident then you have to pay the damages whether you intended to do this damage or not. It is now your obligation to the owner of that property.What is different in the case of conception? If you get drunk and accidentally invite an embryo into your body? Provided that embryo's self-ownership has been conceeded, what clears you of the obligation that you would have in the two other examples that I mentioned?
There are millions of people who believe that abortions, miscarriages and any circumstances resulting in an abrupt end to a pregnancy is murder and a mortal sin. In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court passed Roe Versus Wade, giving the woman the choice of keeping or expelling their unwanted fetus. Many hysterical moralists seem to think that abortions could be mandated. Individual freedoms cannot survive when threats from the government direct our individual actions.
In subjects and comments on this individual choice, it is not necessary to change the scenario using a woman's womb as a rental facility. Women are not brood mares anymore.
I see that many posters here believe that abortion is murder. That is only natural in a culture that believes in the supernatural. The subject of abortion is the choice of the mother. If the mother believes abortion is murder, than abortion is out of the question. It is the ultimate insult to force all humans into one class of morality. There comes a time, and I believe we face it today, where survival becomes a top priority. Many families cannot feed their children healthy and nouishing food so they buy junk and their kids are fat and filled with diabetes. Many families raise their kids in front of a television where no moral values ever reach their small minds. This is the factor that faces many American families. When families cannot raise their children to make healthy decisions, they absolutely need God to blame for the consequences. It is easier and cheaper to pray than to get off their lazy asses and change the attitudes that prevail in the home.
Sandy,
I tried to answer to your post earlier by replying by email I guess that was wrong I'm fairly new to this website. I am pro choice even thou I was raised a catholic the form of government the majority of this country chose states that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. Natural law to me still means individual rights which supports pro choice we can change our form of government and hopefully our views would still stand. People continue to debate abortion while billions of animals are euthanized and our government gladly pays for it no one considers that murder although by definition it is premeditated. Where are the pro lifers then? I also think that television is the bane of our society and am an avid reader. Ironically it does seem that even though there are many who want children and can't have them there are many that don't need to raise them that have them. unfortunately the ones that are really affected are the children and they grow in blissfull ignorance and the cycle is perpetuated.
David, I too have a problem using this site. I have tried to ignore poilitics as there is nothing left in America that I consider worthy of my efforts to attempt to locate the best party or the best actions for Americans. When capitalism still had a chance in America, I worked for the candidates that understood free enterprise. Before my kids went off to college, they read all of Rand's essays and novels. They understood what was meant by individual freedoms. The problem was that in America the majority of the citizens needed guidance from Big Daddy in the Government as well as in the sky. Our own federal government was only too eager to set down social prohibitions probably realizing that individuals had lost their ability to know right from wrong. The complications of begging for forgiveness took the place of making reasonable and rational personal choices. My panic came from the fact that I was born and raised smack dab on the San Andreas Fault where survival training was even taught in schools. The idea that God shook our area was absurd and unless we learned how to survive... we wouldn't.....
It was a lesson I took even when our Representatives were running every 2 and 6 years. The States were given the responsibility for the health and safety of everyone in the USA. The Federal Government was to protect us from foreign invasion. This responsibility grew when interstate airways and highways had to be protected by Federal controls. My grandmother laid down the laws of social restrictions clearly in the minds of the children as I did with my own kids. We lived in a time when abortions were illegal in our state and many young women bled to death in dirty motel rooms. My family consisted of Hollywood Studio people and musicans where 20 to 30 years of study prepared them for their talents and if and when they got into trouble, they aborted either illegally or died in the attempt. There was no birth control available. Back in the 1940s, women had no individual rights when it came to expressing their talents. Even the war in Europe stopped flights for these gals, for legal abortions abroad. My mother had an abortion when she got a contract to travel with another pianist. After she married, she accompanied a famous opera soprano and in those days, a pregnant woman never was seen in her condition. In 1930 she visited a doctor and aborted the fetus. She settled down and had me in 1933. She was teaching and concertizing and I was given to my grandmother. I understood musicians and actors and my mother's music was a big part of my childhood.
Not all humans are raised in the same social religious manner and to ask the government to set the values by which we choose to live is a step into slavery. I will never believe that the human brain cannot handle the choices that we make in our lifetimes. I reject the vision that some spirit is sitting in the sky searching for my sins. I rejected this at the age of 9 and learned right from wrong by observing others and reading the stories in our library. During WW2, I remember learning that Mendelssohn's music was prohibited in Germany because he was a Jew. How is this possible?
I took an interest in Renaissance Art and ran head long into the Inquisitions of Europe. What the hell were humans doing to each other? I was a bitter old woman at the age of 18. I had read the Origin of the Species a couple of years before and I felt a shudder of self destruction within our species. I kept reading about our human development and panicked at the ignorance of people at not recognizing the source of our developed brains.
Even with the warnings from many intelligent writers, America is heading for mediocrity. You call it blissful ignorance and I call it the downsizing of our ability to survive. The answer is not from our government telling us what not to do. I'm pretty certain I am on the wrong internet site. I understand Von Mises' economics but it takes a better educated nation than America can provide. American government is based on corruption and the winners always win all the toys. I do not blame this on open borders as many others do. I blame it purely on a lack of ethics within the voters. One cannot trade ethics for a belief in the supernatural.
Sandy, I stay on this site because it gives me practice putting my thoughts on paper. I was raised by a lawyer who is now a judge and learned from an early age to debate orally very well. I would rather have got spanked than cross examined. I was born into the age of the "pill" so I have not witnessed the horrors that you write about of woman who decided to prematurely end their pregnancies. That was still their choice which is their right and I support that and I'm sure they knew the risks. Music is also a huge part of our life we live in south Georgia which is right in the middle of the bible belt I do not believe in all the Hell fire and brimstone and abortion debates are a big topic down here but I stick to my guns and clearly say I'm pro Choice. I also think we do not need big brother watching over us and think we should be able to make the decisions needed to govren our daily lives. Natural law tells me we should have individual rights and be able to make the choices for better or worse that run our daily lives. And, yes there is no political party that totally ascribes to natural law. Although I agree my economic views are Randian and yes our country is run by the PACs so we do not have a real free market even though we call our selves capitalists. In my views on abortion for the most part I agree to disagree with the pro-lifers. People could go on and say it should not be used loosely as a form of contraception and should only be reserved for cases of rape, incest etc. but in the end it is the womans choice. As far as borders yes I do not blame open borders they should stay open as far as I'm conserned. Our country is a mixing pot and no its problems are not caused by "foreigners we all are unless you are native american Our problems stem from this blissfull ignorance and letting others decide our futures for us or simply following like in a herd instinct. We have for the most part given up on thinking for ourselves.
There is nothing written in the Constitution that recommends we all think and act alike. The bible is pretty firm on what we must not do to be saved. In California there was practically nothing but our social lives to consider and many communities simply did not judge others on some terrorist theory from God. Most of my mother's side of the family were Mormons. They all married Catholics and none of the matches were kindly and loving. There was a lot of alcoholism and my generation got into heavy drugs. I was a hermit and stayed away from all of them. My addiction was books and Bach. I'm still a hermit and still addicted to books, Bach and Opera. My children are very successful with strong marriages. The girls married Jewish men and my son a Catholic girl from Ireland. No complaints.
I know what you mean by cross-examination. I am pleased that they all understand the value of independence and freedom. My husband was a firm follower of Von MIses and had many meetings with the newly developed Libertarian group in Los Angeles. I served coffee and cookies and would listen at the door. The enthusiasm was active and I had a difficult time following the economics of the discussions. I tried to study this subject on my own but did not have the ability to understand the system. My younger daughter understands the Austrian Economics but has not accepted it as her own.
I am a Secular Humanist which seems to fit in with the discussions found on this site. I find that most posters here are open minded and eager to learn as well as share their opinions. I also find that there is no generation gap here and we all can understand the differences of our own years. I picked that up from your post.
I am only concerned when the federal government tries to add prohibitions to our Constitutional Republic. In the past when any nation accepts any God who claims to have moral values and prohibitions integrated into the laws that cuts into the individual freedoms and choices of the people and then the God write the laws by a committee of members of his sect. This causes civil wars.
The individual person determines the rights and choices of his/her own decisions. Some times the majority calls their action as murder but it does not change the laws found in our Bill of Rights. In America the individual states take on the lives of their residents and the federal government has no authority. Murder has always been tried in the State's courts with the acception of the murder of a federal person in charge, like an FBI or federal Policeman.
Often when the States cannot handle a series of laws, the whole thing is turned over to the Supreme Court. When Bush 43 was President he appointed two pro-life judges for the purpose of repealing Roe v Wade but Obama wants a new judge that will stick with a pro-choice,
Every nation as determined its own government authority. In America every State has its own laws. We all must take responsibility for our own moral values and stand by them.