Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rossby]

And this is why my position on abortion is what I’d describe neither as fitting into the pro-life nor pro-choice sides of this debate: The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus. Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.

I've never met a right that's absolute. Why again, does the baby have a right to life?  I don't know how you'd non-consensually "extract" something from any person without pissing them off.

[margomaps]

Why again, does the baby have a right to life?

Do you have a right to life?

[J’raxis 270145]

And this is why my position on abortion is what I’d describe neither as fitting into the pro-life nor pro-choice sides of this debate: The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus. Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.

I've never met a right that's absolute. Why again, does the baby have a right to life?  I don't know how you'd non-consensually "extract" something from any person without pissing them off.

A volitional being has an absolute right to self-ownership. The right to self-ownership is whence both the right to life, and the right to modify one’s own body, comes. If you don’t believe that an unborn baby is a volitional being (until it’s born or somesuch), then I suppose we can argue about whether or not it has a right to life.

I’m not sure what you meant with the second sentence.

[J’raxis 270145]

The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus.

It looks like your absolute rights might be in conflict ... maybe they are not so absolute.

And thus arises the dilemma. Protect the child’s rights and you enslave the woman. Protect the woman’s rights and you kill the child.

Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.

people will still hurt each other with new technology

maybe babies have the absolute right to be born on time in the most natural healthy way.

Sure—now show me how that can be done, with a woman who doesn’t want to carry a pregnancy to term, without using force upon her.

[Russell Kanning]

hey .... you are the one assigning absolute rights ... I was the one making fun of them.

Wouldn't your position rather be:
that you shouldn't kill a baby and you shouldn't force a woman to do stuff.

[J’raxis 270145]

Wouldn't your position rather be:
that you shouldn't kill a baby and you shouldn't force a woman to do stuff.

Sure.

[Jitgos]

Voluntaryism is not a complete philosophy of morals. Many many things are or at least are considered immoral that would be completely permissible in a pure voluntaryist society.

It's the voluntaryist position that it shouldn't be punishable by law because of the principle and/or from a utilitarian point of view because of the unintended consequences. People who were known to have done this could possibly be punished far more in a voluntaryist society than the one we live in now due to ostracism. Unless the person wants to make his own food, create his own electricity, and find his own clean water he better not commit an act that is seen in the community as completely immoral. Today, if caught, the person would be sent to prison where he would get bathing, food, the latest hollywood movies, a bed at night, and then released to be free once again.

I consider the Non-Aggression Principle—the basis of voluntaryism—to be a complete philosophy of morality.  At least, to me, the idea of morality means those things that a person can actually be forced to do or not do, and the NAP is clear that the only time force may be used is in response to aggression (unsolicited force). Any other uses of force are thus unsolicited and therefore by definition aggression, and thereby immoral.

If you want to use the word immoral to describe other things—things that you merely disagree with, to which you’d respond with ostracism—be my guest, but I think it’s sloppy semantics.

Yeah, it is all semantics I guess, but I don't think I was being too sloppy. It was Rothbard (if I remember correctly) that said it wasn't a complete moral philosophy.

1st definition from dictionary.com - moral; of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

It gets complicated on what language to use. The first part of the definition sounds a lot like NAP, but the second part refers to what people consider right or wrong. So what's that even mean? I think leaving your baby in the woods to die is wrong, but it doesn't violate NAP necessarily. So is using immoral the correct term or not? Who knows.

My main point was only to argue in favor of Ian's "radical" view and defend NAP.

[rossby]

Why again, does the baby have a right to life?

Do you have a right to life?

Depends what you mean. The right to be in a state of life? Surely not. Nor would the physical laws of the universe care if I said I did. I do have a right that others not harm me without justification. And that encompasses taking my life.

I've never met a right that's absolute. Why again, does the baby have a right to life?  I don't know how you'd non-consensually "extract" something from any person without pissing them off.

A volitional being has an absolute right to self-ownership. The right to self-ownership is whence both the right to life, and the right to modify one’s own body, comes. If you don’t believe that an unborn baby is a volitional being (until it’s born or somesuch), then I suppose we can argue about whether or not it has a right to life.

I’m not sure what you meant with the second sentence.

The second sentence was essentially what you covered. We could certainly argue about an unborn baby being a volitional being. As much as we can argue when a newborn baby is a volitional being. So far as we can tell, a baby has no concept of self or the power to decide much of anything. Even a volitional being does not have an absolute right to self-ownership. Relative to the actor's actions, the right may fall apart. As I've said before, I do not accept the all-encompassing right of "self-ownership", as that phrase is commonly and carelessly tossed about.

[J’raxis 270145]

I think leaving your baby in the woods to die is wrong, but it doesn't violate NAP necessarily.

I would consider this a violation of the NAP if the baby was under the care of the person who left it there. There’s an implicit contract between a voluntary caregiver (e.g., parent) and a helpless child, thus, abandonment is a contract violation: a violation of the NAP. However, a disinterested third party coming across an abandoned child, and leaving it abandoned, whereupon it dies, hasn’t violated the NAP, because he wasn’t responsible for the baby to begin with.

But, this debate’s been had elsewhere on this forum, the only difference being it was about leaving a baby to drown, so I don’t want to repeat everything that was said there, here.