Comment thread for abortion debate

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What kind of debate is it?

Political?
Moral?
Subjective? (I like strawberries)

[/ QUOTE ]
I assumed (as did Jman) that it was "should it be legal". This is a politics forum after all, most other topics concerning it would be more appropiate for SMP.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying: suppose you are the president and you wanted to 'solve this problem'.

This means that you first have to decide if it is a problem. And given that you're the president, what are you going to base that on?

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with being President. Even in a market law situation, you still need to convince people what should or shouldn't be legal. Clearly in ACland, people will want it to murder hobos. Another way to look at this is- is it immoral to use force against those who have abortions (or carry them out).

Unfortunately, I think Shake made a mistake in basically assuming that a fetus has no moral value. He clearly assumed it didn't. If it has no moral value, who cares about if its really inconvenient or only a minor inconvenience to have a child. He must either argue that it has no moral value or that although it has some moral value, it has no right to the mother. When you assume that a fetus has no moral value, there really isn't much to debate with abortion.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What kind of debate is it?

Political?
Moral?
Subjective? (I like strawberries)

[/ QUOTE ]
I assumed (as did Jman) that it was "should it be legal". This is a politics forum after all, most other topics concerning it would be more appropiate for SMP.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying: suppose you are the president and you wanted to 'solve this problem'.

This means that you first have to decide if it is a problem. And given that you're the president, what are you going to base that on?

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with being President. Even in a market law situation, you still need to convince people what should or shouldn't be legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean 'convince'? Mind that 'legal' doesn't exist under market law.


[ QUOTE ]
Clearly in ACland, people will want it to murder hobos. Another way to look at this is- is it immoral to use force against those who have abortions (or carry them out).

[/ QUOTE ]

That is why I raised the question. To me, everything comes down to what people believe. They believe in the state because they think it is moral. I therefore like to shift the discussion to one of morality. But that's not what Shake&co decided upon, there I outlined the assumptions.

[neverforgetlol]

Rothbard argues that the fetus should be seen as "property" of the mother as long as it is inside the womb, hence after it leaves the canal it has a right to life. But I'm not sure this is a proper argument, because compare to a landlord evicting a tenant. The abortion is pretty much like an eviction from the womb (the apartment), except that we know the fetus will die if it is forced out of the womb.

But if we know the tenant were to die if they were evicted (say, uh, there's a gunman killing everyone who walks out the door, you get the idea) that would be considered murder, or at least manslaughter right?

[TomCollins]

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that cultural norms and the market would decide what laws would exist (the basis of judgements if you want to be exact). What have I misunderstood? Cultural norms change with time based on argument and reason.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Rothbard argues that the fetus should be seen as "property" of the mother as long as it is inside the womb, hence after it leaves the canal it has a right to life. But I'm not sure this is a proper argument, because compare to a landlord evicting a tenant. The abortion is pretty much like an eviction from the womb (the apartment), except that we know the fetus will die if it is forced out of the womb.

But if we know the tenant were to die if they were evicted (say, uh, there's a gunman killing everyone who walks out the door, you get the idea) that would be considered murder, or at least manslaughter right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your conclusion, because the tenant is violating the terms of your agreement, thus evicting him. He made the choice to do that. The murderer holds all of the responsibility in killing him. If he does nothing wrong, you evict him, and he dies because of this, you may be more likely to be liable.

I find it very hard to reconcile the positions that a parent has a moral/legal obligation to provide for a child after birth, but not before (given the assumption they are morally equivalent). If a fetus is given the same moral status as a toenail or overgrown hair or tumor, the abortion debate is trivial.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry. I was under the impression that cultural norms and the market would decide what laws would exist (the basis of judgements if you want to be exact). What have I misunderstood? Cultural norms change with time based on argument and reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laws are associated with territories.

In a voluntary society, I have a contract with an arbitration organization. And arbitration organizations have contracts with other parties and 3rd parties. All of this will indeed converge towards standards, but it's a different thing from law.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]


I disagree with your conclusion, because the tenant is violating the terms of your agreement, thus evicting him. He made the choice to do that. The murderer holds all of the responsibility in killing him. If he does nothing wrong, you evict him, and he dies because of this, you may be more likely to be liable.


[/ QUOTE ]

But the fetus cannot sign on to any agreement, and they are forced to live there not by their own choice.

Could you clarify what you are saying here a bit?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry. I was under the impression that cultural norms and the market would decide what laws would exist (the basis of judgements if you want to be exact). What have I misunderstood? Cultural norms change with time based on argument and reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laws are associated with territories.

In a voluntary society, I have a contract with an arbitration organization. And arbitration organizations have contracts with other parties and 3rd parties. All of this will indeed converge towards standards, but it's a different thing from law.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I kill a hobo who has no defense contract, its fine then? You make no sense Nielsio. I don't care about the semantics of how you call it, be it a law or whatever. If an advocacy group could sue someone who killed a hobo, an advocacy group could sue an abortionist or a woman who got an abortion. How that suit results, you could call a "law".

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]


I find it very hard to reconcile the positions that a parent has a moral/legal obligation to provide for a child after birth, but not before (given the assumption they are morally equivalent). If a fetus is given the same moral status as a toenail or overgrown hair or tumor, the abortion debate is trivial.

[/ QUOTE ]

If 2 people in a debate both assign overgrown hair status to the fetus the debate is trivial (and probably will not exist). The 'reason' the debate exists is precisely what you allude to, that people assign hugely different value status to fetus, and fetus in different stages of development, etc..

[ACPlayer]

The initial posts of both Shake and VR are disappointing.

A debate on making abortion legal should focus, IMO, on the practical issues.

In particular, I would like to see the two focus specifically on how their posit aions would:

1. For VR: How would a ban on effect the society if we see the return of underground abortions impacting (specially lower middle class people). Is that a price (the treatment of women with poorly performed abortions, and of course still the extermination of the foetus) that as a society we simply have to agree to pay?

2.For Shake: Why is an economic argument (the economic welfare of the mother) an argument for anyone (with or without an economic problem) to get an abortion? As a pro-choicer do you support any restrictions on the abortions or is abortion on demand an absolute right -- kind of like the right of practicing a religion?