|
|
#51
11-07-2007, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Libertarian Troll Bingo!
[ QUOTE ]
Abortion is not defensive because the fetus poses no threat to the woman (nor is it capable of an act of aggression) [/ QUOTE ] Putting aside the issue of abortion being 'defensive' or not, I'm not sure it really matters whether or not the fetus poses a 'threat' to the woman. If some guy broke into my house and just sat there, on my couch, whether or not I felt the guy to be 'threatening' would have nothing to do with my right to get him to leave. Unwanted transgression *is* aggression, even if it's aggression that's ultimately 'non-violent' and 'non-threatening'. In any case, while the fetus may not pose a threat to the woman (in that it wouldn't consciously hurt her), I'm sure an undesired pregnancy can be a physically and psychologically traumatic experience for a woman, and I don't think that any being has a *right* to use a woman's body with such consequences without the woman's explicit consent. 
|
|
#52
11-07-2007, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Libertarian Troll Bingo!
[ QUOTE ]
explicit consent. [/ QUOTE ] I respect this argument and it is why I prefer not to use the tacit consent argument because it is a mighty, mighty slippery slope and really is just a matter of opinion from person to person. What about responsibility though? Is the woman not entirely responsible for her own circumstances (as well as those of the fetus), except in cases of rape? Also, I must remind you that you are opening the door to infanticide/child murder/abandonment if no positive action can be required of the mother without explicit consent. Would you like to address this?
|
|
#53
11-07-2007, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Libertarian Troll Bingo!
[ QUOTE ]
What about responsibility though? Is the woman not entirely responsible for her own circumstances (as well as those of the fetus), except in cases of rape? [/ QUOTE ] She might be. But I'm not sure that 'responsibility' can give the fetus a *right* not be aborted, since people have the right to act irresponsibly if they so choose. [ QUOTE ] Also, I must remind you that you are opening the door to infanticide/child murder/abandonment if no positive action can be required of the mother without explicit consent. Would you like to address this? [/ QUOTE ] Well, the two cases seem different (at least) insofar as in cases of child abandonment/murder/etc., there are more reasonable avenues for relinquishing responsibility of a child. So if Jane has a child and then decides she isn't capable of raising it, she can give it to a relative, or put it up for adoption, or whatever. But these options aren't really available when she's pregnant; if she isn't in a position to carry a baby for 9mos and give birth, then (at least as of now) abortion is the only option. There is also a question of what means are allowable to see that rights are respected. Some ACists on this board may disagree with me here, but I've maintained and will continue to do so that you can't do just *anything* to see that your rights are respected. So, if a guy trespasses on your lawn, you don't have the right to shoot him merely because he's on your property. What is more, you wouldn't have the right to shoot him even if it was the only way you could get him off your lawn at the current time. So I think this concept ties into how we should view child abandonment/murder/etc. If a woman has a kid she can't care for anymore, she can't just abandon it or kill it, since these aren't acceptable means for ridding oneself of a child that's been born and is living with you, esp. given that there are other options available. I don't think, though, that this same line of reasoning works against someone who wants to get an abortion, though, since the fetus/child is actually using the woman's body (not just living on the property and in the care of) and since the trauma of carrying an unwanted child is sufficient to allow such means to be used. EDIT: I also want to add, wrt to arguments about responsibility, that I think a mother's responsibility toward her unborn child is a deep argument that abortion may be problematic on purely ethical grounds. I don't think it does the work it need to show that a fetus has a *right* not to be aborted (or that abortion is a violation of its self-ownership rights), but I do think it at least provides a prima facie reason for thinking that abortion is morally problematic. However, like most ethical problems, a mother's responsibility certainly isn't the *only* consideration, and how to approach any given situation will be highly context- and individual-dependent.
|
|
#54
11-07-2007, 07:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Libertarian Troll Bingo!
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the two cases seem different (at least) insofar as in cases of child abandonment/murder/etc., there are more reasonable avenues for relinquishing responsibility of a child. So if Jane has a child and then decides she isn't capable of raising it, she can give it to a relative, or put it up for adoption, or whatever. [/ QUOTE ] I happen to think carrying a child you are responsible for bringing into the world long enough that it can experience life outside the womb is extremely reasonable. Apparently a lot of other people don't. So I am not going to accept any argument based on a subjective judgment of what is "reasonable" - if no positive action can be required, then that is that - that includes putting a child up for adoption. In a hypothetical AC child murder/abandonment scenario (say a 1-year-old so there's less gray about moral agency), do you think intervention/retribution is justified? [ QUOTE ] If a woman has a kid she can't care for anymore, she can't just abandon it or kill it, since these aren't acceptable means for ridding oneself of a child that's been born and is living with you [/ QUOTE ] That's the point - "abandoning" isn't doing anything - it's simply choosing to do nothing. Can a positive action on the part of the parents to care for children be required or not? If it can, what is magically different about the scenario from 5 minutes before the baby is born to 5 minutes after? If positive action is required after birth, then I don't see how the use-of-the-mother's-body canard is relevant before birth - she clearly has to use her body in performing any positive action that may or may not be required for a 1-year-old. [ QUOTE ] since the trauma of carrying an unwanted child is sufficient to allow such means to be used. [/ QUOTE ] again, highly subjective
|
|
#55
11-07-2007, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Libertarian Troll Bingo!
[ QUOTE ]
I happen to think carrying a child you are responsible for bringing into the world long enough that it can experience life outside the womb is extremely reasonable. Apparently a lot of other people don't. So I am not going to accept any argument based on a subjective judgment of what is "reasonable" - if no positive action can be required, then that is that - that includes putting a child up for adoption. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In a hypothetical AC child murder/abandonment scenario (say a 1-year-old so there's less gray about moral agency), do you think intervention/retribution is justified? [/ QUOTE ] Yes to intervention and compensation, no to retribution since I am fundamentally opposed to retributory punishment. [ QUOTE ] Can a positive action on the part of the parents to care for children be required or not? [/ QUOTE ] Well, no, obviously you can't force a parent to take care of a child--but why would you want to? If a mother doesn't want the child, odds are she may not be the best fit for a parent. But, yes, I think a parent can be "punished" for abandoning their child, in that they would owe compensation and face whatever social backlash comes from such actions. Honestly, even if an air-tight argument were given for either allowing or denying abortions, there would be significant segments of the population that would vehemently disgagree. I feel like I probably say this in more than half of my posts, but one of the biggest merits of a decentralized society is that people who can (and inevitably will) disagree about what is 'reasonable' don't all have to live by the same rules. That said, I don't think it is necessarily the case that what is 'reasonable' is automatically 'subjective in the sense that there is no correct answer as to 'what is reasonable'. [ QUOTE ] If it can, what is magically different about the scenario from 5 minutes before the baby is born to 5 minutes after? [/ QUOTE ] First of all, if we're talking about abortion, we're talking about many months before, not 5 minutes. And even if we were talking five minutes, there would still be the significant ordeal of birth (though I agree abortion would be far less justifiable in this scenario). [ QUOTE ] If positive action is required after birth, then I don't see how the use-of-the-mother's-body canard is relevant before birth - she clearly has to use her body in performing any positive action that may or may not be required for a 1-year-old. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but there is a significant difference in what kind of positive action is required from the parent. What is more, denying a woman the right to abortion forces her to undergo stuff during pregnancy she might not want to. There is far more that can be done post-birth; a woman doesn't really have to take care of the child, since a) someone else could, or b) she could abandon it and face the (hopefully dire) consequences. [ QUOTE ] since the trauma of carrying an unwanted child is sufficient to allow such means to be used. [ QUOTE ] again, highly subjective [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] If it's subjective, then shouldn't we rely on the woman's perspective for whether or not carrying the baby is too big a burden to bear?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
