A child would only die from being neglected if the state makes buying a child illegal, or adoption very painstaking. Alot of people want kids, alot of kids want family- the only thing stopping the market from making both parties happy is the state.
Rothbard addresses in the quote that it doesn't matter if the woman had sex, or even had sex intentionally to have a baby then changed her mind.
Your body is your property, do you disagree ?
If a squatter is In your house and you as him to leave and he does, of course you wouldn't shoot him. But usually someone who would disregard property rights would also disregard bodily autonomy aka engage in violence, which should be met with righteous self defense.
There is no irony, so no. I get what your getting at here, but you could replace abortion with any illegal activity and it would come out to the same thing.
Last edited by ares834 on Feb 21st, 2021 at 02:03 AM
Unborn is a phase of development. An early one. Time allows an unborn to transition to born. Like immature humans transition to mature.
It is not a hypothetical utopia to ask that the -conversation- (not necesarily the reality) be shifted to a more honest one, away from the dehumanization argument, as well as start discussing the other causes of abortion that may help reduce the number if addressed (see my previous reply). IF we manage to keep our souls thru all this (and not be so conditioned that we see the killing of a child as an absolute right of the mother regardless of circumstances), we also must accept the possibility that with scientific progress in medicine, extraction (not abortion) is going to be more and more viable.
The unborn are individuals, currently it is “sory unborn, you life has no value so you die now”. I see that as pretty prejudicial.
Last edited by Nibedicus on Feb 21st, 2021 at 03:21 AM
I know he mentioned it, but I disagree with his point.
I fnd the “my body my property” being an absoute argumet as pretty detached from reality. Especially the current reality. Mask laws exist. Quarantine laws literally jail us from moving our bodies around. Laws may be passed requiring vaccination from Covid in the future (w/c I agree with tbh). Even property laws prevent us from entering another person’s owned space even tho we are supposed to have “autonomy” of our body. Hell, we even have laws regulating what we put ON our bodies (clothing while in public). Yes, I agree our body is our property, but we do not have absolute rights over it. Our rights END when another’s begin.
Then you may want to look into your state’s squatter laws. Because in many states in the US, you can’t just take a gun to a squatter’s head.
Last edited by Nibedicus on Feb 21st, 2021 at 03:24 AM
So you don't think you have best and most immediate control of your body ? Who else would be better to control someone's body other than that individual ?
Laws (legality) do not erase moral truths.
Slavery is wrong, but use to be legal and regulated. If one were to argue against the morality of slavery I would hope someone who said " but slavery is legal !" Would be seen as not having a strong argument.
I don't think there should be a state, therefore I don't think laws mandated by the state are legitimate.
Similar to if America was ran by the mafia, their status, in terms of power wouldn't lend itself to moral authority.
Why would someone be allowed to trepass on your property under natural rights ?
I agree that laws do not erase moral truths. The same way that Abortion being legal does not erase the fact that killing a helpless, innocent unborn child is wrong.
But the issue of property is not an absolute actually falls within moral truths as well. Something being your property does not overule another’s right of life in an absolute sense. We weigh the impact on the property and yourself the owner vs the impact on the person who have violated your right to property. When the impact to the person in getting back your property (aka you shoot them in the head) far outweighs the impact to yourself as the property owner, it is not morally right to simply forcibly extract your property from them at the cost of their life. At the very least, it is morally just for you to minimize the impact on the other person as much as you are able while you extract your property from them. That is why I feel it is morally right to steal a little food to feed your starving/dying family. As I said, property is not as absolute as you think it is. In both a moral and legal sense.
In the end, reality is complicated and nuanced. Absolutes should not exist.
Because we weigh in the temporary loss of autonomy over 9 months (plus the risks of pregnancy) vs the absolute loss of life via painful death. From the perspective of one who sees (edit) that society should value all life as equal, it is an easy choice.
Last edited by Nibedicus on Feb 21st, 2021 at 05:08 AM
To me abortion is kind of like a set of Siamese twins that want to separate.
Imagine the mother is equivalent to the twin who can directly control the larger portion of the body, as opposed to the other twin controlling it's face and maybe an arm.
Should the healthier twin be responsible for the quanto style mutant twin on it's body ? Should we think the twin with more control of the body evil for wanting exclusive ownership of it's body ?
Now, if the twin with less control can be removed and lives, then cool beans and everyone is a winner.
Now I'm using two humans with two human minds, which should get away from the fetus vs. baby argument, which is semantical.
Ironically, your analogy supports my argument far more than it does yours. Because the “cool beans and everyone is a winner” scenario DOES exist. Just wait 9 months and both twins get to live. Now, can the heathier twin go ahead and ask his living twin be killed because he can’t wait 9 months? Decide on the morallity in that.
Feb 20th, 2021 11:10 PM
