Individual rights v. governent intervention

[marshaul]

I understand that it may CREATE a blackmarket....but guess what- right now there is a blackmarket for kidneys. That doesn't mean we should make it legal to steal them from others. Many people view victims of something like that no different than they view an aborted baby as a victim.

There's a huge difference between the two scenarios. A stolen kidney leaves a victim who can seek recompense.

An aborted fetus leaves no trace that it ever existed.

As a result, prohibition of abortion is guaranteed to do nothing but create a black market.

Prohibiting stealing kidneys might create a black market for stolen kidneys, but it also creates a means by which the victims of kidney theft might get their kidneys back, or see some recompense.

From which I conclude that the primary drive to ban abortion is not a desire to enact the most effective means of saving the lives of fetuses, but rather the self-satisfaction which derives from knowing that folks viewed as deserving of imposition are, in fact, being imposed upon on our behalf.

I make this point not because it has much inherent weight, but because in the context of the present discussion, I think it fits well with PistolPackingMomma's suggestion that voluntary means might be more moral, my suggestion that they might be more effective, and your response that none of this matters because the anti-abortion crowd will claim "no recourse" but coercion regardless.

I think this whole discussion speaks volumes as to the necessity of initiatory coercion as contrasted with the emotional gratification certain folks receive from its imposition.

 

[J_dazzle23]

There's a huge difference between the two scenarios. A stolen kidney leaves a victim who can seek recompense.

An aborted fetus leaves no trace that it ever existed.

As a result, prohibition of abortion is guaranteed to do nothing but create a black market.

Prohibiting stealing kidneys might create a black market for stolen kidneys, but it also creates a means by which the victims of kidney theft might get their kidneys back, or see some recompense.

From which I conclude that the primary drive to ban abortion is not a desire to enact the most effective means of saving the lives of fetuses, but rather the self-satisfaction which derives from knowing that folks viewed as deserving of imposition are, in fact, being imposed upon on our behalf.

I make this point not because it has much inherent weight, but because in the context of the present discussion, I think it fits well with PistolPackingMomma's suggestion that voluntary means might be more moral, my suggestion that they might be more effective, and your response that none of this matters because the anti-abortion crowd will claim "no recourse" but coercion regardless.

I think this whole discussion speaks volumes as to the necessity of initiatory coercion as contrasted with the emotional gratification certain folks receive from its imposition.

Correct me if I'm wrong here- as I certainly don't want to be accused of strawmanning this-

But I don't agree that those against abortion are doing so for the emotional gratification of imposing their mores and beliefs.

Is there an actual physiological difference in an unwanted, aborted baby versus a baby that is wanted?

There are many mothers that have still - born babies that very much consider this for the lives of the kids, and many more of this same opinion.

I've got good friends that were nearly aborted, and then at the 11th hour chosen to not be aborted and we're adopted.

I think you may underestimate the moral basis for this conflict.

Understand, this idea of mitigation is a good one, but I simply don't see the main motivator as anything other than preserving life, for most.


The most telling thing that I see is the statement "an aborted fetus leaves no trace that it ever existed."

If it leaves no trace, did it ever exist?


Again - it's easy to get caught in the moral discussion of whether abortion is right or wrong. But that's not really the point here. The point is that this is a conflict that IS based on values of LIFE (in my opinion anyway; you see it as a way to impose on others), and it is something that would undoubtedly need more than a "live and let live" policy to resolve.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Good thoughts, but sitting down and hoping to convince mothers through remediation isn't an option for those in this country (and there are many, medical industry included) that consider abortion in most cases to be murder.

There are always going to be unreasonable people. Giving them the power over the volition of others won't make them MORE reasonable.

Take away their power to coerce, and they are left to either 1. stand on their soapbox and scream themselves hoarse to anyone who will listen, or 2. become violent in their approach, in which self defense becomes an appropriate response.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

There's a huge difference between the two scenarios. A stolen kidney leaves a victim who can seek recompense.

An aborted fetus leaves no trace that it ever existed.

As a result, prohibition of abortion is guaranteed to do nothing but create a black market.

Prohibiting stealing kidneys might create a black market for stolen kidneys, but it also creates a means by which the victims of kidney theft might get their kidneys back, or see some recompense.

...

I don't think this makes as much sense as you think. I mean, are you saying we shouldn't prohibit something unless the crime would leave a living victim capable of claiming recompense? That'd certainly be silly.

I'm also unsure what you mean that "an aborted fetus leaves no trace that it ever existed"... What do you think happens, it magically disappears? (edit: As well as all impressions it had made on the souls of anyone that knew of it previously?)

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Although you may believe the common law to be a gift from god, I recognize it as nothing more than the standards established by universally-shared moral tenets. Murder is abhorrent under the common law because we all agree that it is, not because God, a king, or a democratic government declared it so.

First of all, "we" don't all agree that murder is abhorrent. Not on any level, really. Some here in this part of the world might consider a death penalty murder. Some other societies in other parts of the world may have even more widespread use of death penalties, for crimes which most over here in this part of the world would not consider justification for it, even if they believed that such punishment would be justified in other cases. In other cases, we see multitudes of people flock to defend LEOs who most on this board would agree have committed murder. I'm not saying common law is illegitimate, I'm only saying that it isn't as simple a case as "well, we all agree on it"

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Couple additional things - let's please stop with the "all it'll do is create a black market" bit. If a black market is a result, it certainly isn't those prohibiting the act that are directly responsible for the operation of that black market. So no, those that are doing the prohibiting do not create the black market, even if creation of such a market is an inevitable result of the prohibition.

You know, this is why you have to be careful using pragmatic arguments in defense of rights. It's all good until someone forgets that moral considerations take primacy.

Also, let's not forget the fact that we spent over 10 pages in this thread repeatedly and emphatically asserting that pragmatic considerations are subordinate to moral considerations. We then decided to delve into pragmatic considerations, which is fine, but we should be careful to not imply that any pragmatic considerations take primacy over the underlying moral considerations.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP My analysis is unconcerned with when "life" begins (what even is "life"?). It instead focuses on the much more approachable issue of when rights develop (it might be argued that a spermatozoa is "living", but it will never be argued that it possesses a right to, say, engage in contracts).

I don't know. By going in the direction of a "more approachable issue", does that not still leave unaddressed using threats of force to coerce pregnant woman? It would still be legitimate to coerce pregnant women who wanted to act outside the zone of rights decided by others?

I may be over-simplifying it, but it seems to me that most of the pro-life pressure is coming from people who insist on inflicting their religious views on others. (Hats off to PPM for her renounciation of this.)

Permit me to do a little personal-view analysis of the religious pro-life demands for coercion.

Faith.

First, I have never encountered a pro-lifer who could demonstrate when the self-aware soul takes up residence in the body. Does it occur at conception? During pregnancy? Moments after birth? It is a crucial question--at what instant does that small body belong to the being who inhabits it? The answers are always some variation of "I believe..." Which leads to my next point.

Whoaa!! He believes?

First, a big reason we're talking about the Non-Aggression Principle is to abolish forcing other people based on one's own belief. "I believe cops should be able to shoot undangerous fleeing felons." "I believe everybody should have low-flush toilets." "I believe government should...because..." All the half-cooked conclusions, knee-jerked, based on inclination and so forth. Just because a belief has religious underpinnings doesn't make it more enforceable.

Second, lets examine this belief. Not in the manner of George Carlin who ridicules the faithful for "believing in a man who lives in the sky." No, a down-to-earth, keep-it-real examination. How did he come by this belief? Is it because mom or dad told him God exists? Taking mom and dad's word for it about God, did he ever re-evaluate that as an adult? Did a scholarly cleric tell him the soul is created at conception with the body? Did he conclude the cleric is probably correct? More to the point, how did he verify that? Oh, he didn't verify his conclusion? Did he just adopt the idea it without inspecting it? If he did inspect it, how did he arrive at such certainty of its correctness to feel justified in criminalizing others?

I've talked to too many who seem to have completely forgotten their premises. More to the point, they forgot who adopted those premises, and that it was based on faith. And, somehow these sorts of folks think its OK to now use threats of force to coerce others based on their uninspected adopted ideas and uninspected conclusions? Or, rather, they don't see how their failure to take full responsibility for creating and possessing their own ideas leads them to finding it justifiable to coerce others. "Hah! I believe my ideas are better than yours! That's all I need to force you to bend to my will." Oh, he will use tons and tons and tons of highly sophisticated explanations, justifications, and rationalizations, but that's what it boils down to.

I suspect the genuinely sophisticated faithful recognizes the logical dangers in assigning too much certainty to conclusions. Or, perhaps more accurately, I think he or she understands conclusions can only take you so far, beyond which you need observations. Understands that to maintain certainty beyond that point requires faith. But, also understands who is adopting that next idea based on faith. And, does not throw the responsibility on a book, cleric, or God.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

No, Citizen, because there is no conclusion that can be made in one's mind that amounts to more than a belief, using the context provided in your post for what constitutes a belief.

Beginning a statement with "I believe" is little more than an acknowledgement that none of us are omniscient, and a courtesy.

Which reminds me, marshaul's statement earlier "From a strictly and omnisciently moral perspective" you can't make that statement, sir, as you are not omniscient and therefore cannot speak from an omniscient perspective.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I don't know. By going in the direction of a "more approachable issue", does that not still leave unaddressed using threats of force to coerce pregnant woman? It would still be legitimate to coerce pregnant women who wanted to act outside the zone of rights decided by others?

I may be over-simplifying it, but it seems to me that most of the pro-life pressure is coming from people who insist on inflicting their religious views on others. (Hats off to PPM for her renounciation of this.)

Permit me to do a little personal-view analysis of the religious pro-life demands for coercion.

Faith.

First, I have never encountered a pro-lifer who could demonstrate when the self-aware soul takes up residence in the body. Does it occur at conception? During pregnancy? Moments after birth? It is a crucial question--at what instant does that small body belong to the being who inhabits it? The answers are always some variation of "I believe..." Which leads to my next point.

Whoaa!! He believes?

First, a big reason we're talking about the Non-Aggression Principle is to abolish forcing other people based on one's own belief. "I believe cops should be able to shoot undangerous fleeing felons." "I believe everybody should have low-flush toilets." "I believe government should...because..." All the half-cooked conclusions, knee-jerked, based on inclination and so forth. Just because a belief has religious underpinnings doesn't make it more enforceable.

Second, lets examine this belief. Not in the manner of George Carlin who ridicules the faithful for "believing in a man who lives in the sky." No, a down-to-earth, keep-it-real examination. How did he come by this belief? Is it because mom or dad told him God exists? Taking mom and dad's word for it about God, did he ever re-evaluate that as an adult? Did a scholarly cleric tell him the soul is created at conception with the body? Did he conclude the cleric is probably correct? More to the point, how did he verify that? Oh, he didn't verify his conclusion? Did he just adopt the idea it without inspecting it? If he did inspect it, how did he arrive at such certainty of its correctness to feel justified in criminalizing others?

I've talked to too many who seem to have completely forgotten their premises. More to the point, they forgot who adopted those premises, and that it was based on faith. And, somehow these sorts of folks think its OK to now use threats of force to coerce others based on their uninspected adopted ideas and uninspected conclusions? Or, rather, they don't see how their failure to take full responsibility for creating and possessing their own ideas leads them to finding it justifiable to coerce others. "Hah! I believe my ideas are better than yours! That's all I need to force you to bend to my will." Oh, he will use tons and tons and tons of highly sophisticated explanations, justifications, and rationalizations, but that's what it boils down to.

I suspect the genuinely sophisticated faithful recognizes the logical dangers in assigning too much certainty to conclusions. Or, perhaps more accurately, I think he or she understands conclusions can only take you so far, beyond which you need observations. Understands that to maintain certainty beyond that point requires faith. But, also understands who is adopting that next idea based on faith. And, does not throw the responsibility on a book, cleric, or God.

I say with some confidence that I've criticized every enumerable belief that I hold, even so far as to criticize the belief in my own existence.

I don't know what you mean by "And, does not throw that responsibility on a book, cleric, or God." What responsibility?

 

[stealthyeliminator]

First, a big reason we're talking about the Non-Aggression Principle is to abolish forcing other people based on one's own belief.

I'm not sure this is accurate. You set no criteria for how the NAP is any more than just one's own belief. You briefly mention later something about whether or not observations are made, but that is not nearly enough of an explanation.

 

[HP995]

(BTW, thanks but I never asked anyone to give me the gist of the thread - I had that clearly before I posted the first time. What I did was honestly mention the extent of my reading as a disclaimer at the bottom of my post, after making some points, and that disclaimer was taken up and attacked on its own. Oh well, at least the thread has more points being made now. Meanwhile I read a couple more pages.)

I don't see how the problem of geography can be overcome. As I mentioned in my first post, what about a crime across legal codes?

Mr. A attacks Mr. B by surprise. Let's say it's a "knockout" style attack where Mr. A walks up in a friendly way, smiles and nods, and then strikes without warning. Mr. B dies.

Or Ms. C steals Ms. D's car using professional techniques to thwart security precautions, and sells it to a chop shop. It's gone.

They belong to different legal groups (governments or non governments) which do not agree about punishment; maybe not even about whether a crime has been committed, and who is the victim.

Some groups may factor race into the equation; having some racial groups would be highly likely. Others might differ on interpreting behavior leading up to the event. Some groups could have a criminal outlook and consider predatory behavior to be okay as a fact of life.

Then what? Parley between groups? That has been done before, but it didn't always go well unless you had the stronger group. Sometimes one group got exterminated.

And what if Mr. B is his own man and doesn't belong to a group? I'm guessing where that might go - he chose not to have a group for safety so it's on him?

How about if B does have a group but Mr. A's group is twice as big as Mr. B's group, with more money and resources? He chose not to join a strong enough group so it's on him?

Meanwhile, when it comes to abortion, we see the way this can play out. If you belong to a less powerful group (such as the unborn) then either you have a more powerful group looking out for you, or you are fair game!

(And don't tell me a baby one day after birth and one day before birth are significantly different in terms of humanity.)

 

[Citizen]

I'm not sure this is accurate. You set no criteria for how the NAP is any more than just one's own belief. You briefly mention later something about whether or not observations are made, but that is not nearly enough of an explanation.

Why, thank you for asking. Explaining all these points enough to ensure a reasonable likelihood nobody would need to ask would have made a long post even longer. So, I had to let it ride and wait for somebody who wanted to know to ask.

In context, what I mean by observations are things seen or perceived. For example, "I observe the apple falls down when no longer held by its stem to the tree." Or, more towards the subject, "I observed my child's soul assuming residence in his body about five minutes after birth."

This can get be sliced and diced pretty fine, too. "I don't know when my son moved into his body, but I darn sure observed anger in his eyes when the doctor slapped his butt a few moments after birth." I don't know if babies eyes are open that early, but you get what I mean. Dad cannot say the soul takes up residence in the body at conception from that observation, but he can reasonably conclude that the soul of his son was resident in the body at least not later than the instant of the slap.

By observations do not mean the sloppy definition of observation as in opinions, etc. I mean what was directly perceived.

In context, by belief I mean an idea adopted sans observation. "I believe Christ died for my sins." I didn't talk to Christ directly. I only read it in the Bible, and heard it repeated numerous times by clergy and laity. My observations would be seeing print on the page in the book (and assigning meaning based on the definitions of the words) and hearing the sounds of the voices telling me, and assigning meaning based on the definitions of the words. To give a large measure of certainty to the accuracy or validty of the words, written or spoken, I have to just accept them to be true without having any observations to hang that accuracy on. For example, if somebody tells me rainbow trout are wily, and not easily tricked into gobbling up the lure, I can accept that because I have personally fished for rainbow trout--I have my own observations about rainbow trout to use to evaluate the accuracy of the statement. Not that faith-based acceptance is necessarily a bad thing. I just cannot forget that I did it--its sort of a leap. But, instead of a leap of logic, we refer to it as a leap of faith.

By "throw that responsibility on a book, cleric or..." I mean, "I believe such-and-such because so-and-so book or clergy or somebody says so.." Or, even God. In one sense, I mean, really? Did that cleric engrave that idea on my mind? Did God plant that thought in my mind? Or, did I accept that idea and make it my own? And, how thoroughly did I inspect that idea and evaluate it and its ramifications before accepting it as true and making it my own? I've met too many--way, way, too many--who said they believed such-and-such because some other agency said so: a philosopher, the Bible (God), etc.

At the bottom of this is the question, "Who, ultimately, is responsible for my ideas?"

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Why, thank you for asking. Explaining all these points enough to ensure a reasonable likelihood nobody would need to ask would have made a long post even longer. So, I had to let it ride and wait for somebody who wanted to know to ask.

In context, what I mean by observations are things seen or perceived. For example, "I observe the apple falls down when no longer held by its stem to the tree." Or, more towards the subject, "I observed my child's soul assuming residence in his body about five minutes after birth."

This can get be sliced and diced pretty fine, too. "I don't know when my son moved into his body, but I darn sure observed anger in his eyes when the doctor slapped his butt a few moments after birth." I don't know if babies eyes are open that early, but you get what I mean. Dad cannot say the soul takes up residence in the body at conception from that observation, but he can reasonably conclude that the soul of his son was resident in the body at least not later than the instant of the slap.

By observations do not mean the sloppy definition of observation as in opinions, etc. I mean what was directly perceived.

In context, by belief I mean an idea adopted sans observation. "I believe Christ died for my sins." I didn't talk to Christ directly. I only read it in the Bible, and heard it repeated numerous times by clergy and laity. My observations would be seeing print on the page in the book (and assigning meaning based on the definitions of the words) and hearing the sounds of the voices telling me, and assigning meaning based on the definitions of the words. To give a large measure of certainty to the accuracy or validty of the words, written or spoken, I have to just accept them to be true without having any observations to hang that accuracy on. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. I just cannot forget that I did it--its sort of a leap. But, instead of a leap of logic, we refer to it as a leap of faith.

Ok, makes sense I suppose.

So, let's have an exercise. By what experiment may I observe my RKBA? Edit: wait, let's back up. By what experiment may I observe my right to life?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Hey SVG. I also am too lazy to read this thread. Please read it for me, then present a concise summary including all pertinent arguments (bullet point form preferably) in 300 words or less.
And can you have done by this afternoon? Greeeeaaaat.
Buh-bye.

LOL....

Whats the Twain quote...about how the shorter something is the longer he would need.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Abortion.

The state enforcement causes black markets and makes matters worse. Force and violence are not mitigated by people not thrusting their will upon others.

Then Kidney black market is used as analogy which confuses me because, this again is mostly due to the state interference again. Which leads to murder for kidneys instead of voluntary transactions as the preferred method.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Abortion.

The state enforcement causes black markets and makes matters worse. Force and violence are not mitigated by people not thrusting their will upon others.

Then Kidney black market is used as analogy which confuses me because, this again is mostly due to the state interference again. Which leads to murder for kidneys instead of voluntary transactions as the preferred method.

Ehrm....kidney donation is voluntary.

maybe I'm missing the point.

And so far....every person in this thread saying force and violence against the mother is missing the point. There are many who believe that abortion is force and violence against a human life, with rights of its own.

How do you reconcile this? And no, saying those that don't see it the same as you are just stubborn minded people who want to oppress is not a solution, it's more like - "all is well....if you agree with my point of view"

Ps- I know you didn't say that sudden- most of this thread was a more general response.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Ehrm....kidney donation is voluntary.

maybe I'm missing the point.

And so far....every person in this thread saying force and violence against the mother is missing the point. There are many who believe that abortion is force and violence against a human life, with rights of its own.

How do you reconcile this? And no, saying those that don't see it the same as you are just stubborn minded people who want to oppress is not a solution, it's more like - "all is well....if you agree with my point of view"

Ps- I know you didn't say that sudden- most of this thread was a more general response.

Selling a kidney is illegal right?

Without the government how are they going to enforce their beliefs have isolated bombing of abortion clinics? OH wait........

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Ehrm....kidney donation is voluntary.

maybe I'm missing the point.

And so far....every person in this thread saying force and violence against the mother is missing the point. There are many who believe that abortion is force and violence against a human life, with rights of its own.

How do you reconcile this? And no, saying those that don't see it the same as you are just stubborn minded people who want to oppress is not a solution, it's more like - "all is well....if you agree with my point of view"

Ps- I know you didn't say that sudden- most of this thread was a more general response.

A great deal of effort could be put into resolving the differences non-violently, such as PistolPackingMomma gave example of I believe. I believe a great number of disputes, even involving abortion, could be resolved non-violently. Short of some non-violent method being successful, I suppose we could assume there would be cases when individuals would resort to violence. I'm still not sure how this acknowledgement of human behavior endangers the proposition of anarchy. Maybe I've just gotten lost in this long train of discussion.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Selling a kidney is illegal right?

Without the government how are they going to enforce their beliefs have isolated bombing of abortion clinics? OH wait........

It's technically illegal to post up your kidney on craigslist, yeah. But you are allowed reimbursement for all expenses and mental/physical needs. Which who know how much.

But I still feel it a valid arguement, because just because something is for legal sale does not mean it wont get stolen. I'll spare the examples.

Second....I find it quite amusing you just made a very strong imply that everyone that feels abortion is murder supports bombing of abortion clinics. Or that the government has anything to do with bombed abortion clinics? That's interesting. Maybe I got the wrong gist there. I'm sure I'm just a bit confused there.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

That's an attractive notion. But I'm afraid it isn't universal or consistently applicable enough. What about children whose parents are dead? What of their positive right? What of children whose parents are insane, or incarcerated, or comatose, or...? What if the mother was a victim of rape? What about every child put up for adoption? Upon whose obligations-by-right may they depend?

I hardly think that asking tough questions, though some of these don't even seem that tough, instantaneously discredits a notion.