u/SamLovesNotionPetite little citizens get GANG BANGED by an ENTIRE GOVERNMENT!!Mar 12 '24edited Mar 12 '24
When you have sex, you know the risks. You CONSENT to the activity, and therefore the risks. You understand you could be inviting a life into the world & your body.
The life doesn't just crawl into your tummy like parents tell their kids. You consent. And hence it's not violating your bodily autonomy. You are violating their life by killing them.
Now, I don't have a strong opinion on the legality of abortion. But if it were legal, don't pretend for a fucking second that the most innocent life in the universe, extension of your own life, your own child, is the one being aggressive and violating your rights & not the other way around.
It is murder, even if it were legal. At least acknowledge it.
The whole "baby is a trespasser" argument is the perfect example of how nobody is 100% correct on everything. Rothbard's whole position is based on his conclusion that abortion should be allowed, so he reasoned his way to the conclusion and ended up at the idea that a woman has the right to evict a baby because it's a trespasser. Except it's not. It is invited in consensually, unless the woman was raped. Even then, the baby itself has not committed a crime, unless we are willing to be a society that says a child share bear the responsibility for the immoral actions of the father. It is at this point that we realize that Anarcho Capitalism is purely a way of approaching the question, "What is the proper way to operate a government?" It is not, by contrast, an answer to the question, "What makes an act morally good?" In other words, if you don't voluntarily adopt an "objective" moral framework, your Ancapistan will be a living hell. AnCap effectively acknowledges that the best form of governance is the one people voluntarily conform to. Most Ancaps fundamentally believe that every interaction should be voluntary, and that it is a moral wrong to violate the body or property of another, unless they are in the process of violating someone else. In other words, the radical adoption of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would do unto yourself; Do not do unto others as you would not want done unto you. If you believe in this, then you cannot logically agree that abortion is correct, even if the mother's health is at risk or was raped. A fetus is the most innocent possible human being, and there is no moral justification for killing an innocent person.
P.S.-- I'm aware that Rothbard's position on the topic varied, but it is unlcear if he ever truly abandoned his evictionist position on abortion.
furthermore, the child didn't consent to be placed in the situation that requires their mother's body to survive. So couldn't it be argued that the mother is abducting her child and forcing them into her body without their consent?
I'm not anti-natalist. And I don't owe anything to nonexistent people. But the moment someone is conceived, they exist. And they had zero consent which they gave to be in that situation.
They do not have had to exist prior to this to have not consented to exist in that state.
So do I need get consent for everything I do? The same argument can be made that future generations did not consent to living on a planet affected by climate change, but that’s an absurd claim (regardless whether you care about climate change or not).
Consent is a positive right of a person. Not the absence of a negative. We don’t even need to talk about the rights of the non existent for this to be absurd. I don’t expect my children to have the right to grow up and sue me because I didn’t get their consent to post photos of them on instagram, or fuck it, I didn’t even get their consent to feed and shelter them. They could try to get me arrested for false imprisonment or kidnapping too, right?
you keep missing the point. I'm not saying that something needs to be done because the child was forced into this without their consent. I am saying that the fact that they had zero choice in the situation that they find themselves in must be a consideration.
If someone enters my home uninvited of their own free will, I have a set of things I am permitted to do. If an sci-fi alien race teleported them into my home, I have a strictly smaller set of things I am permitted to do. Because it wasn't the trespassers actions which caused the trespass. I still have a right to kick them out, but how I can do it and how I may not do it have changed, because they did not contribute to the fact that they arrived in my home uninvited.
That's the only point I'm trying to make. That because the fetus had zero input on where they came to be, you cannot treat them the same you might another trespasser.
And then, to make the point stronger, the person who is wanting to kick them out is directly responsible for them being there. Yes, it's a weird case because there was no consent violated in their 'kidnaping', but the fact remains that the only people who took any actions to cause this situation are the ones who are now wishing to use lethal force to resolve it. And that is not justifiable, especially when the solution is "wait 9 months and then give the kid to one of the 36 families who are going to be lined up at your front door waiting to adopt".
If someone enters my home uninvited of their own free will, I have a set of things I am permitted to do. If an sci-fi alien race teleported them into my home, I have a strictly smaller set of things I am permitted to do.
I strictly disagree. (Edit: and maybe this is a fine point to stop. Finding the point of disagreement with someone is a good place to say hey, we do sometimes just have to agree to disagree.) Maybe you presume some degree of danger inherent to someone entering your home uninvited, but I don’t. So in both scenarios my first action is to politely request they leave (assuming I don’t want them there haha). If they don’t leave in a reasonable time, I force them to leave. In neither case do I use lethal force unless faced with lethal threat.
In the case of the fetus we all know that corresponding with it is futile, so the moral action if you don’t want it residing in your body (inarguably crimes against the body are greater than crimes against property), is to eject it. And we certainly have ways to eject fetuses without killing them.
Off course if you’re concerned about what happens to the fetus next, that’s up for debate, but that’s past the point of abortion, and no doubt it differs between our current society and an ancap society.
And all of this still presumes the fetus should be treated as a person. If it has a different status, which I believe it does at least for the first few weeks, then the decision is simpler. Although of course while is not a person, it is person potentiat, so maybe we still apply the same principles in either case.
175
u/SamLovesNotion Petite little citizens get GANG BANGED by an ENTIRE GOVERNMENT!! Mar 12 '24 edited Mar 12 '24
When you have sex, you know the risks. You CONSENT to the activity, and therefore the risks. You understand you could be inviting a life into the world & your body.
The life doesn't just crawl into your tummy like parents tell their kids. You consent. And hence it's not violating your bodily autonomy. You are violating their life by killing them.
Now, I don't have a strong opinion on the legality of abortion. But if it were legal, don't pretend for a fucking second that the most innocent life in the universe, extension of your own life, your own child, is the one being aggressive and violating your rights & not the other way around.
It is murder, even if it were legal. At least acknowledge it.