The "Rights" of the Unborn and Intellectual Honesty

[LifeIsPietzsche]

@smartass933 Completely invalid? I believe the current federal abortion ruling only applies to the first trimester, meaning the first 3 months, nothing in this video advocated late-term abortions or even discusses them.

[belfastsamurai]

Returning to abortion I can't help but think of Judith Jarvis Thompson's dismal and lazy analogy whereby she compares a mother's duty to her unborn child as to that of a person who has been kidnapped and temporarily, intravenously connected to another person with damaged kidneys to allow ther recovery.

I feel these arguments that center over questioning a foetus's right to live are simply a device to diminish one's sense of responsibility and guilt.

[belfastsamurai]

If we operate within what I perceive to be the ruling paradigm of moral relativism then I agree with you entirely that government action is arbitrary.

I would go further and say that any human action is arbitrary if morality is relative.

I suggest that non-arbitrary actions are only possible if there are universal moral absolutes.

I cannot speculate as to source of absolute morality without invoking God and won't do so just now.

[pawnstar3]

I think the key here is the same for any other discussion on abortion- do you consider the baby a real living being even though it isn't born yet? If you do, the rights of that being have a right to be protected by the government.  That child is not voluntarily "using" the body of its mother; it has no choice in the matter.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Good video. If you post it as a reply it should be automatically accepted.

Short answer to your challenge: there is a difference in kind between the government taking control of (some of) your wealth and the government taking control of your body. The government is partially responsible for the possibility of property in the first place, entitling them to a share, but everyone has a minimal self-ownership, even in the state of nature, meaning they have no right to that.

[LifeIsPietzsche]

In that case, is it proper for the government to tax the income that comes from the sale of bodily fluids (i.e. blood, semen)? Second, I believe the government is presumed to be partially responsible for preserving life where feasible, even at the expense of others, willing or not. Not to mention, the precedent seems firmly set that the government can and will, at lease attempt to, control our bodies (see drug, prostitution laws); in light of a State how can we say that might doesn't make right?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@LifeIsPietzsche First off I'm not sure government does tax blood banks. Many, at least, are non-profits. But to the point, I don't see why a ban on such taxes would follow. As to the second point, government doesn't 'preserve life' when doing so comes at the expense of another's rights (i.e.-they can't force you to give money to feed the homeless). To the third, I object to laws against drugs and prostitution, precisely on the basis of my pro-choice thinking.

[LifeIsPietzsche]

I meant that the government would tax me if I sold my blood or semen, which they would, even though that "product" is literally from my body. Second, the government DOES force us to support welfare (including feeding the homeless), they are just bad at applying the funds they take from citizens without regard to consent. The point with the drug / prostitution thing is that if the government in fact act a certain way, how can you say they have no right to do so? Government action is arbitrary.

[niinja2]

Isn't this like saying that children cannot ask the right to be taken care of by their parents? I mean they are taking resources and time from them and it does take their body to do necessary tasks to take care of them.

[LifeIsPietzsche]

@niinja2 Thats a good point, Rothbard said that also, but he put in that children have the right to run away and seek better guardians if they aren't satisfied with their current ones. I'm not sure that I am fully satisfied with that answer but I don't think anything the government could do would solve the problem.

[niinja2]

@LifeIsPietzsche

yeah but a fetus cannot run away to another womb, so in that manner his rights are trumpeted.

Personally i find these arguments about taking resources basically as an excuse from taking responsibility as patrons. If someone is irresponsible in sex so he accidentally conceives a child he should take responsibility for his actions and consequences of those actions.

With every freedom comes certain responsibility.

[LifeIsPietzsche]

@niinja2 Don't lose sight of the object of this argument, it is not about whether it is moral to have an abortion, but whether it is proper to use government coercion to prevent abortions from taking place / punish those who do (or inevitably will regardless of the law) have abortions.

[niinja2]

@LifeIsPietzsche

ah ok