Posted on 05/20/2002 2:51:41 PM PDT by dubyajames
Abortion and Libertarianism: A Conclusion
by W. James Antle III
The abortion debate needn't be an endless rehashing of political minutiae when it can serve as an occasion for reexamining libertarian first principles. It touches on humanity as the basis for individual rights and the prohibition against initiatory violence.
Libertarians reject aggression against other human beings, including lethal violence against the innocent. But some defend the killing of fetuses on the grounds that the fetus is a potential rather than actual human being, a human going to be rather than a human being as William Westmiller would say.
Those making this argument fail to show the biological, genetic or ontological difference between what kind of being the fetus is and what kind of being a newborn is. Certainly birth is a monumental event. But the being that was born is the same being that was in the womb just moments before -- what miraculous change in its fundamental nature takes place simply due to the trip down the birth canal? If the development of the fetus is uninterrupted, it is an essential part of its nature to make this journey. Developmentally, it seems more accurate to say that the fetus is a potential infant in the same sense that an infant is a potential toddler or adolescent. A new being is not formed, but one organism reaches a new stage of development.
Skin cells contain human life. So do gametes. But neither have the potential to become a complete human being on their own. At conception or the simulation thereof that is cloning, a self-contained, distinct physical organism comes into existence that, unless interrupted, will actively develop into the various more mature stages of the life of a member of the human species. Sperm, eggs and somatic cells will not.
One can say that they have fertilized eggs but only became a father upon their children's birth. But the act of fertilizing the eggs was a necessary prerequisite of that person's fatherhood and if any of those specific fertilized eggs had not been allowed to continue developing, the specific children that this father has would not be here today. That clearly shows an individuated being. We were all once fetuses and if we had been killed as fetuses, we would no more be in existence as the individuals we are today than if we had died as infants or teen- agers.
Sapience may be one of the characteristics that makes the human species unique, but it does not define an individual's membership in that species. Humans have the capacity to reason, but even after birth this capacity is not always actualized (infants, the severely disabled, the comatose). Some mock the claim that a fetus has any rights by pointing to the absurd spectacle of fetuses exercising their rights to bear firearms, own businesses or come up with innovative ideas. But it would be equally absurd to imagine an infant doing any of those things, yet few (Peter Singer comes to mind as an exception) would endorse killing infants. Why? Because we know infants are humans and as they continue to develop cognitively, humans have the capacity for all of these things. Humans have inherent worth on the basis of their humanity, which in turn is the basis of all rights -- the intrinsic value that necessitates individual autonomy.
Reason makes human beings different from other animal-organisms, but this does not imply some sort of soul-body duality. We are essentially animal-organisms, we don't inhabit organisms, and we thus come to be when the organism that we are comes to be.
Mr. Westmiller chides abortion opponents for divorcing the birth of new people from the "disgustingly pleasurable sexual act" that creates them. Yet it is his position that actually does that. This sexual act is in fact what produces the being that leaves the womb at birth -- there could be no birth if the being was not already in the womb. It is this sexual act that creates the parental responsibility. The stork does not bring new babies; the sexual choices of free men and women do. We recognize that because of this act parents have an obligation to provide support for their children and not evict them from the crib and let them die. Logically, it is untenable to suggest that no responsibility exists until the being they have brought into existence leaves the birth canal. Nor will it do to suggest this somehow implies that people have no recourse against sexual mistakes. It is simply the case that such recourses must stop short of intentionally causing the death of another human being that came about not by its own will, but by the voluntary actions of its parents.
What about rape? Many pro-choicers hold the confused view that if fetuses are to have any rights, then they must have more rights than other human beings. They can be forgiven for this because many pro- lifers seem to share this illogical notion. If human beings can legitimately be killed in self-defense, fetuses are no different. This case can be made in instances of rape, when the mother did not consent to the act that imposes parental obligations, and it is unassailable in instances when the mother's life is endangered. Where it is not legitimate is in the estimated 98 percent of the more than 1 million abortions that take place annually in the United States which are purely elective.
This misconception also explains the fear of "fetus cops." Simply because a few deranged child-welfare bureaucrats believe that preventing every possible parental activity that may place a child at even the most miniscule risk warrants unprecedented state intervention in every home does not mean the proper libertarian response is to proclaim a parental right to beat, torture and kill children. Similarly, just because regulation of every act by a pregnant woman that might conceivably put some fetus at risk would be undesirable does not mean that there is a right to destroy that fetus for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Reasonable distinctions can also be made between serving as governor of Massachusetts and delivering a crack baby.
A pro-life libertarianism respects the individual from the moment that the specific organism that each of us are comes into existence. Such libertarianism isn't contradictory, for it recognizes the rights of every human being, foremost the right to life. Government cannot "solve" the abortion issue. But libertarians must ask if an abortion right gives license to initiatory violence. If so, libertarians must not abort the basis of their own movement.
W. James Antle III is a freelance writer and former researcher for a political consulting firm. He is a senior writer for Enter Stage Right and staff columnist for several other webzines.
I must confess my favorite Saturday morning cartoon was Beanie and Cecil -- well, actually it is a toss up between that or Spider-Man.
In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Four justices, Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas, voted to overturn Roe saying it was wrongly decided.
In his opinion, Justice Blackmun warned, "I fear for the darkness as four justices await the single vote necessary to extinguish the light… I cannot stay on this Court forever."
From a short bio on Justice Thomas:
Justice Thomas joins Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist as the minority of the Court that opposes Roe v. Wade.
Nuff said.
Yeah but geeze you apparently grew out of it. This ZON Matrix thing is Inspector Gadget on steroids.
Once again you completely miss the mark. Drinking causes bad aim.
So, if I understand you right, libertarians, have nothing in common with the Libertarian Party. Hmmm. And I suppose, in your world, republicans have nothing in common with the Republican Party and democarts, have nothing in common with the Democratic Party.
Talk about vacant minds, producing nothing of substance!
You're amazing TJ.
Excellent poker book
Goldhammer wrote/quoted:"Only in a poker game can a man lie and practice any form of deceit, except cheating, and still remain a gentleman. The good palyer makes extensive use of his right to deceive. He conceals facts and lies about anything that offers him an advantage."- 'The Advanced Concepts of Poker' page 72Neo-Tech... "fully integrated dishonesty".
Are you sure you want to do this? ...Keep taking information and intentionally omitting key context? It is your loss. What do you think you'll accomplish besides parading your true colors on the this forum for others to see. Listen, all I have to do is get the key context information and post it here. Juxtaposition it next to your out-of-context quote and you've succeeded in exposing your irrationality and dishonesty?
I'm doing you a favor.
The bluff:
Poker player John tells opponent Bob he's holding two pair when he holds only an ace high. That's deceit, deception and lying. It is also an acceptable and expected aspect of the game of poker that all players agree is acceptable. Cheating, on the other hand is not permitted and cheaters have been injured or worse when caught cheating.
Important excerpt explains the nature of winning poker:
After writing the Manual and identifying the nature of winning poker as a highly profitable but time-consuming, nonproductive activity that requires bringing out the worst in opponents, the author stopped playing poker.
Poker can work against the good player's self-esteem and happiness no matter how much money he wins since the source of self-esteem and happiness lies in being productive,[ 45 ] and poker is a nonproductive activity. Also, in the long run, a person will almost always earn more money by pursuing productive routes rather than nonproductive or destructive routes.Furthermore, in poker, the good player must strive to surround himself with losers--with people who are constantly defaulting on the use of their minds--the opposite kind of people whom the good player could respect and enjoy. That poker is not a very satisfying or rewarding way for him to consume large, irreplaceable portions of his life.... The good player, therefore, may be the biggest loser in the game.
And the superior professional player is perhaps the biggest loser in poker, especially in public poker. Constantly surrounded by losers, he consumes his intelligence and time in a situation that provides a guaranteed income, but offers neither an interesting nor a productive future.
[ 45 ] Productivity is defined as adding to the sum total of mankind's material, intellectual, physiological. psychological, or aesthetic well-being. Humans earn genuine self-esteem and happiness through the pursuit of productive goals.
I posted, at #101:
You don't have a clue as to the court.
Thomas is FOR individual rights. A first trimester pregant woman is still quite definitely an individual. - Her fetus, at that point, is not
BTW, how many best sellers or comparative accomplishments have you achieved?
Yeah, that C.I.A. spiel on "zonpower for a civilization of the universe" was a great waste of taxpayer money.
I'm not sure what you're taking about. Do you have a link where I can read about it? Also, what all-time-best sellers or comparative accomplishments have you achieved?
You obviously have booze on your mind. - And, quite often, - post like a drunk.
ME-thinks we have a transference syndrome surfacing in our ol 'tex'.
I hold in my secret safe the answer to the universe. I am withholding the publication until my non-profit "SPECIAL COUNCIL REASEARCHING ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSAL MUFFIN" OR ...SCROTUM has been approved and the web site designed.
By the way, has Zonmaster Ward payed out the $10,000 bonuses he owes Neo-Tech "core members" yet?
Cultural Jihad wrote: Fraud and force are just slight inconveniences. They ought to follow tpaine's principled libertarian lead and just clean up the vomit the drunk disgorges on their porch.
I answered that to Goldhammer in my #130 post. Which I will use to highlight similarites.
Original as posted to Goldhammer :
Just the other day you made a similar remark (see repost below) and I explained that the IRS committed crimes against Dr. Wallace since you obviously didn't take the initiative to get the whole story from the Web site. But maybe you did read it and chose to ignore that key context because it refutes your agenda of portraying Dr. Wallace as a criminal.
Which is probably the truth especially since you're still inverting justice and siding with the criminal IRS and judge that sent an innocent Wallace Ward to jail.
Neo-Tech: fully integrated honesty (FIH) with wide-scope accounting (WSA) and statistical integrations to increase prosperity and happiness for self others and society via discipline, thought and control (DTC).
Dr. Wallace Ward's resume is impressive. A double PhD in physics and a top research scientist at DuPont that invented and took to market three products. That was over thirty years ago and last I heard those products are still being sold in the market. Whereas only twenty percent of research scientists ever get even one product to market in their longer careers. But his greatest prosperity creating work is with Neo-Tech/Zonpower. Which he retired early from DuPont to put his efforts towards. Thirty-two years of seven-day-a-week twelve-to-sixteen hour days and that's just one man not to mention other writers and researchers' years of work at Neo-Tech Worldwide?
By the way, has Zonmaster Ward payed out the $10,000 bonuses he owes Neo-Tech "core members" yet?
You'll regurgitate anything you read if it suits your agenda while omitting key context that would otherwise refute your assertions. The supposed $10,000 bonus money was not due to those disgruntled employees that tried pulling the equivalent of a reparations theft.
To: GoldhammerCome now, Wallace Ward (a.k.a Dr Frank Wallace, a.k.a John Flint) was a crook who spent time in jail. He invented Neo-Tech.
He didn't invent Neo-Tech, he discovered the Neo-Tech matrix.. Yes the political-agenda justice system and an ego-justice judge sent Dr. Wallace Ward to prison for ten months? Why did they send him to prison? For not paying his fair share of income tax. The major problem is that he actually overpaid his income tax for all the years in question -- I've seen the tax filings for those years. Mostly on the part of the judge, he knew that Dr. Wallace was innocent but sent an innocent man to prison nonetheless. The judge is the crook, not Dr. Wallace.
Dr. Wallace has several pen names that he publishes under. Use of pen names is common in the book publishing industry. I didn't miss your attempt to make the a.k.a.s look ominously like a criminal hiding behind aliases to hide a criminal identity. A little honesty on your part would be welcome.
Also, Wallace never used Neo-Tech to hide any crimes. It cannot be done. If you read the Neo-Tech Discovery you would know why it is impossible. Wallace has used Neo-Tech several dozen times to protect his interests from neocheaters' attacks. Neo-Tech expose criminals but cannot hide them.
He didn't invent Neo-Tech, he discovered the Neo-Tech matrix..
Come on, you are not real are you? Or do you actually wear a propeller beanie?
Very real. Yeah right and you are so well read on Neo-Tech/Zonpower that you would know the difference? Obviously not. How's you're garden of ignorance doing, any new sprouts or blooms able to grow in that much darkness void of illumination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.