U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 12:25 AM
 
1,665 posts, read 1,089,349 times
Reputation: 3287

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
Can you expand on that?

I honestly thought there would be some well-known libertarian argument regarding this, but all I'm getting here is crickets.

I suppose it would depend upon your conception of libertarianism, and I would additionally caution you to recognize that there is not some ubiquitous agreement among self-proclaimed libertarians insofar as the establishment of a rigid & universal pseudo belief system is concerned. In recognition of that fact, I don't profess to speak for the totality of the libertarian movement as it currently exists. I tend to observe a rather nuanced version of the general philosophy.


Insofar as your question was concerned ("is childbirth a violation of the child's consent?"), I'm unsure how it could be in the pragmatic sense.


If you don't mind, I'm curious regarding what it is you're trying to 'get at' with this line of questioning. It would be helpful to know this rather than follow a trail of breadcrumbs in tiresome fashion only to arrive at a predetermined outcome that could've been revealed from the inception of the topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 12:35 AM
 
Location: SM
25,928 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9981
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala View Post
I suppose it would depend upon your conception of libertarianism, and I would additionally caution you to recognize that there is not some ubiquitous agreement among self-proclaimed libertarians insofar as the establishment of a rigid & universal pseudo belief system is concerned. In recognition of that fact, I don't profess to speak for the totality of the libertarian movement as it currently exists. I tend to observe a rather nuanced version of the general philosophy.


Insofar as your question was concerned ("is childbirth a violation of the child's consent?"), I'm unsure how it could be in the pragmatic sense.


If you don't mind, I'm curious regarding what it is you're trying to 'get at' with this line of questioning. It would be helpful to know this rather than follow a trail of breadcrumbs in tiresome fashion only to arrive at a predetermined outcome that could've been revealed from the inception of the topic.
I just gave the anarcho-capitalist view on it.

Pretty sure I've opened myself up to perjury down the road but I thought, "What he hell?".

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:35 AM
 
1,954 posts, read 650,214 times
Reputation: 1517
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Rothbard wrote about it at great length.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libe...es_on_abortion

Individuals have rights. The mother (host) was there before the child (parasite).

If all conceptions were voluntary or hell, even known (we still have women looking down in the toilet after what was thought to be bad Mexican food only to discover they just expelled a child which they didn't know they were carrying) you could have some material for a debate.

As a cultural conservative I know this is going to probably cause you to flip your lid but that's it.

Interestingly enough, when that cord is cut (after a successful birthing) the child gains its natural rights and keeps them according to us anarchists.

When that cord is cut (after a successful birthing) the child simultaneously gains then loses its natural rights to the State which then re-bestows them back to the child as it sees fit...according to the statists.
Actually I'm not anti-abortion in all cases.

Rothbard's quote doesn't address the case where the mother decides to carry the child, even if the child would not have agreed to be born had they known what was in store. For example, if the mother is an alcoholic and the child develops brain damage from fetal alcohol syndrome. The mother knew she should not have been drinking and carrying a child to term at the same time, and yet she did. And the child, who had no say, must live an impaired life as a result.

I guess you could always say, the child has the right to commit suicide once they realize what has happened. But that's exceptionally cruel and there are far more humane solutions ranging from the best (alcoholics should not become pregnant) to the gray-shaded (pre-natal testing reveals an abnormality and the child is aborted).

Rothbard's example and your own expansion on it only address unwanted abortion (from the perspective of the fetus), not unwanted birth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:43 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
10,056 posts, read 2,818,325 times
Reputation: 2668
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Rothbard wrote about it at great length.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libe...es_on_abortion

Individuals have rights. The mother (host) was there before the child (parasite).

If all conceptions were voluntary or hell, even known (we still have women looking down in the toilet after what was thought to be bad Mexican food only to discover they just expelled a child which they didn't know they were carrying) you could have some material for a debate.

As a cultural conservative I know this is going to probably cause you to flip your lid but that's it.

Interestingly enough, when that cord is cut (after a successful birthing) the child gains its natural rights and keeps them according to us anarchists.

When that cord is cut (after a successful birthing) the child simultaneously gains then loses its natural rights to the State which then re-bestows them back to the child as it sees fit...according to the statists.
At what age does a child gain its autonomy?

And if its at birth does that mean the parent has no right to hold their child in captivity at their home? Is linguistic capabilities the beginning of consent? And does a parent even have the right to make decisions for their child?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:43 AM
 
1,954 posts, read 650,214 times
Reputation: 1517
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala View Post
I suppose it would depend upon your conception of libertarianism, and I would additionally caution you to recognize that there is not some ubiquitous agreement among self-proclaimed libertarians insofar as the establishment of a rigid & universal pseudo belief system is concerned. In recognition of that fact, I don't profess to speak for the totality of the libertarian movement as it currently exists. I tend to observe a rather nuanced version of the general philosophy.


Insofar as your question was concerned ("is childbirth a violation of the child's consent?"), I'm unsure how it could be in the pragmatic sense.


If you don't mind, I'm curious regarding what it is you're trying to 'get at' with this line of questioning. It would be helpful to know this rather than follow a trail of breadcrumbs in tiresome fashion only to arrive at a predetermined outcome that could've been revealed from the inception of the topic.
I think that childbirth is absolutely a violation of the consent of the child. Even if the child agrees with the decision after the fact, they had no say at the time.

At the same time, children must be born for our species to continue.

What I'm trying to get at is that consent is an insufficient organizing principle for a worldview, given that it cannot rectify the two previous statements.

The second statement is obviously true. The first could be debatable, but I'm skeptical. You have indicated that you disagree on that, and that's at the heart of where I am trying to probe you.

I'm not assuming libertarianism in all its flavors uniformly believes consent is sufficient to answer all questions. I'd be more sympathetic to an argument that said, "consent cannot explain this, so in these cases we use another organizing principle..."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:45 AM
 
Location: SM
25,928 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
Actually I'm not anti-abortion in all cases.

Rothbard's quote doesn't address the case where the mother decides to carry the child, even if the child would not have agreed to be born had they known what was in store. For example, if the mother is an alcoholic and the child develops brain damage from fetal alcohol syndrome. The mother knew she should not have been drinking and carrying a child to term at the same time, and yet she did. And the child, who had no say, must live an impaired life as a result.

I guess you could always say, the child has the right to commit suicide once they realize what has happened. But that's exceptionally cruel and there are far more humane solutions ranging from the best (alcoholics should not become pregnant) to the gray-shaded (pre-natal testing reveals an abnormality and the child is aborted).

Rothbard's example and your own expansion on it only address unwanted abortion (from the perspective of the fetus), not unwanted birth.
I'm not being obtuse or coy. I honestly don't know what you're getting at here.

And I have no idea what that last sentence means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:45 AM
 
1,665 posts, read 1,089,349 times
Reputation: 3287
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
I just gave the anarcho-capitalist view on it.

Pretty sure I've opened myself up to perjury down the road but I thought, "What he hell?".


I didn't respond to the post of yours that you're referring to only because I didn't want to take the topic in a different direction. I suspect you and I could have a rather lengthy conversation on the matter, replete with both agreement and respective dissension.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:48 AM
 
Location: SM
25,928 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
I think that childbirth is absolutely a violation of the consent of the child. Even if the child agrees with the decision after the fact, they had no say at the time.

At the same time, children must be born for our species to continue.

What I'm trying to get at is that consent is an insufficient organizing principle for a worldview, given that it cannot rectify the two previous statements.

The second statement is obviously true. The first could be debatable, but I'm skeptical. You have indicated that you disagree on that, and that's at the heart of where I am trying to probe you.

I'm not assuming libertarianism in all its flavors uniformly believes consent is sufficient to answer all questions. I'd be more sympathetic to an argument that said, "consent cannot explain this, so in these cases we use another organizing principle..."
The child has no rights until after birth. Consent is a mechanism within the function of natural rights. Therefore it's not a violation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:52 AM
 
Location: Various
1,180 posts, read 418,166 times
Reputation: 1043
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Rothbard wrote about it at great length.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libe...es_on_abortion
Rothbard was a man, hence he doesn't get a say and his thoughts on the topic are irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:54 AM
 
1,954 posts, read 650,214 times
Reputation: 1517
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
I'm not being obtuse or coy. I honestly don't know what you're getting at here.

And I have no idea what that last sentence means.
The last sentence means, what if the child didn't want to be born in the first place, and the mother violated the child's consent by giving birth?

You already stated your beliefs in the cases where the mother decides to terminate the pregnancy, but did not state your beliefs in the cases where birth occurs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top