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.
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?
The "What if?" game has arrived at my doorstep. I'm a glutton for punishment.
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..
That's called life, and you're free to choose to exit any time you wish.
You're trying very hard to present a circular argument. A fetus is in practical terms a parasite until its removed, naturally or surgically. Once removed it may or may not survive, depending on if its reached sufficient development. Once it survives long enough to speak and rationally reason can you really ask it whether or not it wishes to live. At this moment it also has every tool it needs to choose not living.
You can't ask a non-entity what it desires, indeed that's straight from the playbook of the anti-liberty crowd, assume what people want or don't want, and legislate accordingly.
That's called life, and you're free to choose to exit any time you wish.
You're trying very hard to present a circular argument. A fetus is in practical terms a parasite until its removed, naturally or surgically. Once removed it may or may not survive, depending on if its reached sufficient development. Once it survives long enough to speak and rationally reason can you really ask it whether or not it wishes to live. At this moment it also has every tool it needs to choose not living.
You can't ask a non-entity what it desires, indeed that's straight from the playbook of the anti-liberty crowd, assume what people want or don't want, and legislate accordingly.
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..."
I'm unsure how consent comes into play with respect to being born. I'm also unsure how it can even be a consideration of the person either birthed naturally or otherwise extracted from a womb -- or artificial womb, for that matter. Perhaps you could elaborate on that for me, or at least explain why you believe it constitutes some sort of violation?
Regarding the portion of your post I've made bold in the quote: That would be precisely my argument. The principle(s) we may observe and recognize, or the degree to which we do so, or give weight to, likely form the basis of our disagreement.
That's called life, and you're free to choose to exit any time you wish.
You're trying very hard to present a circular argument. A fetus is in practical terms a parasite until its removed, naturally or surgically. Once removed it may or may not survive, depending on if its reached sufficient development. Once it survives long enough to speak and rationally reason can you really ask it whether or not it wishes to live. At this moment it also has every tool it needs to choose not living.
You can't ask a non-entity what it desires, indeed that's straight from the playbook of the anti-liberty crowd, assume what people want or don't want, and legislate accordingly.
The transition from non-entity to entity seems ambiguously defined (birth or the age of consent?) and also needlessly stark. Can you be a half-entity somewhere in the middle, capable of some reasoning and also not fully free? That's how our bodies develop so I don't see the use for a brightline distinction.
I'm also considering the suffering endured by the child.
The pain of abortion is short and may not even be sensed at early stages.
The pain of living with brain damage may last years until death.
And the brain damage example is good because it may cause the child to never reach maturity. In this way the person can never consent because they don't even understand what the choices are or entail.
I would be happy with an answer that said, "when liberty cannot be achieved, we try to minimize suffering." I'm not satisfied with some of the answers thus far which seem callous.
So the mother is not responsible for giving birth to a brain damaged child because she drank during the pregnancy?
If that's your conception of natural rights then I find your worldview deficient.
But thank you for following through and clarifying.
"Responsible" in what sense?
Morally, I find it reprehensible.
Legally, I would shun it as best as possible through my associations.
But remember, there is no State in this paradigm. She can only be "held responsible" via contractual law. All her contractual associates would have to go the arbitrator to "hold her accountable". You'll have to use the free market to punish her. I surmise that you and I would disagree on the effectiveness there (you opting for State punishment as "holding her responsible" while I prefer capitalism). That's anyone's guess since we only have statism and not capitalism on how "badly" she was punished.
One thing I can say for sure is the moral and logical consistency in arriving at that point where it's time to "hold her responsible" is definitely on my side. There is no preordained violence in setting up the mechanism to account for responsibility in my paradigm.
Legally, I would shun it as best as possible through my associations.
But remember, there is no State in this paradigm. She can only be "held responsible" via contractual law. All her contractual associates would have to go the arbitrator to "hold her accountable". You'll have to use the free market to punish her. I surmise that you and I would disagree on the effectiveness there (you opting for State punishment as "holding her responsible" while I prefer capitalism). That's anyone's guess since we only have statism and not capitalism on how "badly" she was punished.
One thing I can say for sure is the moral and logical consistency in arriving at that point where it's time to "hold her responsible" is definitely on my side. There is no preordained violence in setting up the mechanism to account for responsibility in my paradigm.
So when does a child gain autonomy?
If its at birth does that mean the parent has no authority over them?
Is it a violation of someone consent to give an unconscious person a bed bath? Of course not.
A fetus is not in a state to give consent, hence deciding that it should live cannot be a violation of its consent.
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.