Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:33:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
987 times
|
| |
|
|
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A0DB4A3.2F33B668@mindspring.com...
> Please note in the following discussion that my own feelings on when if
> ever abortion is appropriate are very undecided. The following is a
> thought exercise. Don't assume that just because I make a statement
> below that it equates to how I really feel. That being said, I will say
> that I am generally in favor of the availability of abortion.
>
> Christopher Weeks wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> >
> > > In the case of abortion, it is equally important to examine everyone's
> > > rights (including the father's).
> >
> > Agreed, but what are they? There is a clear incongruity in the US, in • that the
> > father has _no_ say in whether the child is aborted -- it all rests with • the
> > mother, and yet the father is financially burdened with no recourse.
>
> It would certainly seem that at any stage in which the woman would be
> allowed to chose abortion to avoid the future responsibility of caring
> for the child, that the father ought to have some comparable right of
> being able to say "I'm not going to support this child." Now there's a
> pretty radical statement...
Right, I brought this up here last year, while debating Larry, who was
much more steadfast and aware of his stance on the abortion issue at that
time. Unfortunately the idea is still ultra radical.
Thinking about the implications of that
> suggest that possibly the decision to abort should be a join decision to
> the extent that the pregnancy does not significantly affect the mother's
> health. Or perhaps it really does suggest that while the father has a
> role in providing the genetic material and the catalyst for conception,
> that the father is not in fact obligated to support the child.
Thinking back to my post yesterday, regarding my thoughts I wrote down in
a reply to Maggie, neither parent (progenitor, creator) has a claim on their
children - meaning the children are not property of the creators. It (the
human being, at any age or stage of development) is its own property, as are
all human beings. The implications of this radical idea you are
reintroducing are pretty massive and point to a severe lack of understanding
in our collective view of the topic of abortion, the role of men and women
in this world and their relations to each other...
This is very hard to explain, but its interesting to think about.
Hopefully someone here will understand what I am saying and make it legible.
A human being at any stage of its development is still a human being. It
is a human, always, until death. This supposes that you accept that human
life begins at conception. One doesn't begin as one thing and turn into
something else - it is constantly human.
What are rights? Nothing. Rights are nothing without a tool to enforce
the decided upon rights. That tool is government. That is the function of
government, to enforce the rights of the governed(1). In the USA, one of
our inalienable rights is the right to life. It doesn't say all human
beings have this right... it is vague, and says "all men." So, does this
mean women don't have the same right? I guess so. So there is one minor
flaw. I think most people today accept that women are included when
speaking about the "rights of all men." In my mind the correct term is
human beings, not men, unless we grant that in this context those terms are
exactly synonymous.
I believe a human being begins its life at conception, and remains human
until it dies. I believe a human being has a right to life, and it is the
governments duty/role/purpose to enforce and protect that right. I would
feel corrupt belonging to and supporting a government that does not support
the rights of all human beings. I don't feel too happy about the current
government, BTW.
So, I have stated that it is not the woman's choice to kill another human
being. I have stated that neither the man or the woman has a claim to their
creation, that the creation owns itself.
This is where most people will call me crazy:
The man has no interest (legal claim, no property rights) to the woman or
the new human being he has helped create.
He has no claim and also has no responsibility. Thats radical.
Like a woman says, it is her body. It is her decision and her action
that causes things to happen inside her. For years women have been pardoned
the repsonsibility of upbringing a life she brought into the world - that
responsibilty has been wrongfully handed to the man. There are many laws
that support the usual belief that a man is responsible for a child he helps
create. But let me remind you that existence of a law doesn't make a truth
untrue or a lie truth. We have witnessed many laws that were wrong before,
this is just another example.
So you think I am crazy. I don't care. In an insane world, only the
insane are sane. Let me give you more proof.
Neither the woman or the man knows that sex will necessarily result in
the conception of a new human being. Most times, it doesn't have that
result.
There has been an unwritten contract between man and woman since
civilization began stating that if a man knocks a woman up he'll have to
support her. This makes sense 5,000 years, or 500 years ago, or 50 years
ago, when it was nearly certain doom for both the woman and the offspring if
the man renegged.
However, this is modern times now. We have stopped acting like animals
in most respects, but in this respect we have not. A woman has the means to
prevent pregnancy. A woman has the means to make a written contract, which
is much more easily enforced anyway. Most importantly, in today's modern
world, a man is inessential to the upbringing of a child. I believe instead
of using government as an abstract enforcer of abstract outdated and
unwritten contracts, the government would be more useful to the people if it
did not legislate on sexuality, marriiage, the choices and decisions of men
or women.
To clarify this. A woman needs not become pregnant from having sex. She
is the ultimate decision maker when she gets pregnant. The man may decide
yes, but if the woman decides no, then there is no conception (unless there
is rape, and that is a different discussion). The ultimate decision is
always hers, and thus the responsibility is hers.
I believe the enduring idea that a man is responsible for "his woman" is
quite archaic. That term denotes ownership, which is another fallacy found
in male-female relations. In today's modern world, and tomorrow's near
utopia, women finally can and should be responsible for themselves. I think
they'll prefer seeing themselves as sole-proprietors of themselves, when
they learn how. Men need to do the same thing.
Of course this is hard to apply to the current world, but it reminds me
how imperfect the current world is, and how much progress can still occur
and how stupid most people are. Half of the people are below average.
.
1 - some would have you believe the purpose of government is to feed the
lazy or incompetent members among the governed, but obviously I disagree.
> Another situation in which the father would seem to have some applicable
> rights is his interest in the health of the mother.
eh?
> > What about an instance where one but not both will probably survive, and • the
> > physicians can act differently depending on which one they want to • survive?
> > Who's right are to be protected? Why?
>
> Obviously this is a tough case. Probably, in general, the rights of the
> mother are dominant. One reason I would lean in this direction is that
> in general, the baby is dependent on the mother for survival. Now, at
> the point in which the baby could be removed from the mother's womb and
> have it's life continue is probably a point at which killing the baby is
> not an available option (though if the baby were to die in the
> operation, and there was no negligence on the part of the doctor, oh
> well).
this is such a ridiculous question, in our high tech modern world with such
amazing uses of medicine.
> > In other
> > > circumstances, it will be clear that the mother was fully consenting • and
> > > informed before conception, and that the baby will do just fine when
> > > born, and then the mother's rights are most probably pretty limited • (and
> > > in fact, most probably has an obligation of support to the child).
> >
> > Note that adoption is a possible (societally condoned) out.
>
> Right, but the mother (and father? see above) is ultimately responsible
> for the child until it is adopted.
Only if the father agreed prior that he would be participating in the
upbringing of the child. In our current system, that agreement is made for
him by outdated laws, which are still be enforced and updated for some
reason.
> > > On the other hand, there are very muddy circumstances. What if the
> > > conception occured as a result of rape?
> >
> > I have yet to be convinced that this matters. I'm not set on a stance • wrt
> > abortion's legality, but I don't think I buy that progeny via rape is an • out
> > for whatever responsibilities we settle on for the pregnant mother.
>
> I'd also say I'm not absolutely convinced it matters either. It does
> seem that especially if the mother doesn't have the option of an
> abortion (even if the only option is a "morning after" pill), that the
> mother can not be forced into having responsibility to bring up the
> child, but then who does (assuming we can't pin sufficient
> responsibility on the perpetrator)?
It would be very hard to legislate against the morning after pill in
libertopia, and perhaps abortion, also, since a person might have
considerably more privacy concerning her health. Also, the inherent
wrongness of outlawing substances would keep the morning after pill on the
market. I am convinced however, that people would not be allowing
themselves to become pregnant in an enlightened libertopia. In the
hypothetical question above, I guess the woman (or her insurer) would be
responsible. She should try to find the perp, but thats not always
possible. Thats life though, sometimes the guilty party gets away with
something, and the victims suffer because of it. No system is perfect -
look at how many people suffer under our current system. Its impossible to
avoid that completely, but we can improve what we have.
> Of course we also need to weigh the circumstances of the rape against
> the action taken. If the rape was just the fact that the mother either
> changed her mind after having sex with the guy, or horribly
> mis-communicated with the guy, then the guy may have some rights here
> (to the extent that fathers have rights with respect to the potential
> child).
I really don't like when rape becomes one of the hypothetical arguing
points in an abortion discussion. I don't see a point in it. Two wrongs
don't make a right. It's that simple.
> One way it has bearing is that clearly, if the cost to keep the baby
> alive for those few weeks will far exceed the available resources of the
> mother, then to ask that we even start spending the money to keep it
> alive would seem to be demanding that "society" pay for it. Clearly the
> baby's right to survive for those few weeks does not exceed some third
> party's right to it's own property (i.e. we can't use tax dollars to pay
> for the baby's care).
Well obviously. Tax dollars are blood money - stolen money - money taken
by force. Its obviously wrong to use stolen money for any purpose, but
governments justify stealing, by spending a portion of the stolen money on
"good causes." The cause isn't very good if no one but thieves will support
it, IMHO. Thats not to say that supporitng a baby's life isn't a good
cause, but if there are no members of society who find it to be a good
cause, then there will be no money to support the baby's life. I know
people though, and I think many people would voluntarily try to help in this
type of situation, without the necessity of being robbed for that purpose.
> Now, if some charity want's to pay for the care of the baby, we need to
> re-examine the rights question. I'm not convinced in such a situation
> that the charity should be able to force the mother to proceed with the
> pregnancy.
No, the charity doesn't own the mother.
> This of course brings up the related debate: When is it appropriate to
> exert control on the behavior of the mother, and to what extent?
Well, the people that wrote our outdated laws seemed to think you could
use a stick no thicker than your thumb, whenever you deemed it prudent, to
exert control over your woman.
But to answer that, I'd say when she is violating the rights of another.
So old-fashioned...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
