Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:18:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
833 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Please note in the following discussion that my own feelings on when if
> ever abortion is appropriate are very undecided.
I think this is already clear, but just in case, me too.
> 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."
Yup. I agree.
> Now there's a pretty radical statement.
Yup. I agree.
> 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.
John's response discusses the implied contract between the mother and father.
I agree with him that these contracts should be written and clearly out in the
open so that there are no implied contracts. When I impregnated my son's
mother, we discussed whether or not we wanted to abort. We decided not to. We
made a decision about it together. That worked very well. It was the decent
thing for her to include me. But if we'd thought about it and discussed it
(and ideally, drawn up a contract) before having sex, the unclarity about right
and wrong in that situation wouldn't have had to exist.
But, I can imagine how drawing up a pre-sexual contract might really spoil the
mood. So isn't it actually better that a default contract of some kind exist
for our society, and only for the people who want different terms would that
kind of negotiation need to take place?
> > 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.
I was imagining a situation very close to delivery in which complications have
grown severe and the doc must choose to save one of them. I am completely
comfortable discarding John's scorn of such an implausible scenario since I
know personally a couple to whom this happened, and know of a friend of a
friend who was faced with the decision to save his unconcious wife or their
near term baby.
So the baby at this point isn't dependent on the mother any more.
> 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 (
Are the rights of the mother dominant, or the rights of the baby? I think that
I think that in general the mother should be saved over the baby because
society has much more invested in the mother. But I'm also adamantly
supportive of the mother's right to decide the opposite.
> I'd also say I'm not absolutely convinced [rape] matters either.
> It does seem that especially if the mother doesn't have the
> option of an abortion..., that [she] 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)?
I agree that it seems odious to force someone who had no intent to have sex to
be a parent. But if we grant rights to the child, I think the only path
through this bit of complexity is to say that the mother must bear the child,
and then is free to find other parents to take responsibility for it. And if
we can pin the rapist with guilt, then obviously that person owes the mother
quite a bit.
> A less charged way of examining that might be to construct a similar • [snip]
> fair. Depending on the situation, your insurance company might sue me.
I don't think the analogy holds unless insurance becomes a more broad part of
our life. In your scenario, most people have auto and home insurance, and some
combination of insurers would pay. If those insurances are not there, then
obviously the homeowner is screwed. Just like the mother who gets raped.
> Back to the child of a rape: A morning after pill sure sounds like a
> good solution if we can accept it.
Isn't the deal that it makes the womb inhospitable to the blastocyst? That's
still killing a human and doesn't satisfy the life (and rights) begins at
conception crowd.
> Another good solution is for the mother to be able to separate
> the "pain" of the rape from the incidence of the baby, and accept the
> baby fully as her own.
This is what I vote for, but obviously not everyone is up to it. My wife and I
have discussed what would happen if she were raped and impregnated. After
killing the rapist (preferably with my bare hands) (but only if my wife
wouldn't do it herself), I would gladly accept that innocent child into my
family as my own, and prove to the world that at least some good can come from
even the most unfortunate situations. My wife isn't sure that she could accept
such a baby, though, so it might get aborted.
> I think it does have bearing. Often, one must compare the magnitude of
> conflicting rights (and if all rights are property rights, ultimately,
> they ought to be express able in dollars).
>
> 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
Right. If the resources needed don't exist, then people die. That's how it
has always been. But what if they do exist and the mother simply doesn't wish
to commit them?
> 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.
On the surface I agree with this, but I want to mull it over a bit. John shot
off the answer something like: of course they can't force the mother, they
don't own her. But he's also in favor of abortion not being OK (I think) so
obviously someone has the right to force the mother's action. Or maybe I'm
confused about his stance.
> 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?
My head just exploded.
I guess I side with Todd, in that she should not be prevented, but if she
squashed the rights of another, she should be tried.
In Christopia, our rights and legalities would all result from a web of
contracts, and law would be privately produced. So no central government would
be needed to get involved, but the stakeholders would work the situation out
according to the contracts to which they were all party. I think this means
that for some people abortion would be illegal and for others it wouldn't.
This might be the hole in PPL.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
