Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 14:32:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
694 times
|
| |
|
|
James Powell wrote:
>
> > In my mind the inalienable rights we have granted to human beings should
> > apply to ALL human beings, including the very, very young (unborn). I think
> > these rights should take precedence over someone else's wishes not to be
> > "hassled by the man." Please tell me a) why your desire not to be troubled
> > by the powers that be is more important than the right to life of another
> > human being or b) what evidence you have that a fetus younger than an
> > arbitrary number (16 weeks?) is not a human being.
>
> I'll take you up on this one John D.
>
> Simple. If the child is born at 16 weeks (4 months), it will NOT be viable.
> Therefore, I see no problem with it. I think that up until around that point
> (consider premie babies, they die mostly at under 24 weeks or so...)
>
> Therefore, they are not a separate life form, until they are viable _on there
> own_, without the mother's direct support.
There are some interesting things to explore here. I agree that a
"viability" test is certainly part of the rights based calculus which
should be used to evaluate these things. One way to examine the issue is
that the unborn baby only has the right to demand of the mother what the
mother has agreed to by contract (since from a libertarian point of
view, a contract is really the only way you can give up rights other
than if you have done something which deprived someone else of their
rights [which might also apply in the unborn baby case - does the act
which results in conception <which need not always be sex> deprive the
unborn of any rights? It would seem not, but I'd love to hear reasoning
to support that the act has deprived the unborn of rights]).
So now we are down to the question as to whether the mother has agreed
to an unwritten contract (unless of course she actually agreed to a
written contract, which as Chris stated, would seem to put a damper on
things), and if so, what is that unwritten contract?
That would seem to be the strongest avenue for justifying abortion in
the case of rape. The fact that the mother is not agreeing to the act
which resulted in conception would seem to suggest that she has
expressly indicated that she is unwilling to accept the unwritten
contract.
If we can accept this reasoning, then it would seem to follow that the
mother should be able to chose to not continue to support an unborn baby
which she has not contracted to support. This would then suggest that
the only demand that the unborn baby can place on the mother is the
demand to not have the procedure deprive the unborn of its capability of
life which is not dependant on the mother. Assuming the unborn baby can
be extracted without the actual act of extraction killing it (as opposed
to the fact that the unborn baby might not even be able to survive
seconds without the mother's support), then anyone who is willing to pay
to support the baby is now free to pay for that baby to be supported
(for example, if done early enough, perhaps the embryo could be
implanted in another woman's womb and continue to develop - great!
everyone wins, the mother is relieved of her unwanted burden, and some
woman who perhaps is unable to conceive gets a chance to bring a new
individual into the world).
This reasoning would also suggest that the morning after pill is
acceptable to use if it really does work by making the mother's womb
incapable of sustaining the baby. All it is then doing is denying the
baby's ability to take the mother's property. It's up to the baby now to
figure out how to survive (and again, any third party who can do so
without depriving the mother of any rights).
The above sounds harsh, but then life overall is pretty harsh (but it
sure can be fun while it lasts). I certainly invite critical discussion
of the above.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I'll take you up on this one John D. Simple. If the child is born at 16 weeks (4 months), it will NOT be viable. Therefore, I see no problem with it. I think that up until around that point (consider premie babies, they die mostly at under 24 (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
