TheAgitator.com
While we’re on the topic…
Wednesday, April 28th, 2004….of abortion, I’ve been meaning to link to this stellar piece on pro-life (or, er, anti-abortion) libertarianism by Jeremy Lott. It’s extremely well-thought and well-written.
I was watching an episode of Hardball last week (forgive me). Chris Matthews was interviewing a Catholic priest and scholar who also writes on culture. The priest had commissioned a survey of U.S. Catholics and found that on the three public policy issues the U.S. bishops have deemed most important at the moment — abortion, the war, and capital punishment — less than 3 percent of U.S. Catholics take the church’s position on all three.
Oddly enough, I’m with the church on all three, though I don’t think my position is quite as stalwart on abortion as the church’s.
Considering that the Catholic church tends to favor state involvement in both fiscal and moral issues, I never thought I’d say this, but on the three issues it puts most stock in at the moment, I’m more Catholic than 97% of U.S. Catholics!
Interesting article.
For my money, Jeremy Lott only describes one aspect of libertarianism.
‘In order for classical liberal philosophy to place such importance on individual decisions, it has to vest individuals with tremendous importance.’
Yes and no. Those individuals who have options are tremendously important, but we don’t consider life important enough to prescribe options for those who don’t have the power themselves to choose. This is a liberal position.
As I’ve said earlier, my belief is that when one life is entirely dependent on outside forces for its survival, those outside forces have the choice over whether to provide or withdraw support. I don’t consider it anyones duty to keep alive a patient who relies on machinery to breathe for them, and I don’t consider it the legal duty of the mother to carry a foetus which relies heavily and exclusively on her support to survive.
If I did, I’d start to wonder whether it was the legal duty of the state to provide for the unemployed. Aren’t these individuals ‘tremendously important’ too?
Bernard, let’s examine the examples you’ve given.
A patient who relies on machinery to breathe for them usually is kept alive as long as there is a reasonable possibility of recovery. If that possibility is absent (i.e. no living brain present in the body) that’s another story.
This example is very similar to an airline passenger – air at proper pressure and temperature is provided by engine compressors and the pilot has the “legal duty” as you put it “to carry the passenger, which relies heavily and exclusively on his/her support to survive.”
People would be highly reluctant to allow said pilot to terminate their life for the sake of his convenience or ‘choice’.
Put yourself in an operating room scenario – under the influence of an anesthetic, the surgical staff has legal (or moral) obligations as well.
Barring health reasons, what we are discussing here is a case of TEMPORARY incapacity of one individual being used as an excuse for termination, for sake of convenience by another.
This issue is different than providing for the unemployed. Able-bodied people can fend for themselves.
my belief is that when one life is entirely dependent on outside forces for its survival, those outside forces have the choice over whether to provide or withdraw support. I don’t consider it anyones duty to keep alive a patient who relies on machinery to breathe for them, and I don’t consider it the legal duty of the mother to carry a foetus which relies heavily and exclusively on her support to survive.
How about a parent’s responsibility to take care of a baby, once born?
Does the mother and father play an equal role in that responsibility?
Needless to say, almost all socialist laws are hinged on the “Do it for the children”(tm) mentality, so these questions are apropos.
Should the state be responsible for the well-being of children, or are they to be considered the parent’s property until capable of their own survival?
“…the three public policy issues the U.S. bishops have deemed most important at the moment — abortion, the war, and capital punishment…”
Is this really true? It seems like abortion stands alone at the top. I don’t see the Vatican issuing edicts calling for Scalia to be denied Communion for his rabid support of the death penalty.
Joker:
On the ‘relies on machinery to live’ issue. When medicine is provided either by a socialised system or through insurance, the terms of those systems dictate when the machinery is refused or withdrawn. In a market system, ability to pay is the key criterion. When people lack the resources for an operation their ability to get it is contingent on being helped by others. Should others be legally obliged to help?
With respect to the airline passenger, reasonable precautions for the passengers safety are a part of the contract sealed when the ticket is purchased. In this case the fact and extent of the legal obligations the airline bear toward the passenger are defined by the contract.
I don’t understand the anaesthetic argument, because anaesthetic knocks people out for a temporary period. You’d survive being anaesthetised barring either medical negligence (the legal contract again) or unforeseeable physical complications.
I agree that we are only discussing temporary incapacity. However, during that time the foetus cannot survive with anything except support from the mother. Is she legally obliged to provide that support? I’d say not, though I have a related thought at the bottom.
With respect to the unemployment issue, I agree that the assumption with regard to able-bodied adults is that they can cope, but some people clearly don’t, for one reason or another. What obligations do we have toward them if any? It seems to me that this issue of how far society is obliged to look after individuals is the root point of discussion.
On a side note, I have an underdevloped thought. Feel free to knock down with glee:
If it were to be decided that a woman is legally obliged to support the life of a foetus because she is the only one who can, could she not be said to be acting on behalf of the state? Could she seek remuneration equivalent to the opportunity cost to her of doing so?
It’s inaccurate to say that the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty officially. The Catechism says it can be used as a last resort to “defend society.”
Bernard, with the examples of the airline or surgery I was leading up to the argument that individuals are on occasion under the temporary care of others for one reason or another.
I wasn’t debating state influence there – private hospitals airlines have the same responsibility to keep me from harm if I am in their care.
My logic then proceeds to extend this line of thought to the mother caring for an individual (un-born, but that’s mechanics – although highly emotional).
I was after the principle of the thing not whether the gov’t should or shouldn’t get involved.
I think that if there are statutes ensuring (or encouraging) responsible behavior by one set of care-givers/providers, then extend the same standards to the rest.
That doesn’t mean create a new gov’t dep’t but recognize the right to exist.
i.e. I have a right to live whether sitting in an airplane, OR or womb.
To totally threadjack, I had a thought.
About a week ago the Catholic Church told Kerry (and all politicans) that if they did not publically support the Church’s view on abortion, they would be denied communion.
This is regardless of what the politicians personal views are. They might be pro-life but do not feel that it should not be decided at the state/federal level.
So it seems the Catholic Church is attempting to impose its beliefs on all of us.
What policy will it want to implement next? Its policy on women? Pedophiles?
If that is the case, someone should really consider revoking their tax-exempt status (there is precident for this).
Just a thought,
Joker. I think we may have been talking at cross-purposes. I’ve been exploring the possible legalities and practicalities of prohibiting abortion in the face of demand for it. I’ve not addressed philosophical or moral arguments with respect to life because a) They are so deeply personal that widespread agreement is pretty improbable and b) I don’t think it’s the role of the state to define what people should or should not do, but what they must and must not do. Imperatives are the only way to go about defining the rights and responsibilities of citizens, because the vaguer the definition of a law the more room there is for social filtering and abuse of power.
So, in essence, my argument is with people who believe the state should declare that women must not have abortions. I have no problem at all with people who personally believe that women should not have them.
On the issue of temporary care, my point was simply that the responsibilities of the carer are defined legally in each example you gave. The responsibilities of a mother to an unborn are not so defined, because the two are in no position to negotiate a contract. This is where the difference lies. If you believe the state should step in on behalf of the unborn that’s a position i’m interested in exploring further.
On the ‘acknowledging a right to exist…’ point. It’s an interesting idea. What practical power would you expect along with it? (If none, what would you see as the purpose of acknowledging it?).
I read the article and wasn’t impressed. It flowed more like a diary entry rather than a hard position discription and had about the same disparity in weight. Half of it is spent on Lott’s background.
I reject force by others when it is not used in self-defense. Threatening a mother with fines and prison (ultimately backed up with deadly force) for choosing to end the life of the entity inside her counts as coercion in my opinion. I take a Randian position on the rights of a fetus: don’t confuse a potential with an actual and rights belong only to whole, seperate individuals. In addition, individuals own their bodies and are responsible for what they do with them, not the state.
I’d only accept a prohibiton on abortion (ignoring federalism here for a moment) if someone could convince me these prinicples are incorrect or incorrectly applied.
Would any Libertarian pro-lifer in this thread care to explain to me how an abortion prohibition would work?
We would have to make every woman of child-bearing age a ward of the state – they would need constant monitering, because the government would need to be the first entity to know about a pregnancy. If the woman finds out first and doesn’t want to give birth, she’s going to find a way to terminate the pregnancy.
Results: Black markets, intrusive government, corruption, death.
It’s all well and good to declare an unborn child has a right to life. What are you going to do about it, that’s what I’d like to know.
Good laws make for good morals. Good morals don’t always make for good laws.
Is this possible that I #1 am anti-abortion #2 think it should not be legal #3 think that it should not be litigated at all? Why does it have to be litigated? Why does it have to have a legal or illegal status? Where did this all begin?
Adding to Titus’ question:
Something like 4/5s of all fertilized eggs never implant.
If we define human life begining at conception, who is going to be in charge of making sure that none of those 4/5s occured because of human intervention (or lack of)?
Bernard, the “practical power” issue would resolve itself once granted.
i.e. acknowledging it would lead to a debate on the legality of abortion, and probably lead to a ban for any reason other than safety of the mother, etc.
Besides, isn’t ‘Life’ a form of property granted to each individual?
To libertarians, or anyone else really, property rights are paramount.
Taking that logic further, one cannot even take the shoes of a dead man legally, unless he grants such rights first.
Ms. Dani, absolutely. In the same way that you can be opposed to cocaine consumption without supporting prohibition of it. Many people find abortion morally repugnant but don’t want the government regulating it. The point of debate comes with those who do.
Joker, if you envisage a legal consequence to your ‘right to life’ acknowledgement, then you need to address all the problems with enforcing that legal consequence, and with balancing the rights of mother against foetus which have been raised above. I asked the question because you said earlier:
‘I was after the principle of the thing not whether the gov’t should or shouldn’t get involved.’
As I stated before, my argument is with people who believe the state should declare that women must not have abortions. I have no problem at all with people who personally believe that women should not have them.
Ms. Dani:
What’s the difference between “no litigation” and legal?
no litigation = non-issue, no govt involvement whatsoever.
legal = condoned by the govt, becomes a “right’ and must be enforced by the govt.
That’s the way I see it anyway.
Just wanted to put this out…
I am not “religious” in any sense of the word. But I do think abortion is wrong.
The State, I beleve should be completely neutral on this matter. It is a choice, BUT, women today are not getting the full story on abortion and it’s consequences. And the Pro-choice side is fighting desprately to keep any form of debate from occuring.
My sister had one, young. With support of the family. And she struggled with her ‘choice’, and the consequnces for a very, very long time afterward. She was driven to tears when she saw the tape of my son’s unltrasound. She told me, that none of the counseling she recieved at the clinic, prepared her in any way shpe or form, for what happened afterward.
I guess my point is this. A “Choice” without the benefit of a full understanding of all, ALL the consequences (not just the medical ones) is no choice at all.
And the pro-choice side wants to suppress any discussion of consequences or options… Why?
The same people who will trot out pictures of wounded, mutilated, and dead soldiers/civilians/and children from Iraq (See the Radley’s post a few days ago) in order to make us face the “consequences” of Iraq policy, will cry bloody foul if graphic images of abortion are made public.
This is why I detest liberals.
Sorry, one more clarification.
I am not a big fan of bible-thumping conservatives, or most conservatives for that matter.
For me it is definately a well-informed choice between the lesser of two evils.
Dani:
Gotcha. I tend to think of “legal” as anything not prohibited by government – rights and condoning, for me, have nothing to do with legality. It confuses the issue.
So in your opion, should people have the right to use force/threat of violence to stop an abortion? If a man ties a woman up in his basement to prevent her from having an abortion, should that woman have a right to legal retribution?
What if you view the argument as the difference between safe abortion and unsafe abortion. Since when does Balko thing that making something illegal will end demand?
“Considering that the Catholic church tends to favor state involvement in both fiscal and moral issues, I never thought I’d say this, but on the three issues it puts most stock in at the moment, I’m more Catholic than 97% of U.S. Catholics!”
Radley, check out the Acton Institute at http://www.acton.org. You’ll find out that the Catholic Church isn’t as statist on fiscal and moral issues as many believe.
1. You’re not a human being until you’re in my phone book.
2. What right do you or anyone else have to decide what I think, do to or put into my body so long as it does not harm another human being? If you do a life cycle assessment, say, of typing this message, there is very likely damage being done to living breathing human beings for every byte transferred. Every action we make has repercussions whether we know them or not, especially in this globalised world. It’s called ecology.
3. Abortion is a freedom of religion issue. See also Exodus 21:22. “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage occurs, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment shall be based on reckoning. But, if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand…”
Yes until we’re all blind and and unable to shake our hands in some final peaceable agreement. But you see that by killing a bunch of conjugated cells in a pregnant woman, the punishment shall not be your life for the “unborn” life, whatever that means.
That is of course if you are an orthodox jew and your rabbi interprets this passage that way.
But it is still a freedom of religion issue. IMHO.
Adam S, If I believed as you do that a baby is only cells and tissue, then I would not have a problem with abortion. But I don’t believe that. The reason we (everyone in general) cannot debate this issue is because of our differing opinions on when a baby is actually a person, a life. Until we (all of us) can agree on that point, this issue will never be settled.
Scared Stiff, yes, that woman would be entitled to legal retribution (in my world anyway). After all, he basically kidnapped her and held her against her will. That’s already in our law-books, yes?
Ms Dani:
Yes, it is in the lawbooks. But if that woman does not have the right to an abortion, and the man, let’s say he’s the father, believes that abortion is murder, he is only doing what he has to do to keep the child from being killed.
If the state intercedes, it is no longer neutral on the issue – it has decided that a woman has more of a right to have an abortion than someone else has to try and stop it.
If the state looks the other way, it is no longer neutral on the issue. It has decided an individual has more of a right to save an unborn child than a woman has to freedom.
I would suggest legality should not be equated with condoning. Some things many, most, or even all would never condone should be legal, because it seriously impedes our ability to enforce the laws that actually work to make society safer.
I guess my point is this. A “Choice” without the benefit of a full understanding of all, ALL the consequences (not just the medical ones) is no choice at all.
Carlos, you’re asking for the impossible if you mean this literally or even somewhat literally. Complete knowledge of the consequences of an action before it happens (especially with an action as complicated physically and emotionally as an abortion) is too high a bar to set. We make choices all the time that involve the understanding we don’t have all the information available: if a particular car turns out to be a lemon, if we’ll like the food from a new restaraunt down the street, etc.
They are all valid choices.
titus, legality does equate condoning. You can’t get around that.
In this situation (father trying to prevent murder) goes against the woman’s right to do anything she wants to her own body. Her right precedes his right. He doesn’t have any right to her body or anything inside of it, neither does the state or fed govts. The law should have been left at the right to do what you will with your own body and not gone so far as to start naming the things that you have the right to do. It should just be left alone period. No litigation.
This sounds like I’m pro-abortion but I’m not. I’m pro-less-litigation, which turns into pro-choice but without being litigated. This is so confusing. What I hate about this whole issue are the people (famous, political, idiots) who turn it into something more than it is and bare their fangs in order to stir up emotionalism.
If abortions were illegal we would get along fine as a society. We once did.
Charles,
I understand your point, and I should have been more specific. Yes, you are right it is impossible to see all the consequences. BUT, but after more than 30 years of legal abortion there are known consequences that are being stiffled from the debate on purpose.
If a corporation has 30 years experience with a product, but dosen’t want to share part of what it knows MAY be wrong with it, would you not be suspicious?
To use your example, if a seller of a car know something might be seriously wrong with the car, do you think the decent thing to do would be to let you know?
Thanks.
Dani:
I disagree – legality does not equal condoning. It’s legal to stay up all night before you go to work. It’s legal to drink coffee and eat spicy foods before you go to bed.
It’s legal to be a democrat – I doubt this administration condones that.
It’s legal to miss church on Sunday. Again, I doubt this administration condones that.
Shall I go on?
“If abortions were illegal we would get along fine as a society. We once did.”
Once when?
Anyway, in your society where abortions are illegal sans litigation, what happens to doctors who perform them? What about doctors who advertise them? Insurance companies that insure them?
“Barring health reasons, what we are discussing here is a case of TEMPORARY incapacity of one individual being used as an excuse for termination, for sake of convenience by another.”
The incapacity of a fetus is likewise temporary.
Which I think was part of your point.
To use your example, if a seller of a car know something might be seriously wrong with the car, do you think the decent thing to do would be to let you know?
If I approach someone selling a car and ask the seller if he knows of any defects or problems with it and he lies to me and answers in the negative, then he’s committing fraud that is straight up wrong and should be punishable.
If I approach someone selling a car and plunk down the money for it without questioning the seller or examining it myself and it turns out the car has problems, then I screwed up and the seller got away with a lucky sale…but it shouldn’t be punishable. Nor would I hold him responsible if the car broke down while in motion. I’d be angry, but mostly with myself for not looking into the vehicle’s condition further.
Yeah, it’d piss me off if the seller didn’t tell me about some defect. An honest and responsible seller wouldn’t lie. But then again, this applies to all economic transactions. The decent thing to do in all such cases would be to level with the buyer.
Particularly with medical decisions, the patient-to-be has got to understand what’s going on since the consequences can be devastating. For example, before I had hernia surgery and right in front of my father, the anesthesiologist asked me if I used any drugs. I knew the dangers of misdiagnosed anesthetics, so I told him I smoked pot a few times a month and told myself I’d deal with my father’s look when we got home.
Similarly, women thinking of having an abortion had better enter into the decision-making process rationally and keep an open, inquisitive mind about what might happen. If they fail to grill their doctor or Planned Parenthood consultant, then I have little sympathy for women who complain about not knowing of abortion’s drawbacks.
Ms Dani:
The issue IS settled. It’s called freedom of religion. Freedom of choice. Freedom to chose. Welcome to america.
And whatever happened to the christian mantra of free will? Were we not all born with it? Who is anyone to play god and make decisions FOR me? This is exactly why I will never again set foot in a church in my lifetime.
And as for the unborn child/conjugated cells, they aren’t born yet so how can they have free will? What’s next, I can sue somebody for kicking me in the balls and possibly killing potential children? Or am I going to have to learn to fire out one sperm at a time so that I don’t waste any potential life? Maybe we should be against menstruation, too, while we’re at it. Don’t let that egg get away. If life was such a miracle men wouldn’t fire out 200 million sperm every orgasm. I mean, 200 million sperm, what are the odds? That’s far from miraculous.
Charles,
You’re point is taken. I guess what really make me angry, no not angry, maybe it’s just troubling, is a lack of desire of the hard-core pro-choicers to examine that there might be some bad effects, both physical and emotional. And their unwillingness to yield. I think most people, like me, have no problem with early term abortion. Late-term, I have a real problem with.
The arguments for having an abortion are out there. And some are very valid. But the argurments for not having one (other than the religious ones, which I really don’t subscribe to)are just not being voiced.
Anyhoo, I think access to “day-after pills” will pretty much make all of this a moot point.
Well, that’s it. I won’t post anymore on this thread. Read everyone else on the other posts. Thanks!