Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:26:43 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
> >> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >> >damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) writes:

[MUCH munched, since i'm mainly agreeing]

> i understand your point, but in assessing responsibility it could
> be argued that simple causality is not sufficient to resolve the
> problem. the real problem, as i see it, is the rather unique 
> circumstances of the creation of life. one moment there is none,
> the next there is. and that is what makes the question so difficult.

bingo. i've tried to say that several times in the past & i'm glad
someone understands. there is -no- other case where life results from
an individual's actions.

> >the parasite analogy is false to begin with in this case, as we are
> >assuming (or at least we were) that the fetus is human.
> 
> the concept of the species of the parasite is irrelevant. i'm
> sure you are aware of adult human "parasites" which are close enough
> for the purposes of argument. the specific point is self-reliance
> vs. reliance on another.

i don't believe that this should be a reason to reduce the rights of
others. we'd certainly hear a lot of screaming from human rights
advocates if you applied dependence as a condition for rights.
human rights are -human- rights, without regard to such conditions.

> >also note that the parasite argument applies to young children as 
> >well. they are entirely reliant on the parent's support.
> 
> good point. but then adults *do* have an option if they choose not
> to continue to be parents, don't they?

most certainly. however, -none- of those options include killing their
offspring. unfortunately, that's the only option available when the
child is a fetus, but that doesn't make the action any more correct.

> >you're going the right direction in considering responsibility for
> >creation. as for not knowing/not believing, consider what happens 
> >when i use that argument with the cop who stopped me for running 
> >that red light i never saw. or the results of arguing "But i 
> >didn't -think-it was possible for the railing to snap!" when the 
> >earth is coming up at me at 9.8 metres per second per second.
> 
> true. but what about the case of failed birth control? accidents do
> happen.

yes, unfortunately they do. even in those cases, we still have to bear
the consequences. if a meteor falls on my house -i- still get to pay
for repairs. there was no negligence on my part, i don't believe it's
really a possibility, but suddenly i find myself shelling out money
to fix the hole in the roof.

the typical way to make these things more tolerable is to buy insurance
against such an event. might this be a possible solution in this case
as well? in no case is it correct to kill an innocent party in order to
alleviate an accident.

> >consequences are consequences. sometimes they can be (and should 
> >be) averted. but i find it very immoral to do so at the expense of 
> >an innocent, if however inconvenient, party.
> 
> it depends on your perspective. in some ways the woman is innocent
> as well.

yup. -innocent- is not the point. -responsible- is.

jason, who wishes people would just use more birth control & help each
 other out more.

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` "Get off the cross. We need the wood." jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian