From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:44:08 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) writes:
> >> Theory question: Assume that the fetus is a human being with full
> >> liberties.  Suppose that the woman bearing the fetus did not 
> >> wish to be pregnant and does not wish to support it.  Does she 
> >> have a right to defend herself against the fetus's forcing her 
> >> to support it?
> >
> >theory answer: nope. the fetus is not initiating force. if there is
> >"force" involved it is the result of her own (and her partner's) 
> >actions. therefore, -she- is the one responsible for the 
> >situation, not the fetus, and the responsibility for the 
> >consequences should be assigned as such.
> 
> that depends very much upon your definition of "force", doesn't it?
> for example, if another adult did to a woman's body what a fetus 
> does to it, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be 
> considered force and the woman would have the right to remedy the 
> situation.

agreed. but in making the fetus -> adult leap, one must remember that 
an adult would be initiating the situation & would by all reasonable
standards of responsibility have to bear the consequences. in the
fetus's case it is taking no action and its very existance is the
result of the -mother's- actions.

> i would say she does as well in the fetus situation.

that's why i'm debating you. :^)

> i have a friend who compared a pregnancy to a parasitic infection.
> i was repulsed at this comparison, and don't share his view, but 
> when i sat down to argue against it, i found it quite difficult to 
> refute. the fetus *is* living off its mother, much as a parasite 
> lives off its host. the only real counter-argument i had related to 
> responsibility of creation of the fetus; in that the analogy fails, 
> but only sometimes. what if the mother had every reason to believe 
> conception was impossible?

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. also note
that the parasite argument applies to young children as well. they are
entirely reliant on the parent's support.

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.

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.

> i welcome any arguments you folks out there might have.

ho-hum. here it is.

jason

--
  "More life, more love, more freedom, more choice!" - MORTAL, Painkiller
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism