From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Abortion (was Re: Psephological journals)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:09:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.014409.861@uoft02.utoledo.edu> 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:
>> >> 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 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.

>> i would say she does as well in the fetus situation.
>
>that's why i'm debating you. :^)

fair enough. :^)

>> 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.

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.

>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?

>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.

>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.

>> i welcome any arguments you folks out there might have.
>
>ho-hum. here it is.

not a particularly enjoyable topic, is it...

--
charles
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3087 comp.org.eff.talk:8370 alt.amateur-comp:502 soc.culture.usa:9512 alt.activism:20119