*opens up a can of worms*

[Fluff and Stuff]

Unless, of course, you believe parents "own" their children, as chattel.

We are discussing the property rights of the mother to own her body

The right of a mother to her own body does not give her the right to dispose of the life -- and body -- of her child.

Oh nicly put, utterly succinct.  Exactly how I feel about it.  ^_^

Ah, and I feel that is does, as long as that body is 100% inside of and controlled by the mother.

[Dreepa]

The penalty for abortions should be......... the death penalty? ???

Seriously what penalty would you place on a woman who has the abortion or the doctor (or person) who gives the abortion?

[Gabo]

I did read the previous posts and my comment comes from the fact that a child being property is infered in the idea that a woman's "right" to her body, superceeds the right of the child to live in the first place; meaning the child has no such right, and is subsiquently, the biological property of the mother.  Slaves also had no right to live if thier masters choose not to let them.  Hence the comparison.

You possess NO rights when you are on someone else's property.
Anything you are allowed to do is a privelage, and subject to the owner's discretion.

If a property owner wants you to leave their property and you refuse to, they have every right to force you to leave.

The right of a mother to her own body does not give her the right to dispose of the life -- and body -- of her child.

If property owners do not have the right to force unwanted people out of their property, then I'll be damned!
Mind telling me your address so I may come over and live for free at your house?

[tracysaboe]

You possess NO rights when you are on someone else's property.
Anything you are allowed to do is a privelage, and subject to the owner's discretion.

If a property owner wants you to leave their property and you refuse to, they have every right to force you to leave.

Gabo you're talking in Circles. We've already discussed that.  Our point is that the Mother and Father are the ones that FORCED that entity worthy of moral standing into that possition to need care to begin with. Because they're the ones that put the baby in that situation they have a responsibility to take care of it -- untill it can take care of itself. That's true whether the Baby's INSIDE the womb OR OUTSIDE the womb.

You really haven't yet given a straight answer to me (though you haven't contradicted my statements about what you believe either.)

Do you believe it's OK for a parent to kick a new Born or 2 year old out of the house if there's nobody to take care of it because they don't want to? Do they have the right to evict the Baby from their property after birth?

TRacy

[tracysaboe]

The penalty for abortions should be......... the death penalty? ???

Seriously what penalty would you place on a woman who has the abortion or the doctor (or person) who gives the abortion?

See, Dreppa -- that's why we have courts and judges. Each situation is different.  Typically in a murder trial you get one tral to determine guilt. And another trial to determine senencing. I don't see why killing an unborn would be any different.

Tracy

[Dreepa]

See, Dreppa -- that's why we have courts and judges. Each situation is different.  Typically in a murder trial you get one tral to determine guilt. And another trial to determine senencing. I don't see why killing an unborn would be any different.

But you anarchists don't want to pay for courts and judges.  Who would give money to support these courts?

[FrankChodorov]

the Mother and Father are the ones that FORCED that entity worthy of moral standing into that possition to need care to begin with. Because they're the ones that put the baby in that situation they have a responsibility to take care of it -- untill it can take care of itself. That's true whether the Baby's INSIDE the womb OR OUTSIDE the womb.

Do you believe it's OK for a parent to kick a new Born or 2 year old out of the house if there's nobody to take care of it because they don't want to? Do they have the right to evict the Baby from their property after birth?

I agree...

the mother and father by voluntarily agreeing to engage in sexual relations (take action/labor) understand that the result may be conception.

but that still doesn't answer the question of when that potential human life achieves personhood/human being status with seperate rights from the rights of the mother.

I say it is at the point of sentience (consciousness and feeling pain) which occurs sometime after conception and before birth...

before personhood/human being status the mother can "kick the potential human life out" without consequences but not afterwards.

essentially re-affirming Roe vs. Wade

[tracysaboe]

See, Dreppa -- that's why we have courts and judges. Each situation is different.  Typically in a murder trial you get one tral to determine guilt. And another trial to determine senencing. I don't see why killing an unborn would be any different.

But you anarchists don't want to pay for courts and judges.  Who would give money to support these courts?

I take the position that as long as we have government -- Abortion should be illegal, because murder is also illegal and defending against and prosecuting for murder eis one of the few legitimate functions of Minarchist government.

In a free market you'd have multiple competing arbitration courts and many of these courts would be neutral but many would be sponsored by anti-abortion/pro-life charities. Others might be pro-abortion. People would probably need to take the case before one of each and a neutral third party that the two other courts can mutually agree on. Simular to the ad hock legal systems that developed in the Not-So-Wild West.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

the Mother and Father are the ones that FORCED that entity worthy of moral standing into that possition to need care to begin with. Because they're the ones that put the baby in that situation they have a responsibility to take care of it -- untill it can take care of itself. That's true whether the Baby's INSIDE the womb OR OUTSIDE the womb.

Do you believe it's OK for a parent to kick a new Born or 2 year old out of the house if there's nobody to take care of it because they don't want to? Do they have the right to evict the Baby from their property after birth?

I agree...

the mother and father by voluntarily agreeing to engage in sexual relations (take action/labor) understand that the result may be conception.

but that still doesn't answer the question of when that potential human life achieves personhood/human being status with seperate rights from the rights of the mother.

I say it is at the point of sentience (consciousness and feeling pain) which occurs sometime after conception and before birth...

before personhood/human being status the mother can "kick the potential human life out" without consequences but not afterwards.

essentially re-affirming Roe vs. Wade

Frank, your "personhood" argument by any definition of personhood that bio-ethicists have come up with, also justifies infantacide, and killing old and retarded people.

It's worse then Blocks and Gabo's eviction theory.

Tracy

[Dreepa]

In a free market you'd have multiple competing arbitration courts and many of these courts would be neutral but many would be sponsored by anti-abortion/pro-life charities. Others might be pro-abortion. People would probably need to take the case before one of each and a neutral third party that the two other courts can mutually agree on.

What if someone refused to go to the courts? What if they didn't think that they were legit?  Would you FORCE them to go to court?
How would you enforce the penalty?

[FrankChodorov]

your "personhood" argument by any definition of personhood that bio-ethicists have come up with, also justifies infantacide, and killing old and retarded people.

I wasn't aware that infants, old, retarded people don't feel pain which was one of the conditions I described for personhood/human being status...

can you cite any evidence to support your argument?

the whole Terri Schiavo case hinged on this question and if those conditions were not met who was to decide her fate...

[tracysaboe]

In a free market you'd have multiple competing arbitration courts and many of these courts would be neutral but many would be sponsored by anti-abortion/pro-life charities. Others might be pro-abortion. People would probably need to take the case before one of each and a neutral third party that the two other courts can mutually agree on.

What if someone refused to go to the courts? What if they didn't think that they were legit?  Would you FORCE them to go to court?
How would you enforce the penalty?

The same way an anarchocapitalist society would enforce the penalty of a regular murderer. Or in the case of minarchy -- the same way it would enforce the penalty of a regular murderer.  If a mother drowns her kids in the bathtub she gets tried for it. you don't need to reinent the wheel here.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

your "personhood" argument by any definition of personhood that bio-ethicists have come up with, also justifies infantacide, and killing old and retarded people.

I wasn't aware that infants, old, retarded people don't feel pain which was one of the conditions I described for personhood/human being status...

can you cite any evidence to support your argument?

the whole Terri Schiavo case hinged on this question and if those conditions were not met who was to decide her fate...

And how do you know that a preborn person doesn't feel pain. Just because it doesn't have the aparatous to screem or cry to let you know it feels it.

I won't go into the personhood argument here because it's tired, and most libertarians -- even pro-choice ones -- reject it.

You can read all about my stance on it here though.
http://ed.augie.edu/~tosaboe/abortion.html

Tracy

[FrankChodorov]

your "personhood" argument by any definition of personhood that bio-ethicists have come up with, also justifies infantacide, and killing old and retarded people.

I wasn't aware that infants, old, retarded people don't feel pain which was one of the conditions I described for personhood/human being status...

can you cite any evidence to support your argument?

the whole Terri Schiavo case hinged on this question and if those conditions were not met who was to decide her fate...

And how do you know that a preborn person doesn't feel pain. Just because it doesn't have the aparatous to screem or cry to let you know it feels it.

so you concede the point about old and retarded persons?

because it doesn't have the brain development as of yet which is required for sentience...

are you suggesting for instance that a blastula feels pain?

[tracysaboe]

your "personhood" argument by any definition of personhood that bio-ethicists have come up with, also justifies infantacide, and killing old and retarded people.

I wasn't aware that infants, old, retarded people don't feel pain which was one of the conditions I described for personhood/human being status...

can you cite any evidence to support your argument?

the whole Terri Schiavo case hinged on this question and if those conditions were not met who was to decide her fate...

And how do you know that a preborn person doesn't feel pain. Just because it doesn't have the aparatous to screem or cry to let you know it feels it.

so you concede the point about old and retarded persons?

because it doesn't have the brain development as of yet which is required for sentience...

are you suggesting for instance that a blastula feels pain?

Pain as either a neccessary or sufficient condition for personhood doesn't make sense. Animals feel pain. Does that make it wrong to           now. And how do you know that a Zygote doesn't feel pain on some level.  As always, you're beliefs and definitions are wholey confusing and inconsistant with each other.

Tracy