Texting and Driving is a RIGHT!

[One Bad Pig]

By "can" I didn't mean ability. I meant have the right to.

Just going all grammar Nazi on you.

To me it an interesting hypothetical. I do not wish to debate, just throwing it out there.

I don't see it as any different than rape.

[Joel]

I think the case of rape is more difficult than many other pro-lifers seem to think it is.
Let's grant that it would be immoral for the woman to abort. That still leaves another question: Is it morally okay for someone else to forcibly prevent the woman from aborting (or to punish after the fact)?

In the case of rape, the unwanted pregnancy is a continuation of the aggression of the rapist against the woman. For someone else to forcibly prevent the woman from aborting is to perpetuate that element of the rapist's aggression against the woman. In this case, it would seem that saving the baby's life requires committing an wrong against the woman. Is it still okay because it's a lesser evil? And if you forced the woman in that case, it seems that you would then have a debt of restitution to pay to the woman (probably at least including the obligation to pay for the costs of the pregnancy, any loss of wages, etc.)

And then assuming that that is the case (that it morally okay for you to force the woman if you provide that support/restitution to her), there still is a question of whether the government ought to do that forcing and force the tax payers to pay that support (which would be yet another act of injustice). Or perhaps the government could just allow people to choose to force the woman by choosing to accept the legal obligation to support her?

[Darth Executor]

I think the case of rape is more difficult than many other pro-lifers seem to think it is.

Not if you're not a libertarian (which most of us aren't).

And then assuming that that is the case (that it morally okay for you to force the woman if you provide that support/restitution to her), there still is a question of whether the government ought to do that forcing and force the tax payers to pay that support (which would be yet another act of injustice). Or perhaps the government could just allow people to choose to force the woman by choosing to accept the legal obligation to support her?

I thought you didn't believe the government should be allowed to do anything private citizens wouldn't be allowed to do? Why even differentiate here?

[One Bad Pig]

I think the case of rape is more difficult than many other pro-lifers seem to think it is.
Let's grant that it would be immoral for the woman to abort. That still leaves another question: Is it morally okay for someone else to forcibly prevent the woman from aborting (or to punish after the fact)?

From my POV, abortion is murder. Is it morally okay for someone to forcibly prevent someone else from committing murder?

[Joel]

Not if you're not a libertarian (which most of us aren't).

Are any of the concerns I raised libertarian-only (Besides, perhaps, taxation-is-injustice)?

I thought you didn't believe the government should be allowed to do anything private citizens wouldn't be allowed to do? Why even differentiate here?

I was trying to speak more broadly than that, and in terms of incremental change from the current state of affairs.

[Darth Xena]

I don't see it as any different than rape.

It may not be. Except for the fact that it isn't a natural outgrowth of the woman's own body.... we are responsible for the actions (voluntary and automatic) of our own bodies. This I think might be an important distinction here.

[One Bad Pig]

It may not be. Except for the fact that it isn't a natural outgrowth of the woman's own body.... we are responsible for the actions (voluntary and automatic) of our own bodies. This I think might be an important distinction here.

If there's a successful implant, a natural connection is made and the fetus is automatically dependent on the woman for survival.

[Darth Xena]

If there's a successful implant, a natural connection is made and the fetus is automatically dependent on the woman for survival.

I wouldn't call that natural. Now whether or not aborting the fetus would be a fresh unjustified act of aggression is the question.... and also the question is whether we are talking about morality or about law/justice. Morally, the issue is clear. Law/justice, not so much. Often the two are one and the same, but not always.

[Joel]

From my POV, abortion is murder. Is it morally okay for someone to forcibly prevent someone else from committing murder?

Yes, if that's the only factor in the situation. But does that mean there can't ever be additional factors that create a moral dilemma? (Like those dilemmas about whether it's moral to take an action that kills an innocent person but saves multiple other lives. And then additionally would it be moral to force the person in that dilemma to take one of the options?)
Do you say that abortion is murder (and it's okay to forcibly prevent her) even in the case necessary to save the woman's life? Seems like forcibly preventing her from actions she could take to save her own life could itself be considered murder.

The mother in this case is faced with a choice between suffering further injustice or committing injustice (murder). (Which is not the case for consensual sex.) Of course the injustice of the murder is far worse than the injustice of forced pregnancy. Of course it is morally superior for her to choose to suffer injustice than to commit injustice.

The dilemma arises for the outside person because you are not merely forcibly preventing an innocent's death; you are at the same time forcing the woman to suffer further injustice. As I said, probably you could justify it as the greater good outweighing the lesser evil. But I think you may thereby take on some further obligation due to the "lesser evil" part of your action.

It may not be. Except for the fact that it isn't a natural outgrowth of the woman's own body.... we are responsible for the actions (voluntary and automatic) of our own bodies. This I think might be an important distinction here.

Does the fact it isn't her biological offspring (in your scenario) make a difference?

[Darth Xena]

Does the fact it isn't her biological offspring (in your scenario) make a difference?

I think it does. Because that fetus has no natural right to be in her body. Natural offspring... it is simply the way our biology works. A natural child is by no means an aggressor or trespasser. It has every natural right to be precisely where it is. A forced implantation does not have that status.

Can the law force someone to suffer that kind of injustice? The moral question to me is settled, I am talking about a theory of law/justice.

Hypotheticals suck, but if I am forced in a situation where I am holding down a button that is preventing an elevator from plunging a carload of people down to their death, and the force is removed, and I can now choose to stop pushing (and they die) or continue to push.. for nine months. Morally I should keep pushing, but am I obligated to? Would that be a fresh act of aggression? One can only commit aggression (in the libertarian sense) when one acts in violation of someone's negative rights. But I didn't consent (or cause) this situation and I do not have a positive obligation to continue to use myself to sustain the life of another.

[Darth Xena]

Of course I would add there is a huge difference here, because one cannot simply "withdraw" support a fetus, but one must actively and purposefully cause its death. Again another distinguishing factor. I am not pretending to know the answer to every hypothetical, just throwing it out there. In the case of any natural pregnancy, obviously, this would not apply. A child of rape is a natural child, produced naturally by the woman's own body.

I also do not have a problem with conceding fuzzy edges that are not easily answered. I would put this in the category of "can a siamese twin commit suicide"

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, if that's the only factor in the situation. But does that mean there can't ever be additional factors that create a moral dilemma? (Like those dilemmas about whether it's moral to take an action that kills an innocent person but saves multiple other lives. And then additionally would it be moral to force the person in that dilemma to take one of the options?)
Do you say that abortion is murder (and it's okay to forcibly prevent her) even in the case necessary to save the woman's life? Seems like forcibly preventing her from actions she could take to save her own life could itself be considered murder.

This is useful as a hypothetical, but abortion is almost never done to save the life of the mother. Since the death of the mother in such cases is almost inevitably going to cause the death of the fetus, in such cases I would be okay with an abortion as the lesser of two evils.

The mother in this case is faced with a choice between suffering further injustice or committing injustice (murder). (Which is not the case for consensual sex.) Of course the injustice of the murder is far worse than the injustice of forced pregnancy. Of course it is morally superior for her to choose to suffer injustice than to commit injustice.

The dilemma arises for the outside person because you are not merely forcibly preventing an innocent's death; you are at the same time forcing the woman to suffer further injustice. As I said, probably you could justify it as the greater good outweighing the lesser evil. But I think you may thereby take on some further obligation due to the "lesser evil" part of your action.

IMO it's quite clear in scripture that taking a life is an extremely serious proposition. When would it not be better to choose the lesser evil? As a Libertarian, I don't know how you would justify taking on some further obligation (assuming it is the government, through law, preventing the abortion). Life often isn't fair.

[Truthseeker]

A fetus has the right to life, but the woman bearing that life has the right to evict it from her body. In general, one's right and another's (usually different) right clash. Another instance, one has the right to drive on a road recklessly, while another has the right of having the world drive as safely as it can. The solution would be an agreement on which right takes precedence over another. Unfortunately, people are going to disagree and produce great big heated argument that do little if any to resolve the clash.

[Cow Poke]

A fetus has the right to life,

Absolutely!

but the woman bearing that life has the right to evict it from her body.

So her right to be free from the temporary state of pregnancy trumps the right right to life of another person? Think about that really hard.

In general, one's right and another's (usually different) right clash.

And when the clash results in the death of an innocent person, dire consequences should result.

Another instance, one has the right to drive on a road recklessly,

No, actually, they don't. There are laws against that, and they may be ticketed, fined, and possibly even lose their license. Especially if their reckless operation of a vehicle injures or kills another person, or places them at risk of injury or death.

while another has the right of having the world drive as safely as it can.

Which is why we have police officers patrolling the streets and highways watching out for those who don't obey the law.

The solution would be an agreement on which right takes precedence over another.

In the case of your really really bad analogy - it's already settled. The reckless operation of a motor vehicle on public roadways is most certainly illegal.

Unfortunately, people are going to disagree and produce great big heated argument that do little if any to resolve the clash.

Perhaps you can try another analogy which stinks less loudly?

[Darth Xena]

A fetus has the right to life, but the woman bearing that life has the right to evict it from her body. In general, one's right and another's (usually different) right clash. Another instance, one has the right to drive on a road recklessly, while another has the right of having the world drive as safely as it can. The solution would be an agreement on which right takes precedence over another. Unfortunately, people are going to disagree and produce great big heated argument that do little if any to resolve the clash.

I have to disagree with the evictionist position. For a good reason why (this is site is somewhat anti-libertarian and polemical but it is right in what it is opposing ala Rothbard)

http://www.rogerbissell.com/id11kk.html

A quote: " another person has caused them to be, without their consent, in a state of being unable to exercise powers of free action (rights), whether in regard to sustaining their lives or gaining and/or keeping property.

Does your or my putting these people in such a state violate their rights? Not necessarily. Deciding to carry a fetus and deciding to give birth to a baby both fit this category, but are obviously not violations of the fetus' or baby's rights.

More importantly, however, refusing to help remedy the condition that you or I have caused most certainly is a violation of their rights. And far from being some fuzzy, problematic category of human interactions, this is one of the most common ways in which rights get (and continue to be) violated.

Objectivist and Libertarian theory simply do not allow you to default on providing material values to someone to whom you have a legitimate legal obligation, just because they are also "someone to whom you don't want to provide material values." To paraphrase George Bush, this definition of involuntary altruism "will not stand." "

Which is why I put such emphasis on it being the product of a natural biological process.