Abortion Double Standard

Author: Bones

Posts

Total: 206
#91
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive
You haven't been in libertarian circles along enough.


Particularly the arguments from Murray Rothbard about the unethical nature of insisting on positive duties. Usually libertarians argue for a silent type of contract between parents and child that would make neglect unethical and illegal. Rothbard points out how this contradicts other aspects of libertarian philosophy 

#92
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,824
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
in exactly the same way, the burden on the mother is rather small in the first three months
Then for at least 6 months (whether those first 3 are small depends on the pregnancy), the mother has a physical burden to carry the child, but the father has none. If the goal is symmetry, that's an inherent asymmetry.

if the mother chooses to "opt in" then they have some obligation, unless at some point, they choose to "opt out" by leaving the child at a designated "safe haven"

if the father chooses to "opt in" then they have some obligation, unless at some point, they choose to "opt out" by leaving the child at a designated "safe haven"

seems pretty symmetrical
Sure, it's symmetrical if you only take into account the initial "opt in." I've pointed out that there are multiple points at which either or both individuals "opt in" and that they are not all similarly symmetrical.

the "entire burden" is something the mother can "opt out" of

the mother is never FORCED to care for the prospective citizen
And she's given two choices if she has the child. One is to keep it, and take on the entire burden, and the other is to "opt out" via adoption. I didn't say she was forced to care for the child, but I did say that if she wants to keep it, the father's ability to "opt out" fundamentally eliminates his obligation and foists the entire burden of that obligation onto her. Just because she's consenting to taking on that obligation does not eliminate the asymmetry involved.

for example

if i know someone who requires dialysis or some other critical medical treatment

and they live alone, with no neighbors or friends or even a telephone

and i have agreed to transport them to their life-saving medical treatment on a pre-arranged schedule
Markedly different case for a number of reasons. These kinds of analogy-based responses are attempts to find similar cases where, let's face it, there aren't any. In general, the way you're using this analogy isn't the problem, though. Rather, it's the fact that you aren't actually explaining why it's valuable for the father to get these rights. You're saying instead why it causes lesser harm to give them these rights than it does to give them to the mother. I'd say that's arguable for reasons I've already given about depriving the eventual child necessary resources, but it also doesn't give a reason why the father should receive these rights, since you're just giving me reasons why giving the father these rights is a lesser harm.

hold on

if you want a "pro-life" argument then
That's not what I said. I said that the basis of this post and presumably of your argument is that there's an inherent contradiction in the pro-choice stance that the mother deserves a choice while the father doesn't get a choice on child support. Since this is a pro-choice argument, that contradiction can only exist if we're focusing on the interests of the mother and the father and comparing them directly. Bringing the unborn into it, which you've now tried to do several times, detracts from the contradiction that you're trying to demonstrate. If you want to make a pro-life vs. pro-choice argument, I'm not interested in engaging with it. I've done a rather long debate on the subject and have another one coming up soon enough. I posted here because of the argument that a contradiction exists within this argument. That's where I'd like to focus my time in this thread.
#93
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,824
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You haven't been in libertarian circles along enough.


Particularly the arguments from Murray Rothbard about the unethical nature of insisting on positive duties. Usually libertarians argue for a silent type of contract between parents and child that would make neglect unethical and illegal. Rothbard points out how this contradicts other aspects of libertarian philosophy 
Wouldn't say it's a particularly common argument, though point taken.
#94
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
My brain just keeps growing size after size today. It just came to me that bodily autonomy rights are  perfectly in alignment with john lockes theory of private property (and theory of labour)! This debate is done. Now i can spam john Locke quotes in all my abortion debates and simply sit back in my chair like its bullet proof.
#95
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
and substantial jail time for infanticide back this up
Every female person who commits infanticide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. [**]

compared to second degree murder which is a mandatory life-sentence

Is There a Minimum Sentence for Second Degree Murder?

The minimum sentence for second-degree murder is ten years of life imprisonment without any parole. [**]
#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
- There is a clear legal distinction between murder, manslaughter and infanticide - contrary to your assertions otherwise
it is obviously NOT "clear" if you can't even answer this simple question

so, are you trying to say that you think that a perfectly sane and mentally stable mother can intentionally kill her own child within the first 12 months ?
#97
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
Murray Rothbard uses the same type of philosophy, but has better or at least more thorough arguments as Locke mostly talked about political theory in very general ways

I have seen plenty of debates where people just spam quotes of philosophers and judges seem to take them as proven despite being bare assertions so you will probably win with the strategy you mentioned. 
#98
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
- Prosecutions and jail time for women, in Canada for murdering their babies, and substantial jail time for infanticide back this up - contrary to your assertions otherwise.
significantly less than murdering a stranger in MOST CASES
#99
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
- that the application of the law would treat someone who simply decides to kill their child on a whim as murder - not infanticide, because it doesn’t meet the criteria laid out. Contrary to assertions otherwise
the legal standard is "mentally unstable"

which seems to very obviously apply to any case where a mother intentionally kills their own child in the first 12 months
#100
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m taking specific issue with your specious characterization of a law based on bizarre hypothetical scenarios upon which you apply wild hyperbolae: that are at clear odds both with what the law actually says, and actual instances of how the law is actually applied.
citation please
#101
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
in exactly the same way, the burden on the mother is rather small in the first three months
Then for at least 6 months (whether those first 3 are small depends on the pregnancy), the mother has a physical burden to carry the child, but the father has none. If the goal is symmetry, that's an inherent asymmetry.
we already agree the mother bears a LARGER BURDEN
#102
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Rothbards a fuckin moron. I've read his book ,i hate anarcho-capitalism. I've even had debates on how silly it is on other websites. Imagine having an army being paid through private entities. America would have no army. Your roads would be private (therefore tillable) every time you go on a road. Rural areas would be massively underfunded as there would be no private business incentive to build roads or industries there (low populations).

Please link me to what rothbard has said on abortion. Rothbard should never be compared to john locke, they're fundamentally built different.
#103
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
the father's ability to "opt out" fundamentally eliminates his obligation and foists the entire burden of that obligation onto her.
this is part of what she choosing if and when she decides to "opt in"
#104
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
Imagine having an army being paid through private entities. America would have no army.
I am Sure the government could fund it through bonds and conquest. 

Your roads would be private (therefore tillable) every time you go on a road.

It would be like Netflix. A monthly fee and various organizations would connect for you to be able to ride on nice streets. Not too different than what we have now. The fee would replace taxes and the roads are already built by and maintained by private companies.



Rural areas would be massively underfunded as there would be no private business incentive to build roads or industries there (low populations).
People in those areas probably don't give a shit about those things. 
#105
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
Markedly different case for a number of reasons. These kinds of analogy-based responses are attempts to find similar cases where, let's face it, there aren't any.
abortion and parental obligation are hardly a supremely unique case that nobody can possibly apply a set of coherent principles to
#106
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
You're saying instead why it causes lesser harm to give them these rights than it does to give them to the mother.
specifically the right to "opt out"
#107
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@whiteflame
Bringing the unborn into it, which you've now tried to do several times, detracts from the contradiction that you're trying to demonstrate.
what the hell are you talking about ?

how can anyone discuss parental obligation without including at least one child ?
#108
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I am Sure the government could fund it through bonds and conquest. 

Your roads would be private (therefore tillable) every time you go on a road.

It would be like Netflix. A monthly fee and various organizations would connect for you to be able to ride on nice streets. Not too different than what we have now. The fee would replace taxes and the roads are already built by and maintained by private companies.

The government? i thought rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist not a minarchist?


the system of private property would still exist and be enforced by private defense agencies and/or insurance companies selected by customers which would operate competitively in a market and fulfill the roles of courts and the police.

I'm sure bribery couldn't infiltrate this system....

Rural areas would be massively underfunded as there would be no private business incentive to build roads or industries there (low populations).
People in those areas probably don't give a shit about those things. 

People in Rural areas don't give a shit about properly funded schools and hospitals? remember, everything is built privately. Who the fuck is going to built a school in rural areas when you wont even get many students attending? How do you know all peoples health and education needs will be met? there's a lot of faith in anarch-capitalism. Theres a weird belief that "the market place of ideas" will always find a balance. What if people just don't have an interest in building schools but prefer gambling establishments instead? even if we assumed everyone's education and health needs were met. Wealth disparity would be vast in such a society.
#109
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
The government? i thought rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist not a minarchist?
Actually I thought your argument was a more general one towards libertarian I am only familiar with a few Rothbard arguments not his overarching ideology.

I'm sure bribery couldn't infiltrate this system....
I feel like it infiltrates the system we have now. Could just be my cynicism though.



People in Rural areas don't give a shit about properly funded schools and hospitals? remember, everything is built privately. Who the fuck is going to built a school in rural areas when you wont even get many students attending?
Basically I think you would have single mothers do it who are looking for an income. It appears homeschool students do better in college than ones who went to public school, so it could be a wash. 

Hospitals maybe not so much, but I assume there would be a town doctor like in the wild west. Hospitals are already privately built so I'm not sure much would change in that regard. 

That's one of the criticisms for hospitals now days. They are too profit motivated which means they will prioritize patient satisfaction over nurses and doctors doing the right things. 

There's studies done to show that doctors who are less personable get sued more often. So we are looking at hospitals for ing good bedside manner even if in some cases it harms patient outcomes. 

I am not promoting any system here, to remind you. However it seems a monarchist state works on paper. I am not sure what it would look like in real life. I think community policing would get better if areas could just fire a police company and bring a new one in, for example, but it also could result in some types of mini kingdoms like took place in the 1800s with town sheriff's having too much power over their jurisdiction and being too far out of the ability of feds to step in and regulate
#110
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
  • The Federal government owns about 200, including military hospitals and veterans hospitals.
  • State and local governments own about 1,000
  • Another 1,000 are owned by for-profit companies
  • The remaining 2,900 are owned by not-for-profit organizations
With the exception of the Federal hospitals, which are funded entirely from Federal tax revenues, hospital funding comes from a variety of sources, including:
  • Medicare and Medicaid for patients covered by those Federal programs
  • Local tax revenues for some of the local governmental hospitals
  • Insurance companies
  • Out-of-pocket payments from patients
  • Donations
From the latest edition of the American Hospital Association's AHA Hospital Statistics publication
Most hospitals in America are either government owned, or are non profit. It should also be noted that americans pay much more than Their socialised healthcare counterparts (due to the higher privatisation).

I'm sure bribery couldn't infiltrate this system....
I feel like it infiltrates the system we have now. Could just be my cynicism though.
It would be 10x worse.

Basically I think you would have single mothers do it who are looking for an income. It appears homeschool students do better in college than ones who went to public school, so it could be a wash. 
I imagine there's a correlation between a family being able to afford homeschooling and the increased levels of education (as opposed to the education itself) if a parent can afford homeschooling they're likely more affluent to begin with (more likely to have lots of time on their hands). It must also be noted that Teachers generally need degrees.....if we're being taught by our mums, some people are naturally going to get stunted, no?

#111
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Ehyeh
Most hospitals in America are either government owned, or are non profit. It should also be noted that americans pay much more than Their socialised healthcare counterparts (due to the higher privatisation).
I don't think not for profits will go away if the government becomes minarchist, I think a lot of private businesses will just replace public ones, but I do get your point 

I disagree that the higher payments are due to privatization. Before FDR came into office healthcare prices were really low, and he put a cap on wages which meant companies had to find a way around the cap. A lot started offering health insurance as a result. 

I believe that health insurance has done a lot to hide the price of actual services. Like we have no ideal an ambulance ride costs $2000 if the insurance company pays it. So insurance has caused a type of disconnect that discourages shopping around and keeping prices reasonable. 

Now you could argue the insurance is private as well and somewhat blame the costs on private entities because of that, but remember it is FDR's socialist wage caps that normalized things like insurance to start with. 

I honestly think the costs of healthcare would be lower had that sort of wage capping never taken place. 

You could argue that despite what caused the problem, socialization would fix it. You might be right, and that is a discussion I would want to save, but I think it's unfair to place the blame on the free market, because it looks like market manipulation preceded the high prices.

It would be 10x worse
Can you give me an example? I don't necessarily think bribing the CEO of a corporation like Amazon would be easier than bribing a senator. I probably just don't have a grasp on what type of bribery you are talking about here. It would help if you clarified or gave an example or 2

I imagine there's a correlation between a family being able to afford homeschooling and the increased levels of education (as opposed to the education itself) if a parent can afford homeschooling they're likely more affluent to begin with (more likely to have lots of time on their hands). It must also be noted that Teachers generally need degrees.....if we're being taught by our mums, some people are naturally going to get stunted, no?
I can't help but to think non profits would step in here. K12 is currently like a free homeschooling website, but if it is or became private you could monotize it by putting up some affiliate links for homeschool supplies or a cheap monthly payment like Netflix 

You are correct that poor people would probably struggle more with getting there kids a good education because of less free time. Besides schools are basically there to offer free daycare so parents can go to work anyway. Taking those schools away would harm the ability of single parents to work and provide. 

I say that's the real reason for schools because studies also show that a homeschool kid gets as much education in a 2 hour school day as a public school kid in an 8 hour day. 

I think you found one of those situations where a minarchist state would be outperformed by the current system. Who knows though. The fact is people can be creative so some cult might step up in these areas to offer free school to brainwash while educating the kids and it would be a fair trade. Cults set up free drug recovery units all the time for the same reason. There might be 100 other solutions.

Basically I just wanted to explain to you that a minarchist system might not look much different than the current system though it would perform better in some cases and worse in others. Your original argument I think was that minarchism wouldn't work, so I am addressing that.

I am not addressing whether it would overall be better or worse, and you'll find if you are arguing with an intelligent libertarian they don't really care whether a minarchist state outperforms the status quo, they are just concerned with what type of government is ethical to have. 
#112
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Do Away with health insurance. Imagine being American and reliant on your workplace to pay for your healthcare.
#113
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
The only thing i agree with rothbard on is his perspectives on corporations and how their allegiance with the government is the real cause of monopolies. But health insurance really isnt necessary if you nationalise (most) of the health industry.
#114
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
significantly less than murdering a stranger in MOST CASES
We’ve gone from you saying it’s not treated as murder, and gets no prison time (which is false) - to murder, and prison time - but less than murdering a stranger. That’s progress.

the legal standard is "mentally unstable"

which seems to very obviously apply to any case where a mother intentionally kills their own child in the first 12 months
Is this the really the legal standard; or is this just you reading the law, interpreting it in a particular way, and then running with it? Because that can’t really be classified as “a legal standard”. 

Given that a.) individuals are still prosecuted for and convicted of murdering children and b.) most of the ones I’ve seen get prison time even for the lesser charge; it would still seem to contradict those original claims.

citation please
I cited the original law previously, and cited the names of women who have been sent to prison both for murdering their babies, and for infanticide - indicating my key point - that murder and infanticide apply to different crimes in different ways.

Specifically, and you should read the law, the requirement is not that a woman is simply mentally unstable - but that instability is directly related to the consequences of the birth or lack of recovery from it. Being a psychopath and murdering your kids because “you decide” you don’t want them would not qualify under this


#115
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Bones
If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"?
I wouldn't necessarily state it that way, but if we consider that a woman's womb is a resource to be used at her whim, then yes it would necessarily follow that a man under a consistently applied moral framework would also be able to determine how he uses his resources.

It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support? 
Well stated.
Topic's author
#116
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
I refer you too what I said to Whiteflames

When you force a man to pay child support, you are forcibly taking their wealth which is a result of their own labour. To say that the State can forcibly take your money to pay child support is synonymous to saying that the State can compel you to forced labour until your child support is payed off. The link here might not be clear, but as it is the case that child support comes from money, which comes from labour, and it is also the case that some assert that men must pay child support, it logically follows that labour is compelled i.e, slavery. 
#117
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
and gets no prison time (which is false)
i never made this claim
#118
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
for something to be contradictory they must be 1 to 1. For instance: if i say its wrong for anyone to litter but then litter, i have contradicted myself and acted hypocritically. If im a narcissist and say others shouldn't litter, then i don't contradict myself if i litter, as i only apply that moral ought to others. There really is no realistic symmetry here which cant simply be brushed away based on preference/perspective.
Topic's author
#119
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@whiteflame
 I personally wouldn't consider what a mother goes through in order to give birth equivalent to financial payments

Stripping away the entire context that makes these two decisions distinct to focus solely on consent doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
I've thought on this a bit and I think I see our major point of contention. You agree that there is a symmetrical principle of consent and subsequent withdrawal in regards to a mother and father, but hold that the extent to which the mother is subjected to adverse conditions is to a far greater extent than that of a father. I think this can be clarified with the following analogy. 

Suppose you have an allergy peanuts and go to a restaurant to order dinner. Before you order, the waiter tells you that, though the meal you have ordered does not specifically have peanuts, the pots and pans used to cook your meal may have had contact with peanuts. You accept the risk and have your meal, however, you are faced with an allergic reaction. The extent to which you react does not in any way change the moral reprehensibility of the restaurant, for the principle of consent has been confirmed. 

This isn't completely analogous, but it untangles the specific principle that the severity events antecedent of the time in which consent was enacted  does not in any way move the fundamental principle in play. 
#120
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
but that instability is directly related to the consequences of the birth or lack of recovery from it.
good luck quantifying this "standard"