The FSU is currently discussing that thorny issue of competing liberties. This is usually defined as ‘you have the right to swing your fist, but only so far as the end of my nose.’
What brings this one about is the right of protest, which in a liberal democracy should be sacrosanct. However, as we have seen recently, this has been abused to the point where the right to go about freely in pursuit of one’s lawful business is being impeded by the eco zealots. Also under discussion is the imposition of buffer zones around abortion clinics.
Now, as is usual, the matter of abortion itself comes up. I generally avoid engaging in these discussions. I have a view, but prefer not to get involved. That said, I thought I’d let you take a look at this one. Now, I can accept that there are logical arguments in favour of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy. I do not accept post coital contraception as a valid reason. Nor do I accept the one below.
This logic is not just twisted, it is vile. The idea that a child needs to seek permission to develop in the womb is one I’ve not heard before. This man hasn’t so much lost his moral compass, I suspect that he never had one. Medical necessity, sure, where there is a serious risk to the mother, that’s a decent reason. That making it illegal creates more harm than good, is a valid argument to make. However, let’s never forget that abortion is merely a euphemism for killing someone. Someone who is unable to have a say in the matter. Killing them because the poor little mite didn’t get permission is a new fucking low, frankly.
Oddly, no one has torn this bloke a new one. Maybe, like me, they don’t want to get covered in shit by doing so.
And, no, this isn’t an example of sarcasm or parody. The whole discussion is more of the same pseudo logic.
Blimey not sure how the little mite will get consent when merely an egg and a sperm. Perhaps its such a weird idea no one knows how to respond!!!!
Quite. It’s a jaw dropper.
Another example where one individual’s ‘rights’ can be subordinated to another is in the case of isolation to prevent spread of infection to others. Or even ‘lockdown’, ahem.
If you so wished you could write modern history from the perspective of the individual vs the collective… and the extremes of either lead to bat-shit crazy conclusions.
There was a time, before social media, where idiots could not be heard.
Good times.
This is pseudo intellectualism taken to another dimension.
Why doesn’t this titan of philosophical reason do us all a favour by withdrawing consent from his gut bacteria.
Yup. I suspect that is why everyone seems to be ignoring it.
This does sound rather similar to Murray Rothbard’s arguments in Ethics of Liberty:
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.
And this is the point where I part company with my fellow travellers on the libertarian front. As mentioned above, it’s batshit crazy. No one in their right mind would accept that child neglect is an exercise in liberty.
You choose to have a child. That choice comes with a moral obligation towards its care and upkeep. It ain’t coercion.
We seem to be a long way from the 1990’s concept of abortion being “Safe, Legal and Rare”.
Then again, that was always just a cover for the reality of “Abortion on demand without query or judgement” that the Feminists viewed as the absolute minimum.
It’s the latter bit that has always bothered me. There should be query and there should be judgement.
@John Galt
“We seem to be a long way from the 1990’s concept of abortion being “Safe, Legal and Rare”.”
Indeed. You might reasonably expect that law could make abortion ‘safe’ and ‘legal’ for these are measurable qualities. But ‘rare’ implies judgement and discrimination for which law is rarely effective.
If the foetus is a person to the extent that it must obtain consent, then it must be able to understand whether consent has been given or not: at this point, it must therefore be a sentient human being and an abortion is thus, in all cases and for any reason, murder.
Simples.
DK
Indeed.