View Single Post
      02-10-2019, 01:37 PM   #179
Sassicaia's Avatar

Drives: SMB F80 6MT
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Vancouver, Canada

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Some libertarian views:

Rothbard (pro-choice)- "Philosopher*Murray Rothbard[5]*wrote that "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body" and that therefore the woman is entitled to eject the fetus from her body at any time.[6]However, explaining the right of the woman to "eject the fetus from her body", Rothbard also wrote that "every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc."[7]Rothbard also opposed all federal interference with the right of local governments to fashion their own laws, so he opposed the U.S. Supreme Court's*Roe v. Wade*decision. He believed that states should be able to author their own abortion policies.[8]*He also opposed taxpayer funding for abortion clinics, writing "it is peculiarly monstrous to force those who abhor abortion as murder to pay for such murders."[9]"

Walter Bock (middle ground)- "Walter Block, professor of economics at*Loyola University New Orleans, provides an alternative to the standard choice between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" which he terms "evictionism". According to this moral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of (a) eviction of the fetus from the womb; and (b) killing the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand against trespass and murder, Block supports a right to the first act, but, except in certain circumstances, not the second act. He believes the woman may legally abort if (a) the fetus is not viable outside the womb; or (b) the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus, and (c) no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus.[12]"

Pro-life view via NAP: "Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even*pregnant*women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus*rapewould be morally indifferent behaviors. The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of*contract, agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a*state of nature. This is because the obligation comes with our*human nature, and we acquire this nature at conception.[3]"
Libertarians are the only people who make sense to me.