Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anarchy vs. the Right to Life
Mercurial Times ^ | February 11, 2002 | Aaron Armitage

Posted on 02/12/2002 3:33:17 PM PST by A.J.Armitage

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 last
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
How about a Mosque, or a Hindu Temple? Do you really want your children exposed to pagan idolatry which endangers their eternal souls? Why shouldn't the State do something about these kind of environments?

How this is comparable to running a whore house or a crack house next door to my family is beyond me. I have laid out my argument and there is nothing more I can add. We will have to agree to disagree because I don't accept your premise.

I thank you for showing civility toward me. Have a very nice day. =)

151 posted on 02/13/2002 7:34:54 AM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Architect
I certainly don't have the right to kill someone on my land who's there through no fault of her own, and if I do, it's not outside the government's jurisdiction because it happened inside what I own. It happened to someone I don't own, and that's the key issue. (Or, rather, I did it to someone I don't own, and would therefore deserve punishment.

Do you or do you not have the right to expel the tresspasser (and to use lethal force if the intruder refuses to comply)? What is different when someone is tresspassing on your body?

Is the foetus a trespasser in the womb?

Hasn't he/she been invited into the womb by an explicit act of the possessor of that womb?

In the vast majority of cases, does not the possessor of the womb in question know that by performing said act, she is explicitly inviting a foetus to take up residence in her womb (for a period of time known beforehand to be approximately nine months)?

Does not the possessor of the womb know, and is she not responsible for the actions of her body, which, after she has invited the foetus to take up residence within her, begins an explicit process of nourishing and sustaining the foetus during its nine month sojourn, which is designed to culminate in the the safe passage of the fully mature foetus from her body to the outside world?

Is not abortion the reneging upon of a contract (agreement) made by the woman and her body to house and sustain the foetus for a nine-month period?

Isn't this analogous to the implicit contract society presumes is made between parents and their BORN children, such that parents have the ultimate responsibility for providing for and developing their children until such time (legally 18 years) as those children assume responsibility for sustaining themselves?

152 posted on 02/13/2002 9:28:08 AM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Yes but what you believe to be proper and what is laid out in the old testament regarding those crimes are two different things. What I was asking was what does the Bible state is the proper punishment?
153 posted on 02/13/2002 10:33:51 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
I'll use pot as an example. None of the effects produced by smoking are virtuous. Gluttony, laziness, lowered sexual inhibitions, are all vices. Vices shouldn't be encouraged by legitimizing the behavior through legalization.

Drinking produces un-virtuous results too. Should we ban it? Wealth can produce a lack of virtue. Should we ban capitalism?

Give me a break, A.J. By the term "object" I mean dehumanizing to base level. Prostitution helps create a moral and social climate conducive to sexual abuse and expoitation.

They're not "dehumanized", and do not become objects. Sin, in fact, is a characteristically human activity.

I do believe that fornication is immoral, but I would like to stay on the topic of prostitution and drug use. The last question is too silly to answer.

The last question is a perfectly fair question, and so is OP's later question about idolatry. If prostitution should be illegal because of it's immorality, then fornication, which is on the same moral level (and is the immorality in prostitution, not the fact that money changes hands), should be on the same legal level.

You're right that the preaching of a false gospel is not comparable to drugs or prostitution. It's worse! Smoking marijuana is an inherently trivial act. Denying Jesus Christ will send someone to Hell. Selling marijuana will get some people high (horrors!). Selling Islam or Hinduism or any other falsity like that will get people sent to Hell (at this point, "horrors!" would be entirely accurate).

Societal standards are important. Without them the line between relative and concrete becomes blurred. I have already given an argument in an earlier post on this.

You seem, here, to be saying that concrete, as opposed to relative, is marked out by the laws, in which case, some modern invention like Harry Anslinger's selection of pot as the excuse to keep old Prohibition enforcers employed is concrete, while the eternal word of the Lord is relative. That's mixed up.

154 posted on 02/13/2002 11:57:47 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
I'd like to see where I advocated anything except upholding the law in regard to prostitution and drug abuse. I've been advocating societal standards, and somehow you've interpreted that to mean government agencies going past punishment. Seems to me there is always a way to twist out of having to deal with concrete truths. Prostitution, as well as drug use, are indeed immoral and should remain illegal.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, "upholding the law", as you put it, would consist of exactly what I said it would: hiring a private agency to enforce your preferences.

155 posted on 02/13/2002 12:13:20 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Architect
Do you or do you not have the right to expel the tresspasser (and to use lethal force if the intruder refuses to comply)? What is different when someone is tresspassing on your body?

I deny that "tresspasser" is a term applicable to a baby in the womb. At what point is the tresspass committed, before or after he's in his mother's body? It can't be either, because either he doesn't exist yet, or he's already there. Since you've already called abortion murder, you can't compare it to forcing an intruder off my land. The only comparison would be to another act of murder, say, poisoning someone I had invited to dinner or killing someone who had come to my door to ask to use the phone because his car broke down, or otherwise killing someone without justification who was inside my property because of no wrongdoing on his part. If murder should still be punished even though it happens inside my property, I see no philosophical difference between one type of property and another.

And you still refuse to answer the question, Aaron. What is the penalty do you propose for this act of pre-mediated murder? Death? Be very careful with your answer, because, throughout history, juries have refused to convict women for infanticide. Never mind abortion.

As OP has pointed out, the mother isn't necessarily at fault, while the abortionist always is. It would also be hard to get enough proof for a conviction, and I can live with that. Any attempt to fully enforce any law would lead to totalitarianism. We've accepted the compromises and limits of the common law procedure in the interest of liberty and avoiding false convictions in the case of other crimes, so I see no reason we can't do the same with abortion.

That said, the answer to your specific question is, any penalty up to and including death, in the worst case scenario. Now, prosecutors might want to go for a lesser penalty, for the very reason you stated, but that's a prudential decision for them to make.

156 posted on 02/13/2002 12:38:56 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: annalex
In either case, your objection is the standard objection to anarchy, that supposedly nothing prevents people from hiring a criminal gang instead of a protection firm. There is nothing in your objection that is specific to abortion. You could just as easily said that I can hire goons to do my murdering, then choose judges that believe in murder.

You're right. My objection is that in practice there'd be no way to avoid violent chaos. Abortion is one of the things that will lead to it (or else go unpunished altogether).

Annalex-Hoppe Theorem. In a multiple law enforcer environment, independent judiciary will reflect the community standard of justice.

In the case of abortion (and, no doubt, other issues) there is no community standard. You'd have to have such a standard formed and the exclusion of "wildcards" already in place before you can hope to have a decently functioning anarchist society, and I just don't see that happening. And if it does happen, it could be undone by any number of factors.

157 posted on 02/13/2002 12:47:31 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
How about a Mosque, or a Hindu Temple? Do you really want your children exposed to pagan idolatry which endangers their eternal souls? Why shouldn't the State do something about these kind of environments?

I was going to say that. As it happens, I grew up almost next door to a mosque. If you walk out my front door and turn left, before you is another house, and then a street, and then a mosque.

At least those institutions would card your kid for age if he came looking for some vodka

I hate that.

158 posted on 02/13/2002 12:54:21 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
You'd have to have such a standard formed and the exclusion of "wildcards" already in place before you can hope to have a decently functioning anarchist society

With respect to issues where there is no community standard, how is the anarchist situation different from what we have now with a single law enforcer?

I can tell you how it is worse. Now a single law enforcer, the state, is combined with hierarchical judiciary. Thus we have our Supreme Court Commissars ensuring a sclerosis of the community. In fact, we barely know what the community standard is on abortion. The pro-abortion folks tell us that the point is not worth arguing because the Supreme Court already decided the issue. The pro-life folks point out that while there is no consensus on banning abortion, there is a consensus on banning partial birth abortions, parental notification and welfare abortions, and each time the court is to the left of the consensus. I'd much rather have chaos (another word for which is local control).

159 posted on 02/13/2002 1:10:04 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I've already answered the questions you've asked. I'll only have a small bit to add.

They're not "dehumanized", and do not become objects. Sin, in fact, is a characteristically human activity.

That simpy isn't true and if you were honest with yourself you would admit it. Porn and prostitution degrade the woman because the man sees her as a fantasy. There is no love or respect involved and therefore reduces or destroys a her dignity, as she becomes merely a sexual toy....an "object."

160 posted on 02/13/2002 4:04:47 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: annalex
With respect to issues where there is no community standard, how is the anarchist situation different from what we have now with a single law enforcer?

Attempts will still be made to enforce what people think ought to be laws. Those attempts will be viewed as crimes by others, who will try to act on that perception.

I can tell you how it is worse. Now a single law enforcer, the state, is combined with hierarchical judiciary. Thus we have our Supreme Court Commissars ensuring a sclerosis of the community. In fact, we barely know what the community standard is on abortion. The pro-abortion folks tell us that the point is not worth arguing because the Supreme Court already decided the issue. The pro-life folks point out that while there is no consensus on banning abortion, there is a consensus on banning partial birth abortions, parental notification and welfare abortions, and each time the court is to the left of the consensus. I'd much rather have chaos (another word for which is local control).

Violent chaos doesn't mean local control, it means lots of factions shooting at each other.

There is largely a consensus on things like partial birth abortion, but not on abortion as abortion. Both of these facts come from the same source, polls, so you can't accept one and reject the other.

161 posted on 02/13/2002 4:40:03 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
I've already answered the questions you've asked.

If you have I missed it.

That simpy isn't true and if you were honest with yourself you would admit it.

Human nature isn't warped by sin?

Porn and prostitution degrade the woman because the man sees her as a fantasy. There is no love or respect involved and therefore reduces or destroys a her dignity, as she becomes merely a sexual toy....an "object."

So if there is love and respect fornication is fine? Your attempt to make prostitution worse than any other type of fornication simply doesn't work.

162 posted on 02/13/2002 4:54:38 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator; Admin Moderator
Now why would you take out all of tex-oma's posts?
163 posted on 02/13/2002 5:57:57 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
The evolution of legal systems was in response to clans avenging the wrongs against their members (warrior clans are perhaps the first defense companies). An alternative to the warrior clan was the fuedal lord who originally was a man who was wealthy enough to build a fort therby have a facility for offering protection to others. Sonce a fortress needs more than one defender part of the price of the security of the fort was defendng said fort. Now since a fortress and a defensive group (men carrying arms) need a leader and a division of labor to achieve the best efficiency some people specialized in the trade of warrior and were supported by those who engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry. By going to defensive companies we are walking down the path to fuedalism. While it might be personally beneficial to those who see themselves as warriors and are recognized by others as effective warriors (in such an envirornment skill in the use of arms is quite valuable) I would think that going this road is not something we as a society really should want to do.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

164 posted on 02/13/2002 7:25:28 PM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Looks like tex-oma got canned. It is a shame. Soon there will be no one to converse with. Will the last one remember to turn out the lights, please.
165 posted on 02/14/2002 4:51:11 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
lots of factions shooting at each other.

In the abortion controversy, we have too much shooting to my taste already. Attempts are made to enforce what people think ought to be laws. Those attempts are viewed as crimes by others, who act on that perception.

Yours seems to be the vulgar critique of anarchism as "people shooting at each other". In fact, any law is enforced by a balance of power, where most people know how to avoid a shootout. With a single enforcer most people know that if they rob a bank, a shootout will ensue. They decide not to rob banks. With multiple enforcers, most people will know how to avoid a shootout as well, and when a conflict of interpretation of natural law presents itself, they would prefer to submit to a judge. When a recalcitrant party refuses adjudication, that party would face a coalition consisting not only of its opponents in the controversy on hand, but also of its former allies. For example, those who shoot abortionists are condemned not only by pro-abortion people, but by the overwhelming number of pro-life people.

166 posted on 02/14/2002 5:13:06 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: annalex
"Vulgar" or not, it's what anarchy would lead to. I don't share your optimism about judges; too many things have to go right for the kind of cultural norms required to back the judges up to come into place and stay in place.
167 posted on 02/14/2002 1:47:47 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
That's what a transition to anarchy lead to, like any revolution, -- if it ever happens. My point is that the anarchist system will converge to stability, when judges reflect the prevailing morals, but I can't predict how rapid the conversion will be.
168 posted on 02/15/2002 6:49:47 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
The relationship that is pregnancy between 'mother' and 'fetus - preborn baby, whatever' is not a contractional arrangement, but a biological one and is, therefore, involuntary…

You have two conflicting claims or 'rights', and you have to priviledge one claim over the other, either the 'mother' or the 'baby'…

However you decide the issue, and whatever values you may claim to support your decision - it comes down to just… a… decision…

Consider also, that while 'viability' is a 'soft' boundary, pregnancy is not. I would support the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy over the 'baby's' right to live. You draw the line in the sand and you defend it…

Incidently you can guarantee a 'right to life' for the 'baby' if you would do one thing, and I would support the radical feminist TiGrace Atkinson on this one: take human reproduction out of the human body…

How close is science to making this a fact?
169 posted on 02/18/2002 9:03:17 PM PST by lzzrdgrrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Interesting. I take a sort of off-handed approach to abortion: dump Roe v Wade and let the states decide individually. Then, you need to discourage and marginalize abortion so much that few would ever be performed - and yet it is still legal in some places.

This is proper way to combat other such immoral non-crimes. No force required.

About prostitution: what F seems to not understand is that many of the drawbacks to these sort of activities arise solely because they are illegal. Legal prostitutes would most likely go through a thorough licensing process (mostly to avoid STDs). This sort of practice has already taken shape in the porn industry. Besides, mainstream dating boils down to prostitution in many cases - it just isn't upfront about the transfer of money. Is he against mere *dating*? In addition, where he is failing is he advocating that certain immoral behaviors need to be punished by the state and that legalizing these behaviors implies promoting them. Say prostitution is legal. Would you then want to engage in prostitution? Not likely, because of the self-imposed moral restrictions.

Also, one has to be careful when making moral absolutes. In reality, there are no moral absolutes in a complex world. There are always exceptions (example: self defense for murder).
170 posted on 12/02/2002 2:03:12 PM PST by spodbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson