Post has attachment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmGueQuIKe4 JUST HAVE TO LOVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Hey everyone! I'm new to the group, I hope this ends well
Photo

Post has shared content

Post has shared content
A very brief compilation of only a few of the abjectly disgusting, provocative, and hateful things said and practiced by the pervasively moronic group of deluded and intellectually dishonest individuals who are so disingenuous as to call themselves "pro-life," including the indoctrination of children, and the posting of wanted/reward posters for OBGYN doctors.

The "hateful rhetoric" the conservative media has been trying to both ignore and deny over the past week when not blatantly attempting (and mostly failing) to engage in tu-quo que against liberal media for not being more critical of provocative rhetoric linked with other recent instances of violence that have occurred throughout The United States.

Below is a list of the some of the major acts of violence committed by "pro-life" extremists over the past 40 years or so, including the most recent attack on a Colorado Planned Parenthood health clinic. This of course does not include harassment faced by women seeking healthcare from clinics either affiliated or unaffiliated with Planned Parenthood, as well as threats faced by healthcare providers either affiliated or unaffiliated with Planned Parenthood clinics.

Murders

In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, a police officer, two people, and a clinic escort; Seven murders occurred in the 1990s.

March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility, the Ladies Center, in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003. The clinic in Pensacola had been bombed before in 1984 and was also bombed subsequently in 2012. Neighbors and former neighbors described the suspect as "reclusive", and police from several states where the suspect resided described a history of run ins dating from at least 1997.

December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.

January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, admitted responsibility was also charged with three Atlanta bombings: the 1997 bombing of an abortion center, the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, and another of a lesbian nightclub. He was charged with the crimes and received two life sentences as a result.

October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death with a high-powered rifle at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Slepian's murder after being apprehended in France in 2001.

May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at a church in Wichita, Kansas.

November 29, 2015: A shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, left three dead and several injured, and a suspect was apprehended. As of November 2015, the incident remains under investigation, and no motive has been established by authorities.

Attempted murder, assault, and kidnapping

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation, an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded, 100 butyric acid attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Between 1997 and 1990 77 death threats were made with 250 made between 1991 to 1999. Attempted murders in the U.S. included: IN 1985 45% of clinics reported bomb threats, decreasing to 15% in 2000. One fifth of clinics in 2000 experienced some form of extreme activity.

August 1982: Three men identifying as the Army of God kidnapped Hector Zevallos and his wife, Rosalee Jean, holding them for eight days.

May 12, 1984: Later the same day as his bombing of a Birmingham clinic, Father Markley and perhaps his accomplice entered the Women's Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack. Father Markley is a Benedictine monk who was the Birmingham diocesan "Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities".

August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence.

July 29, 1994: June Barrett was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.

December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.

December 18, 1996: Dr. Calvin Jackson of New Orleans, Louisiana was stabbed 15 times, losing 4 pints of blood. Donald Cooper was charged with second degree attempted murder and was sentenced to 20 years. "Donald Cooper's Day of Violence", by Kara Lowentheil, Choice! Magazine, December 21, 2004.

October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.

January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed off-duty police officer Robert Sanderson.

Arson, bombing, and property crime

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid. The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993. The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio. Incidents have included:

May 26, 1983: Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when an alert patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.

May 12, 1984: Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at **7:45 am. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,000 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine monk who was the Birmingham diocesan "Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities". Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. Following the Birmingham incident, Markley entered the Women's Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack.

December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday." The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.

July 3, 1989: A fire was started at the Feminist Health Center clinic in Concord NH on the day U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Missouri law banning funding of public facilities as related to abortion. The clinic was set afire again in 2000.

March 29, 1993: Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients' records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.

January 1997:, Eric Rudolph admitted, as part of a plea deal for the Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the 1996 Olympic Games to placing a pair of bombs that exploded at the Northside Family Planning Services clinic in the Atlanta suburb of Sandy Springs.

May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.

October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.

May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved. This was the second arson at the clinic.

September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.

June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.

July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.

December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.

September 11, 2006: David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic. Time magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.

April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans was found guilty of the crime.

May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.

January 22, 2009: Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.

January 1, 2012: Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.

April 1, 2012: A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.

April 11, 2013: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, was vandalized with an axe.

September 4, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Pullman, Washington was intentionally set on fire. No injuries were reported due to the time of day, but the FBI was involved because of a history of domestic terrorism against the clinic.

September 30, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Thousand Oaks, California was vandalized by an arsonist or arsonists who authorities believe smashed out a window, splashed gasoline inside the clinic, and then ignited it.

October 22, 2015: A Planned Parenthood clinic in Claremont, New Hampshire was vandalized by a juvenile intruder. Damaged in the attack were computers, furniture, plumbing fixtures, office equipment, medical equipment, phone lines, windows, and walls. The flooding that resulted from the vandalism also damaged an adjacent business.

Anthrax threats

The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.

November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence?wprov=sfti1

Post has shared content
Emotional Appeals vs. Rational Argumentation

Excerpt from comments of source G+ post:

Arthur “TheAlchemyst” Gwynne Shared publicly - Sep 30, 2015 7:49 PM [UTC] 
This is the SOLE reason I fully back pro-choice initiatives. I personally believe that a fetus is a living human. But I also believe that removing the option of safe, legal, doctor-assisted abortion is irresponsible and blind to the world. 
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Oct 1, 2015 11:28 AM [UTC]
+Arthur Gwynne: "This is the SOLE reason I fully back pro-choice initiatives. I personally believe that a fetus is a living human."

— I'll give you a further reason, the foetus is the property of the pregnant woman by default (in the absence of voluntary contract by which she has transferred it to someone else). Some rational arguments in support of the above statement:


"child differs from all other parts of that category (of things to be owned) in the fact that there is steadily developing within him the power of self-emancipation, which at a certain point enables him to become an owner instead of remaining part of the owned." [14]

". . . no clearer property title in the world than that of the mother to the fruit of her womb, unless she has otherwise disposed of it by contract. Certainly the mother's title to the child while it remains in her womb will not be denied by any Anarchist. To deny this would be to deny the right of the mother to commit suicide during pregnancy, and I never knew an Anarchist to deny the right of suicide. If, then, the child is the mother's while in the womb, by what consideration does title to it become vested in another than the mother on its emergence from the womb pending the day of its emancipation?" [15]

"I answer that it is highly probable that I would interfere in such a case (as a mother throwing her infant into the flames). My interference no more invalidates the mother's property right in the child than if I prevent the owner of a Titian painting from destroying it. If I interfere in either case, it is only as an invader and I would have to be prepared to suffer the consequences." [16]

"the outsider who uses force upon the child invades, not the child, but its mother, and may be rightfully punished for doing so. The mother who uses force upon her child invades nobody. . . To be consistent, I must convict a man of murder in the first degree who kills a father in the act of killing his child." [17]

“any child capable of declaring to the association's (an anarchistic enforcement agency) officers its desire for release from its owner that it may thereafter either care for itself or entrust itself to the care of persons more agreeable to it thereby proves the presence in its mind of the idea of contract. . . From the moment that a child makes a deliberate declaration of this character it should cease to be property and should pass into the category of owners."[20]

"If we take the other course and admitting, that the child has the possibilities of the man, declare that therefore it cannot be property, then we must also for the same reason, say that the ovum in the woman's body is not her property, . . ." [21]
~Benjamin R Tucker.

— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html 

— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute (2006)
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984 


(pp. 244-248 / pp. 101-102 / pp. 146-158)
«Your right is not more powerful if you are not more powerful. Have Chinese subjects a right to freedom? Just bestow it on them, and then look how far you have gone wrong in your attempt: because they do not know how to use freedom they have no right to it, or, in clearer terms, because they have not freedom they have not the right to it. Children have no right to the condition of majority because they are not of age, i.e. because they are children. Peoples that let themselves be kept in nonage have no rights to the condition of majority; if they ceased to be in nonage, then only would they have the right to be of age. This means nothing else than "What you have the power to be you have the right to." I derive all right and all warrant from me ; I am entitled to everything that I have in my power.»

— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580 
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own 
URL G+ post with excerpts: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/8EkQwUApQ1u 


(p. 97)
«There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner. But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?»

(p. 100)
«But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time.»

 (p. 103)
«A common argument holds that the voluntary act of the parents has created a "contract" by which the parents are obligated to maintain the child. But (a) this would also entail the alleged "contract" with the fetus that would prohibit abortion, and (b) this falls into all the difficulties with the contract theory as analyzed above.

Finally as Evers points out, suppose that we consider the case of a person who voluntarily rescues a child from a flaming wreck that kills the child's parents. In a very real sense, the rescuer has brought life to the child; does the rescuer, then, have a binding legal obligation to keep the child alive from then on? Wouldn't this be a "monstrous involuntary servitude that is being foisted upon a rescuer?"[11] And if for the rescuer, why not also for the natural parent?»

— Murray N Rothbard. Chapter 14. Children and Rights. The Ethics of Liberty (1982)
Excerpt: mises.org/library/children-and-rights 
Full text: goodreads.com/ebooks/download/81983?doc=31040 


URL source G+ posts: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/7mqNnHmbNzT 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/HDSymtDL8uM 
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Oct 1, 2015 12:56 PM [UTC]
+Andres Soolo: "modern Western notions tend to frown upon accepting legal personage of a fœtus at the same time as permitting the fœtus to be a property."

— "[M]odern Western notions" is not a person or a group of people, so what you may believe about Western notions is ultimately based on your personal opinion and/or the opinion of a few others whom you may have read or listened to talking about this issue.

On the other hand, even assuming that you or other people had actually surveyed what modern Westerners think about such issue, the personal opinion of such sample of Westerners would appear strongly ideologised and subject to proselytism by 12+ years of indoctrination in government-controlled schools (both secular and religious schools), and by their everyday exposure to the mainstream media and other cultural items (movies, songs) deemed acceptable by the modern Western censorship.

Finally, even in the hypothetical case that modern Westerners hadn't been indoctrinated, there's no rational reason to expect that the opinion of the majority of them were more valid or correct on matters like this, about which they have devoted on average very little time to think, search or learn.

The majority of the Western population still believe in a life force, in an afterlife, in spirits and/or gods, in the supernatural, etc. The popularity of their opinions does not necessarily imply that they are correct.
_______ 

Example of modern Western censorship:

Arthur “TheAlchemyst” Gwynne Oct 1, 2015 2:34 PM
+Zephyr López Cervilla keep your copypasta for shitposts elsewhere. Use your own words.
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Oct 1, 2015 3:21 PM [UTC]
+Andres Soolo: "Googleword: slavery, the application of property relation on persons.  Modern Western people usually frown upon this sort of thing."

— The definition of slavery applies perfectly well to the present condition of the children of modern Westerners, who have no control over their life, liberty, and fortune, who have no freedom of action or right to property (at least until they reach adulthood), who are forced to obey other people, and forced to work against their will (e.g., in schools, forced to do homework, housework, etc.).

[That's how the first definitions of 'slavery' and 'slave' searched by Google define it:
collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/slavery 
collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/slave 
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/slavery 
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/slave 
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery 
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave 
macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/slavery 
macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/slave 
oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/slavery 
oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/slave 
google.com/search?q=define+slavery
google.com/search?q=define+slave ]

Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that "[m]odern Western people usually frown upon this sort of thing." Modern Western people practice this sort of thing everyday. The only significant difference with my previous statements on child ownership is that many modern Westerners perceive children as collective, "socialised" or communal property rather than personal property. Either way, children are perceived and treated as property.

PS:
Other coincidental defining details on slavery (in bold fonts) perfectly applicable to children of modern Western people:

«There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined. Nevertheless, there is general agreement among historians, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and others who study slavery that most of the following characteristics should be present in order to term a person a slave. The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else. In some societies slaves were considered movable property, in others immovable property, like real estate. They were objects of the law, not its subjects. Thus, like an ox or an ax, the slave was not ordinarily held responsible for what he did. He was not personally liable for torts or contracts. The slave usually had few rights and always fewer than his owner, but there were not many societies in which he had absolutely none. As there are limits in most societies on the extent to which animals may be abused, so there were limits in most societies on how much a slave could be abused. The slave was removed from lines of natal descent. Legally, and often socially, he had no kin. No relatives could stand up for his rights or get vengeance for him. As an “outsider,” “marginal individual,” or “socially dead person” in the society where he was enslaved, his rights to participate in political decision making and other social activities were fewer than those enjoyed by his owner. The product of a slave’s labour could be claimed by someone else, who also frequently had the right to control his physical reproduction.

Slavery was a form of dependent labour performed by a nonfamily member. The slave was deprived of personal liberty and the right to move about geographically as he desired. There were likely to be limits on his capacity to make choices with regard to his occupation and sexual partners as well. Slavery was usually, but not always, involuntary. If not all of these characterizations in their most restrictive forms applied to a slave, the slave regime in that place is likely to be characterized as “mild”; if almost all of them did, then it ordinarily would be characterized as “severe.”»

— Richard Hellie. Slavery. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 01 Oct. 2015
<http://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery-sociology>.
_______ 

URL source comments of G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+ArthurGwynne/posts/LvWBTYg6sVd 
URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/109005948509631917429/posts/XdmZHKLDJwF 
________________ 
________________ 

Except from comments of related G+ post:

Christopher Cantwell Shared publicly - Sep 30, 2015 11:14 AM [UTC]
Some libertarians say "evictionism," or evicting a fetus from the womb, is the libertarian alternative to abortion. Watch this video, then you decide.

Christopher Cantwell Sep 30, 2015 1:19 PM [UTC] +4
+Eco Traveler The parents owe the child. I've made the argument at length in the articles linked, but suffice to say, one incurs obligations through actions. To say anything less is to imply it is okay to walk into a restaurant, order food, and then refuse to pay.
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Sep 30, 2015 2:10 PM [UTC]
+Christopher Cantwell: "The parents owe the child."

— The parents own the child, or to be more precise, the mothers own them by default (or whoever else engenders them and feeds them):

[See my first comment above]
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Oct 1, 2015 3:29 AM [UTC]
+Peter Thoenen: "So the problem with the mother ownership problem is men are involved also here, its our semen and half ours."

— Wrong. The "semen" is not one half of the embryo. Size matters. The soma of human sperm cell has a shape of a disk of 5.1 µm by 3.1 µm, with a volume of ~63 µm^3/6.3e-17 m^3, that corresponds to a weight of 6.3 picograms.

On the other hand,  the human ovum has the shape of a sphere of 0.1 mm in diameter, with a volume of ~4.2e6 µm^3/4.2e-9 m^3, that corresponds to a weight of 4.2 micrograms.

4.2 µg human ovum/ 6.3 pg human sperm cell's soma ≈
6.7e5 g human ovum/g human sperm cell's soma.

The human ovum is more than six hundred thousand times more massive and larger than the soma of the human sperm cell.

Even further, the weight of the human embryo will reach several kilograms (2-5 kg). All this extra matter is supplied to the embryo by the pregnant woman, therefore is her property. The owner of the source raw materials is the owner of the product.

Claiming that the man owns half of the embryo because the genome of his sperm cell has been copied in the embryo is akin to claiming that the man has intellectual property rights over it, likewise a copyright advocate would claim that he owns all the copies and replicas of a book/photograph/picture/artwork that he may have authored, even in the absence of any contract that may acknowledge any right over future copies or replicas.

In addition, without any contract that states otherwise, when you voluntarily abandon an object of your property in other person's property, you lose any claim over it.


+Peter Thoenen: "Folk convienently, [sic] even libertarians, forget that."

— I forget nothing, I simply refuse to acknowledge any kind of intellectual property over genomic sequences (or any other sort of information) or any other right that hasn't been agreed and formalised through a contract.
_______ 

URL related G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+ChristopherCantwell/posts/fRKVKPpdeGG 
________________ 

Post has shared content
theweek.com - How the pro-life lobby is hurting the cause of life
reason.com - How the Pro-Life Movement Endangers the Unborn
By Shikha Dalmia (The Week & Reason.com). May 14 & 19, 2015
theweek.com/articles/555030/how-prolife-lobby-hurting-cause-life 
reason.com/archives/2015/05/19/how-the-pro-life-movement-is-endangering 

"It is hubris to think that the government can improve on the moral choices of mothers." (reason.com)

Excerpt:

«The GOP's bill would ban all abortions after 20 weeks, when a fetus allegedly attains viability and can begin feeling pain, both claims that are very much disputed. The bill would make exceptions for rape or when a woman's life is endangered. It would also exempt minors under 18 who are victims of incest, but would require doctors — at the threat of arrest and fines — to report the crime. In such instances, however, the bill dramatically mandates that a second doctor must be present to try and "save" the fetus.»

«It's not hard to see what drives public opinion in the pro-life direction. There is something deeply discomforting about "abortion on demand" — a society in which women can use the procedure as birth control. But that's not really what conservative legislation tries to combat. Nearly all of America's 1.3 million abortions every year — 98.5 percent — take place in the first trimester, when women saddled with an unwanted pregnancy are most likely to use the procedure as birth control. Yet over 60 percent of Americans, even those who call themselves pro-life, have no problem keeping that legal.»

— Shikha Dalmia. How the Pro-Life Movement Endangers the Unborn. Reason.com and The Week. May 19, 2015.
reason.com/archives/2015/05/19/how-the-pro-life-movement-is-endangering 
theweek.com/articles/555030/how-prolife-lobby-hurting-cause-life 


Comments from source G+ post:

Reason Shared publicly  -  May 19, 2015 5:45 PM
It is hubris to think that the government can improve on the moral choices of mothers.

reason.com/archives/2015/05/19/how-the-pro-life-movement-is-endangering 
_________ 

Logan “NorthStar” Swapp May 19, 2015 6:01 PM +2
While it's certainly silly to legislate this on the basis of fetal pain or viability, the argument that birth defects are an excuse for abortion is just as silly and tantamount to eugenics. There is no "live and let live" when it comes to murder, which is what this is. We don't refrain from making moral judgments about murder in the law on the grounds that "the government might mess things up." There are few things the government should do, but this is one of them.
_________ 

Chris Nandor (Pudge) May 19, 2015 6:03 PM +1
+Reason says, It is hubris to think that the government can improve on the moral choices of mothers.

It is hubris to think that the government can improve on the moral choices of murderers, thieves, rapists, and so on.

When you say government cannot reasonably regulate abortion, you are -- knowingly or not -- arguing that literally there should be no criminal law.  That murder, rape, thievery should all be legal.  That is something that might convince a tiny number of people Rothbard devotees, but isn't a winning argument for most people.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla May 19, 2015 7:42 PM
Benjamin Tucker, eminent libertarian theorist of the turn of the 20th century and publisher of the periodical Liberty, resolved the question quite clearly. The child, as the fruit of the womb of the mother, is of her property unless she has otherwise disposed of it by contract[*]. Therefore, as the legitimate owner of the child the mother has all the right to destroy it: 

«The question over land ownership and the homesteading principle was not the only controversy carried on in the pages of LIBERTY. Equally interesting is the letter and editorial writing concerning the self-ownership axiom which took place under the guise of discussing the rights of parents and children. Originally the question began as whether parents should be legally responsible for abuse and neglect of their children. Tuckers initial conclusion was that we must not interfere to prevent neglect of the child, but only to repress positive invasion.

However, Tucker, having reconsidered his opinion, resolved that ". . . the change then which my opinion has undergone consists simply in the substitution of certainty for doubt as to the non-invasive character of parental cruelty — a substitution which involves the conclusion that parental cruelty is not to be prohibited. . ."[13] Tucker's opinion is grounded on the fact that he views the child as the property of the mother . Children, in Tucker's estimation, belong in the category of things to be owned, rather than as being owners of themselves. However he does note that the "child differs from all other parts of that category (of things to be owned) in the fact that there is steadily developing within him the power of self-emancipation, which at a certain point enables him to become an owner instead of remaining part of the owned."[14]  Tucker saw ". . . no clearer property title in the world than that of the mother to the fruit of her womb, unless she has otherwise disposed of it by contract. Certainly the mother's title to the child while it remains in her womb will not be denied by any Anarchist. To deny this would be to deny the right of the mother to commit suicide during pregnancy, and I never knew an Anarchist to deny the right of suicide. If, then, the child is the mother's while in the womb, by what consideration does title to it become vested in another than the mother on its emergence from the womb pending the day of its emancipation?"[15]

Tucker clearly refused to invoke the self-ownership axiom towards children, at least until they had reached the age of being able to contract and provide for themselves. In the meantime, he recognized the right of the mother to throw her property into the fire. "I answer that it is highly probable that I would interfere in such a case (as a mother throwing her infant into the flames). My interference no more invalidates the mother's property right in the child than if I prevent the owner of a Titian painting from destroying it. If I interfere in either case, it is only as an invader and I would have to be prepared to suffer the consequences."[16] According to his logic "the outsider who uses force upon the child invades, not the child, but its mother, and may be rightfully punished for doing so. The mother who uses force upon her child invades nobody. . . To be consistent, I must convict a man of murder in the first degree who kills a father in the act of killing his child."[17]


One of Tucker's critics realized that Tucker could not be attacked until the concept of contract as the ethical basis of anarchism was overthrown. Said this critic, "I do not accept contract as the ethical basis of Anarchism in the first place, and, in the second, do not regard children as the property of anybody. . . I base my anarchism on Natural Right. . . Perhaps no Anarchist will deny the right of the mother to commit suicide during pregnancy, but I do deny it after the embryo becomes a human being. The mother has a right to kill herself, but no one else."[18] "In my category of the owners and the owned I state it thus: Each being owns himself = No human being owns another ."[19] Of course, we recognize this as a reformulation of the self-ownership axiom.

For Tucker, rights only begin as a social convention. Rights are liberties created by mutual agreement and contract. He defended his concept of self-emancipation by stating that “any child capable of declaring to the association's (an anarchistic enforcement agency) officers its desire for release from its owner that it may thereafter either care for itself or entrust itself to the care of persons more agreeable to it thereby proves the presence in its mind of the idea of contract. . . From the moment that a child makes a deliberate declaration of this character it should cease to be property and should pass into the category of owners."[20] Tucker refused to see any alternative to his own position. "If we take the other course and admitting, that the child has the possibilities of the man, declare that therefore it cannot be property, then we must also for the same reason, say that the ovum in the woman's body is not her property, . . ." and thus being made to conceive when she is raped, she thereby loses her right to commit suicide.[21] Tucker failed to realize that no human "being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body[22]  He refused to view the fetus as a possible invader of the mother's body, since it was already her property to do with as she pleased. Consequently any invasive treatment of the child was not wrong since it was the mother's property.»

— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html 

— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006 (ePub edition).
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984 


*: That would be the case if at some point both progenitors had mutually agreed to share the property of the child.
_________ 

Logan “NorthStar” Swapp May 19, 2015 7:59 PM +1
+Zephyr López Cervilla Tucker's essay doesn't "resolve" anything, it's just one man's (highly flawed) opinion. To adopt the view expressed there is to subscribe to the notion that 1) people (children) can be property and that 2) they are property until they are able to care for themselves, which when taken to its logical conclusion means that we would also have to allow post-natal abortion, even several years after birth. His views also fail to recognize the existence of inalienable, self-evident rights, treating them solely as a construct granted by government and society, which runs directly counter to the values this country was founded on. None of these views carry any justification other than "it's how I think things should work."
_________ 

Chris Nandor (Pudge) May 19, 2015 9:54 PM
+Logan Swapp Exactly right.  The idea that the child is property is at best mere opinion.  We know that earlier than 20 weeks, the human child in the womb has a beating heart and active brain.  This happens at about six weeks.

To say that a -- by any definition -- living, distinct, unique human being is "property" merely because it is inside another person, or cannot care for itself, is pretty much antithetical to libertarianism.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla May 19, 2015 11:21 PM
+Logan Swapp: "people (children) can be property"

— The last four thousand years of human history shows that humans, including mature humans, can be property and are property. This is not a matter of debate or theoretical consideration, it's empirical fact. The (partial) abolition of slavery simply transferred that property from the slave owners to the former slaves.
The only things that can't be property are those entities over which nobody can exert any control. The planet Jupiter, the Sun, the Earth mantle, the magnetosphere.


+Logan Swapp: "they are property until they are able to care for themselves,"

— They are property even afterwards, but instead of being someone else's property they may attain self-ownership. As with the case of the abolition of slavery, there's simply a transfer of property.


+Logan Swapp: "they are property until they are able to care for themselves, which when taken to its logical conclusion means that we would also have to allow post-natal abortion, even several years after birth."

— So what? Benjamin Tucker put it clear how far the property of the mother would extend, until the individual "had reached the age of being able to contract and provide for themselves". As for its consequences, Tucker was also explicit, he recognised "the right of the mother to throw her property into the fire."

Apparently you are trying to determine the correction of Tucker's argument based on its consequences. That's a form of sloppy reasoning, to be precise a type of informal fallacy:

« Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences 


+Logan Swapp: "His views also fail to recognize the existence of inalienable, self-evident rights,"

— Tucker "fails" to recognise rights as self-evident because they aren't. Claiming that something is self-evident is like saying nothing. It only means that you have no logical argument to prove, justify or support your statement.

But let's suppose for a moment that there are inalienable rights. If you believe that the child has inalienable rights why then you stated "we" would have to allow post-natal abortion? :

"its logical conclusion means that we would also have to allow post-natal abortion,"

If those rights were inalienable their observation wouldn't depend on "our" whim. But the fact that they are dependent on others' whim, as you implicitly acknowledged, means they aren't.

On the other hand, if rights are inalienable, where did the mother's right of property over her own body go? The ovule was produced by her body so was hers, and so were the nutrients supplied by her body from which the embryo developed. If rights were alienable she would never lose the right of property over those things unless she voluntarily decided otherwise.

As Tucker asserted accurately, rights aren't but by-products of contracts between individuals, not existing on their own:

«The egoists argued that they were merely reducing the concept of rights to its proper place as an artificial, useful construct with which to organize society. Converted to egoism, Tucker continued to believe in what he called “society by contract,” but he came to view rights as by-products of contracts between individuals, not as existing on their own. Tucker suggested that rights were

"a tacit agreement or understanding between human beings ...as individuals living in daily contact and dependent upon some sort of cooperation with each other for the satisfaction of their daily wants, not to trespass upon each other’s individualism, the motive of this agreement being the purely egoist desire of each for the peaceful preservation of his own individuality." (Walker 1886, 8)»

— Wendy McElroy. Benjamin Tucker, Liberty And Individualist Anarchism. The Independent Review, v.II, n. 3, Winter 1998, ISSN 1086-1653, (1997) pp. 421–434
independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_02_3_mcelroy.pdf 
Alternative source: 
wendymcelroy.com/tir1.htm 
wendymcelroy.com/tir2.htm 


 If rights were self-evident and inalienable you wouldn't be discussing under which circumstances those rights should conveniently materialise.


+Logan Swapp: "treating them solely as a construct granted by government and society,"

— Tucker said nothing about government-granted rights. In fact, quite the opposite:

«The Stirnerite egoists [Tucker was one of them] were no less antigovernment than their natural-rights counterparts. They merely constructed anarchism along different lines. They rejected the state because it sought to chain the individual to the general will. This argument was not a rejection of society or its value, which Stirner called “union by advantage.” Society provided true and invaluable benefits to the individual, benefits the state disrupted.»
~Wendy McElroy.
independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_02_3_mcelroy.pdf 
wendymcelroy.com/tir1.htm 
wendymcelroy.com/tir2.htm 


In the following excerpt Tucker himself explains why the relation "of the individual to the State must be one of hostility, enduring till the State shall perish."

Considering that the social contract (which by-products are contractual rights, the only ones that Tucker recognises) "excludes all aggression, all violation of equality of liberty, all invasion of every kind", implies that "the State as [by definition] the embodiment of the principle of invasion" "is antagonistic to society":


(pp. 23-25) «Now comes the question proper : What relations should exist between the State and the individual? The general method of determining these is to apply some theory of ethics involving a basis of moral obligation. In this method the Anarchists have no confidence. The idea of moral obligation, of inherent rights and duties, they totally discard. They look upon all obligations, not as moral, but as social, and even then not really as obligations except as these have been consciously and voluntarily assumed. If a man makes an agreement with men, the latter may combine to hold him to his agreement; but, in the absence of such agreement, no man, so far as the Anarchists are aware, has made any agreement with God or with any other power of any order whatsoever. The Anarchists are not only utilitarians, but egoists in the farthest and fullest sense. So far as inherent right is concerned, might is its only measure. Any man, be his name Bill Sykes or Alexander Romanoff, and any set of men, whether the Chinese highbinders or the Congress of the United States, have the right, if they have the power, to kill or coerce other men and to make the entire world subservient to their ends. Society's right to enslave the individual and the individual's right to enslave society are unequal only because their powers are unequal. This position being subversive of all systems of religion and morality, of course I cannot expect to win immediate assent thereto from the audience which I am addressing today; nor does the time at my disposal allow me to sustain it by an elaborate, or even a summary, examination of the foundations of ethics. Those who desire a greater familiarity with this particular phase of the subject should read a, profound German work, "Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum" written years ago by a comparatively unknown author, Dr. Caspar Schmidt, whose nom de plume was Max Stirner. Read only by a few scholars, the book is buried in obscurity, "but is destined to a resurrection that perhaps will mark an epoch.

If this, then, were a question of right, it would be, according to the Anarchists, purely a question of strength. But, fortunately, it is not a question of right: it is a question of expediency, of knowledge, of science,—the science of living together, the science of society. The history of humanity has been largely one long and gradual discovery of the fact that the individual is the gainer by society exactly in proportion as society is free, and of the law that the condition of a permanent and harmonious society is the greatest amount of individual liberty compatible with equality of liberty. The average man of each new generation has said to himself more clearly and consciously than his predecessor : " My neighbor is not my enemy, but my friend, and I am his, if we would but mutually recognize the fact. We help each other to a better, fuller, happier living; and this service might be greatly increased if we would cease to restrict, hamper, and oppress each other. Why can we not agree to let each live his own life, neither of us transgressing the limit that separates our individualities? " It is by this reasoning that mankind is approaching the real social contract, which is not, as Rousseau thought, the origin of society, but rather the outcome of a long social experience, the fruit of its follies and disasters. It is obvious that this contract, this social law, developed to its perfection, excludes all aggression, all violation of equality of liberty, all invasion of every kind. Considering this contract in connection with the Anarchistic definition of the State as the embodiment of the principle of invasion, we see that the State is antagonistic to society ; and, society being essential to individual life and development, the conclusion leaps to the eyes that the relation of the State to the individual and of the individual to the State must be one of hostility, enduring till the State shall perish. »

— Benjamin R. Tucker. Relation of the State to the Individual. Liberty (November 15, 1890) vol. 7 (15) (whole no. 171) pp. 5-7 [document no. 1197-1199]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual 
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n39/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2866 


+Logan Swapp: "which runs directly counter to the values this country was founded on."

— First, "this" country (or any other) wasn't founded. Before the first European settlers arrived it had been inhabited for thousands of years by different peoples, who brought their traditions with them, including their own "values", which have little to do with those that apparently you are invoking.

Second, many of the alleged "founders" of "this" country were slave owners who also didn't permit the emancipation of any women. So, what kind of values are you talking about? 

Whatever their "values" were, they were not opposed to the idea of people as property of other  people. Therefore, the values "this country was founded on" wouldn't oppose the points 1 and 2 that you mentioned above:

"1) people (children) can be property and that 2) they are property until they are able to care for themselves,"

In their particular case, the "founders" of "this" "founded" country presumably assumed that women would never be able to care for themselves, and that their slaves could be somebody else's property from cradle to grave, unless they, the slavers as their "legitimate" owners (legitimised by the laws enacted by them) decided to set them free.


+Logan Swapp: "None of these views carry any justification other than "it's how I think things should work.""

— Quite the opposite. His view satisfactorily explains why individuals are subjugated by governments, why governments have the power to kill or coerce other men (their citizens and others), and why those actions are considered legitimate and "rightful":

(p. 24) «Any man, be his name Bill Sykes or Alexander Romanoff, and any set of men, whether the Chinese highbinders or the Congress of the United States, have the right, if they have the power, to kill or coerce other men and to make the entire world subservient to their ends. Society's right to enslave the individual and the individual's right to enslave society are unequal only because their powers are unequal.»
~Benjamin Tucker.
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual 
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n39/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2866 


But if you have come across with a more plausible explanation, please, I beg you to enlighten me.
_________ 

Logan Swapp May 19, 2015 11:50 PM
+Zephyr López Cervilla Nice try, but there is no logical fallacy in what I said. I'm not determining the correctness or incorrectness of an argument, I am in fact determining the desirability of taking a certain world view and legislative approach. To me, tolerating the idea of people as property is not a desirable world view or legislative approach, and while you (and Tucker) may disagree, I'm confident that you are in a very small minority. I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your wall of text, because those kinds of views are too far afield of either side of this debate to even warrant it (to elaborate, if we cannot even accept that people have an innate right to life and liberty and that the taking of innocent human life is morally wrong, it is regressing the debate to a point where we have a lot more to worry about than abortion).
_________ 

Chris Nandor May 20, 2015 1:33 AM
+Zephyr López Cervilla says, The last four thousand years of human history shows that humans, including mature humans, can be property and are property. This is not a matter of debate or theoretical consideration, it's empirical fact.

You're committing the equivocation fallacy.  Obviously, people can "be" property, but the completely clear point +Logan Swapp made was that they cannot reasonably or justifiably be property, not in a free society that recognizes the inherent rights and civil equlity of all persons.


Tucker "fails" to recognise rights as self-evident because they aren't.

Shrug.  You can say that, if it is true, it doesn't matter whether it is self-evident, so you're not making a point.

In this case, I might agree that it is not self-evident that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.  But nevertheless, I believe it to be true that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

And if you deny the truth of these rights, then you're fighting against the very foundations of this country, not to mention highly sound philosophy that you literally cannot disprove.  So, good luck with that.


Claiming that something is self-evident is like saying nothing. It only means that you have no logical argument to prove, justify or support your statement.

Nonsense.  "Cogito ergo sum" is the canonical and truly irrefutable example of a self-evident claim.


But let's suppose for a moment that there are inalienable rights. If you believe that the child has inalienable rights why then you stated "we" would have to allow post-natal abortion?

Um.  You're not making any sense.  Really.


"its logical conclusion means that we would also have to allow post-natal abortion,"

Right.  It's the logical conclusion of a view which presupposes there are not unalienable rights.


If those rights were inalienable their observation wouldn't depend on "our" whim.

You don't understand what "inalienable" means.  It doesn't mean "cannot be abridged," it means that if they are abridged, then your rights are being violated.  You're really not making any point whatsoever, except to demonstrate that you don't understand the arguments.

And there's no way in hell I am going to read the rest of your comment, based on what I've read thus far.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla May 20, 2015 2:51 AM
+Logan Swapp: "there is no logical fallacy in what I said. I'm not determining the correctness or incorrectness of an argument, I am in fact determining the desirability of taking a certain world view and legislative approach."

— I cited that fallacy in case some impressionable reader could fall into that trap. To hint what you can't claim is an old trick commonly used by lawyers and advertising campaigns.

I gather from your affection to the appeal to desirability to determine on every occasion which world view or legislative approach to take, that you are a man with no principle and no character:

«Character means that the person derives his rules of conduct from himself and from the dignity of humanity. Character is the common ruling principle in man in the use of his talents and attributes. Thus it is the nature of his will, and is good or bad. A man who acts without settled principles, with no uniformity, has no character. A man may have a good heart and yet no character, because he is dependent upon impulses and does not act according to maxims. Firmness and unity of principle are essential to character.»

— Immanuel Kant. Part III : Selection on Education from Kant's other Writings. Ch. I Pedagogical Fragments, # 14


+Logan Swapp+Logan Swapp: "To me, tolerating the idea of people as property is not a desirable world view or legislative approach,"

— Yet, you have no qualms to accept the idea of people as property of the State when you try to use the coercion of the State to enforce upon them the legislative approach that you find suits them best. To accept that the State is the owner of people when it is to decide what others can do with their bodies and the way they must reproduce.


+Logan Swapp: "to elaborate, if we cannot even accept that people have an innate right to life and liberty and that the taking of innocent human life is morally wrong,"

— This isn't a matter of blind acceptance, it's a matter of reason. Apparently, you are unable to elaborate a rational argument to support the belief that what a woman may do with the fruit of her body is wrong. Apparently, as Max Stirner would say, you are enthused for morality, filled with the idea of morality: 

«If, on the other hand, a thief were to take away his basket, there would at once arise an interest of many, of the whole city, of the entire country, or, in one word, of all who abominate theft: an interest wherein the person of the chestnut-vender would be indifferent, and in its place the category of 'one who is robbed' would appear in the forefront. But here, too, it might still all be resolved into a personal interest, each participant reflecting that he must aid in the punishment of the thief because, otherwise, unpunished stealing would become general and he also would lose his possessions. There are many, however, from whom such a calculation is not to be presumed. Rather, the cry will be heard that the thief is a 'criminal.' Here we have a judgment before us, the act of the thief receiving its expression in the conception 'crime.' Now the matter presents itself in this way: If a crime should work not the slightest damage either to me or to any of those for whom I take concern, yet nevertheless I should be zealous against it. Why? Because I am enthused for morality, filled with the idea of morality. I run down what is hostile to it. . . . Here personal interest comes to an end.»
~Max Stirner

— James L. Walker (Tak Kak). Stirner on Justice. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document 603]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2390 

English edition of Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum :

• Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845) Benj. R. Tucker Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own 
_________ 

Erik Buchanan May 21, 2015 8:05 AM +2
tl;dr: If you ban 20-week abortions you might accidentally allow handicapped children into this world.

+Reason​​ Your usually sound journalism is tainted by the logical absurdity of your abortion reporting. I'm rapidly losing faith in +Reason​​ as a source of news, and if you continue to allow sloppy contributors like this to write under your brand I'm going to have to stop encouraging people to come to you for news.

As was mentioned by many others above, late-term abortions are antithetical to libertarianism, liberty, the non-aggression principle, and basic human dignity. If you don't recognize that, the least you can do is write about the subject in a way that doesn't blatantly contradict reality.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla May 21, 2015 1:03 AM
Erik Buchanan: "As was mentioned by many others above, late-term abortions are antithetical to libertarianism, liberty, the non-aggression principle, and basic human dignity." [Bold emphasis mine]

— What "libertarianism" are you talking about? Certainly not Murray Rothbard's libertarianism. The following quote is short enough so that even you can read it:

(p. 104) «In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion;»

— Murray N. Rothbard. Chapter 14. Children and Rights. The Ethics of Liberty (1982).
Excerpt: mises.org/library/children-and-rights 
Full text: goodreads.com/ebooks/download/81983?doc=31040 

Further reading: 

(p. 98) «The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and every thing within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother's freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic "invader" of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as "murder" of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.»
_________ 

Logan “NorthStar” Swapp May 21, 2015 1:58 AM
+Zephyr López Cervilla Ah, the old "bodily autonomy" argument. To quote your man Rothbard:
Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. In short, 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"
This is where things break down. The child is a separate entity and a potential adult even before birth, and not only that, but the trustee/guardianship relationship also exists before birth. So for Rothbard to use physical location as an arbitrary standard contradicts his own criteria.

That said, according to Rothbard, the mother should be free to throw the baby out in the trash after giving birth and leave it for dead, so I'm not sure why abortions are even necessary at that point.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla May 21, 2015 5:00 AM
Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "Ah, the old "bodily autonomy" argument."

— I think you are confused with that quote. Murray Rothbard is not using the argument of being a separate entity as "proof" of its autonomy.


Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "The child is a separate entity and a potential adult even before birth,"

— This is inaccurate. The child id attached to the woman through the placenta. Therefore isn't a separate entity. If it were separate it couldn't receive nutrients and exchange gases through the placenta.

On the other hand, the criterion that you applied to claim that the embryo is a different entity from the mother's body rather than two distinct parts of the same entity is ultimately an arbitrary criterion.


Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "the trustee/guardianship relationship also exists before birth."

— Not according to Rothbard, since for him mother and embryo are not separate entities, and therefore the embryo doesn't possess the right of self-ownership:

(p. 100) «We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. In short, 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.»


On the other hand, if you read through those pages you'll realise that according to Rothbard the fact of being a trustee doesn't involve any specific legal obligation with the child, but only certain rights:

(p. 100) «On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society,no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights.

(pp. 100-101) 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. [4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. [5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.)»

« If parents have the legal right to allow a baby to die, then a fortiori they have the same right for extra-uterine fetuses. Similarly, in a future world where babies may be born in extra-uterine devices ("test tubes"), again the parents would have the legal right to "pull the plug" on the fetuses or, rather, to refuse to pay to continue the plug in place. »

 (p. 103) «Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children.»


Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "So for Rothbard to use physical location as an arbitrary standard contradicts his own criteria."

— As I mentioned above, the criterion used by Rothbard to justify abortion is not autonomy or separation, 

"but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body."

In Rothbard's view, the foetus is a parasitic invader of the mother's body, regardless of whether is a separate entity, an attached entity, or simply distinct part of it (like a cancerous tumour).


Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "after giving birth and leave it for dead, so I'm not sure why abortions are even necessary at that point."

— To avoid the period of gestation. The pregnancy and childbirth are threats to the woman's life, in addition to incommodious, cumbersome and annoying.


Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "To quote your man Rothbard"

— I don't really agree with Rothbard on the issue of children but with Benjamin Tucker. The reason for which I quoted him was that Erik Buchanan had claimed that abortions were "antithetical to libertarianism". Rothbard quote was simply to show that that wasn't the case since a very influential libertarian of the last decades (among others) supported unrestricted abortion.

In my view the fatal misstep of Rothbard on this issue is the following:


(p. 100) «But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children. »


What Rothbard failed to realise (or perhaps to intentionally acknowledge) was that the belief in self-ownership is not inconsistent with murdering children since the child is not a self-owner, as he had already admitted earlier in that chapter:

(p. 97) «There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner. But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?»


A second fatal misstep, albeit not as clearly revealed here (but somehow hinted) is to consider that the fact that a certain entity may potentially become a particular thing confers on that entity part of the value that the actual thing would have.

To illustrate how different they are I'll use the following example: A block of marble may be potentially a sculptural master piece. However, if I accidentally crush a block for marble stored in a sculptor's studio I'll have to compensate the artist with the value of the block, the freight cost, and for the time lost waiting the block to arrive, but not for any added value that the block might have acquired once transformed into a work of art.

Rothbard reached the same conclusion as Tucker as for when the growing child acquires self-ownership. However, and unlike Tucker, Rothbard failed to recognise that until such point (which is by no means guaranteed to materialise) the (legal) treatment given to the child should not differ from any of the other properties of the mother (which would be estimated according to its scarcity and effort required to produce it). As I illustrated with the example, a potentiality by itself doesn't confer (in the present) on an entity any of the added value that the actual thing might have.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality 

Finally, in my view (and unlike Rothbard's view) the embryo wouldn't equate to a parasite (at most such distinction should be reserved to the spermatozoid), but rather a product of the woman's body (in a similar way to a wart, which, continuing with the analogy further, is triggered by the infection of a virus). Such situation would confer on the woman unrestricted ownership over the embryo, just as with any other part or product of her body.
_________ 

Logan “NorthStar” Swapp May 21, 2015 5:24 AM
+Zephyr López Cervilla 
"The child id attached to the woman through the placenta. Therefore isn't a separate entity. If it were separate it couldn't receive nutrients and exchange gases through the placenta."
If I'm receiving blood from someone via an IV that is necessary to keep me alive, do I cease to be a separate entity? Similarly, if the umbilical cord is somehow severed while the fetus is still inside the mother, does it spontaneously become a separate entity?

"On the other hand, the criterion that you applied to claim that the embryo is a different entity from the mother's body rather than two distinct parts of the same entity is ultimately an arbitrary criterion."
It's not arbitrary, it's scientifically accurate. An embryo can be scientifically classified as a "developing human" and has distinct DNA. That it relies on an outside source for nutrients is irrelevant. Do you consider a chicken egg to be a part of its mother? No, a fertilized chicken egg can be classified as a "developing chicken" and is completely separate from its mother.

"In Rothbard's view, the foetus is a parasitic invader of the mother's body, regardless of whether is a separate entity, an attached entity, or simply distinct part of it (like a cancerous tumour)."
Then why bother bringing it up as a criteria for self-ownership? He does use it in his reasoning, regardless of whether he brings up other criteria later. Is he just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks? As to the parasite argument, suppose there was a disease for which the only cure was to kill another innocent human being. Under what circumstances would you justify doing so?
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla May 21, 2015 7:17 AM
Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "If I'm receiving blood from someone via an IV that is necessary to keep me alive, do I cease to be a separate entity?"

— That's right, you would become an entity attached to someone else.

Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "if the umbilical cord is somehow severed while the fetus is still inside the mother, does it spontaneously become a separate entity?"

— The foetus would become a separate entity from the placenta, but still contained inside the amniotic sac. On the other hand, the amniotic sac and the placenta would still remain attached to the woman's body, and therefore not separate entities.

Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "It's not arbitrary, it's scientifically accurate. An embryo can be scientifically classified as a "developing human" and has distinct DNA."

— You are conflating scientific knowledge with arbitrary criteria used by scientists for sheerconvenience. For example, the symbol "Fe" is an arbitrary symbol used by chemists for convenience to refer to the element iron. Likewise, the separation between one generation and the next is an arbitrary division (or between a cell cycle and the next), an arbitrary criterion that is followed for convenience.

Your criterion of "distinct DNA" is also arbitrary. You may also probably know that it is not even universal. One single individual contains distinct DNA in different cells of their body, in some cases with strikingly different DNA (see chimera, somatic recombination, somatic hypermutation, somatic cell genetic mutation, genetic recombination, allograft/allotransplantation), whereas different individuals (or living entities) may share DNA which if no identical, at least show the same range of variability as the DNA present in the cells of a single individual (see monozygotic twins, clone, allograft/allotransplantation, cell culture, asexual reproduction).

As you can see, the DNA analysis may be a practical tool to identify individuals (in most situations) but is ultimately an arbitrary criterion to classify them as different individuals. On that regard, the spacial and detached criterion is more reliable and more objective. For instance, when corals or sponges (or budding yeast) reproduce by means of budding you'd rather apply the separation criterion (rather than the DNA) to classify mother and offspring as different individuals.

Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "Then why bother bringing it up as a criteria for self-ownership?"

— Because in that chapter Rothbard is also dealing with the relation between children and parents once the child is born, and in such situation the potentiality of becoming a self-owner (according to Rothbard) confers on the child a special value.

Logan “NorthStar” Swapp: "As to the parasite argument, suppose there was a disease for which the only cure was to kill another innocent human being. Under what circumstances would you justify doing so?"

— Is that "another innocent human being" a de facto self-owner in actuality)? If he were a self-owner and therefore capable to understand the situation and take decisions by himself, he should have to voluntarily consent. Otherwise, the decision should be taken by the owner of that individual.
_________ 

Logan “NorthStar” Swapp May 21, 2015 7:28 AM
+Zephyr López Cervilla 
"You are conflating scientific knowledge with arbitrary criteria used by scientists for sheerconvenience. For example, the symbol "Fe" is an arbitrary symbol used by chemists for convenience to refer to the element iron. Likewise, the separation between one generation and the next is an arbitrary division (or between a cell cycle and the next), an arbitrary criterion that is followed for convenience."

I'm not conflating anything. What constitutes a distinct organism is not a matter of labeling for convenience. "Fe" is a label, but what makes iron a distinct element is its atomic configuration, which is not arbitrary. There are some cases in nature where the lines are blurred as to where one organism is distinct from another, but this isn't one of them.

Do you really want to keep digging yourself deeper into this hole of nonsense? Do you believe that at later stages of fetal development the mother has two sets of brain waves, two heartbeats, two functioning nervous systems?
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla May 22, 2015 2:57 AM
+Logan Swapp: "Do you believe that at later stages of fetal development the mother has two sets of brain waves, two heartbeats, two functioning nervous systems?"

— Again, all those are arbitrary criteria. Many living organisms have zero sets of brain waves (they don't even have a brain), zero hearts, and no functioning nervous system. Dos that mean that they can't be separate entities?

BTW, how many "separate entities" can you see here? :

1. cbsnews.com/news/two-headed-baby-dies-after-surgery 

2. youtube.com/watch?v=Ffhij-jpPXM (30 s)
3. youtube.com/watch?v=Awia0-DH66M (2 min)
4. youtube.com/watch?v=vCuI2maEy_8 (2 min)
5. youtube.com/watch?v=VYh5zu_CNsc (1 min)
6. youtube.com/watch?v=8sLdpNRzKNg (10 s)

7. youtube.com/watch?v=AkdJisvS5vk (2 min)
8. youtube.com/watch?v=dXwGLSmcZkw (2 min)

9. youtube.com/watch?v=VMzK6iz6uVs (6 min)
10. youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo (45 min)

11. youtube.com/watch?v=MKpq2Kdtslo (4 min)

12. youtube.com/watch?v=xUrIQiqeTv0 (47 min)
_________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+reasonmagazine/posts/RLoygnKm9wk 
____________________ 

Excerpt from comments of related G+ post: 

Zephyr López Cervilla Aug 4, 2015 9:03 PM [UTC]
The foetus is the property of the pregnant woman, therefore she can kill it if she wishes.
_________ 

John Gaudino Aug 4, 2015 10:40 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla​​​ beautifully appropriate language... was it intentional? Your comment harkens back to the Dred Scott decision. 

Some people are simply not phased by the fact that under current law in United States there is a defecto schizophrenia going on where an unborn child is given value so arbitrarily based on a mother's whim - if I rob a convenience store and the clerk is pregnant I'm charged with TWO murders yet if that same mother wishes to kill the child by abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic it's considered just fine. I could cite dozens of similarly schizophrenic examples. A unborn child has value as a human life simply and PRECISELY because it is HUMAN LIFE irrespective of anyone's opinion of it be that the mother, the father, the Pope, the president, or Satan himself. It doesn't really matter human life is sacred - there is no lightning bolt that comes down and bestows some value on it ...human life begins as sacred and ends just as valuable simply because it is human life . it is a gradual continuum from conception until death that is a simple biological fact whether it fits your opinion or not.

I've practiced medicine for almost 20 years and my opinion on abortion is purely secular in that in a civilized society we will be judged by the world and others how we treat those least able to take care of and defend themselves . Modern technology shows that the unborn child is absolutely human it has the correct number of chromosomes and genetically can ONLY be human. It is certainly not dead it is ALIVE. 

All other arguments stem from a quality-of-life argument ... That it cannot live independently and yet neither can a two-year-old. Those who are honest will admit that they are also okay with infanticide . What is the difference between a newborn and a two-year-old? Between six months in utero and one-year-old?

NOTHING - only location which is another specious argument. 

Because it is located inside the uterus is somehow okay to kill but outside the uterus it is not? 

On a range of social issues (in fact most) the country seems to be moving to the left except on this one issue -abortion. The horrors of the abortion industry continue to reveal themselves be it selling dead body parts or incompetent physicians like the one in Philadelphia Whose name at the moment escapes me.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Aug 4, 2015 23:29 AM [UTC]
+John Gaudino: "A [sic] unborn child has value as a human life simply and PRECISELY because it is HUMAN LIFE irrespective of anyone's opinion of it be that the mother, the father, the Pope, the president, or Satan himself."

— I don't care what an unborn child is. All you have to know is that it is the woman's property because she has produced it with her body, which is also of her property.

BTW, her 2-year old child is also her property.
Her children are of her property until the day of their emancipation, or otherwise until she disposes of them by contract, as with any other property.

Now let me also text-wall the thread with an argumentation much more convincing than your religious crap:

«The question over land ownership…Consequently any invasive treatment of the child was not wrong since it was the mother's property.»_

— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html 

— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984 


PS:
+John Gaudino: "human life begins as sacred and ends just as valuable simply because it is human life . it is a gradual continuum from conception until death that is a simple biological fact"

— FWIW, this is factually false. Human life doesn't begin at conception. The ovum is alive and it is human, and when it becomes fertilised it doesn't die. Therefore, no human life begins at that point. Human life exists before, and human life exists afterwards. No new (human) life is created.

If you want to be consistent with your dogma, you should consider woman's ova also human life, and therefore, sacred. Every human life is sacred, even the warts of a man's penis.
_________ 

John Gaudino Aug 5, 2015 5:12 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla so according to your logic precisely as I said you are in favor of infanticide. You believe that the "product" as you call it of a woman's body is hers to do wish she pleases . I don't think I need to comment any further your position stands on its own abhorent as it is. At least your honest about your attitudes. According to your logic a parent could kill a child at will until the age of emancipation.... Delightful.... Just fabulous my friend. 
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Aug 5, 2015 4:00 PM [UTC]
+John Gaudino: "so according to your logic precisely as I said you are in favor of infanticide."

— I am as much in favour of infanticide as I am in favour of you killing your dog, or putting it down, as it's often euphemistically called. It's simply none of my business.

The fact that I may abhor someone willing to kill their animals (farm animals, pet animals, human animals) is no justification for my intromission, let alone my thirst for corporal punishment, regardless of how much empathy I may feel for those animals.

The agreements between free individuals to facilitate their coexistence and their mutual benefit should be based not on emotions or feelings but on personal interests.

I have no personal interest in how many children, at what time, or which particular children other people are willing to rear. It's not my family. If I want children I'm free to have my own children assuming I have the means.

Restricting the freedom of the women doesn't contribute to protect my freedom over my own body and property, or the freedom and property of those I may be personally associated.

My life won't be any less in danger, or the life of my children won't be any less at risk (provided they are mine and I want them to stay alive), or the lives of my relatives, friends and commercial partners.

The only gain that I can account is the gain of the reproductive males (and more generally, the patrilineal lineage) over the control of their mates' progeny.

What has been publicised as some sort of general interest in protecting people's lives is actually a concealed interest in usurping property from its legitimate owners (pregnant women and mothers), by those most interested in gaining control over it.

What is sold as an disinterested preoccupation is actually a particular case of sexual conflict resulting from a differential allocation of resources of each progenitor in their offspring:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_conflict 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_allocation 

Reproductive males are eager to ensure the allocation of resources in each of their offspring because for the most part they are not the ones who will have to allocate those resources. Such allocation of resources doesn't seriously compromise their future reproductive fitness. They'll still be able to have offspring with other mating partners.

On the contrary, rearing offspring compromises the female reproductive fitness, since they are the ones who must allocate more time and resources for each of their offspring.

Hence why reproductive males (and their progenitors) are the ones willing to impose duties on their sexual partners (usurping their property, forcing them to rear their children). Males are just trying to piggy-back on women's shoulders to improve their own reproductive fitness.

The only legitimate action of the reproductive males to ensure the survival and rearing of their progeny would be the agreement of a voluntary contract with their reproductive partners to establish the allocation of resources and guarantees to protect their offspring and set some kind of compensation if one of the parties breaks the conditions of such contract.


+John Gaudino: "I don't think I need to comment any further your position stands on its own abhorent [sic] as it is."

— It's not that you don't "need" to comment any further, or of any comment at all, it's simply that you have no rational arguments to counter it. Hence why you're forced to use emotional appeals such as calling it "abhorrent", which is simply a label that is commonly used to stir up people's emotional reactions.
Your friend Stefan Molyneux would be proud of you.


+John Gaudino: "At least your honest about your attitudes. According to your logic a parent could kill a child at will until the age of emancipation.... Delightful.... Just fabulous my friend."

— Still not a single rational argument to counter my "attitudes", just qualifiers to stir people's emotions: abhorrent, delightful, fabulous, etc.
_________ 

John Gaudino Aug 5, 2015 8:29 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla​​ you can jump up-and-down and flap your arms all you want I'll be perfectly blunt people with attitudes that you hold as evidenced clearly by what you have posted disgust me. as here arguments they are childlike and simplistic. if you can't understand the difference between skin cells and a fertilized egg then you are beyond anything that can be accomplished here. and sometimes it's just futile you know I practiced medicine for almost 20 years I don't know what your background is but clearly it's not science or medicine. Your somewhat absurd arguments do not move me they leave me at the same place - unfazed, unmoved and disgusted. you live in a liberal Utopian fantasy where you actually believe that people are okay with thinking that an unborn child is merely property to be disposed of or killed or sold at the mother's whim until the age of emancipation . 

you can try to obfuscate the argument all you want there are well over 40 definitions by bioethicists of death yet without intimate familiarity with each and every one of these I don't have any difficulty determining if a patient is dead or not . Similarly if I were to take a five-year-old and ask them what is inside mommy's tummy they will tell you it's a baby and if I asked them what is it if I crush the baby's limbs and pull them apart and take them out they will tell you it's killing. it's really quite pointless to get into an academic credential pissing contest but as I said my guess is your background is not science or medicine. 
so let's be clear since you didn't get it the first time the attitudes you hold disgust me. I find them revolting and don't care to discuss anything further with you that's not that I'm afraid of your arguments they are childlike and simplistic it's that I regard people like you as the problem with this country, society and the culture of death. neither of us is likely to change the others mind especially when you think skin cells are no different than a fertilized egg.
_________ 

URL comments related G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+RussellTouchstone/posts/WGGViyfwvca 
____________________ 


Arguments with regard to the relationship between parents and children:

Murray Rothbard's:

• Murray N. Rothbard. Chapter 14. Children and Rights. The Ethics of Liberty (1982).
Excerpt: mises.org/library/children-and-rights 
Full text: goodreads.com/ebooks/download/81983?doc=31040 
(PDF: pp. 97-112)
(eBook: pp. 237-264)


Benjamin Tucker's:

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html 

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006 (ePub edition).
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984 
(pp. 2816-2819)

Debate in the pages of Liberty:

• Benjamin Tucker. Rights and Contract. Liberty (December 14, 1895) vol. 11 no. 16 (whole no. 328) pp. 4-5 [documents 2134-2135]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/12/14/rights-and-contract 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3016 

• Benjamin Tucker. What Is Property? Liberty (October 5, 1895) vol. 11 no. 11 (whole no. 323) pp. 3-4 [documents 2093-2094]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/10/05/what-is-property 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3011 

• Evacustes A. Phipson. The Rights of Children. Liberty (October 5, 1895) vol. 11 no. 11 (whole no. 323) p. 7 [document 2097]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/10/05/the-rights-of-children 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3011 

• Benjamin Tucker. What Is Property? Liberty (September 21, 1895) vol. 11 no. 10 (whole no. 322) pp. 4-5, 8 [documents 2086-2087, 2090]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/21/what-is-property 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3010 

• J. William Lloyd. The Anarchist Child. Liberty (September 21, 1895) vol. 11 no. 10 (whole no. 322) p. 6 [document 2088]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/21/the-anarchist-child 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3010 

• A.S. Matter. Are Children Property? Liberty (September 21, 1895) vol. 11 no. 10 (whole no. 322) pp. 6-7 [documents 2088-2089]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/21/are-children-property 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3010 

• John Badcock, Jr. On the Status of the Child. Liberty (September 21, 1895) vol. 11 no. 10 (whole no. 322) pp. 7-8 [documents 2089-2090]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/21/on-the-status-of-the-child 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3010 

• Benjamin Tucker. L’Enfant Terrible. Liberty (August 24, 1895) vol. 11 no. 8 (whole no. 320) pp. 4-5 [documents 2070-2071]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/08/24/lenfant-terrible 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3008 

• J. Greevz Fisher. Children as Chattels. Liberty (August 24, 1895) vol. 11 no. 8 (whole no. 320) p. 6 [document 2072]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/08/24/children-as-chattels 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3008 

• Stephen T. Byington. The Status of the Child. Liberty (August 24, 1895) vol. 11 no. 8 (whole no. 320) pp. 6-7 [documents 2072-2073]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/08/24/the-status-of-the-child 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3008 

• William Gilmour. An Apparent Contradiction. Liberty (August 24, 1895) vol. 11 no. 8 (whole no. 320) p. 7 [document 2073]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/08/24/an-apparent-contradiction 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3008 

• Benjamin Tucker. The Creed Essential to the Life. Liberty (August 10, 1895) vol. 11 no. 7 (whole no. 319) pp. 4-5 [documents 2062-2063]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/08/10/the-creed-essential-to-the-life 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3007 

• John Badcock, Jr. The Life More Than the Creed. Liberty (August 10, 1895) vol. 11 no. 7 (whole no. 319) pp. 7-8 [documents 2065-2066]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/08/10/the-life-more-than-the-creed 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3007 

• Rachelle Slobo-Yarros. Another Case of Doubting Politician. Liberty (July 13, 1895) vol. 11 no. 5 (whole no. 317) pp. 7-8 [documents 2045-2046]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/07/13/another-case-of-doubting-politician 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3005 

• Benjamin Tucker. A Sound Criticism. Liberty (June 29, 1895) vol. 11 no. 4 (whole no. 316) pp. 3-4 [documents 2033-2034]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/06/29/a-sound-criticism 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3004 

• Benjamin Tucker. Anarchism and the Children. Liberty (May 4, 1895) vol. 10 no. 12 (whole no. 312) pp. 5, 8 [documents 2003, 2006]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/05/04/anarchism-and-the-children 
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/anarchism-and-childrens-rights-controversy 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3000 

• Various Authors. The Controversy over Anarchism and Children’s Rights. Liberty (1895) vols. 9-10
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/the-controversy-over-anarchism-and-childrens-rights 

• Benjamin Tucker. Children Under Anarchy. Liberty (September 3, 1892) vol. 9 no. 1 (whole no. 235) p. 2 [document 1522]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/children-under-anarchy 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2922 
(pp. 144-146)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n163/mode/2up 

• Clara Dixon Davidson. Relations Between Parents and Children. Liberty (September 3, 1892) vol. 9 no. 1 (whole no. 235) pp. 2-4 [documents 1522-1524]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relations-between-parents-and-children 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2922 
(pp. 137-142)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n155/mode/2up 

• Benjamin Tucker. Compulsory Education Not Anarchistic. Liberty (August 6, 1892) vol. 8 no. 50 (whole no. 232) pp. 2-3 [documents 1510-1511]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/compulsory-education-not-anarchistic 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2919 
(pp. 134-136)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n153/mode/2up 

• Benjamin Tucker. Not a Decree, but a Prophecy. Liberty (April 28, 1888) vol. 5 no. 19 (whole no. 123) p. 5 [document 817]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/not-a-decree-but-a-prophecy 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2824 
(pp. 146-149)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n165/mode/2up 

• Benjamin Tucker. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ. Liberty (March 10, 1888) vol. 5 no. 16 (whole no. 120) pp. 2-3, 6 [documents 790-791, 794]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2821 
(pp. 3-18)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n21/mode/2up 
____________________ 

Related talk:

Walter Block explains evictionism August 25, 2012
youtube.com/watch?v=h4VJ3JuJaig (10 min)

Walter Block is improperly applying the principle of (private) property. The embryo is not a trespasser or squatter. The embryo develops from the woman's body, therefore, just like a tumour or a wart, the embryo is a product of her body, what incidentally means that it is also of her property, just like a tumour, a wart, her hair, or any other part her body, either attached or not to the rest of her body, is. Thus, being the embryo of her property, she can dispose of it as she sees fit.

Such differences as to the boundaries of the woman's property are explained in more detail in the second half of the following article:

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html 

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984 


Murray Rothbard used a similar approach to Walter Block, deriving conclusions his from the application of property rights, and based on the same premises except for a small "detail":

(p. 97) «it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner.»

(p. 98) «every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and every thing within it. This includes the fetus.»

Whereas in this other section Rothbard reaches a similar conclusion to Walter Block (from the same incorrect premise as explained above):

(p. 98) «Abortion should be looked upon, not as "murder" of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.»

However, later on Rothbard forsakes his previous arguments, throwing them out the window in order to guide his line of argumentation to a different conclusion, without offering a rational justification but an emotional one, what is quite disappointing:
[Can you pinpoint the contradiction?]

(p. 100) «But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children.»

— Murray N. Rothbard. Chapter 14. Children and Rights. The Ethics of Liberty (1982).
Excerpt: mises.org/library/children-and-rights 
Full text: goodreads.com/ebooks/download/81983?doc=31040 
_________ 

URL related G+ posts: 
plus.google.com/+NoelYap/posts/7LpKEbM8MTS 
plus.google.com/+NoelYap/posts/Q7Cb2NhEfbu 
____________________ 
Wait while more posts are being loaded