Friday, January 20, 2017

"Forcing" women to have a baby

The anti-life position is extremely adept at manipulating language to obscure what is really going on concerning abortion. Tonight, for instance, I saw someone claiming that pro-lifers want to "force" women to have babies.

But, in fact, to use libertarian lingo, the "initiation of force" is all from the other side. If someone is pregnant, force is not necessary for them to have a baby. That is the natural, unforced outcome of pregnancy. Force is necessary to prevent that outcome.

12 comments:

  1. Rothbard would disagree.

    True, Rothbard takes the libertarian position to its unnatural, and truly vicious conclusion when he says that the baby is a parasite in the mother's womb because she does not have a contract with the baby, but when accepts the unnatural libertarian concept that man is not by nature in society with concomitant duties, his does make sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am no libertarian and I actually agree with Rothbard that society does not generate obligations for individuals.

      Delete
    2. Samson, that is because you are a liberal, who subscribes to the nonsense of the autonomous individual.

      Delete
    3. "…the nonsense of the autonomous individual."

      So what if it is nonsense? In what way does the social nature of humanity generate obligations? How do you bridge the is to the ought?

      Delete
  2. Rothbard and the anti-life Left have no concept of nature, thus their insane positions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I should add, using the concept of force as explanation only muddies the water adding a both unnecessary and wrong reason for the proper order, especially when you have already given the true reason when you wrote 'natural'

    Worse, adding the concept of force leads people into error because it leads them away from the proper order which is grounded in our nature.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Aristotelian / Thomistic metaphysics, what is natural IS what does not require force. E.g., it is natural for a stone to fall to the earth. It requires force to send it up into the sky.

      Delete
    2. From your reply, it appears I was unclear.

      I agree force such as holding up a rock is contrary to the natural order of rocks seeking rest in other gross matter of like kind. What I disagree with is the addition of the term force when its addition gives the impression that it is necessary as explanation for right action when nature alone is sufficient.

      To say a mother by nature has a duty to care for her unborn baby is sufficient as explanation because the actual error is denial of duty by the pro-abortionists.

      Delete
    3. I was discussing an actual use of the force idea that I had just seen, and was pointing out it was backwards. I did not say anything about introducing force being necessary to determine what is right or wrong here.

      Delete
    4. Fair enough.

      I mistakenly read this passage "to use libertarian lingo, the "initiation of force" is all from the other side" as arguing the libertarian position on "initiation of force"

      Delete
    5. No problem. I was just noting that on her own terms, the poster was incorrect.

      Delete
  4. RU486 is force? This seems to be sliding towards Austrian double-talk, redefining "force".

    ReplyDelete

An orgy

“The advancement of science and the rationality of politics are interwoven in a social process that, in the perspective of a more distant f...