Restrictions on Abortion

What I meant is that while rights are moral concepts,  in a free society it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. In other words we cannot regulate or criminalize everything we find to be immoral. Some examples of things I find immoral that should not be illegal includes, but is not limited to, being filthy rich and not philanthropic; disowning someone for being LGBT; disregarding the physical and emotional needs of elderly family members; showing favoritism to one child over another;  being a disrespectful little bitch; etc.

What I meant is that while rights are moral concepts,  in a free society it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. In other words we cannot regulate or criminalize everything we find to be immoral. Some examples of things I find immoral that should not be illegal includes, but is not limited to, being filthy rich and not philanthropic; disowning someone for being LGBT; disregarding the physical and emotional needs of elderly family members; showing favoritism to one child over another;  being a disrespectful little bitch; etc.

EXPLAINER: Do state-level anti-abortion laws reduce abortion rates? | Baptist Press

Yes, Banning Abortion Reduces Abortion Rates (thefederalist.com)

Abortions Fell by Half in Month After New Texas Law - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

While we have some ideas which policies work and which do not (parental involvement law reduces abortion, increased contraception use mostly does not), for most types of abortion restrictions it remains unclear what influence the laws are having.[...]

Does this mean that we in the pro-life movement are wasting our time in seeking more state-level restrictions? Not at all. Even if it could be demonstrated that such laws are not currently affecting the rate of abortion (the likelihood of which we find highly doubtful), they continue to serve an important moral purpose – both now and in the future.

People living in states that restricted abortion would experience enormous declines in abortions.

In September, after Texas enacted the most restrictive abortion ban in the nation, the number of legal abortions performed there dropped 50 percent from the same month in 2020[...]

Rough estimates based on previous research on abortion restrictions in Texas suggest that about half of the women who are unable to get abortions at clinics there end up getting one another way, usually by traveling to another state[...]

The burden of these restrictions don’t fall equally on all women,” Professor Fischer said. “Economically disadvantaged women are going to have less means to travel. While some women will find a way, it won’t be the case that they all find a way.”

Rights are a product of society and culture (government), meaning government which is also a product of society and culture establishes  and enforces those rights. Without a governing body, rights would either not exist or would not matter. 

What is the rationale and premise behind your moral view on rights and government? 

And yet it is reasonable to make inferences based on context clues like I said. If my partner complains of feeling very full, and I say "I know you don't want to eat right now," my statement may not be fully known but it is not illogical, not irrational and not irrelevant. You choosing to focus on the epistemological limitations of human knowledge rather than my point (that the NAP is not valuable to me as a pinnacle of morality or U.S. law) seems like a red herring to me. 

I think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history have never lived nor wanted to live in a voluntary society, so I don't find utility in using the NAP as a metric for public policy.

That's the thing: there's a "though" that is reasonable. 

That's right. For instance respecting bodily integrity, but understanding why that might not extend to everyone (say, toddlers) is not unreasonable to me. It's reasonable to recognize the distinction and epistemological limitations of people (say, toddlers or the impaired or the insane, etc.) and consider how that impacts their rights, especially if you think rights are primarily a product of a reason. Isn't that why they are uniquely human? Given the significant limitations of a toddler's ability to reason, why would we find it morally acceptable to reciprocate or permit the sexual advances on a toddler so long as there wasn't "aggression?" against them  

Another example: while I find free speech to be very important, I think it's reasonable for a society to consider the impermissibility of some speech in some contexts. Sexual harassment, extreme verbal abuse or mental battering by a guardian, defamation, fraud and child pornography are examples of speech I think a society can reasonably and morally restrict. 

An-caps are always having to pretzel themselves into defending horribly immoral outcomes on the basis of upholding one specific premise unilaterally at all times under all circumstances with no gradation or nuance whatsoever.

I understand that you feel differently,

ike thett I can at least intellectually respect your  commitment to an unwavering moral principle -- but I still don't find it useful to most conversations about U.S. law. 

No, unlike Santa Clause, government is a real thing that does not only exist in our imaginations.

It is not just a thesis statement; it describes people and policies with actual power and impact over our lives. 

I understand where you're coming from as far as being a contrarian intellectual online

devalue the entire legitimacy of the U.S. government

And maybe you're right (you're not though lol).

But the interpretation of nine government goons has very real consequences for people

It should, but unfortunately it doesn't. And that is the consequence of having that which are deemed "inalienable" subject to the interpretation of nine government goons.

A national/total abortion ban would affect me, not just as a woman generally, but as I started my fertility process last year I was faced with the choice of abortion at some point which I won't get into now. I feel VERY, VERY strongly at a visceral level about this being a legal option for women. The overturning of Obergefell which is threatened by overturning Roe could also impact me, especially if I explore a job opportunity in Miami that would be huge for me and move to Florida. Florida would definitely get rid of gay marriage, so that job is off the table. My wife and I have assets. We own property. We share insurance. We're having kids.

Of course my focus is going to be on deference to Supreme Court precedent which dictates these decisions and has real consequences on my life, as opposed to a theoretical universe with no government power over the individual. Cuz I don't live there. 

I'm curious - if your political ideology were to be adapted by our society (and I don't even know what I mean by "society"... I guess it would refer to everyone in the Americas? Or maybe just the U.S.? You tell me) how would you expect a transition from our system today, to a world primarily based on property + individual rights + free market and voluntaryism?

"Starting small at the local level?"

It's so wild to think about a world like that in practice.

Even an-caps disagree with each other on aspects of property and rights

let alone everyone else living amongst each other with competing values and interests + intellectual limitations. Yikes. 

That's what it means to maintain principle, because principles--namely axioms--which inform any moral arguments express essentially 0th ordered logic.

No such governing body is a requisite. Only the values maintained by and the practice of individuals. The fact that I don't rob my neighbor would be an example of this.

Except that wasn't your point. 

Knowing what the "overwhelming majority" of people want is not within your epistemological limit

 despite your "context clues"--which are impressions, not empirical observations of fact.

This is not a red herring; it's a statement--and statement you cannot possibly refute.

This is its own conversation--one I'm more than willing to have. Just not here.

This is also its own conversation, and my response would also be the same as above.

So when I asked you "when does one's body stop being one's body?" and you stated, "Never," this obviously came with a caveat, which undermines the statement itself. 

"An-caps" maintain their premises fundamentally because to subject them to "circumstances" or "gradation" is to render them subject to inconsistency, and thereby, undermine the moral argument itself.

It's not about how I "feel" per se, it's about what I can  maintain with logical consistency. For example, the practice/exercise of abortion utterly disgusts me. But I cannot sustain an argument against the prerogative with logical consistency because any opposition would undermine the principle of self-ownership.

What do you find useful as it pertains to U.S. Law?

Wait... Santa Claus isn't real?!!!!!!

Government is an idea like society; it doesn't make it "fake," which I wasn't insinuating. But I did state that government was "just" a thesis statement. The rest of the paper has yet to be written.

As opposed to what other kinds of intellectuals?

The government does well on that front on its own.

Double-speak?

Never said that they didn't. In fact, I've acknowledged these consequences. I even used the term, consequence:

So your endorsement and opposition to particular policy is strictly dictated by how it affects you personally? Am I presuming correctly, or are their other considerations on your part?

And in what plane of existence does DebateArt.com rest?

Governments would be abolished. "Law" would be dispensed by dispute-resolution organizations.

Only at the local level.

Why?

That is the beauty of a free-market, you are free to seek out your interests.

That is why I said only within a society which recognizes [rights] are they of any value. 

Without a governing body, rights would either not exist or would not matter. 

Yes, that was my point. You were responding to me saying "I think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history have never lived nor wanted to live in a voluntary society, so I don't find utility in using the NAP as a metric for public policy." I repeat, the NAP is not valuable to me regarding U.S. law. 

I've already agreed to that. 

I've agreed, but we do know based on the historical documents and other artifacts throughout human history by means of literature, story telling, media, written publications, tools, weapons, protest, lawsuits, war, riots, elections, polling, art, and other kinds of politicking or demonstration that there  has never been a mass movement calling for individual rights absent of any government.

 Voluntaryism has never been a widespread nor common philosophical ideal or moral value through any observable metric we can defer to as far as discerning popular political advocacy.

I don't see the use in harping on this at all as far as our conversation re: abortion. You can dismiss the fact that anarchism has never been a widespread ideal as an irrelevant fact to its moral legitimacy;

however, I was not making that claim.

This was me saying the NAP is its own conversation--one I'm more than willing to have. Just not here.

I said multiple times it's true I cannot literally know what the majority of people think or feel, yet I have justified my comment  by explaining that my inference about people's feelings was not only reasonable but irrelevant (a red herring) to my point about the futile nature of discussing the NAP as a metric for public policy. 

That's fine, but it's very relevant to this conversation. It proves that being human and even being a born human does not mean all should have equal rights and equal status at all times, and there can be justifiable intervention by an outside party in some cases that are nuanced. 

There's no caveat regarding the separation from one's body. I noted that sometimes stewardship is appropriate over other people's bodies despite the fact that one's body is always their own (though I guess that changes after death). 

Why does it undermine the principle of self-ownership? Why can't a principle have limits and leave room for nuance or gradation, at least as far as governance within a society goes?

Does a 6  year old really have the same agency as a 30 year old as far as moral culpability for crimes and therefore warrant the same punishment?

Should a 3 year old be allowed to have a permanent sex change if they express interest?

If a two year old does not object to having naked photos of them taken or distributed, should that be something society allows even though prohibiting it is a clear violation of self ownership and free association?

The entire purpose of law enforcement / government / societies that people choose to live in and to associate with is to uphold policies with positive consequences and not just a unilateral principle of self-ownership or property. 

The number of examples of where I could see disparate application of rights applied in a given scenario being reasonable and fair -- two very justifiable goals for good governance -- are enormous, and I'm sure you've been presented with many, many examples of abhorrent things you have to defend to remain logically consistent such as no age of consent laws.

I disagree with you that an inconsistent application of premises renders it subject to inconsistency and therefore subsequent moral insignificance.

I disagree that people anyone submitting to the concept + force of government necessarily concedes to accepting all government force as legitimate by extension.

The factors and variables that have an actual impact.

Well there is a government in the sense (definition) of having specific people

and/or laws in place that people within society are beholden to whether they agree with them or not.

The empowered people and policies colloquially known as 'government'  determine how law enforcement interacts with  citizens within society based on all kinds of variables.

While I might find the application of laws or governing bodies to be illogical and/ or immoral, that makes no difference as to my being subject to their  power.

In that sense, government is not just an idea;

it is a body of ideas being enforced in practice.

The kind that are too busy for online forums and have more real world influence than justifies their attention to engage. 

Fair enough, but I'm confident the alternative would have outcomes that make society far worse off in many ways.

Yes, but you also asked "Because the interpretation of nine government goons 'matters more' than the individual, even if the burden of that concern rests solely on said individual?" implying that my deference to Supreme Court precedent was illogical or misplaced in this conversation. 

Whether or not the existence of those bodies is morally just has no bearing on the fact that they do exist, that they are empowered, and they will impact my life, family and livelihood.

Some type of black hole time suck. 

That's a cute name. 

And how would society stop greater alliances or more powerful entities from dominating the smaller, weaker and less powerful? 

Because I think the way people engage with each other would be even more of a clusterfuck than it is now in terms of trade, labor, property and other disputes. Because I think the outcomes would be very undesirable (unfair, unwise or unjust). Etc.

I agree, that is the beauty of a free market although there is some ugliness to it as well. 

I repeat, the NAP is not valuable to me regarding U.S. law. 

Why can't a principle have limits and leave room for nuance or gradation, at least as far as governance within a society goes?

Should a 3 year old be allowed to have a permanent

The entire purpose of law enforcement / government / societies that people choose to live in and to associate with is to uphold policies with positive consequences and not just a unilateral principle of self-ownership or property. 

and I'm sure you've been presented with many, many examples of abhorrent things you have to defend to remain logically consistent

 I disagree with you that an inconsistent application of premises renders it subject to inconsistency and therefore subsequent moral insignificance.

Whether or not the existence of those bodies is morally just has no bearing on the fact that they do exist,

And how would society stop greater alliances or more powerful entities from dominating the smaller, weaker and less powerful? 

Great, then we can move past this statement: Without a governing body, rights would either not exist or would not matter.

Which part of your statement did I embolden when first addressing your epistemological limit? Why would you assume the statement focused on your sense of the NAP's utility?

With the proviso that your impression is reasonable, and it's not.

Which historical documents, artifacts, literature, storytelling, media, written publications, tools, weapons, protest, lawsuits, war, riots, elections, polling, art, and other kinds of politicking?

Stating that an overwhelming majority of people don't want Anarchy, for example, would be just as irrational as my stating that they do.

 You have yet to provide information on its relevancy. And this is important: sound reason informs moral legitimacy, not "ad populum" arguments.

I'm not investigating the measures you use in formulating your impressions, only the measures behind what you claim to know. And since you've conceded that you don't know, I can point it out to you with the intention of having you adjust your argument--particularly eliminating irrational details.

I'm avoiding derailing the topic should we get into, for example, the bodily autonomy of minors. Again, it's not a conversation I'm unwilling to have, just one that I think will inevitably move the subject away from Abortion.

Okay, let's stress-test this: if a 14 year-old girl wants to have an abortion, should she be able to exercise her bodily autonomy and get an abortion or should she be subject to the authority of her stewards, whether that be her parents or State?

Moral principles are posited axioms; fundamental; they serve as the basis of abstract reasoning. If you subject them to circumstance or gradation, then that is essentially tantamount to the proposition that circumstance/gradation precede concepts which, once again, express 0th ordered logic.What comes before the fundamental? 

Look at Florida.

I wouldn't touch this with a 60 yard stick. 

But I'll say this: what are you expressing when you endorse the State's authority to dictate how a three year-old expresses him or herself sexually? 

If the State has the authority to prevent or prohibit permanent sex changes among three year-olds, then why does that authority also not permit them to coerce three year-olds into permanent sex changes?

Again, not with a 60 yard stick. But I extend my query about State authority. Does that authority not also allow them to coerce the distributions of said naked photos?

"Positive consequences" is subject to the interpretation of those who have a stake in those consequences. 

In other words, what YOU find positive, may not be deemed positive by another. 

And that's okay, because PRINCIPLE would delineate, for example, that your individual interests and interpretations as it concerns you and yours are subject to the discretion and prerogative of no one other than you.

Because "propriety" =/= consistent moral framework.

So inconsistency =/= inconsistency? 

Even if your argument is that inconsistent application =/= moral insignificance, you have yet to inform the significance much less the legitimacy of this inconsistent application.

The focus is not on whether you accept all applications of government force, but that YOU ACCEPT THEIR AUTHORITY to apply it.

Such as?

Politicians, police, and military who instill an "idea."

Laws to which people are beholden aren't ideas?

Empowered by what? An idea.

Powered by the threat of deadly force, which is an idea. The consequences are material, i.e. death, but the influence is still an idea. 

Rights without a governing body to enforce them upon encroachment or disagreement in society either do not exist or do not matter. I do hope we can move past this. 

No such governing body is a requisite. Only the values maintained by and the practice of individuals. The fact that I don't rob my neighbor would be an example of this.

That is why I said only within a society which recognizes [rights] are they of any value. 

Why does it matter which part of the statement you emboldened?

No, I've agreed to the epistemological limit. Then I stated the justification for my inference, and you never explained why inferences are unreasonable or how the reasoning behind my inference was incorrect. 

Almost all of them. 

If you want to keep asserting the totally incorrect position that we cannot reasonably infer what kind of feelings or preferences people have (despite not being able to absolutely know them) based on their outward speech, actions or other demonstration,

 I specifically said I was not making a moral claim and I never used ad populum as a barometer for moral legitimacy.

That's fine, though it seems odd to spend time litigating such an insignificant detail to the conversation on abortion limits. 

I wonder: why did you respond to me and dissect my comments line by line in the first place if we have reached the same conclusion on abortion limits? If I had to guess, it would be that you're trying to convince me that the reasoning behind my conclusion is wrong, and that government is inherently immoral in part because it can do things like restrict abortion rights. Yet you haven't come anywhere near close to convincing me that having no state is preferable to a state that criminalizes abortion, which begs all kinds of questions about the purpose and progress of this dialog. 

I would say she should be able to exercise her own agency.

You should read a really good book on paradoxes. 

I'm not sure how much I want to get into topics like ordered logic or even principles of moral reasoning here. Moral principles can reasonably be subjected to circumstance by way of other moral principles.

There are lots of reasons that egoism has been almost universally rejected as an acceptable ethical theory, and we can discuss why, I just don't feel like it right now. 

I have and their policies do more harm than good, especially on that issue.

Why not?

That there are times stewardship over another person's body may be appropriate.

Because coercing three year olds into sex changes has no reasonable justification or purpose and may cause irreparable harm. However I believe the state should have authority to compel other kinds of surgeries which does have a reasonable justification, such as a life saving surgery that a parent may decline on their child's behalf. 

No, because this too has no reasonable justification or purpose that would on balance warrant subsequent harm. 

I disagree and don't see how it negates the point of mine you are responding to. 

Sure. Can you prove an objective moral world order?

A concern for strict logical consistency is not the only way of being rational.

There is also a pragmatic kind of rationality, where we are concerned with finding the best means to secure a desired end.

Typo. It should read "I disagree with you that an inconsistent application of premises renders it subject to moral inconsistency and therefore subsequent moral insignificance."

You want to shift the conversation to one about ethics? Jeez Louise. Not on a Friday night. 

They have the authority (that is, empowered with consequences accepted by the society I live in) whether I accept it or not, and yes I do accept it.

The Constitution. 

The branches of government that are empowered over people's lives. 

Politicians running for offices within those branches. 

Politicians, police, and military who instill an "idea."

Yes, they enforce certain ideas. 

Laws to which people are beholden aren't ideas?

Yes, they are ideas. 

Empowered by what? An idea.

Yes. 

Powered by the threat of deadly force, which is an idea. The consequences are material, i.e. death, but the influence is still an idea. 

Yes, the government is an empowered idea with material consequences backed by force. How does this have relevance to my position on late term abortion again?  

Yes, we can use deadly force in opposition to politicians, police and military in order to thwart their influence over our lives. In some cases, we should (I implore you not to create another tangential thread asking something like "in what cases?").  It seems like you're trying to convey that it's useful to argue for the legitimacy of the NAP even though it is not a principle that guides our public policies today. I can see why you think that. I still disagree, least of all because getting to that place would likely require some element of violent revolution I couldn't justify at the moment, though I don't think there's anything more to say about it. I'll just add that DebateArt is probs not the most efficient way to spread your message. Very little reach. 

It actually does, which is one reason the legitimacy of government has been scrutinized to death (no pun intended) by philosophers for millennia. 

Both of these things and more. Law enforcement. Public services. 

What do you mean by disrupted? State functions would either be replaced or abandoned

Absent governments there would be other governing bodies overseeing various aspects of society

and imposing some kind of aggression over people who do not consent to their authority (which is often abused)

as they are subjected to whatever "dispute resolution organization" is there in place of government by virtue of proximity.

We know this... I'm sorry,

we can infer this not only based on observable aspects of human nature,

but by looking at history and the subsequent consequences of eliminating government.

There has never been the kind of an-cap utopian fantasy that exists in theoretical idealizations. Instead government revolutions tend to do nothing more than reshape and modernize the militaristic state.

You can google your little heart out

and won't be able to find an example of an anarchist society without some type of aggression. And even if you think you found some examples, you couldn't be sure there wasn't force in those societies. You couldn't possibly KNOW that the people living there never experienced aggression by others or the "dispute resolution organizations" based on a Wikipedia page. But anyways.

As an example, the mafia evolved from an environment of relative lawlessness.

When I used to read a lot about anarchist collectives (since I used to advocate for them) I was dismayed to see that all kinds of societies without a State were still subjected to violence, force and other aggression in its place.

Hobbes wasn't too far off. 

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.”

Another difference is that some ideas are applied, used, exercised, employed, utilized, carried out -- take your pick of verbiage meaning put into effect -- and some are not.  So while U.S. laws are ideas, and self-governance within the territory known as the U.S. is yet another idea, the latter (being neither current policy nor preference) has about as much use to me in a conversation about impending U.S. law as ideas about how to make a perfect bolognese. 

To be clear, you having time on your hands to engage here isn't why you're wrong to want to discount the influence of the Supreme Court. 

I've already answered: I think the way people engage with each other would be even more of a clusterfuck than it is now in terms of trade, labor, property and other disputes. I think the outcomes would be very undesirable (unfair, unwise or unjust). 

You're wrong.

Once again, I never said morality should be divorced from the law.

Do we really have to get into why ethical egoism is collectively self defeating, or start arguing over the prisoner's dilemma and other stuff like that?

There's no way to answer these questions without a deep dive into ethical subjects I have no interest in dissecting at the moment.   

Well if I was interested in dissecting at the moment, we could discuss some theories starting with the principle of nonmaleficence, the principle of beneficence... weak paternalism...

the harm principle, ...the welfare principle, etc.,

That's a good start. 

Because ignoring them discounts important variables that are relevant to the conversation about how laws, government and society functions. 

You cannot guarantee they would be any more effective than state agencies let alone exist peacefully in the first place. 

I asked how you would expect to transition from our system today to such a world, which does not indicate I believe that is possible or sustainable.

Do you have an answer to my question about alliances and domination over weaker groups? 

In all the ways that societies without stable governments have come up short.

Outcomes with undesirable effects, including but not limited to exploitation, manipulation, market failures and negative externalities. 

You're all over the place. 

Objectivity is irrational.

To me, as a progressive who is truly on the fence about abortion (and completely against anything past the first 3.5 months outside of medical emergency to save the mother), I see the attitude that the left-wing in general and right-wing Libertarians have towards abortion as akin to what the right-wing have to welfare recipients except this is worse; the welfare recipient at least has been able to live their life.

The dehumanisation of a fetus that we do to justify slaughtering human beings in the womb is no different, not one fucking iota different to the dehumanisaton of blacks during slavery or the poor right now today that the right-wing do to justify letting them perish.

If we are to say we defend people truly against abuse for the convenience of the lucky/fortunate, we ought to note that the mother got to live her life out, that fetus never did and is 100% a human being, it's a being and is human.

Would you support a mother murdering her infant as it's too inconvenient for her?

Yes or no.

Ask yourself.

Is it worse to abuse children or adults? Who actually should we protect harder?