-39 votes

The Fetus as Parasitic Invader: Murray Rothbard on Abortion

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 everything 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.


From the Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard

Just sayin'

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Okay....let's say the mother

Okay....let's say the mother smokes. Let's say she skis and happens to have miscarriage as a result. Would you use the grasping hand of big government to punish her?

Great Argument

I'm pro-life but touche. You kind of put a hole through the pro-life argument there, because if pro-life advocates see a fetus as a baby, then even an accidental miscarriage would using our current laws be akin to "negligence" etc.

However, this gives me more reason to advocate states' rights on abortion/baby's rights issue. You just proved that things are not black and white. So I think we should leave it up to the states, and from there I believe all 50 states will more than likely decide that miscarriages are not accidental homicides, while the 50 states will differ on whether abortion is a crime or not. This will also grant states the decision to use whatever punishment they want on abortion if they want to place a punishment on it. For example, California can fine you $20K or Idaho can willy-nilly put you in jail for 5 years. I think this is why states' rights are so important, because everything is very gray.

I think this proves Dr. Paul's point when in one of the debates he said that violence like burglary, rape, murder, etc. is by the states and not by the federal government.

Thank you. I'm a states

Thank you. I'm a states right guy too on this issue.....though in my ideal world (short of anarchy) I'd support radical decentralization down to the county level or lower for all such decisions. The states are too large for me.

My Mother Smoked

two packs a day throughout her pregnancy with all three of her children. How would putting her in jail have helped me or my sisters? I am really beginning to wonder if Octobox might have something there regarding antinomianism.

Sola Fide Marketus -- hahahaha

"have faith in the market" in the long-run and short-run.

Free-Markets give us perfect information about our consumptive habits and about each others consumptive habits -- knowing is the first step in correcting.

Laws drive habit underground where it festers.

Self-Defense and Consumer-Rule are the roots to a free-market.

That does not mean that we cannot protect others -- it just means we cannot force protection on others.

The Fetus is happy to take the chance at life -- Most women do everything in their power to protect the fetus.

Pro-Choice means Gov't Allowance

Pro-Life means Gov't Dis-Allowance

Both Pros seek abdication of self-rule via the ballot box.

Eliminate ballot box and gov't allowance -- innovate the solution to these mother's problems -- pay them to keep their babies.

Show re$pect to their ability, honor it, through voluntaryism $upport them for 9 months.

If babies are valuable to people it would only cost $60 per month for the 120M (or so) working class who are pro-life to rent-the-womb. Every 9 months you would up your dues to $120 (to cover the hospital delivery).

That would save a minimum of 40% of all fetuses right there.

Well said -- Hear Hear!

Rothbard is an idiot in this regard and ......

Rothbard is an idiot in this regard and it's insane to me that supposed "Ron Paul" fans are promoting this garbage. Ron Paul is not an anarchist. Tom Woods, Judge Nap, Gary Johnson and Peter Schiff are NOT anarchists. If the minarchist/limited govt/conservative posters on this forum are idiots because we believe abortion is murder and because we aren't anarchists then you HAVE to criticize Ron, Tom, Judge Nap, et al. In fact, if you are an anarchist, you should actually have DISDAIN for Paul because he's supposedly "guilty" of forcing tax-payers to pay his salary. if ALL govt is immoral force, then Paul is just as guilty as the rest. Please, wake up and smell the coffee. What an inconsistent concept. Anarchism is a cancer.

If abortion is murder

the penalty should be death or life imprisonment (It's premeditated, after all), with both the doctor and the mother equally guilty, no?

Leges sine moribus vanae

The only way a murder can be

The only way a murder can be punished is by executing the criminal(s) responsible. The victim cannot be restituted because he is dead. It is the ONLY crime in which execution is absolutely necessary. If not then the victim's family is the one punished by having to fund the murderer's shelter, food and entertainment through taxation in prison. So, yes, the abortionist and the mother are accomplices to murder.

As far as funding goes

the victim always pays (part of) the cost of imprisonment. Actually executing someone costs even more, or so I have heard.

I don't understand where Christians are coming from on this issue. The innocent, murdered child goes straight to heaven without having a chance to sin and merit eternal damnation. Free ticket to Paradise, right?

Leges sine moribus vanae

Well, everything I envision

Well, everything I envision politically presupposes that prisons are turned into skating rinks or shopping malls. The biblical view of justice is restitution never imprisonment. It's just that a dead person cannot be restored. So in the Bible after God gives humanity the authority to govern, murder is the only crime that must be punished by executing the villain. No exceptions. This is the whole basis of tooth for tooth, eye for eye. Death for death. The bible doesn't say the eternal destination of children in infancy so we cannot say for sure one way or another. But that's not the point. The point is that something must be done to the villain who committed the act. Justice must be served regardless of the victims eternal destination.

Self ownership, self

Self ownership, self responsibility and voluntaryism are a cancer?

I'm an "anarchist" in pretty

I'm an "anarchist" in pretty much every area except war, military, law enforcement and civil justice. The privatized justice view of anarchy is flawed and only leads to no real justice at all. Just remember that if you are an anarchist, you have to view Ron Paul as an evil statist..a lesser evil for sure...but an evil statist nonetheless. Paul is not an anarchist.

You have provided answers to

You have provided answers to questions I did not ask.

You equated anarchy to

You equated anarchy to voluntarism, self government and ownership. I replied that I was an anarchist in that sense in all things except civil justice. I was simply using your terms. Sorry that wasn't clear to you the first time.

I did not ask what you are. I

I did not ask what you are. I asked whether self ownership, self responsibility and voluntaryism are a cancer.

OK, I'll break this down as

OK, I'll break this down as simple as possible: Self-govt, ownership and voluntaryism ARE NOT cancers, except in the realm of crime/justice.

Thank you for finally

Thank you for finally answering the question directly. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer.

I answered your question

I answered your question immediately after you asked it the first time. I'm sorry that it's taken this long to clarify that. I'm for a decentralized, localized justice system for each community/jurisdiction. One law for one community. I'm anti-prison, pro-restitution. Many things about the Xeer system I think are good. But with the anarchist view of competing justice agencies, you'd have multiple laws to fit each person's subjective view of morality/crime. Privatized justice means relative justice. Relative justice means no real justice at all. The Rothbardian principle is that even suspected criminals could not be compelled to appear in court since it would infringe upon their liberty. Logically speaking, to avoid violating the non-aggression principle, you could only punish criminals who volunteer to be punished. You could only hold a person accountable if they volunteer to be accountable to your preferred justice agency. The entire anarchy view presupposes that all agencies would adopt the NAP, to which there is no guarantee. The nonaggression principle only goes so far, and is ultimately unworkable (parents shouldn't have any authority to discipline their kids or make them do things outside of their will if following the NAP absolutely). I believe in a nonaggression principle but it's from the mind of God as revealed in the Bible, not from some vague, ambiguous, fictional source somewhere in nature.

To your credit, you did

To your credit, you did finally answer the question three posts later, but it wasn't without additional prompting. Once again, telling me what you label yourself as (and what the exceptions to the applicability of that label might be) is not an answer to the question, "Self ownership, self responsibility and voluntaryism are a cancer?" It is an aside at best. If we cannot agree on that, there is no basis upon which to have any further discussion.

Posted in wrong place


Tom Woods and Judge Nap are

Tom Woods and Judge Nap are anarchists... anarcho-capitalists...

Ask them.

Come to the Mises event in NYC on Fri the 14th and come to the "afterparty" and ask woods yourself.

In truth, there are probably

In truth, there are probably a lot of differences between Nap, Paul, Woods, and Schiff.

Peter Schiff doesn't talk about it much, but aside from his economics, he's a neocon. He believes in federal power to ban abortion and recognizes their right to ban gay marriage. He's pro war compared to Ron Paul.

Judge Nap is a staunch believer in incorporation; Ron Paul twiddles his thumbs on this.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

If Judge and Woods are

If Judge and Woods are full-anarchists then they are the most inconsistent people ever. Nap couldn't have been a judge and neither he nor Woods would be defending the Constitution. They would be seeking its demise and the downfall of all tax funded government. Do you even know what anarchy is? They are anarchists in the context of monetary policy only. They are not Rothbardians nor do they agree with justifying abortion.

You're confusing a lot of

You're confusing a lot of things.

First of all, being an anarcho-capitalist doesn't preclude one from working within the system as it is.

If I'm wrongly being held captive (by someone who claims that i am a prisoner, but i maintain that i am a kidnap victim), my working with my kindapper's process - filing appeals or pleading my case or whatever - doesn't mean that I concede that he has a lawful or moral right to hold me.

Similarily, even if I don't believe the state has any right to exist, I can still point out instances where the state isn't even abiding by its own internal rules (the constitution). Pointing such things out doesn't mean that one agrees the state has a right to exist or that either the state nor its internal rules *should* exits. But just that now that they do, the state isn't even following them!

Now a lot of anarchists do happen to believe that working within the system is a waste of time. And a lot of them also believe that there is a risk that by working within the system, you can create the impression that the system itself is legitimate, but this in no way means that merely by virtue of working within the system, one agrees in its legitimacy.

To continue the wrongful kidnapping/rightful prisoner analogy, a lot of wrongful prisoners may start to act like Cool Hand Luke and give the state an attitude and refuse to cooperate. However just because some of them act like Andy Dufraine doesn't mean that these prisoners believe less strongly int heir absolute right to be free. They are just trying to use the rules of the wrongful prison against itself to limit it.

Also, Judge Nap wasn't an anarchist when he was a judge. That is why he quit, though.

Re: Abortion, I have no idea why you are under the false belief that anarchy=prochoice and minarchy=prolife. It almost seems that your reluctance to accept that Judge Nap and Woods are anarchists is due to your desire to still view them as "pro life". And you somehow feel that once you accept that they're anarchists, this magically makes them "pro choioce". This is not the case at all. There are plenty of pro life anarcho-capitalists. Two prominent ones are: Judge Nap and Tom Woods.

Hope this helps clear up a very loaded and very often misunderstood political label.

I don't think you get what

I don't think you get what I'm trying to say. I know Woods says you can be an anarchist and work within the system...but that doesn't mean it is consistent with anarchist principles. An anarchist believes that all govt force is intrinsically evil/immoral because you are born into a system that you did not voluntarily join. You remain compelled to pay taxes under threat of violence. If an anarchist supports the system, encourages others to, and praises elected officials (even with the hopes of bringing the system down) he is operating by the fascist mindset that the end justifies the means. But this is entirely untrue and violates the nonaggression principle. So, practically speaking Woods is not an anarchist because he supports elected officials, votes and has rumored to maybe run for office in the future. If he claims to be a full anarchist, he's a very inconsistent one and I'd expect him to know better. I only brought up anarchy bc Rothbard is an anarchist and most pro abort Paulites on the DP are anarchists as well. I was assuming the original poster was as well.

"If an anarchist supports the

"If an anarchist supports the system, encourages others to, and praises elected officials (even with the hopes of bringing the system down) he is operating by the fascist mindset that the end justifies the means. But this is entirely untrue and violates the nonaggression principle."

If an anarchist 'supports the system', yes, sure, he's acting hypocritically.

But the issue is whether or not "voting" is "supporting the system" or merely "trying to free yourself from the system". Voting is often done in self defense, not to make the system stronger.

If i were wrongfully imprisoned and for some reason the prisoners were allowed to vote between gruel and steak, my casting a vote for steak does not "support the system", nor does it mean i am a hyprocite when - as soon as the guards are out of earshot - i start plotting on how to overthrow the guards and escape from the prison. To say "but you just gave those same guards your vote for steak, you hypocrite!" is missing the point.

Voting is not the only means

Voting is not the only means of supporting the system I am speaking of. If you are an anarchist but support, admire, and give money to a politician (e.g. Ron Paul) and encourage him to remain in office then you are promoting the continuation of the system you think is inherently immoral/evil. You are furthering the violation of the nonaggression principle. Consistent anarchists should think that Paul is a thief and a crook just like the rest of them. Paul isn't calling for an end to tax-funded govt! He wanted to be President for goodness sakes! He is a minarchist at best. The consistent anarchist should say, "Ron Paul is less evil than other statists, but he's still an evil statist." To borrow from your analogy, Ron Paul is the guard who sneaks you the steak - but he's still imprisoned you wrongfully.

Thankfully, I'm a minarchist so I can consistently admire Ron Paul and working within the system to achieve progress. Not all government is intrinsically evil.

What do these videos prove?

What do these videos prove? Paul never says he's an anarchist in them and the part about "self govt" is ambiguous. I believe in self govt but that doesn't mean zero tax funded govt. We need government to protect us from those who aren't self governed! That's the point. You are putting words/ideals in Paul's mouth. In fact, in one video he says the Constitution is good and we should obey it! You really think an anarchist would say that? According to the anarchist premise, Paul is an evil statist who violates the nonaggression principle by making citizens pay taxes to fund the military and his salary. Any anarchist that denies this is being inconsistent within his own worldview.