THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION (from elsewhere) (thread at bottom) —“T

THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION

(from elsewhere) (thread at bottom)

—“There’s the very Rothbardian argument that a woman has an absolute right to evict an embryo from her womb, on grounds that this embryo’s interactions with her are parasitic by default — and she’s got the right to stop parasites interacting with her.”— Johannes Meixner

Once you grasp that the purpose of Rothbardian argument is not TRUTH, but JUSTIFICATION, you understand that it’s all irrelevant. (Actually, that it’s all dishonest. And actually, that it’s all lies.)

As a mother, you do not have the moral justification to kill your offspring unless your offspring will kill you – all other arguments are illogical.

(Moral rules are justificationary because they are contractual. Conversely, the search for truth is critical).

You certainly CAN kill your offspring for other reasons, just as I can kill you for other reasons, or you can kill anyone else for other reasons. Now, you might say that killing is pragmatic – I have no problem with killing. But you cannot deceive others by obscurant argument, and that you are not killing. You are in fact, killing. NOW… As for Parasitism, a child is not parasitic for the simple reason that it is an offspring (kin). A kin is an inter-temporal investment. It is the reason that you exist. The purpose of traditional taboos is moral and logical: you should take all precautions possible so that you kill as infrequently as possible. But that said, we should preserve the stigma that one is killing, precisely because one is in fact, killing. Murder is murder. Whether we choose to prosecute murderers is a matter of willingness. But our willingness to prosecute murderers is a choice, while the act of murder is a fact.

I have no problem with murder. I argue that we should do, and we need to do, a LOT of killing at present. But I have a problem with deceit. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of killing the unborn and not killing the repeated violent offenders.

(But then, that’s feminism for you: (a) women are victims and devoid of responsibility for their actions, and (b) women are fully capable of military participation, and membership in the special forces. OR (a) abortion is a woman’s right, and (b) we cannot raise animals for fur. OR (a) abortion isn’t murder, and (b) women’s almost universal insistence that their children are good, and (c) women’s almost universal defense of their criminal and murderous offspring. All speech is justification. The question is only whether we justify moral or immoral action. And moral action is that which does not break the contract for cooperation. And the contract for cooperation is one in which we do not impose costs upon others. **So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.** )

The parasitic argument cannot hold, since demonstrated feminist behavior in all walks of personal and political life, is parasitic.

While I could write an entire book on the subject, using thousands of similar examples, as far as I know the last sentence: ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.*** is the final word on the matter.

Unpleasant truths are unpleasant truths.

(Under Propertarianism all moral arguments are decidable. There are no moral paradoxes.)

Curt Doolittle

https://www.facebook.com/johannes.jost.meixner/posts/807604825980936