Still ongoing. Will see how it turns out; this post will be updated as the debate progresses.
Update #1 up.
My opening comment:
The eviction theory is pretty much the same as the Violinist Argument, an examination and refutation of which is provided here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.sg/2009/02/violinist-argument.html
The violinist did not develop the condition and intrude upon you, but
rather, you caused the violinist to develop the kidney condition, and
for nothing by fun to boot. Therefore, whether you like it or not, you
are obliged to be hooked up to the violinist until he can be treated.
This utterly destroys appeals to personal sovereignty, “my body my
choice” and other related arguments. You’ll need to establish humanity
of the fetus first, though, which can be done with the SLED and related
arguments.
Furthermore, both eviction theory and the Violinist argument fail a
simple “if all x are y, and all y are z, then all x are z” logic test.
Assuming that it is legal to “evict” an “intruder” upon yourself up to
the point of death of the “intruder”, then why are negligence charges
brought against any parent for their child? Clearly the parents were
just “evicting” the children from their homes/bodies/responsibilities.
Opponent's argument:
Straw-man. Though you do not have the right to kill a trespasser (whether of your own making or not), they are still trespassing and you still have a right to evict them. Creating contrived fictional scenarios where you can think of some even more contrived reasons to violate somebody’s property rights does not change reality.
The child (fetus, embryo, etc.) does not own the parent, nor does the parent own the child. It is a relationship based on biology, not slavery. If somebody wants to substitute themselves into the role of parent (through life support, medical treatment, adoption, whatever), then they should do that, but creating some sort of contrived slavery relationship will not solve the problem, only creates new ones.
We may all wish that all parents (and children) were paragons of virtues, but they are the same flawed humans as the rest of us. Utopian ideals will not change that. Eviction is a theory that allows for the rights of both the parent and the child, just as divorce allows for the right of both spouses (and any children). Human life is sloppy. Wishing for perfection (even at the point of a gun) will not make it happen.
My counterargument:
*”Straw-man. Though you do not have the right to kill a trespasser (whether of your own making or not), they are still trespassing and you still have a right to evict them. Creating contrived fictional scenarios where you can think of some even more contrived reasons to violate somebody’s property rights does not change reality.”
You use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I turn your claim of strawman back on yourself. Did you even read the refutation to the violinist argument? The child is not trespassing, but explicitly placed there directly by the actions of the parents. Unless you are claiming that people in this day and age do not know sex = baby, or unless it was a rape case, then your claim falls flat.
What you are saying here is that you can kidnap someone, dump them onto an oasis you own in the middle of the desert, then say “you’re trespassing, now get off my land into the desert where you’re certain to die.” Which is nonsense.
And I’m being generous here, because what is more realistic is kidnapping someone, taking them onto your property, then saying “you’re trespassing” and proceeding to dismember them and crush their skull for their “trespass”.
*”Creating contrived fictional scenarios where you can think of some even more contrived reasons to violate somebody’s property rights does not change reality. ”
Explain how a scenario used to explain an analogy is contrived. Of course there is no real music lovers’ society, and violinists do not really suffer kidney diseases when people go spelunking. That does not change the analogy from being more factual than Thompson’s original postulate that the child is an aggressive trespasser. If you are going to attack my analogy, at least state how the analogy is faulty instead of saying “you’re wrong” and leaving it at that.
You are asserting facts not in evidence. This is essentially “I’m right, because I AM! And I say so!” You also seem to have a strange definition of “trespass”, in which someone brought to a location against their will through no situation of their making is guilty of trespass.
“…then they should do that, but creating some sort of contrived slavery relationship will not solve the problem, only creates new ones. ”
You are conflating responsibility for one’s actions with slavery. The funny thing about slavery, you see, is that it is forced and not a direct consequence of someone’s actions taken in the full knowledge that the result might occur. If one spills milk on the floor and is asked to clean it up, is that slavery?
Like “trespass”, you are merely appealing to the Pavlovian response the word “slavery” has. Please.
*”Eviction is a theory that allows for the rights of both the parent and the child, just as divorce allows for the right of both spouses (and any children).”
Bullshit. In the case of abortion, one party is denying another’s right to life. This is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle. Running someone off your property will not kill someone; an abortion will. “You do not have the right to kill a trespasser in order to evict them” is but a mealy-mouthed platitude when the only way to evict the “trespasser” is to kill them. Also, do note that the pro-abortion crowd is in favour of killing the “trespasser” anyway even when it is not necessary (I.E. when the child is viable after 20 weeks), thanks to the recent Texas hoo-hah. The point of an abortion, when viewed in practice, is not to make a woman not be pregnant, but to murder a child, otherwise a simple c-section would appease these folks. “Personal sovereignty” is but another justification, just as the Romans favouring exposure for infanticide ran off “we’re haven’t caused them any harm, just left them to their fate”.
But back to the point. What you’re saying here is that no one has any responsibilities to anyone by virtue of their own actions, and it’s permissible to relinquish any of all responsibilities even to the point of someone’s death, which is in direct contradiction to the non-aggression principle. Your rights, even property rights, only extend as far as someone else’s rights begin. It is only through the actions of the parents that the child exists, and hence said child cannot be trespassing and did not violate the non-aggression principle, because their situation was not of their own making in the first place.
So, do people have the right to abandon their children, elderly parents, or anyone else to death by exposure? Why or why not? They are merely cutting said people off from their property, after all. If someone hogties you, flies you up in their helicopter, and them pushes you into freefall off their property, is that a valid assertion of property rights?
Or is that murder?
*”We may all wish that all parents (and children) were paragons of virtues, but they are the same flawed humans as the rest of us. Utopian ideals will not change that. [...] Human life is sloppy. Wishing for perfection (even at the point of a gun) will not make it happen.”
Again, nonsense. No law can be perfectly upheld, no social more is without exception. By your own metric, we should not have laws, whether written or unspoken, against theft, murder, rape, etc, because it would be impossible to perfectly enforce.
Of course, I will not convince you; that is not the point of internet debate. What I am writing this for is to convince anyone watching.
In closing, let’s postulate:
1. “It is permissible to assert property rights upon any and all trespassers by evicting them, even if said method of eviction will invariably cause the death of the evicted.”
2. “Trespassing is defined as an individual being placed in a location or situation, even if they had no hand in being in that situation in the first place.”
3. Therefore, by this logic, it should be perfectly fine to kidnap someone, fly them up in a helicopter, and “evict” them to their deaths.
It should be perfectly fine to “evict” children and aged into the wilds to die of exposure.
But no, strangely, it’s only allowable to “evict” the unborn, even when it’s not needed. Maybe it’s because they can’t speak up. Maybe it’s because the truth of the procedure is hidden from view of so many. Maybe it’s because they can’t fight back.
Reductio ad absurdium, game, set, match.
Opponent's counterargument:
I don’t normally respond to crazy zealots who continue to spew the same refuted arguments over and over, but I will out of respect for our host.
At no time did I state support for killing anybody. You’ve obviously not read what eviction theory is. Apparently, in your fantasy world once you’ve invited a person into your property, you have waved all rights to ever have them leave. In order to make your case you have to invent crazy scenarios with violinists and spelunkers and kidnappers and oases, with each analogy crazier than the last.
What you are advocating is slavery, because you are more than willing to enforce it on pain of death. ‘You will be a parent, no matter what the circumstances, or we will kill you.’ Threatening to kill a person will not make them a better parent. It simply allows you to lord your self-perceived morality over those of whom you think you’re better.
My position is that you should put your money where your mouth is. How many children have you offered to adopt in support of your high and mighty position on abortion. If you are so enraged by the treatment of children (and the elderly, and the destitute), then go and give them your wealth, your time, your sweat, to make their lives better. Pulling out a gun, or even easier, screaming for the state to do your threatening and violence for you, simply makes you a petty pontificator, willing to spew your pabulum while sitting in your easy chair and never getting your hands dirty.
In a reasoned, logical, and biological world, a parent is not a slave to the child, nor vis-versa. So yes, the Romans were correct. It isn’t nice, nor is it humane, any more than it is nice or humane for a lion to eat baby gazelles, but it is logical and biological. But force and coercion do not create nice or humane, but violence and oppression. You can get mad about it, but that changes nothing. The only thing that changes anything is if you, personally, do something constructive. All I’m hearing from you is destructive.
My counterargument:
“At no time did I state support for killing anybody.”
Abortion ALWAYS results in death of the child involved when done pre-viability, and as I pointed out, the recent Texas kerfuffle proves beyond a doubt that the point of abortion is to murder infants, even post-viability (which I note Evictionism does not cover). End of story. Don’t wrangle words.
“You’ve obviously not read what eviction theory is.”
Yes, I have, and I have read Sean Parr’s Departurism refutation to it. Don’t assume what I do or do not know – “if you were educated, you’d agree with me” is one of the silliest arguments ever.
*”In order to make your case you have to invent crazy scenarios with violinists and spelunkers and kidnappers and oases, with each analogy crazier than the last.”
See, sweetie, the world doesn’t bow to your demands. If you say something, you have to back it up. If my analogy is crazy, then explain the flaw in my analogy instead of saying “you’re wrong! Nyah Nyah Nyah!”
Again, refute this analogy: person knowingly and willingly inflicts disease upon violinist by her own actions, making violinist dependent on her. Hence, to finish what she started and not violate the non-aggression principle, she has to be hooked up to the violinist until she recovers, at which point she’s free to go.
Now, person knowingly and willingly creates a child, making the child dependent on her by her own actions. Hence, to finish what she started and not violate the non-aggression principle, she has to carry the child to term, at which point she’s free to go.
The Evictionist/Thompson’s stance is that the child simply appears out of nowhere and sets up residence in her womb, and although they lack the will to act, they are a trespasser. It does not take into account the woman/couple’s actions.
Second analogy:
A man is kidnapped and brought to the kidnapper’s helicopter, someone else’s property. He is then told by the kidnapper he unwanted in the kidnapper’s helicopter and is trespassing, and hence is pushed to his death.
A child is conceived by a woman’s actions and brought to her womb, which is her property. They are then found to be unwanted and hence trespassing, and hence is dismembered to death.
Explain the flaw in the analogy.
“What you are advocating is slavery, because you are more than willing to enforce it on pain of death. ‘You will be a parent, no matter what the circumstances, or we will kill you.’”
1) Now it’s my turn to ask: please state where I suggested the death penalty for either abortion or child abandonment. If you cannot produce this quote, I expect an apology. If you cannot produce it and do not apologise, then you will have proven yourself to be quite the fool and I will cease discussion.
2) Now that we have that out of the way, so agreement knowingly entered into by a party is enforceable without counting it as slavery? That would certainly invalidate the whole of contract law, since all contracts are slavery by your definition. So a parent has no responsibility to their child they cannot relinquish at a whim, or business partners no responsibility that they cannot abdicate without repercussions? Is requiring a criminal to make restitution or serve jail time slavery?
Argumentum. Ad. Absurdium. Please, don’t redefine terms, that’s what Cultural Marxists do.
“My position is that you…hands dirty.”
For someone who pretends to logic and reason, here comes the emotional rhetoric and shame. Please, let’s use dialectic instead. 1) What I do or do not do in my spare time is unknown to you, 2) whether I do or do not help others in my spare time is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and 3) so your answer to the problem of the poor and needy is to kill them, ala the ancient Phoenicians? Why aren’t you out on the streets demanding the rounding up of the destitute and euthanizing them, then?
Now, this is beside the point of the discussion, but I’d love to elucidate: as a reactionary, I don’t expect to enforce things through the state, but rather through social censure and tradition, which is much kinder and likely to produce conscientious improvements, as Confucius points out in Analects. My goal is not to bring things back to 1950, that would be silly. My goal is to bring things back to before 1776. Of course, that will require our current society to implode, which according to our dear host, is well on-track.
But back to the point: how does me adopting kids/whatever change the points I have made? If I had done so, what changes? If I have not, what changes? Such logic.
*”In a reasoned, logical, and biological world, a parent is not a slave to the child, nor vis-versa. So yes, the Romans were correct.”
All right, so you’re on board with infanticide and euthanasia of the elderly. Good to know.
Whatever happened to not stating support for killing anybody?
“It isn’t nice, nor is it humane, any more than it is nice or humane for a lion to eat baby gazelles, but it is logical and biological.”
1) Argument from nature. Logical fallacy; just because it happens in nature, it is not necessarily desirable. 2) False analogy. We are not animals incapable of denying our instincts. 3) Infanticide by own parents is not biological in largely K-selected species, as opposed to R-selected species like Rabbits, guppies, etc, which breed rapidly and have been known to eat own young. I’m sure you can find exceptions, but the generality is that K-selected species do not commit infanticide. Humans are generally considered K-selected. Low numbers of children, slow gestation, slow childhood, large investment in offspring.
“But force and coercion do not create nice or humane, but violence and oppression.”
So says the fellow grossly advocating violating the non-aggression principle. Isn’t that, like, I don’t know, a cornerstone of libertarian thought?
For someone who pretends to logic, not very logical. For someone who claims to abhor hypocrisy, quite hypocritical. And for someone who bashes zealots, quite zealous, indeed.
Hmm…
By the by, I notice you conveniently ignored my points about no law being perfect, etc. Thank you; if you do continue this, then I will assume all unaddressed points are conceded.
Opponent's Argument:
What is “viability”? If a fetus in not viable, then it is only a parasite. Are we to accept now that trespassers have rights to food and lodging?
Aborting a “viable” fetus almost never results in death of the child. This happens in hospitals every day. It’s called inducing labor, or a Caesarian section. Are all of these women intent on killing?
All state enforcement of law, from murder to speeding tickets, is predicated on punishment of death. Failure to recognize this is one of your first errors. If a person is arrested for some alleged legal violation by the state and refuses to comply with the state’s demands, then the sanctions will continue to escalate, from fines, through imprisonment, until the state kills the alleged violator for refusing to comply.
So no “sweetie”, you’re still incorrect (and oh so mature). Your premises are flawed. I think you should start over.
In what universe would it be considered ethical to “kidnap” somebody, a trespass in itself, in order to justify a later murder because of trespass? Your premises are flawed.
My counterargument:
I note that you have not bothered to attempt to refute a good number of my points, nor attempted to point out the flaws in my analogies. Thank you for conceding all of them.
“What is “viability”? If a fetus in not viable, then it is only a parasite. Are we to accept now that trespassers have rights to food and lodging?”
Oh yes. If you undertake an action (sex), knowing that by your actions, another human will be dependent on you for a period of time (the child), and knowingly and willingly undertake this action anyway, you have agreed to the consequences of bringing someone onto your property for the period of time.
The part you seem to have a problem with is the whole “knowingly and willingly bringing someone back onto your property, with the foreknowledge that they will be dependent on you”. Unless, as our gracious host has pointed out, they were forced to accept said person (rape), or is too stupid to not know that their actions would not result in the person being on their property or being dependent on them (who doesn’t know sex=baby, or pregnancy is nine months?), then they can be said to have accepted a contract of sorts to have the person dependent on them for said time and hence said individual is not a trespasser.
“Aborting a “viable” fetus almost never results in death of the child. This happens in hospitals every day. It’s called inducing labor, or a Caesarian section. Are all of these women intent on killing?”
I suggest you a) read up the recent Texas kerfuffle, and b) this account of an ex-abortionist on D&E later-term abortions. He describes the procedure at 24 weeks, well past viability:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/former-abortionist-if-anybody-thinks-ripping-arms-and-legs-isnt-painful
You, once again, are reliably attempting to re-define words. When a woman goes for a caesarean or to have labour induced, of course the child lives, because a either procedure is not a dilation and evacuation, it is not a saline abortion, it is not a lethal injection or all those other wonderful methods used to kill children post 20-weeks. Inducing labour may be part of the procedure, for example, to remove the dead child in a lethal injection abortion or as part of the wonderful cranial evacuation and collapse that’s required once the bones are ossified, but the child never survives.
You’re factually wrong.
“If a person is arrested for some alleged legal violation by the state and refuses to comply with the state’s demands, then the sanctions will continue to escalate, from fines, through imprisonment, until the state kills the alleged violator for refusing to comply.”
1) Note that in my post, I mentioned that as a reactionary, I do not expect the state to enforce standards of behaviour, but rather through social stricture, shaming, and tradition. Let me quote myself in my comment to our good host: “Legislation is at best a stopgap for the stupid and low time-preferenced who cannot be bothered to get around said legislation. What is needed, is a social revival, one that cannot happen while the Cathedral stands and people profit from social decay.”
2) Really? All nations have the death penalty? Because that is provably false:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries
Now, it could be argued that they could secretly and extra-judicially kill an offender anyway, but if a government did so it would have lost its legitimacy, after which the situation of said government would be anyone’s guess. Perhaps revolution, or perhaps bread and circuses.
3) Even if what you were saying WERE true, that all states used the death penalty to enforce laws, it only has bearing on the enforcement of said laws and not the theoretical moral bearing of the issue, which is what we are discussing here.
So, where did I promote enforcement via the death penalty? Now, good chap, I expect my apology. Or another dissembling, whichever tickles your fancy.
“So no “sweetie”, you’re still incorrect (and oh so mature). Your premises are flawed. I think you should start over.”
No, my good fellow, it would appear that your premises are the ones which are flawed, as per my explanations. Perhaps you should start over. It has certainly been a delicious time with you. By the by, my maturity, or the perception thereof, has no bearing on my points.
“In what universe would it be considered ethical to “kidnap” somebody, a trespass in itself, in order to justify a later murder because of trespass? Your premises are flawed.”
Exactly. We consider it unethical to do this to any other person save the unborn; you’ve just proved my point. Let’s check the one of the meanings of the word “postulate”, shall we?
“to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing.”
By the meaning of this wonderful word, I can actually take something that is not true and assume it is for the sake of my argument, which is reiterated below:
What I was doing, you see, was an example of argumentum ad absurdium, a method of logical argument that assumes premises, leads to their logical conclusions, and contrasts them as absurd when compared to reality.
In any case, if you do not like the word “kidnap”, then maybe “invite”. The point is that the individual is moved to the property by the actions of the property owner through no action of their own and without intent. Any word that conveys this sufficiently, whether it describes an illegal action or not, will suffice.
In conclusion, our time together has been filled with a delicious passion, and I hope that everyone who reads our discussion will be better able to make up their minds about the issue. I would just like to remind everyone reading that my good fellow here:
- Refuses to engage, or even acknowledge a critical point of argument (the whole “knowingly and willingly performed said action schtick)
- Assumed facts not in evidence (about my charitable activities)
- Made assertions without supporting arguments (my “ridiculous” analogies without explaining how they are flawed)
- Repeatedly twisted the meaning of words (in what world is a caesarian equal to a dilation and evacuation?)
- Placed words in my mouth, even after I explicitly stated the opposite (claims I would use state enforcement)
- Made irrelevant rhetorical appeals and attempts at shaming (about my own charitable activities)
- Is woefully uninformed about the facts of abortion procedures (see cesarean, above) and refuses to acknowledge the position of the abortion lobby, even when pointed out to him (Texas)
- Has made logical fallacies (argument from nature, etc)
- Supports infanticide (“the Romans had the right idea”), therefore violating the non-aggression principle
- Uses the Pavlovian nature of certain words to invoke associations which have no logical grounding (“slavery”, “logical”, “reasoned”)
- Refuses to concede, or even acknowledge, points which he has no rebuttal for, leaving me to assume that he has conceded.
Well. This certainly has been entertaining!
Poor opponent explodes and whines:
Blah, blah, blah. As is typical of the pontificator, you prattle on incessantly, saying the same illogical thing over and over again, and when not responded to instantly, with the same ridiculous repeating of what has already been said, you declare victory, as if pure verbosity constitutes a logical argument. I won’t respond to your contrived analogies, because they are contrived and, as with all analogies, inherently flawed. You whine about “Pavlovian” words, but freely throw out your own “shaming” invectives.
Your position is driven by feelings, not logic or reason. Your position is that a woman does not own her body, and that once pregnant, her body is now owned by the fetus (or more precisely, owned by those who would insert themselves into the whole process). She must house and nurture the fetus, and suffer whatever havoc results from such a condition, until the fetus voluntarily leaves her body on it’s own. I call this slavery, but you prefer other less harsh words. Whatever.
Human reproduction is a biological arrangement. You can try to turn it into something ethical or philosophical, but that will not make it so, nor will using force or coercion. That simply makes you violent. Rather strange for somebody who thinks the non-aggression principle is a good idea.
My final response:
So, you have not addressed any of my arguments, you fail to admit you are factually wrong, you continue to make assertions without supporting arguments, you continue to use claim I wish to use “force and coercion” to impose my desires on others when I have clearly stated otherwise, you claim I am driven by feelings when I have clearly stated my position and argument, which you have not bothered to refute, you fail to understand the contractual nature of pregnancy that I am positing and keep on repeating your old arguments without acknowledging that the woman entered into it of her own accord understanding the consequences.
Who is the logical and reasonable one here? Neither of us can say, as we are invested in this argument, but I’m sure the audience can tell.
But here are my personal thoughts, from a reactionary standpoint on what I’ve observed about you in the course of our discourse in the words of someone else:
“…They’re defining slavery as ANYTHING whatsoever that cramps my style IRRESPECTIVE of prior commitment……Is there such a thing as IMPLIED commitment? As prolife, I say: you fuck, you buy the consequences. But even a prochoicer would say, well you had 9 mo. to abort: You birth it, you buy it…But this asshat isn’t satisfied with that. I fucked, I birthed, and I STILL might not want to buy the consequences. People like this ARE veritable POSTER CHILDREN for slavery. Bring it back… whips & all!”
Inability to understand contractual agreements. Desire to jettison responsibility of your own making at any time for any reason. Low time-preference.
You, sir, are made to be a slave.
Good day to you.
The eviction theory is pretty much the same as the Violinist Argument, an examination and refutation of which is provided here: http://triablogue.blogspot.sg/2009/02/violinist-argument.html
The violinist did not develop the condition and intrude upon you, but rather, you caused the violinist to develop the kidney condition, and for nothing by fun to boot. Therefore, whether you like it or not, you are obliged to be hooked up to the violinist until he can be treated.
This utterly destroys appeals to personal sovereignty, “my body my choice” and other related arguments. You’ll need to establish humanity of the fetus first, though, which can be done with the SLED and related arguments.
Furthermore, both eviction theory and the Violinist argument fail a simple “if all x are y, and all y are z, then all x are z” logic test. Assuming that it is legal to “evict” an “intruder” upon yourself up to the point of death of the “intruder”, then why are negligence charges brought against any parent for their child? Clearly the parents were just “evicting” the children from their homes/bodies/responsibilities.
Opponent's argument:
My counterargument:
*”Straw-man. Though you do not have the right to kill a trespasser (whether of your own making or not), they are still trespassing and you still have a right to evict them. Creating contrived fictional scenarios where you can think of some even more contrived reasons to violate somebody’s property rights does not change reality.”
You use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I turn your claim of strawman back on yourself. Did you even read the refutation to the violinist argument? The child is not trespassing, but explicitly placed there directly by the actions of the parents. Unless you are claiming that people in this day and age do not know sex = baby, or unless it was a rape case, then your claim falls flat.
What you are saying here is that you can kidnap someone, dump them onto an oasis you own in the middle of the desert, then say “you’re trespassing, now get off my land into the desert where you’re certain to die.” Which is nonsense.
And I’m being generous here, because what is more realistic is kidnapping someone, taking them onto your property, then saying “you’re trespassing” and proceeding to dismember them and crush their skull for their “trespass”.
*”Creating contrived fictional scenarios where you can think of some even more contrived reasons to violate somebody’s property rights does not change reality. ”
Explain how a scenario used to explain an analogy is contrived. Of course there is no real music lovers’ society, and violinists do not really suffer kidney diseases when people go spelunking. That does not change the analogy from being more factual than Thompson’s original postulate that the child is an aggressive trespasser. If you are going to attack my analogy, at least state how the analogy is faulty instead of saying “you’re wrong” and leaving it at that.
You are asserting facts not in evidence. This is essentially “I’m right, because I AM! And I say so!” You also seem to have a strange definition of “trespass”, in which someone brought to a location against their will through no situation of their making is guilty of trespass.
“…then they should do that, but creating some sort of contrived slavery relationship will not solve the problem, only creates new ones. ”
You are conflating responsibility for one’s actions with slavery. The funny thing about slavery, you see, is that it is forced and not a direct consequence of someone’s actions taken in the full knowledge that the result might occur. If one spills milk on the floor and is asked to clean it up, is that slavery?
Like “trespass”, you are merely appealing to the Pavlovian response the word “slavery” has. Please.
*”Eviction is a theory that allows for the rights of both the parent and the child, just as divorce allows for the right of both spouses (and any children).”
Bullshit. In the case of abortion, one party is denying another’s right to life. This is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle. Running someone off your property will not kill someone; an abortion will. “You do not have the right to kill a trespasser in order to evict them” is but a mealy-mouthed platitude when the only way to evict the “trespasser” is to kill them. Also, do note that the pro-abortion crowd is in favour of killing the “trespasser” anyway even when it is not necessary (I.E. when the child is viable after 20 weeks), thanks to the recent Texas hoo-hah. The point of an abortion, when viewed in practice, is not to make a woman not be pregnant, but to murder a child, otherwise a simple c-section would appease these folks. “Personal sovereignty” is but another justification, just as the Romans favouring exposure for infanticide ran off “we’re haven’t caused them any harm, just left them to their fate”.
But back to the point. What you’re saying here is that no one has any responsibilities to anyone by virtue of their own actions, and it’s permissible to relinquish any of all responsibilities even to the point of someone’s death, which is in direct contradiction to the non-aggression principle. Your rights, even property rights, only extend as far as someone else’s rights begin. It is only through the actions of the parents that the child exists, and hence said child cannot be trespassing and did not violate the non-aggression principle, because their situation was not of their own making in the first place.
So, do people have the right to abandon their children, elderly parents, or anyone else to death by exposure? Why or why not? They are merely cutting said people off from their property, after all. If someone hogties you, flies you up in their helicopter, and them pushes you into freefall off their property, is that a valid assertion of property rights?
Or is that murder?
*”We may all wish that all parents (and children) were paragons of virtues, but they are the same flawed humans as the rest of us. Utopian ideals will not change that. [...] Human life is sloppy. Wishing for perfection (even at the point of a gun) will not make it happen.”
Again, nonsense. No law can be perfectly upheld, no social more is without exception. By your own metric, we should not have laws, whether written or unspoken, against theft, murder, rape, etc, because it would be impossible to perfectly enforce.
Of course, I will not convince you; that is not the point of internet debate. What I am writing this for is to convince anyone watching.
In closing, let’s postulate:
1. “It is permissible to assert property rights upon any and all trespassers by evicting them, even if said method of eviction will invariably cause the death of the evicted.”
2. “Trespassing is defined as an individual being placed in a location or situation, even if they had no hand in being in that situation in the first place.”
3. Therefore, by this logic, it should be perfectly fine to kidnap someone, fly them up in a helicopter, and “evict” them to their deaths.
It should be perfectly fine to “evict” children and aged into the wilds to die of exposure.
But no, strangely, it’s only allowable to “evict” the unborn, even when it’s not needed. Maybe it’s because they can’t speak up. Maybe it’s because the truth of the procedure is hidden from view of so many. Maybe it’s because they can’t fight back.
Reductio ad absurdium, game, set, match.
Opponent's counterargument:
Abortion ALWAYS results in death of the child involved when done pre-viability, and as I pointed out, the recent Texas kerfuffle proves beyond a doubt that the point of abortion is to murder infants, even post-viability (which I note Evictionism does not cover). End of story. Don’t wrangle words.
“You’ve obviously not read what eviction theory is.”
Yes, I have, and I have read Sean Parr’s Departurism refutation to it. Don’t assume what I do or do not know – “if you were educated, you’d agree with me” is one of the silliest arguments ever.
*”In order to make your case you have to invent crazy scenarios with violinists and spelunkers and kidnappers and oases, with each analogy crazier than the last.”
See, sweetie, the world doesn’t bow to your demands. If you say something, you have to back it up. If my analogy is crazy, then explain the flaw in my analogy instead of saying “you’re wrong! Nyah Nyah Nyah!”
Again, refute this analogy: person knowingly and willingly inflicts disease upon violinist by her own actions, making violinist dependent on her. Hence, to finish what she started and not violate the non-aggression principle, she has to be hooked up to the violinist until she recovers, at which point she’s free to go.
Now, person knowingly and willingly creates a child, making the child dependent on her by her own actions. Hence, to finish what she started and not violate the non-aggression principle, she has to carry the child to term, at which point she’s free to go.
The Evictionist/Thompson’s stance is that the child simply appears out of nowhere and sets up residence in her womb, and although they lack the will to act, they are a trespasser. It does not take into account the woman/couple’s actions.
Second analogy:
A man is kidnapped and brought to the kidnapper’s helicopter, someone else’s property. He is then told by the kidnapper he unwanted in the kidnapper’s helicopter and is trespassing, and hence is pushed to his death.
A child is conceived by a woman’s actions and brought to her womb, which is her property. They are then found to be unwanted and hence trespassing, and hence is dismembered to death.
Explain the flaw in the analogy.
“What you are advocating is slavery, because you are more than willing to enforce it on pain of death. ‘You will be a parent, no matter what the circumstances, or we will kill you.’”
1) Now it’s my turn to ask: please state where I suggested the death penalty for either abortion or child abandonment. If you cannot produce this quote, I expect an apology. If you cannot produce it and do not apologise, then you will have proven yourself to be quite the fool and I will cease discussion.
2) Now that we have that out of the way, so agreement knowingly entered into by a party is enforceable without counting it as slavery? That would certainly invalidate the whole of contract law, since all contracts are slavery by your definition. So a parent has no responsibility to their child they cannot relinquish at a whim, or business partners no responsibility that they cannot abdicate without repercussions? Is requiring a criminal to make restitution or serve jail time slavery?
Argumentum. Ad. Absurdium. Please, don’t redefine terms, that’s what Cultural Marxists do.
“My position is that you…hands dirty.”
For someone who pretends to logic and reason, here comes the emotional rhetoric and shame. Please, let’s use dialectic instead. 1) What I do or do not do in my spare time is unknown to you, 2) whether I do or do not help others in my spare time is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and 3) so your answer to the problem of the poor and needy is to kill them, ala the ancient Phoenicians? Why aren’t you out on the streets demanding the rounding up of the destitute and euthanizing them, then?
Now, this is beside the point of the discussion, but I’d love to elucidate: as a reactionary, I don’t expect to enforce things through the state, but rather through social censure and tradition, which is much kinder and likely to produce conscientious improvements, as Confucius points out in Analects. My goal is not to bring things back to 1950, that would be silly. My goal is to bring things back to before 1776. Of course, that will require our current society to implode, which according to our dear host, is well on-track.
But back to the point: how does me adopting kids/whatever change the points I have made? If I had done so, what changes? If I have not, what changes? Such logic.
*”In a reasoned, logical, and biological world, a parent is not a slave to the child, nor vis-versa. So yes, the Romans were correct.”
All right, so you’re on board with infanticide and euthanasia of the elderly. Good to know.
Whatever happened to not stating support for killing anybody?
“It isn’t nice, nor is it humane, any more than it is nice or humane for a lion to eat baby gazelles, but it is logical and biological.”
1) Argument from nature. Logical fallacy; just because it happens in nature, it is not necessarily desirable. 2) False analogy. We are not animals incapable of denying our instincts. 3) Infanticide by own parents is not biological in largely K-selected species, as opposed to R-selected species like Rabbits, guppies, etc, which breed rapidly and have been known to eat own young. I’m sure you can find exceptions, but the generality is that K-selected species do not commit infanticide. Humans are generally considered K-selected. Low numbers of children, slow gestation, slow childhood, large investment in offspring.
“But force and coercion do not create nice or humane, but violence and oppression.”
So says the fellow grossly advocating violating the non-aggression principle. Isn’t that, like, I don’t know, a cornerstone of libertarian thought?
For someone who pretends to logic, not very logical. For someone who claims to abhor hypocrisy, quite hypocritical. And for someone who bashes zealots, quite zealous, indeed.
Hmm…
By the by, I notice you conveniently ignored my points about no law being perfect, etc. Thank you; if you do continue this, then I will assume all unaddressed points are conceded.
Opponent's Argument:
I note that you have not bothered to attempt to refute a good number of my points, nor attempted to point out the flaws in my analogies. Thank you for conceding all of them.
“What is “viability”? If a fetus in not viable, then it is only a parasite. Are we to accept now that trespassers have rights to food and lodging?”
Oh yes. If you undertake an action (sex), knowing that by your actions, another human will be dependent on you for a period of time (the child), and knowingly and willingly undertake this action anyway, you have agreed to the consequences of bringing someone onto your property for the period of time.
The part you seem to have a problem with is the whole “knowingly and willingly bringing someone back onto your property, with the foreknowledge that they will be dependent on you”. Unless, as our gracious host has pointed out, they were forced to accept said person (rape), or is too stupid to not know that their actions would not result in the person being on their property or being dependent on them (who doesn’t know sex=baby, or pregnancy is nine months?), then they can be said to have accepted a contract of sorts to have the person dependent on them for said time and hence said individual is not a trespasser.
“Aborting a “viable” fetus almost never results in death of the child. This happens in hospitals every day. It’s called inducing labor, or a Caesarian section. Are all of these women intent on killing?”
I suggest you a) read up the recent Texas kerfuffle, and b) this account of an ex-abortionist on D&E later-term abortions. He describes the procedure at 24 weeks, well past viability:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/former-abortionist-if-anybody-thinks-ripping-arms-and-legs-isnt-painful
You, once again, are reliably attempting to re-define words. When a woman goes for a caesarean or to have labour induced, of course the child lives, because a either procedure is not a dilation and evacuation, it is not a saline abortion, it is not a lethal injection or all those other wonderful methods used to kill children post 20-weeks. Inducing labour may be part of the procedure, for example, to remove the dead child in a lethal injection abortion or as part of the wonderful cranial evacuation and collapse that’s required once the bones are ossified, but the child never survives.
You’re factually wrong.
“If a person is arrested for some alleged legal violation by the state and refuses to comply with the state’s demands, then the sanctions will continue to escalate, from fines, through imprisonment, until the state kills the alleged violator for refusing to comply.”
1) Note that in my post, I mentioned that as a reactionary, I do not expect the state to enforce standards of behaviour, but rather through social stricture, shaming, and tradition. Let me quote myself in my comment to our good host: “Legislation is at best a stopgap for the stupid and low time-preferenced who cannot be bothered to get around said legislation. What is needed, is a social revival, one that cannot happen while the Cathedral stands and people profit from social decay.”
2) Really? All nations have the death penalty? Because that is provably false:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries
Now, it could be argued that they could secretly and extra-judicially kill an offender anyway, but if a government did so it would have lost its legitimacy, after which the situation of said government would be anyone’s guess. Perhaps revolution, or perhaps bread and circuses.
3) Even if what you were saying WERE true, that all states used the death penalty to enforce laws, it only has bearing on the enforcement of said laws and not the theoretical moral bearing of the issue, which is what we are discussing here.
So, where did I promote enforcement via the death penalty? Now, good chap, I expect my apology. Or another dissembling, whichever tickles your fancy.
“So no “sweetie”, you’re still incorrect (and oh so mature). Your premises are flawed. I think you should start over.”
No, my good fellow, it would appear that your premises are the ones which are flawed, as per my explanations. Perhaps you should start over. It has certainly been a delicious time with you. By the by, my maturity, or the perception thereof, has no bearing on my points.
“In what universe would it be considered ethical to “kidnap” somebody, a trespass in itself, in order to justify a later murder because of trespass? Your premises are flawed.”
Exactly. We consider it unethical to do this to any other person save the unborn; you’ve just proved my point. Let’s check the one of the meanings of the word “postulate”, shall we?
“to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing.”
By the meaning of this wonderful word, I can actually take something that is not true and assume it is for the sake of my argument, which is reiterated below:
What I was doing, you see, was an example of argumentum ad absurdium, a method of logical argument that assumes premises, leads to their logical conclusions, and contrasts them as absurd when compared to reality.
In any case, if you do not like the word “kidnap”, then maybe “invite”. The point is that the individual is moved to the property by the actions of the property owner through no action of their own and without intent. Any word that conveys this sufficiently, whether it describes an illegal action or not, will suffice.
In conclusion, our time together has been filled with a delicious passion, and I hope that everyone who reads our discussion will be better able to make up their minds about the issue. I would just like to remind everyone reading that my good fellow here:
- Refuses to engage, or even acknowledge a critical point of argument (the whole “knowingly and willingly performed said action schtick)
- Assumed facts not in evidence (about my charitable activities)
- Made assertions without supporting arguments (my “ridiculous” analogies without explaining how they are flawed)
- Repeatedly twisted the meaning of words (in what world is a caesarian equal to a dilation and evacuation?)
- Placed words in my mouth, even after I explicitly stated the opposite (claims I would use state enforcement)
- Made irrelevant rhetorical appeals and attempts at shaming (about my own charitable activities)
- Is woefully uninformed about the facts of abortion procedures (see cesarean, above) and refuses to acknowledge the position of the abortion lobby, even when pointed out to him (Texas)
- Has made logical fallacies (argument from nature, etc)
- Supports infanticide (“the Romans had the right idea”), therefore violating the non-aggression principle
- Uses the Pavlovian nature of certain words to invoke associations which have no logical grounding (“slavery”, “logical”, “reasoned”)
- Refuses to concede, or even acknowledge, points which he has no rebuttal for, leaving me to assume that he has conceded.
Well. This certainly has been entertaining!
Poor opponent explodes and whines:
My final response:
So, you have not addressed any of my arguments, you fail to admit you are factually wrong, you continue to make assertions without supporting arguments, you continue to use claim I wish to use “force and coercion” to impose my desires on others when I have clearly stated otherwise, you claim I am driven by feelings when I have clearly stated my position and argument, which you have not bothered to refute, you fail to understand the contractual nature of pregnancy that I am positing and keep on repeating your old arguments without acknowledging that the woman entered into it of her own accord understanding the consequences.
Who is the logical and reasonable one here? Neither of us can say, as we are invested in this argument, but I’m sure the audience can tell.
But here are my personal thoughts, from a reactionary standpoint on what I’ve observed about you in the course of our discourse in the words of someone else:
“…They’re defining slavery as ANYTHING whatsoever that cramps my style IRRESPECTIVE of prior commitment……Is there such a thing as IMPLIED commitment? As prolife, I say: you fuck, you buy the consequences. But even a prochoicer would say, well you had 9 mo. to abort: You birth it, you buy it…But this asshat isn’t satisfied with that. I fucked, I birthed, and I STILL might not want to buy the consequences. People like this ARE veritable POSTER CHILDREN for slavery. Bring it back… whips & all!”
Inability to understand contractual agreements. Desire to jettison responsibility of your own making at any time for any reason. Low time-preference.
You, sir, are made to be a slave.
Good day to you.