lazs2: miko... at what point do you believe that the mother should have no right to terminate her childrens life on her whim? It's irrelevant what I believe she should do - in the context of this discussion, I certainly have my views on those matters.
I do not believe that I have a legitimate right to influence her actions coercively.
Rights or some people are really obligations of other people. And obligations are incured voluntarily - imposing them by force is a coercion and thus illegitimate. Once one is ready to wield coercion, it becomes pointless discussing which obligations he imposes on others - he will impose whatever obligations he damn wishes.
Here is the link to a thread I posted earlier explaining the concept of rights I subscribe to
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79556 and their origin.
I will reprint the relevant passages but I'd suggest you read it all anyway.
“Rights derive from systems of relations of which claimant has become a part through helping to maintain them. If he ceases to do so or has never done so (or nobody has done so for him) there exist no ground on which such claims can be founded.
Relationships between individuals exist only as products of their wills but the mere wish of the claimant can hardly create a duty for others. Only expectations created by long practice can create duties for members of the community.” – F. Hayek.
A child originates within a person’s body, so a child belongs to that person – part of his/her domain. A child does not have claim to any rights other than those voluntarily claimed on its behalf by its parents (see above) – since nobody has incurred any obligation to such child/fetus.
Parent has rights in a society by supporting its operation and can claim such rights for a child.
That makes it easy for me to define my stand on abortion – I do not have to decide anything and leave life/choice decision to the parents in question, however abortion is abhorrent to me – or alternatively, however I’d have preferred some rare people aborted
[/i]
If a person in a society does not voluntarily incur the obligation of non-aggression - confirming the rights of others to their lives and property, he cannot be a member of the society and does not have a right to his life and property. He is an outlaw.
If a person does not voluntarily incur the obligation of honoring his contracts - the same consideration applies. None of his rights are honored. He is an outlaw as well.
Other then those two specific rights/obligations necessary for the society to exist at all (any society, not just free soociety), the rest are incured/granted voluntrarily.
I cannot interfere with someone else's abortion because that person did not grant me a right to interfere with his abortion - though I can deny the use of my property to such person, I cannot invade his/hers.
That is different from interfering with somebody else's murdering a rightfull member of a society because that victim had a right not to be murdrred - an obligation assumed by all the members. I have a right to interfere with the attacker's actions and violate his property because the attacker has forefeited his rights by violating other's claimed rights.
It would seem logical that a parent is entitled to terminate a child untill the child becomes a member of society in his/her own right and leaves his domain but the society does run on pure theory and never will, never fear. Empirical rules of thumb will always exist - implemented as social mores, conventions, customs.
A theoretical danger that someone can kill his own child is much outweigted by very practical danger of many people dying - including fetuses aborted - because the government has excessive powers.
I'd be happy to elaborate or discuss any particular point.
miko
