Tag: michael rozeff

An Abortion Argument: Does a Woman Own her Body?

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

[Note: I wrote this some years ago and published it on another blog which is no longer in service. I will be drawing articles from that occasionally and posting them here. R.M.]

One of the most widely used arguments to defend a woman’s “right” to kill her unborn child is that she owns her own body and can do what she wants with it. No one has any authority to impose restrictions on her behavior, so long as she is not harming any other person.

It is not my intention to discuss the personhood of an unborn fetus in this article. Rather, I want to explore the moral and philosophical question of the ownership of the human body—irrespective of sex. Male or female is irrelevant. To whom do I belong? That is the question everyone must answer.

“…how can we defend the mother’s right to kill the fetus?

Simple. She owns her own body, and the unwanted fetus growing within it is in effect a trespasser or parasite. This may sound harsh, but when the property rights in question are thoroughly analyzed, it is the only possible conclusion that may be reached.”[i]—Walter Block and Roy Whitehead

If I was asked (I wasn’t) to paraphrase and rewrite the above quote, this is the way it would turn out.

“We can defend a woman’s (mothers don’t act that way) right to kill her unborn child because she owns her body and the unwanted fetus is a trespasser and a parasite. Dastardly things, anyway! Besides, property rights are sacrosanct[ii] so we can reach no other conclusion.”

All I can say about this manner of thinking is that it is abominable and despicable. When “property rights” are the only thing in question, then the end justifies the means and any moral rectitude simply flies out the window.

Who am I? Why am I here? What will happen to me when I die? These are questions which have vexed and perplexed philosophers since people started thinking about things other than how to get and keep their next meal. There are probably just about as many answers as there are philosophers. We ought to also be asking one other question: To whom or to what do I belong? This is a valid question and there are only two possible answers: we belong to ourselves or we belong to someone/something outside of and beyond ourselves.

If we conclude that a woman belongs to herself, then she also owns herself, every part of herself, including her body and everything in it, over which she exercises full and complete control. No one and nothing can dictate to her what she may or may not do with her body. If a woman owns her body, then there should be no restraints placed on her, so long as she does not initiate aggression against other people who also own their bodies[iii]. If this is true, then the whole argument about abortion is moot, null, void, and utterly useless, deserving to be scrapped. It is a waste of time, energy, and resources–if this is true!

But, is it? Or is there another way of looking at the question? Michael Rozeff puts it this way[iv].

” 3. Property is what belongs to you. It’s circular to say that a person belongs to himself or owns himself. You only seem to become property when you become a slave, partly or wholly, and belong to someone else. Even in that case, they have property in your body, in the product of your labor, but not in YOU. In other words, to resolve this problem of definition and starting point philosophically or religiously, we need to specify what a human being or person IS. What IS this “I”? What is the BEING that “I” am, and that you are? That BEING exists outside the domain of human notions of property. That’s my unprovable assumption or postulate about life and existence.”

I brought this up to make the point that no one owns themselves. No one owns their own body. No man, no woman, no exceptions. With nothing more than pure logic, I can make my case using a common libertarian argument.

You and your family live in a nice house on a piece of land which you own. You borrowed money to pay for it, scrimped and saved, did without, and worked side jobs to pay the mortgage, eventually receiving the deed free and clear. It is yours. At least that’s what you think.

One day, while in a discussion with your friend, he points out that you really don’t own the property, you only rent it. He explains that if you don’t pay the taxes which the county determines you should, you will find out within the space of a few years who the real owner is. You will be looking for another place to live and all the effort you have put into this property will accrue to someone else’s benefit.

You will lose your property if you don’t pay the declared property tax, but the fact of the matter is, you can live in the house and control the property, even profit from it, without (much) interference from the county–so long as you pay the tax! Libertarians everywhere understand this argument immediately.

In the case of a woman’s (or man’s) body, however, there will come a time when your “property” will be taken away from you. There will be no grace period, no time to pay the back taxes, plus costs, plus interest. There will be no extension. Begging, refusing to consent, getting angry, making deals (Daniel Webster[v], where are you?) will not help. As the rock band Kansas[vi] put it, “…all your money won’t another minute buy.” When the Grim Reaper crooks his finger, you will go, with or without warning. Willing or unwilling, it doesn’t matter. Off you go. You are going to die.

If we grasp the point that we don’t own our real estate because it CAN be taken away from us, then why shouldn’t we also understand that we don’t own our bodies because they WILL be taken away. In fact, ownership of real property is a far more feasible concept than ownership of body because the rules concerning taxation can always be changed for the better. At least it’s theoretically possible to change them. People may someday live in a society in which there are no property taxes. About the end of life, however, there is nothing to do except to understand that it is coming and to prepare for it.

We are conceived, we live, we die. Everything that we accumulate in this world will belong to someone else after our death. “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will leave this life.” (Job 1:21) “We didn’t bring anything into this world, and we won’t take anything with us when we leave.” (1 Timothy 6:7)

If immortality becomes practicable in this world, I will have to eat my words. Until then, they stand. This side of Heaven (or whatever you believe lies on the other side of death), everyone will die. That is an absolute certainty.

Since you are going to die and your body is going to be taken away from you, then you do not own it. If you do not own the body you live in, then it belongs to someone or something else: God, a higher power, the Great Spirit, cosmic truth, weird space aliens who seeded our planet, et al, any one of which might actually have something to say about the way that we are abusing, destroying, and killing those “properties” entrusted, but not belonging, to us.[vii]

Let’s bring Michael Rozeff[viii] back into the conversation.

“I contend that libertarian theory is too narrow. I make the following statements of where I stand.
1. Property is too narrow a basis to build an entire law and society on. The moral principle of no physical aggression is too narrow a basis. They are good as far as they go, but taken too far, they run into problems by ignoring the non-physical. Libertarianism has an impoverished social theory by this restriction to property and physical aggression. It gains by definiteness, but it loses by restrictiveness. In some cases, as in defamation, it leads to conclusions that go against thousands of years of law and history. “

Rozeff is correct. Libertarianism with a fixated view on property rights will not work. It needs to incorporate what he calls “the non-physical”, which I have no problem referring to as spiritual and moral. When spirituality (the understanding that we are more than just body) enters the picture, it brings with it a sense of morality: what is right and what is wrong. When right and wrong come into play, it becomes evident that a monstrous wrong has been perpetrated on the weakest, most vulnerable members of our society for a long, long time.

Women do NOT own their bodies and they certainly do not own the unborn children who are temporarily residing within them. Any law which allows a woman to kill her unborn child, based on her ownership claims, is simply building a house on shifting sand[ix]. Eventually it will crumble and collapse.

[i] Block, Walter E. and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-45

[ii] It seems to me that, in some quarters, property rights have taken on the attributes of religion, complete with high priests, a “gospel” message, worship services, and dedicated followers who will die before they change their beliefs.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacrosanct

[iii] Excluding unborn children, of course.

[iv] https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/harm-to-the-person/

[v] Just one of the stories I read a long, long time ago and have never forgotten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_and_Daniel_Webster

[vi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH2w6Oxx0kQ

[vii] An example of this can be seen in the Holy Bible, Psalms, Chapter 2.

[viii] https://mises.org/profile/michael-s-rozeff

[ix] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Wise_and_the_Foolish_Builders

Abortion and the Non-Aggression Principle

Roger Mitchell4 Comments

I have a lot of respect for Michael Rozeff. I read his articles and letters regularly and usually do not find anything with which to disagree. In a recent post on Lew Rockwell (https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/abortion-my-theory/), however, he wrote something which just grated on me and, apparently others as well.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/abortion-a-response/

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/12/bionic-mosquito/you-are-not-viable/

Michael Rozeff is wrong. Something does not have to be capable of life outside the womb (with assistance, of course) in order to have being. (An unhatched bald eagle does not need to be capable of living outside the shell to be considered worthy of legal protection.) He says that “Fetuses that cannot survive outside the womb are not yet human beings…” (Which is like saying that a chick which cannot survive outside the shell is not yet an eagle.) My question to him is that if they are not human beings, then what are they?

Being means existence and it is scientifically undeniable that a human life exists. If there is no existence, there is no need of argument. The new human being (zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, unborn child) IS, emphatically so, and therefore HAS being.

Even after 23 weeks of pregnancy when a fetus can conceivably survive outside the womb, it cannot live without care, nurture, and a protective environment, in other words, exactly what is needed to survive before 23 weeks. Furthermore, when a person becomes old or disabled and cannot survive without care, nurture, and a protective environment, does she, according to Rozeff’s argument, lose her so-called right of being and risk being “aborted”. Did Terri Schiavo become a non-being and were all the lengthy machinations over her life and death simply much ado about nothing? Or did they really matter?

Everyone needs assistance from other people to survive and live at some point in their lives. Everyone, without exception! There has never been nor ever will be anyone who simply springs into being who does not require care, nurture, and a protective environment at some time in his life. If one’s innate right to live is contingent on his ability to live independently of others, then we are all in trouble, since none of us are truly independent.

Rozeff uses the argument that if a woman wants an abortion, no one can deprive her of it. It is her “right”, if  you will.  What this line of reasoning does, however, is to give pregnant women the authority to violate the rights of their unborn offspring, at their own discretion, without repercussion, hindrance, sanction, or punishment. He then attempts to get around this dilemma by declaring that “viable, with assistance” is the determining factor in deciding when an unborn fetus actually becomes a “person”, which approximates the Roe v. Wade ruling of the Supreme Court. He never says what the unborn fetus is before it reaches that point. I repeat my question—if it is not a human being, then what is it?

The NAP is dead. Long live the NAP!

It appears to me that the NAP (non-aggression principle), so beloved by libertarians everywhere, has a fatal contradiction. On the one hand, no one can (should be able to) force a woman to carry her pregnancy to term. On the other hand, no one should be able to initiate aggression against an unborn human being by killing and aborting it. These two positions are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled. Either the NAP will allow women to act aggressively against their unborn children or it will accord protection to unborn children against that aggression until a point is reached when viable separation (eviction, birth) can occur. Either one or the other, but not both! The problem lies in deciding which of these positions is supported.

In an earlier blog post, Rozeff lays it out quite well.

“…to resolve this problem of definition and starting point philosophically or religiously, we need to specify what a human being or person IS. What IS this “I”? What is the BEING that “I” am, and that you are?”

Exactly! What is a human being? What is a person? This whole argument over abortion and women’s “right to choose” is going to forever hinge on these two questions. How do we determine the answer to them? What will be the TRUTH that we point to and anchor our decision in? Dogmatic religious beliefs? Scientific fact? Fluctuating social mores? Fickle political whims? Regardless of the method used, someone is going to be upset with the result. There will always be someone who feels that the decision is wrong and must be changed to better reflect their own opinion.

Human beings ARE. Being is real and is a gift from God or, if you prefer, a random chance of accident. Before pregnancy, a child can be hoped for or dreamed about.  After death, people are considered memories. While alive, however, he or she IS a person, no matter how young or old. The right to live is granted to persons everywhere simply because they are, by virtue of being, persons.

The political definition of “person-hood” is something else entirely, an abstract notion which is conferred and can mean anything at any time. (Dred Scott, Jews in Nazi Germany, e.g.). This so-called person-hood is a “right” given by certain powerful people to other less powerful people and can be taken away at any time, depending on the whim of the moment. Just because five members of a nine-member panel say that a human being does not become a “person” and have “rights” until he or she is viable does not necessarily make it so.

It is inevitable that aggression will be forced on someone—either the woman or the fetus. Someone will have to undergo suffering against her (or his) will. How do we determine which will be the one to suffer? The methodology used today, right now, is politics. If you make a loud enough noise, you will be given what you want. At someone else’s expense!  For a long, long time the loudest noise has been made by the pro-abortion crowd, which has attempted to justify its position by declaring that unborn human beings are not really “persons”. Since at least Jan. 22, 1973, this has been the deciding factor.

When viewed from a purely moral (right vs. wrong) standard, it is obvious that abortion, as it is practiced today, is a heinous crime against the most vulnerable persons among us. This morality does not have to incorporate any religious beliefs in order to be valid. The scientific facts are enough—an unborn fetus IS a live personal human being and, as such, requires that measures be taken to care for, nurture, and protect it until it becomes capable of independent living, with assistance, of course. The NAP must apply, despite protestations to the contrary! Sadly, the moral viewpoint is denigrated and dismissed in much of the discussion of this issue. Instead, it has taken a back seat to the idea that some people have more “rights” than others and interference with those “rights” is a blatant aggression. Rights have become more important than what is right.

I do agree with Rozeff that the government should not support or subsidize abortion, but I am emphatically opposed to the idea that it should not outlaw it. The common view of government is that it exists to protect those within its domain against outside aggression and to offer justice and redress in case such aggression occurs. Until and unless the day comes when every individual is a government in and of themselves (in other words, not until the end of time), certain people are going to be dominant and make the rules, while other people submit and do as they are told. No question! Because of this, I have no problem at all with government ordering a pregnant woman not to abort her unborn fetus, under pain of punishment.

In the post cited above, Rozeff makes this statement.

“…people need to understand their essential be-ing in order to understand how they should treat one another.”

Perhaps he should consider rephrasing this statement to read that “pregnant women need to understand…how they should treat their unborn children.” Perhaps abortion proponents should consider “doing unto others in the same manner that they would like to have done unto them.” Perhaps the Humanity Bureau will rise one day to determine who should live. And who shouldn’t.

Until everyone is protected from aggression, no one is safe.