On Mike Rozeff on abortion, child care, evictionism

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Mike Rozeff says this: “if the parents suddenly decide to starve the child to death or let it starve without transferring it to someone else who takes on the responsibilities of caring, then those parents are certainly violating rights of the child that have been acquired in the ways I’ve outlined (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/a-childs-rights/). To put word’s in Mike’s mouth which I think are accurate, the “ways” he outlined are voluntarily agreeing to sexual intercourse (or to being a pilot on a plane). The difficulties I have with this line of reasoning are two. First, what about the fetus-child who is the product of rape? Certainly, there was no consent to sexual intercourse in this case. Yet, all children are equally innocent, and have equal rights not to be aggressed against. Second, for there to be a true obligation, as in the case of the airine pilot, there must be a contract, even an implicit one. But, for there to be legitimate contract, there must be two parties to it. At the time of sexual intercourse, one of the parties, the child was missing; did not exist at all. Thus, it is difficult to see why voluntary sexual intercourse obligates the mother to do anything except notify the monestary, the hospital, the orphanage. I have dealt with these questions in about a dozen articles in refereed journals, see my previous blog on this. I really don’t think this is the proper format to settle complicated issues like this, on which staunch and highly credentialed libertarians disagree (for example, Ron Paul, pro life; Murray Rothbard, pro choice.) So, I invite Mike to peruse my paper trail (http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/rozeff-on-zwolinski-block-on-rozeff/), and to write up a more thorough critique of my evictionist position. I think that is the best way to get that proverbial one millionth of an inch closer to the TRUTH on challenges of this sort. Note that two other regular contributors to this blog, Becky Akers and Butler Shaffer have previously criticized my analysis; I replied to both in a refereed journal: Block, Walter E.  2014. “Should abortion be criminalized? Rejoinder to Akers, Davies and Shaffer on Abortion” Management Education Science Technology MEST Journal. Vol. 2, No. 1, January, pp. 33-44;http://fbim.meste.org/FBIM_1_2014/Sadrzaj_eng.html; http://fbim.meste.org/FBIM_1_2014/_04.pdf. Their thoughtful objections deserved no less, in my view. I urge this option on Mike. I promise I will respond, at length, to anything he publishes on this in that sort of venue.

3:18 pm on May 1, 2014
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts