andrew21594 Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 (I must emphasise that I am not asserting my opinion here; I am just asking a question. I know that a lot of you in the Peaceful Parenting topic are parents and this post is not intended to attack your moral integrities. This question has been troubling me for a while and these forums are probably among the best for handling the Non-Aggression Principle) Is it aggressive to give birth? My understanding of the word 'aggression' is that an action done by X against Y is aggressive if ALL of the following criteria are met: 1. X controls whether X does the action 2. The action takes control of Y's property (bodily or otherwise) 3. Y does not consent to the action 4. X and Y are and/or will be conscious (eg. it would not be aggressive to kill a plant but it would be aggressive to have intercourse with someone passed out drunk) Let's say that Anne is pregnant with a baby who we shall call Chris. Anne has two choices: to give birth to Chris or to abort Chris. Anne controls whether she gives birth; in the developed world, unless she is imprisoned and/or unconscious, she has the resources to go either way. (1) If Chris will be born and become conscious, then he will have ownership rights over his body and whether to live or not. Giving birth to Chris causes his body to become conscious. (2, 4) Prior to birth, and for a while after, Chris cannot consent to anything including his birth. (3) All four criteria for aggression are met, therefore it is aggressive for Anne to give birth to Chris. The only objection to this I have ever met (this was in the comments section on one of Stefan's videos) was that this action precedes the baby's consciousness and is therefore not aggressive. In that case, it is not aggressive to chop off someone's arm while they sleep (this is obviously aggressive). Please respond by telling me if I misunderstand 'aggression' and/or how this logic is faulty.
EricBaker.Linux Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 It's kinda like smacking someone in the face when they've got a bee on their forehead. Alternatively: Women have to give birth in order to give life to the child, so I guess it's not really controllable and therefor not aggression towards the child. Looking forward to seeing some more detailed responses, but this was just my immediate thoughts.
PGP Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Interesting question. Just my newbie grenade, but under these criteria, what would be the difference here between the infant and a person in a coma who is treated with a new drug by a new procedure and recovers fully to health? Is that aggression? I'm sure there's a whole philosophical explanation and I will follow studiously.
EricBaker.Linux Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 Why is this question important to you? It is a peculiar question I think. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, since we all had to be birthed to be alive anyway.
JamesP Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 It is a peculiar question I think. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, since we all had to be birthed to be alive anyway. Yeah, because the question really doesn't make much sense (it's a bit like asking if bleeding from an open wound is aggressive), it's far more interesting to me why this is important to Andrew.
WorBlux Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 Here's a similar scenario that might clarify the thinking here. You happen along in the highway and see a horrific crash happen in front of you. A car veers into the ditch and flips over. You run up to the car and see a person unconscious in the front seat, and at the same time a small fire has started in the engine compartment. Is it aggressive to pull them out of the car? It think it shows a qualifier should be added ton premise 2. (2)The action takes control of Y's property, contrary to Y's will as it might reasonably be ascertained. But I think it should be noted UPB is a method for testing moral theories, and is not itself a full and nuance moral theory. In that case, it is not aggressive to chop off someone's arm while they sleep (this is obviously aggressive). Not necessarily, say the arm has gangrene. 1
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 No it's not aggression. Your criterion "3. Y does not consent to the action" is wrong. It should be "Y actively withholds consent or there's a reasonable expectation that Y withholds consent". In other words the act visited upon Y has to be unwanted in order for it to be aggression. If we were to use your criterion then NOT giving birth could also be called aggression as the child did not give consent to remain non-existent. There is no reasonable expectation that babies do not want to be born. As aggression requires there be that reasonable expectation, giving birth cannot be aggression. Unfortunately for most antinatalists this seems to be an emotional issue.
andrew21594 Posted September 16, 2014 Author Posted September 16, 2014 Thank you very much for your constructive responses. Why is this question important to you? Because left unanswered, I would have to take every single person to have ever lived to be a victim of their parents' crimes and that's very difficult to handle. What I'm taking away from this is that the Non-Aggression Principle allows for reasonable expectation of consent if the person concerned is not able to explicitly give their consent.
Recommended Posts