Abortion

[Individualist]

So... are you saying legality should be based on the consequences of an action?

Yes, I'm saying that legality should be based on the consequences of an action, but the consequences are just one factor. It shouldn't be illegal to invest in cancer research that is eventually proved to be useless. Nor should it be illegal to invest in a company that eventually goes bankrupt.

Or are you discussing the consequences the law would create?

No, the consequences of a law need to be considered, of course, but I wasn't talking about them.

Not entirely correct. Most (read as: 99%) of private funding goes toward ASC research (mostly because it works). About the only way ESC research gets money is through public/government funding. So is that enough "proof" of ESC's harm (ignoring the debate over rather humans at certain life stages are people) or shall I start going into compare contrast of the different medical treatments and techniques?

I'm not sure what your point is. I agree that funding ESC research is a waste of money.

[Challenger Grim]

So I guess we agree on that point.

[Individualist]

I'm not sure what your concern is.
Are you concerned about this particular case because you don't believe abortion is murder?
Or are you disagreeing with the death penalty in general?
Or are you disagreeing with "vigilante" justice in general?

These are separate issues. We could consider a case where an individual (let's call him Bob) took out, say, Jeffrey Dahmer. Again, if Bob were tried for murder, the thing to be decided is whether Dahmer was guilty and his crime warranted whatever penalty Bob administered. If so, then Bob did nothing wrong and should be acquitted. It was within his rights. If it weren't--if individuals never have such a right--then neither does the State, which has no moral powers but those delegated to it by individuals.

Though we might add in Rothbard's further condition: that the victim or their heir or executor had not dropped the charges. We might require Bob to first either be the victim/heir/executor or to have obtained permission from the victim/heir/executor. On the other hand, this condition applies only to restitution. If Bob were acting out of defense (for himself or others) against continuing aggression by Dahmer, then that is probably sufficient.

As for deterrent, I would say that deterrent is not the primary purpose of criminal justice. In fact, the use of force purely for deterring (i.e., even if the particular person does not does not deserve it) is itself unjust. The use of force is legitimate only for defense and restitution. If, in the process, it is also a deterrent, that is a beneficial side-effect.

I do not disagree with the death penalty or vigilante justice, provided nothing is done without sufficient evidence. I just think there is something wrong with a society where abortionists can be gunned down on the streets. Many pro-lifers (to use a term I don't particularly like) would agree with me.

Would you consider a child's mother to be his/her executor?

[joel]

I do not disagree with the death penalty or vigilante justice, provided nothing is done without sufficient evidence. I just think there is something wrong with a society where abortionists can be gunned down on the streets. Many pro-lifers (to use a term I don't particularly like) would agree with me.

In what I described, no one could just gun anyone down willy-nilly in the street without being subject to investigation (and prosecution if it was wrongful). Consider how it is today, if you were to kill someone in self defense. You did not break the law, but there would still be an investigation. You might be tried for murder before being acquitted.
Does that address your concern?

Would you consider a child's mother to be his/her executor?

If Alice would ordinarily be Bob's executor in the event of Bob's death, but Alice murdered Bob (or hired someone to murder Bob), then I would say that Alice in that case would not be Bob's executor. (Kinda like how you can't collect life insurance on someone you kill.)

I would think the executor in your question would be selected the same way as in the case of a mother who kills her born child. It is an issue that needs an answer whether or not abortion is recognized as murder.

[Individualist]

In what I described, no one could just gun anyone down willy-nilly in the street without being subject to investigation (and prosecution if it was wrongful). Consider how it is today, if you were to kill someone in self defense. You did not break the law, but there would still be an investigation. You might be tried for murder before being acquitted.
Does that address your concern?

Not really, because with someone like George Tiller, there would be a mountain of evidence that the man was an abortionist. The killer would have good reason to think that a "pro-life" jury would acquit him.

If Alice would ordinarily be Bob's executor in the event of Bob's death, but Alice murdered Bob (or hired someone to murder Bob), then I would say that Alice in that case would not be Bob's executor. (Kinda like how you can't collect life insurance on someone you kill.)

I would think the executor in your question would be selected the same way as in the case of a mother who kills her born child. It is an issue that needs an answer whether or not abortion is recognized as murder.

Agreed.

[joel]

Not really, because with someone like George Tiller, there would be a mountain of evidence that the man was an abortionist. The killer would have good reason to think that a "pro-life" jury would acquit him.

Likewise, equally, for someone who considered killing someone like Jeffrey Dahmer. (Or killing might be replaced by whatever action happens to be warranted in the particular case.) People would be unlikely to act without sufficient evidence. But that should be the the case in any event. If feasible, the person would also have an incentive to capture the criminal to bring them before an assembly (so as to avoid altogether the possible trial against one's self), or better yet, organize a (police) force to go capture him.

So, unless you have a problem with 'vigilantism' in general (which you said you don't), then I assume your only problem is that you don't think abortion is murder. Do you have a problem in the case of Tiller, but not in the case of Dahmer?

[Individualist]

Likewise, equally, for someone who considered killing someone like Jeffrey Dahmer. (Or killing might be replaced by whatever action happens to be warranted in the particular case.) People would be unlikely to act without sufficient evidence. But that should be the the case in any event. If feasible, the person would also have an incentive to capture the criminal to bring them before an assembly (so as to avoid altogether the possible trial against one's self), or better yet, organize a (police) force to go capture him.

So, unless you have a problem with 'vigilantism' in general (which you said you don't), then I assume your only problem is that you don't think abortion is murder. Do you have a problem in the case of Tiller, but not in the case of Dahmer?

Yes, that's what I've been saying. Maybe it's the ex post facto nature of these things: it's legal now, and it would thus be wrong to hold someone legally culpable for something he did while it was legal. Actually, in Tiller's case, what he did was still legal. If you were on a trial for someonee like Scott Roeder, who harmed someone for doing legal things that you think should be illegal, would you convict him for his action?

[joel]

Yes, that's what I've been saying. Maybe it's the ex post facto nature of these things: it's legal now, and it would thus be wrong to hold someone legally culpable for something he did while it was legal. Actually, in Tiller's case, what he did was still legal. If you were on a trial for someonee like Scott Roeder, who harmed someone for doing legal things that you think should be illegal, would you convict him for his action?

Oh, I was not assuming in our hypothetical case that it was legal.

I tend to agree regarding ex post facto. If a State says, "Go ahead and do it, and we will protect your doing it," and then turns around and executes you for doing it, that is at least treachery. It is inconsistent with the principle of standing laws.