Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

This post has 203 Replies | 13 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sat, Aug 13 2011 3:19 AM

hashem:
You have refused to address the fundamental libertarian point: property rights.

I think rather we've applied it consistently.

hashem:
The fetus has no property right in the mother or her resources.

This is mere assertion, not rationale nor a logical chain of reasoning. It is however the necessary belief required for you to make your point, so I suppose it's not surprising that you're trying to pass it as a given. But I think it if you try to explain how you arrived at this point you'll hit so many internal contradictions that you'll be convinced otherwise. You've also refused to address my points refuting several aspects of this repeated phrase.

hashem:

Nobody (if not the mother) has any property right in the fetus.

If the fetus is human then it owns itself.

Have you anything new to say or are you just in cut'n'paste mode. This whole post has been little more than repeating your past argument without addressing anything I've said regarding these same arguments. I don't think you're being honest here.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sat, Aug 13 2011 3:26 AM

Seraiah:
Removing a parasite from its host is by definition harmful to a parasite. The question then is whether or not it is justified. As this "parasite" is the early stages of an innocent human being, and as the mother must initiate force against the child in order to expel him, and as the initiation of force is aggression, and as libertarianism holds that all aggression is illegitimate, it follows that abortion is illegitimate in principle under libertarian assumptions.

Note, Hasem, that this is why the NAP supports the pro-life argument, not yours as you claim.

Seraiah:

Aenome
Therefore, if a child results from sex, both parents have accepted the obligation of having that child.

This is not my position. Even if the mother did not consent, she has an obligation to avoid doing harm to the child. Any other position is not consistent with the non-aggression principle.

I agree with your point on that, but I have been specifically excluding cases of non-consensual sex, altho I feel the NAP still applies as you do. The aggressor in that situation is the rapist whom should be punished, not the non-aggressor child that may result.

Seraiah:

hashem
2. A fetus doesn't have rights because:
 A) it's not an individual


Someone else stated this before. What's the relevance of this? When we look at a murder case do we really ask "Was the victim an individual?"
No, we don't, because it's irrelevant.

I think he was really trying to say it's not an individual... it's a part of the mother's body. In other words, denying the individual rights of the unborn.

Seraiah:

hashem
B: Nobody has any recourse, because nobody but the mother "owns" the fetus. If we accept the principle that people can have recourse even when they're property isn't involved, then surely all of libertarianism is lost. So it's a nonissue, even if people decide it's rude.

Then all of libertarianism is lost, for all murders are prosecuted by those that are not the victim.

Haha, this guy has no capacity to see how his ideas lead to immediate and ridiculous corollaries that are completely untenable.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sat, Aug 13 2011 11:01 AM

Let me first ask, where do you get your views on rights from? If we disagree on the fundamentals of rights, which we clearly do, then the argument is over. We've presented our cases.

In my understanding (to be distinguished from opinion or feeling):
Rights are property rights, no other system of rights can be A) objectively true, a priori and B) perfectly consistent. Do we disagree yet? If we do, then it was fun while it lasted.

If not, the next question is why do humans have property rights, which answer deals with the fact of scarcity.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 12:22 PM

hashem:
Let me first ask, where do you get your views on rights from? If we disagree on the fundamentals of rights, which we clearly do, then the argument is over. We've presented our cases.

It's certainly an important question within political philosophy. I accept that rights are natural, inalienable, intrinsic to human beings by nature, by fact, by reality. I use reality as my epistemological foundation for rights--what other possible final authority could there be besides reality? (I swear, people need to work on their epistemology).

Rights are natural in the sense that they are what people are by nature. This is observable. We observe human beings are individual, living, property-requiring, thinking, speaking, free acting, decision-makers (not an exhaustive list).

The left likes to say that these rights are not inalienable because "they can be taken away by law, and have been taken away legally by many governemnts." But that's a serious fallacy. You don't not take away a person's intrinsic ability to control themselves, even if you make them a slave. A slave can only be compelled to do what another desires via the mechanism of consequences and punishment, threat of injury and pain. The slave is not directly controlled, he is forced, coerced to obey. Thus, he has not lost his intrinsic ability to control himself, he is simply in an overpowered position where he can no longer use his body in ways he would choose if he were not being continually coerced.

As a further example, to say rights can be legally taken away and thus alienated would be analogous to saying that murder could be made legal and would then be ethically correct. This does not work in fact and destroys the idea that rights are mere social construct and therefore supposedly infinitely mutable.

Rights are more like math. We discovered that 1+1=2. No amount of legislation can change that. It is a natural law that cannot be changed. Similarly, no law will ever change the facts of the condition of human beings at all stages in their life, of self-direction, and self-ownership.

hashem:
In my understanding (to be distinguished from opinion or feeling):
Rights are property rights, no other system of rights can be A) objectively true, a priori and B) perfectly consistent. Do we disagree yet? If we do, then it was fun while it lasted.

I agree that all rights are property-based, sure. However, such a concept of rights is only cogent if applied on an individual basis. And one of the corollaries is that if you own yourself you're responsible for the effects of your actions and choices, whether intended or not. If you accidentally crash your car into someone else's car while driving, you are obligated to repair the damage and make it right. You just wanted to drive, you didn't intend to crash into another. However, you can't simply murder the damaged party to get out of that obligation to fix their car! That's a perfectly equivalent analogy to what's happening in abortion (minus the cars).

The only difference between the damaged car-owner you've crashed into and an unborn fetus is age, and if you do not show that age can somehow remove a human being's quality of self-ownership and individual rights then you have no case.

hashem:
If not, the next question is why do humans have property rights, which answer deals with the fact of scarcity.

Not really. Human beings would have rights even if there were no scarcity. For one thing, there is not equal scarcity among all goods. There is no scarcity of air, nor of seawater, to name just two examples.

If there were no scarcity at all, would it still be wrong to murder someone? Yes. So why, how could scarcity even be a factor in the application of rights to a human being?

 

Just for fun, I saw this today:

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 1:08 PM

On the bright side this argument has given me a way to bring people to modern conservatism from modern liberalism:

Democrats are typically pro-choice. Obviously, they believe the mother has no obligation to feed the fetus. Hence, if even family ties do not matter to them, then how are entitlements in any way justified? BAM. Pro-choice makes people conservative, a decent step towards libertarian.

I have recently come to find a way to make property rights lead to self-ownership through homesteading.

1) Assume property rights.

2) Person is born.  He can control his body. Hence he homesteads his body

3) Homesteading leads to ownership, hence self-ownership

Is this a bad line of reasoning?

If not, then a baby acting in the womb might be enough for it to homestead itself, creating self-ownership.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 6:29 PM

Anenome,

You don't understand rights well enough to be arguing about them. Rights are property rules for scarce resources, relevant only to self-owners, and thus only applicable to humans capable of acting and thinking. No libertarians I'm aware of dispute this, from natural rights advocates like Rothbard and Block, to demonstrated rights advocates like Hoppe and Kinsella—not to imply that the various views are inherently incompatible. And since you haven't given any sources I'm going to assume you're just making stuff up.

"The concept of "rights" only makes sense as property rights."
Rothbard
"
After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource."
—Kinsella

As for self-ownership, that is also agreed to derive from the fact of possession—not to imply that a fetus is a self or an individual, or even capable of possessing anything or being an owner, which it definitively is not. Often libertarians jump straight to self-ownership and start from their, forgetting why we are self-owners.

Property title has to be assigned to one of competing claimants based on "the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner and the" resource claimed. In the case of one's own body, it is the unique relationship between a person and his body—his direct and immediate control over his body...Libertarianism recognizes that only the self-ownership rule is universalizable and compatible with the goals of peace, cooperation, and conflict-avoidance. We recognize that each person is prima facie the owner of his own body because, by virtue of his unique link to and connection with his own body—his direct and immediate control over it—he has a better claim to it than anyone else...Thus, the libertarian position on property rights is that, in order to permit conflict-free, productive use of scarce resources, property titles to particular resources are assigned to particular owners. As noted above, however, the title assignment must not be random, arbitrary, or particularistic; instead, it has to be assigned based on "the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner" and the resource claimed. As can be seen from the considerations presented above, the link is the physical transformation or embordering of the original homesteader, or a chain of title traceable by contract back to him.
—Kinsella, Hoppe

A fetus doesn't have rights because it can't act to acquire property, nor does it need to.

MY POINT, however, is not whether the fetus is a self-owner and therefore a rights-having human.

I'm arguing that in an abortion, nobody's (if not the mother's) property is violated, and therefore nobody has the right of retaliation. Anything done to the mother is a new crime, in perfect violation of the non-aggression principle, which says that noone may initiate force or the threat of force against the person or property of another.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 6:39 PM

Wheylous,


I have recently come to find a way to make property rights lead to self-ownership through homesteading.

1) Assume property rights.

2) Person is born.  He can control his body. Hence he homesteads his body

3) Homesteading leads to ownership, hence self-ownership

Is this a bad line of reasoning?

If not, then a baby acting in the womb might be enough for it to homestead itself, creating self-ownership.

No, this is not a bad line of reasoning, in fact it's precisely what I've been saying (And every major libertarian thinker I'm aware of).

Notice your second point, which you admittedly realized. Being born (i.e. out of the mother's body, no longer dependent on umbilical cord or mother's resources) preceeds his ability to act in order to homestead his body. You recognize the requisite action, hence also your last statement—which would be true except an unborn fetus is precisely not a self. The point is that we agree a fetus doesn't have rights, nor could it.

If it can be argued the fetus was anyone's property, it would be the mother's, and she's not going to prosecute herself. If the mother is A and the fetus is B, the only question left is whether C, D, E etc. have a property right in the matter, such that aborting the fetus would be a crime against C, D, E etc. No, they obviously don't have any property involved, and so the entire argument is moot. The worst than can justly be done to the mother is ostracism, which I think is too much since it's not a violation of ANYONE'S rights (if not the mother's) to abort a fetus.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sun, Aug 14 2011 9:56 PM

Yay for line of reasoning. Sort of.

You seem to be beginning with the assumption that the fetus is not a self, not proving it. Why is action in the womb not enough for homesteading (which is vaguely defined anyway).

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 12:22 AM

self
individual

Action in the womb isn't enough because the behavior is meaningless to us except how we interpret it. The fetus can't act in any comprehensible way.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 12:23 AM

hashem:

Anenome, You don't understand rights well enough to be arguing about them.

That may be true but we shall see :P I'm not taking the word of a guy who's been consistently arguing that a human being does not have a right to life, nor to itself.

hashem:
Rights are property rules for scarce resources, relevant only to self-owners, and thus only applicable to humans capable of acting and thinking. No libertarians I'm aware of dispute this, from natural rights advocates like Rothbard and Block, to demonstrated rights advocates like Hoppe and Kinsella—not to imply that the various views are inherently incompatible. And since you haven't given any sources I'm going to assume you're just making stuff up.

Listen, rights as a legal concept are necessary in a world of scarce resources. But you seemed to imply that in a world of unlimited resources we wouldn't have rights. That's patently false, unless you consider that harm, destruction, and death were impossible in such a world. Then in that case you're ruling out aggression, in which case there's no need for rights, I suppose.

hashem:

"The concept of "rights" only makes sense as property rights."
Rothbard
"
After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource."
—Kinsella

Yes, I agree with these concepts. Why are you quoting them when you're unwilling to apply them to the situation at issue in a consistent manner.

Right are property rights--ye, but whose right is it? The right of a human being. And the first property we all own IS OURSELVES. So again, unless you can explain why age affects property rights, you cannot argue that a young human being does not own itself, and thus an abortion is both murder and aggression.

hashem:
As for self-ownership, that is also agreed to derive from the fact of possession—not to imply that a fetus is a self or an individual, or even capable of possessing anything or being an owner, which it definitively is not. Often libertarians jump straight to self-ownership and start from their, forgetting why we are self-owners.

All living human being posses their body / own their body as an intrinsic fact of nature. In fact, your body is inseparable from you while you are alive, with murder being considered depriving one of the possession of life itself. If you accept human rights and the NAP, as you say, then you must also agree that no human being can legitimately OWN another human being. Thus the mother cannot own the child, ever, and the child possesses its body from the moment it becomes both living and human, making it at that instant a human being. When is that point medically? Clearly it is conception, when the first cell is formed which is neither mother nor father, but a third separate and distinct entity.

hashem:

Property title has to be assigned to one of competing claimants based on "the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner and the" resource claimed. In the case of one's own body, it is the unique relationship between a person and his body—his direct and immediate control over his body...Libertarianism recognizes that only the self-ownership rule is universalizable and compatible with the goals of peace, cooperation, and conflict-avoidance. We recognize that each person is prima facie the owner of his own body because, by virtue of his unique link to and connection with his own body—his direct and immediate control over it—he has a better claim to it than anyone else...Thus, the libertarian position on property rights is that, in order to permit conflict-free, productive use of scarce resources, property titles to particular resources are assigned to particular owners. As noted above, however, the title assignment must not be random, arbitrary, or particularistic; instead, it has to be assigned based on "the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between owner" and the resource claimed. As can be seen from the considerations presented above, the link is the physical transformation or embordering of the original homesteader, or a chain of title traceable by contract back to him.
—Kinsella, Hoppe

Why are you continually quoting things that destroy your argument?

hashem:
A fetus doesn't have rights because it can't act to acquire property, nor does it need to.

Completely false! A fetus has already acquired its first property at the moment of conception, it's OWN BODY. How can you not see that.

hashem:
MY POINT, however, is not whether the fetus is a self-owner and therefore a rights-having human.

I'm arguing that in an abortion, nobody's (if not the mother's) property is violated, and therefore nobody has the right of retaliation. Anything done to the mother is a new crime, in perfect violation of the non-aggression principle, which says that noone may initiate force or the threat of force against the person or property of another.

Which is why abortion is wrong, murder, and a violation of the NAP, because the fetus is a self-owner. And abortion is aggression against it. And all of society has the right to punish murderers, not merely the one aggressed against, since in all cases of murder the agressee is dead.

Try again, sir.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 12:54 AM

But you seemed to imply that in a world of unlimited resources we wouldn't have rights.
Your body and the space it takes up would still be scarce.

And the first property we all own IS OURSELVES.
And original ownership, as we have seen, requires action and the ability to communicate that ownership. And a self, according to a dictionary, is:
a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality
and and individual is:
a single human being, as distinguished from a group, a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being

We don't have rights by virtue of our DNA, as you believe but have failed to prove. You're just making that up which is why you refuse to provide any sort of honest reference and you feel threatened by mine. As pointed out above, we have rights when there is conflict over a scarce resource (a fetus isn't capable of conflict, because it isn't capable of action) by demonstrating direct and immediate control over our body in a way that others can comprehend and not just interpret. A fetus isn't a self, and it can't be an owner because it can't act. It doesn't have property rights.

But that isn't the point, the point is that nobody has a right to retaliate against the mother because nobody's property was involved, and we're talking about PROPERTY RIGHTS, not random force and mob rule. Even if you believe abortion is murder, two wrongs don't make a right.

Why are you continually quoting things that destroy your argument?
That's not an answer.

A fetus has already acquired its first property at the moment of conception, it's OWN BODY. How can you not see that.
Acquire: to come into possession or ownership of; get as one's own; to gain for oneself through one's actions or effort
A fetus cannot act, so it can't possess and therefore it can't own. PLUS, it is by definition NOT a self. Property also implies action.
 
Which is why abortion is wrong
No, I've demonstrated a fetus cannot have property.

And all of society has the right to punish murderers
No. Society doesn't have rights; individuals have rights.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 2:14 AM

hashem:
And the first property we all own IS OURSELVES.
And original ownership, as we have seen, requires action and the ability to communicate that ownership.

No it doesn't. You own yourself because you, by nature, control yourself. That control cannot be divested from you, is intrinsic to you as human being. You do not appropriate your self-ownership either by action (what would be acted upon?) nor by communication (what would be communicated?). If you decided those were essential you'd have to support that beyond mere assertion.

hashem:
And a self, according to a dictionary, is:
a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality
and and individual is:
a single human being, as distinguished from a group, a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being

We don't have rights by virtue of our DNA, as you believe but have failed to prove.

The nature of human DNA is to build a human being which has self-direction and thereby self-ownership. DNA isn't the clincher for rights, but it does play a part of determining human nature. DNA does, however, prove you're an individual, separate human being--same is true of the fetus. If this weren't true, then what point makes one an individual? Birth? A child can be birthed at any point, in fact that point is continually moving earlier for survivability and may eventually be removed entirely. What then?

hashem:
You're just making that up which is why you refuse to provide any sort of honest reference and you feel threatened by mine.

Au contraire. My reference is reality. It's obvious that we control ourselves, it is a given. No one else could possibly control our body, so ownership is both absolute and inalienable.

hashem:
As pointed out above, we have rights when there is conflict over a scarce resource

This is only one application of rights. You're dropping the context of that application as if that were the only time one has rights. THat is incorrect. Rights are the concept we use to govern interaction between people. If both fetus and mother are people, then rights are at issue. Both are human. Furthermore, you cannot give me an example of a human being that does not have rights, nor can you offer any cogent rationale for why youth should take away human rights? You haven't addressed the age question once so far.

hashem:
(a fetus isn't capable of conflict, because it isn't capable of action)

Say a baby was born in a coma--incapable of action. Does that mean it deserves no rights and can be murdered at will?

You will not be able to escape the fact that human rights exist intrinsically and are not contingent on either action nor communication. You continually fail to consistently apply those principles.

If humans only had rights when acting or communicating then they would lose their rights when not doing both.

But human rights are not things that flick in or out of existence. They exist at all points in time as long as a person is ALIVE, and HUMAN.

hashem:
But that isn't the point, the point is that nobody has a right to retaliate against the mother because nobody's property was involved, and we're talking about PROPERTY RIGHTS, not random force and mob rule. Even if you believe abortion is murder, two wrongs don't make a right.

It is not a wrong to prosecute another for murder. Your value system is twisted, and it's clear you are simply saying anything you can to justify your predetermined conclusion, without any systematic or principled consistent stance.

hashem:

A fetus has already acquired its first property at the moment of conception, it's OWN BODY. How can you not see that.
Acquire: to come into possession or ownership of; get as one's own; to gain for oneself through one's actions or effort
A fetus cannot act, so it can't possess and therefore it can't own. PLUS, it is by definition NOT a self. Property also implies action.
Suppose the uncle of a newborn has died and left all of his fortune to the newborn. The newborn cannot act, cannot speak. Is he not therefore the owner? No, he is the owner of that fortune. There have been many newborns, even those not yet born, who were already wealthy. Your argument is not consistent therefore, as I can easily come up with an example where your principle does not hold.
To "come into possession" in the case of a fetus is the same thing as "come into existence." The moment it exists, it possesses its body. Its body from that point does not act consciously, but does in fact age biologically--if it did not it would die.
hashem:
And all of society has the right to punish murderers

No. Society doesn't have rights; individuals have rights.

Yes, but I think it's obvious that society is composed of individuals and my point was that every single person in a society has the right to punish murder, and they do so collectively under the auspices of law.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 9:44 AM

EDIT: Apologize for the large font, its not me making it huge.

Does that mean it deserves no rights
Fallacy, whether it deserves them or not is irrelevent. The question is whether it HAS them, and obviously it doesn't. Rights aren't something we give away when we feel all warm and emotional. Rights are a logical construct, and if the logic fails the rights are false. Maybe that seems harsh, but the attrocities that you justify by abandoning principle will be much worse.

You continually fail to consistently apply those principles.
No. I've proved AND applied principles logically and consistently. YOU have failed to prove anything except your ignorance and that you have a strong opinion.

They exist at all points in time as long as a person is ALIVE, and HUMAN.
That's a conclusion, not an argument, and mere opinion to boot. Present a logical argument derived from an axiom. Jumping from humans have human DNA > therefore humans have property rights, ignores the concepts of property and the concept of rights and probably violates all kinds of rules of logic that I'm too lazy to call out individually. Calling your opinion "reality" and then moving on won't do.

it's clear you are simply saying anything you can to justify your predetermined conclusion, without any systematic or principled consistent stance.
—Anenome, August 2011; in an argument where he would say anything to justifiy his predetermined conclusion without presenting any systematic evidence other than, admittedly, his opinion of "reality". Luckily, rights don't derive from his opinion of reality.

every single person in a society has the right to punish murder
Correction, every single person in a society has the right to punish murder when their property is involved. Remember, rights are property rights.

================================================================

The newborn cannot act, cannot speak. Is he not therefore the owner? No, he is the owner of that fortune.
True, he is not presently the owner, because it isn't clear that he understands the arrangement and has agreed to it voluntarily. The sorts of attrocities your system would lead to... However, certainly nobody else is the owner except for the temporary holder, the agent designated by the uncle to hold the fortune until such a time as the baby is free to make a judgement on whether he wants the fortune when he is capable of doing so. Having someone temporarily care for your inheretence is common in the example you mentioned, indeed it's a legal necessity, but you failed to mention that...
Your argument is not consistent therefore, as I can easily come up with an example where your principle does not hold.
You mean YOUR version of my argument. The examples you are using are fallacious in themselves, and they tend to expose your ignorance, and I mean that literally not as an offense.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 2:02 PM

hashem:

Does that mean it deserves no rights
Fallacy, whether it deserves them or not is irrelevent.

The question is whether it age can interfere with a human being's possession of rights. Address that.

hashem:

The question is whether it HAS them, and obviously it doesn't.

Once again your argument constitutes nothing more than assuming your case.

hashem:
Rights are a logical construct, and if the logic fails the rights are false. Maybe that seems harsh, but the attrocities that you justify by abandoning principle will be much worse.

Rights are not merely a logical construct, they are a legal aknowledgment of physical reality. Posession of a human body is a physical reality, not a construct. Rights or good or bad as legal definitions in accordance with how closely that reflect reality.

hashem:
They exist at all points in time as long as a person is ALIVE, and HUMAN.
That's a conclusion, not an argument, and mere opinion to boot. Present a logical argument derived from an axiom. Jumping from humans have human DNA > therefore humans have property rights, ignores the concepts of property and the concept of rights and probably violates all kinds of rules of logic that I'm too lazy to call out individually. Calling your opinion "reality" and then moving on won't do.

I did this. Systematically. I proved the fetus is alive. Proved it was individual. Proved it was human. Proved it possessed its own body. The rest follows. It has human rights, it owns its own body.

hashem:

—Anenome, August 2011; in an argument where he would say anything to justifiy his predetermined conclusion without presenting any systematic evidence other than, admittedly, his opinion of "reality". Luckily, rights don't derive from his opinion of reality.

Reality is reality. If you can argue against any of the observations of reality I listed, then do so. However, they are not mere opinions, they are facts of reality. It is not an opinion that DNA proves that the fetus is not of the same flesh, not of the same body, as the mother. It is not an opinion that no one controls a body except yourself, and that clearly a fetus is in control of its own body, both unconscious control and conscious control (that is, its DNA builds itself, not the mother, and its brain controls its kicking legs prebirth. Also, we know that fetuses have a limited form of consciousness prior to birth).

Your denial that reality must be our starting point just shows a failure of your epistemological method. All reasoning must begin from what reality shows or we have nothing.

hashem:
every single person in a society has the right to punish murder
Correction, every single person in a society has the right to punish murder when their property is involved. Remember, rights are property rights.

What are you talking about. Are you really this naive? How is anyone else's property disturbed when someone' murdered? Can you really not see that the corollary of this statement is that murder could never be prosecuted lawfully, because the only on that would have standing is the person who's been murdered? And you don't see how that invalidates your rationale utterly? The fact is, ANYONE can step in to protect another who is being aggressed against, not just in the cast of murder, but theft, physical harm, or any other aggression being foisted on a non-aggressor. To deny this is to show your extreme naivete in political philosophy.

hashem:
True, he is not presently the owner, because it isn't clear that he understands the arrangement and has agreed to it voluntarily. The sorts of attrocities your system would lead to...
Such as... what. Your seriously saying my system would lead to atrocities when you're the one sitting here saying murder shouldn't be punished by anyone?
 
hashem:
However, certainly nobody else is the owner except for the temporary holder, the agent designated by the uncle to hold the fortune until such a time as the baby is free to make a judgement on whether he wants the fortune when he is capable of doing so.
Exactly. So who has the duty of guardianship over the baby's body until they can come into conscious and intentional possession? The mother. Does the uncle in our example have the right to steal away the newborn's fortune just because he's the guardian of it? No. Neither does the mother have the right to thieve the child of its physical body by destroying it.
Thank you for proving my case and destroying your own in one single stroke.
 
hashem:
but you failed to mention that...
Your argument is not consistent therefore, as I can easily come up with an example where your principle does not hold.
You mean YOUR version of my argument. The examples you are using are fallacious in themselves, and they tend to expose your ignorance, and I mean that literally not as an offense.
Just because I don't accept normative ethics or the silly concept of acting/speaking as a conferral of rights doens't make me ignorant.
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Mon, Aug 15 2011 11:47 PM

The question is whether it age can interfere with a human being's possession of rights. Address that.
Property requires action regardless of age.

Once again your argument constitutes nothing more than assuming your case.
Coming from you that's funny.

Posession of a human body is a physical reality
Not for a fetus, which isn't capable of possession. The mother is the only one who can be said to possess the fetus and exercise direct and immediate control over it (as nature intended).

[I] Proved it was individual.
And the dictionary proved you wrong.

[I] Proved it possessed its own body.
No, you said it did. But I don't believe you. Define possession, and prove that a fetus is capable of it. Do SOMETHING besides stating your opinion or I'm done, this is boring.

Your seriously saying my system would lead to atrocities
The idea that a being who relies fully on a person's continued support, and who can communicate nothing, and who can't act, and who couldn't understand action, and who doesn't need to act, and who is manifestly not an individual, can have not only property, but property rights, more rights than his host, is the most attrocious misconception of property and rights I've seen.

So who has the duty of guardianship over the baby's body until they can come into conscious and intentional possession?
Exactly. Nobody who doesn't want to, unless you advocate slavery (one of the attrocities implicit in your system).

Neither does the mother have the right to thieve the child of its physical body by destroying it.
The fetus doesn't have property rights, and by definition it doesn't (and can't) own a body.

Just because I don't accept normative ethics or the silly concept of acting/speaking as a conferral of rights doens't make me ignorant.
No, being ignorant makes you ignorant. Please, use some references/sources or we're done.

Thank you for proving my case and destroying your own in one single stroke.
Wow arrogant...

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Aug 16 2011 2:25 AM

hashem:

Property requires action regardless of age.

This is a very general assertion. Care to support? In what way does "property require action"? I can give you some easy examples where title / ownership can pass to another without any action on their party. For instance, someone can be left money in a will, and the moment that person dies the person named in the will now owns what's been left to them. Where's the action there.

A fetus is freely given its body by both father and mother and then supported in life by the mother.

hashem:
Posession of a human body is a physical reality
Not for a fetus, which isn't capable of possession. The mother is the only one who can be said to possess the fetus and exercise direct and immediate control over it (as nature intended).

Is the fetus human? If so you're supporting the idea of slavery or ownership of human beings. If the fetus is human, why can't it own or possess things? Clearly it possesses its own body, for if it does not possess its body then it is not alive. Clearly it is alive. The mother in fact biologically exerts no control over the body of the fetus. The fetus constructus itself from nutrients passed to it by the mother's body.

If you agree that the fetus is human then you need to explain why being merely young means it can't own or possess anything. If the fetus is not human, according to you, you need to explain what principle or fact of reality makes it human at what point and why that would be.

hashem:
Proved it possessed its own body.
No, you said it did. But I don't believe you.

Naturally. And yet it does, as a fact of biology, own and possess its own body. As a human it cannot be owned by anyone else. As a living being it owns its own body as all living beings do. Control is a function of ownership, and no one but the being inside a body can control that body, proving self-ownership. This is simple phsyical reality, unassaibly so.

hashem:
Define possession, and prove that a fetus is capable of it. Do SOMETHING besides stating your opinion or I'm done, this is boring.

All I'm asking you to do is to admit what's plain from reality itself. A human being cannot be owned by anyone but itself. If you disagree with that--you're not a humanist. If you submit it's not a human being--you face the bald facts of reality, that a fetus possesses human DNA and cannot be anything by human. If you try to submit it's not alive--you face the fact that it is biologically alive.

These are not opinions, these are the facts of reality and their consequences and logical corollaries. Facts you're incapable of arguing against because they are objective realities.

hashem:
Your seriously saying my system would lead to atrocities
The idea that a being who relies fully on a person's continued support, and who can communicate nothing, and who can't act, and who couldn't understand action, and who doesn't need to act, and who is manifestly not an individual, can have not only property, but property rights, more rights than his host, is the most attrocious misconception of property and rights I've seen.

This idea of having "more rights than the mother" is a ridiculous assertion. I attack abortion on the principle of wholly equal rights. One human being cannot lawfully kill another human being.

Beyond which, the mother has accepted the existence of the child by engaging in an act which leads to pregnancy. Therefore it is not an abridgment of the mother's right to herself and her body. Even were it a product of rape, the guilty party would be the rapist, not the resulting child.

You're suggesting a world where murder is acceptable and doing all you can to sidestep the fact of it.

hashem:
So who has the duty of guardianship over the baby's body until they can come into conscious and intentional possession?
Exactly. Nobody who doesn't want to, unless you advocate slavery (one of the attrocities implicit in your system).

So if a caretaker is taking care of an elderly person and they don't want to anymore, they can simply walk away and allow the elderly patient to die without moral culpability? How is that any good.

hashem:
Neither does the mother have the right to thieve the child of its physical body by destroying it.
The fetus doesn't have property rights, and by definition it doesn't (and can't) own a body.

Seriously, more unsupported assertions. Do you have any rationale, any pricniple for this belief at all. Any at all.

hashem:
Please, use some references/sources or we're done.

As I said, my reference is reality itself. The ultimate reference. I need no other.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Tue, Aug 16 2011 9:13 AM

This is a very general assertion. Care to support? In what way does "property require action"?
The definition of property. Non-acting, uncommunicating beings can't acquire property, not that they would have any property rights either way.

A fetus is freely given its body by both father and mother and then supported in life by the mother.
Unless and until it isn't.

If so you're supporting the idea of slavery or ownership of human beings.
Slavey is a violation of property rights, which a fetus can't have.

If the fetus is human, why can't it own or possess things?
Because it can't act, and doesn't need to act. We're going in circles...

The mother in fact biologically exerts no control over the body of the fetus.
This is empirically wrong. The mother, in plain fact, is the only person who exerts direct and immediate control, and therefore possession, of the fetus. Ownership is the right to possess, possession is the fact of direct and immediate control.

If you agree that the fetus is human then you need to explain why being merely young means it can't own or possess anything. If the fetus is not human, according to you, you need to explain what principle or fact of reality makes it human at what point and why that would be.
Human rights are fallacious, as you've demonstrated quite thoroughly. Only property rights are consistent (and only property rights can be proved from an axiom). A fetus can't have property.

A human being cannot be owned by anyone but itself.
Because it has a property and a property right in its self. None of these mean anything to a fetus.

I attack abortion on the principle of wholly equal rights.
Then you start from a fallacy, as I've demonstrated. A fetus doesn't have rights.

You're suggesting a world where murder is acceptable and doing all you can to sidestep the fact of it.
No. I'm saying a fetus doesn't have property rights, and that nobody else has a property right in the matter. Nearly all murders can involve property and therefore someone can prosecute. This isn't true for a fetus.

So if a caretaker is taking care of an elderly person and they don't want to anymore, they can simply walk away and allow the elderly patient to die without moral culpability? How is that any good.
Fallacy, we're talking about property rights not the morals of dealing with the elderly. Under no circumstances is slavery permissible, and this is no exception. That's the point of libertarianism: there are no exceptions, not for fetuses, and not for grandmas. Rights are property rights, for individual, thinking, acting humans.

Do you have any rationale, any pricniple for this belief at all. Any at all.
Unlike you, yes, a dictionary, which I referenced several times above (you must have ignored it) and which I've directed you to repeatedly.

As I said, my reference is reality itself. The ultimate reference. I need no other.
Then, as Rothbard said, you can argue with yourself.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Tue, Aug 16 2011 9:40 AM

So if a caretaker is taking care of an elderly person and they don't want to anymore, they can simply walk away and allow the elderly patient to die without moral culpability? How is that any good.

I disagree that there are "natural caretakers," at least in the sense of old people. Family ties do not mean that you must care for your relatives. If you enter into a contract, yes. But there is no natural obligation. The only place where natural obligations could exist is parents toward children, and that is because children aren't completely self-sufficient. But even there I am hesitant to say that there are obligations past say age 10, IF there are any at all.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 217
Points 4,480
Seraiah replied on Wed, Aug 17 2011 10:16 PM

Anenome
I agree with your point on that, but I have been specifically excluding cases of non-consensual sex, altho I feel the NAP still applies as you do. The aggressor in that situation is the rapist whom should be punished, not the non-aggressor child that may result.

I guess we're on the same page then. Though I disagree with some positions off topic, including the idea that the non-aggression principle would be important in a place with no scarcity.
Though I think it's just semantics, really. A place with no scarcity is hardly concievable as you'd have to imagine a world in which you were not restricted to any one place, to any one body, to any one mindset. In fact a place with no scarcity is impossible to differentiate from an absolute vacuum in space, and certainly the NAP would serve no purpose there. Heck, it couldn't even exist, as the formulation of ideas implies scarcity.

So I guess that's just a drawn out way of saying I think you have a very firm handle on why libertarianism and pro-choice can't co-exist without assuming a new (unnecessary) axiom.

hashem
Ownership is the right to possess, possession is the fact of direct and immediate control.


I challenge you to more thoroughly defend this, as I suspect you don't actually believe it.

I would also like you to show me where one first turns into a human being, and what happens in that moment that turns the valueless mass of flesh into a human being.

"...Bitcoin [may] already [be] the world's premiere currency, if we take ratio of exchange to commodity value as a measure of success ... because the better that ratio the more valuable purely as money that thing must be" -Anenome
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Aug 17 2011 10:26 PM

I challenge you to more thoroughly defend this, as I suspect you don't actually believe it.

That's an arbitrary rebuttal... Can you explain what you believe he doesn't believe?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 217
Points 4,480
Seraiah replied on Wed, Aug 17 2011 10:30 PM

He stated that a person cannot own that which he does not have immediate and direct control over.

"...Bitcoin [may] already [be] the world's premiere currency, if we take ratio of exchange to commodity value as a measure of success ... because the better that ratio the more valuable purely as money that thing must be" -Anenome
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Aug 17 2011 11:22 PM

I challenge you to more thoroughly defend this, as I suspect you don't actually believe it.
See a dictionary, and yes I believe it. Follow the quotes to see Anenome's original objections to my points.

I would also like you to show me where one first turns into a human being
I'm not interested in "human" rights. Rights are property rights, and a fetus can't have property, BY DEFINITION.

He stated that a person cannot own that which he does not have immediate and direct control over.
I challenge you to more thoroughly defend this, as it's a misrepresentation of what I said. Notice the importance of distinguishing between own and possess.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Fri, Aug 19 2011 9:33 AM

BY DEFINITION

While we're yelling out dictionary definitions: ANARCHY

See? Dictionaries can't be relied on because they are influenced by how the public twists ideas. We should be defining words ourselves.

He stated that a person cannot own that which he does not have immediate and direct control over.

I doubt that, and hence:

it's a misrepresentation of what I said

That's why I asked you (Seriah) to clarify, because I believed you hadn't understood his point.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Fri, Aug 19 2011 8:06 PM

The anarchy response is a red herring. Hardly anyone agrees on what anarchy means. That isn't true for concepts like property. The role of property in libertarianism is nearly undisputed in my understanding. Disagreements are usually about the application and implications of libertarian fundamentals more than what property is, or what it means to act. Besides, I don't think anyone is disputing the meanings of words here, they are just too scared/lazy to admit the implications/requirements. I cannot be blamed for the manifest ignorance around here.

I think I have a unique and, humbly, the most consistent and potent case for abortion I've come across. A fetus doesn't meet the requirements for property rights, and nobody has a property right in the matter such that they can retaliate against the mother or her property. Simple, yet groundbreaking, unless I've failed to read something, which I may well have done. But I take it further:

Once the fetus is born (individual) and acting (and therefore a self-owner), it can be killed (the killing at this point is murder) yet nobody can retaliate (because nobody has a property right in the matter). This doesn't mean the markets are forbidden to find proper solutions to the problem; indeed, solving problem is  what free markets do. I don't believe in taking the lazy way out, abandoning principle and enacting arbitrary man-made laws because were too lazy to find nature's answer.

All the objections to my view have been arbitrary and in strict defiance of elementary libertarian fundamentals. The authors were either too lazy to find an axiom from which to follow logic to the proper derivatives and implications, or they were too scared to confront the natural truth.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 46
Points 830
Monk-Eye replied on Sun, Aug 21 2011 5:08 PM

"Constitutional Review Of Abortion"

At the inception of the constitution, when natural freedoms are exchanged for wrights of citizenship, the citizen is the sole, primary, principle and exclusive recipient of protections as constructed through the legalism of its constitution.

The 14th amendment directly implies that a citizen receives wrights at birth; thus, the point of inception whereby the state concerns itself with an obligation to reprise a violation to a wright to life begins for a citizen at birth.

According to the 14th amendment, the extension of equal protection to any other being, whether it be described as a person, a non-citizen, or otherwise, cannot have any greater rights than that of a citizen.

Since a citizen must be born to receive protected wrights, any other being must also be born to receive protected wrights, else that other would be receiving greater wrights rather than those received by that of a citizen.

The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

Ultimately, through judicial activism, Roe V Wade modified the meaning of birth from parturition to viability, which was estimated to begin at the end of the second trimester.

Viability is consistent on a time line with the onset of foetal pain as evidenced from the JAMA, which concludes a necessary presence for thalamocortical radiations.

Pain implies the onset of sentience, and sentience is a prerequisite for sapience, as a minimum prerequisite for conscientious objection by a foetus, which is philosophical birth, whereby a foetus may initially qualify as a legal victim that may be represented by legal proxy.

Otherwise, by constitution and philosophical reason, prior to birth, the foetus is the private property of the mother, by intrinsic possession, for which privacy protections of the constitution apply.

Unborn foetal protection laws must be consistent with the constitution, and any law must define violations and penalties as consequences to actions against the mother, which may include elevated penalties for special circumstances.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sun, Aug 21 2011 5:42 PM

FIrst of all, you seem to think that we would like to remain within the framework of the constitution. On these forums, we are generally talking about idealized situations, not ones that necessarily fall within the confines of the Constitution.

If you are so concerned about the document, well, then, we could use emininent domain and pay women for their fetuses. The government has the power to do either thing when it comes down to abortion.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 46
Points 830
Monk-Eye replied on Sun, Aug 21 2011 6:17 PM

Wheylous,

Assuredly, such is why my spelling of the term wrights is as it is; all constitutional wrights are founded upon legal positivism of a written document.

Obviously, libertarianism is inclined to debate inalienable wrights that are better termed idealized conjuctures, as inalienable wrights are founded upon perspectivism and not upon any incumbency or mandate of nature.

Indeed, wrights only exist because there is an entity capable of reprising a violation of their conditions.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sun, Aug 21 2011 6:44 PM

Ok. My argument for it being constitutional for government to prevent abortions is still applicable.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 46
Points 830
Monk-Eye replied on Sun, Aug 21 2011 7:32 PM

"Legal Realism"

It depends, if you are asserting that a constitution could be implemented that outlawed abortion, then such is possible.

The principal claims of modern legal positivism are that:

  • There is not any inherent or necessary association between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality.
  • Laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings.

However, it is incorrect to assert that abortion is illegal according to the current US constitution; it is very much legal.

Moreover, my opinion is that Roe v Wade is also ethical and moral, in that its ruling is coincidental with philosophical birth - sentience.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sun, Aug 21 2011 11:13 PM

I'm not saying the Constitution prohibits abortion. I'm saying the Constitution allows the government to prohibit it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 206
Points 3,855

Bert:
LOL.  Sounds like something from Pat Robertson.

... And that's the long and short of the pro-abortion argument.  God forbid one gets accused of being a "Christian" because they think a viable fetal human being has a right NOT to get its brains sucked out or chopped up with a pair of tin-snips, in order to protect a woman's "right" to have casual sex in a consequence-free environment.

Bert:
Unless all those Bible thumping Christians want to adopt all those potentially aborted and aborted children themselves they better pipe down

There's that horrific "Christian" accusation again.  In every state, there are numerous couples who wait years to adopt.  That adoption process, of course, is administered by... the State, who considers it the height of Malthusian, jack-booted efficiency to promote abortion instead.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 46
Points 830
Monk-Eye replied on Mon, Aug 22 2011 6:36 AM

"Know Thing To Feel Sorrow"

An amendment to the United States Constitution must be ratified by 75% of the state legislatures (or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states), before it can come into effect.

Fictional ishmaelism laudes democracy because its purpose is to dispatch the constitution and replace it with its own theocratic state, per doctrine, and per its history. 

Even though, jurisprudence of its tradition allows abortion until a time known as the "quickening", when a fetus is thought to become animated and it starts moving around.

Verily, my statements regarding sentience are significant because without sentience there is nothing by which one may equate a possibility for empathy through an understanding of shared experience.

All abhorrence prior to sentience is baseless legislation of morality that is without standing for a legitimate victim, who through its own self awareness may issue conscientious objection.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Thu, Sep 8 2011 8:29 PM

hashem:
The question is whether it HAS them, and obviously it doesn't.

Stop assuming your own argument is true and build an actual train of reasoning. Please. If I say a festus is a human being and therefore has rights and your reply is "well obviously it doesn't have rights" then you only look ridiculous.

hashem:
Rights are a logical construct, and if the logic fails the rights are false.

Incorrect. Rights are a legal recognition of a physical reality. They are not mere "logical constructs" because a construct is inherently subjective, and I'm arguing for an objective standard of rights based on reality. No other standard of rights is worth considering, just as no other standard of mathematics besides the one that actually reflects reality is worth considering (ie: a mathematics where, for instance, 2+2=5, etc., would not be useful for any application).

What's needed is objective law built on recognition of reality and a consistent application of the same in a legal framework. I therefore consider your main fault to be a faulty epistemology. You don't know where rights come from. You do not understand the concept of rights well enough to be rational about them and apply them consistently.

hashem:
Maybe that seems harsh, but the attrocities that you justify by abandoning principle will be much worse.

The atrocities of a subjective epistemology and its effects on rights are well established in the various communist and nazi atrocities of the past. To think you could answer those atrocities with a subjective view of rights of your own is silly.

hashem:
They exist at all points in time as long as a person is ALIVE, and HUMAN.
That's a conclusion, not an argument, and mere opinion to boot.

Incorrect. I've given you numerous statements virtually in syllogistic form, something you've refused to do.

You already agree that living human beings own themselves, so we can start there: a living human being owns itself. A fetus is both living and a human being. Therefore it owns itself.

And again, if your argument is that being a fetus removes its right to itself, you must prove rationally why mere age removes its right to itself, because age is the only difference between a living human fetus and you or me, whom obviously do our ourselves. You have consistently failed to even address this point.

You objected that the fetus is not living. However this conflicts with reality--the fetus quite clearly has a body of its own engaged in the biologic processes of life maintained by its own cells.

You objected that the fetus is not human. However, DNA doesn't lie. Nor does biology (again, reality refutes you). The product of a human sexual coupling can only be a human being. Human beings have never conceived any other type of living organism than humans beings, thus it is certainly a human being. Should that not be enough to convince you, one need only test the cells. They will have 46 human chromosomes, unless diseased in some manner, and then will be diseased human cells, not diseased "x-animal" cells.

You objected that the fetus was not separate from the mother or not individual. However this is false. The fetus does not intermingle its blood supply with the mother--in fact it cannot as it will often have a differing and incompatible blood type. Similarly, if the fetus and mother are the same entity then you have to contradiction of a mother being both male and female, having four ovaries, etc., ridiculousness. But again, biological reality refutes you: the DNA of the child's cells are different from the DNA of the mother's cells, proving it is a separate biological organism--from the point of conception.

hashem:
Luckily, rights don't derive from his opinion of reality.

They derive from the facts of reality. Facts you have not objected to, and indeed cannot object to. It is not an "opinion of reality" that the fetus is alive, human, and separate/individual. Reality refutes you.

hashem:
Correction, every single person in a society has the right to punish murder when their property is involved. Remember, rights are property rights.

Again, a society's legal system can punish a murderer, even if the murdered person does not rise from the grave to sue them (duh). Your misapplication of this principle is obvious when you try to apply it consistently. If only murdered people could sue to punish the murderer, then murder could not be punished within society. This obviously is not the case. A legal system has the right to stop the initiation of aggression no matter whom it is being foisted upon, and any outside independent person has a right to foil the initiation of aggression as well. This is why it's moral and ethical for a person to stop a robbery. He is not being robbed, but he can use force to stop one in progress. The fact that you cannot integrate this concept into your thinking on this subject should give you pause.

hashem:

The newborn cannot act, cannot speak. Is he not therefore the owner? No, he is the owner of that fortune.
True, he is not presently the owner, because it isn't clear that he understands the arrangement and has agreed to it voluntarily.
Title has passed to him already. He need not understand nor agree to that title transfer. Adults can become owners before they realize it as well. If your father passes away and gives you a house in his will, you own the house the moment the father dies. However, suppose you don't find out your father has died for a few days. Is the house ownerless during that period? No, you own the house, you just don't know it yet. And if, during that period, someone vadalizes the house or burns it down, are you not entitled to redress? Of course you are.
Hashem, this is really foolish, poorly thought out, inconsistent thinking on your part!
 
hashem:
However, certainly nobody else is the owner except for the temporary holder, the agent designated by the uncle to hold the fortune until such a time as the baby is free to make a judgement on whether he wants the fortune when he is capable of doing so. Having someone temporarily care for your inheretence is common in the example you mentioned, indeed it's a legal necessity, but you failed to mention that...
I did not fail to mention it, it is simply irrelevant. A caretaker is not an owner. In the example I just gave previous to this paragraph, I show a situation where no caretaker is needed after inheritance, thus invalidating this last objection of yours.
 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Thu, Sep 8 2011 10:03 PM

Anenome:
hashem:
The question is whether it HAS them, and obviously it doesn't.

Stop assuming your own argument is true and build an actual train of reasoning.

Except I did, and so I wasn't assuming. It's your view, based on so called "reality", which is assumed since you've repeatedly failed to supply any credible sources or citations.

Anenome:
[Rights aren't a logical construct.]

You're answer was wrong, but my point was that if you can't justify rights logically, then your argument is useless (as opposed to whether or not the rights you believe in are "proper"). Also I was addressing the application of rights, which must also be logically consistent. Ultimately, my position is axiomatic and logically consistent, whereupon the application of these rights is also perfectly consistent. There is no logical or truth to your view except that it's your opinion of "reality".

Anenome:
To think you could answer those atrocities with a subjective view of rights of your own is silly.

Again, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Anenome:
You already agree that living human beings own themselves, so we can start there: a living human being owns itself.

A) No. I don't agree, that's the whole contention between us.
B) No. We can't start there. You have to know what "own" is, and where it comes from, and why. Which means you have to have a theory of "property" which is what is being owned. A theory of property is necessarily a theory of rights, so you have to justify those.

Merely being alive and human isn't the justification.

My whole point is that none of this applies to a non-acting, non-communicating, non-self, non-owning, incomprehinsible fetus.

Anenome:
hashem:
Correction, every single person in a society has the right to punish murder when their property is involved. Remember, rights are property rights.

Again, a society's legal system can punish a murderer, even if the murdered person does not rise from the grave to sue them (duh). Your misapplication of this principle is obvious when you try to apply it consistently.

lol. You obviously didn't read my previous answers where I pointed out that anyone who had a property claim could prosecute.

Anenome:
A legal system has the right to stop the initiation of aggression no matter whom it is being foisted upon, and any outside independent person has a right to foil the initiation of aggression as well.

No. Rights are property rights. Nobody has any right when their property isn't involved.

Anenome:
No, you own the house, you just don't know it yet.

This almost tops the other absurd things you've said. It also demonstrates—yet again—an ignorance of and inability to apply concepts of own and property.

As for the context, you must have—yet again—missed my previous answer. If the father wants to leave the house uncared for in the meantime, in his own contractual arrangments, that's his choice. The child doesn't own it unless he chooses to own it—that doesn't mean anyone other than the persons appointed by the deceased father can claim it before he is capable of making that choice.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Sep 9 2011 2:43 AM

hashem:

Except I did, and so I wasn't assuming. It's your view, based on so called "reality", which is assumed since you've repeatedly failed to supply any credible sources or citations.

If reality is not credible to you, you've got much larger problems than I had at first thought.

Again, a person owns themselves by nature. Ownership is an abstraction of control. A person both possesses and totally controls the physical body they inhabit. We take this as self-evident. If you cannot accept this statement of the facts, then you're simply not being rational. It is the life inside the body that both possesses and controls the materials which make up the body. This life produces the consciousness we have, yet we need not BE conscious to both possess and control our body. If this were not true then we would neither possess nor control our body when not conscious. Since it's obvious that we still possess and control our body when unconscious, and that no one else can possess nor control our body when we are unconscious, consciousness and ability to act clearly have nothing to do with self-ownership. At. All.

hashem:
my point was that if you can't justify rights logically

Again, rights are the legal recognition of a physical reality. You own your body, own your life. A right to self-determination aligns itself with what you already have by nature--self-ownership. Rights can be discovered and codified by observation of human nature. Furthermore, rights are necessitated by reality. You cannot live if you cannot own property, because you must be able to dispose of food for your sole use, etc. It's one of the reasons why the attempt to abolish private ownership is doomed to fail, because humankind is by nature an owner, both of themselves and of the things they need to survive and work.

hashem:
, then your argument is useless (as opposed to whether or not the rights you believe in are "proper"). Also I was addressing the application of rights, which must also be logically consistent. Ultimately, my position is axiomatic and logically consistent, whereupon the application of these rights is also perfectly consistent. There is no logical or truth to your view except that it's your opinion of "reality".

You have this strange idea that a right can only exist by speaking or cognition, or something dumb like that? Whatever it was? Yet, when it's pointed out to you that those who cannot act and cannot speak still have a right to life, you have no answer. Therefore, you are neither consistent, nor is your view of rights a good one. You're not worth discussing with further. You're incapable of integrating your own ideas and applying them consistently, and incapable of addressing problematic situations your ideas raise. Therefore, you're not being serious.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Sadly, I think MonkEye in his ramblings (so they appear in many posts) may have struck on something fundamental:

Self-ownership needs sentience. Sentience is not developed at conception. It is developed sometime later (I think it is mentioned in some of the above posts).

The abortion question can only come into play after sentience. Before that, the fetus actually is simply matter within the woman that she has control over.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Fri, Sep 9 2011 9:02 AM

Again, a person owns themselves by nature.
Again, we're going in circles. I've agreed that human nature is to own one's self—once they are selves and once they are capable of owning. A fetus isn't and doesn't.

A fetus can't and doesn't have property rights; it can't even have property and therefore doesn't have property rights. This is implied in the definitions of own and property as I pointed out above.

Anenome:
hashem:
my point was that if you can't justify rights logically

Again, rights are the legal recognition of a physical reality.

And if your understanding of reality is correct, the logical is necessarily—by definition—true. If I find fault in your logic, especially at the principle and fundamental levels, then your case falls apart; this is called arguing and debate. Your view isn't axiomatic, and it isn't logical (this is reinforced by your repeated refusal to provide credible citations). I understand YOUR view, now I want to see if anyone worth listening to actually believes it enough to flesh it out logically and systematically. I think that secretly you have no sources to cite, because nobody worth listening to has ignored all the fallacies in your reasoning and spent such time in ignorance writing a logical axiomatic systematic treatise on the matter.

You have this strange idea that a right can only exist by speaking or cognition, or something dumb like that? Whatever it was?
My point exactly: you don't know my position because you haven't read any of the sources I provided or even read my own words (as evidenced by your repeatedly asking questions which I've already answered).

No. It's not a dumb idea. If you don't like the idea, feel free to attack the axioms and prove that it's wrong, and not just "dumb".

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Sep 9 2011 11:34 PM

hashem:
Again, a person owns themselves by nature.
Again, we're going in circles. I've agreed that human nature is to own one's self—once they are selves and once they are capable of owning. A fetus isn't and doesn't.

It is not merely human nature, is is a fact of reality. And again, your idea that one must be conscious, speak, or act to own something is completely fallacious, and you've refused to support it rationally.

hashem:
A fetus can't and doesn't have property rights; it can't even have property and therefore doesn't have rights.

Here again you've simply assumed your argument and restated it without support. Why don't you explain your theory of ownership then. If it's human, and alive, then it owns itself. Anything else would be slavery.

hashem:
Your view isn't axiomatic, and it isn't logical (this is reinforced by your repeated refusal to provide credible citations).

Again, this is a silly critique on your part. Previously you agree that it was in the nature of a human being to own themselves. THAT is axiomatic, that is the philosophic primary in this case. It is self-evident, and needs no source to be cited since it is obvious on its face. Besides which, any source you could quote must themselves eventually reference reality as well, and if they don't they have a faulty epistemology and aren't worth studying, so why not cut out the middleman.

hashem:
I understand YOUR view, now I want to see if anyone worth listening to actually believes it enough to flesh it out logically and systematically. I think that secretly you have no sources to cite, because nobody worth listening to has ignored all the fallacies in your reasoning and spent such time in ignorance writing a logical axiomatic systematic treatise on the matter.

Actually, I've borrowed much from Rand, especially her epistemology--that if you aren't build from reality you're building on nothing.

hashem:
You have this strange idea that a right can only exist by speaking or cognition, or something dumb like that? Whatever it was?
My point exactly: you don't know my position because you haven't read any of the sources I provided or even read my own words (as evidenced by your repeatedly asking questions which I've already answered).

I skimmed. And quickly assertained they were ridiculous and required no further study. We've provided you with numerous problems with your point of view and you've ignored them all. It's a stunning feat of intellectual evasion on your part, really.

hashem:
No. It's not a dumb idea. If you don't like the idea, feel free to attack the axioms and prove that it's wrong, and not just "dumb".

We did. We explained how the corrolaries of your standards of rights and ownership are inconsistent. We showed how a person with no ability to act still has a right to life, how someone with no ability to speak still has a right to life, how somebody who has received something from a parent without any action on their own can still own property, showed how a person who lacked all the things you said were essential still could not be killed morally.

But seriously man, at this point you're just a troll. You are arguing in bad faith and unwilling to answer challenges to your philosophical assertions. As I said, you aren't arguing seriously.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sat, Sep 10 2011 10:27 AM

What about myyyy comment?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 46
Points 830
Monk-Eye replied on Sat, Sep 10 2011 1:05 PM

"Sophisticated Apes With Overinulgent Egocentrism"

 

** Prerequisite for Sapience to be Homo Sapiens Sapiens **

Wheylous, through years of online discourse, the legal pundits from the anti-choice camp have abandoned a notion that Roe v. Wade is not consistent with the constition although vestiges of uninformed groups remain.

Thus, the latest restrictive legislation on abortion has been forwarded upon sentience and the timeline for sentience is contentious, for whereas JAMA states that sentience is not physically possible before the 23rd week, which is consistent with viability according to Roe v Wade, the latest efforts are to outlaw the procedure after 20 weeks.

http://an-uncommon-scold.newsvine.com/_news/2011/09/03/7590826-woman-files-first-lawsuit-challenging-fetal-pain-laws

"Mother tamarins do not have an easy job. Gestation is long — about 150 days — and they usually have twins, and those twins are usually big. It's up to the mother to carry that double load around until the babies are old enough to navigate the forest canopy themselves. The only thing that makes the work tolerable is that tamarin troops cooperate to rear young, but the conditions have to be right. There must be plenty of males to do the protecting and provisioning, and there can't be too many other females with babies of their own that also require attention.

...
The explanation for such pitiless behavior is as cold as it is unavoidable: tamarin mothers are simply very good at balancing their genetic ledgers and know when they're heading for a loss. If they're raising babies that have a poor chance of surviving anyway, why make a pointless investment of time, resources and calories trying to keep them alive? Better to cut their losses, bag the babies and wait for a better season to breed."
 
 
  • | Post Points: 20
Previous | Next
Page 4 of 6 (204 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > | RSS