Malachi:The fetus is an individual human being, that cannot be said of felines or canines.
fetus is NOT a human being. An acorn is NOT an oak. Stop making shit up.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
JackCuyler: no more an individual, than a dog or cat is "individual" No less of one either. Biologically speaking, a zygote is a spearate organism, and continues to be so as it grows. This nothing to do with ownership, as that was addressed later in my post. It was only to point out one of the flaws in hashem's argument -- the claim that the unborn is somehow part of the parent, rather than being a separate organism living inside of the partent.
no more an individual, than a dog or cat is "individual"
No less of one either. Biologically speaking, a zygote is a spearate organism, and continues to be so as it grows. This nothing to do with ownership, as that was addressed later in my post. It was only to point out one of the flaws in hashem's argument -- the claim that the unborn is somehow part of the parent, rather than being a separate organism living inside of the partent.
ok then.
I think it's rather misleading to call something an "individual" if he/she isn't human and is not independent from host (mother).
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Chimpanzees share most of our DNA but we do not call them human.
There is nothing individual about a fetus. To call a fetus an individual is the height of absurdity. It is both physically connected to the mother with live tissue, and entirely dependent on the mothers faculties and continued support.
This fact is so obvious it's amazing you continue to deny it. Consider another angle: If we SEPARATE fetus from mother, by severing the support cord of live tissue that joins them, the fetus will die, because it is connected to the mother which supports it. Like any other body part of the mother, if you cut it off, it dies, because it is a part of the mother and relies on her body's support.
A fetus is many things, but an individual isn't one of them. What a magnificent twist of the meaning of individual, to call a fetus individual. I would dare say a fetus is the diametric opposite of an indivudal—a fetus is manifestly dependent and, most importantly, physically connected to its support apparatus with a cord of living tissue.
I will address other objections, but that is all I have to say about the fetus being an individual. It is ludicrous.
You provided quotes on past libertarian's beliefs about children's rights. I was referring to quotes on the origin of rights, on the concept of property and the role that being an individual plays in having property rights. My point was that, if you quote these things, you will be proving my point: that property rights and their foundations are entirely innapplicable to fetuses.
The potantial for a zygote to rationally act is a matter of time and nothing more. Outrageous. The potential for a rock to rationally act is a matter of time and nothing more. But obviously, lots of things can happen during that time, for example the mother may stop supporting the baby, whereupon we discover the fetus actually had no potential except what it was expropriating from the mother.
First, the unborn is an individual, separate from the parent. This is a biological fact. Your disgreements on this are strictly emotional pleas. Please, define individual. Also, and this is the important part, please provide a quote, preferably several, where were the word individual is used in context with a discussion on the origin/function etc of property rights qua property rights. It is not enough to know what dictionaries say about it (enough alone to prove a fetus is not an individual by any long stretch), but it is important to know WHY ONLY INDIVIDUALS have property rights.
The child acquiring debt has nothing to do with restitution claims. Again preposterous. Rights are property rights. NOBODY has ANY rights, except when their PROPERTY is involved. If you have a claim against your fathers murderer, it was because your father was in debt to you, not because you owned the father. lol....... I'm actually chuckling......
Same with a baby. Nobody owns the baby, because it is a self-owner. Nobody therefore has any property claim against the baby's body. They may argue a claim on things the baby uses, but that is getting off the topic of abortion.
...Yeah, because they only share most of our DNA. The "fetus" has its own, unique, human DNA. It is a human being in its early, fetal state. So long as the human organism consumes nutrients, it will grow from the fetal state to little baby to adolescence and sexual maturity to shriveled old human. Saying it's not a human being, and that it only has "potential" to be a human being (or, for that matter, an individual), is obfuscation.
Whether it should be considered an individual is another question. Whether we should be concerned with individuals or human beings is still another question.
Michael J Green: Chimpanzees share most of our DNA but we do not call them human. ...Yeah, because they only share most of our DNA. The "fetus" has its own, unique, human DNA. It is a human being in its early, fetal state. So long as the human organism consumes nutrients, it will grow from the fetal state to little baby to adolescence and sexual maturity to shriveled old human. Saying it's not a human being, and that it only has "potential" to be a human being (or, for that matter, an individual), is obfuscation. Whether it should be considered an individual is another question. Whether we should be concerned with individuals or human beings is still another question.
saying it is a human being only is obfuscation. If it is such a human, then remove this damn human from woman's body and let him live on his own. But but but what? It is not HUMAN and it is not independent creature. It's part of woman's body and is her property until the day of birth. The end.
Of course, if one prefers defining human as a fetus, ok, so I guess now it is all about definitions. I define human as an independet rational animal. Growing cells in womans body are not human (I mean, it shares human properties, but not a fully developed human).
If whatever was relevant enough to fight back, assert, will, or whatever to the woman's action she happened to be doing at the time she thought pleasurable - it would assert itself and be a part of the order of things - that's all that matters. I would say that is a main point of "human action"
Rights, "abortion as a thing", "murder as a thing" are irrelevant, they are non factors and just something an individual places into perspective against what they deem to be the expectations of relevant forces in their lives in relation to their means and ends. This is just custom i.e. fashion trends - what sells, etc.y
If abortion is fashionable it will happen, if not it won't - why? Because if someone can do an action they deem pleasurable/ satisfying and it is doable- they will do it.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I define human as an independet rational animal. Growing cells in womans body are not human (I mean, it shares human properties, but not a fully developed human).
From reading your signature, I think this may be a lanuage barrier. Human = Homo sapiens, nothing more. It is a species. The zygote, fetus, etc, is a human because it is a member of the species Homo sapiens. If you draw blood from a fetus, it will be human blood accoring to every possible test. It is not a "part of" the mother becaus it is a separate organism, with different DNA. Again, blood tests will show that the fetus and mother are 1) both human, 2) different humans.
The only differences between a fetus and an infant is the source of nourishment and the ability to deal with the elements.
JackCuyler:. If you draw blood from a fetus, it will be human blood accoring to every possible test. It is not a "part of" the mother becaus it is a separate organism, with different DNA. Again, blood tests will show that the fetus and mother are 1) both human, 2) different humans.
Tangential science fact. Have you guys heard of Human Chimera's ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) short story. A person can have different parts of their own body with different DNA to each other.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
JackCuyler: I define human as an independet rational animal. Growing cells in womans body are not human (I mean, it shares human properties, but not a fully developed human). From reading your signature, I think this may be a lanuage barrier. Human = Homo sapiens, nothing more. It is a species. The zygote, fetus, etc, is a human because it is a member of the species Homo sapiens. If you draw blood from a fetus, it will be human blood accoring to every possible test. It is not a "part of" the mother becaus it is a separate organism, with different DNA. Again, blood tests will show that the fetus and mother are 1) both human, 2) different humans. The only differences between a fetus and an infant is the source of nourishment and the ability to deal with the elements.
I use "human" not as an adjective here, but a noun, that's why I disagree that fetus is a human. The same thing is with an acorn and oak (my favourtie example and main argument, that fetus is not an independent individual who owns himself.
Your anaolgy is flawed. Oak is to adult as as seedling is to child as acorn is to zygore. The noun human is not normally used to refer to only an adult, while the noun oak usually refers only to the adult.
nirgrahamUK:Tangential science fact. Have you guys heard of Human Chimera's ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) short story. A person can have different parts of their own body with different DNA to each other.
I have, actually. From my understanding, they are vestigial twins where one twin has been (almost) completely absorbed by the other.
MaikU: If it is such a human, then remove this damn human from woman's body and let him live on his own.
I agree completely. That has been my exact point all along. The ability to live on one's own is not a characteristic of humans -- we see many adult humans living on heart-luncg machines or being fed by tubes.
My point is and has always been, a human, no matter the age, does not have the right to live off of another human without that second human's continued consent. I fully support the rights of all humans, adult, child and unborn. Each has a right to be free from aggression. The removal of a small human from inside of a larger human who has withdrawn her consent for the small human to stay there is certainly not aggression.
hashem: Please, define individual. Also, and this is the important part, please provide a quote, preferably several, where were the word individual is used in context with a discussion on the origin/function etc of property rights qua property rights. It is not enough to know what dictionaries say about it (enough alone to prove a fetus is not an individual by any long stretch), but it is important to know WHY ONLY INDIVIDUALS have property rights.
I think I've figued out our difference on this matter, and as usual, when two people disagree about something that seems to each to be so obvious to each, they are probably talking past each other.
Rather than finding a bunch of quotes that I think we will both think supports our respective cases, can I put forth a few sentences of my own, which are just simply summaries/paraphrases of whichever quotes I would have dug up, and see if yuou agree with them? Please keep in mind though, that the phrasing is important, so if you don't agree with them exactly as written, please correct me. Seem fair?
Rights are derived from rational action. Only individuals, not groups, are capable of rational action. Therefore only individuals, not groups, have rights.
Again, please correct anything with which you don''t agree exactly as written. I think the exact phrasing here can illustrate the source of our disagreement, at least on this point. If I'm right, and you agree with the bold text above, I will happily write a more detailed reply. I just don't want to waste either of our time, though I am enjoying your challenge.
Not so easy. Define individual.
Here is what dictionary.com says about the word individual as it relates to biology:
"a single organism capable of independent existence"
The underline is not mine.
Not so easy. Define individual. Here is what dictionary.com says about the word individual as it relates to biology: "a single organism capable of independent existence" The underline is not mine.
Neat. Here is what http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary says:
(1) Any distinct person, object, or concept within a collection.
(2) A single, separate organism (animal or plant) distinguished from others of a same kind.
Here is an excerpt from a piece from the Philosophy Department at Stanford. I thought it fitting to include the philosohical take on biology.
Given the open territory here, one might think that the best way to proceed is along two dimensions: to delineate biological from non-biological entities, and to delineate individuals from non-individuals. That would surely elucidate just what “biological individuals” refers to, and so serve as a compass by which we can navigate our way through some conceptual space. But that is not how I propose to proceed. Instead, I want to start with some reflection on our paradigm biological individuals, organisms, using that as a way to show what a biological individual is and the kind of conceptual work that notion does in the biological sciences. With that behind us, we can then turn to consider what other entities have been thought of as biological individuals, and the broader roles that the notion of a biological individual plays across the biological sciences.
Although I shall focus on organisms as a paradigm of biological individuals, there is something from the first of the approaches above that I want to appropriate, and that concerns how the perhaps overly metaphysical-sounding term “individual” should be understood. In talking of “biological individuals” I take myself to refer to some subset of the entities invoked in talking about the biological world, a subset we might gesture at by also talking of biological things or entities, and that are to be distinguished from biological properties, processes or events. By “individual”, “thing” or “entity” in this context I mean something that has three-dimensional spatial boundaries, that endures for some period of time, that is composed of physical matter, and that bears properties and participates in processes and events.
The Biological Notion of Individual
Independent of WHAT and for HOW LONG? Surely you know that all living things have survival factors upon which they depend. Independent as opposed to dependent, naturally. Dictionary.com defines:
Independent: not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free Whatever the fetus is independent of, it isn't the mother.
Dependent: relying on someone or something else for aid, support, etc.
The fetus is manifestly dependent on the mother.
Whatever the answer to your questions may be, the simple fact is a fetus is not an individual. A fetus is the diametric opposite of an individual. It is manifestly dependent on the union with the mother.
You are stuck in a "point-in-time" mentality. It makes it difficult do discuss concepts, especially biological concepts, which necessitate considering longer periods of time. The fetus is an individual because the term individual is used interchancgably with organism, and is used to differentiate one from a group. Sometimes it is tricky or impossible to do so, as with a corral reef. It is trivial, however, to distinguish the organism living within another organism in the case of human pregnancy. The organism living inside of the other is a distinct living entity which, during its lifespan, if it ages as most organisms of its species do, will be independent. That makes it a biological individual, by definition. It is impossible for a non-individual to ever become an individual.
Your use of the word union is also interesting because it necessitates two or more individuals involved, by definition.
I'm certainly not implying you're doing it on purpose, but your mangling of these definitions and concepts is a tiresome as when "Left" libertarians define rational as the antonym of irrational rather than the antonym of unconscious, reflexive or instinctual when discussing the concept of rational action.
not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free Whatever the fetus is independent of, it isn't the mother.
Dependent: relying on someone or something else for aid, support, etc. The fetus is manifestly dependent on the mother.
"Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah." —Everyone In This Thread
You are out of your mind. A fetus is the diametric opposite of an individual. A fetus is not an individual; property rights are not relevant to a fetus. This is so obvious, that I will not even bother arguing it with you. So, not for you but for the record, a fetus isn't an individual, property rights are not applicable to a fetus:
Individual "In biology: a single organism capable of independent existence."
Independent "not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free"
Dependent "relying on someone or something else for aid, support, etc. "
Not only can't a fetus homestead anything (except arguably a body, which isn't it's own), but it doesn't need to. Property doesn't apply to a fetus, therefore neither do property rights. Nobody (except arguably the mother) has a property right in the fetus, and once the fetus acts as a separate individual baby then it is a self-owner and nobody has a property right in it such that anyone can retaliate against it's murderer, except people to whom the baby was in debt to—and it obviously hasn't voluntarily contracted any debt.
what hashem said.
And it is sad that so many people can ignore simple biology and other sciences in order to keep believing in supersition. And I mean here not relatively harmless superstition (like gods), but truly violent ones, like forcing women to carry the fetus until it's born or at least, punishing her (with violence and probably caging) for performing an abortion.
So yeah, biology ftw.
hashem:I feel I've uncovered a unique position
I agree. Your position is unique.
• A fetus doesn't meet the requirements for property rights. Therefore abortion is strictly legitimate.
Nothing with which to disagree, there. If one accepts the premise of the first sentence, the second logically follows. This is unique, or almost unique, to you, as I have provided many quotes with sources that imply or outright state a contradiction to your premise.
• In abortion, nobody (if not the mother) has a property right such that they can legitimately retaliate.
You haven't really shown your work here, so it's hard to judge the logic of your conclusion. I did, however, privide a few quotes with sources that contradict this. Again, you don't have a premise stated, so it's impossible to say if your conclusion is logically valid.
• Once a baby (as opposed to a fetus) acts it becomes a self-owner. Therefore nobody has a property right such that they can legitimately retaliate against someone who murders the baby. This is for a baby who has just become a self-owner, not a 2, 3, or 4 year old etc who can physically contract for defense or insurance.
This contradicts virtually, if not actually, every piece ever written on libertarian justice. I'm not saying it's wrong or illogical, but it is certainly unique. A bedrock principle of libertarian justice theory is that heirs may seek justice/restitution in the case of murder. You've thrown that out the window, calling it, I believe, "preposterous." Like I said, it doesn't make you wrong, but it certainly makes your position unique, as you said.
truly violent ones, like forcing women to carry the fetus until it's born or at least, punishing her (with violence and probably caging) for performing an abortion.
my point is, and has always been, that abortion is wrong. I think we can agree that in libertopia, there are no legal penalties for homicide of someone with no legal standing. Given this, we have been arguing about morality and not law, and I believe that it is wrong to slay human beings except as a last resort when dealing with willful aggressive violence that threatens one's life. Clearly a human at any stage of development from embryo to infant does not fall under this category. In the past, I have entertained epistemological pragmatism, and considered the possibility of a moral abortion before brain function begins. More recently, I have been convinced of the union between the spirit and the flesh, and believe that the soul enters the body at conception. The act of commingling zygotes is an executory act that introduces the possibility of incurring moral obligations. At no point have I suggested that the state or anyone besides the parents be involved. My concern is your deliberate attempts at dehumanizing actual humans so you can kill them with less guilt. Sorry if I am killing your buzz or whatever.
so, why not infanticide? The infant obviously has no legal standing, due to his inability to contract with a private defense agency.
JackCuyler, my position was unique, not the principles on which it is based. If past libertarians have carried their own principles inconsistently that is not my fault. Even you note: "I'm not saying it's wrong or illogical, but it is certainly unique." And again, "This contradicts virtually, if not actually, every piece ever written on libertarian justice." I am upfront about how much more consistent my position is than the mainstream position.
A bedrock principle of libertarian justice theory is that heirs may seek justice/restitution in the case of murder. You've thrown that out the window, calling it, I believe, "preposterous." Way to lie. No. What I called preposterous was the idea that A can sue B for murdering A's father, C, based on the idea that A owned his father, C. If you can sue, it's not because you owned the father, that's insane. If you can sue, its because the father was in debt to you and the murder prevented him from repaying you. I never said you have a right to kill his murderer, but in case your father was in debt you have a right to restitution from the perpetrator, through force.
There are no rights that aren't property rights. NOBODY has a RIGHT, unless their PROPERTY is involved.
JackCuyler, my position was unique, not the principles on which it is based. If past libertarians have carried their own principles inconsistently that is not my fault.
You reject the perfectly consistent notion that all rational actors, including potential rational actors, are self-owners. You carry your own thoughts on the origin of rights, which disagree with Rothbard, Hoppe, et. al. and apply them consistently. I'm just confused by your request for quotes/links that contradict your logic when you basically ignore anything that contradicts you. I cannot fault your logic for points 1 and 3 (there is no logical statement in point 2) but I can, as your signature invites, challenge the premise.
Way to lie. No. What I called preposterous was the idea that A can sue B for murdering A's father, C, based on the idea that A owned his father, C. If you can sue, it's not because you owned the father, that's insane.
I never claimed anyone owned anyone but himself. I claimed that if you kill a man with no debts whatsoever, his heirs would be within their rights to seek restitution. This is consitent with just about everything ever written about libertarian justice theory, save your posts. Your unique position leads to the absurd notion that the murder of a well-to-do man, one who has paid off all of his debts, is not a crime at all.
If you can sue, its because the father was in debt to you and the murder prevented him from repaying you. I never said you have a right to kill his murderer, but in case your father was in debt you have a right to restitution from the perpetrator, through force.
I never claimed anyone has a right to kill a murderer, either, but that's neither here nor there. Like I said, and you said, your view is unique. You disagree with every single piece ever written about libertarian justice theory. That's unique!
"In biology: a single organism capable of independent existence."
Since you made a big deal about the underline, I'd like to point out that the underline is there because independent is a link on that page. It is not added for emphasis. I checked the page's source to make sure.
MaikU:And it is sad that so many people can ignore simple biology and other sciences in order to keep believing in supersition.
You mean superstition like this?
First of all, I feel an important part of my post was overlooked:
"There are no rights that aren't property rights. NOBODY has a RIGHT, unless their PROPERTY is involved."
Anyways, its tedious unraveling all your misinterpretations... For example, the word independent is underlined for emphasis, and you are trying to diminish that. It's not underlined as a link. EVERY word in the page is a link to its corresponding dictionary.com page.
And your boring obsession with your fantasy that everything about my view contradicts "every single piece ever written about libertarian justice theory." My Some libertarians may disagree with my conclusions, but my principles are precisely the standard libertarian principle. The irony is, of course, that you have no clue what the libertarian principles are. You don't know why people have property rights, and why a fetus doesn't, so YOU reject my conclusions and pretend that you are arguing for libertarian principles.
Anyways, its tedious unraveling all your misinterpretations... For example, the word independent is underlined for emphasis, and you are trying to diminish that. It's not underlined as a link.
<sigh>
<div class="luna-Nested"><span class="dnindex">a.</span><div class="dndata">a single organism capable of <a onmousedown="return ct(this,53686)" href="/browse/independent">independent</a> existence.</div>
See? It's just a simple href with no call for emphasis. On the same page, colony is also the same type of link, as is the set in tea set.
My Some libertarians may disagree with my conclusions, but my principles are precisely the standard libertarian principle. The irony is, of course, that you have no clue what the libertarian principles are. You don't know why people have property rights, and why a fetus doesn't, so YOU reject my conclusions and pretend that you are arguing for libertarianprinciples.
Do you even read my posts? I don't reject your conclusions; I reject your premises. I'm pretty sure I stated such...
me:Nothing with which to disagree, there. If one accepts the premise of the first sentence, the second logically follows.
I'm sorry you find me boring. I did make you chuckle onece, or so you said. Remember? I'll try harder to entertain. Perhaps you'll chuckle again. I'd try for an honest belly laugh, but for some reason I think that may be too much. I'm sensing some hostility, and I want you to know, I'm honestly not sending any your way. You're obviously an intelligent person, and I'm enjoying our debate, even though we clearly don't agree.
On a somewhat related note, since I don't obviously don't understand libertarian principles, I'd like you to expand a tiny bit, if you don't mind. When a man with property dies, and he has a will, should his possessions be divided as instructed in his will, or are all of his possessions immediately up for grabs, as they are now unowned? If there is now no will, would his possessions be owned by his kids/generally regarded next-of-kin, or again, would they immediately up for grabs by anyone?
Malachi:truly violent ones, like forcing women to carry the fetus until it's born or at least, punishing her (with violence and probably caging) for performing an abortion. I certainly hope you are not referring to me here, since I already made my position on the libertarian legality of fetal homicide. That would be characteristically inaccurate of you, however.
It was more of a general accusation, but thanks for making your position clearer. However, I see morality and legality on the same grounds, only exception being, that legality can be conditional (for example, if you want to buy a house in this neighbourhood, you are not allowed to make an abortion), meaning, that if you break the contract, you should expect be punished for it. So this kind of community, I believe, would be best for you to live in.
"My concern is your deliberate attempts at dehumanizing actual humans so you can kill them with less guilt."
The problem is that I do not consider fetuses humans as I said many times before. And for the record, I am against abortions too, just not in fanatical way like many anti-abortionists are (and seems you're not one of them). What I mean is that I see abortion unethical (like lying, cheating on your wife etc.) but not immoral. So if I advocated pro-life stance, it only could be made in a peaceful way (pamphlets, internet list of "bad women" etc.) and not in a violent way, like a state does.
"The infant obviously has no legal standing, due to his inability to contract with a private defense agency."
don't know how many times I will have to repeat my stance on this, but ok... I believe in self-ownership. And I believe a baby becomes one since the day he/she is born. That means, any agression against him/her is immoral, just like a regular human being (an adult). It's also sad that you keep perpetuating this common statist fallacy, that "no contract with a DRO means I can kill you and don't be punished". That's absurd and any anarcho-libertarian would say the same and doesn't believe in it. Sad, that you, after so long time on these forums, still don't get it. or you simply like strawmen. Anyway.
What herbal alternatives? I doubt these things "work" though. Or even if they have some effect that this effect is efficient enough... so we can only hope that people became more responsible in sex.