Daniel Muffinburg:No. You claimed that some libertarians say that murder is consistent with libertarianism. I then went on to disprove that.
Oh, OK. I got confused with the double negatives. Anyways, yes, if one believes that killing someone is murder, no matter what, then yes, he would think libertarians that think killing someone in self defense is wrong.
Daniel Muffinburg:Why would think that appropriation is the same as copying?
Because that is the definition of "steal".
Daniel Muffinburg:I fail to understand your point.
You say "killing is not always murder". A pacifist says, "killing is always murder". Which one is more consistent? If I go by the pacifists morals, I know that if I kill someone, no matter what, it is murder. If I follow your morals, is it murder if I kill someone for stabbing my leg? What about just lunging at me? What about running away with some of my food? At what point is the other person aggressive enough for it to be considered justified homicide?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:So on one hand, you have to wait for one to wake up. On the other, you have to wait for one to grow up. Please define the amount of time spent waiting before you determine the person has no rights. Then explain why this isn't arbitrary. No, on the one hand, you don't have to wait for one to wake up. You just wake the person up.
JackCuyler:So on one hand, you have to wait for one to wake up. On the other, you have to wait for one to grow up. Please define the amount of time spent waiting before you determine the person has no rights. Then explain why this isn't arbitrary.
No, on the one hand, you don't have to wait for one to wake up. You just wake the person up.
That takes time. It is not instantaneous. In the case of a deep sleep with the aid of medication, it may take several minutes. In the case of a medically induced coma, it may take hours or days.
Spideynw:On the other hand, you do have to wait for the person to develop. By that time, the time is past. So on the one hand, the time has not passed, and on the other it has.
I reject your assertion that on one hand no time has passed. Reject and absolutely prove otherwise. Under no circumstances does waking someone take no time at all.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:Why does the longer time frame negate the child's rights? Why does the fact that an animal does not have the potential for critical thought negate the animal's rights?
JackCuyler:Why does the longer time frame negate the child's rights?
Why does the fact that an animal does not have the potential for critical thought negate the animal's rights?
Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:I fail to see why it is necessarily a positive obligation. Since you made the claim that it is, please explain. Then where does this role/responsibility originate?
Daniel Muffinburg:I fail to see why it is necessarily a positive obligation. Since you made the claim that it is, please explain.
Then where does this role/responsibility originate?
liberty student:To recap; Daniel Muffinburg:I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child. Daniel Muffinburg:LS, make the case that Spidey inserting his penis into a non-consenting 3-year-old is not rape. Why? I never asserted that. You make the case that Santa Claus is a 30 foot giant with 4 heads. Do it. Now. Right now. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 DO IT. Daniel Muffinburg:My claim is that it was rape by mere definition. Your argument with me and my argument with Spidey since then derives from that claim. Right, because the parents don't have consent because they have a responsibility that transcends the lack of consent for or against from the child. Is that correct? We're still back to where this responsibility comes from.
Daniel Muffinburg:I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child.
Daniel Muffinburg:LS, make the case that Spidey inserting his penis into a non-consenting 3-year-old is not rape.
Why? I never asserted that. You make the case that Santa Claus is a 30 foot giant with 4 heads. Do it. Now. Right now. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 DO IT.
Daniel Muffinburg:My claim is that it was rape by mere definition. Your argument with me and my argument with Spidey since then derives from that claim.
Right, because the parents don't have consent because they have a responsibility that transcends the lack of consent for or against from the child. Is that correct? We're still back to where this responsibility comes from.
No. False. Nein! Don't straw man me.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Still fairly new to the game and certainly am not bold enough to try and "take on" Spidey in this matter, it seems pretty sound, although I do for some reason think "there has got to be some kind of reasoning out there" to disprove him, but that obviously doesn't count for anything. I think its more to do with the line of agression than anything to do with parental obligations. I certainly feel that parents are under no obligation to feed their child, and thus are free to allow their newborn to starve to death, so maybe it seems strange or maybe not that I think there has to be a line crossed when you molest a 3 year old in the way described or use any other sort of violence against a child. But violence or agression could also mean forcing a child to eat veggies or unwillingly carrying a child out of a store. Maybe children should be able to take their "abusers"/parents to court for things like this. I have a feeling that any damages awarded could just be offset for the month/years of "free" room and board, although that sounds like a slippery slope as well.
I think another dilemma is when children, maybe a little older than 3, ones that can think critically, but do not have the means to really live on their own decide to run away to a shelter or something and the child's parents want to take him back against his will.
Also, if critical thinking is the key, (and I don't know enough nuerology to know if this is possible, even in the distant future) I guess parents could have parts of their child's brain removed at birth that prevented it from even developing the ability to think critically and thus forever owning some sort of half man slave, no?
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:No. You claimed that some libertarians say that murder is consistent with libertarianism. I then went on to disprove that. Oh, OK. I got confused with the double negatives. Anyways, yes, if one believes that killing someone is murder, no matter what, then yes, he would think libertarians that think killing someone in self defense is wrong. Daniel Muffinburg:Why would think that appropriation is the same as copying? Because that is the definition of "steal". Daniel Muffinburg:I fail to understand your point. You say "killing is not always murder". A pacifist says, "killing is always murder". Which one is more consistent? If I go by the pacifists morals, I know that if I kill someone, no matter what, it is murder. If I follow your morals, is it murder if I kill someone for stabbing my leg? What about just lunging at me? What about running away with some of my food? At what point is the other person aggressive enough for it to be considered justified homicide?
I;m more consistent. According to you, the pacifist would consider suicide murder.
Ok, I was going to walk away, but this is a backdoor move imo.
Daniel Muffinburg:See Block. (I'm sure you can find the relevant article or audio/video file.)
This is an appeal to authority. You won't provide the argument, and telling me to go look for it, and thus have to attack Block is lazy. Can I assume if I get this argument, and debate it, you will defend it as your own, or will you also send me to debate it with WB?
Daniel Muffinburg:No. False. Nein! Don't straw man me.
If you won't present your own argument or Block's how can I possibly be strawmanning you? You'd have to actually offer a rationale for your own claim, which you have failed to do, in order for me to mischaracterize your position.
So, where was the strawman? Please explain or withdraw this claim that I am being logically fallacious.
liberty student: Ok, I was going to walk away, but this is a backdoor move imo. Daniel Muffinburg:See Block. (I'm sure you can find the relevant article or audio/video file.) This is an appeal to authority. You won't provide the argument, and telling me to go look for it, and thus have to attack Block is lazy. Can I assume if I get this argument, and debate it, you will defend it as your own, or will you also send me to debate it with WB?
How is it an appeal to authority? Please, prove your claim. Anyway, the Block position is the best one I;'e seen. I know you've said you don't have the answers so I won't bother to ask you to explain your position.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:No. False. Nein! Don't straw man me. If you won't present your own argument or Block's how can I possibly be strawmanning you? You'd have to actually offer a rationale for your own claim, which you have failed to do, in order for me to mischaracterize your position. So, where was the strawman? Please explain or withdraw this claim that I am being logically fallacious.
Non sequitur.
Joe:Still fairly new to the game and certainly am not bold enough to try and "take on" Spidey in this matter, it seems pretty sound, although I do for some reason think "there has got to be some kind of reasoning out there" to disprove him, but that obviously doesn't count for anything.
Honesty. Refreshing. Welcome to the community Joe.
Anyway, I say we drop this. I didn't want to go into the area which you led me too, although I thought it necessary to answer your question regarding the putting clothes onto a child.
JackCuyler: As much as I disagree with Spideynw's position, this is going way too far. He is not advocating for child rape. That is a disgusting misrepresentation of everything he has said. He is simply claiming that child rape by said child's parents should not be illegal. Nowhere have I seen him say that parent ought to rape their children.
As much as I disagree with Spideynw's position, this is going way too far. He is not advocating for child rape. That is a disgusting misrepresentation of everything he has said. He is simply claiming that child rape by said child's parents should not be illegal. Nowhere have I seen him say that parent ought to rape their children.
I want to publicly apologize. I'm sorry spideynw.
My hitch on this is I think spideynw is making an epistemological error or is not logically extending his argument, which therefore leads his argument to such a situation that I find totally unnecessary as the baby, being human, has his or her own property right to not be violated, in this case, his or her body. That's where I stand on this, but will drop it in this thread as I am currently discussing this concerning argument of mine in private messaging so no need to continue to publicly go on about this focus on what spideynw has already argued in previous threads in this forum.
Daniel Muffinburg:How is it an appeal to authority? Please, prove your claim.
You refuse to provide your own argument, insisting it is synonymous with Block's and that I should research Block to find out your position.
Daniel Muffinburg:I know you've said you don't have the answers so I won't bother to ask you to explain your position.
Right, because that's a red herring.
Daniel Muffinburg:Non sequitur.
Where is the strawman? I still expect you to provide proof of it or withdraw your claim about logical fallacy.
And, you still have avoided responding with an answer to your claim about the responsibility of parents. Or does that fall under "see Block?"
In which case, why even debate if you are going to defer to someone else? You can just refer everyone to Block, I am sure they can find his arguments [sic].
Daniel Muffinburg:Straw man. You made the claim that inserting your penis into a non-consenting 3-year-old is not rape. I made the claim that it was rape by definition.
Isn't there a semantic misunderstanding?. perhaps i misinterpret spidey (im sure he will tell me!) but isn't the force of his argument that the very notions of consent and non-consent imply a creature with a rational capacity that can thereby consent or not-consent. things that are not rational can not be said to consent and neither can they not not-consent. simply because neither consent or not-consent make sense outside of a Teleogical framework the words consent are meaningless in that context. the teapot neither consents to be used nor does not consent to be used. the terms lack meaning in that context.
the issue of debate would then becomes, when does it become appropriate to talk of consent and not-consent along the continuum of mindless feotal matter and rationally minded adult. are 3 year olds over the boundary of rational so that they can be said to consent or not-consent? are 1 month old? are 1day gestated feotuses over the boundary?
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
abskebabs:This would render rape of such a child illegal.
Rape implies lack of consent. Lack of consent implies reasoning abilities. Do you think babies/toddlers have the ability to reason?
JackCuyler: Spideynw:To grant or withhold consent implies she has the ability to think critically. Do you think a three year old has the ability to think critically? Only half true. To grant consent implies she has the ability to think critically.
Spideynw:To grant or withhold consent implies she has the ability to think critically. Do you think a three year old has the ability to think critically?
Only half true. To grant consent implies she has the ability to think critically.
No, it is fully true. You don't think children can appear to give consent as well as withhold consent? Even an animal can "consent" to being pet. But the giving or withholding of consent is not the only important facet. Just as important is whether or not there was any critical thought behind the consent or lack thereof.
JackCuyler:Since you agree she does not have the ability to think critically, and therefore cannot offer meaningful consent, you must wait until she has that ability.
Then I cannot change her diapers, lock her in her room, etc., etc.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:How is it an appeal to authority? Please, prove your claim. You refuse to provide your own argument, insisting it is synonymous with Block's and that I should research Block to find out your position.
And when and where did I say that Block is the authority on this and, therefore, he is correct. All I said was that my position was his position. What if Block said that his position is my position, would that also be an appeal to authority?
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:I know you've said you don't have the answers so I won't bother to ask you to explain your position. Right, because that's a red herring.
Btw, what is your position?
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:Non sequitur. Where is the strawman? I still expect you to provide proof of it or withdraw your claim about logical fallacy.
I didn't say that you straw manned me. I said, "don't straw man me."
liberty student:And, you still have avoided responding with an answer to your claim about the responsibility of parents. Or does that fall under "see Block?" In which case, why even debate if you are going to defer to someone else? You can just refer everyone to Block, I am sure they can find his arguments [sic].
Hence, me saying that I want to drop this. Btw, did you ever prove my claim was a positive obligation?
liberty student:I'm not saying I disagree with you, but that inability to consent does not imply consent as you used it, presumes consent only from humans. We still haven't figured out how consent from a baby (or lack of capacity thereof) differs from consent from a cow or spider monkey.
But does this justify treating children like animals? Are children animals in that regard? Since they cannot appropriately consent to things their decisions are defaulted for them?
If a lady is asleep and she cannot consent to having sex does it default to yes?
nirgrahamUK: Daniel Muffinburg:Straw man. You made the claim that inserting your penis into a non-consenting 3-year-old is not rape. I made the claim that it was rape by definition. Isn't there a semantic misunderstanding?. perhaps i misinterpret spidey (im sure he will tell me!) but isn't the force of his argument that the very notions of consent and non-consent imply a creature with a rational capacity that can thereby consent or not-consent. things that are not rational can not be said to consent and neither can they not not-consent. simply because neither consent or not-consent make sense outside of a Teleogical framework the words consent are meaningless in that context. the teapot neither consents to be used nor does not consent to be used. the terms lack meaning in that context. the issue of debate would then becomes, when does it become appropriate to talk of consent and not-consent along the continuum of mindless feotal matter and rationally minded adult. are 3 year olds over the boundary of rational so that they can be said to consent or not-consent? are 1 month old? are 1day gestated feotuses over the boundary?
Is a 57-year-old? You bring up a good question. Thanks for the refreshing view.
Daniel Muffinburg: I made the claim that it was rape by definition.
Rape by definition implies non-consensual sex, which implies ability to think critically, because otherwise, having sex with an animal would be rape. Given that babies/toddlers cannot think critically, they cannot be raped, by definition.
Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw:I could easily claim that my neighbor is "abusing" his child by not feeding his child enough. Then what? I get to take the child, just because I don't like how he is caring for his child? Or do you claim some super powerful PDA will be able to take away the child, because "no one would pay for a PDA that would protect those evil "child abusers""? Straw man.
Spideynw:I could easily claim that my neighbor is "abusing" his child by not feeding his child enough. Then what? I get to take the child, just because I don't like how he is caring for his child? Or do you claim some super powerful PDA will be able to take away the child, because "no one would pay for a PDA that would protect those evil "child abusers""?
Straw man.
A question cannot be a "straw man".
Daniel Muffinburg:And when and where did I say that Block is the authority on this and, therefore, he is correct. All I said was that my position was his position.
So you hold his opinion but you don't think he is correct?
Daniel Muffinburg:Btw, what is your position?
I've already answered that. The red herring can't pull your ass out of this fire Dan.
Daniel Muffinburg:I didn't say that you straw manned me. I said, "don't straw man me."
And the difference is?
Daniel Muffinburg:Hence, me saying that I want to drop this.
That's just because you have been completely routed. When I offered to drop out, you took pot shots. I did it to be the bigger man. You seem to be doing it to avoid clarifying your statements.
Daniel Muffinburg:Btw, did you ever prove my claim was a positive obligation?
Did you ever clarify that it is or is not? Have you not dodged my direct questions?
You asserted without proof. Either you have a proof, you rescind your claim or you are being dishonest. Have I missed an option here?
This is uber disappointing from you, because I know you and I have differences of opinion, but I didn't expect this level of evasiveness and bad faith in debate.
twistedbydsign99:It will either be the courts of the society you have voluntarily chose to partake in.
And in a free society, there would be no legal standing from someone to complain about how I treat my child.
twistedbydsign99:Or it will be someone who is stronger than you in a state of nature.
Which is very true. But I am just concerned with the legal aspect. Someone may be able to take my child from me by force, but I would then have legal standing to bring a suit against him.
Are we looking at the child as property or as a human being?
Is this just a form of pater familias? Do the parents of the child own said child and have the right to do with the child as they wish - which includes killing the child? That would at least be consistent with the abortionist, incest position. At what point then does a person stop being property?
Even the most extreme example of the application of pater familias had implications in the wider society. Incest and killing of one's own offspring would be one such extreme that would have led to damage to one's dignitas, something the Romans took very seriously and I would think would be just as important in an anarcho-capitalist society.
In a modern marriage, pater familias would fall upon both parents, not just the patriarch, who would have joint ownership of their offspring until they reached the establish majority - still undefined in this argument.
Of course, an anarcho-capitalist society would lack the mos maiorum from which pater familias is derived. So, without mos maiorum, how does an anarcho-capitalist have claim to an infant as property? What is the justification? Inability of an infant to say no is insufficient - adult humans could be in the same position (is an autistic slave permitted under an anarcho-capitalist society?).
I think he was trying to say that he never claimed that Block was correct BECAUSE he is an authority, but rather because of the point that Block made (which he then did not provide)
Spideynw:Rape by definition implies non-consensual sex, which implies ability to think critically, because otherwise, having sex with an animal would be rape. Given that babies/toddlers cannot think critically, they cannot be raped, by definition.
With that definition, sleeping people cannot be raped if they are not awakened during the act. Those who have been drugged or knocked unconscious cannot be raped.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: I made the claim that it was rape by definition. Rape by definition implies non-consensual sex, which implies ability to think critically, because otherwise, having sex with an animal would be rape. Given that babies/toddlers cannot think critically, they cannot be raped, by definition.
I see what you mean now. Would having sex with a 3-year-old be illegal?
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw:I could easily claim that my neighbor is "abusing" his child by not feeding his child enough. Then what? I get to take the child, just because I don't like how he is caring for his child? Or do you claim some super powerful PDA will be able to take away the child, because "no one would pay for a PDA that would protect those evil "child abusers""? Straw man. A question cannot be a "straw man".
I agree. Anyway, I'll ignore your questions since they are so loaded, and my answer would basically be "no."
Daniel Muffinburg:Spidey, is it possible to have mutually-consensual inserting of your penis into a 3-year-old?
No.
Daniel Muffinburg:If it is not possible to mutually-consensually insert our penis into a 3-year-old, is that not rape?
No, because consent must be because of critical thought, otherwise having sex with an animal would be rape. Not only that, but who would have the right to bring a case against the father on behalf of the child? Just any random person? If so, then I could just say that my neighbor is not treating his child to my standards, and go over and bring a case against him and take away his child.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:Since we've gone off track (and LS helped in doing so, and in the process made it easy for Spidey to avoid my question ) I will go back to my question which Spidey never answered. I'll withdraw if you think my involvement is the problem.
Daniel Muffinburg:Since we've gone off track (and LS helped in doing so, and in the process made it easy for Spidey to avoid my question ) I will go back to my question which Spidey never answered.
I'll withdraw if you think my involvement is the problem.
I don't! Stay, stay!
JackCuyler: Spideynw: JackCuyler:Why does the longer time frame negate the child's rights? Why does the fact that an animal does not have the potential for critical thought negate the animal's rights? Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.
Really? So you do not believe in the theory of evolution?
Spideynw:Not only that, but who would have the right to bring a case against the father on behalf of the child? Just any random person? If so, then I could just say that my neighbor is not treating his child to my standards, and go over and bring a case against him and take away his child.
Oh there would be much worse things to do than take away his child. You could blackmail him for money (something Block defends in Defending the Undefendable), you could go all out Vanderbilt on him ("Sue him, the law is too slow, I'll destroy him."), or any number of legal, justifiable ways to handle immoral people.
I then ask this. Is a person who has been molested by his parent when he was a child justified in killing his parent in retaliation when he has reached the ability to think rationally?
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:And when and where did I say that Block is the authority on this and, therefore, he is correct. All I said was that my position was his position. So you hold his opinion but you don't think he is correct?
I think it is the best I have come across. I will say that it is correct until I come across better argument. But this is not to say that it is correct because it is Block's position.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:Btw, what is your position? I've already answered that. The red herring can't pull your ass out of this fire Dan.
You said you don't have the answers. Anyway, oh gawd. I could claim that your entrance into the debate between me and Spidey was a red herring.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:I didn't say that you straw manned me. I said, "don't straw man me." And the difference is?
Whatever Block says the difference is. Lol.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:Hence, me saying that I want to drop this. That's just because you have been completely routed. When I offered to drop out, you took pot shots. I did it to be the bigger man. You seem to be doing it to avoid clarifying your statements.
Your opinions are noted.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:Btw, did you ever prove my claim was a positive obligation? Did you ever clarify that it is or is not? Have you not dodged my direct questions?
Oh, gawd (again). I think we all dodged a direct question in this thread.
liberty student:You asserted without proof. Either you have a proof, you rescind your claim or you are being dishonest. Have I missed an option here? This is uber disappointing from you, because I know you and I have differences of opinion, but I didn't expect this level of evasiveness and bad faith in debate.
Then start a new thread on it. You totally threw me of course with Spidey. Besides, if I wanted to be uber evasive, I would have never responded to your question about the responsibilities of parenting.
Daniel Muffinburg:I;m more consistent. According to you, the pacifist would consider suicide murder.
I am sorry. I misrepresented the pacifist position. I should have said a pacifist would say, "killing someone else is always murder". So no, the pacifist's morals are more consistent than yours.
liberty student: JackCuyler:The inability to consent does not imply consent. How do you delineate between animal, mineral and human? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but that inability to consent does not imply consent as you used it, presumes consent only from humans. We still haven't figured out how consent from a baby (or lack of capacity thereof) differs from consent from a cow or spider monkey.
JackCuyler:The inability to consent does not imply consent.
How do you delineate between animal, mineral and human?
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but that inability to consent does not imply consent as you used it, presumes consent only from humans. We still haven't figured out how consent from a baby (or lack of capacity thereof) differs from consent from a cow or spider monkey.
First, babies are humans. Second, I agree with much of Spidey's premise - that rights are derived from the ability to think critically. This leaves out cows and spider monkeys. Sleeping and unconscious people will presumably regain the ability to think critically when they wake. Children will presumably gain the ability to think critically when they mature. The only difference is the amount of time.
I hold, therefore, that children have rights, and that parents (or anyone else) have no right to initiate violence against them. When the issue of consent arises, as in, A may perform some act upon B without B's consent, then A may not perform the act upon B until B says yes. It does not matter if B is asleep, unconscious or a child. It is presumed that B will at some time in the future have the ability to give consent. Until that time, A may not perform the act upon B. Doing so is an act of aggression.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not. Really? So you do not believe in the theory of evolution?
JackCuyler:Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.
That my cat's decedents may have the ability to think critically in no way implies that my cat has such an ability. You're conflating evolution with maturing.
Joe:I certainly feel that parents are under no obligation to feed their child, and thus are free to allow their newborn to starve to death, so maybe it seems strange or maybe not that I think there has to be a line crossed when you molest a 3 year old in the way described or use any other sort of violence against a child.
I am repulsed by both actions, even more so letting a child starve to death. I am very happy to see you thinking critically about the subject.
JackCuyler: First, babies are humans. Second, I agree with much of Spidey's premise - that rights are derived from the ability to think critically. This leaves out cows and spider monkeys. Sleeping and unconscious people will presumably regain the ability to think critically when they wake. Children will presumably gain the ability to think critically when they mature. The only difference is the amount of time. I hold, therefore, that children have rights, and that parents (or anyone else) have no right to initiate violence against them. When the issue of consent arises, as in, A may perform some act upon B without B's consent, then A may not perform the act upon B until B says yes. It does not matter if B is asleep, unconscious or a child. It is presumed that B will at some time in the future have the ability to give consent. Until that time, A may not perform the act upon B. Doing so is an act of aggression.
are foetuses human? and do they have full rights? does an egg cell and a sperm cell have full rights?
Aster_Lacnala:Now, let's throw in a powder keg - the abortion issue. A pro-life person sees an abortion as the murder of a baby, a pro-choice person does not. Now, the drama unfolds. For ease of typing, I'll abbreviate to PL and PC.
So I take it that you see no just outcome arrises without the state. Am I to take it that you see the state solution as a just outcome?
Aster_Lacnala:So, how can you resolve this without either violence, or legislation?
You repeat yourself.
Peace
I think Jack is a expert or somewhat expert on this topic. He has done a wonderful job in past threads and in this thread clearly explaining this topic out.
Clearly this is not a thread about repulsion or what we find to be appropriate actions.
My question is this.
Are children and animals the same in the realm of moral agents? As such can we treat children like animals?
Secondly. If children are incapable of rationally consenting than how is social contract unjustified? Seems to me t hat if raiping a child is ok, than so is social contract? The two violations seem synonymous to me.
nirgrahamUK:are foetuses human? and do they have full rights? does an egg cell and a sperm cell have full rights?
Bogus. A fetus is not comparable to a gamete by any scientific criteria.
isn't the "kicker" with foetuses and abortion that the foetus is an unwanted parasite in the case of an abortion?
And why stop at the reproductive cells, can't you make potential life out of pretty much any cell via cloning?