JonBostwick: Maxliberty:When does human life begin? Conception. Well, that was a dead end. Guess we better get back on topic.
Maxliberty:When does human life begin?
Conception.
Well, that was a dead end. Guess we better get back on topic.
I am sure the pro-abortion crowds answers will be much longer and much more contorted.
Children are obviously allowed to use violence to prevent their parents from aggressing against them.
But you are suggesting, by disagreeing with the idea of abandonment, is that children can use violence to extract resources from their parents. This would mean that children raise themselves and parents are simply providers who must comply with their children's demands; which means arbitrary exceptions and limits must be placed in order to curb the obvious moral hazard. What we have then is socialism within the family.
Obviously abandoning a child is reprehensible, but like abortion, it is not something that can be solved by outlawing it.
Peace
banned: krazy kaju:Is it moral to murder someone who is on your property but poses no threat when you can simply "kick them out?" If murdering them is the only means at your disposal, yes.
krazy kaju:Is it moral to murder someone who is on your property but poses no threat when you can simply "kick them out?"
If murdering them is the only means at your disposal, yes.
But it isn't. Hence, the problem.
Political Atheists Blog
Maxliberty: JonBostwick: Maxliberty:When does human life begin? Conception. Well, that was a dead end. Guess we better get back on topic. I am sure the pro-abortion crowds answers will be much longer and much more contorted.
They don't necessarily disagree with you. Its possible to agree that fetus are humans but to disagree that they have a right to reside within their mother (ejectionism).
Obviously the mainstream pro-abortion crowd uses the non-person argument to avoid having to make any principled arguments but I don't think I've seen that tactic here.
krazy kaju:But it isn't. Hence, the problem.
And how do you propose the mother remove the child?
banned: krazy kaju:But it isn't. Hence, the problem. And how do you propose the mother remove the child?
Induced labor.
krazy kaju:Induced labor.
Is it possible to induce labor in the first or second trimesters? I thought it was only possible later on, and more routine in overdue pregnancies.
Dunno. There might be other ways to eject the fetus or you'd have to wait.
so your saying that fetuses are actually self-owners and mothers' leeway over their fetuses can only be eviction based and non-aggressive. im i correct in saying that its not the in-out of the womb that determines the personhood as states in my original post?
There isn't, of course, any such thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being.
And there isn't, of course, any such thing as the "right to life".
When life begins is a red herring; all that matters is the woman's ownership of herself, which necessarily includes her womb. All the rest is just a bunch of gibberish.
I took more practical position. Due to nonexistence of positive obligations whether there is abortion or eviction does not really matter in practice. They would end up dead anyway so not much difference between the two.
If however there is an agent with sufficient claim, like a father, demanding that the child be given to him then I might say let the woman bear the pregnancy til the end and give the child to the father.
krazy kaju:There might be other ways to eject the fetus or you'd have to wait.
Say you're painting your wall, when the latter snaps and you fall and break both your legs. immediately after this happens, a deaf burgler walks in your door and starts stealing your things. He isn't posing a danger against your life, but he cannot hear you telling him to get out. There is a gun on the floor right beside you. Your only option is to shoot the burgler. Would you propose that your only ethical option is to wait until your legs heal?
The fact that a fetus dies when the woman tries to evict it doesn't mean she is responsible for killing it. It's death was a byproduct of her means and not her intent or desired ends. And since abortion was/is the only available immediate means she has, she is completely within her right in using it.
Maxliberty: nhaag:No one is accountable. This somes up the basic position for the pro-abortion crowd. Either you believe that parents cause children to be created and are thus responsible for what they created or you believe no one is accountable. The idea that people should not be accountable for their own actions in the creation of other human beings is the height of absurdity. If you believe people are responsible for their actions then parents are obligated to the extent they are possible to care for the children they create while in the womb and afterwards. The whole pro-abortion crowd is constantly seeking to justify murder by any mechanism possible. This is yet another debate where the pro-abortion crowd can never give a straight answer on anything.
nhaag:No one is accountable.
This somes up the basic position for the pro-abortion crowd. Either you believe that parents cause children to be created and are thus responsible for what they created or you believe no one is accountable. The idea that people should not be accountable for their own actions in the creation of other human beings is the height of absurdity.
If you believe people are responsible for their actions then parents are obligated to the extent they are possible to care for the children they create while in the womb and afterwards. The whole pro-abortion crowd is constantly seeking to justify murder by any mechanism possible. This is yet another debate where the pro-abortion crowd can never give a straight answer on anything.
Mind if I hop out of the box you put me in?
My personal view regarding abortion was never in discussion. Actually I would not embrace abortion as an option because of my ethical standards. However, this has nothing to do with what we discuss here.
Basically you can have two different views on law. Either it is a basic set derived from the fact of self ownership and copes therefor only with individuals, or you can look at the law as a means of groups to enforce their ethical views on others. In the first case you are an individualist, in the second case you fancy a more or less collectivist idea.
My point of view is the first one. Law is not about group ethics but about the relations between individuals. Responsibility is no term of law unless you are oblieged to compensate for a physical aggression you started against someone else, hence violated his or her property rights.
Property rights, including the right to own myself, are negative rights. The only right you have is to not be aggressed against you and your property. All the rest is a voluntary contract. So, if I am against abortion, noone can rightfully force me to be pro-abortion. If I want to live in an environment that rules out abortion, I am free to do so, like I am free to leave such a community again.
Now to the children. I believe unique life starts at inception, and therefor my ethic is that abortion is a violation of my personal ethic and therefor can never be a means for any goal I have. In other words, I strip of a choice voluntary because my faith doesn't allow me to act that way. Yet, this is my faith, and doesn't have to be the faith of all mankind.
From a basic view on children, free of faith that is, a fetus is living in the womb as a parasit(in the literal sense), that means it is totally dependend on the will of the mother to let it live there. Because the mother owns herself, she is totally free to do to herself whatever she wants to do or whatever her ethical believes allow. No third party is involved. It is a question about the mother and the child. If a mother decides to cut the voluntary "contract" with the fetus she is free to do so, because it is up to her to decide how she acts with her body. The fetus has no right to be nurished by another person it is the mothers voluntary decision to have it inside herself and to share her property with it.
After birth things change insofar,as the child now is an entity outside the selfproperty of the mother. Still there is no right to life but only a right to not be aggressed against. That means the child completly depends on third parties to survive to a point it is able to survive for itself. Those that support the child have no right to beat it, or even kill it, as this would be an intiation of aggression. However, they can decide to stop the support at any time. Stopping support is not aggression in any way. If you argue that not sharing is a violation of rights, you go straight to the collectivist camp and you would have to agree, that robbing the rich to feed the poor is right and lawful.
At a first glance the individualist argument seems to be very harsh, and I admit it took me a while to grasp its validity. The point you need to keep in mind is that law and ethics are not the same from an individual standpoint. Violation of laws is always a thing between two individuals and never involves the group.
But laws must hold under all circumstances not only in sunshine environments. Now if abortion was murder, on what grounds? We could say that the child has a right to life and if the mother aborts it, she violated this right. What if the mother was going to die if the fetus stays in her body? Now all of a sudden both have a right to life, which one is higher? Who is to decide? Another case, if the child can not be fed without others would starve to dead? Is the right of the child to live higher than the right to life of those supporting it? Again, who is to decide?
The answer is that the decision must be made by those that are affected by the case, hence the individuals. The fast majority of women would not have an abortion unless circumstances, which are inside the realm of their decision, force them to do so. No family would stop feeding their children unless they are faced with the gruel reality of, say starvation of all. Yet, no one else but the affected have the right to decide on their actions. And all actions they take that are not an initiation of physical aggression against a third individual are lawful.
This seems to me the least common denominator to ensure laws can be kept under all circumstances and do not give a group special rights out of nothing but their sayso or ethical preferences.
Anything above that is strictly voluntary and can be seen as rules for the members of a group, but they can not be enforced on people, they can only be held as rules to act and those that do not want to act in that way can be thrown out of the group or leave it voluntary.
Does that make sense to you?
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
nhaag: Now to the children. I believe unique life starts at inception, and therefor my ethic is that abortion is a violation of my personal ethic and therefor can never be a means for any goal I have. In other words, I strip of a choice voluntary because my faith doesn't allow me to act that way. Yet, this is my faith, and doesn't have to be the faith of all mankind.
Yes, moral relativism is your position. In your faith mruder is unacceptable but in practical application you don't mind it.
nhaag:From a basic view on children, free of faith that is, a fetus is living in the womb as a parasit(in the literal sense), that means it is totally dependend on the will of the mother to let it live there. Because the mother owns herself, she is totally free to do to herself whatever she wants to do or whatever her ethical believes allow. No third party is involved. It is a question about the mother and the child. If a mother decides to cut the voluntary "contract" with the fetus she is free to do so, because it is up to her to decide how she acts with her body. The fetus has no right to be nurished by another person it is the mothers voluntary decision to have it inside herself and to share her property with it.
More pro-abortion nonsense. The mother had sex knowing that one of the possible outcomes was the creation of a human being that would be dependent on her and point of fact her body specifically is designed to serve as a host for this activity. She took actions that created another person dependent on her. She is responsible at the very least for assuring no harm comes to the child. This is just simple basic personal responsibility for your own actions.
Maxliberty: This is just simple basic personal responsibility for your own actions.
Yes, but we reject it.
Maxliberty:More pro-abortion nonsense. The mother had sex knowing that one of the possible outcomes was the creation of a human being that would be dependent on her and point of fact her body specifically is designed to serve as a host for this activity.
And a football player knows that playing football can lead to injuries. By your incredibly faulty reasoning, no football player may then seek medical attention for said injuries, since it's just the price you pay for playing. Nor does the fact that the woman has a host mechanism mean anything other that she has a host mechanism. It's HER host mechanism. SHE controls it. Or do you feel that a woman loses her self-ownership when she's pregnant? Is that it? Does she become a slave to the fetus? In your view: she is nothing but a vessel, no longer human.
Further: consent can be revoked. Your view means that there cannot be any divorces as well, so we must outlaw marriage, since "buyer's remorse" can set in.
As for "responsibility", we still are using the dictionary definition of "responsibility" and "responsible", aren't we? We're not using your pet special pleading definition which excludes abortion as taking responsibility.
JonBostwick: Peter Griffin: yeah, i think it makes sense to me now no one should be held accountable for letting their babies die from hunger, If you don't like how a child is being raised then raise it yourself. But why do I have a feeling your solution is telling others how to parent at the point of a gun? No matter how much some here want to demonstrate their moral superiority, there is no legal solution to this. We must rely on the incentives of the market, not disincentives created by armed gangs.
Peter Griffin: yeah, i think it makes sense to me now no one should be held accountable for letting their babies die from hunger,
yeah, i think it makes sense to me now
no one should be held accountable for letting their babies die from hunger,
If you don't like how a child is being raised then raise it yourself.
But why do I have a feeling your solution is telling others how to parent at the point of a gun?
No matter how much some here want to demonstrate their moral superiority, there is no legal solution to this. We must rely on the incentives of the market, not disincentives created by armed gangs.
LOL, I was NOT being sarcastic.
I do understand why NO ONE should be held accountable for starving their babies to death,
Knight_of_BAAWA: And a football player knows that playing football can lead to injuries. By your incredibly faulty reasoning, no football player may then seek medical attention for said injuries, since it's just the price you pay for playing. Nor does the fact that the woman has a host mechanism mean anything other that she has a host mechanism. It's HER host mechanism. SHE controls it. Or do you feel that a woman loses her self-ownership when she's pregnant? Is that it? Does she become a slave to the fetus? In your view: she is nothing but a vessel, no longer human.
To use your analogy the football player knows he can get hurt so if he does get hurt he can't sue the owner of the team under normal circumstances. The player is responsible for the risk he is taking. The woman is responsible for the risks she is taking and the possible outcomes.
The point about a woman's body being designed to host is that the baby is welcomed by the mother's body. This is not a foreign invasion. The woman's body is designed to have sex and produce children and to provide for the support of the child until birth. The point being the baby is invited in not taking the place by force.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Further: consent can be revoked. Your view means that there cannot be any divorces as well, so we must outlaw marriage, since "buyer's remorse" can set in.
Hey, look! I agree with Max, for once.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
A word on this reoccuring theme here that people are "pro-abortion": Noone (or barely anyone), to my knowledge, is actually pro-abortion in any blatant sense. I'd gander that most people who are opposed to the criminalization of abortion aren't particularly fond of it personally and would probably suggest against it to people they personally know, unless it was an extreme situation. Noone in their right mind actually likes abortion, it's an ugly thing.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And a football player knows that playing football can lead to injuries. By your incredibly faulty reasoning, no football player may then seek medical attention for said injuries, since it's just the price you pay for playing. Nor does the fact that the woman has a host mechanism mean anything other that she has a host mechanism. It's HER host mechanism. SHE controls it. Or do you feel that a woman loses her self-ownership when she's pregnant? Is that it? Does she become a slave to the fetus? In your view: she is nothing but a vessel, no longer human.
Maxliberty:To use your analogy the football player knows he can get hurt so if he does get hurt he can't sue the owner of the team under normal circumstances. The player is responsible for the risk he is taking. The woman is responsible for the risks she is taking and the possible outcomes.
Ok. And how in the world then does that mean that your special pleading redefinition of the words "responsible" and "responsibility" to not include abortion actually works?
Maxliberty:The point about a woman's body being designed to host is that the baby is welcomed by the mother's body.
What about her will? Aren't you forgetting that she is a conscious, sentient being with a will of her own? Why yes, yes you are. And if she does not desire the fetus to be inside her, to deny her the right to control the contents of her own body is to enslave her to the fetus. You don't want to support slavery DO YOU?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Further: consent can be revoked. Your view means that there cannot be any divorces as well, so we must outlaw marriage, since "buyer's remorse" can set in.
Maxliberty:If I invite you out on a boat
False analogy. The fetus wasn't invited; only sex was consented to and invited. Further, the boat isn't your body. Try again with a proper analogy.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:And a football player knows that playing football can lead to injuries. By your incredibly faulty reasoning, no football player may then seek medical attention for said injuries, since it's just the price you pay for playing. Nor does the fact that the woman has a host mechanism mean anything other that she has a host mechanism. It's HER host mechanism. SHE controls it. Or do you feel that a woman loses her self-ownership when she's pregnant? Is that it? Does she become a slave to the fetus? In your view: she is nothing but a vessel, no longer human. Maxliberty:To use your analogy the football player knows he can get hurt so if he does get hurt he can't sue the owner of the team under normal circumstances. The player is responsible for the risk he is taking. The woman is responsible for the risks she is taking and the possible outcomes. Ok. And how in the world then does that mean that your special pleading redefinition of the words "responsible" and "responsibility" to not include abortion actually works? Maxliberty:The point about a woman's body being designed to host is that the baby is welcomed by the mother's body. What about her will? Aren't you forgetting that she is a conscious, sentient being with a will of her own? Why yes, yes you are. And if she does not desire the fetus to be inside her, to deny her the right to control the contents of her own body is to enslave her to the fetus. You don't want to support slavery DO YOU? Knight_of_BAAWA:Further: consent can be revoked. Your view means that there cannot be any divorces as well, so we must outlaw marriage, since "buyer's remorse" can set in. Maxliberty:If I invite you out on a boat False analogy. The fetus wasn't invited; only sex was consented to and invited. Further, the boat isn't your body. Try again with a proper analogy.
If becoming pregnant is a possible outcome then by having sex you accept the responsibility of one of the possible outcomes. Being pregnant is a condition that is created by the act of sex under most circumstances. Pregnancy is the condition where the baby is dependent on the mother as a result of the mother's actions. There is no slavery, just simple individual responsibility.
Maxliberty:If becoming pregnant is a possible outcome then by having sex you accept the responsibility of one of the possible outcomes.
Thus, the football player accepts the responsibility and cannot seek medical attention. It's YOUR crappy redefinition. I'm just using it to show you where it leads. Also, if the woman is not allowed to exercise her self-ownership by removing something unwanted from her womb, i.e. the fetus, then it is being de facto claimed that the fetus has ownership rights to the womb, and thus owns the woman, because she would be forced to carry and nourish the fetus against her will.
And would you mind terribly addressing the rest of the post?
Good point. Slavery contracts are unenforcable. Letting aside all the other issues to do with contracting with a foetus, that is one of the most devastating blows to the notion that a woman is obligated to either keep the organism alive or provide for it when it is born.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:If becoming pregnant is a possible outcome then by having sex you accept the responsibility of one of the possible outcomes. Thus, the football player accepts the responsibility and cannot seek medical attention. It's YOUR crappy redefinition. I'm just using it to show you where it leads. Also, if the woman is not allowed to exercise her self-ownership by removing something unwanted from her womb, i.e. the fetus, then it is being de facto claimed that the fetus has ownership rights to the womb, and thus owns the woman, because she would be forced to carry and nourish the fetus against her will. And would you mind terribly addressing the rest of the post?
What it comes down to is you believe that the baby is created by some action that the mother is not involved with. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you are not responsible for your actions. I will use this example again, when you drive a car it is possible that you may cause an accident and injure someone. If the injured person is now dependent on medical care as a result of your actions then you are obligated to pay for it. Killing the person that is now dependent on you is not a reasonable option.
Your arguement requires one to believe that babies are not created by the actions of other people and that womeen's bodies are not designed to nurture and carry babies during pregnancy. Babies are not foreign invasions occupying space by force. The baby exists as a result of the parents actions. In order to accept your position one would have to believe that people having sex does not have the creation of children as a possible outcome.
Knight_of_BAAWA:What about her will? Aren't you forgetting that she is a conscious, sentient being with a will of her own? Why yes, yes you are. And if she does not desire the fetus to be inside her, to deny her the right to control the contents of her own body is to enslave her to the fetus. You don't want to support slavery DO YOU?
Knight_of_BAAWA: False analogy. The fetus wasn't invited; only sex was consented to and invited. Further, the boat isn't your body. Try again with a proper analogy.
Having sex has possible consequences one of which is creating another human being that is dependent upon you. Are you saying becoming pregnant is not a possible outcome of sex?
Maxliberty:What it comes down to is you believe that the baby is created by some action that the mother is not involved with.
Strawman. Try again.
Oh, and just because the football player doesn't like having the broken bone doesn't mean the football player isn't responsible, and therefore CANNOT get medical attention.
See how your craptacular argument gets used against you?
Further: a fetus is occupying space within the confines of a self-owner. Deny that and you deny reality. Given that the self-owner owns that space, the self-owner is responsible for that space and can do with that space what the self-owner wants. I defy you to demonstrate that said self-owner, i.e. the woman, loses her self-ownership or even merely the ownership of her womb simply because she is pregnant. I defy you to do that. Why? Because I know that you simply can't do it. It's not possible. All you have is a special plead.
Maxliberty:Having sex has possible consequences one of which is creating another human being that is dependent upon you. Are you saying becoming pregnant is not a possible outcome of sex?
Nope. Are you saying that a broken bone is not a possible outcome of playing football? If not, why then is it ok to have the bone set? The player knew the risks--tough it out and live with the broken bone! That's the logical outcome of applying your idiotic special plead. And you ARE aware that special pleading is a fallacy, RIGHT?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:What it comes down to is you believe that the baby is created by some action that the mother is not involved with. Strawman. Try again. Oh, and just because the football player doesn't like having the broken bone doesn't mean the football player isn't responsible, and therefore CANNOT get medical attention. See how your craptacular argument gets used against you? Further: a fetus is occupying space within the confines of a self-owner. Deny that and you deny reality. Given that the self-owner owns that space, the self-owner is responsible for that space and can do with that space what the self-owner wants. I defy you to demonstrate that said self-owner, i.e. the woman, loses her self-ownership or even merely the ownership of her womb simply because she is pregnant. I defy you to do that. Why? Because I know that you simply can't do it. It's not possible. All you have is a special plead.
Where you are wrong is that the football player is only dealing with himself. So the football player can seek care for himself because he is not injuring someone else in the process. There is no third party involved for the football player. Pregnancy involves a third party.
Your statement is true that a woman owns her body but what we are discussing is the woman's relationship to another person. The fact that this other person is physically dependent on the mother doesn't change the nature of the relationship. Again, the woman is making decisions and these decisions have consequences for which she is responsible.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I defy you to demonstrate that said self-owner, i.e. the woman, loses her self-ownership or even merely the ownership of her womb simply because she is pregnant. I defy you to do that. Why? Because I know that you simply can't do it. It's not possible.
So I guess it's back to the drawing board for your next arguement.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Strawman. Try again. Oh, and just because the football player doesn't like having the broken bone doesn't mean the football player isn't responsible, and therefore CANNOT get medical attention. See how your craptacular argument gets used against you? Further: a fetus is occupying space within the confines of a self-owner. Deny that and you deny reality. Given that the self-owner owns that space, the self-owner is responsible for that space and can do with that space what the self-owner wants. I defy you to demonstrate that said self-owner, i.e. the woman, loses her self-ownership or even merely the ownership of her womb simply because she is pregnant. I defy you to do that. Why? Because I know that you simply can't do it. It's not possible. All you have is a special plead.
Maxliberty:Where you are wrong is that the football player is only dealing with himself.
Irrelevant. The football player is a self-owner, and as a self-owner who knowingly does something which puts said self-owner into a position whereby injury can happen and does happen, according to your argument said self-owner cannot have medical attention because that would not be taking responsibility for said self-owner's actions.
Unless, of course, you wish to admit to special pleading your pet definitions of "responsible" and "responsibility" around. Want to do that? It's one or the other for you. You need to pick one, because you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Maxliberty:Your statement is true that a woman owns her body but what we are discussing is the woman's relationship to another person.
Wrong. We are discussing the woman's relationship to her womb. The fact is that there is no such thing as the right to be a parasite, and I defy you to prove that there is.
Maxliberty:Again, your ownership of your body does not absolve from responsibility of your actions with your body.
There you go again, trotting out you own pet definition of "responsibility", which somehow excludes abortion. How can you justify your fallacious crap?
Maxliberty:The woman made decisions that created a condition that a third party would be dependent on them for care.
And the woman owns her womb. Please demonstrate that a woman no longer owns her womb when she becomes pregnant.
Notice how I keep hitting you with that, and notice how you never show it. Why is that? Perhaps you should go back to the drawing board.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Are you saying that a broken bone is not a possible outcome of playing football? If not, why then is it ok to have the bone set? The player knew the risks--tough it out and live with the broken bone!
As stated above there is no third party in this example. My example was to demonstrate that people are responsible for their own actions. i will try and make the football example simple for you. Let us suppose that it was common practice that during a football game that when players would collide that sometimes their bones would become fused together for a period of nine months. So player A collides with Player B and they become fused together and player B gets knocked out and is in a coma. Now player A wants to kill Player B because he is violating his self-ownership. My response is, that was a known risk that was possible so player A does not have a claim against player B. That is player A is responsible for his actions and must accept the outcome even if it is not his preferred scenario. The killing of the third party is not justified. Your response is it's ok if player A kills Player B.
Back to the drawing board.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Maxliberty:As stated above there is no third party in this example.
As stated above: that's irrelevant. I'm using your definitions of "responsible" and "responsibility". If you do not like that, perhaps you should be consistent. If you cannot be consistent, then I suggest you refrain from discussing this topic.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Irrelevant. The football player is a self-owner, and as a self-owner who knowingly does something which puts said self-owner into a position whereby injury can happen and does happen, according to your argument said self-owner cannot have medical attention because that would not be taking responsibility for said self-owner's actions. Unless, of course, you wish to admit to special pleading your pet definitions of "responsible" and "responsibility" around. Want to do that? It's one or the other for you. You need to pick one, because you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Yes, the football player is a self-owner and he is responsible for taking care of his broken bone. It is no one elses responsibility to fix the broken bone. I have no idea why you would think that the player can not seek medical attention.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Wrong. We are discussing the woman's relationship to her womb. The fact is that there is no such thing as the right to be a parasite, and I defy you to prove that there is.
The woman clearly owns her womb. The baby clearly owns itself. So we have a relationship between two people. A relationship brought about by the actions of the woman. The woman made the baby dependant on her for it's care. The woman is obliged to at least see no intentional harm comes to the other person. The fact that they are physically attached is not relevant to determining whose actions caused the situation and who bears responsibility.
So I have specifically addressed your question.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Are you saying that a broken bone is not a possible outcome of playing football? If not, why then is it ok to have the bone set? The player knew the risks--tough it out and live with the broken bone! Maxliberty:As stated above there is no third party in this example. As stated above: that's irrelevant. I'm using your definitions of "responsible" and "responsibility". If you do not like that, perhaps you should be consistent. If you cannot be consistent, then I suggest you refrain from discussing this topic.
Thats always a sign the opponent is losing in these discussions. Yes, logic and reason are frustrating and I am sure it would be easier if everyone would concede to your ramblings.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Irrelevant. The football player is a self-owner, and as a self-owner who knowingly does something which puts said self-owner into a position whereby injury can happen and does happen, according to your argument said self-owner cannot have medical attention because that would not be taking responsibility for said self-owner's actions. Unless, of course, you wish to admit to special pleading your pet definitions of "responsible" and "responsibility" around. Want to do that? It's one or the other for you. You need to pick one, because you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Maxliberty:Yes, the football player is a self-owner and he is responsible for taking care of his broken bone.
Then the woman is responsible for her womb, and she can have the fetus removed.
QED.
Thanks for playing.
Juan:What would your 'free' society look like Max ? What would 'legally' happen to women who have abortions ?
In a free society we would expect a lot of different opinions about what is legal on some issues. It is not so much what would be legal but what individuals would be willing to do about certain activities. I consider abortion murder and it should be punished as such. The major sticking points always arise when dealing with people unable to protect themselves.
Let's take an area I hope we agree on. That is adults should not have sex with children (let's not get into a consenting age debate so whatever age you clearly think is wrong). Now there are some people that would disagree. In a free society how do we deal with this? It is the same answer for abortion.
Knight_of_BAAWA:As stated above: that's irrelevant. I'm using your definitions of "responsible" and "responsibility". If you do not like that, perhaps you should be consistent. If you cannot be consistent, then I suggest you refrain from discussing this topic.
Maxliberty:Thats always a sign the opponent is losing in these discussions.
Yes, you are. You've lost badly because you aren't using logic or reason, and all you're doing is putting forth one fallacy after another. I'm sure it would be easier if everyone would just concede to your fallacious garbage, but I refuse to. Must be so frustrating to you that I refuse to allow your fallacious arguments to stand.
What should be punishment? And who would enforce it?
Max: In a free society we would expect a lot of different opinions about what is legal on some issues.
It is not so much what would be legal but what individuals would be willing to do about certain activities. I consider abortion murder and it should be punished as such.