How about you explain how a being, with no capacity even in principle for rational thought, is analogous to a human being, a being, that is, that can be contracted with? Because, as it is, your argument is baseless.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Knight_of_BAAWA: 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.
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.
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.
The baby has equal rights as the mother. So the question becomes how did we arrive at the current situation where the baby is dependent on the mother for it's care and that the baby is attached to the mother. The situation is a result of the mother's actions. The mother caused the dependency and is responsible for the care of the person she made dependant. It's not about who owns the womb which I have clearly stated the woman does, it is about individuals being responsible for their own actions and for the people they cause to be dependant based on those actions.
Jon Irenicus: How about you explain how a being, with no capacity even in principle for rational thought, is analogous to a human being, a being, that is, that can be contracted with? Because, as it is, your argument is baseless. -Jon
Human life begins at conception. All rights that fully developed humans have begin at conception. A better question is why do you think it is acceptable to murder people who do not have the physical or mental capacity to make contracts?
scineram: What should be punishment? And who would enforce it?
What should be punishment? And who would enforce it?
As an example, the SDK within the Liberty Colony has already extended it's protection services to those individuals that are unable to defend themselves under certain circumstances. So the punishment, enforcement, and procedures are the same as for those individuals that are under contract with the SDK.
The broader answer is that the people who think it's wrong will be under the obligation to enforce it and administer the punishment. There are just some areas that simply can not have a compromise. If you start beating your child to death with a tire iron in your front lawn then I am going to intervene to protect the child.
Juan: Max: In a free society we would expect a lot of different opinions about what is legal on some issues. So, can those really be 'legal' 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. I'm curious, like Scineram. What is the appropiate 'punishment' for that kind of murder, according to you ? How would you 'enforce' your particular vision of what is legal in this case ? What about the people who don't think that abortion is murder ? 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. I don't know that answer either.
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.
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.
In a free society most disputes will be resolved through contracts and arbitration. There are some issues that simply have no middle ground. That is why I use the example of an area we can hopefully agree on is wrong. Simply because party A makes an arguement that they have the right to harm party B doesn't mean they do. In most cases, most people will agree on the issue and in the cases where they do not then there is the potential for violent conflict.
Take the extreme example that Party A has a bunch of children he is murdering on his front lawn. I tell you and together we go over and kill Party A to stop him from murdering the children. In this case it seems clear we are in agreement. Substitute abortion for murdering children and now you might disagree and not help but that might not stop me from still taking action.
Take the extreme example that Party A has a bunch of children he is murdering on his front lawn.
Substitute abortion for murdering children and now you might disagree and not help but that might not stop me from still taking action.
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."
I've read through most of this thread and it's difficult for me to state that any human being can be the 'property' of another. Just because the child is conceived and lives for roughly nine months inside of the mother does not mean she owns it, and that she should be allowed to murder it. The baby has a right to life just like we all do, it's a human being, and deeming it a 'fetus' is just side stepping that issue. Fetus, unborn, baby, etc. - it's still a human being, and it has a right to live. If it's not a human, than what is it?
Juan: Take the extreme example that Party A has a bunch of children he is murdering on his front lawn. We're not talking about murdering children - that sounds like changing the subject.So, what's the proper 'punishment' for abortion according to you ? How do you plan on enforcing such 'punishment' ? How do you even plan on finding out who's had an abortion to begin with ? Substitute abortion for murdering children and now you might disagree and not help but that might not stop me from still taking action. What action, exactly ?
If a human being begins at conception then we are talking about murdering children. Since abortion is murder then the same penalties that could apply for murder would apply in the case of abortion, including the death penalty.
Since the unborn baby is still a human then they are entitled to the same protections as anyone else. See you are making the distinction between in the womb and out of it, I am not.
The practical enforcement faces the same issues that any other crime would face, physical evidence, eye witness testimony, etc.
Maxliberty:If a human being begins at conception then we are talking about murdering children.
Is a miscarriage manslaughter then?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
If a human being begins at conception then we are talking about murdering children.
Since abortion is murder then the same penalties that could apply for murder would apply in the case of abortion, including the death penalty.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then the woman is responsible for her womb, and she can have the fetus removed. QED. Thanks for playing.
Maxliberty:The baby has equal rights as the mother.
Then prove that there is such a right as the right to exist within the confines of another being, and prove that there is such a thing as the right to be a parasite. Then prove that the woman loses ownership rights to her womb when she's pregnant. AND prove that the fetus can contract with the woman to be in the womb.
If you can't, I suggest a healthy dose of backing off.
Remember: that the woman had sex is irrelevant. That the woman may have had it implanted via in vitro is irrelevant. Everything with which you try to counter ultimately is irrelevant.
Maxliberty:Human life begins at conception. All rights that fully developed humans have begin at conception.
Prove it.
Maxliberty:A better question is why do you think it is acceptable to murder people who do not have the physical or mental capacity to make contracts?
No, a better question is why you do think a woman loses ownership of her womb when she's pregnant.
Chris:I've read through most of this thread and it's difficult for me to state that any human being can be the 'property' of another. Just because the child is conceived and lives for roughly nine months inside of the mother does not mean she owns it, and that she should be allowed to murder it.
She's not murdering it; she's removing it from her womb. That it will die is not germane. It is HER womb. If it is not HER womb, whose womb is it? Please explain to me how she loses ownership of her womb because she is pregnant. You, like Maxliberty, need to explain that special plead.
And there is no "right to life".
Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 14:The anti-abortionists generally couch the preceding argument in terms of the fetus’s, as well as the born human’s, “right to life.” We have not used this concept hi this volume because of its ambiguity, and because any proper rights implied by its advocates are included in the concept of the “right to self-ownership”—the right to have one’s person free from aggression. Even Professor Judith Thomson, who, in her discussion of the abortion question, attempts inconsistently to retain the concept of “right to life” along with the right to own one’s own body, lucidly demonstrates the pitfalls and errors of the “right to life” doctrine:In some views, having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum a man needs for continued life is something he has no right at all to be given? If I am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow. It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide it. . . . But I have no right at all against anybody that he should do this for me. In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life. In our terminology, such a claim would be an impermissible violation of the other person’s right of self-ownership. Or, as Professor Thomson cogently puts it, “having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life itself.”
In some views, having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum a man needs for continued life is something he has no right at all to be given? If I am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow. It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide it. . . . But I have no right at all against anybody that he should do this for me.
Maxliberty:Since the unborn baby is still a human then they are entitled to the same protections as anyone else.
Hypocrite. You refuse to apply that to the woman! You think she is no longer entitled to her own body just because she is pregnant. You are a hypocrite.
wombatron: Maxliberty:If a human being begins at conception then we are talking about murdering children. Is a miscarriage manslaughter then?
No
Juan: If a human being begins at conception then we are talking about murdering children. So, women taking the morning-after pill are committing murder...according to your 'theory' ? Since abortion is murder then the same penalties that could apply for murder would apply in the case of abortion, including the death penalty. So, in your 'free' society women who purposely have abortions will be executed ?
The problem with saying taking the morning after pill is murder is that you don't know if she is pregnant. If you knew for a certainty that the woman was pregnant then yes it would be. In a free society, not just mine, people who murder children will undoubtedly face opposition to their actions and efforts will be made to protect the children.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:Human life begins at conception. All rights that fully developed humans have begin at conception. Prove it.
I am a human now. There is some point in the past when I did not exist. I can trace my existence to the point of conception and no earlier. Since my existence began at conception then my rights which are inherent to my existence began then as well.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, a better question is why you do think a woman loses ownership of her womb when she's pregnant.
If you knew for a certainty that the woman was pregnant then yes it would be. In a free society, not just mine, people who murder children will undoubtedly face opposition to their actions and efforts will be made to protect the children.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Prove it.
Maxliberty:I am a human now. There is some point in the past when I did not exist. I can trace my existence to the point of conception and no earlier. Since my existence began at conception then my rights which are inherent to my existence began then as well.
That's nice. Now try it without simply repeating your claim with a few more words.
Maxliberty:It is weird that you would answer on behalf of Jon.
No it isn't.
Maxliberty:I never said that a woman loses ownership of her womb.
Yes, you did. Your argument rests on the woman no longer owning her womb. If abortion is murder, then necessarily the removal of the fetus from the womb is immoral. Which, necessarily, means that the fetus owns the womb.
Not my fault that you're unable to logically track the requirements of your argument.
Maxliberty:I said that there is a relationship between two people and that this relationship which caused one party to be dependent on the other was caused by the mother. The mother incurrs obligations which means not causing harm to the other person she has made dependent on her
Incurs an obligation? What nonsense! No one can have an obligation to carry something in the person that is not desired. Hence, you firmly believe that the woman loses her ownership of her womb.
Knight_of_BAAWA:She's not murdering it; she's removing it from her womb. That it will die is not germane. It is HER womb. If it is not HER womb, whose womb is it? Please explain to me how she loses ownership of her womb because she is pregnant. You, like Maxliberty, need to explain that special plead.
I have explained this. She is still the owner of her womb but she has taken actions to make another person dependent on her and specifically dependent on her womb. Having made the other person dependent she is obligated at the least not to cause harm which forcibly removing from the condition of dependency would do. The causation is a result of the actions of the mother so she is responsible for the outcome.
Maxliberty:I have explained this.
No, you have lied and special plead. THAT is what you have done.
Maxliberty:She is still the owner of her womb
Then she can have the fetus removed.
Maxliberty:but she has taken actions to make another person dependent on her and specifically dependent on her womb.
Irrelevant. Try something that does NOT involve special pleading and the belief that consent can never be revoked (if you can...but I know you can't).
Maxliberty: wombatron: Maxliberty:If a human being begins at conception then we are talking about murdering children. Is a miscarriage manslaughter then? No
Why, then? Your position logically entails it.
Juan:So, you are saying that a bunch of cells which existed for a few hours are a "child" ?? And you're saying that destroying those cells is "murder" and so the woman who does it can be executed ??
I did offer the pro-abortion crowd the opportunity to provide when they thought human life began but I see you are unwillingly to offer up your definition. I assume we agree that life does begin at some point.
Juan:I suppose you don't realize how ridiculously absurd your position is ? Not to mention it's hardly libertarian. Also, how do you imagine that things would be handled in your totalitarian society ?
If protecting children from murder is absurd to you then that would be correct. My position is the only true libertarian position because it not only recognizes individual freedom but individual accountability.
Juan:Maybe there would be some 'private' service that would keep track of and spy on all women, in order to know when they have sex, whether they get pregnant and have abortions or not ?
Like any crime the investigation would depend on the evidence available. I didn't say anything about keeping track of all women. That is your hysteria talking.
Maxliberty:If protecting children from murder is absurd to you then that would be correct. My position is the only true libertarian position because it not only recognizes individual freedom but individual accountability.
Wrong. Your position is the one which only recognizes the fetus, and ignores the woman's right of self-ownership. It is disgusting, immoral, and involves slavery.
Knight_of_BAAWA: That's nice. Now try it without simply repeating your claim with a few more words.
I think the logic speaks for itself.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Incurs an obligation? What nonsense! No one can have an obligation to carry something in the person that is not desired. Hence, you firmly believe that the woman loses her ownership of her womb.
Yes, we disagree about personal responsibility. In your world people are not responsible for their actions and what harm their actions may cause to others.
You're basing your position on two facts: a) that the foetus has rights. If it has yet to develop its rational potentiality, this is false. There is just a lump of flesh. b) That the mother is responsible and thus has obligations to the foetus, of the contractual sort. Hence whether it can contract or not is irrelevant. As Knight_of_BAAWA stated, there is no positive "right to life" nor is there the right to be a parasite. As for him responding on my behalf, I have no problem with this as I usually do the same anyway, and because it is amusing to see him tear into you, something you are in the habit of doing to others, albeit less elegantly.
Knight_of_BAAWA:That's nice. Now try it without simply repeating your claim with a few more words.
Maxliberty:I think the logic speaks for itself.
Speaks volumes about your inability to correctly reason, yes.
Maxliberty:Yes, we disagree about personal responsibility.
Yes. In your world, "responsiblity" is whatever you think people should do, and if they don't: they're just evil! You want to dictate everyone's behavior. Anyone who doesn't live up to what you think they should do is to be exterminated to make way for the New Soviet Man.
In my world, people are responsible for their own actions, despite your blatant lie to the contrary. In my world, responsibility does not exclude abortion. In my world, responsibility is simply being accountable for one's own actions. Now how abortion isn't being accountable boggles the mind. Perhaps you could explain it to everyone. In fact, I demand that you do. You've been spewing your own pet definition of "responsibility". So now you get to show that it's correct, sport. Go to it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, you have lied
Knight_of_BAAWA: Then she can have the fetus removed.
We have had this discussion already and you seem unwilling or unable to address the examples I have provided.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Irrelevant. Try something that does NOT involve special pleading and the belief that consent can never be revoked
Consent can be revoked in some situations. This just isn't one of them without causing murder.
wombatron: Maxliberty: wombatron: Maxliberty:If a human being begins at conception then we are talking about murdering children. Is a miscarriage manslaughter then? No Why, then? Your position logically entails it.
No it doesnt. Miscarriage is not a willful act of the woman. Also, during a miscarriage it can not be detemined whether the result of the miscarriage was a result of the baby or the mother. There is no fault during a miscarriage thus there is no manslaughter.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:If protecting children from murder is absurd to you then that would be correct. My position is the only true libertarian position because it not only recognizes individual freedom but individual accountability. Wrong. Your position is the one which only recognizes the fetus, and ignores the woman's right of self-ownership. It is disgusting, immoral, and involves slavery.
I have explicitly recognized the rights of the woman....and her accountability for her actions.
Maxliberty:How have I lied?
By stating that you believe the woman owns her womb, when your argument logically precludes that. And, given your utter dedication to your argument, I can only assume that you understand all the logical requirements your argument has, and that you simply didn't want to give the appearance that you don't believe the woman owns herself when she's pregnant.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then she can have the fetus removed.
Maxliberty:We have had this discussion already
And you keep spewing irrelevant garbage as a result. Not my problem that you're completely unwilling to address reality.
Maxliberty:Consent can be revoked in some situations.
And this is one of them, since the woman owns her womb.
Unless, of course, you don't believe that the woman owns her womb when she's pregnant.
Address that.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Wrong. Your position is the one which only recognizes the fetus, and ignores the woman's right of self-ownership. It is disgusting, immoral, and involves slavery.
Maxliberty:I have explicitly recognized the rights of the woman
Wrong. You have explicitly denied that the woman owns her womb when she's pregnant.
Maxliberty:....and her accountability for her actions.
That you have; you just erroneously think she's guilty of murder.
Jon Irenicus:If it has yet to develop its rational potentiality, this is false.
What is your definition of rational potentiality and when does it begin? If the point begins in the womb then I would assume from that point forward you would agree with me.
Jon Irenicus:As for him responding on my behalf, I have no problem with this as I usually do the same anyway
Fair enough I will assume he speaks for you.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Unless, of course, you don't believe that the woman owns her womb when she's pregnant. Address that.
Let's try helping you understand. Does the woman own her womb? Yes or no?
Does the baby own itself? yes or no?
Let's start there.
My answer to both questions is yes.
MaxLiberty: I did offer the pro-abortion crowd the opportunity to provide when they thought human life began but I see you are unwillingly to offer up your definition.
If protecting children from murder is absurd to you then that would be correct. My position is the only true libertarian position
Knight_of_BAAWA:Unless, of course, you don't believe that the woman owns her womb when she's pregnant. Address that.
Maxliberty:Let's try helping you understand.
Yes, let's try helping you understand.
Does the woman own her womb when she's pregnant? Yes or no.
If you say yes, you've admitted that your argument is rubbish. If you say no, you admit that you're for slavery. Which will it be?
Development of the foetus to the point where the capacity for rational potentiality comes into place, i.e. the development of the cerebral cortex if I am correct. Before this, it is a lump of flesh and no more. This merely gets past one objection, BTW. It still does not answer all the other possible problems that may exist, i.e. what sort of responsibilities might accrue to a being which cannot even be contracted with.
Assume that he speaks for himself, and that I agree with his responses to you.
Juan: MaxLiberty: I did offer the pro-abortion crowd the opportunity to provide when they thought human life began but I see you are unwillingly to offer up your definition. I'm not interested in offering one but that doesn't mean your 'definition' is correct. If protecting children from murder is absurd to you then that would be correct. My position is the only true libertarian position Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but...Are you seriously advocating execution for women aborting their fetuses ? You don't realize that's wholly absurd ? Like any crime the investigation would depend on the evidence available. I didn't say anything about keeping track of all women. That is your hysteria talking. Not really. I'm simply following your premises. In the vast majority of cases there would hardly be any evidence...unless some massive surveillance scheme is put in place - which is an idea just as absurd as the death penalty for abortion.
Do we agree that life starts at some point? At whatever point that you would agree it starts then the human life has rights after that point, true? So the question is the starting point. Which is the original question I proposed. I have an answer for it and all the pro-abortion people do not. So until the pro-abortion people can specify when life begins they can't argue that I am not correct.
Let's suppose I argued that life didn't start until age two and so anybody could kill someone under the age of two since they weren't human yet. Would that be acceptable...i hope your answer is no....so the atarting point matters a great deal. This is of course why no one in the pro-abortion group can provide an answer. The pro-abortion arguements for when life begins are either logically inconsistent or so horrific that it would appear insane.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Unless, of course, you don't believe that the woman owns her womb when she's pregnant. Address that. Maxliberty:Let's try helping you understand. Yes, let's try helping you understand. Does the woman own her womb when she's pregnant? Yes or no. If you say yes, you've admitted that you argument is rubbish. If you say no, you admit that you're for slavery. Which will it be?
If you say yes, you've admitted that you argument is rubbish. If you say no, you admit that you're for slavery. Which will it be?
I have already answered the question. It is you who can not answer the question.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, let's try helping you understand. Does the woman own her womb when she's pregnant? Yes or no. If you say yes, you've admitted that you argument is rubbish. If you say no, you admit that you're for slavery. Which will it be?
Maxliberty:I have already answered the question.
Then you admit your argument is rubbish. Thanks much.