Jon Irenicus: 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. 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. Fair enough I will assume he speaks for you. Assume that he speaks for himself, and that I agree with his responses to you. -Jon
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.
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.
Fair enough I will assume he speaks for you.
Assume that he speaks for himself, and that I agree with his responses to you.
-Jon
When exactly does this development occur? How much development has to occur? We need a specific reference point because you are making a universal claim for all human existence. That is we need an exact moment because before this its ok to have an abortion and after it would not be ok.
Even if I take your arguement and there is an agreed upon point then this point is clearly inside the womb that the baby becomes a human. So the baby at this point has the same rights as the mother.
If the baby has the same rights at the mother, then clearly we all have the right to be a parasite.
Around 6 months or so (don't quote me on that as I'm not a physician.) Of course, this does not mean in and of itself that the mother may not evict the child from her womb... and in cases where it is fatal to her, the foetus' rights are irrelevant, and her survival is primary (rights are inapplicable in situations where social life is impossible.) Because to assume she consented to its entry into her womb is to assume a sort of tacit contract, that devoid of context is an unwarranted inference, and it may be no more than a trespasser, whom may only be dealt with by violent ejection, possibly resulting in death.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Knight_of_BAAWA: If the baby has the same rights at the mother, then clearly we all have the right to be a parasite.
So under your definition the baby has no rights at all. So when does the baby have it's full rights? Remember i did say that there were some abortion arguements that were logically consistent just horrific in their application to the point that people intrinsicly reject it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:If the baby has the same rights at the mother, then clearly we all have the right to be a parasite.
Maxliberty:So under your definition
So under your definition, we all have the right to be a parasite, and no one owns his or her own body.
I'll just keep digging the claws in further, rending your argument and tearing it asunder in a glorious shriek of reason.
Jon Irenicus: Around 6 months or so. Of course, this does not mean in and of itself that the mother may not evict the child from her womb... and in cases where it is fatal to her, the foetus' rights are irrelevant, and her survival is primary (rights are inapplicable in situations where social life is impossible.) Because to assume she consented to its entry into her womb is to assume a sort of tacit contract, that devoid of contract is an unwarranted inference, and it may be no more than a trespasser, whom may only be dealt with by violent ejection, possibly resulting in death. -Jon
Around 6 months or so. Of course, this does not mean in and of itself that the mother may not evict the child from her womb... and in cases where it is fatal to her, the foetus' rights are irrelevant, and her survival is primary (rights are inapplicable in situations where social life is impossible.) Because to assume she consented to its entry into her womb is to assume a sort of tacit contract, that devoid of contract is an unwarranted inference, and it may be no more than a trespasser, whom may only be dealt with by violent ejection, possibly resulting in death.
So after around 6 months then you would agree with me that abortions would be murder under most circumstances..is that right?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:If the baby has the same rights at the mother, then clearly we all have the right to be a parasite. Maxliberty:So under your definition So under your definition, we all have the right to be a parasite, and no one owns his or her own body. I'll just keep digging the claws in further, rending your argument and tearing it asunder in a glorious shriek of reason.
You might be shrieking but it has nothing to do with reason. You haven't even come close to denting the arguement. In fact you have specifically proven my point that the pro-abortion group can not coherently answer when human life begins.
And since you and Jon share the same ideas then you are now in agreement that abortion at least after around six months is murder. See we are making progress.
Maxliberty: 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.
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."
No, because there is still an additional premise that must come into play: that the mother consented to have a being make unlimited use of her body whilst inhabiting it. This is akin to a slavery contract, taking the mother's consent for granted. It is unenforceable, even if one could prove assuming consent was a warranted inference. It assumes the mother may never change her mind, and that the being should have unlimited access to her body. Her will is not its to command. The only obligation the mother would have, is that if safe removal of the foetus is possible, she is bound to avail herself of it, as in this case eviction without death is possible.
Knight_of_BAAWA:So under your definition, we all have the right to be a parasite, and no one owns his or her own body. I'll just keep digging the claws in further, rending your argument and tearing it asunder in a glorious shriek of reason.
Maxliberty:You might be shrieking
Actually, that shrieking is the sound of your fallacies recoiling in horror at the sight of proper reasoning.
Hint: when life begins is ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. Only someone using a red herring would think that it means something.
Now then, since you and Stalin believe that no one owns themselves, I see that you have no problem throwing people into the Gulag system. How wonderful. I guess we see where you really stand.
And since you and Jon share the same ideas then you are now in agreement that abortion at least after around six months is murder.
My, aren't you the sophist. Eristic argumentation is of no use here. You are the one who said abortion after six months is murder, not I.
Allow me to “jump in” and provide my own ramblings to the topic of abortion. I am going to assume that all of us here take self ownership as a moral axiom. From this point we get the principal of non-aggression, which allows us to make moral/ethical judgments on the relationship between self-owners (since governments are essentially a group of individuals, but never mind).
Now, when do we possess or attain self-ownership? That is the question that has been dancing unnoticed through these series of posts. I assert that self-ownership is attained at (using the same argument Hoppe takes) the “objectification” of the will.
But when do we obtain the rights associated with self-ownership? Rothbard comments “Every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.” Rothbard obviously uses the potential for self-ownership as actual attainment of the rights associated with self-ownership. In order to fully grasp the implications of this we must go further than, as Rothbard does, the act of birth. Potential undeniably begins with conception.
The rest of my argument extends from my belief that the unborn are self-owners, based on the argument of potential. After accepting this, the topic of abortion becomes a question of relationship between two self-owners. The two major arguments that have been presented so far are:
1) The mother is in some sort of implicit contract and must be deemed subservient to the fetus.
2) Or, the fetus is a parasite, living upon a self-owner.
I’ll have to hurry up and post, I’m running a bit late for a meeting, but I want to conclude with two thoughts.
I find that if we take the implications of self-ownership to their end. An act of abortion can not be anything more than eviction; anything else would trample the rights of the other self-owner. This deems as philosophically immoral most of the abortions that take place today (which include direct harm to a self-owner).
Another thought, if we do not take the potential of self-ownership as possessing the rights associated with it, then when does one attain those rights. And, if they are not self-owners, then children (post birth) can be aggressed against, as we would a wild animal. Thus, up until the rights associated with self ownership are obtained, the aggression against an entity (not belonging to someone else) cannot be condemned. Thus my questions to all of you is, “When do we possess or attain the rights associated with self ownership?”
You know what's funny? Libertarians argue about abortion all of the time. But we never consider aborting the parasites running the state.
liberty student: You know what's funny? Libertarians argue about abortion all of the time. But we never consider aborting the parasites running the state.
Thats agorism, libby
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Fetuses don't shoot back. :o)
But seriously, that's not the reason they don't have rights prior to around the beginning of the third trimester.
But I disgress: Are you suggesting we start an armed revolution now? Beginning with some assassinations? While I share the sentiment, it hardly seems like a good strategic move.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
wombatron:Thats agorism, libby
Not aborting, or arguing about abortion? Don't say direct action. That takes energy. An agorist could break a nail. lol
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:But I disgress: Are you suggesting we start an armed revolution now? Beginning with some assassinations? While I share the sentiment, it hardly seems like a good strategic move.
I can't figure out if you are obtuse or isosceles.
liberty student: wombatron:Thats agorism, libby Not aborting, or arguing about abortion? Don't say direct action. That takes energy. An agorist could break a nail. lol
I really don't know. Its a weak analogy, but I just couldn't resist.
An agorist could break a nail. lol
Which would be very plebeian.
And we can't have that!
Assassination Politics much?
liberty student: Geoffrey Allan Plauche:But I disgress: Are you suggesting we start an armed revolution now? Beginning with some assassinations? While I share the sentiment, it hardly seems like a good strategic move. I can't figure out if you are obtuse or isosceles.
Certainly not obtuse. But why are you so square?
Yes, I am square. Anything better than suggesting that I am advocating violence. I'm for non-violent resistance.
Juan: Maxliberty: 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. A question to which you've provided a wrong answer. According to you a one-day-old fetus (if it's even called a fetus) is a child. Frankly, we're speaking different languages. Here "fetus : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth " In my opinion the key point about your position is that you're advocating the death penalty for innocent people - and calling that 'libertarianism' - oh well.
So we don't agree that life starts at some point. If you are not sure that life starts at some point then you are correct that any discussion of life is irrelevant until we agree that life starts at some point.
Jon Irenicus:The only obligation the mother would have, is that if safe removal of the foetus is possible, she is bound to avail herself of it, as in this case eviction without death is possible.
Why is she obligated to take this action which might very well be more invasive than a simple abortion? And what does available mean, who determines that?
Because it is possible to evict the trespasser without harming their physical integrity, as is the case with all other matters of trespass. Unless you deny in that case that the proprietor (where a non-lethal avenue of eviction is possible) has an obligation not to kill the trespasser in evicting them.
Jon Irenicus: Because it is possible to evict the trespasser without harming their physical integrity, as is the case with all other matters of trespass. Unless you deny in that case that the proprietor (where a non-lethal avenue of eviction is possible) has an obligation not to kill the trespasser in evicting them. -Jon
Well, i am discussing the mother. The mother might have to endure a casearaean section which is more invasive than a simple abortion. So why is the woman obligated to be cut open?
Also, you failed to identify the specific moment that life is created and how this will be verified.
garegin: please answer then 1. what rights do parents have? 2. when do children have self-ownership? 3. how is it the fetus in the womb at the whim of the mother, if he/she has prospect of future self-ownership
please answer then
1. what rights do parents have?
2. when do children have self-ownership?
3. how is it the fetus in the womb at the whim of the mother, if he/she has prospect of future self-ownership
I am going to attempt an answer at the questions.
1-Parents have the right to raise their children as they wish, as long as they do not violate their childrens rights, which have to be balanced with the property rights of the parents. Parents own their home, and as such, have the right to make rules in the home. But they cannot have a rule of killing all their children, just because they happen to be on their property.
2-Children have self-ownership at conception. Any other line is arbitrary and therefore inconsistent. As sonomeone else stated, just because something is inside you does not give you ownership of it.
3-see answer to 2
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Maxliberty:Also, you failed to identify the specific moment that life is created and how this will be verified.
Still wondering about the relevance of that.
Spideynw:2-Children have self-ownership at conception. Any other line is arbitrary and therefore inconsistent.
You need to provide an argument for this. Simply asserting it doesn't make it so.
Aristotelian libertarian belief is that the basis for rights is rationality. Drawing on this, a non-arbitrary line can be identified as the full development of the biological basis for rationality: the cerebral cortex fully develops around 24 weeks, or the beginning of the third trimester.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Spideynw:2-Children have self-ownership at conception. Any other line is arbitrary and therefore inconsistent. You need to provide an argument for this. Simply asserting it doesn't make it so. Aristotelian libertarian belief is that the basis for rights is rationality. Drawing on this, a non-arbitrary line can be identified as the full development of the biological basis for rationality: the cerebral cortex fully develops around 24 weeks, or the beginning of the third trimester.
No, it is still arbitrary. Rationality is subjective. To claim a 24 week old baby is rational is ludicrous.
I could just as easily claim that since the human brain is not fully developed until around 25 years old, that anyone under 25 does not have any rights.
The only consistent argument is that humans have rights, regardless of age, at conception.
As to why humans have rights, it is because we are the only creature capable of recognizing and understanding them. But all humans have those rights,
Spideynw:No, it is still arbitrary. Rationality is subjective.
Uh...no, it's not.
Spideynw:To claim a 24 week old baby is rational is ludicrous.
That's not the claim.
Spideynw:I could just as easily claim that since the human brain is not fully developed until around 25 years old, that anyone under 25 does not have any rights.
Different kind of claim. It's not about how well someone can reason but whether they have the capacity for it.
Spideynw:The only consistent argument is that humans have rights, regardless of age, at conception.
Why?
What is so special about conception?
Spideynw:As to why humans have rights, it is because we are the only creature capable of recognizing and understanding them.
Because human beings are rational beings.
Conception begins the potential for self-ownership.
1) Depending on definitions, yes rationality is subjective. Although I believe you define rationality as logic itself, in which case rationality is not subjective.
2-3) From what I can tell, your argument equates the capacity for reason as being the attainment of the rights associated with self-ownership, i.e. non agression. The problem I see is that I do not believe most human babies, directly after birth, posess the capacity to reason. But I do believe they posess the potential to posess the capacity to reason.... Now, I do take an illogical step by first condemning the killing of human babies post birth and then declaring that potential must be the defining factor in the attainment of the rights of self-ownership.
4) Conception is special because it is the beginning of the potential for rational thought.
5) From what basis do you come to the conclusion that human beings are rational beings (please include your definition of human)? This question does not imply that I disagree with your statement, but I can more easily see where you are comming from philisophically if I know how you answer this question.
Oh, by the way, this post is directed first towards Geoffrey Allan Plauche and then towards all who read.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Spideynw:I could just as easily claim that since the human brain is not fully developed until around 25 years old, that anyone under 25 does not have any rights. Different kind of claim. It's not about how well someone can reason but whether they have the capacity for it.
And it is not about whether someone has the capacity for it, but whether they have the capacity to develop the capacity for it.
JackSkylark: Conception begins the potential for self-ownership.
The potential for it? But not the actuality? What does this imply?
JackSkylark:1) Depending on definitions, yes rationality is subjective. Although I believe you define rationality as logic itself, in which case rationality is not subjective.
Well, I don't accept any definitions as fundamental that hold rationality to be subjective. How's that? :o) And logic is a tool of reason. I'm not using the Enlightenment conception, however.
JackSkylark:2-3) From what I can tell, your argument equates the capacity for reason as being the attainment of the rights associated with self-ownership, i.e. non agression. The problem I see is that I do not believe most human babies, directly after birth, posess the capacity to reason. But I do believe they posess the potential to posess the capacity to reason.... Now, I do take an illogical step by first condemning the killing of human babies post birth and then declaring that potential must be the defining factor in the attainment of the rights of self-ownership.
Normal human babies possess the capacity for reason. It's just naturally and temporarily deminished. They also don't reason well because they require education, but the ability or skill to use one's rational capacity well is not the basis for rights. I think you're making a similar mistake to the one Spidey made.
JackSkylark:4) Conception is special because it is the beginning of the potential for rational thought.
Potential is not actual. If you base rights on potentiality, why stop at conception? Why not extend rights to future generations? And as long as we're ascribing rights to beings that don't exist, why not past generations as well? Actuality is what is important.
JackSkylark:5) From what basis do you come to the conclusion that human beings are rational beings (please include your definition of human)? This question does not imply that I disagree with your statement, but I can more easily see where you are comming from philisophically if I know how you answer this question.
I follow the Aristotelian tradition. The Aristotelian definition of a human being is "man is a rational animal." This is his essential characteristic. (Keep in mind though that a concept is not just its definition.) Of course, for Aristotle, rationality necessarily involves a political (not statist) and social component. To be a rational animal is not only to be one capable of abstract thought, of forming concepts, recognizing and using logic, of knowing right and wrong, justice and injustice, but also being capable of speech, of discourse, and cooperation toward shared ends. There is no other animal on earth, to our knowledge, capable of rational thought. The others lack these characteristics. Sure many of them can cooperate but even this is not on the same level. Sure they can communicate to varying rudimentary degrees, but this is not speech.
Spideynw: Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Spideynw:I could just as easily claim that since the human brain is not fully developed until around 25 years old, that anyone under 25 does not have any rights. Different kind of claim. It's not about how well someone can reason but whether they have the capacity for it. And it is not about whether someone has the capacity for it, but whether they have the capacity to develop the capacity for it.
Why not the capacity to develop the capacity to develop the capacity for it then? Like I mentioned in my previous post. Potential is not actual. It is the actual that is important. Eggs and sperm have the capacity to develop the capacity to develop the capacity for rationality. Why don't they have rights too?
At any rate, the point at which the biological basis for rationality fully develops is clearly a non-arbitrary one. You may disagree with it, but you can't disagree with it on the basis of abritrariness.
If it involves considerable harm to herself, she indeed has no obligation to do it. As has been stated already.
And this matters, how?
Ipse dixit. Try again.