Knight_of_BAAWA: 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.
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.
It is relevant because as your alter-ego said, that the moment before this the woman has no obligations and the moment after this she does. So when the woman goes to the doctor's office we have to know whether we have reached that moment or not because would change the possibilities of options. See this basically defeats your woman owns the womb arguement because apparently after a certain point she can't do whatever she wants.
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.
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.
And what if the cerebral cortex never fully develops? Then even after birth these people can be "aborted" according to your arguement. Not to mention how are you going to know if the cerebral cortex is developed in the baby? Your arguement just makes a generalization and since each case is specific we can't generalize about when an abortion can be performed. you would have to be certain in each individual case.
Does she have obligations after birth?
Jon Irenicus:If it involves considerable harm to herself, she indeed has no obligation to do it. As has been stated already.
Who gets to decide whether it causes considerable harm?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Still wondering about the relevance of that.
Maxliberty:It is relevant
No, it isn't. The moment life is created means absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's a red herring designed to obfuscate the real issue: the ownership of the womb.
You've yet to figure out that if a woman owns her womb (which she does), then she can have the fetus removed from it. Period. End of story.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: 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.
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.
So, are you saying a human is not a human until that point?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No, it isn't. The moment life is created means absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's a red herring designed to obfuscate the real issue: the ownership of the womb. You've yet to figure out that if a woman owns her womb (which she does), then she can have the fetus removed from it. Period. End of story.
Rights have to be balanced. If someone trespasses on your property, do you then have a right to kill them? If not, then a mother does not necessarily have the right to take the life of another human, just because it is on her property.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, it isn't. The moment life is created means absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's a red herring designed to obfuscate the real issue: the ownership of the womb. You've yet to figure out that if a woman owns her womb (which she does), then she can have the fetus removed from it. Period. End of story.
Spideynw:Rights have to be balanced.
I sense a false analogy coming...
Spideynw:If someone trespasses on your property, do you then have a right to kill them?
And there is it. Let me ask you this: if someone trespasses on your property, do you have the right to remove that person? Further, if you remove the trespasser and some gang comes by and kills the trespasser, are you to blame for the death of the trespasser? Do you have any moral responsibility? Of course not.
Hint: the death of the fetus is not the goal of the abortion; it is merely a side-effect at this time. The woman IS NOT taking the life of the fetus. Let me repeat that, so that all you fetophiles can grasp it: the woman IS NOT taking the life of the fetus. She is removing from her body something she doesn't want. That the fetus will die at this juncture is not germane. I know you fetophiles firmly believe that the woman is merely a container when she's pregnant (you must, or else you wouldn't have any problem with abortion), but she has rights. Accept it.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:If someone trespasses on your property, do you then have a right to kill them? And there is it. Let me ask you this: if someone trespasses on your property, do you have the right to remove that person?
And there is it. Let me ask you this: if someone trespasses on your property, do you have the right to remove that person?
Yes.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Further, if you remove the trespasser and some gang comes by and kills the trespasser, are you to blame for the death of the trespasser?
No.
I am not sure what you call this fallacy, but when you take a baby outside of a mother, it dies. When you kick someone off of your property, they do not automatically die.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And there is it. Let me ask you this: if someone trespasses on your property, do you have the right to remove that person?
Spideynw:Yes.
Then it's settled.
Spideynw:No.
Spideynw:I am not sure what you call this fallacy, but when you take a baby outside of a mother, it dies. When you kick someone off of your property, they do not automatically die.
Irrelevant and special pleading.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:And there is it. Let me ask you this: if someone trespasses on your property, do you have the right to remove that person?
Not if by doing so you would kill them. Of course you conveniently left that out of your leading question.
Spideynw:Not if by doing so you would kill them.
Then you contradict yourself. Reconcile.
And you conveniently forget that you're special pleading just so you won't have to deal with the fact that the woman owns her womb.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Then you contradict yourself. Reconcile. And you conveniently forget that you're special pleading just so you won't have to deal with the fact that the woman owns her womb.
Uh, let's see, according to your logic, you can force someone into your car, drive a hundred miles an hour, and then shove them out, and if they die, oh well, not your fault, because you were just trying to get them off your property, which you forced them onto in the first place.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then you contradict yourself. Reconcile. And you conveniently forget that you're special pleading just so you won't have to deal with the fact that the woman owns her womb.
Spideynw:Uh, let's see, according to your logic, you can force someone onto your property
Strawman/false analogy.
Tell me: do you fetophiles have any non-fallacious arguments?
A couple of things:
Termination of an unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily mean killing the fetus. Today many fetuses who would be viable outside the womb are deliberately killed. Of course this can be attributed largely to government interventions in parenting and adoption.
And there is no reason why a fetus/baby should be treated any differently than any other cognitively lacking person: self owning to the extent that they demonstrate.
Peace
Knight_of_BAAWA: Strawman/false analogy. Tell me: do you fetophiles have any non-fallacious arguments?
Please, explain how it is a strawman or a false analogy? Do you even understand fallacies?
Um, let's see, the baby had no choice as to whether or not it was in the woman's womb or not.
But since your argument lacks a solid premise, I can understand how you resort to fallacy labels instead of actually defending your position.
Who defines it in the case of trespass more generally? The same answer applies.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Knight_of_BAAWA:Strawman/false analogy. Tell me: do you fetophiles have any non-fallacious arguments?
Spideynw:Please, explain how it is a strawman or a false analogy? Do you even understand fallacies?
Of course I do.
1. The fetus wasn't forced into the womb.
2. The woman isn't metaphorically pushing the fetus into the street.
3. Ergo, false analogy. And it's a strawman because you're claiming that's my position.
Try again.
Look, I know your argument lacks a solid premise, but that's your problem.
Jon Irenicus: Who defines it in the case of trespass more generally? The same answer applies. -Jon
Could you please clarify?
Knight_of_BAAWA: 1. The fetus wasn't forced into the womb. 2. The woman isn't metaphorically pushing the fetus into the street. 3. Ergo, false analogy. And it's a strawman because you're claiming that's my position.
1-The point is that the baby had no choice as to whether or not it was in the womb, just like if you forced someone into your car, they had no choice as to whether or not to be in your car (you hit them over the head, knocked them out, and put them in your car). So it is not about how one got there. It is about the fact that there was no choice about being there.
2-I changed the analogy, unfortunately, you had already responded before I could post it. I changed it to forcing someone into your car, driving a hundred miles an hour, and then shoving them out of your car, which results in their death.
3-So, not a false analogy. And it is not a strawman, because the analogy is valid, and so it is your position.
Knight_of_BAAWA:1. The fetus wasn't forced into the womb. 2. The woman isn't metaphorically pushing the fetus into the street. 3. Ergo, false analogy. And it's a strawman because you're claiming that's my position.
Spideynw:1-The point is that the baby had no choice as to whether or not it was in the womb
Irrelevant, and now you changed how the person was forced onto the land. Further, in your false analogy, you're forcing something already there and with rights onto your property, so you've violated that person's rights in the first place. And before the egg and sperm met in the womb, there wasn't a "person", so your analogy falls apart spectacularly in a boom of epic fail.
Spideynw:2-I changed the analogy, unfortunately, you had already responded before I could post it. I changed it to forcing someone into your car, driving a hundred miles an hour, and then shoving them out of your car, which results in their death.
Still a false analogy, since there is no "person" before sperm and egg meet.
Or did you fail high school biology/sex ed?
So yes: it is a false analogy and strawman. You fail so badly that your argument should be a picture on failblog.org.
Saying that a woman has a right to take a baby out of her body, because it is her body, which results in the babies death is the same as saying that you have a right to push someone out of your car, because it is your car, when you are driving a hundred miles an hour, even if it results in his/her death.
Spideynw:Saying that a woman has a right to take a baby out of her body, because it is her body, which results in the babies death is the same as saying that you have a right to push someone out of your car, because it is your car, when you are driving a hundred miles an hour, even if it results in his/her death.
No it isn't. Please refrain from using false analogies.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Spideynw:Saying that a woman has a right to take a baby out of her body, because it is her body, which results in the babies death is the same as saying that you have a right to push someone out of your car, because it is your car, when you are driving a hundred miles an hour, even if it results in his/her death. No it isn't. Please refrain from using false analogies.
Why is it not a valid analogy?
How is it a valid one? I am under no obligation to disprove your unproven claim.
You are going to have to provide a more in depth argument as to why that is a false analogy. From what I see both Abortion, as in removal of the fetus and Spideynw's analogy to the car are both equal morally to eviction from one's property.
Oh, and since you have said that we must only look at the present state of property rights, and not the events leading up to the violation of property rights nor the events after the eviction from said property, please explain why this is a false analogy.
JackSkylark:You are going to have to provide a more in depth argument as to why that is a false analogy. From what I see both Abortion, as in removal of the fetus and Spideynw's analogy to the car are both equal morally to eviction from one's property.
Then show it--if you can.
But remember this: before the sperm and egg met, there was no person. So please tell me how the analogy is proper. Tall task, isn't it?
Knight_of_BAAWA: How is it a valid one? I am under no obligation to disprove your unproven claim.
You are the one claiming that it is not valid, as such, the burden on you is to show that it is not a valid analogy. Otherwise, anytime someone makes an analogy, one could just say it is not so, and how lame would that be?
This is the problem with people that know about argumentative fallacies, and even have some of the names memorized, but have no clue about their actual application.
Knight_of_BAAWA: But remember this: before the sperm and egg met, there was no person. So please tell me how the analogy is proper. Tall task, isn't it?
And before someone got in your car, no one else was in your car. What is your point?
Knight_of_BAAWA:But remember this: before the sperm and egg met, there was no person. So please tell me how the analogy is proper. Tall task, isn't it?
Spideynw:And before *someone* got in your car, no one else was in your car. What is your point?
The bolded part does nicely.
Now then: show that the woman no longer owns her womb when she's pregnant. Remember: it's her womb. All of your emotive pleas will not get you anywhere. None of them have any semblance of rationality, but are merely knee-jerk conflations of aesthetics with morality. If the woman cannot have the fetus removed (in the sense of by law or morally), then she no longer owns her womb. Thus, she is a slave. Why is it that you fetophiles conveniently forget that?
I fail to see how your absolutely false analogy of throwing someone out of a car even works here. All you scream is that "it's valid it's valid it'svaliditsvalid!". Well show it. You seem to be under the erroneous notion that the woman "invited" the fetus in by having sex. Let's assume for the moment that she was trying to get pregnant. Fine. She can change her mind. It's her body. If she cannot change her mind, then she is a SLAVE. Why do you fetophiles forget that? Why the desire to turn a woman into nothing more than a vessel? Why strip her of her humanity, as you say the pro-choice do for the fetus? Smacks of projection to me.
Knight_of_BAAWA:How is it a valid one? I am under no obligation to disprove your unproven claim.
Spideynw:You are the one claiming that it is not valid
You are the one claiming it is valid; as such, the burden is on you to show that it is a valid analogy. Go to it.
Hint: shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. Your problem is that you use fallacies in your arguments.
Sorry Baawa, you still haven't come close to showing why its a false analogy.
Let me help you out.
For starters, your body is not a car. There is a difference in the degree of intrusion.
Debates like this really show people's true colors, eh?
JonBostwick:Sorry Baawa, you still haven't come close to showing why its a false analogy.
Actually, I have. I already mentioned that the person's body is not a car. This is further backed up by noting the enslavement of the woman. Clearly, a car cannot be enslaved.
I'm still waiting for them to show that it's a valid analogy. I really have no desire to humor them and disprove then unproven assertions.
Byzantine: Geoffrey Allan Plauche: 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. You are still drawing an arbitrary line. All you've done is move the yardstick to the degree of rationality in order to avoid the dilemma posed by the fact that a one-year old or severe autistic is incapable of rational thought as it is commonly understood. I'm not saying your measure is an illogical one; but it is still arbitrary. What you are doing is aligning the measure in accordance with your moral sensibilities. You are, as one should be, troubled at the idea of a late-term abortion or infanticide, so you move the line back to the point where you're comfortable. Understand, I'm not trying to discredit your position because I think it's probably a sensible one, but it is unavoidably arbitrary.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: 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.
You are still drawing an arbitrary line. All you've done is move the yardstick to the degree of rationality in order to avoid the dilemma posed by the fact that a one-year old or severe autistic is incapable of rational thought as it is commonly understood. I'm not saying your measure is an illogical one; but it is still arbitrary. What you are doing is aligning the measure in accordance with your moral sensibilities. You are, as one should be, troubled at the idea of a late-term abortion or infanticide, so you move the line back to the point where you're comfortable. Understand, I'm not trying to discredit your position because I think it's probably a sensible one, but it is unavoidably arbitrary.
No. You're the same mistake I've already pointed out a couple of times. It is not the degree of rationality or how well one uses one's capacity for rationality that is the criterion. It is the capacity for rationality itself. It is the actuality of that capacity.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Knight_of_BAAWA: JonBostwick:Sorry Baawa, you still haven't come close to showing why its a false analogy. Actually, I have. I already mentioned that the person's body is not a car. This is further backed up by noting the enslavement of the woman. Clearly, a car cannot be enslaved.
Yet the owner of said car is wronged, just as much as the owner of the womb.
An improvement to the car scenario might be to have the trespasser be a rapist, rather than simply a passive passenger. Though, I don't care much for these parasite analogies and the like as they are utterly dehumanizing. Though, oddly, that is sometimes exactly why they are used.
Maxliberty: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.
Max, I already showed you that this analogy is flawed, months ago. The only reason that someone has a claim to accountability is because they posess rights. But rights must exist PRIOR to the action that violates them in order to be violated. It's simple tautology.
Your claim on accountability of the parent is an ex post facto one. If you believe that the created child gains rights AT conception, then it has no legal claim against actions prior to conception; copulation. In law, causality is only relevant to claims based on the violation of rights.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Actually, I have. I already mentioned that the person's body is not a car. This is further backed up by noting the enslavement of the woman. Clearly, a car cannot be enslaved.
JonBostwick:Yet the owner of said car is wronged, just as much as the owner of the womb.
Yet the owner is there wherever the owner goes; not so with the car.
JonBostwick:An improvement to the car scenario might be to have the trespasser be a rapist, rather than simply a passive passenger. Though, I don't care much for these parasite analogies and the like as they are utterly dehumanizing. Though, oddly, that is sometimes exactly why they are used.
I use it because it's true: a fetus is an endobiological parasite.
It's defined at common law, as with most other particularities in any ethical system.
He has actually shown it is a false analogy, due to the absence of a person to be invited in the case of the foetus.