Byzantine: Geoffrey Allan Plauche: 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. But that "capacity" is the same for a first trimester fetus as for a one-year old infant or, for that matter, a zygote.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: 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.
But that "capacity" is the same for a first trimester fetus as for a one-year old infant or, for that matter, a zygote.
No, it isn't. Prior to the full development of the cerebral cortex at about 24 weeks the capacity is not actual, it is potential. The potential for having the capacity is not the same thing as actualling having the capacity (whatever the degree of that capacity or however well or badly you use it).
Byzantine:And the severely retarded don't have that capacity.
No? How retarded are we talking about here? Again, I think you're continuing to mistake degree of capacity and/or how well one can/does use one's capacity for the capacity itself. Children have a natural and temporarily diminished capacity, but they have the capacity. Zygotes do not have the capacity. I'm no expert on mental retardation but most, if not all, retarded people I've seen, met, read about, etc., have a natural but permanently diminished capacity for rationality (the severity varies from case to case).
Byzantine:So your 24-week point is just an arbitrary spot along the continuum that doesn't offend your admirable revulsion to infanticide or late-term abortion.
Nope. Not arbitrary.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Byzantine:Pregnancy and paternity are known consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse. Abortion eliminates that consequence from the choice to have sexual intercourse. This is part of fallen human nature, to seek escape from the consequences of our choices.
Are we talking about what's moral and ought to be done, or what's legal and ethically permissable?
Byzantine:I regard it as a moral issue, and I'm not really sure how that's distinct from ethics.
Well there's a difference between what is moral and what is ethically permissable. I believe it is immoral to commit adultry, but it is still permissable, that is, there is no justifiable claim in preventing such actions by force.
Byzantine: Whether or not abortion is legal is a political question.
No. I'm talking about legality in the form of justifiable force.
Byzantine:I was mainly responding to the argument that the fetus has not been invited, when he or she most certainly has by the woman engaging in consensual sex.
The consent was not an agreement between the mother and child. The child has not been invited to exist within the mother.
Even if it had been invited, the mother would still have a right to remove it. Since you have a right to nullify an invitation.
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."
Geoffrey,
So, do you say that at 24 weeks the fetus (now having the capacity for reason) becomes a self-owner? If so, after the 24 weeks, is violence, by which I mean an act of agression, deemed ethical and should be legal. (Now please know I am not talking about removal, but auctual violence)
Jack.
Byzantine:Pregnancy and paternity are known consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse. Abortion eliminates that consequence
Wrong. It does absolutely no such thing. If it does, then having a broken bone set eliminates the consequences of breaking a bone.
And we do not have a fallen nature.
Byzantine:In the mother's case, she has foreknowledge that her invitee
What invitee? It doesn't exist until the sperm and egg meet. So there is no invitee.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Byzantine:In the mother's case, she has foreknowledge that her invitee What invitee? It doesn't exist until the sperm and egg meet. So there is no invitee.
The pro-abortion crowd gets all fired up and can still not answer the simple question of when human life begins. Let me educate you a little on how the baby making process works, the mother's body is specifically designed to invite the fertilized egg into the body for implantation and form an attachment to it. So the fetus is in fact biologically invited in to the womans body. This is not even a conscious act the woman can control it is so basic to the function of the womans body. So the fetus is invited in and as such is dependent on the mother at the mother's invitation.
What the pro-abortion crowd really can't handle is that the basic human instinct tells us that killig children is wrong but since they don't want to have responsibility for their actions so they invent all sorts of contorted arguements to escape responsibility. There is not one abortion lover in this thread who can coherently answer the question of when human life begins.
The only abortion lover who even tried to answer the question was Geoffrey with his 24 weeks answer. When asked if this was arbirtrary he said no. Then why not 23 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds? What happens in that 1 second?
Knight_of_BAAWA:What invitee? It doesn't exist until the sperm and egg meet. So there is no invitee.
Maxliberty:The pro-abortion crowd gets all fired up and can still not answer the simple question of when human life begins.
Liar. It has been answered several times, including by Murray Rothbard. So spare us your lies, and spare us your irrelevant garbage, ok.
Let me educate you on some points: that the woman has a womb to carry the fetus does not mean she MUST carry the fetus. Only a flagrant non sequitur would have othewise. Further, in no possible way is the fetus biologically invited into the woman's body. Ipse dixits are not welcome here. And then we have the inconceivable notion that once granted, consent can never be rescinded. What sort of bald-faced epic failure reasoning could you possibly be using in order to come up with that gem? Finally, we have your redefinition of "responsibility" in order to exclude abortion from it. You've yet to show that abortion is escaping responsibility, and you have had it shown to you that having a broken bone set would then be escaping the responsibility of having a broken bone! It broke; you deal with it. You live with it until you die. Having it set escapes responsibility.
What you fetophiles cannot stand is that the woman has rights while she is pregnant. You want to make her not human. And if you don't like that, perhaps you shouldn't strawman the pro-choice position. Get it?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Byzantine:In the mother's case, she has foreknowledge that her invitee Knight_of_BAAWA:What invitee? It doesn't exist until the sperm and egg meet. So there is no invitee. Maxliberty:The pro-abortion crowd gets all fired up and can still not answer the simple question of when human life begins. Liar. It has been answered several times, including by Murray Rothbard. So spare us your lies, and spare us your irrelevant garbage, ok. Let me educate you on some points: that the woman has a womb to carry the fetus does not mean she MUST carry the fetus. Only a flagrant non sequitur would have othewise. Further, in no possible way is the fetus biologically invited into the woman's body. Ipse dixits are not welcome here. And then we have the inconceivable notion that once granted, consent can never be rescinded. What sort of bald-faced epic failure reasoning could you possibly be using in order to come up with that gem? Finally, we have your redefinition of "responsibility" in order to exclude abortion from it. You've yet to show that abortion is escaping responsibility, and you have had it shown to you that having a broken bone set would then be escaping the responsibility of having a broken bone! It broke; you deal with it. You live with it until you die. Having it set escapes responsibility. What you fetophiles cannot stand is that the woman has rights while she is pregnant. You want to make her not human. And if you don't like that, perhaps you shouldn't strawman the pro-choice position. Get it?
You have no arguement just your rantings. All of the logical questions that expose your pro-abortion ideology as irrational you fail to supply an answer to. I have noticed that with your discussions that you can not defend your own arguements but simply repeat whatever mantra that you happen to be on at the moment.
If you are unable to define when human life begins how can you seriously have a discussion about humans. You have no defintion of a human being so until you have that basic startng point from which all rights originate no serious discussion is possible. that is why all pro-abortion arguements end this way because your position is only that the pro-life position is wrong without any attempt on your part to define the alternative. And why can't you define the alternative? Because the alternatives are illogical and have no internal consistency but are based on your emotion and desire to abdicate responsibility for basic human behavior.
When pro-life people are challenged we always answers the questions but when the pro-abortion crowd is challenged on their irrational position they start screaming hysterically "womans womb, womans womb" and run away.
Juan:Max, you need to make an effort and try to grasp two things : 1) a fetus is not a child (a very basic and obvious fact)2) you're openly advocating murdering ('death penalty') innocent people - that's not something libertarians do.
Why don't you attempt to answer the basic question of when human life begins?
You openly advocate killing children and I merely advocate that the child murderer should be held accountable. I know the pro-abortion crowd hates accountability.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Liar. It has been answered several times, including by Murray Rothbard. So spare us your lies, and spare us your irrelevant garbage, ok. Let me educate you on some points: that the woman has a womb to carry the fetus does not mean she MUST carry the fetus. Only a flagrant non sequitur would have othewise. Further, in no possible way is the fetus biologically invited into the woman's body. Ipse dixits are not welcome here. And then we have the inconceivable notion that once granted, consent can never be rescinded. What sort of bald-faced epic failure reasoning could you possibly be using in order to come up with that gem? Finally, we have your redefinition of "responsibility" in order to exclude abortion from it. You've yet to show that abortion is escaping responsibility, and you have had it shown to you that having a broken bone set would then be escaping the responsibility of having a broken bone! It broke; you deal with it. You live with it until you die. Having it set escapes responsibility. What you fetophiles cannot stand is that the woman has rights while she is pregnant. You want to make her not human. And if you don't like that, perhaps you shouldn't strawman the pro-choice position. Get it?
Maxliberty:You have no arguement just your rantings.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Now come up with a reasoned response to my argument--and don't you DARE lie about people not saying when life begins. MANY people have, including Murray Rothbard. So if you decide you want to lie again, you will concede. If you wish to redefine "responsibility" to preclude abortion, you concede. If you can't come up with a reasoned response to my argument, you concede. Period. I will not tolerate any further games from you.
Maxliberty:Why don't you attempt to answer the basic question of when human life begins?
Why? It's already been answered, and it's irrelevant.
Maxliberty:You openly advocate killing children and I merely advocate that the child murderer should be held accountable. I know the pro-abortion crowd hates accountability.
You openly advocate the de-humanization of all pregnant woman and their enslavement. I advocate that women have rights. I know you fetophiles hate women.
See what happens when you create a strawman? One can be created of your position, and if you say anything about it: you're a hypocrite. I've got you over a barrel. So either stop the game or shut up. And yes: you are trying to silence those with the truth (because I know you want to try to play that game, so I'm going to cut you off from it).
Don't worry Knight, he's about to declare victory again. It'll all be over soon
Its odd. We don't get many trolls here, but the ones that do find their way here are really bad. You're the next Nathyn, Max! Congrats!
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Without the state there is no ban on abortion. Therefore it would be legal.
scineram: Without the state there is no ban on abortion. Therefore it would be legal.
I don't know how you can argue that. What I mean is, without the state there would not be a ban on anything (without private courts and law). So, without the state (and no law) I can kill a someone remote from society (someone no one will miss and demand 'justice') and it would be 'legal'.
As to the question of life. Life, of course, begins at conception (think all things living) and we must say that this life is classified as 'human'. But merely being human does not grant the rights associated with self-ownership (natural rights). Some have argued (and I now concede to this argument) that capacity to reason actualizes natural rights. Thus, while still in the womb, a baby has already attained the rights of self-ownership since it acquires the capacity to reason at the development of the cerebral cortex.
Now, at this point, we are dealing with a relationship between two self-owners (is this not true). From this I contend that abortion, ethically, should be no more that removal of one self-owner (the baby) from the property of the other self-owner (the mother). An act of violence against the baby (and most abortions today include direct harm to the baby) can not be ethically allowable. Am I right here?
Relationship between two self-owners? How do you figure that, other than simply the fetus being in the womb? If you want to call that a "relationship"....ok. But it's her womb, and if some "force" in the sense of equipment is needed to remove the fetus, then so be it.
Maxliberty:There is not one abortion lover in this thread who can coherently answer the question of when human life begins.
Max, no one loves abortion, except maybe a few sick people. What has been argued is that it is not a criminal act.
And the question on when human life begins has been answered by several people.
I would contend that human life occurs at conception, and the childs rights are either gained then or during the development of the cerebral cortex (which isn't really a difinitive time).
Oh and you still haven't answered me why ex post facto legal claims are legitimate.
banned: I would contend that human life occurs at conception, and the childs rights are either gained then or during the development of the cerebral cortex (which isn't really a difinitive time).
How is that an answer? When does human life begin, it is not an either or possibility.
Do not all rights begin at the point is a human being? So when someone becomes a human being is the only issue with regard to abortion. Once we have determined that someone is a human being then they have the same rights s everybody else? So in the case of pregnancy once the baby is classified as a human being then we have two independent people. The next logical question is to then examine the current situation and see how the situation occurred and what rights each party has. The abortion lovers can not have this simple logical discussion because the abortion ideology is not based on individual rights. The abortion ideology refuses to recognize the existence of the other person which is why defining when a person begins to have rights is so critical to the arguement.
For example, if you say that life begins at 24 weeks then when a woman walks into the office for an abortion is it ok if an abortion is performed at 25 weeks? How would a doctor without testing know the exact gestational age of the baby especially since to some degree this is dependent on the mother providing accurate informaton about her body?
If the development of the cerebral cortex is the critical factor how are we supposed to know when that has been completed in every case? 24 weeks is just a generalization and not relevant to any specific case. Why can't the abortion lovers answer simple logical questions to their abortion ideology?
banned: Max, no one loves abortion, except maybe a few sick people. What has been argued is that it is not a criminal act.
And you say no one loves abortion, what is your problem with abortion if all that is occurring is the removal of flesh. If the fetus is simply flesh then why does it's removal bother you? The truth is you instinctively know that it's wrong but you feel less bothered because you follow this nonsensical abortion ideology.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Liar. It has been answered several times, including by Murray Rothbard.
Rothbard and you are wrong as I have demonstrated.
Oh, the same way you "proved" agorism is "wrong"? Stop stroking your overgrown ego.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Knight_of_BAAWA: Now come up with a reasoned response to my argument--and don't you DARE lie about people not saying when life begins. MANY people have, including Murray Rothbard. So if you decide you want to lie again, you will concede. If you wish to redefine "responsibility" to preclude abortion, you concede. If you can't come up with a reasoned response to my argument, you concede. Period. I will not tolerate any further games from you.
You don't have an arguement to respond to. In fact since you can not even state that the woman is in fact a human being you can't argue that she has human rights. So until you can answer why the mother who you can not demonstrate is human has some particular right you have no position that can realistically be analyzed.
As an abortion lover you obviously realize the inherent irrational nature of your position which is why you can not articulate your position.
Jon Irenicus: Oh, the same way you "proved" agorism is "wrong"? Stop stroking your overgrown ego. -Jon
The fact your failed ideologies are greating crushed in these debates is a result of the logical inconsistencies in your arguement. No abortion lover has yet answered any of the logical challenges to the abortion lover ideology. Why? because the abortion lover arguement is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Maxliberty: How is that an answer? When does human life begin, it is not an either or possibility. Do not all rights begin at the point is a human being? So when someone becomes a human being is the only issue with regard to abortion. Once we have determined that someone is a human being then they have the same rights s everybody else? So in the case of pregnancy once the baby is classified as a human being then we have two independent people. The next logical question is to then examine the current situation and see how the situation occurred and what rights each party has. The abortion lovers can not have this simple logical discussion because the abortion ideology is not based on individual rights. The abortion ideology refuses to recognize the existence of the other person which is why defining when a person begins to have rights is so critical to the arguement. For example, if you say that life begins at 24 weeks then when a woman walks into the office for an abortion is it ok if an abortion is performed at 25 weeks? How would a doctor without testing know the exact gestational age of the baby especially since to some degree this is dependent on the mother providing accurate informaton about her body? If the development of the cerebral cortex is the critical factor how are we supposed to know when that has been completed in every case? 24 weeks is just a generalization and not relevant to any specific case. Why can't the abortion lovers answer simple logical questions to their abortion ideology?
Wow. Talk about an eristic argument. You try to paint the cerebral cortex position as absurd with some obviously disingenuous moves. First, you assume rights begin with life (i.e., conception). Then you intentionally misrepresent the argument as saying that life begins when the cerebral cortex fully develops, around 24 weeks, so as to paint his argument as absurd. But rights are not based on the simple fact of life. Lots of things are alive. They don't all have rights. What is special about man? What are his rights based on? His rational faculty. So it is not life that begins at around 24 weeks but the actuality of his capacity for rationality (the biological basis for which being the full development of the cerebral cortex). This is when the fetus becomes a person, a bearer of rights. Then you accuse all those who aren't absolutely 100% anti-abortion of being abortion lovers, in your typically rude and uncivil fashion. And you bring up a silly argument about 24 weeks being a generalization and how will anyone know the cerebral cortex in a particular case is fully developed? This isn't hard. It's a general rule that courts will employ. Prior to 24 weeks, if anyone wants to bring the aborting mother to court for her abortion, they'll have to present some evidence that the fetus was a particularly early developer. After 24 weeks, the burden of proof will be on the aborting mother, so women who stupidly wait until right up to the 24 week line or even after will have a strong incentive to get tested first in order to have proof that they didn't violate anyone's rights in case someone wants to bring them to court on murder charges on the fetus's behalf.
The fact that you did not even comprehend the arguments you're dealing with indicates you've done nothing but burnt elaborate strawmen of your own device.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Wow. Talk about an eristic argument. You try to paint the cerebral cortex position as absurd with some obviously disingenuous moves. First, you assume rights begin with life (i.e., conception). Then you intentionally misrepresent the argument as saying that life begins when the cerebral cortex fully develops, around 24 weeks, so as to paint his argument as absurd. But rights are not based on the simple fact of life. Lots of things are alive. They don't all have rights. What is special about man? What are his rights based on? His rational faculty. So it is not life that begins at around 24 weeks but the actuality of his capacity for rationality (the biological basis for which being the full development of the cerebral cortex). This is when the fetus becomes a person, a bearer of rights. Then you accuse all those who aren't absolutely 100% anti-abortion of being abortion lovers, in your typically rude and uncivil fashion. And you bring up a silly argument about 24 weeks being a generalization and how will anyone know the cerebral cortex in a particular case is fully developed? This isn't hard. It's a general rule that courts will employ. Prior to 24 weeks, if anyone wants to bring the aborting mother to court for her abortion, they'll have to present some evidence that the fetus was a particularly early developer. After 24 weeks, the burden of proof will be on the aborting mother, so women who stupidly wait until right up to the 24 week line or even after will have a strong incentive to get tested first in order to have proof that they didn't violate anyone's rights in case someone wants to bring them to court on murder charges on the fetus's behalf.
I thought it was obvious we were discussing when human beings exist. If a human being exists then it has rights. Your position says that a human exists at approximately 24 weeks because the cerebral cortex reaches a certain developmental stage. Your position now also says that at approximately 24 weeks a woman can no longer have an abortion if it can be shown that the cerebral cortex is developed. If a woman does have an abortion after this point then that would be murder according to you arguement. How is your arguement being misrepresented?
So a woman that is approximately 24 weeks pregnant oges to have an abortion but gets sued in court to prevent it. The Plaintiff then what forces the woman to undergo a series of tests to determine the development of the baby. And what if the doctor's disagree?
Maxliberty:Do not all rights begin at the point is a human being?
I'm not sure saying rights accompany being human is a proper justification for rights. Rationality has to play at least some part in defining when rights are gained. And the emergence of rational thought can be scientifically linked to the development of the cerebral cortex. I am not at all sure when thought emerges within a being, But it is reasonable to accept that it doesn't occur at conception, as there is no biological mechanism to render memory or thought. I don't think the point at which a child gains rights is difinitive. It's a rather gray area.
Maxliberty: And you say no one loves abortion, what is your problem with abortion if all that is occurring is the removal of flesh. If the fetus is simply flesh then why does it's removal bother you? The truth is you instinctively know that it's wrong but you feel less bothered because you follow this nonsensical abortion ideology.
No, it is quite clearly a developing human. Quit it with your lazy straw maning. Just because it is a human does not mean that the mother does not have a right to remove it.
Maxliberty:As an abortion lover you obviously realize the inherent irrational nature of your position which is why you can not articulate your position.
As I've demonstrated, You believe ex post facto legal claims are legitimate. I do hope you've realized the inherent irrational nature of your position.
banned:I don't think the point at which a child gains rights is difinitive. It's a rather gray area.
banned:Rationality has to play at least some part in defining when rights are gained.
How can rationality be anything other than completely subjective? I have seen no arguement that there is uniform accepted position of rationality upon which there is 100% scientific agreement. Your assertion that at 24 weeks it begins is as arbirtrary as any other such measurement.
All the abortion lovers have demonstrated is that they do not have a clear definition of what a human being is.
It's pretty much a futile argument.
Maxliberty:Rothbard and you are wrong as I have demonstrated.
Thus showing that you don't know what Rothbard wrote. Why? Because you and Rothbard are in agreement!
Hoist. Petard. Your own.
Murray Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 14: First, let us begin with the prenatal child. What is the parent’s, or rather the mother’s, property right in the fetus? In the first place, we must note that the conservative Catholic position has generally been dismissed too brusquely. This position holds that the fetus is a living person, and hence that abortion is an act of murder and must therefore be outlawed as in the case of any murder. The usual reply is simply to demarcate birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing natural rights, including the right not to be murdered; before birth, the counter-argument runs, the child cannot be considered a living person. But the Catholic reply that the fetus is alive and is an imminently potential person then comes disquietingly close to the general view that a newborn baby cannot be aggressed against because it is a potential adult. While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formulation makes birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork in the theory of self-ownership.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now come up with a reasoned response to my argument--and don't you DARE lie about people not saying when life begins. MANY people have, including Murray Rothbard. So if you decide you want to lie again, you will concede. If you wish to redefine "responsibility" to preclude abortion, you concede. If you can't come up with a reasoned response to my argument, you concede. Period. I will not tolerate any further games from you.
Maxliberty:You don't have an arguement to respond to.
Thank you for conceding the argument to me. You are dismised.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Now come up with a reasoned response to my argument--and don't you DARE lie about people not saying when life begins. MANY people have, including Murray Rothbard. So if you decide you want to lie again, you will concede. If you wish to redefine "responsibility" to preclude abortion, you concede. If you can't come up with a reasoned response to my argument, you concede. Period. I will not tolerate any further games from you. Maxliberty:You don't have an arguement to respond to. Thank you for conceding the argument to me. You are dismised.
As usual the pro-abortion retreats when confronted with reason and logic. Thank you for surrendering the battlefield to the obvious victor. Just as I have crushed the irrational agorist ideology so I have crushed the pro-abortion crowd.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Liar. It has been answered several times, including by Murray Rothbard. Maxliberty:Rothbard and you are wrong as I have demonstrated. Thus showing that you don't know what Rothbard wrote. Why? Because you and Rothbard are in agreement! Hoist. Petard. Your own. Murray Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 14: First, let us begin with the prenatal child. What is the parent’s, or rather the mother’s, property right in the fetus? In the first place, we must note that the conservative Catholic position has generally been dismissed too brusquely. This position holds that the fetus is a living person, and hence that abortion is an act of murder and must therefore be outlawed as in the case of any murder. The usual reply is simply to demarcate birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing natural rights, including the right not to be murdered; before birth, the counter-argument runs, the child cannot be considered a living person. But the Catholic reply that the fetus is alive and is an imminently potential person then comes disquietingly close to the general view that a newborn baby cannot be aggressed against because it is a potential adult. While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formulation makes birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork in the theory of self-ownership.
I don't have the same view as Rothbard on abortion. Fascinating that you would try and use Rothbard to say that my arguement had been disproven and then say that Rothbard agrees with me, but the pro-abortion has learned to live with contradictions in their arguements so it is not unexpected.
If you had read Rothbard, you'd also be aware he takes that argument as correct (the one you're harping on about, hence he agrees with you on the basic premises), and then proceeds to dismiss it by way of demonstration of overriding considerations.