Jon Irenicus: 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. -Jon
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.
-Jon
So as I stated before, Rothbard is wrong. I don't bow down or pray to the Murray Rothbard statuette as apparently you and your partner do. None of your feable attempts to use someone else to defend your arguement answers the gaping holes in the abortion ideology. Back to the drawing board for you and your irrational partner.
Maxliberty:As usual
Dismissed.
Now go actually read Chapter 14 in The Ethics of Liberty so that you can see just how badly you've lied about Rothbard.
Maxliberty:I don't have the same view as Rothbard on abortion.
But you and he have the same view as to when life begins. And THAT is precisely what you said no pro-choice person has ever done.
I'm getting very sick of seeing it claimed that anyone commenting in this thread, let alone anyone period, is "pro-abortion" or "abortion lovers". I already addressed this silly misnomer pages back. Noone, save a few sick individuals, is blatantly "pro-abortion". If one cannot recognize the difference between actively and enthusiastically endorsing something and tolerating it or at least thinking that it should not be illegal, there is no hope. I happen to think that voluntary polygamy and sodomy should not be illegal, but that doesn't mean that I actually personally prefer it. Legality and preferance aren't necessarily connected in such a way.
Brainpolice: I'm getting very sick of seeing it claimed that anyone commenting in this thread, let alone anyone period, is "pro-abortion" or "abortion lovers". I already addressed this silly misnomer pages back. Noone, save a few sick individuals, is blatantly "pro-abortion". If one cannot recognize the difference between actively and enthusiastically endorsing something and tolerating it or at least thinking that it should not be illegal, there is no hope. I happen to think that voluntary polygamy and sodomy should not be illegal, but that doesn't mean that I actually personally prefer it. Legality and preferance aren't necessarily connected in such a way.
This is just the standard pro-abortion cop-out. On the one hand the baby is just a lump of flesh that has no rights and its destruction is perfectly acceptable and on the other your personally not for it. What is there not to be for if you don't think the fetus has any value? If in your mind the fetus has no value why does it bother you that people destroy it? Classic pro-abortion contradiction.
It certainly is true that legality and preference are not connected but in this case either a human is dying or nothing is happening so there is no functional difference between legality or preference. You can not be personally opposed to murder but think it legally acceptable.
Brainpolice:I'm getting very sick of seeing it claimed that anyone commenting in this thread, let alone anyone period, is "pro-abortion" or "abortion lovers". I already addressed this silly misnomer pages back. Noone, save a few sick individuals, is blatantly "pro-abortion". If one cannot recognize the difference between actively and enthusiastically endorsing something and tolerating it or at least thinking that it should not be illegal, there is no hope. I happen to think that voluntary polygamy and sodomy should not be illegal, but that doesn't mean that I actually personally prefer it. Legality and preferance aren't necessarily connected in such a way.
But without strawmen and lies, what will MaxLiberty have left?
Maxliberty: Brainpolice: I'm getting very sick of seeing it claimed that anyone commenting in this thread, let alone anyone period, is "pro-abortion" or "abortion lovers". I already addressed this silly misnomer pages back. Noone, save a few sick individuals, is blatantly "pro-abortion". If one cannot recognize the difference between actively and enthusiastically endorsing something and tolerating it or at least thinking that it should not be illegal, there is no hope. I happen to think that voluntary polygamy and sodomy should not be illegal, but that doesn't mean that I actually personally prefer it. Legality and preferance aren't necessarily connected in such a way. This is just the standard pro-abortion cop-out. On the one hand the baby is just a lump of flesh that has no rights and its destruction is perfectly acceptable and on the other your personally not for it. What is there not to be for if you don't think the fetus has any value? If in your mind the fetus has no value why does it bother you that people destroy it? Classic pro-abortion contradiction. It certainly is true that legality and preference are not connected but in this case either a human is dying or nothing is happening so there is no functional difference between legality or preference. You can not be personally opposed to murder but think it legally acceptable.
Not only are you putting words in my mouth, but you're repeating straw men or misnomers that were already addressed pages back. You're being a bad rhetoritician. Noone in this thread is "pro-abortion", and repeating the phrase over and over again doesn't change that.
Maxliberty:It certainly is true that legality and preference are not connected but in this case either a human is dying or nothing is happening so there is no functional difference between legality or preference. You can not be personally opposed to murder but think it legally acceptable.
And you can't be personally opposed to slavery but think it's legally and morally acceptable.
Hoist. Petard. Your own.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:As usual Dismissed. Now go actually read Chapter 14 in The Ethics of Liberty so that you can see just how badly you've lied about Rothbard.
I read it again just to make sure i didn't miss anything. Rothbard is still wrong and so are you. Ideas that start with a false premise usually end up with false conclusions. Your arguement at least is consistent with Rothbard in that you both place no value on children and believe abortion is acceptable until the baby is born and starvation afterward is equally acceptable. I will note your alter-ego Jon seems to advocate that in fact there are limitations to this abortion right at a certain gestational age so maybe you should have a talk with him to bring him back on the reservation.
Now if we could just get you to admit to what you are actually for, which in detail is quite horrific, then we would really be making progress. If Rothbard is your god then it is understandable your so confused on this subject.
See unlike you I am capable of defending my own arguements and reasoning, I am not dependent on someone else to articulate my views.
Maxliberty:I read it again
You've never read it in the first place, so please don't lie. If you had read it, you would not have lied and wrote that no "pro-abortion" person ever says when life begins.
You know, you're really making this easy for me to annihilate you. You set youself up.
Brainpolice: Maxliberty: Brainpolice: I'm getting very sick of seeing it claimed that anyone commenting in this thread, let alone anyone period, is "pro-abortion" or "abortion lovers". I already addressed this silly misnomer pages back. Noone, save a few sick individuals, is blatantly "pro-abortion". If one cannot recognize the difference between actively and enthusiastically endorsing something and tolerating it or at least thinking that it should not be illegal, there is no hope. I happen to think that voluntary polygamy and sodomy should not be illegal, but that doesn't mean that I actually personally prefer it. Legality and preferance aren't necessarily connected in such a way. This is just the standard pro-abortion cop-out. On the one hand the baby is just a lump of flesh that has no rights and its destruction is perfectly acceptable and on the other your personally not for it. What is there not to be for if you don't think the fetus has any value? If in your mind the fetus has no value why does it bother you that people destroy it? Classic pro-abortion contradiction. It certainly is true that legality and preference are not connected but in this case either a human is dying or nothing is happening so there is no functional difference between legality or preference. You can not be personally opposed to murder but think it legally acceptable. Not only are you putting words in my mouth, but you're repeating straw men or misnomers that were already addressed pages back. You're being a bad rhetoritician. Noone in this thread is "pro-abortion", and repeating the phrase over and over again doesn't change that.
If a woman goes to the doctor and has a cancerous tumor removed that is good. I in fact am pro-tumor removal and i support a woman's right to have tumors removed and I see no negative or immoral aspect to this act. Since you see no difference between the fetus and a tumor then what is wrong with being pro-abortion in your mind?
The label is disingenous because I am not actually like "abortion is awesome!", "I wish more people would get abortions!", "three cheers for abortion! hip hip horray!", "you're pregnant? you should get an abortion!". I don't voluntarily fund abortions and I'm not out there actively advocating abortions. I have never encouraged anyone to get an abortion. Calling me pro-abortion is simply nonsensical. It truly is no different than calling someone "anti-poor" because they oppose state welfare or calling someone a junkie because they oppose the criminalization of drugs. It simply does not logically follow at all.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:I read it again You've never read it in the first place, so please don't lie. If you had read it, you would not have lied and wrote that no "pro-abortion" person ever says when life begins. Hoist. Petard. Your own. You know, you're really making this easy for me to annihilate you. You set youself up.
Where does Rothbard say when life begins? He implies that it begins at birth.
Brainpolice: If a woman goes to the doctor and has a cancerous tumor removed that is good. I in fact am pro-tumor removal and i support a woman's right to have tumors removed and I see no negative or immoral aspect to this act. Since you see no difference between the fetus and a tumor then what is wrong with being pro-abortion in your mind? The label is disingenous because I am not actually like "abortion is awesome!", "I wish more people would get abortions!", "three cheers for abortion! hip hip horray!", "you're pregnant? you should get an abortion!". I don't voluntarily fund abortions and I'm not out there actively advocating abortions. I have never encouraged anyone to get an abortion. Calling me pro-abortion is simply nonsensical. It truly is no different than calling someone "anti-poor" because they oppose state welfare or calling someone a junkie because they oppose the criminalization of drugs. It simply does not logically follow at all.
Of course it follows. Your arguement hinges on the belief that the fetus is just a lump of flesh so there are no negative aspects to being pro-abortion. If you advocate legalizing drugs you can still recognize the negative side effects of drug use. Having unwanted flesh removed shouldn't create such an emotional response by you.
Maxliberty:Where does Rothbard say when life begins? He implies that it begins at birth.
It's not an implication.
But what's really amusing is that you're still trying.
Maxliberty: Brainpolice: If a woman goes to the doctor and has a cancerous tumor removed that is good. I in fact am pro-tumor removal and i support a woman's right to have tumors removed and I see no negative or immoral aspect to this act. Since you see no difference between the fetus and a tumor then what is wrong with being pro-abortion in your mind? The label is disingenous because I am not actually like "abortion is awesome!", "I wish more people would get abortions!", "three cheers for abortion! hip hip horray!", "you're pregnant? you should get an abortion!". I don't voluntarily fund abortions and I'm not out there actively advocating abortions. I have never encouraged anyone to get an abortion. Calling me pro-abortion is simply nonsensical. It truly is no different than calling someone "anti-poor" because they oppose state welfare or calling someone a junkie because they oppose the criminalization of drugs. It simply does not logically follow at all. Of course it follows. Your arguement hinges on the belief that the fetus is just a lump of flesh so there are no negative aspects to being pro-abortion. If you advocate legalizing drugs you can still recognize the negative side effects of drug use. Having unwanted flesh removed shouldn't create such an emotional response by you.
Wow, just wow.
Not only do you continue to put words in my mouth based on an argument I never made, you then assume precisely what you try to prove. Really, do you not realize how absurd you look here? Furthermore, even if I did belief that "the fetus is just a lump of flesh", me being "pro-abortion" still would not logically follow. There is nothing in any of my statements (or in the straw men that you have set up for that matter) in which an actual preferance for or active encouragement of abortion logically follows.
You need to learn formal logic badly.
You've set up a horrible false dichotomy in your head between being actively pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Apparently either someone must be virulently opposed to abortion or they must be active enthusiasts for it. Unfortunately for you, such a dichotomy does not adequately take logic or facts into account. It does not recognize any individual's actual views.
Brainpolice: Maxliberty: Brainpolice: If a woman goes to the doctor and has a cancerous tumor removed that is good. I in fact am pro-tumor removal and i support a woman's right to have tumors removed and I see no negative or immoral aspect to this act. Since you see no difference between the fetus and a tumor then what is wrong with being pro-abortion in your mind? The label is disingenous because I am not actually like "abortion is awesome!", "I wish more people would get abortions!", "three cheers for abortion! hip hip horray!", "you're pregnant? you should get an abortion!". I don't voluntarily fund abortions and I'm not out there actively advocating abortions. I have never encouraged anyone to get an abortion. Calling me pro-abortion is simply nonsensical. It truly is no different than calling someone "anti-poor" because they oppose state welfare or calling someone a junkie because they oppose the criminalization of drugs. It simply does not logically follow at all. Of course it follows. Your arguement hinges on the belief that the fetus is just a lump of flesh so there are no negative aspects to being pro-abortion. If you advocate legalizing drugs you can still recognize the negative side effects of drug use. Having unwanted flesh removed shouldn't create such an emotional response by you. Wow, just wow. Not only do you continue to put words in my mouth based on an argument I never made, you then assume precisely what you try to prove. Really, do you not realize how absurd you look here? Furthermore, even if I did belief that "the fetus is just a lump of flesh", me being "pro-abortion" still would not logically follow. There is nothing in any of my statements (or in the straw men that you have set up for that matter) in which an actual preferance for or active encouragement of abortion logically follows. You need to learn formal logic badly. You've set up a horrible false dichotomy in your head between being actively pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Apparently either someone must be virulently opposed to abortion or they must be active enthusiasts for it. Unfortunately for you, such a dichotomy does not adequately take logic or facts into account. It does not recognize any individual's actual views.
The point is that from your perspective there is nothing to be opposed to in someone having an abortion. So being lableled pro-abortion shouldn't be a negative.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:Where does Rothbard say when life begins? He implies that it begins at birth. It's not an implication. But what's really amusing is that you're still trying.
Oh I am not trying, I have already defeated you in this debate. Your the one still trying whatever feeble excuse you can manage.
Maxliberty: Brainpolice: Maxliberty: Brainpolice: If a woman goes to the doctor and has a cancerous tumor removed that is good. I in fact am pro-tumor removal and i support a woman's right to have tumors removed and I see no negative or immoral aspect to this act. Since you see no difference between the fetus and a tumor then what is wrong with being pro-abortion in your mind? The label is disingenous because I am not actually like "abortion is awesome!", "I wish more people would get abortions!", "three cheers for abortion! hip hip horray!", "you're pregnant? you should get an abortion!". I don't voluntarily fund abortions and I'm not out there actively advocating abortions. I have never encouraged anyone to get an abortion. Calling me pro-abortion is simply nonsensical. It truly is no different than calling someone "anti-poor" because they oppose state welfare or calling someone a junkie because they oppose the criminalization of drugs. It simply does not logically follow at all. Of course it follows. Your arguement hinges on the belief that the fetus is just a lump of flesh so there are no negative aspects to being pro-abortion. If you advocate legalizing drugs you can still recognize the negative side effects of drug use. Having unwanted flesh removed shouldn't create such an emotional response by you. Wow, just wow. Not only do you continue to put words in my mouth based on an argument I never made, you then assume precisely what you try to prove. Really, do you not realize how absurd you look here? Furthermore, even if I did belief that "the fetus is just a lump of flesh", me being "pro-abortion" still would not logically follow. There is nothing in any of my statements (or in the straw men that you have set up for that matter) in which an actual preferance for or active encouragement of abortion logically follows. You need to learn formal logic badly. You've set up a horrible false dichotomy in your head between being actively pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Apparently either someone must be virulently opposed to abortion or they must be active enthusiasts for it. Unfortunately for you, such a dichotomy does not adequately take logic or facts into account. It does not recognize any individual's actual views. The point is that from your perspective there is nothing to be opposed to in someone having an abortion. So being lableled pro-abortion shouldn't be a negative.
It does not logically follow from someone not being opposed to something that they are for it in any active or enthusiastic sense. I'm not opposed to gambling in principle, does that make me a gambling enthusiast? Do you not have a concept of indifference or tolerance? Must everything be either strongly opposed or enthusiastically endorsed? Or are human preferances more complex than that?
Maxliberty:Oh I am not trying, I have already defeated you in this debate.
Manufacturing victory in your own mind with repeated lies and strawmen only make you look desperate.
Sigh.
Actually, Rothbard was only brought up to show the error of your own statement. Also, FYI, it's "feeble".
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Not sure if I'm going to regret diving in here, but as an observer, I did want to ask some clarifying questions, for my own sake at least.
I'm not interested in accusing anyone of anything, and my own position is not fully fleshed out on this, either.. so I don't have a stake in either side really.
Let me just ask a few questions of those defending a woman's right to abort:
1. I think it was mentioned a few times, but not sure anyone made a point about it.. that the woman's intent was not to kill, but to evacuate, and that the death of the fetus was a consequence, but an irrelevant one. I'm curious then, does that imply that it would make a difference if the woman's intent was actually to kill, and the evacuation was the secondary and meaningless (to her) consequence? Not that most women would declare their intent (nor would we be able to tell it very easily ever), but just ethically, I'm curious if that was brought up because it actually made a difference to the ethical argument.. or was it for another purpose? If a woman specifically intended to kill her fetus, for whatever reason or motivation, would that change anything at all?
2. One other main point of disagreement seems to be the relationship between past events and actions and present circumstances (and the implied ethical rights of those involved). I get the impression that supporters of women's right to abort believe ethical decisions require one only to know present conditions.. somewhat like a physics problem where you only need to know current velocities and masses and forces, but whatever happened in the past to get the billiard balls to this configuration is meaningless to solving the problem itself.. If that's not correct, my apologies, but that's just the impression I got. So let me ask this then.. if one uses their property in such a way that it impacts someone else, does that ever create an obligation on your part? What situations might those be, if yes?
3. The car example was a bit flawed, I think, but I also think it could be cleared up pretty easily with a little science fiction addition.. let's suppose that in your car, you have a button you can push.. and most times you push this button, it gives you a pleasant sensation, and no other harm results.. but you also know that a certain percentage of times that you push that button, a rational being will materialize in your car, and the car will accelerate to a speed such that anyone trying to exit the vehicle will in all likelihood not survive. So let's suppose that this time when you push the button, this happens.. Now you did not invite the person into your car. And the person did not even exist before you pushed the button, and thus never asked to be in your car, either. Nonetheless he/she/it is here. Under those circumstances (and let's assume that the car will slow down and stop after a certain amount of time, but for now it's at lethal speed), would you be justified in pushing this person out of your car.. merely with the intent to evacuate the car, not to kill them.. yet knowing that that would be the consequence? Is that a more appropriate way to set up the analogy? If not, my apologies, but I thought that would get at the heart of the issue a bit better. If you can think of a way to correct it, please let me know.
thanks for your time
Nathan
1. Perhaps, but it's still her right to control her body.
2. You only need to know present conditions here.
3. It's called science-FICTION for a reason.
1. Fair enough, so intent is irrelevant. Is that always the case, or just in this instance? Seems a bit strange that intending to murder and taking an action intended to end a life would not actually count as murder, though. But fair enough.
2. What kind of circumstances would require you to know more than present conditions?
3. True, but I don't see why you couldn't answer the hypothetical even so. At one point in history the very idea of a car was science fiction. And I wasn't implying it was at all likely, just for illustrative purposes. It avoids the previous error of forcing someone into your vehicle.
1. It's not murder in the first place.
2. I don't see what past conditions matter in this instance.
1. Should intent ever play a role in deciding ethical questions? That's what I'm getting at. It seems that in this scenario, no matter what the woman's intent is, it would make no difference at all. Ethically, you seem to equate normal pregnancy to a situation where an alien implants a fetus overnight. So I'm trying to understand the meaning of intent, the meaning that foreseeable consequences have in evaluating ethical issues. If they have none, then you could end up with some bizarre scenarios.
2. My question was trying to draw out if you think past conditions never matter. If they never matter, then obviously they can't matter in this situation. But if there are at least some cases where they matter, I want to understand why they do in those cases, but not in this one.
3. No answer to the hypothetical. Yes, it's quite 'fanciful,' but it's also quite straightforward in terms of understanding what's happening, and why, and what the consequences of possible actions are. I won't insist on it if you're just not interested, but I think it's a good way of getting at the core of the disagreement.
Now for those who deem abortion to be murder, a few questions:
1. Is there any upper limit to the obligation a woman has to a fetus she's carrying? It seems that the claim being made is that under normal circumstances where the woman could bring the fetus to term, she has a clear obligation not to terminate it instead. (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting that somehow.) But is there any limit to the conditions that we could pile on where she would still be obligated? Let's set aside the possibility that the woman's life would be jeopardized.. let's just deal with length of time and discomfort. If the process of pregnancy was going to mean months of agony, akin to torture, would she be ethically obligated to not abort? Would there be any circumstances of either physical or psychic pain that she would have to endure such that she could be released from any ethical obligation you believe she has here?
2. In the case of rape wherein someone else violates her body and this results in conception through no fault of her own, what constitutes her obligation not to abort? Most of the arguments made seem to rely on pointing out her past actions as generating a responsibility to the life she's helped create, so what if she played no part, and in fact fought against it?
3. What degree of knowledge is required for there to be responsibility? If a woman (say a teenage girl) has been misinformed about how sex relates to pregnancy, does she still have any ethical obligation to bring the fetus to term?
4. Somewhat related to 3, but if you want to answer separately, that's fine... What degree of expectation about possibilities entails a responsibility for them? Specifically, let's say a woman is on some amazing birth control, and her partner uses super protection of some kind.. and given this combination, she has good reason to believe that she has a one in a trillion chance of getting pregnant. Given such a staggeringly low chance, she somehow manages to do it. Is she obligated similarly? I think this is problematic because there are many things that have extremely low probability, but we engage in them every day.. and many of them would not be thought of as intentional, either. By driving on the road, I incrementally increase the chance of death for myself and everyone else. Yet, if an accident occurs, unless I'm directly involved and even then, directly negligent somehow, I wouldn't feel 'responsible' for the accident, even though it could be argued I did contribute to it by an incredibly small amount. What separates the two cases?
Jon Irenicus: Actually, Rothbard was only brought up to show the error of your own statement. Also, FYI, it's "feeble". -Jon
Lets review. I take position A, you and your partner take postion B. You also state another person more famous than you also has position B so therefore position A is wrong. Unable to make your arguement you are reduced to this nonsense.
Yes, lets! My "partner" demonstrated that Rothbard used the same argument as you did, i.e. both you and he held to A. What Rothbard then goes to do is to show how the conclusion you want to follow does not follow from it. I do not recall Knight_of_BAAWA appealing to authority - he only said Rothbard and you shared the same view with regard to conception. The point being, that position does not entail what it wants you to, and the point also being, that your characterization of Rothbard being wrong amounts to your own being wrong with regard to that particular view.
nfactor13: Is there any upper limit to the obligation a woman has to a fetus she's carrying? It seems that the claim being made is that under normal circumstances where the woman could bring the fetus to term, she has a clear obligation not to terminate it instead. (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting that somehow.) But is there any limit to the conditions that we could pile on where she would still be obligated? Let's set aside the possibility that the woman's life would be jeopardized.. let's just deal with length of time and discomfort. If the process of pregnancy was going to mean months of agony, akin to torture, would she be ethically obligated to not abort? Would there be any circumstances of either physical or psychic pain that she would have to endure such that she could be released from any ethical obligation you believe she has here?
Is there any upper limit to the obligation a woman has to a fetus she's carrying? It seems that the claim being made is that under normal circumstances where the woman could bring the fetus to term, she has a clear obligation not to terminate it instead. (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting that somehow.) But is there any limit to the conditions that we could pile on where she would still be obligated? Let's set aside the possibility that the woman's life would be jeopardized.. let's just deal with length of time and discomfort. If the process of pregnancy was going to mean months of agony, akin to torture, would she be ethically obligated to not abort? Would there be any circumstances of either physical or psychic pain that she would have to endure such that she could be released from any ethical obligation you believe she has here?
The pro-life group position begins with the fact that life begins at conception and that rights are inherent to being human so rights begin at conception as well. There are two independent human beings involved in the pregnancy. Since both have equal rights the resolution of any dispute must be accordance with this. So in the case of consensual sex any arguement that the woman makes about having a right to an abortion is examined as any other situation where one party takes an action that has it's possible outcome making another person dependent on them. This is the car analogy which you expanded on. The only reasonable arguement the woman has is physical jeopardy of her own life for not continuing the pregnancy. Any other pain or discomfort threshold is just arbitrary.
nfactor13: 2. In the case of rape wherein someone else violates her body and this results in conception through no fault of her own, what constitutes her obligation not to abort? Most of the arguments made seem to rely on pointing out her past actions as generating a responsibility to the life she's helped create, so what if she played no part, and in fact fought against it?
Again, the central issue is that we have two independent people involved. The woman's consent simply negates the woman's claim in question 1. The short answer is the woman is obligated to at least not harm the other person which means that any removal of the baby has to come at a a stage where the baby will not be injured. A reasonable example is two peeople are forced by a third party to share a room for a certain period of time, just because both parties are forced into a bad situation doesn't give one party the right to kill the other.
nfactor13: 3. What degree of knowledge is required for there to be responsibility? If a woman (say a teenage girl) has been misinformed about how sex relates to pregnancy, does she still have any ethical obligation to bring the fetus to term?
See 2 above
nfactor13: 4. Somewhat related to 3, but if you want to answer separately, that's fine... What degree of expectation about possibilities entails a responsibility for them? Specifically, let's say a woman is on some amazing birth control, and her partner uses super protection of some kind.. and given this combination, she has good reason to believe that she has a one in a trillion chance of getting pregnant. Given such a staggeringly low chance, she somehow manages to do it. Is she obligated similarly? I think this is problematic because there are many things that have extremely low probability, but we engage in them every day.. and many of them would not be thought of as intentional, either. By driving on the road, I incrementally increase the chance of death for myself and everyone else. Yet, if an accident occurs, unless I'm directly involved and even then, directly negligent somehow, I wouldn't feel 'responsible' for the accident, even though it could be argued I did contribute to it by an incredibly small amount. What separates the two cases?
Jon Irenicus: Yes, lets! My "partner" demonstrated that Rothbard used the same argument as you did, i.e. both you and he held to A. What Rothbard then goes to do is to show how the conclusion you want to follow does not follow from it. I do not recall Knight_of_BAAWA appealing to authority - he only said Rothbard and you shared the same view with regard to conception. The point being, that position does not entail what it wants you to, and the point also being, that your characterization of Rothbard being wrong amounts to your own being wrong with regard to that particular view. -Jon
Wrong again. Rothbard did not believe that life begins at conception and that human rights begin at conception. His underlying assumptions are false.
MaxSlavery: The pro-life group position begins with the fact that life begins at conception.
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."
Juan: MaxSlavery: The pro-life group position begins with the fact that life begins at conception. But it doesn't. So your 'argument' is completely baseless.Also, you are not 'pro-life' at all. You want to execute women who take the morning after pill. You want to destroy the lives of existing persons using the totally lame excuse that a bunch of cells is a 'child'.
I don't think you have demonstrated when life begins at any point let alone that human life does not begin at conception.
I think people who murder children should be held accountable for their crime, dont you? So it is just a matter of what you define as a child.
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.
Yes, obviously I am wrong...
Jon Irenicus: 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. Yes, obviously I am wrong... -Jon
The highlighted portion discusses the Catholic church and it's view on abortion not Rothbard's, Nowhere does it explicitly state what Rothbard thinks about when life begins and when rights begin. Rothbard creates all sorts of other issues such as property ownership of the child and then later dismisses the fetus as a self owner. So yes obviously you are wrong as is Rothbard.
I don't think you have demonstrated when life begins at any point
let alone that human life does not begin at conception.
I think people who murder children should be held accountable for their crime, dont you?
So it is just a matter of what you define as a child.
Juan:Right. I said that life is a continuum.
I think we were discussing when human life begins. If you define it as always existing then when do we become humans? I think that was the question.
Juan: Yes. That has nothing to do with your crazed idea of murdering women who take the morning after pill.
Juan:You don't get to define what things are. A bunch of cells or a fetus are not a child. End of story.
Nonsense. Rothbard clarifies that he thinks that the Catholic position is too easily brushed aside. What he does do, though, is go on to demonstrate how this view still is not sufficient to outlaw abortion. He takes the premise you take for granted as securing a victory for your anti-abortion position, and turns it on its head. It's not Rothbard, or Knight_of_BAAWA or myself that is wrong: it's you.
Max: I don't get to define them but you do....is that what you are saying.
Peter Griffin: JonBostwick: Peter Griffin: yeah, i think it makes sense to me now no one should be held accountable for letting their babies die from hunger, If you don't like how a child is being raised then raise it yourself. But why do I have a feeling your solution is telling others how to parent at the point of a gun? No matter how much some here want to demonstrate their moral superiority, there is no legal solution to this. We must rely on the incentives of the market, not disincentives created by armed gangs. LOL, I was NOT being sarcastic. I do understand why NO ONE should be held accountable for starving their babies to death,
JonBostwick: Peter Griffin: yeah, i think it makes sense to me now no one should be held accountable for letting their babies die from hunger, If you don't like how a child is being raised then raise it yourself. But why do I have a feeling your solution is telling others how to parent at the point of a gun? No matter how much some here want to demonstrate their moral superiority, there is no legal solution to this. We must rely on the incentives of the market, not disincentives created by armed gangs.
Peter Griffin: yeah, i think it makes sense to me now no one should be held accountable for letting their babies die from hunger,
yeah, i think it makes sense to me now
no one should be held accountable for letting their babies die from hunger,
If you don't like how a child is being raised then raise it yourself.
But why do I have a feeling your solution is telling others how to parent at the point of a gun?
No matter how much some here want to demonstrate their moral superiority, there is no legal solution to this. We must rely on the incentives of the market, not disincentives created by armed gangs.
LOL, I was NOT being sarcastic.
I do understand why NO ONE should be held accountable for starving their babies to death,
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!