Knight_of_BAAWA: liberty student:I hear you Morty, but Baawa has lost the argument. Not possible.
liberty student:I hear you Morty, but Baawa has lost the argument.
Not possible.
Yup, you lost. Sorry.
Knight_of_BAAWA:So what? Are you, like Max, daring to suggest that consent can NEVER be rescinded? Are you, like Max, daring to suggest that a woman loses ownership of her womb when she's pregnant? Are you, like Max, daring to suggest that a woman should be enslaved to the fetus?
liberty student != Max. I have a blog. He has a forum.
Knight_of_BAAWA:False analogy! How many times will you use that false analogy?
Until you give up.
Knight_of_BAAWA:NO ONE WAS INVITED INTO THE WOMB! THERE WAS NO PERSON!
How do you know? When does life start?
Knight_of_BAAWA:And I've avoided nothing; you've avoided showing that there is a right to life, since your "can you destroy life if you create it" hinges upon that.
Where did I say anyone had a right to life? That's a strawman (your specialty, it's why you have lost), and if you can't prove I said that, you have lost this argument again (for what now, the 5th time?)!
Knight_of_BAAWA:Go to it.
I feel bad for beating you so many times in one day. Maybe that is why you are the knight of baawaaaaaahaaaa boooooo hooooo *sniffle*
How is it plainly invalid? Seriously, I'm all ears. I can't discuss with the Knight of BooHoo anymore, he's been roundly defeated over and over.
In order for it not to be alive, you would have to know when it is alive, or a life.
In order for it not to be invited into the body, we would have to prove that the woman did not allow sperm and ovum to mix. If she did, she has invited the opportuniity for pregnancy.
Jon, I really respect your knowledge. I'm curious. Is a baby property?
liberty student:liberty student != Max.
liberty student clearly has no grasp of English, since I asked if you, like Max, were doing those things. I did not say "are you Max". Perhaps you should start reading every single letter in every single word.
liberty student:Until you give up.
Not going to happen.
liberty student:How do you know? When does life start?
So before the egg and sperm meet, there's a person? Srsly? What sort of idiotic quasi-Hegelian garbage is that? Did you mean to demonstrate your abject idiocy?
liberty student:Where did I say anyone had a right to life?
Your argument hinges upon it, and it is the question you beg.
Now get to it. And get over your butthurt.
liberty student:How is it plainly invalid?
It's been explained to you, little one. It's been demolished over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Here's something for you to demonstrate: before the egg and sperm meet, the fetus exists. That is what you're claiming with your idiotic "invited" analogy. Yeah, you are. Don't care if you think you're not, you are.
So show that before the egg and sperm meet, the fetus exists. Show it. Go on. Fly in the face of biology! DO IT!
Or go slink back to your cave, because you've been seriously pwnt.
Knight_of_BAAWA:liberty student clearly has no grasp of English, since I asked if you, like Max, were doing those things. I did not say "are you Max". Perhaps you should start reading every single letter in every single word.
M a y b e y o u s h o u l d w r i t e e v e r y p o s t l i k e t h i s .
Knight_of_BAAWA:Not going to happen.
Not smart enough to quit, eh?
Knight_of_BAAWA:So before the egg and sperm meet, there's a person? Srsly? What sort of idiotic quasi-Hegelian garbage is that? Did you mean to demonstrate your abject idiocy?
We're back to the creation of a person. Yes, I mean to demonstrate my abject idiocy by providing a reflection of your posts.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Your argument hinges upon it, and it is the question you beg.
I wouldn't say beg. I stopped taking you seriously 3 posts ago.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now get to it. And get over your butthurt.
I had a feeling your obsession with me bordered on anal fixation. In fact, since I damaged your argument so badly, I was going to offer you some midol, in rectal suppository form.
You keep on bringing up consent, contracts &c. as if any of it matters. It is irrelevant. The question is whether the mother can be forced into bringing the foetus to birth. But there was no person to speak of with which to make the agreement. And slavery contracts are invalid. So all we are speaking of here is the eviction of a trespasser, one that was not even invited (unless, it's possible to invite a non-person.) It might be the case that if the trespasser could be evicted without harming it, that that option could be pursued. But if it can't, abortion is perfectly fine. Whether the thing has rights of its own or not is utterly besides the point. Why the status of a lump of cells in a woman's womb matters to some so much is beyond me.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: You keep on bringing up consent, contracts &c. as if any of it matters. It is irrelevant. The question is whether the mother can be forced into bringing the foetus to birth. But there was no person to speak of with which to make the agreement. And slavery contracts are invalid. So all we are speaking of here is the eviction of a trespasser, one that was not even invited (unless, it's possible to invite a non-person.) It might be the case that if the trespasser could be evicted without harming it, that that option could be pursued. But if it can't, abortion is perfectly fine. Whether the thing has rights of its own or not is utterly besides the point. Why the status of a lump of cells in a woman's womb matters to some so much is beyond me. -Jon
How can you call it a trespasser, when it did not willfully enter her body? I'm not trying to be obtuse, please humour me so I can leave this thread enlightened, forever.
Trespass is the entry to someone else's property without their permission. If the woman knowingly engages in behavior that can and does create pregnancy, this was not without permission. She may not like it, but she certainly provided permission for it. It reminds me of some cases where two people have sex, and the next day one claims rape, without cause, even though the sex was consensual. Surely we wouldn't stand for this being a genuine case of rape, and I don't see how anyone can make a case for trespass. Even less so since the fetus doesn't pick the mother.
If anything, the fetus is a squatter, not a trespasser. In fact, if the woman carries it into the 3rd trimester, it surely has not trespassed, or remained in her, without permission.
See, that's another breakdown in the position you stated. She can carry the fetus until she changes her mind, then she can expel it on a whim. Which I could get my head around, if we can be sure it is not a living being. But the libertarian view on abortion says that a woman can abort 1 minute before birth, but not 1 minute after birth, and I struggle to understand what the difference is 1 minute before birth, when she has allowed the fetus to develop and grow for over 250 days.
As to the status of a lump of cells, I used to see it like that. I'm not so sure now. If only someone could tell me when life begins...
liberty student:Not smart enough to quit, eh?
What's the matter, tough guy? Don't like it when someone stands up to you?
liberty student:We're back to the creation of a person.
Then show that prior to sperm and egg meeting, there is a "person". Go on. That's what you're claiming.
liberty student:I wouldn't say beg.
I would, because I know the fallacy name and what it means. And you haven't stopped taking me seriously at all. In fact: you want my validation of yourself. That's why you can't stop responding.
Now then, little boy: grow up.
liberty student:How can you call it a trespasser, when it did not willfully enter her body?
How can you call it invited when it didn't exist as a person!
Knight_of_BAAWA:And you haven't stopped taking me seriously at all. In fact: you want my validation of yourself. That's why you can't stop responding.
lol
Knight_of_BAAWA: liberty student:How can you call it a trespasser, when it did not willfully enter her body? How can you call it invited when it didn't exist as a person!
lol. I'm not responding to you. I beat your arguments almost 2 dozen times in this thread already!
Good luck on the next discussion!
Spideynw: If I disagree with you, then I have to concede that the morning after pill should be illegal, which I just do not think it should be.
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."
Knight_of_BAAWA:How can you call it invited when it didn't exist as a person!
liberty student:lol. I'm not responding to you.
And yet you are. Quite schizoid.
Don't worry, little one: you're not the first to get all butthurt from tangling with me, and you won't be the last.
Juan: Spideynw: If I disagree with you, then I have to concede that the morning after pill should be illegal, which I just do not think it should be. Well, if you think that women should be able to buy the morning after pill over the counter, then for all practical purposes, you seem to be admitting that at least this type of abortion can't be outlawed.
Ok, I spoke to my wife about it, and it seems to be that the morning after pill does not abort an embryo or fetus. It just stops conception from taking place. But I will have to check into it further. If this is the case, than it would not be considered an abortion, but birth control instead. As such, my case would still stand, that conception is the beginning of life, and as such, abortion should still be illegal.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Well, the baby was neither invited nor trespassing. The baby simply grew there. And given that the baby is the one using the uteris, it can be argued that the baby is actually a co-owner of the uteris.
liberty student: As to the status of a lump of cells, I used to see it like that. I'm not so sure now. If only someone could tell me when life begins...
At conception, once the fertilized egg has attached itself to the uteris.
Juan:try google and you'll get a different opinion....for instance : http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9463"CNA STAFF, May 25, 2007 / 11:33 am (CNA).- The most recent scientific study on Levonorgestrel, the essential component of the “morning-after pill” or “emergency contraceptive,” confirms that the drug does indeed have a third effect on users, which consists in preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the womb of the mother. "
And I would say this is not ending life, but keeping it from starting, which is what birth control is supposed to do.
Spideynw: And I would say this is not ending life, but keeping it from starting, which is what birth control is supposed to do.
Juan:http://www.planb.ca/how.htmlplan B is two pills which you take together. If taken within 72 hours, it prevents pregnancy by doing one of three things:* Temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary* Prevents fertilization* Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus
And again this would be keeping life from starting, not ending a life that has already started. The only one I may have a problem defending against though would be the third point.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:In a teeny-tiny nutshell: that you homestead your body and assert control over it. A right to life means a positive obligation upon others to provide it for you. nfactor13:If we were siamese twins, would I have the right to kill you as a means of separating myself from you? Let's assume that there's no other means that would preserve your life. No, and the woman is not generating a co-homesteader. It's her womb.
Knight_of_BAAWA:In a teeny-tiny nutshell: that you homestead your body and assert control over it. A right to life means a positive obligation upon others to provide it for you.
nfactor13:If we were siamese twins, would I have the right to kill you as a means of separating myself from you? Let's assume that there's no other means that would preserve your life.
No, and the woman is not generating a co-homesteader. It's her womb.
Siamese twins is often a case where you have co-use of various organs and connective tissue. Neither twin 'invited' the other, but neither twin 'invaded' the other, either. Each one's immune system does not reject the other as a foreign entity. So if my siamese twin is using my liver without my permission, I'm trying to understand why that's not analogous to the argument for abortion, and given that, why it doesn't have equal validity (or lack thereof).
When sperm meets egg, the woman's body makes a similar choice. It's been mentioned that certain drugs can interfere with that process, but in normal pregnancies, the woman's body biochemically invites the embryo to stay.. normally, the body would kick out any perceived invader or try to kill it. In my case, as a diabetic, my immune system got the bright idea that parts of my pancreas did not belong, and proceeded to kill those cells (much to my regret).
So for those who do not like the idea of 'inviting' because it implies formal verbal contracts, I'm just suggesting that at a biochemical level, it's hard to describe as anything other than invitation, and in fact, hospitality might be an even better word. Not only does the immune system not destroy the new cell, but it sets up a lifeline, a protective sac, protective fluid, and even provides antibodies to ensure some protection. This biochemical interaction is more complex than any rental agreement any of us have ever signed.
And again, I don't say that to mean that the mother then becomes a slave to the fetus. But it's more akin to reliance-based estoppels where the actions of one are based on an implied reliance on the actions of another. In the beginning, there's little to go on.. but over time, and as you get closer to the end of the pregnancy, the reliance of the fetus on the mother means that progressively the fetus has more and more to lose, up to the point where it's just a few centimeters and a push away from being independent and fully recognized.
Knight_of_BAAWA: If you have a right to life, then someone has to provide the upkeep for the life to you. You can't have a negative right to life, for it means you must be kept alive until you die naturally.
If you have a right to life, then someone has to provide the upkeep for the life to you. You can't have a negative right to life, for it means you must be kept alive until you die naturally.
A negative right to life would mean that if I'm alive, you can't actively take my life. I think abortion tends to blur the lines between the positive and negative parts because people make the argument that the woman does not have to feed the child (which would go against a positive right to life), therefore she can kill it (which would go against a negative right to life). So often one ends up protesting one kind, but violating both.
liberty student:Knight of BooHoo
What was it you said about name mocking?
Do as I say, not as I do.
I knew nothing good would come of joining this discussion!
It was a mistake on my part. I could have defeated the Knight without getting so childish.
Spideynw:Well, the baby was neither invited nor trespassing.
Technically, it is a form of trespass. And your communist idea is laughable. Please disabuse yourself of that idiotic notion.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, and the woman is not generating a co-homesteader. It's her womb.
nfactor13:Siamese twins
Are a red herring and borders on a variant of "ethics of emergencies". Do you really want to play that game?
nfactor13:is often a case where you have co-use of various organs and connective tissue. Neither twin 'invited' the other, but neither twin 'invaded' the other, either. Each one's immune system does not reject the other as a foreign entity. So if my siamese twin is using my liver without my permission, I'm trying to understand why that's not analogous to the argument for abortion, and given that, why it doesn't have equal validity (or lack thereof).
I'm trying tounderstand how it is analagous. You posit, you prove. That's how it works.
nfactor13:When sperm meets egg, the woman's body makes a similar choice.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! The body doesn't make the choice; choice is will-based. SHE as the whole must make the choice.
nfactor13:So for those who do not like the idea of 'inviting' because it implies formal verbal contracts, I'm just suggesting that at a biochemical level, it's hard to describe as anything other than invitation
And that's merely a metaphor. Try again with valid consent and you might have something. Metaphors need not apply.
Knight_of_BAAWA:If you have a right to life, then someone has to provide the upkeep for the life to you. You can't have a negative right to life, for it means you must be kept alive until you die naturally.
nfactor13:A negative right to life would mean that if I'm alive, you can't actively take my life.
And it would mean that you cannot use me to sustain your life, nor that you could live inside me. So it looks like you're back to square-one.
liberty student:It was a mistake on my part. I could have defeated the Knight without getting so childish.
You still haven't, Brave Sir Robin.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Technically, it is a form of trespass. And your communist idea is laughable. Please disabuse yourself of that idiotic notion.
Knight, having defeated you soundly numerous times yesterday, despite your lewd and vehement objection, I find I must respond to this.
What is the definition of trespass you are using? All common definitions seem to accept that trespass is an act at the moment of transgression, not a persistent state.
As the mother is the one who allows entrance of sperm (not trespass) and her body produces the ovum, and facilitates the mixing of the two, I find it hard to identify with the notion that in any way the embryo has trespassed, but that rather it exists, specifically due to the nature and actions of it's mother.
I don't think we will reach an understanding or a resolution. Really, I don't care. It's not relevant to my life. However I've yet to meet a libertarian who has children, who also believes in the Rothbardian property approach (that they have a right to abandon their children any time for any reason).
Trespass is the entry to someone else's property without their permission. If the woman knowingly engages in behavior that can and does create pregnancy, this was not without permission.
Permission granted to whom? Contract entered into with whom? A non-person? At the time of conception, there is no person to speak of, there is no contract to speak of, there is no permission to speak of. There is the formation of a parasite that a woman may or may not wish to host. If she does not, absent a contract, and given the incoherence of slave contracts, she is under no obligation to shelter this being.
She may not like it, but she certainly provided permission for it.
Nope, she certainly didn't. She consented to a sexual act. There was no third party to speak of at the time.
Once the being is out of her, she may no longer aggress against it. It can be removed without inflicting harm upon it. So there is no breakdown to speak of.
If only it were relevant...
So, owned resources can be homesteaded by latecomers? Are you sure you're a libertarian? Actually, it has no claim whatsoever to the womb. It is a foreign parasite.
Oh great Jon, now this is going to turn into an immigration debate!
Jon Irenicus:Permission granted to whom? Contract entered into with whom? A non-person? At the time of conception, there is no person to speak of, there is no contract to speak of, there is no permission to speak of. There is the formation of a parasite that a woman may or may not wish to host. If she does not, absent a contract, and given the incoherence of slave contracts, she is under no obligation to shelter this being.
Jon Irenicus:Nope, she certainly didn't. She consented to a sexual act. There was no third party to speak of at the time.
Jon Irenicus:Once the being is out of her, she may no longer aggress against it. It can be removed without inflicting harm upon it. So there is no breakdown to speak of.
Jon Irenicus:As to the status of a lump of cells, I used to see it like that. I'm not so sure now. If only someone could tell me when life begins...If only it were relevant...
Juan:That's the relevant point. It's not that you 'may' have a problem. You do have a problem because those are facts - you can't change them by argument.edit:The facts I'm referring to are : 1) 'conception' is the fertilization of the egg, 2) the morning-after pill does prevent fertilized eggs from implanting.
Human life and human rights begin at conception. The obligation of the mother begins once the implantation in the uterus begins. So preventing implantation as one of the possibilities of a particular birth control seems a reasonable act by the mother as before implantation there is no relationship between the two. Also, at this point before implantation there is no way to know if the obligation will ever actually exist because it is certainly possible to have a fertilized egg that naturally never implants in the uterus.
I think this resolves this issue.
Maybe permission is not the right word. She consented to sex, a consequence of which could be pregnancy. I'm still confused (genuinely) about how action and consequence can be separated.
But for her to have an obligation to the foetus, it'd have to be something towards which such obligations could incur. That it might be a consequence of her actions is neither here nor there. The question is whether she owes it anything: and since it does not exist at the time of the action, she does not.
Right, but that seems too simplistic for me. That's like saying I consent to playing Russian Roulette but not getting shot in the head.
Again, to whom do the obligations incur?
If it can be removed without harm to either party, that is awesome. I'm not some philistine who wants women bare foot and pregnant, or as breeding slaves. I am legitmately concerned that some of the libertarian perspectives on abortion can't pass sophisticated tests of inquiry. Such as...
The point is, she has no obligation whatsoever to bring this being to birth. If it can be removed safely, i.e. evicted safely, then that is a whole other matter. This is why Block's arguments are relevant to this issue.
It is relevant, because you keep referring to the fetus or embryo as a non-person. I'm not getting the definition of a person by this train of thought. What does it take to be a person?
It'd be relevant, if it existed at the time she decided to have sex. But it didn't. So no obligations can exist towards it. It may be a person at conception, it may be one when the cerebral cortex develops (which seems more plausible.) But either way, the pertinent argument is whether any obligations arise towards it. But why should they? Obligations can only be contractual in nature. A "contract" with a third party which does not exist at the time of contracting is no contract at all. And even if the person did exist, this would be a slave contract, thus an invalid one (another difference between the case where a human is evicted from property which is not identical to the owner, and the case where the owner in question is also the property itself...)
Ok, from a logical standpoint, I get it now. Thank you.
Now to reconcile logic with my emotions.
Maxliberty:Human life and human rights begin at conception.
What makes a human so special at that time (conception) that it may posess rights?
Jon Irenicus:But for her to have an obligation to the foetus, it'd have to be something towards which such obligations could incur. That it might be a consequence of her actions is neither here nor there. The question is whether she owes it anything: and since it does not exist at the time of the action, she does not.
The fetus does exist at the time of implantation in the uterus. The obligation of the woman begins there. I tend to use conception and implantation interchangeablely because they normally occur within such close proximity but there is a difference in obligations during the period before implantation. After implantation the woman's body has willing accepted the obligation and such is bound by that relationship.
Jon Irenicus:The point is, she has no obligation whatsoever to bring this being to birth. If it can be removed safely, i.e. evicted safely, then that is a whole other matter. This is why Block's arguments are relevant to this issue.
Only if you believe that people have no obligation to care for people they have agreed to care for.
Jon Irenicus:And even if the person did exist, this would be a slave contract, thus an invalid one (another difference between the case where a human is evicted from property which is not identical to the owner, and the case where the owner in question is also the property itself...)
This is not a slave contract. Both parties willingly entered into the contract.
What you are afraid to state is that you believe that abortions should be allowed all the way up until the baby exits the body. As horrific and unpopular as that view is, why are you afraid to say that is what you favor?
banned: Maxliberty:Human life and human rights begin at conception. What makes a human so special at that time (conception) that it may posess rights?
What makes you so special now that you posess rights?