MaxLiberty: Human life and human rights begin at conception.
The obligation of the mother begins once the implantation in the uterus begins.
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: MaxLiberty: Human life and human rights begin at conception. And using the morning-after pill can lead to fertilized eggs dying, which is, according to that premise, murder. The obligation of the mother begins once the implantation in the uterus begins. I don't see why ? You've just patched your theory a bit and now it's even more inconsistent (although I realize the result is more liberal/libertarian)
If the fertilized egg is never implanted in the uterus then the mother can't have an obligation to the baby. Even when the mother wants to have the implantation to happen she has no control over it, so making it less likely isn't any violation to the baby as the baby before implantation does not have a direct relationship with the mother and there is no guarantee that one will exist. The mother isn't obligated to make her body the perfect uterus pre-implant.
The theory hasn't changed. You brought up a good point to ask when exactly does the obligation of the mother begin. Normally I think of conception and pregnancy being the same but your point is well taken that it is not. It actually strengthens the arguement against abortion as one of the common themes of the pro-aborton group is that no person existed to be harmed whereas you rightly point out that first the person exists and then the implantation occurs, so the obligation occurs after the existence of the baby. So we have conception, the begininning of human life and rights and then we have implantation the beginning of the mother's obligation to care for the baby and to at least deliberately not cause harm.
I actually spent some time thinking on your challenge while out for my morning run (gotta keep in shape for the revolution). Thanks for challenging the distinction, I am wiser now than I was before.
Maxliberty:What makes you so special now that you posess rights?
I am rational and can assert a right over my own domain. Last I looked, human blastula couldn't do that.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Technically, it is a form of trespass. And your communist idea is laughable. Please disabuse yourself of that idiotic notion.
liberty student:What is the definition of trespass you are using?
The English one.
Now then, since you're no longer responding to me, I see no reason to continue.
And remember: there's no person before the sperm and egg meet, Hegel.
banned: I am rational and can assert a right over my own domain. Last I looked, human blastula couldn't do that.
Neither can a one year old...
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Maxliberty:So we have conception, the begininning of human life and rights and then we have implantation the beginning of the mother's obligation to care for the baby and to at least deliberately not cause harm.
I think the only way to be consistent would be to claim that life does not start until the fertilized egg has attached itself. But my struggle is why would this be the case?
Maxliberty:If the fertilized egg is never implanted in the uterus then the mother can't have an obligation to the baby.
Even when it does, she doesn't have an obligation to the zygote. Presuming your conclusion will only get it pointed out to you that you're begging the question.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Even when it does, she doesn't have an obligation to the zygote. Presuming your conclusion will only get it pointed out to you that you're begging the question.
So do parents not have an obligation to their children then?
Spideynw:Neither can a one year old...
A one year old doesn't posess the linguistic tools to do so, but they do posess the mental capacity for rational thought, which is what grants them rights.
Spideynw:So do parents not have an obligation to their children then?
Of course not.
Spideynw: Maxliberty:So we have conception, the begininning of human life and rights and then we have implantation the beginning of the mother's obligation to care for the baby and to at least deliberately not cause harm. I think the only way to be consistent would be to claim that life does not start until the fertilized egg has attached itself. But my struggle is why would this be the case?
It is perfectly consistent to say that life starts at conception. The obligation of the mother starts at attachment. Keep in mind the fertilized egg doesn't change it's nature at attachment only it now has a direct voluntary relationship with the mother. it is the relationship between the mother and child that change at attachment.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Even when it does, she doesn't have an obligation to the zygote. Presuming your conclusion will only get it pointed out to you that you're begging the question.
So parents are slaves?
Maxliberty:The obligation of the mother starts at attachment.
Prove it.
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.
Right, and when intercourse takes place the person is non-existent. There is no person to speak of. After this, if something pops up inside the woman, she has no obligation towards it, your proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding. Her "body" is irrelevant - only her will is germane.
Only if you believe that people have no obligation to care for people they have agreed to care for.
Which they haven't.
This is not a slave contract. Both parties willingly entered into the contract.
Slave contracts are willingly entered into. They're just invalid.
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?
What you are afraid to state is that you believe the woman is a slave to a parasite within her. As horrific and unpopular as that view is, why are you afraid to say this is what you favour?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
banned: Spideynw:So do parents not have an obligation to their children then? Of course not.
Yes we know the pro-abortion group is also pro starve your children to death as well. What you and your Library Libertarian friends don't understand is that no society can exist with the underlying assumptions you make about acceptable human behavior. Yours is the ideology of genocide.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Even when it does, she doesn't have an obligation to the zygote. Presuming your conclusion will only get it pointed out to you that you're begging the question. Spideynw:So do parents not have an obligation to their children then? So parents are slaves?
Once again confusing accountability with slavery.
No, parents do not. If the family is sitting around in the living room watching TV, and the Dad says to the Mom, "Hey, these kids are a burden, or not turning out as smart and obedient as I would like", they can pick the kids up, strip them of their clothes, and deposit them naked outside on the sidewalk.
Do I have this right folks? I know it sounds loaded, but no sense in tippy-toeing around examples.
Knight_of_BAAWA:So parents are slaves?
Maxliberty:Once again confusing accountability with slavery.
False. You're once again confusing liberty with slavery.
Maxliberty: banned: Spideynw:So do parents not have an obligation to their children then? Of course not. Yes we know the pro-abortion group is also pro starve your children to death as well.
Yes we know the pro-abortion group is also pro starve your children to death as well.
We do? Funny. I'm not.
Maxliberty: What you and your Library Libertarian friends don't understand is that no society can exist with the underlying assumptions you make about acceptable human behavior. Yours is the ideology of genocide.
What you and your Library Libertarian friends don't understand is that no society can exist with the underlying assumptions you make about acceptable human behavior. Yours is the ideology of genocide.
Somebody hasn't read enough Aristotle and contemporary Aristotelian libertarians. Library Libertarians. LOL As John Stossel would say, "Give me a break!"
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
liberty student:No, parents do not. If the family is sitting around in the living room watching TV, and the Dad says to the Mom, "Hey, these kids are a burden, or not turning out as smart and obedient as I would like", they can pick the kids up, strip them of their clothes, and deposit them naked outside on the sidewalk. Do I have this right folks? I know it sounds loaded, but no sense in tippy-toeing around examples.
Yes, you do. However, you should note that there is a difference between aesthetics, etiquette, and morality. You are conflating them into a whole, and it's just not the case that they are.
Now then: does a child have the right to make a slave of the parent? No sense in tippy-toeing around examples!
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:Somebody hasn't read enough Aristotle and contemporary Aristotelian libertarians. Library Libertarians. LOL As John Stossel would say, "Give me a break!"
Geoff, I really do like you, but for the love of all that is great, you are a super nerd.
Yes, Max's problem is obviously a deficiency in reading Aristotle, and then you don't like being labelled a library libertarian. It's almost funny.
Maxliberty:Yes we know the pro-abortion group is also pro starve your children to death as well. What you and your Library Libertarian friends don't understand is that no society can exist with the underlying assumptions you make about acceptable human behavior. Yours is the ideology of genocide
I invoke Poe's Law.
Maxliberty:Yes we know the pro-abortion group is also pro starve your children to death as well.
Starving someone is acting against them. It's more like not feeding them, not starving them.
Maxliberty:What you and your Library Libertarian friends don't understand is that no society can exist with the underlying assumptions you make about acceptable human behavior.
Glad you took initiative to prove that underlying assumption.
Maxliberty:Yours is the ideology of genocide.
Blah, blah, blah. I'll kill parents if they dont house and feed their children, Blah, blah, blah.
banned: A one year old doesn't posess the linguistic tools to do so, but they do posess the mental capacity for rational thought, which is what grants them rights.
No, one has rights because they are a human.
Spideynw:No, one has rights because they are a human.
So humans have a monopoly on rights? If there were another known intelligent species they would not have rights?
That would be one of Max's many problems, yes. People who spend a considerable share of their time in online fora, nitpicking and flame-baiting (guess who does both), are definitely not exempt from the category of "nerd" themselves. That must upset Max. Who knows, perhaps he suffers from some inferiority complex and enjoys projecting his failings onto others...
banned: So humans have a monopoly on rights? If there were another known intelligent species they would not have rights?
Good point.
I guess I will have to argue that if a living organism has the capacity to develop rational thought, then it has rights.
Spideynw: I guess I will have to argue that if a living organism has the capacity to develop rational thought, then it has rights.
Mentally retarded people whose rational capabilities are under those of a great ape have no rights then? Can we just put them in a cage next to the chimps?
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
banned: Of course not.
So they can let their baby starve to death if they want to? Or freeze to death? Or dehydrate?
Be sure that you're not conflating etiquette with morality.
Spideynw: banned: Of course not. So they can let their baby starve to death if they want to? Or freeze to death? Or dehydrate?
Yes, what else do you propose? The use of coercion to force them to do otherwise?
Of course in a libertarian society they'd have incentives (money) not to do so.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:Yes, what else do you propose? The use of coercion to force them to do otherwise? Of course in a libertarian society they'd have incentives (money) not to do so.
Incentivization and ostracism is coercion. Let's not kid ourselves about that. If our neighbor controls the only fresh water supply, and his other customers want him to cut me off for how I treat my children (like the damn property they are! ) then I either change my behaviour or risk not having water.
I'll admit, I don't have any answers to these problems, just unsettled feelings.
@ all, no one answer my response earlier this evening. Based on the notion of zero positive rights, parents could arbitrarily choose to confiscate everything of material value from their children and dump them naked on the street. It wouldn't matter if the kids were 2, 5 or 8. One day, Mr. Jones is a father of 4. The next day, he decides he wants a fresh start and removes the "trespassers". No shirt, no shoes, no parents.
I get it. But I'm not sure I like it.
BlackSheep: Mentally retarded people whose rational capabilities are under those of a great ape have no rights then? Can we just put them in a cage next to the chimps?
No. I will have to evaluate my stance further and get back to you.
liberty student:ncentivization and ostracism is coercion. Let's not kid ourselves about that.
Oh no, this semantics game... <_<
I'm really not trying to play a semantic game.
If we incentivize one behaviour, we disincentivize another. That should be evident.
And Ostracism in the form of trade denial could be life threatening. Obviously there is no positive obligation to trade, but if a group of pro-lifers chose to stop all trade with a person who has an abortion, depending upon the circumstances, that could be a death sentence for someone who is exercising their right to abort (per this thread). So then the choice becomes be a slave to the baby and your neighbors, or risk physical harm or death.
I'll offer the obvious disclaimer, that I am not as well read as many of you, and acknowledge that my arguments may not be original, I may be ignorant of their history and resolutions.
liberty student:And Ostracism in the form of trade denial could be life threatening. Obviously there is no positive obligation to trade, but if a group of pro-lifers chose to stop all trade with a person who has an abortion, depending upon the circumstances, that could be a death sentence for someone who is exercising their right to abort (per this thread).
But that is not coercion: the initiation or threat of initiation of force.
liberty student:So then the choice becomes be a slave to the baby and your neighbors, or risk physical harm or death.
It's not slavery if its voluntary.
liberty student: I get it. But I'm not sure I like it.
Was one of the big challenges I had with libertarianism too. Unless I understood, that rights do not have anything to do with morale at all. From my point of view, as a christian, it is absurdly wrong to act in such a way for sure, this has nothing to do with a right however, but everything with the beliefs that guide my actions.
If I do not want to be coerced(that is physical aggression) by someone else, I have to abstain to coerce him into whatever group belief I cater to, else, I would allow groups to have divine rights or whatever source they claim for their laws. Because that opens the door for all the group related issues we face, we need to go down to the bare natural principles when it comes to rights, and every human being is free to act according his or her own believes unless this includes aggression.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
banned:It's not slavery if its voluntary.
If your choice is starve or be a slave, that's no choice at all. As evidenced by the fact that most if not everyone here pays their taxes, observes several laws and carries state ID, the potential for a threat of force, is enough to shape behaviour. Realistically, if 20 million people stopped paying taxes, there is little the state can do, but regardless, people choose to participate because the chance that they might stand alone against the state, and then be retaliated against prevents them from exercising their moral prerogative.
nhaag:Was one of the big challenges I had with libertarianism too. Unless I understood, that rights do not have anything to do with morale at all. From my point of view, as a christian, it is absurdly wrong to act in such a way for sure, this has nothing to do with a right however, but everything with the beliefs that guide my actions.
Thanks. I'm no longer a Christian, but I still have a lot of Christian values. I'm rapidly catching up to understanding libertarianism, breaking down barriers where I may have reservations or am closed minded. It's certainly not easy.
Knight_of_BAAWA: liberty student:No, parents do not. If the family is sitting around in the living room watching TV, and the Dad says to the Mom, "Hey, these kids are a burden, or not turning out as smart and obedient as I would like", they can pick the kids up, strip them of their clothes, and deposit them naked outside on the sidewalk. Do I have this right folks? I know it sounds loaded, but no sense in tippy-toeing around examples. Yes, you do. However, you should note that there is a difference between aesthetics, etiquette, and morality. You are conflating them into a whole, and it's just not the case that they are.
I'm not conflating anything. I'm drawing an uglier example, because we might as well be honest about what libertarianism projects. Our opponents won't avoid making a (true) claim like this, and we should be ready to address it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now then: does a child have the right to make a slave of the parent? No sense in tippy-toeing around examples!
Well, that's not an example, so feel free to provide one. While I agree that that the libertarian position is based on reason, it's very unattractive and it's a sore point if you're trying to have this conversation with someone who has kids. There has to be a way to pretty it up without being dishonest.
Hey guys, in our libertarian society, abandoning your children naked and alone is actually ok! You can change your mind about being a parent -and ditch the kids anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances!