Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:There is no obligation for a person to be the perfect parent. If she were to do something with the express intention of harming the baby then yes that would be considered aggression. GilesStratton:I have a questiion for you, do you believe mothers should be allowed to smoke during pregnancy? Maxliberty:yes Now you've contradicted yourself. Clearly, smoking harms the fetus, and is an aggression against it. Willing or not, it IS an aggression. So reconcile your contradiction.
Maxliberty:There is no obligation for a person to be the perfect parent. If she were to do something with the express intention of harming the baby then yes that would be considered aggression.
GilesStratton:I have a questiion for you, do you believe mothers should be allowed to smoke during pregnancy?
Maxliberty:yes
Now you've contradicted yourself. Clearly, smoking harms the fetus, and is an aggression against it. Willing or not, it IS an aggression. So reconcile your contradiction.
First of all there is no guarantee that smoking will in fact harm the baby. Not being a perfect parent is not aggression.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:If she were doing those things with the intent of harming the baby then yes that would be aggression. It's still aggression, regardless. If we keep to your idea that abortion is not taking responsibility for one's actions, and is in fact murder, then necessarily it follows that anything the mother does which harms the zygote or fetus, even without malice, is aggression. After all: not taking care of the fetus by not smoking or whatnot is not taking responsibility for one's actions! Hoist. Petard. Your own.
Maxliberty:If she were doing those things with the intent of harming the baby then yes that would be aggression.
It's still aggression, regardless. If we keep to your idea that abortion is not taking responsibility for one's actions, and is in fact murder, then necessarily it follows that anything the mother does which harms the zygote or fetus, even without malice, is aggression. After all: not taking care of the fetus by not smoking or whatnot is not taking responsibility for one's actions!
Hoist. Petard. Your own.
Wrong again. Abortion is murder. As such people who commit murder should be held accountable for their actions.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:My view is very different than the pro-abortion group because I believe that once a person agrees to take care of another person they are obligated to at least not cause intentional harm. And with whom was this agreement made vis-a-vis pregnant woman/zygote? I know--you pro-slavery people just hate women.
Maxliberty:My view is very different than the pro-abortion group because I believe that once a person agrees to take care of another person they are obligated to at least not cause intentional harm.
And with whom was this agreement made vis-a-vis pregnant woman/zygote?
I know--you pro-slavery people just hate women.
It is very simple. If you agree to take a person under your care then you are obligated to at the least not do any harm to the person under your care. The baby is under the woman's care and so she has obligations. I know you Library Libertarians hate the idea of individual accountability but it is in fact one of the building blocks of human society.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Now you've contradicted yourself. Clearly, smoking harms the fetus, and is an aggression against it. Willing or not, it IS an aggression. So reconcile your contradiction.
Maxliberty:First of all there is no guarantee that smoking will in fact harm the baby. Not being a perfect parent is not aggression.
Oh, but we can't let that weaselling stand. Nicotine moves through the bloodstream and into the fetus. So it will have some effect. Ergo, it is an aggression.
Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. One or the other.
Knight_of_BAAWA:It's still aggression, regardless. If we keep to your idea that abortion is not taking responsibility for one's actions, and is in fact murder, then necessarily it follows that anything the mother does which harms the zygote or fetus, even without malice, is aggression. After all: not taking care of the fetus by not smoking or whatnot is not taking responsibility for one's actions! Hoist. Petard. Your own.
Maxliberty:Wrong again.
Wrong again.
Maxliberty:Abortion is murder.
Then not eating healthy foods or smoking is aggressing against the fetus.
It's YOUR argument. You don't get to ignore the logical consequence just because YOU don't like them, coward.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And with whom was this agreement made vis-a-vis pregnant woman/zygote? I know--you pro-slavery people just hate women.
Maxliberty:It is very simple. If you agree to take a person
What person is there before the spem and egg met, Herr Hegel? Please explain that to us.
Maxliberty:under your care then you are obligated to at the least not do any harm to the person under your care.
Then the woman is OBLIGATED to not smoke, drink, or eat anything unhealthy!
You just don't know when to shut up, do you?
Maxliberty: First of all there is no guarantee that smoking will in fact harm the baby. Not being a perfect parent is not aggression.
But what if the mothers actions lead to the baby being seriously deformed? According to you the mother has aggressed against the child.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Knight_of_BAAWA:You just don't know when to shut up, do you?
Et tu Brute? lol
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:There is no obligation for a person to be the perfect parent. If she were to do something with the express intention of harming the baby then yes that would be considered aggression. GilesStratton:I have a questiion for you, do you believe mothers should be allowed to smoke during pregnancy? Maxliberty:yes Knight_of_BAAWA:Now you've contradicted yourself. Clearly, smoking harms the fetus, and is an aggression against it. Willing or not, it IS an aggression. So reconcile your contradiction. Maxliberty:First of all there is no guarantee that smoking will in fact harm the baby. Not being a perfect parent is not aggression. Oh, but we can't let that weaselling stand. Nicotine moves through the bloodstream and into the fetus. So it will have some effect. Ergo, it is an aggression. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. One or the other.
Everything the mother does could potentially have an adverse effect on the baby but that doesn't make it aggression. Just because one persons actions might have some impact on another person does not make it aggression.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:If she were doing those things with the intent of harming the baby then yes that would be aggression. Knight_of_BAAWA:It's still aggression, regardless. If we keep to your idea that abortion is not taking responsibility for one's actions, and is in fact murder, then necessarily it follows that anything the mother does which harms the zygote or fetus, even without malice, is aggression. After all: not taking care of the fetus by not smoking or whatnot is not taking responsibility for one's actions! Hoist. Petard. Your own. Maxliberty:Wrong again. Wrong again. Maxliberty:Abortion is murder. Then not eating healthy foods or smoking is aggressing against the fetus. It's YOUR argument. You don't get to ignore the logical consequence just because YOU don't like them, coward.
I did not say that smoking or eating unhealthy foods was aggression nor is it the logical consequence of my arguement. You are the one claiming that it is aggression.
Maxliberty: Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:There is no obligation for a person to be the perfect parent. If she were to do something with the express intention of harming the baby then yes that would be considered aggression. GilesStratton:I have a questiion for you, do you believe mothers should be allowed to smoke during pregnancy? Maxliberty:yes Knight_of_BAAWA:Now you've contradicted yourself. Clearly, smoking harms the fetus, and is an aggression against it. Willing or not, it IS an aggression. So reconcile your contradiction. Maxliberty:First of all there is no guarantee that smoking will in fact harm the baby. Not being a perfect parent is not aggression. Oh, but we can't let that weaselling stand. Nicotine moves through the bloodstream and into the fetus. So it will have some effect. Ergo, it is an aggression. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. One or the other. Everything the mother does could potentially have an adverse effect on the baby but that doesn't make it aggression. Just because one persons actions might have some impact on another person does not make it aggression.
But the mothers actions are directly harming the child, the mother is not being passive in this.
GilesStratton: Maxliberty: First of all there is no guarantee that smoking will in fact harm the baby. Not being a perfect parent is not aggression. But what if the mothers actions lead to the baby being seriously deformed? According to you the mother has aggressed against the child.
No, what I said was that intentionally trying to harm the baby by engaging in certain activities would be aggression against the baby. In this instance the intent is very important.
Maxliberty:Everything the mother does could potentially have an adverse effect on the baby
And there are things which will have a known negative impact, such as smoking, drinking, drug use, etc.
Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. One or the other. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Maxliberty:I did not say that smoking or eating unhealthy foods was aggression
It logically follows from your stance re: abortion. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
But as I've said before it's ridiculous to decide legality based on intent.
What your essentially saying is it's ok for the mother to smoke as long as she isn't doing it to harm the baby. Well no matter why she does it she is harming the baby, causing it serious harm.The nature of the act isn't changed.
According to you its perfectly acceptable that the mother engages in a huge number of activities all of which combined could result in the death of the child, yet these activites are ok so long as the mother doesn't intend to harm the baby.
GilesStratton: But the mothers actions are directly harming the child, the mother is not being passive in this.
We don't really know that this is in fact true. What we do know is that in some cases after certain exposures some babies may be harmed by certain activities, that is not sufficient in an individual case to establish aggression.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:I did not say that smoking or eating unhealthy foods was aggression It logically follows from your stance re: abortion. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
It does not logically follow from the arguement.
For the sake of the argument let's assume it is true.
Then what?
GilesStratton: But as I've said before it's ridiculous to decide legality based on intent. What your essentially saying is it's ok for the mother to smoke as long as she isn't doing it to harm the baby. Well no matter why she does it she is harming the baby, causing it serious harm.The nature of the act isn't changed. According to you its perfectly acceptable that the mother engages in a huge number of activities all of which combined could result in the death of the child, yet these activites are ok so long as the mother doesn't intend to harm the baby.
Intent matters a great deal. Let's say I hit you in the face with my shoulder in a crowded elevator, it matters a great deal if I was trying to hit you in the face or whether we just bumped into each other.
GilesStratton: What your essentially saying is it's ok for the mother to smoke as long as she isn't doing it to harm the baby. Well no matter why she does it she is harming the baby, causing it serious harm.The nature of the act isn't changed.
GilesStratton: According to you its perfectly acceptable that the mother engages in a huge number of activities all of which combined could result in the death of the child, yet these activites are ok so long as the mother doesn't intend to harm the baby.
Yes, that is correct because the issue is harm to the baby. So first you have to show in an individual case that a certain activity has caused harm and then you have to show the act was intended to cause harm. That would be the criteria for determining aggression against the baby.
GilesStratton: For the sake of the argument let's assume it is true. Then what?
Knight_of_BAAWA:It logically follows from your stance re: abortion. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Maxliberty:It does not logically follow from the arguement.
I've shown that it does. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Maxliberty:Intent matters a great deal. Let's say I hit you in the face with my shoulder in a crowded elevator, it matters a great deal if I was trying to hit you in the face or whether we just bumped into each other.
In terms of morality, yes it does matter, however it's ridiculous to establish legality based on intent. No matter what the intent is, the act is the same.The baby comes out crippled for life, because of the mothers purposeful actions.
Maxliberty:This can't actually be proved in an individual case.
Ok but assume it can, then what?
Maxliberty:Yes, that is correct because the issue is harm to the baby. So first you have to show in an individual case that a certain activity has caused harm and then you have to show the act was intended to cause harm. That would be the criteria for determining aggression against the baby.
Let's say there's a patient who is unconscious, the doctor gives him a drug that he thinks will save him, and it ends up killing him, should the doctor not be held responsible?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:I did not say that smoking or eating unhealthy foods was aggression Knight_of_BAAWA:It logically follows from your stance re: abortion. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Maxliberty:It does not logically follow from the arguement. I've shown that it does. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
You haven't shown anything. You made the claim that it was aggression not me.
GilesStratton: Maxliberty:Intent matters a great deal. Let's say I hit you in the face with my shoulder in a crowded elevator, it matters a great deal if I was trying to hit you in the face or whether we just bumped into each other. In terms of morality, yes it does matter, however it's ridiculous to establish legality based on intent. No matter what the intent is, the act is the same.The baby comes out crippled for life, because of the mothers purposeful actions. Maxliberty:This can't actually be proved in an individual case. Ok but assume it can, then what? Maxliberty:Yes, that is correct because the issue is harm to the baby. So first you have to show in an individual case that a certain activity has caused harm and then you have to show the act was intended to cause harm. That would be the criteria for determining aggression against the baby. Let's say there's a patient who is unconscious, the doctor gives him a drug that he thinks will save him, and it ends up killing him, should the doctor not be held responsible?
Ok, the doctor is responsible for the care of the person and as long as the doctor is acting in good faith then the direct intentional actions of the doctor on the patient are acceptable. There is no requirement the doctor be perfect. I am not sure your example exactly fits the situation.
GilesStratton:Ok but assume it can, then what?
Like I said the intent matters. If the mother is intentionally trying to harm the child and and does harm the child conclusively with a particular action then she should be held accontable. This is of course no different than any other action when one person assaults another.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I've shown that it does. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Maxliberty:You haven't shown anything.
But I have. I showed how your view about abortion logically leads to a woman having to eat right, not smoke, etc. while pregnant, or she should be executed. After all: causing damage to the fetus (which has rights) is wrong!
Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Maxliberty:Like I said the intent matters. If the mother is intentionally trying to harm the child and and does harm the child conclusively with a particular action then she should be held accontable. This is of course no different than any other action when one person assaults another.
I don't get how you think intent somehow transforms the act, the mother is still taking a life, I accept that and see it as immoral but within her rights as a self owner, perhaps you should do the same.
Maxliberty:There is no requirement the doctor be perfect.
No but the fact is he killed the patient, the fact that he was acting in good faith doesn't matter, as a result of his actions the patient is dead. Likewise, because of the mother smoking, drinking and snorting the baby may be seriously damaged, it doesn't matter whether the mother smoked with the intention of helping the baby or with the intention of killing it, it is what it is.
What if mom intentionally drinks and smokes?
Maxliberty:My view is very different than the pro-abortion group because I believe that once a person agrees to take care of another person they are obligated to at least not cause intentional harm. The pro-abortion crowd and in particular this group does not believe that people can have any obligations despite their voluntary consent to care for other persons. So if you go to the hospital the doctors and such in their world have no obligation to actually provide the care they said they would.
Strawman.
Do you have any arguments that don't rely on lies, strawmen, or other fallacies?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Do you have any arguments that don't rely on lies, strawmen, or other fallacies?
in b4 "Do you have any arguments that don't rely on allowing people to kill babies."
No baby is being killed.
Do you have anything that doesn't rely on emotive pleas?
"in b4"
Sorry if my sarcasm wasn't more clear.
GilesStratton: No but the fact is he killed the patient, the fact that he was acting in good faith doesn't matter, as a result of his actions the patient is dead. Likewise, because of the mother smoking, drinking and snorting the baby may be seriously damaged, it doesn't matter whether the mother smoked with the intention of helping the baby or with the intention of killing it, it is what it is.
Because the patient died as a result of something the doctor did does not make it murder. Murder requires intent, that is why intent matters. I think I have been pretty clear on the criteria to determine if the woman's action constitute murder or assault. There has to be actual proveable harm and she has to have intended to cause harm. There is a big difference between someone intentionally trying to harm you and someone accidentally harming you with regard to the remedy and your rights related to an appropriate response.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:I did not say that smoking or eating unhealthy foods was aggression Knight_of_BAAWA:It logically follows from your stance re: abortion. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Maxliberty:It does not logically follow from the arguement. Knight_of_BAAWA:I've shown that it does. Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Maxliberty:You haven't shown anything. But I have. I showed how your view about abortion logically leads to a woman having to eat right, not smoke, etc. while pregnant, or she should be executed. After all: causing damage to the fetus (which has rights) is wrong! Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
You have not shown anything close to that. What you have said is that if a woman is obligated to not harm the baby then she has to abstain from certain activities that you think might harm the baby. I have specifically stated that the mother is not allowed to take actions that harm the baby with the intent to do so. So if a woman smokes and no harm comes to the baby then obviously isn't an aggression towards the baby and even if the smoking did cause harm if there was no intent to do so there is still no aggression.
Knight_of_BAAWA:But I have. I showed how your view about abortion logically leads to a woman having to eat right, not smoke, etc. while pregnant, or she should be executed. After all: causing damage to the fetus (which has rights) is wrong! Either be consistent or admit that your argument is flawed. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Maxliberty:You have not shown anything close to that.
But I have. It's not my fault that you're too intellectually dishonest to admit to it.
Ok, so the whole argument that a baby does not have rights until it has developed the capacity for critical thought is just a development argument. You are in essence arguing that the baby is not a human until it has developed the frontal lobe or whatever. I could argue that a baby is not a human until the lungs have developed or until the brain has fully developed at age 25.
I would argue all lifeforms capable of developing the capacity for critical thought have rights, and I would argue that humans become a lifeform once the fertilized egg attaches to the wall, since at that point the fertilized egg will grow unless killed.
Regardless, I can see why the debate on abortion is such a difficult debate.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Ok, so the whole argument that a baby does not have rights until it has developed the capacity for critical thought is just a development argument. You are in essence arguing that the baby is not a human until it has developed the frontal lobe or whatever. I could argue that a baby is not a human until the lungs have developed or until the brain has fully developed at age 25. I would argue all lifeforms capable of developing the capacity for critical thought have rights, and I would argue that humans become a lifeform once the fertilized egg attaches to the wall, since at that point the fertilized egg will grow unless killed. Regardless, I can see why the debate on abortion is such a difficult debate.
Right, the debate on when rights are gained is wholly irrelevant to the debate on abortion. Either way, the child does not have a right to use the mothers body for housing.
banned: Right, the debate on when rights are gained is wholly irrelevant to the debate on abortion. Either way, the child does not have a right to use the mothers body for housing.
Sure it does, it is its house.
Spideynw:Sure it does, it is its house.
So now people can be houses?
Interesting.
banned:Right, the debate on when rights are gained is wholly irrelevant to the debate on abortion. Either way, the child does not have a right to use the mothers body for housing.
Good job! You've dehumanized the woman!
Knight_of_BAAWA:Good job! You've dehumanized the woman!
You mean the house is a woman?