So your point is that you are not sovereign. Your parents are free to do with you"their property" as they wish. You better hope they don't have a big life insurance policy on you. Might have to sleep with one eye open.
Are you willing to make a case for sovereignty? You're entirely free to do so.
Of course, my sleeping with one eye open has nothing to do with actually providing a counter to the argument. It seems quite morally absurd, though. I'm still looking for a solution that appropriately balances rights with obligations in a way that satisfies all parties involved.
How do you guys approach the unconcious violinist ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(Thought_Experiment)
something to think about at least.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Of course, my sleeping with one eye open has nothing to do with actually providing a counter to the argument. It seems quite morally absurd, though. I'm still looking for a solution that appropriately balances rights with obligations in a way that satisfies all parties involved
The right to life..........Or the right not to be inconvenienced. I think we all know which side tips the scale.
How do you guys approach the unconcious violinist
I agree it isn't the same. Just as you are not respomsible for the death of an accident victim because you didn't donate blood.
Obligations not taken on freely = slavery
You could drop the poitive rights garbage, which also is just a pretty euphamism for slavery, and deal with negative rights. The right to life and the right to not be inconvenienced then become the same right, the right to be free from aggression.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Obligations not taken on freely = slavery You could drop the poitive rights garbage, which also is just a pretty euphamism for slavery, and deal with negative rights. The right to life and the right to not be inconvenienced then become the same right, the right to be free from aggression.
I'm trying to be as civil as I can in discussing a very heated and emotional topic. I think we should keep things rational. Don't you agree?
On another note, would you agree that the fetus also has the right to be free from aggression? Could you really call the fetus an aggressor? It did not bring itself into exist, neither did it willfully infringe.
If anything, that's aggression against the fetus--bringing it into the world through violence! It didn't get the choice to decide whether it wanted to live or not, I suppose.
Good sir, I quite agree. And please believe that I meant no offense by my words. I humbly beg you to consider that they were, in fact, written with the utmost sincerity, and accept my apology if my sentiments offended your senses. But I truly believe that the notion of obligations forced upon one, that is, not taken on freely, is the definition of slavery. Continuing that thought, what are positive rights but obligations forced onto others, and therefore also slavery?
I would never say that a fetus's mere existence would in any way constitute aggression. A fetus is incapable of such a thing. I don't think that was was said by me anywhere, but again, my humblest apologies if somehow I managed to imply such a ridiculous thing!
I can't remember who the author was, but I remember reading this analogy somewhere in Mises.org literature:
Imagine someone got drunk and passed out. While they were passed out you brought them to your house and when they came to you asked them to leave. No problem right?
Now imagine someone got drunk and passed out, and while they were passed out you brought them onto your aeroplane and flew several thousand feet above the ground. Now you ask them to leave. Problem?
The point of the analogy was that the mother would be perfectly just in forcing the fetus to leave (as in example 1) if she hadn't put the fetus in the danger in the first place (as in example 2) - since the fetus did not agree to enter the mother's body and face the risks of being ejected - rather the mother created the fetus and put it in this situation with or without any consent or understand of the fetus. I'm not sure what the answer to this is, I just thought I'd share the argument.
It certainly is an intriguing argument. The flaw, as I see it, is that the plane owner consciously brought the drunk onto the plane. As much as some would argue so, getting pregnant is not a conscious act. A woman cannot simply will herself to be pregnant. She may only engage in behavior that increases its likelihood. Were this not true, the whole fertility drug industry would not exist, not to mention the contraceptive industry.
To make the analogy proper, the drunk must be a stowaway, who climbed aboard, or was placed there by others, without the plane-owner's knowledge. The plane owner may have engaged in activities that would increase the likelihood of taking on a stowaway, such as parking in unsavory airports and leaving the door open and unguarded for days on end, but that still is quite different from picking up an unconscious drunk and flying away with him.
Although it goes against my morals, I do think there is a justification for abortion in the case of rape, incest, or medical problems where the mother's life is in danger. You most definitely have a case there for slavery or emendate peril. But consensual sex is a contract between the prospective father and mother. The unborn fetus by nature of this contract and his own right to life must be allowed to thrive.
But consensual sex is a contract between the prospective father and mother.
How do you get a contract sex? What if they just wanted to have orgasms? If so, the contract extends until either decides to stop (or in unable to continue) and then it's over. Pregnancy, then, is at best a risk and at worse a side-effect. And what if she was actually trying to get pregnant, but he was shooting blanks? Does that mean he failed to uphold the terms of the contract?
People engage in risky behavior all the time, from eating at McDonalds to crossing the street to speeding down the highway. This does not mean they are asking for food poisoning, to get hit by a car or a car accident, respectively. If you leave your door unlocked, a drunk may wander in to get out of the cold. This is at least partially a result of your risky behaviour. That doesn't mean you have to let him stay.
The unborn fetus by nature of this contract and his own right to life must be allowed to thrive.
Allowed to thrive, sure. We can refrain from hurting him, inside or outside of the mother. That would be allowing him to survive. I'm all for it. Somehow I think you mean something else, though, something like, the mother must be forced to ensure he thrives. Well, that's slavery, and I'm against it.
We all know the possibilities of sex. That makes it an implied contract. I know where you're coming from. Thirty five years ago I would have agreed with you. I've fathered six kids. You have to understand that a fetus is more than a blown rubber or a hole in a diaphram or a failed contraceptive. They are people. Seperate and beautifull in their own ways
We all know the possibilities of sex. That makes it an implied contract.
Before I just say, "No it doesn't," would you mind telling me the parties to the contract, and the terms. I mean, no matter what, it doesn't. But I really would like to read the terms of this alleged contract.
I'm agreeing that a fetus is a person, and has the right to be free from aggression. I just don't agree that removing a fetus from a woman's body could possibly be considered aggression. Sure, the way it's done today is disgusting, and I'm not defending it. I'm defending abortion (the removal of the fetus) not the method. If it can live outside the woman, great! If not, that cannot be considdered the fault of anyone but nature. A person simply has no right to live within another person without the continual consent of that person. Concenting to sex, or even to carry the futus in the beginning is not enough. The consent must be continual.
I certainly don't think the fetus is himself (or herself) aggressing on the woman. I do, however, consider any action that physically prevents a woman from removing the fetus to be aggression.
I just thought of this bizarre example, but I'm trying to illustrate causality here.
Suppose you enter a lottery that has conditions. Now if you win the lottery--a lottery that has relatively the same odds as getting pregnant--you get a refugee. Based on conditions attached to the lottery that are well known in advance, the refugee will live on your property for 9 months if you happen to win.
You clearly initiated the causal relationship. Now you have a liability on your hands, namely a refugee that is dependent on you for nine months. There is no case to be made that the refugee is the aggressor. However, given that you knew the conditions attached to the lottery, you freely played it.
Now that the refugee is on your property, how is it not aggression to force him off? Why enter the causal relationship if you expect to be free of obligations? I get queasy around positive rights as well, but I think a case can be made for an event that is at least comparable to a contract.
Here's the dilemma: if you give consent to have a baby inside you for nine months, and even give birth to it, why would there be any moral qualms over letting it die? You initiated the relationship. Should it change because the baby has changed its geographical location from inside the womb to outside?
When does the relationship end? Does it ever end? If so, why?
It seems clear to me at least that you take on obligations by engaging in certain activities, which ultimately limits your future activities. That is the nature of agreement.
So if I win the lottery, I get a refugee... What do I get just for playing? I mean for this to be analogous, we need to come up with something for the vast majority of people who enjoy playing but would consider getting the refugee... losing.
You get a rush of adrenaline, or a shot of morphine.
"Doctor, doctor, it feels ever so good, but I don't like responsibility!"
"Then don't 'enter into' the lottery".
If you cause a conscious being to come into existence by your actions (without consulting it, I might add) then I think obligation exists. I can't see how it wouldn't be aggression to force a helpless person off your property when you actually brought them into being in the first place.
Many would consider abortion taking responsibility, but that is neither here nor there.
I can't see how it wouldn't be aggression to force a helpless person off your property when you actually brought them into being in the first place.
And that is where we disagree. I can't see how forcing any person off your property, using the least force necessary to accomplish it, could ever be considered aggression, regardless of who that person is.
Also, in your lottery example, can I play, and then upon "winning" say, "No thanks. You keep the prize. The thrill of the game is my reward!"
If not, presumably there is some sort of contract between the players and the person running the lottery, and the refugee and the person running the lottery. Then the decision to take in the refugee or not becomes a dispute between the "winner" and the lottery runner. Interference by third parties would certainly be aggression. Third parties should let the lottery runner handle it.
Taking the metaphor back to reality, if a woman chooses to remove a fetus from her body, leave her alone and let God take care of it. It's none of your business.
A mold cannot be ejected from your body without killing it as well, but why is that not a violation of the mold's rights?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Why do people keep on insisting that the fetus is capable of consciousness and perception at the moment of conception despite scientific evidence pointing to the contrary? What's the difference between the fetus and someone who's brain dead/suffering from irreversible brain damage? If we can legally and morally "kill" someone who's neurologically dead, why can't we "kill" a fetus that hasn't even developed the capacity for consciousness? People just seem to blindly assert that the fetus is automatically entitled to personhood at conecption without giving any scientific reason as to why. I mean I can say that there's an invisible flying polar bear following me wherever I go, but without empirical evidence I'll be treated as a nutjob at best. Merely affirming it doesn't make it so.
What's the difference between the fetus and someone who's brain dead/suffering from irreversible brain damage?
The fetus is a potential adult. That is, the fetus will eventaully grow out of that state. A fetus is more akin to an unconscious adult. In time, the adult will wake up and be fully conscious, rational, etc. It just takes more time in the fetus's case.
If we can legally and morally "kill" someone who's neurologically dead, why can't we "kill" a fetus that hasn't even developed the capacity for consciousness?
I certainly think that killing someone who is "neurologically dead" is aggression. Why not just leave him alone? Refusing to care for someone and killing that someone are radically different things, even if many often conflate the two.
I mean I can say that there's an invisible flying polar bear following me wherever I go, but without empirical evidence I'll be treated as a nutjob at best.
I don't think anyone would be called a nutjob for saying, "Children grow up." I think the empirical evidence is there.