It was. He applied a reductio. He left it to you to decide if the reductio holds, whether or not Block’s argument is valid.
He did? I believe he tried to, I don’t see it.
And I’d like to know;
“If not, his above defense vis-à-vis that objection is inadequate.”
Why? It’s a request for him to elaborate.
You don’t see this question?
If you save a man who, if you were to not have saved him, would have drowned, do you now have the “right” to, at any time thereafter, push him into a similarly dangerous or even slightly less dangerous venue?
Why does he have to elaborate on the reductio? Answer his question, then follow his conclusion from the reductio. Either you agree the reductio is accurate or not. Maybe it is a non sequitur. But it seems to me to be an accurate logical challenge to Block’s position.
Just answer the question or show it is not an accurate reductio.
I do. And I don’t see how it applies at all.
I get it, and I don’t think you have that right… the reason I want him to elaborate and spell it out, is because I want to understand precisely what he means and the impact of his “reductio” on the abortion argument / evictionism…
The reason being because:
So can someone go ahead and do that, instead of accusing me of being evasive.
Conza, why won’t you answer his question if you’re not being evasive? If the reductio applies, it refutes Block (good for you!) if it doesn’t apply, you just answered a question with a ridiculous premise, which IRyan claimed was based on the same premise as Block’s argument.
Did you not see this?
And yet here I am, still asking what I’ve been requesting all along…
No I didn’t. I am sorry.
I am sure IRyan will sort you out tomorrow! [:P]
No worries. [:)] hehe
I’ll be out of contact with the world for the next 2 1/2 weeks, so we’ll have to wait and see lol.
Who does claim that the fetus is the “property” of a woman? AFAIK the libertarian point of view is that a fetus has a right to be not aggressed against. So while the woman has no right to initiate aggression, she has no duty to support the fetus, her baby, any other human being, just because it can not support itself.
The question is not has the woman a right to initiate aggression but has the fetus a right to be nurtured and at what point in life does he loose that right?
My answer is, the fetus has no such right. It has, as any human being the right to its own property. There is no right to be nurtured or anthing of that kind at all.
Another question is how humans naturally act on their offspring. Here Block offers an argument I like much. If humans needed to be forced, by other humans with superior knowledge, to not let the offspring die, we wouldn’t have the problem as we would be extinct. The truth is, humans love babies and nurture them.
I can not see how this way of looking at things could ever become a question for canibalism. If I take the property of someone else, i.e. his life, to support my own life, unless the other person initiated aggression against my life itself, I have commited a criminal act, which entitles the aggressed against, or his heir to retribution. So where is the issue, unless you start bringing in collectivist ideas, like society has to punish the criminal etc.
Every case of aggression is an event betwenn 2 individuals. Society has no claim whatsoever in any criminal case.
Yes, let’s compare babies with blades of grass!
I think you’ve made it clear that an action which results in death is unjust. it’s another way of conflating murder with killing.
The welfare analogy simplified:
Parasite X is cut off from from Y by Z, and it dies. Z’s property rights should be violated to uphold the non existent rights of another, even if it comes at a cost to Z.
Substitute private charity for fetus incubator, and realize it’s just as relevant to this discussion as it is absent.
You make the error by asserting that action necessitates one being active, as opposed to passive. It looks like this is an attempt to attribute a negative right to life to the fetus, which, by implication, would make the mother a slave to the preservation of… a positive right to life.
Consistency.
Ah, so the fetus isn’t alive. That rules out the possibility of killing it then.
Then you need to go back to Logic 101.
The latter is the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
I hope you got my email then and the information was useful.
I am not talking about dead people. Dead people do not have rights.
Do I really have to clarify that in a discussion of rights?
That is nothing more than saying that murder, theft and any other assault can not be outlawed without the state. Nonsense. I understand your position…abortion is not murder…do you understand my position…abortion is murder and not for religious reasons but based on reason and understanding human behavior. So do I think it is ok if I use force to prevent you from murdering people…yes I do.
Is that really called for? A little over the line I think.
I can just see the uncompromising respect for human life oozing out of this post.
Im pro-choice, but we can all agree that abortion is not an easy, comfortable decision to do. At least when some women told me they aborted, I didn’t rejoice (You have the right! Hooray!) nor I trashed the person, because I know it’s a very personal and heavy decision to make, and my reaction is exactly this, to show I recognize that the woman faced something difficult.
You completely evaded the point of that post so you can continue to preach your ethics. I don’t care about your ethics, although I am quite disgusted by your insinuation that a girl that has been raped has provided consent in any way.
There is no practical way to implement your wide scale ban without a state! No way!
Thus, we can conclude that anyone who supports violent action against a woman who chooses to abort her child cannot be a libertarian.
I would like for somebody to demonstrate how the free society can implement such a ban without resorting to a State.
Why not? They are both alive. They both grow. And they both die. And neither of them can think critically.