fetus is NOT a human being. An acorn is NOT an oak. Stop making shit up.
ok then.
I think it’s rather misleading to call something an “individual” if he/she isn’t human and is not independent from host (mother).
It’s a member of the species homo sapiens. It has human DNA. I’d say it fits all of the criteria to be called human.
Chimpanzees share most of our DNA but we do not call them human.
There is nothing individual about a fetus. To call a fetus an individual is the height of absurdity. It is both physically connected to the mother with live tissue, and entirely dependent on the mothers faculties and continued support.
This fact is so obvious it’s amazing you continue to deny it. Consider another angle: If we SEPARATE fetus from mother, by severing the support cord of live tissue that joins them, the fetus will die, because it is connected to the mother which supports it. Like any other body part of the mother, if you cut it off, it dies, because it is a part of the mother and relies on her body’s support.
A fetus is many things, but an individual isn’t one of them. What a magnificent twist of the meaning of individual, to call a fetus individual. I would dare say a fetus is the diametric opposite of an indivudal—a fetus is manifestly dependent and, most importantly, physically connected to its support apparatus with a cord of living tissue.
I will address other objections, but that is all I have to say about the fetus being an individual. It is ludicrous.
You provided quotes on past libertarian’s beliefs about children’s rights. I was referring to quotes on the origin of rights, on the concept of property and the role that being an individual plays in having property rights. My point was that, if you quote these things, you will be proving my point: that property rights and their foundations are entirely innapplicable to fetuses.
The potantial for a zygote to rationally act is a matter of time and nothing more.
Outrageous. The potential for a rock to rationally act is a matter of time and nothing more. But obviously, lots of things can happen during that time, for example the mother may stop supporting the baby, whereupon we discover the fetus actually had no potential except what it was expropriating from the mother.
First, the unborn is an individual, separate from the parent. This is a biological fact. Your disgreements on this are strictly emotional pleas.
Please, define individual. Also, and this is the important part, please provide a quote, preferably several, where were the word individual is used in context with a discussion on the origin/function etc of property rights qua property rights. It is not enough to know what dictionaries say about it (enough alone to prove a fetus is not an individual by any long stretch), but it is important to know WHY ONLY INDIVIDUALS have property rights.
The child acquiring debt has nothing to do with restitution claims.
Again preposterous. Rights are property rights. NOBODY has ANY rights, except when their PROPERTY is involved. If you have a claim against your fathers murderer, it was because your father was in debt to you, not because you owned the father. lol… I’m actually chuckling…
Same with a baby. Nobody owns the baby, because it is a self-owner. Nobody therefore has any property claim against the baby’s body. They may argue a claim on things the baby uses, but that is getting off the topic of abortion.
…Yeah, because they only share most of our DNA. The “fetus” has its own, unique, human DNA. It is a human being in its early, fetal state. So long as the human organism consumes nutrients, it will grow from the fetal state to little baby to adolescence and sexual maturity to shriveled old human. Saying it’s not a human being, and that it only has “potential” to be a human being (or, for that matter, an individual), is obfuscation.
Whether it should be considered an individual is another question. Whether we should be concerned with individuals or human beings is still another question.
saying it is a human being only is obfuscation. If it is such a human, then remove this damn human from woman’s body and let him live on his own. But but but what? It is not HUMAN and it is not independent creature. It’s part of woman’s body and is her property until the day of birth. The end.
Of course, if one prefers defining human as a fetus, ok, so I guess now it is all about definitions. I define human as an independet rational animal. Growing cells in womans body are not human (I mean, it shares human properties, but not a fully developed human).
It all depends on whether you value human life or promiscuity. As a practical matter, in a private law society only the father would have a claim against a mother who aborted her young. People would naturally gravitate to regions where others like them would have the freedom to engage in irresponsible and licentous behavior, and others would live in regions where such behavior was shunned.
If whatever was relevant enough to fight back, assert, will, or whatever to the woman’s action she happened to be doing at the time she thought pleasurable - it would assert itself and be a part of the order of things - that’s all that matters. I would say that is a main point of “human action”
Rights, “abortion as a thing”, “murder as a thing” are irrelevant, they are non factors and just something an individual places into perspective against what they deem to be the expectations of relevant forces in their lives in relation to their means and ends. This is just custom i.e. fashion trends - what sells, etc.y
If abortion is fashionable it will happen, if not it won’t - why? Because if someone can do an action they deem pleasurable/ satisfying and it is doable- they will do it.
All of that is true, but, the important thing is that people who respect life are happier in the long term than people who do not.
From reading your signature, I think this may be a lanuage barrier. Human = Homo sapiens, nothing more. It is a species. The zygote, fetus, etc, is a human because it is a member of the species Homo sapiens. If you draw blood from a fetus, it will be human blood accoring to every possible test. It is not a “part of” the mother becaus it is a separate organism, with different DNA. Again, blood tests will show that the fetus and mother are 1) both human, 2) different humans.
The only differences between a fetus and an infant is the source of nourishment and the ability to deal with the elements.
Tangential science fact. Have you guys heard of Human Chimera’s ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
short story. A person can have different parts of their own body with different DNA to each other.
I use “human” not as an adjective here, but a noun, that’s why I disagree that fetus is a human. The same thing is with an acorn and oak (my favourtie example and main argument, that fetus is not an independent individual who owns himself.
Your anaolgy is flawed. Oak is to adult as as seedling is to child as acorn is to zygore. The noun human is not normally used to refer to only an adult, while the noun oak usually refers only to the adult.
I have, actually. From my understanding, they are vestigial twins where one twin has been (almost) completely absorbed by the other.
I agree completely. That has been my exact point all along. The ability to live on one’s own is not a characteristic of humans – we see many adult humans living on heart-luncg machines or being fed by tubes.
My point is and has always been, a human, no matter the age, does not have the right to live off of another human without that second human’s continued consent. I fully support the rights of all humans, adult, child and unborn. Each has a right to be free from aggression. The removal of a small human from inside of a larger human who has withdrawn her consent for the small human to stay there is certainly not aggression.
I think I’ve figued out our difference on this matter, and as usual, when two people disagree about something that seems to each to be so obvious to each, they are probably talking past each other.
Rather than finding a bunch of quotes that I think we will both think supports our respective cases, can I put forth a few sentences of my own, which are just simply summaries/paraphrases of whichever quotes I would have dug up, and see if yuou agree with them? Please keep in mind though, that the phrasing is important, so if you don’t agree with them exactly as written, please correct me. Seem fair?
Rights are derived from rational action. Only individuals, not groups, are capable of rational action. Therefore only individuals, not groups, have rights.
Again, please correct anything with which you don’'t agree exactly as written. I think the exact phrasing here can illustrate the source of our disagreement, at least on this point. If I’m right, and you agree with the bold text above, I will happily write a more detailed reply. I just don’t want to waste either of our time, though I am enjoying your challenge.
Not so easy. Define individual.
Here is what dictionary.com says about the word individual as it relates to biology:
“a single organism capable of independent existence”
The underline is not mine.