Independent of WHAT and for HOW LONG? Surely you know that all living things have survival factors upon which they depend.
Neat. Here is what http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary says:
(1) Any distinct person, object, or concept within a collection.
(2) A single, separate organism (animal or plant) distinguished from others of a same kind.
Here is an excerpt from a piece from the Philosophy Department at Stanford. I thought it fitting to include the philosohical take on biology.
Given the open territory here, one might think that the best way to proceed is along two dimensions: to delineate biological from non-biological entities, and to delineate individuals from non-individuals. That would surely elucidate just what “biological individuals” refers to, and so serve as a compass by which we can navigate our way through some conceptual space. But that is not how I propose to proceed. Instead, I want to start with some reflection on our paradigm biological individuals, organisms, using that as a way to show what a biological individual is and the kind of conceptual work that notion does in the biological sciences. With that behind us, we can then turn to consider what other entities have been thought of as biological individuals, and the broader roles that the notion of a biological individual plays across the biological sciences.
Although I shall focus on organisms as a paradigm of biological individuals, there is something from the first of the approaches above that I want to appropriate, and that concerns how the perhaps overly metaphysical-sounding term “individual” should be understood. In talking of “biological individuals” I take myself to refer to some subset of the entities invoked in talking about the biological world, a subset we might gesture at by also talking of biological things or entities, and that are to be distinguished from biological properties, processes or events. By “individual”, “thing” or “entity” in this context I mean something that has three-dimensional spatial boundaries, that endures for some period of time, that is composed of physical matter, and that bears properties and participates in processes and events.
Independent of WHAT and for HOW LONG? Surely you know that all living things have survival factors upon which they depend.
Independent as opposed to dependent, naturally. Dictionary.com defines:
Independent:
not subject to another’s authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free
Whatever the fetus is independent of, it isn’t the mother.
Dependent:
relying on someone or something else for aid, support, etc.
The fetus is manifestly dependent on the mother.
Whatever the answer to your questions may be, the simple fact is a fetus is not an individual. A fetus is the diametric opposite of an individual. It is manifestly dependent on the union with the mother.
You are stuck in a “point-in-time” mentality. It makes it difficult do discuss concepts, especially biological concepts, which necessitate considering longer periods of time. The fetus is an individual because the term individual is used interchancgably with organism, and is used to differentiate one from a group. Sometimes it is tricky or impossible to do so, as with a corral reef. It is trivial, however, to distinguish the organism living within another organism in the case of human pregnancy. The organism living inside of the other is a distinct living entity which, during its lifespan, if it ages as most organisms of its species do, will be independent. That makes it a biological individual, by definition. It is impossible for a non-individual to ever become an individual.
Your use of the word union is also interesting because it necessitates two or more individuals involved, by definition.
I’m certainly not implying you’re doing it on purpose, but your mangling of these definitions and concepts is a tiresome as when “Left” libertarians define rational as the antonym of irrational rather than the antonym of unconscious, reflexive or instinctual when discussing the concept of rational action.
I am trying to figure out when the mother became independent of food, water, and the environment.
so you see no problems with infanticide, or homocide of one’s dependents (at any stage of development)?
then how do you know what parts to cut out of the lone human who somehow needs this weird organ removal procedure?
“Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.” —Everyone In This Thread
You are out of your mind. A fetus is the diametric opposite of an individual. A fetus is not an individual; property rights are not relevant to a fetus. This is so obvious, that I will not even bother arguing it with you. So, not for you but for the record, a fetus isn’t an individual, property rights are not applicable to a fetus:
Individual
“In biology: a single organism capable of independent existence.”
Independent
“not subject to another’s authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free”
Dependent
"relying on someone or something else for aid, support, etc. "
Not only can’t a fetus homestead anything (except arguably a body, which isn’t it’s own), but it doesn’t need to. Property doesn’t apply to a fetus, therefore neither do property rights. Nobody (except arguably the mother) has a property right in the fetus, and once the fetus acts as a separate individual baby then it is a self-owner and nobody has a property right in it such that anyone can retaliate against it’s murderer, except people to whom the baby was in debt to—and it obviously hasn’t voluntarily contracted any debt.
what hashem said.
And it is sad that so many people can ignore simple biology and other sciences in order to keep believing in supersition. And I mean here not relatively harmless superstition (like gods), but truly violent ones, like forcing women to carry the fetus until it’s born or at least, punishing her (with violence and probably caging) for performing an abortion.
So yeah, biology ftw.
I agree. Your position is unique.
Nothing with which to disagree, there. If one accepts the premise of the first sentence, the second logically follows. This is unique, or almost unique, to you, as I have provided many quotes with sources that imply or outright state a contradiction to your premise.
You haven’t really shown your work here, so it’s hard to judge the logic of your conclusion. I did, however, privide a few quotes with sources that contradict this. Again, you don’t have a premise stated, so it’s impossible to say if your conclusion is logically valid.
This contradicts virtually, if not actually, every piece ever written on libertarian justice. I’m not saying it’s wrong or illogical, but it is certainly unique. A bedrock principle of libertarian justice theory is that heirs may seek justice/restitution in the case of murder. You’ve thrown that out the window, calling it, I believe, “preposterous.” Like I said, it doesn’t make you wrong, but it certainly makes your position unique, as you said.
I certainly hope you are not referring to me here, since I already made my position on the libertarian legality of fetal homicide. That would be characteristically inaccurate of you, however.
my point is, and has always been, that abortion is wrong. I think we can agree that in libertopia, there are no legal penalties for homicide of someone with no legal standing. Given this, we have been arguing about morality and not law, and I believe that it is wrong to slay human beings except as a last resort when dealing with willful aggressive violence that threatens one’s life. Clearly a human at any stage of development from embryo to infant does not fall under this category. In the past, I have entertained epistemological pragmatism, and considered the possibility of a moral abortion before brain function begins. More recently, I have been convinced of the union between the spirit and the flesh, and believe that the soul enters the body at conception. The act of commingling zygotes is an executory act that introduces the possibility of incurring moral obligations. At no point have I suggested that the state or anyone besides the parents be involved. My concern is your deliberate attempts at dehumanizing actual humans so you can kill them with less guilt. Sorry if I am killing your buzz or whatever.
so, why not infanticide? The infant obviously has no legal standing, due to his inability to contract with a private defense agency.
JackCuyler, my position was unique, not the principles on which it is based. If past libertarians have carried their own principles inconsistently that is not my fault. Even you note: “I’m not saying it’s wrong or illogical, but it is certainly unique.” And again, “This contradicts virtually, if not actually, every piece ever written on libertarian justice.” I am upfront about how much more consistent my position is than the mainstream position.
A bedrock principle of libertarian justice theory is that heirs may seek justice/restitution in the case of murder. You’ve thrown that out the window, calling it, I believe, “preposterous.”
Way to lie. No. What I called preposterous was the idea that A can sue B for murdering A’s father, C, based on the idea that A owned his father, C. If you can sue, it’s not because you owned the father, that’s insane. If you can sue, its because the father was in debt to you and the murder prevented him from repaying you. I never said you have a right to kill his murderer, but in case your father was in debt you have a right to restitution from the perpetrator, through force.
There are no rights that aren’t property rights. NOBODY has a RIGHT, unless their PROPERTY is involved.
You reject the perfectly consistent notion that all rational actors, including potential rational actors, are self-owners. You carry your own thoughts on the origin of rights, which disagree with Rothbard, Hoppe, et. al. and apply them consistently. I’m just confused by your request for quotes/links that contradict your logic when you basically ignore anything that contradicts you. I cannot fault your logic for points 1 and 3 (there is no logical statement in point 2) but I can, as your signature invites, challenge the premise.
I never claimed anyone owned anyone but himself. I claimed that if you kill a man with no debts whatsoever, his heirs would be within their rights to seek restitution. This is consitent with just about everything ever written about libertarian justice theory, save your posts. Your unique position leads to the absurd notion that the murder of a well-to-do man, one who has paid off all of his debts, is not a crime at all.
I never claimed anyone has a right to kill a murderer, either, but that’s neither here nor there. Like I said, and you said, your view is unique. You disagree with every single piece ever written about libertarian justice theory. That’s unique!
Since you made a big deal about the underline, I’d like to point out that the underline is there because independent is a link on that page. It is not added for emphasis. I checked the page’s source to make sure.
You mean superstition like this?
Physical stages of human life- Zygote
- Blastocyst
- Embryo
- Fetus
- Neonate
- Infant
- Toddler
- Play Age
- Elementary School
- Preadolescence
- Adolescence and Puberty
- Early Adult
- Middle Adult
- Advanced Adult/Senior Citizen
- Death
- Decomposition
First of all, I feel an important part of my post was overlooked:
“There are no rights that aren’t property rights. NOBODY has a RIGHT, unless their PROPERTY is involved.”
Anyways, its tedious unraveling all your misinterpretations… For example, the word independent is underlined for emphasis, and you are trying to diminish that. It’s not underlined as a link. EVERY word in the page is a link to its corresponding dictionary.com page.
And your boring obsession with your fantasy that everything about my view contradicts “every single piece ever written about libertarian justice theory.” My Some libertarians may disagree with my conclusions, but my principles are precisely the standard libertarian principle. The irony is, of course, that you have no clue what the libertarian principles are. You don’t know why people have property rights, and why a fetus doesn’t, so YOU reject my conclusions and pretend that you are arguing for libertarian principles.
a.
a single organism capable of independent existence.
See? It’s just a simple href with no call for emphasis. On the same page, colony is also the same type of link, as is the set in tea set.
Do you even read my posts? I don’t reject your conclusions; I reject your premises. I’m pretty sure I stated such…
I’m sorry you find me boring. I did make you chuckle onece, or so you said. Remember? I’ll try harder to entertain. Perhaps you’ll chuckle again. I’d try for an honest belly laugh, but for some reason I think that may be too much. I’m sensing some hostility, and I want you to know, I’m honestly not sending any your way. You’re obviously an intelligent person, and I’m enjoying our debate, even though we clearly don’t agree.
On a somewhat related note, since I don’t obviously don’t understand libertarian principles, I’d like you to expand a tiny bit, if you don’t mind. When a man with property dies, and he has a will, should his possessions be divided as instructed in his will, or are all of his possessions immediately up for grabs, as they are now unowned? If there is now no will, would his possessions be owned by his kids/generally regarded next-of-kin, or again, would they immediately up for grabs by anyone?
It was more of a general accusation, but thanks for making your position clearer. However, I see morality and legality on the same grounds, only exception being, that legality can be conditional (for example, if you want to buy a house in this neighbourhood, you are not allowed to make an abortion), meaning, that if you break the contract, you should expect be punished for it. So this kind of community, I believe, would be best for you to live in.
“My concern is your deliberate attempts at dehumanizing actual humans so you can kill them with less guilt.”
The problem is that I do not consider fetuses humans as I said many times before. And for the record, I am against abortions too, just not in fanatical way like many anti-abortionists are (and seems you’re not one of them). What I mean is that I see abortion unethical (like lying, cheating on your wife etc.) but not immoral. So if I advocated pro-life stance, it only could be made in a peaceful way (pamphlets, internet list of “bad women” etc.) and not in a violent way, like a state does.
“The infant obviously has no legal standing, due to his inability to contract with a private defense agency.”
don’t know how many times I will have to repeat my stance on this, but ok… I believe in self-ownership. And I believe a baby becomes one since the day he/she is born. That means, any agression against him/her is immoral, just like a regular human being (an adult). It’s also sad that you keep perpetuating this common statist fallacy, that “no contract with a DRO means I can kill you and don’t be punished”. That’s absurd and any anarcho-libertarian would say the same and doesn’t believe in it. Sad, that you, after so long time on these forums, still don’t get it. or you simply like strawmen. Anyway.
Well it is kind of sad and I apologize for letting the discussion sink to this level. But I am glad to realize however belatedly that we seem to agree on some things.
And since we are wrapping things up, I would like to re-emphasize my point from earlier: that physician-performed abortions are mass satanic statist rituals performed by ordained agents of the state. If planned parenthood or any pro-abortion individual cared about women they would make herbal alternatives available, like they always threaten to do. Abortion is evil.
Strike “mass” insert “serial” MALACHI OUT
What herbal alternatives? I doubt these things “work” though. Or even if they have some effect that this effect is efficient enough… so we can only hope that people became more responsible in sex.