The act of being biologically human doesn’t grant you any natural rights. If you are not self aware, if you are not conscious, how can you even have the same nature as an adult human?
toddlers
sleeping
adult human in coma
The only reason I no longer advocate laws against abortion is because any law allowing sufficient intrusiveness for its enforcement would be intensely unlibertarian. Unborn humans are human, and killing them is murder. A person in a coma is unconscious, they can even have no or negligible brain activity, but if there is a chance they’ll awaken, is killing them not murder?
Why do you wish to enslave women? You realize that you’ll just keep getting asked this question until you finally come to grips with the fact that self-ownership means the woman owns her womb and can have the fetus removed if she wants. Anything else means you desire slavery. For those are the ONLY options.
But is it reasonable to say one can’t stop the process once it has been set in motion? I think not.
Ask yourselves the question “Does the contraceptive pill kill?”.
If you go to my first post you will see that I did not say you did but that ‘some people’ made such analogies. The post that you quoted was a response to someone else saying that my first response was silly.
And you’re quite fond of that whole murder thing aren’t you?
She does indeed own her womb. Strangely, though, in this case she does not own the contents of her womb. Because that is a human being. Per Block, any abortion should be done in such a manner that is minimally harmful to the unborn.
I cannot obligate a woman who was raped to carry a child to term, because she did not choose to risk the pregnancy; it was forced upon her. However, voluntary sexual contact carries an inherent risk of conception, and conception creates a human being into a state of dependency, for which the mother and father are responsible.
Thus, if one could somehow conceive of outlawing abortion without having an enforcement structure which was onerous and intrusive, then I would do so except in the case of rape or medical necessity. Even in the case of rape, I would require that the least harmful method of removing the fetus be used, because while the mother has a right to have the child removed from her womb where no obligation exists, she does not have the right to demand the child be killed in the process.
We are liable any time we take an action which could result in rendering another dependent, without their expressed consent beforehand, to provide for any dependency those actions create.
You’re wrong. Hoppe is the Holy Spirit.
-Jon
And that doesn’t actually matter. For if she is legally prevented from removing the contents of her womb, and the contents are “alive”, then clearly the living contents own her! She is the slave.
Run and pout, now.
Special pleading and using a pet definition of “responsible” which excludes abortion are not allowed.
are self-aware.
changes nothing.
is a false analogy.
No, abortion would make the unborn baby a slave. What you are saying is the woman has rights to ownership of her own body, but the baby whom consists of two bodies joined has no right to it’s own body. neither the sperm or egg grow until combined, forming the spark of human life. The man and woman combine through sperm and egg to create a new and independent life.
Abortion takes the natural right to own oneself away. Nobody who believes in private property, in my belief, could think abortion a right. That would be a massive contradiction.
No it wouldn’t, as the fetus didn’t exist before the sperm and egg united. Further, since it is her womb and she would be removing the contents AND she receives 0 benefits from the fetus while having to sustain it, I fail to see how in any way, shape, or form that she could possibly be said to be enslaving the fetus.
Nobody who believes in self-ownership would deny the woman the right to have removed from her body that which she doesn’t want. That would be a massive contradiction. It would deny her self-ownership. It would mean she no longer owns her womb when she’s pregnant, but that is untenable.
You shoudn’t be talking about logical fallacies - Your false dilemma is to apparent.
There is no false dilemma: the sole option to self-ownership is ownership-by-other, i.e. slavery.
First, why do you equivocate ‘self-ownership’ (an arbitrary concept of your own mind) with a completely seperate entity (genetically, biochemically, ect.) like a baby in th womb. Secondly, would a mother who has a 3yr old own that child and if so would she have the right to kill it if she did not want it anymore or does a three year old have ‘self-ownership’? If the latter would she be responsible if she left the child and the child died? Lastly, your beliefs have nothing to do with whether she has the right not to be denied to murder the child. Your conception (pardon the pun) of self-ownership is questionable.
I don’t.
It’s not.
I’m not.
False analogy and strawman.
You fail at rational discourse.
Well, if the baby is a person and she is a person that would be two persons. How can another person be the same person at the same time? If you say that one person is another person at the same time and they are not then you are confusing a persons self with that of the other persons self just because the latter - the baby - is dependent on the mother - in this case dependency in the womb - and therefore she has the right to kill that person. You implied that the fetus was included in the broader category of the ‘self-ownership’ of a single person when in fact there are two persons.
Well then please prove that such a reality exists out side of your mind. Please show me that you actually have such ownership of self. Who says - YOU.
Did you mean It’s not. I was not talking about you, but the baby. If you mean your not seperate from the baby I would agree in that the umbilical cord is there but as far as genetics and bio-chemically you are. Unless your talking about some quasi Hindu-philosophical idea.
Those were questions that I was asking you - there are people who rationalize killing outside of the womb. Just wanted to know your perspective - thats all. So I guess I will not be hearing back from you since you are to wise to talk with an irrational entity.
Please prove that your argument against abortion doesn’t fall to pieces once you argue that self-ownership is but an “arbitrary concept of your own mind”. You see, it’d also mean that opposition to abortion is, ipso facto, groundless. Have fun decimating your own argument.
-Jon
And?
Never said or implied anything like that.
You’ve just proven it yourself. After all–with whom do you think I am having this conversation? And since said entity, i.e. you, is trying to convince me of something, your very utterances for such substantiate the notion of self-ownership.
No. I meant I’m not, as in I’m not doing anything of the sort.
…which have absolutely nothing to do with what’s being discussed
First, whether I can prove that or not is moot to whether his argument stands or falls. He does not win by default.
Second, my argument is with his justification for abortion based on self-ownership not abortion per-se - specifically that a womans ‘self’ which she alone owns and therefore has a right to do with self as she pleases is fallacious because he incorporates the womans self with that of the childs. I could still be for abortion and not hold to that justification.
Thirdly, you fail to take into account third options - mainly someone or something outside of your reasoning capabilities may trump you self-ownership reality. For all you know aliens could have seeded your ass and they own you and would not give a flying crap about that concept. Maybe they have a different set of logical entities on which to operate. Who knows??? Heck, if there is a God your argument is screwed - He owns your ass and sets the standards. He created yourself.