So what? Did you have a point?
Not part of the same woman, indeed, but existing within the same body for just as long.
Look, you have two people split from one here: the woman minus an egg, and the egg cell with some alterations, minus the rest of the woman’s cells. Before, both the egg that has become an individual human and the woman were one being, now they are two, but neither can really claim to have prior ownership rights to that body. The fact that the woman more resembles the original unitary being is interesting, but not really relevant.
Libertarians have to get one thing straight: the non-aggression principle is an axiom and we advocate it as an article of faith. It is not a provable concept.
Try telling that to a cannibal or a person who enjoys killing people.
The rest of your post (quoting Molyneux, I believe) is complete nonsense because it is based on a faulty premise. Just because something is not morally wrong, refraining from that action does not have to be morally right. Eating your meat before you have any pudding is not morally wrong and neither is NOT eating your meat before you have any pudding. None of that changes if the meat is still alive.
That is not proof. That is a circular argument.
You have to prove that forcibly inflicting something upon an other person is morally wrong – which can not be done either.
I recommend that you learn that the non-aggression principle is an axiom and then I recommend that you go learn what an axiom is.
I believe murder and theft are both immoral. All morality is subjective. Morality can not be proven.
The only way that I can “argue” is to persuade. However, there is no true appeal to objectivity. Just like I can persuade you to buy Coke instead of Pepsi or chocolate instead of vanilla.
I would not even give it that much credit.
What about the parasite argument? (don’t know if its been brought up here before).
The fetus is fully dependant upon the woman’s body, and no course of action except an abortion, or waiting for 9 months, could change that. The woman however, is in no way dependant upon the fetus. By being inextricably dependant upon the woman for its existence, and also saying the woman cannot have an abortion, are you not creating a positive right entailing obligations? I thought libertarians defended only negative rights?
Again, why are axioms precluded from being right or wrong? And who said it is an axiom? Rothbard? Why must we take it as an axiom? Regardless, he had means of demonstrating why it was correct, objectively. There is no “faith” involved, except faith in ethical subjectivism.
-Jon
She is the being, and it is relevant. Her consciousness was first to exercise control over the body. Any other consciousness developing in her is a trespasser, regardless if it took from genetic material from her.
-Jon
Except, it’s not the woman’s body, it is THEIR body, they have shared ownership. That’s the whole point. The unborn cannot be called parasitic upon its own body. There are no positive rights involved.
No, it’s her body, unless you want to deny she had consciousness before its development, or unless you believe they are some conjoined being, which they aren’t.
-Jon
I agree, and most people accept the NAP because it is of benefit to them. For example, ensuring others conform to the NAP protects your property and your life. I doubt you advocate it for other reasons.
Whether a thief or murderer believes what he is doing is immoral or not is irrelevant. I don’t care what a thief thinks when he steals my ipod, I only care about their act: theft. How they justify their actions to themselves has no bearing on whether these actions are actually justifiable or not. Moreover, if you consistently apply your logic concerning moral subjectivity, actions are only as just as the person doing them judges them to be, so then how do you plan for courts to work? (not saying its impossible, I want to hear your ideas).
To tresspass, you must enter a property without permission. The unborn did not enter, it was there, a single being with its environment. As the coma example shows over and over, present consciousness is not what determines humanity, and further, the egg had a consciousness before, the same consciousness as the rest of the body. It is developing a new one, but still fully within and joined to the larger body, a state which has continued unbroken for the entirety of its existence. And, aren’t they a conjoined being? They both survive from the same systems, as part of the same body. The baby is inside the body, linked in to the circulatory and other systems of the body. Why do you say they are not conjoined?
The new consciousness was not always there, only half of its material self was, and before it became conscious. You would not assert that the egg, before being fertilised, had any rights would you? And since it was the sperm cell that “trespassed” and was the cause behind the birth of a new consciousness, then you can indeed say that it is trespassing, for without the trespass, there would be no consciousness.
Otherwise you have to defend every single egg’s existence as a potential consciousness.
Indeed, it was only conceived in the womb. Irrelevant though. Its mere presence is trespass.
Before the sperm fertilized the egg, it did not exist. It only came to exist afterwards, in the body of a conscious being, and it is the formation of a new consciousness.
Yet it’s relevant to whom owns the body.
Not really. The egg is just a part of it. It takes the whole thing for consciousness to arise. Or is severing one’s arm severing part of one’s consciousness, and thus a crime against one’s arm?
No.
Parasites, by definition, feed off their host’s body.
Because, and this may come as a shock to pro-“lifers”, they’re not the same being. It’s simply one being housing another. No more, no less.
-Jon
No, the vast majority of its material self was, and the presence of present consciousness is not what’s at issue, but rather individual humanity. A squirrel cannot be said to tresspass, it is not human, not a moral actor. Neither can a sperm cell. I speak not of consciousness per say, but humanity. An egg, without fertilization, will never be a consious human being. An egg, once fertilized, is a human being, in a state which all people go through, and will develop consciousness.
As for the tresspass, how can you tresspass in a place you’ve always been? Have you not homesteaded that place? The fact that an event starts you individuating does not void your prior claim.
The key word is UNIQUE human DNA. If according to biology life any single celled organism with DNA is considered “life”, then a single cell organism with unique human DNA would certainly be life too.
Indeed, and thus the conjunction of the egg and the sperm form a new entity. If it were just the egg, it’d be a mere part of the mother’s body, and any question of a moral dilema with regard to it could be dismissed as pointless.
-Jon
Yeh but uhm, plants and animals are classified as life too, and they all have unique DNA. I’d like to see you survive without food though.
Of course it existed! It has been living within and supported by the body all its life! It was altered, but not recreated. There is no good reason to say that because that cell was altered, it suddenly became part of a new body, any more than the injection of viral DNA makes a cell part of a new body.
An arm is not an individual human being. The unborn is. The unborn is an individual human being that shares ownership of a single body with its mother.
Actually, most pro-lifers take the stance that they are two. I am making the case that this is one body with two identities which both have a lifelong claim. It is far more than just one body housing another. From a fully materialist standpoint, the self is contained in the brain. There is one self up in the head of the body, but there is now another brain or pre-brain cells, another self, developing in the womb. This second self has existed in a latent form for all the woman’s life. Having not been activated previously, it had not exerted any of its claim, which is equivalent to that of the brain cells in the head, which can also be called parasitic, if you like, and those brain cells had free reign to determine the body’s actions. However, upon activation, it began to exert its preexisting claim, and the head-brain has no right to deny it until such time as, through exerting independence, the unborn relinquishes those rights.
Then it may be ejected as any other part of the body may. You are going to have to do better than this.
If it is part of the mother’s body, she may eject it at will. If it isn’t, and if indeed the sperm and egg together do form a new entity (and thus is indeed an individual human being), it is not part of her body but is a separate entity, and is effectively a late-comer, trespassing in her womb. Either way, your argument sinks.
No, correction: you’ve made the claim that the egg is part of the mother’s body. Unfortunately, a sperm is required, or else humans would be able to reproduce asexually. And this is all assuming I were willing to grant that a “latent” consciousness could have any right over a resource already in control by an active consciousness.
No, an egg has existed inside her. That is all. It is a part of her body with no “pre-existing” claim.
-Jon
Yes, as sperm activates the latent self, beginning the process of individuation. The mother’s claim and the unborn’s claim is the very same claim, until the point, upon the entry of the sperm, which is basically destroyed after altering the egg, that the egg starts to individuate. Then, there are two equivalent claims, both derived from the same unitary claim that existed before that body’s cells represented more than one being.
They are not precluded. However, they are not provable to be right or wrong.
No, he did not.
Regardless, can YOU demonstrate it to be objectively morally right? Obviously not. Therefore, for YOU it is an axiom.
Ensuring others conform?
Sorry but methinks you have the concepts of “coercion” and “non-aggression” a bit confused.
They “work” because of the presumed threat of violent retaliation or ostracism. How else???