Throughout pregnancy does the mother not prove that she is in fact a self owner through eating etc? Actually bettet yet would she not prove herself to be a self owner by walking to the abortion clinic?
If you and your spouse own a car, and you put gas in it, does that establish the car as your sole property?
False analogy.
Your statements tend to be too concise to be meaningful. In any case, it is a precise analogy: the body is an object. So is a car. A car can be jointly owned. I submit that the body of a woman carrying an unborn child is also jointly owned.
No, I understood it just fine.
I submit that you need to prove that in the face of self-ownership being absolute and joint-ownership of the self being metaphysically impossible and devolving to universal communism.
Add the fact that it’s a latecomer ethic.
-Jon
No, the mother owns her body and the babies, until the child homesteads its own body. The opposite cannot be true, how can a child homestead the mothers body?
Moreover, for the mother to choose to have an abortion she would have to be a self owner.
Your point?
There’s a difference between state consciousness (awake vs. asleep) and self consciousness, which is what I’m speaking about.
Which brings us full circle back to my point. If you’re in a coma, you clearly have lost your right to self ownership since you do not have a consciousness (mind, spirit, or w/e you wish to call it) to speak of.
You assume that it is relevant to show consent w/ the child for the woman not to kill it - it is not. Even if the former were relevant the woman consented to the consequences (one of which is a child in the womb) of her actions by her pre-knowledge of such consequence to have sex knowing that it could result in the conception of a child in the womb. Its existance is proof of the consent.
It is relevant, for the woman made no agreement with the fetus. The existence of the fetus in no way is proof of consent to carry the fetus, your flagrant non sequitur notwithstanding.
If you stick to a consistent definition of personhood, this argument falls apart. If you become a person at the point where the sperm joins with the egg, then it is not true that the eggs have been around as long as the woman - these eggs do not exist within the zygote. If personhood is after birth (when all the eggs are formed), then you lose your argument for the woman having an obligation to allow the egg use of her/their body.
I assume it’s relevant, because it is. With no consent given to carry the foetus, there’s no concomitant obligation to allow it to parasitize until it is born.
-Jon
I never said it was consent to carry the fetus but to the consequence of a child in the womb. In her mind it was a gamble and she lost now she has responsibilities for an entity with rights like she has. If someone has an accident they did not consent to the accident but the consequences of say speeding. They are responisible for those risks and conseqences. They just can’t say I did not consent to this accident so the person who wants to take my property (money for the accident) has no right to it and I have no obligation to render it.
Why did you not respond to my other post?
Ummmm…that’s THE SAME THING.
Which other post do you mean?
I meant to say - the consequence of sex which resulted in a child in the womb. She then has a responsibility to carry it to term not because of consent. Is consent necessary for one to have responsibilities for certain results.
I think a couple of pages (1 or 2) back.
We don’t institute government to secure the rights of plants and animals. We institute government to secure the rights of ourselves and our posterity.
So let me emphasize a different word now: unique HUMAN DNA.
By what definition of “responsibility”?
Why are you trying to re-define “responsibility”?
Yeah, it has.
By saying she has a responsibility to the fetus to not “murder” it.
Then she loses ownership of her womb!
Silly universal communist; you should know that such a position is untenable.
Nope. I’m entirely consistent. You’ll have to concoct a new strawman.
Why not?
You do realize that you’re annihilating your own position by posting, don’t you? You’re asserting your own self-ownership. Now how can you deny that to the woman?
Let say three people are on the roof of a building and two of them start to fight and accidently bump the third person and they fall over the edge and at the last second grab the arm of one of the two people fighting. Now the person who grabed the others arm is in danger of losing their life if they fall. If the man says hey thats my arm I did not consent to you grabing my arm and shakes the person off to that persons death then he would be justified on the principle of self ownership?
Now if I say he has a moral or legal obligation and accountability to the person that does not deny his self-ownership, it questions the responsibility of his action in relation to self-ownership. It may very well be that this principle not in effect in the pregnancy situation because of the circumstances and her subsequent actions.
When she consented to have the baby conceived in the womb; because she knowingly consented to sex and it consequences, she cannot just go back on that consent and remove the baby because of the principle of self-ownership because at the point of conception her consent created another human being. She consented to the potential of dual ownership through sexual union. Therefore she is violating the babies ownership by trying to remove it.
Her responsibility is the same as yours not to kill another human being articularly when the other human beings ownership is tied to its existence.
Question: When does self-ownership begin for a person?