He stated that a person cannot own that which he does not have immediate and direct control over.
I challenge you to more thoroughly defend this, as I suspect you don’t actually believe it.
See a dictionary, and yes I believe it. Follow the quotes to see Anenome’s original objections to my points.
I would also like you to show me where one first turns into a human being
I’m not interested in “human” rights. Rights are property rights, and a fetus can’t have property, BY DEFINITION.
He stated that a person cannot own that which he does not have immediate and direct control over.
I challenge you to more thoroughly defend this, as it’s a misrepresentation of what I said. Notice the importance of distinguishing between own and possess.
BY DEFINITION
While we’re yelling out dictionary definitions: ANARCHY
See? Dictionaries can’t be relied on because they are influenced by how the public twists ideas. We should be defining words ourselves.
He stated that a person cannot own that which he does not have immediate and direct control over.
I doubt that, and hence:
it’s a misrepresentation of what I said
That’s why I asked you (Seriah) to clarify, because I believed you hadn’t understood his point.
The anarchy response is a red herring. Hardly anyone agrees on what anarchy means. That isn’t true for concepts like property. The role of property in libertarianism is nearly undisputed in my understanding. Disagreements are usually about the application and implications of libertarian fundamentals more than what property is, or what it means to act. Besides, I don’t think anyone is disputing the meanings of words here, they are just too scared/lazy to admit the implications/requirements. I cannot be blamed for the manifest ignorance around here.
I think I have a unique and, humbly, the most consistent and potent case for abortion I’ve come across. A fetus doesn’t meet the requirements for property rights, and nobody has a property right in the matter such that they can retaliate against the mother or her property. Simple, yet groundbreaking, unless I’ve failed to read something, which I may well have done. But I take it further:
Once the fetus is born (individual) and acting (and therefore a self-owner), it can be killed (the killing at this point is murder) yet nobody can retaliate (because nobody has a property right in the matter). This doesn’t mean the markets are forbidden to find proper solutions to the problem; indeed, solving problem is what free markets do. I don’t believe in taking the lazy way out, abandoning principle and enacting arbitrary man-made laws because were too lazy to find nature’s answer.
All the objections to my view have been arbitrary and in strict defiance of elementary libertarian fundamentals. The authors were either too lazy to find an axiom from which to follow logic to the proper derivatives and implications, or they were too scared to confront the natural truth.
“Constitutional Review Of Abortion”
At the inception of the constitution, when natural freedoms are exchanged for wrights of citizenship, the citizen is the sole, primary, principle and exclusive recipient of protections as constructed through the legalism of its constitution.
The 14th amendment directly implies that a citizen receives wrights at birth; thus, the point of inception whereby the state concerns itself with an obligation to reprise a violation to a wright to life begins for a citizen at birth.
According to the 14th amendment, the extension of equal protection to any other being, whether it be described as a person, a non-citizen, or otherwise, cannot have any greater rights than that of a citizen.
Since a citizen must be born to receive protected wrights, any other being must also be born to receive protected wrights, else that other would be receiving greater wrights rather than those received by that of a citizen.
The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, “Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth.”
Ultimately, through judicial activism, Roe V Wade modified the meaning of birth from parturition to viability, which was estimated to begin at the end of the second trimester.
Viability is consistent on a time line with the onset of foetal pain as evidenced from the JAMA, which concludes a necessary presence for thalamocortical radiations.
Pain implies the onset of sentience, and sentience is a prerequisite for sapience, as a minimum prerequisite for conscientious objection by a foetus, which is philosophical birth, whereby a foetus may initially qualify as a legal victim that may be represented by legal proxy.
Otherwise, by constitution and philosophical reason, prior to birth, the foetus is the private property of the mother, by intrinsic possession, for which privacy protections of the constitution apply.
Unborn foetal protection laws must be consistent with the constitution, and any law must define violations and penalties as consequences to actions against the mother, which may include elevated penalties for special circumstances.
FIrst of all, you seem to think that we would like to remain within the framework of the constitution. On these forums, we are generally talking about idealized situations, not ones that necessarily fall within the confines of the Constitution.
If you are so concerned about the document, well, then, we could use emininent domain and pay women for their fetuses. The government has the power to do either thing when it comes down to abortion.
Wheylous,
Assuredly, such is why my spelling of the term wrights is as it is; all constitutional wrights are founded upon legal positivism of a written document.
Obviously, libertarianism is inclined to debate inalienable wrights that are better termed idealized conjuctures, as inalienable wrights are founded upon perspectivism and not upon any incumbency or mandate of nature.
Indeed, wrights only exist because there is an entity capable of reprising a violation of their conditions.
Ok. My argument for it being constitutional for government to prevent abortions is still applicable.
“Legal Realism”
It depends, if you are asserting that a constitution could be implemented that outlawed abortion, then such is possible.
The principal claims of modern legal positivism are that:
- There is not any inherent or necessary association between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality.
- Laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings.
However, it is incorrect to assert that abortion is illegal according to the current US constitution; it is very much legal.
Moreover, my opinion is that Roe v Wade is also ethical and moral, in that its ruling is coincidental with philosophical birth - sentience.
I’m not saying the Constitution prohibits abortion. I’m saying the Constitution allows the government to prohibit it.
… And that’s the long and short of the pro-abortion argument. God forbid one gets accused of being a “Christian” because they think a viable fetal human being has a right NOT to get its brains sucked out or chopped up with a pair of tin-snips, in order to protect a woman’s “right” to have casual sex in a consequence-free environment.
There’s that horrific “Christian” accusation again. In every state, there are numerous couples who wait years to adopt. That adoption process, of course, is administered by… the State, who considers it the height of Malthusian, jack-booted efficiency to promote abortion instead.
“Know Thing To Feel Sorrow”
An amendment to the United States Constitution must be ratified by 75% of the state legislatures (or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states), before it can come into effect.
Fictional ishmaelism laudes democracy because its purpose is to dispatch the constitution and replace it with its own theocratic state, per doctrine, and per its history.
Even though, jurisprudence of its tradition allows abortion until a time known as the “quickening”, when a fetus is thought to become animated and it starts moving around.
Verily, my statements regarding sentience are significant because without sentience there is nothing by which one may equate a possibility for empathy through an understanding of shared experience.
All abhorrence prior to sentience is baseless legislation of morality that is without standing for a legitimate victim, who through its own self awareness may issue conscientious objection.
Stop assuming your own argument is true and build an actual train of reasoning. Please. If I say a festus is a human being and therefore has rights and your reply is “well obviously it doesn’t have rights” then you only look ridiculous.
Incorrect. Rights are a legal recognition of a physical reality. They are not mere “logical constructs” because a construct is inherently subjective, and I’m arguing for an objective standard of rights based on reality. No other standard of rights is worth considering, just as no other standard of mathematics besides the one that actually reflects reality is worth considering (ie: a mathematics where, for instance, 2+2=5, etc., would not be useful for any application).
What’s needed is objective law built on recognition of reality and a consistent application of the same in a legal framework. I therefore consider your main fault to be a faulty epistemology. You don’t know where rights come from. You do not understand the concept of rights well enough to be rational about them and apply them consistently.
The atrocities of a subjective epistemology and its effects on rights are well established in the various communist and nazi atrocities of the past. To think you could answer those atrocities with a subjective view of rights of your own is silly.
Incorrect. I’ve given you numerous statements virtually in syllogistic form, something you’ve refused to do.
You already agree that living human beings own themselves, so we can start there: a living human being owns itself. A fetus is both living and a human being. Therefore it owns itself.
And again, if your argument is that being a fetus removes its right to itself, you must prove rationally why mere age removes its right to itself, because age is the only difference between a living human fetus and you or me, whom obviously do our ourselves. You have consistently failed to even address this point.
You objected that the fetus is not living. However this conflicts with reality–the fetus quite clearly has a body of its own engaged in the biologic processes of life maintained by its own cells.
You objected that the fetus is not human. However, DNA doesn’t lie. Nor does biology (again, reality refutes you). The product of a human sexual coupling can only be a human being. Human beings have never conceived any other type of living organism than humans beings, thus it is certainly a human being. Should that not be enough to convince you, one need only test the cells. They will have 46 human chromosomes, unless diseased in some manner, and then will be diseased human cells, not diseased “x-animal” cells.
You objected that the fetus was not separate from the mother or not individual. However this is false. The fetus does not intermingle its blood supply with the mother–in fact it cannot as it will often have a differing and incompatible blood type. Similarly, if the fetus and mother are the same entity then you have to contradiction of a mother being both male and female, having four ovaries, etc., ridiculousness. But again, biological reality refutes you: the DNA of the child’s cells are different from the DNA of the mother’s cells, proving it is a separate biological organism–from the point of conception.
They derive from the facts of reality. Facts you have not objected to, and indeed cannot object to. It is not an “opinion of reality” that the fetus is alive, human, and separate/individual. Reality refutes you.
Again, a society’s legal system can punish a murderer, even if the murdered person does not rise from the grave to sue them (duh). Your misapplication of this principle is obvious when you try to apply it consistently. If only murdered people could sue to punish the murderer, then murder could not be punished within society. This obviously is not the case. A legal system has the right to stop the initiation of aggression no matter whom it is being foisted upon, and any outside independent person has a right to foil the initiation of aggression as well. This is why it’s moral and ethical for a person to stop a robbery. He is not being robbed, but he can use force to stop one in progress. The fact that you cannot integrate this concept into your thinking on this subject should give you pause.
Title has passed to him already. He need not understand nor agree to that title transfer. Adults can become owners before they realize it as well. If your father passes away and gives you a house in his will, you own the house the moment the father dies. However, suppose you don’t find out your father has died for a few days. Is the house ownerless during that period? No, you own the house, you just don’t know it yet. And if, during that period, someone vadalizes the house or burns it down, are you not entitled to redress? Of course you are.
Hashem, this is really foolish, poorly thought out, inconsistent thinking on your part!
I did not fail to mention it, it is simply irrelevant. A caretaker is not an owner. In the example I just gave previous to this paragraph, I show a situation where no caretaker is needed after inheritance, thus invalidating this last objection of yours.
Except I did, and so I wasn’t assuming. It’s your view, based on so called “reality”, which is assumed since you’ve repeatedly failed to supply any credible sources or citations.
You’re answer was wrong, but my point was that if you can’t justify rights logically, then your argument is useless (as opposed to whether or not the rights you believe in are “proper”). Also I was addressing the application of rights, which must also be logically consistent. Ultimately, my position is axiomatic and logically consistent, whereupon the application of these rights is also perfectly consistent. There is no logical or truth to your view except that it’s your opinion of “reality”.
Again, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
A) No. I don’t agree, that’s the whole contention between us.
B) No. We can’t start there. You have to know what “own” is, and where it comes from, and why. Which means you have to have a theory of “property” which is what is being owned. A theory of property is necessarily a theory of rights, so you have to justify those.
Merely being alive and human isn’t the justification.
My whole point is that none of this applies to a non-acting, non-communicating, non-self, non-owning, incomprehinsible fetus.
lol. You obviously didn’t read my previous answers where I pointed out that anyone who had a property claim could prosecute.
No. Rights are property rights. Nobody has any right when their property isn’t involved.
This almost tops the other absurd things you’ve said. It also demonstrates—yet again—an ignorance of and inability to apply concepts of own and property.
As for the context, you must have—yet again—missed my previous answer. If the father wants to leave the house uncared for in the meantime, in his own contractual arrangments, that’s his choice. The child doesn’t own it unless he chooses to own it—that doesn’t mean anyone other than the persons appointed by the deceased father can claim it before he is capable of making that choice.
If reality is not credible to you, you’ve got much larger problems than I had at first thought.
Again, a person owns themselves by nature. Ownership is an abstraction of control. A person both possesses and totally controls the physical body they inhabit. We take this as self-evident. If you cannot accept this statement of the facts, then you’re simply not being rational. It is the life inside the body that both possesses and controls the materials which make up the body. This life produces the consciousness we have, yet we need not BE conscious to both possess and control our body. If this were not true then we would neither possess nor control our body when not conscious. Since it’s obvious that we still possess and control our body when unconscious, and that no one else can possess nor control our body when we are unconscious, consciousness and ability to act clearly have nothing to do with self-ownership. At. All.
Again, rights are the legal recognition of a physical reality. You own your body, own your life. A right to self-determination aligns itself with what you already have by nature–self-ownership. Rights can be discovered and codified by observation of human nature. Furthermore, rights are necessitated by reality. You cannot live if you cannot own property, because you must be able to dispose of food for your sole use, etc. It’s one of the reasons why the attempt to abolish private ownership is doomed to fail, because humankind is by nature an owner, both of themselves and of the things they need to survive and work.
You have this strange idea that a right can only exist by speaking or cognition, or something dumb like that? Whatever it was? Yet, when it’s pointed out to you that those who cannot act and cannot speak still have a right to life, you have no answer. Therefore, you are neither consistent, nor is your view of rights a good one. You’re not worth discussing with further. You’re incapable of integrating your own ideas and applying them consistently, and incapable of addressing problematic situations your ideas raise. Therefore, you’re not being serious.
Sadly, I think MonkEye in his ramblings (so they appear in many posts) may have struck on something fundamental:
Self-ownership needs sentience. Sentience is not developed at conception. It is developed sometime later (I think it is mentioned in some of the above posts).
The abortion question can only come into play after sentience. Before that, the fetus actually is simply matter within the woman that she has control over.
Again, a person owns themselves by nature.
Again, we’re going in circles. I’ve agreed that human nature is to own one’s self—once they are selves and once they are capable of owning. A fetus isn’t and doesn’t.
A fetus can’t and doesn’t have property rights; it can’t even have property and therefore doesn’t have property rights. This is implied in the definitions of own and property as I pointed out above.
And if your understanding of reality is correct, the logical is necessarily—by definition—true. If I find fault in your logic, especially at the principle and fundamental levels, then your case falls apart; this is called arguing and debate. Your view isn’t axiomatic, and it isn’t logical (this is reinforced by your repeated refusal to provide credible citations). I understand YOUR view, now I want to see if anyone worth listening to actually believes it enough to flesh it out logically and systematically. I think that secretly you have no sources to cite, because nobody worth listening to has ignored all the fallacies in your reasoning and spent such time in ignorance writing a logical axiomatic systematic treatise on the matter.
You have this strange idea that a right can only exist by speaking or cognition, or something dumb like that? Whatever it was?
My point exactly: you don’t know my position because you haven’t read any of the sources I provided or even read my own words (as evidenced by your repeatedly asking questions which I’ve already answered).
No. It’s not a dumb idea. If you don’t like the idea, feel free to attack the axioms and prove that it’s wrong, and not just “dumb”.
It is not merely human nature, is is a fact of reality. And again, your idea that one must be conscious, speak, or act to own something is completely fallacious, and you’ve refused to support it rationally.
Here again you’ve simply assumed your argument and restated it without support. Why don’t you explain your theory of ownership then. If it’s human, and alive, then it owns itself. Anything else would be slavery.
Again, this is a silly critique on your part. Previously you agree that it was in the nature of a human being to own themselves. THAT is axiomatic, that is the philosophic primary in this case. It is self-evident, and needs no source to be cited since it is obvious on its face. Besides which, any source you could quote must themselves eventually reference reality as well, and if they don’t they have a faulty epistemology and aren’t worth studying, so why not cut out the middleman.
Actually, I’ve borrowed much from Rand, especially her epistemology–that if you aren’t build from reality you’re building on nothing.
I skimmed. And quickly assertained they were ridiculous and required no further study. We’ve provided you with numerous problems with your point of view and you’ve ignored them all. It’s a stunning feat of intellectual evasion on your part, really.
We did. We explained how the corrolaries of your standards of rights and ownership are inconsistent. We showed how a person with no ability to act still has a right to life, how someone with no ability to speak still has a right to life, how somebody who has received something from a parent without any action on their own can still own property, showed how a person who lacked all the things you said were essential still could not be killed morally.
But seriously man, at this point you’re just a troll. You are arguing in bad faith and unwilling to answer challenges to your philosophical assertions. As I said, you aren’t arguing seriously.
What about myyyy comment?
“Sophisticated Apes With Overinulgent Egocentrism”
** Prerequisite for Sapience to be Homo Sapiens Sapiens **
Wheylous, through years of online discourse, the legal pundits from the anti-choice camp have abandoned a notion that Roe v. Wade is not consistent with the constition although vestiges of uninformed groups remain.
Thus, the latest restrictive legislation on abortion has been forwarded upon sentience and the timeline for sentience is contentious, for whereas JAMA states that sentience is not physically possible before the 23rd week, which is consistent with viability according to Roe v Wade, the latest efforts are to outlaw the procedure after 20 weeks.
** Biocentrism Versus Anthropocentrism - Naturalism Versus Legalism **
"Mother tamarins do not have an easy job. Gestation is long — about 150 days — and they usually have twins, and those twins are usually big. It’s up to the mother to carry that double load around until the babies are old enough to navigate the forest canopy themselves. The only thing that makes the work tolerable is that tamarin troops cooperate to rear young, but the conditions have to be right. There must be plenty of males to do the protecting and provisioning, and there can’t be too many other females with babies of their own that also require attention.
…
The explanation for such pitiless behavior is as cold as it is unavoidable: tamarin mothers are simply very good at balancing their genetic ledgers and know when they’re heading for a loss. If they’re raising babies that have a poor chance of surviving anyway, why make a pointless investment of time, resources and calories trying to keep them alive? Better to cut their losses, bag the babies and wait for a better season to breed.**"