Reviewing the issue, I am thinking that the government has the power to control pregnancy before sentience (through eminent domain). Hence Roe v. Wade, which relies on privacy (an invented right), is superseded by eminent domain, a listed power. Therefore, Roe v. Wade, for the sake of consistency, should be repealed.
Sorry, I missed your post in reply to him–probably because of his/Hashem’s ramblings 
Not sure how you wrangled that out of his confused scribblings, or I suppose I didn’t find in the thread any previous comments on sentience of his, but let’s deal with it.
First we must define sentience. It generally means the ability to perceive sensations, and is tied in with consciousness because the perception of sensations requires a thing to perceive them, and that thing is a conscious, living entity.
One must be conscious in order to perceive sensations. Thus we see that any suggestion that sentience be a requirement for self-ownership is really the statement that consciousness is necessary for self-ownership being smuggled in through the back-door
Once that link has been made, it’s clear that this suggestion falls to the usual destruction of the consciousness-requirement for property-ownership: one does not cease to own things when one is asleep or in a coma, and thus one cannot cease to own onesself when not conscious. Nor is it ethical to kill someone who is not conscious. Thus, it cannot be ethical to kill a living human being who is not conscious known as the fetus.
What would need sentience / consciousness would be the assertion of self-ownership, however such assertion is not necessary for the fact of self-ownership to be recognized–which is what Hashem keeps failing to realize.
Personally I think ED is a tyrannical power. And to view ED as being able to do what you suggest, you’d have the state taking ownership of the fetus by force and fiat?
Privacy is certainly an invented right not listed in the constitution and a terrible rationale for the abortion law. However, the reason it should be repealed is because every person has a right to their own life, from which all other rights are corollaries. The same right that allows a mother to engage in sex freely allows her resulting child a right to their life and actions and consequences.
The game changes when you engage in an activity that produces a human being with rights of their own. You cannot cut another human being out of you like a tumor or parasite which has no rights.
But we’re not talking about active use of consciousness, but of structure of the brain capable of supporting conscience.
Oh, I don’t agree with ED, I am saying that within the Constitutional framework, ED allows the government to do essentially anything (if you think that a fetus is just property, which we are currently debating).
So what possible connection could that have to self-ownership?
Self-ownership is a fact of reality. Ownership of things outside yourself requires consciousness and by extension sentience because you must receive things outside yourself through trade or appropriation. But your body is given to you by your parents at the point of conception via two donor cells that combine into a single, uniqe, human being and form the foundational cell of your being upon which all future cells rely.
In fact, if you didn’t own the materials that compose your body, you’d have no brain to produce consciousness in the first place.
“Authoritarian Hubris”
** Contradiction To Government Aggression **
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
So do tell, “What is the just compensation and how does public use fit with self ownership?”
** Dismissing Antiquated Attempts **
Roe v. Wade relies upon the legalism that the state is wholly responsible to its citizens who are the principle beneficiaries of its protections as established by the social contract of the constitution, and as citizens must be born any, per son or otherwise, must also be born to receive equal protections else greater protections than that of a citizen would be afforded.
Fourteenth Amendment, - Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. .
The premise for equal protection and teh basis of a requirement for birth for states interest 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.”
** Privacy Clauses of Private Propety **
Roe v. Wade does not rely upon privacy for its foundation; privacy is a consequence of the Fourth Amendment - “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
“Made Up Rules”
There is no self reference without an inception of sentience, hence there is no impetus for self ownership,
Without an inception for sentience there is not a provocation for empathy through common understanding.
Without an inception for sentience there is not sapience and hence the criteria as a homo sapiens sapiens has not been met.
If there is not a criteria of sapience to be a homo sapiens sapiens then the argument against an inception for sentience becomes absurd because there are no protections afforded to any other creatures which are sentient and higher on the congnitive scale of sophistication and exploited.
Thus there is only a self resigned exception for self through anthropocentric arrogance and personified projections upon an inchoate entity.
None here is likley to conform with orthodox hinuism in its stand against all suffering?
I don’t agree, because the mind is produced by the body, and mind and body are inseparable. I agreed your reasoning was correct for ownership of things outside onesself, but it cannot be imported to remove self-ownership of the body, and I’ll exlaborate.
The self is not merely a mind, that is not merely a consciousness, but also a body. The philosophy of mind views consciousness as a product of a physical arrangement, ie: life.
Perhaps we can help prove when self-ownership begins by looking at when it definitely ends. No one would disagree that all ownership rights end at death. Thus we can flip that around and see that self-ownership begins with life.
At the same time we can look at sentience/consciousness and see that ownership rights, especially self-ownership rights, do not end when one is not sentient or not conscious. The fallacy that one must be conscious to self-own, again, is easily destroyed by asking if one loses all right to life and property by going to sleep, and clearly we do not. Thus, if your rights do not end by losing consciousness or losing sentience then they cannot begin by gaining sentience / consciousness.
Even if you make a special exception for the fetus, saying it has not yet gained even a first consciousness, you would have to extend that reasoning to those who have permanently lost consciousness, such as the brain dead or coma-ridden. And it’s clear that you cannot ethically kill the brain-dead or coma-ridden (certainly not at whim anyway, but the reasons one might take a brain dead person off life support do not necessarily extend to the fetus since the brain dead will certainly never recover; and should such a person regain consciousness it’s clear they retain right to their property, meaning they never lost that right in the first place).
This borders on incoherent obfuscation of meaning. Your rhetoric is geared towards makes you sound intelligent but I’m not sure you’re making a coherent point. Care to be less opaque?
I’m not sure what empathy has to do with self-ownership at all, in fact I’m sure it has less than nothing to do with it. Similarly, neither does consciousness have anything to do with one’s ability to own–it is trumped by life. Life is the one fact that you and no one else will be able to get away from. A human life has a human right to its own life that cannot be taken away from it by force morally or ethically.
So in other words, you’re claiming that only that which can think is human and thus deserving of conferral of human rights. But you’re going to run into the same existential problem that constituting rights on the basis of consciousness has: your reasoning will not stand when its corollaries are examined. Sapience is not an ever-present quality in a human but a product of the physical life and mind of a human being. Or, in simpler terms: you’ve just stated that a human being is no longer a human being when they aren’t thinking (sapient) and thus not deserving of human rights when not thinking.
Again, this suggestion runs into easily destroyed territory when it’s pointed out that those incapable of thinking, yet still alive, can still be murdered–such as those asleep or in a coma.
Such as what, animals? Seems you’re suggesting that we have human rights because we can reason and animals don’t, and if we don’t use reason as a criteria then animals should be given equal rights with human beings. But, the criteria for who, deserves human rights is in the name itself: “human” right. While certainly reason distinguishes Man from the animals, it is not necessary to think to be considered fully human, nor can an animal be promoted to human by merely showing some limited reasoning skills. Man is not merely what he thinks, but also what he is biologically and genetically, and those things cannot change, certainly not within the lifetime of a single organism.
You really enjoy speaking in obtuse terms Save the high-sounding rhetoric for your professors, you’re not being graded here except on ideas.
Animals quite clearly have self-ownership too. They’re only incapable of ownership outside themselves, incapable of owning for instance a house, incapable of producing.
I think it’s quite silly to liken a fetus to a rights-less animal merely on the basis of cognitive development. Much more silly to argue the fetus doesn’t have human rights on the basis of its ability to think in the moment. Given time, its thinking ability potential is equal to yours or mine, which an animal never is.
The humanity of the fetus is without question a biological fact that cannot be changed. It’s status as a living organism is also without question. A living human being has a right to its own life. Therefore the fetus has a right to live, a right to be born and not murdered in its youth, even by its own mother and accomplices to her.
Clearly you are. My views are backed up by Hoppe, Rothbard, and Kinsella, to name a few. And I can and have referenced them. Who are the authorities that have put years and generations of research and critique into the ideas you blab about?
You’ve refused to support it at all, except by your own words. At least my views are backed up by the research and efforts of credible scholars.
Here, again, you’ve disingenuously pretended I haven’t supported my case (as to distract from the fact that it is you who hasn’t). Anyone reading this thread—even those who disagree with me—will admit that my posts above with citations from the likes of Kinsella and Hoppe and Rothbard exist.
The thing is, I did explain my theory of ownership, which you admittedly “skimmed” before dismissing—without, by the way, pulling so much as a quote to show why it’s wrong. See, you’re scared of actual argument, which is why you’ll quote me constantly (although never follow up on my responses in context), but you won’t attack my sources or provide any of your own. Your games are boring and amateurish.
No, there were qualifications which you conveniently forgot. Our most recent exchange when like this:
You said: Again, a person owns themselves by nature.
I responded: 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.
I call bullshit. If you’ve borrowed so much, provide a single relevant quote and maybe we can see where that takes us.
Then pull a quote and attack it. Such is debating. Refusing to provide any citations makes you look bad enough, but refusing to actually address any of mine is killing your cause.
What’s it called when you accuse people of the problems you exhibit?
I think it’s called projecting. A dishonest debate tactic.
No. The subconscious reacts quite well to sensory input. But Wheylous is merely affirming what I’ve been saying, which is his second time agreeing in this thread so I don’t know who you’re refering to when you say “we”, as at least the second or third most active participant in our conversation is tending to reach my conclusions.
As I said, one does not need to appeal to someone else when one has a proper epistemology. If your epistemology is purely “I only accept what X thinker wrote” then you fail as an intellectual, because all thinking and reason must be based on reality or it is worthless and irrational.
Here’s Rand touching on epistemology:
An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest. The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)
Ayn Rand. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Kindle Locations 867-873). Penguin USA, Inc..
I do not need to cite anyone to say simply that a fetus is alive and human and an individual with a body separate from the mother. These are self-evident facts supported and originally discovered by science. Your only avenue of attack on them is what they mean, or by redefining murder.
If you cite anyone, you’re taking a longer route to truth than I am, for I’m appealing to that which your sources themselves must appeal if they are rational, and that is reality itself. So I’ll, consider your objection that I’m not quoting others to be what it is, both silly and unecessary.
You wrote:
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.
What then makes a fetus incapable of owning? Again, reality itself disproves you for a fetus already possesses its physical body the second it comes into existence! It possesses and inhabits the atomic materials organized in a cell and groups of cells which act in concert to produce life. It is given these atomic constituents by its parents in the form of gametes. It owns the cells that makeup its body! If it did not, it would not be alive at all. It would not even exist. Your objection amounts to asserting that the fetus does not even exist! Which is clearly irrational. Nor can a person exist by borrowing cells owned by another person. Only a person’s own cells can produce life for that person, and a person’s own cells are by them owned.
At the moment of conception, the only difference between you and a fetus is age, time to develop. There is no other difference. They are equally a human being in every way except developmentally.
However, age of a person makes no difference morally and ethically. Neither does consciousness. I’ve said over and over that a person who’s unconscious does not suddenly lose all property rights for the duration of their unconsciousness. Nor are they incapable of being given property and becoming the owner of property while they are unconscious. You’ve never addressed the age issue.
Thus, you need to revise your argument or drop it.
Disregard/delete this post.
“Narrow or Wide Brush Strokes”
Perspectivism mocks you!
The summative comedy of your arguments is that you pretend that wrights even exist.
A wright exists because there is an entity capable of prohibiting a violation or reprising a violation of some defined conditions.
As it goes, one exchanges natural freedoms for citizenship in a collective according to protected (reprised) wrights of a constitution which is founded upon nothing other than legal positivism.
Anthropocentrists are silly and largely ridiculous, to me; damned dirty apes!
Your argument here is quaint as it ignores, entirely, that the state is concerned with the legal wrights of citizens, whence a brain dead or comma-ridden born individual has its wrights removed by legal process, while a foetus has not completed a criteria to receive such wrights.
The statement was direct; empathy is invoked by a common understanding of emotion, where suffering may provoke a response by another.
A brain does not have pain receptors and one becomes self aware through sensory inputs that are physically impossible until the end of the second trimester at the onset of sentience, with the development of thalamocortial spindles, which also coincides with viability.
Until the onset of sentience, a foetus is without perception, thus there is nothing to invoke my common understanding for its expectations; indeed, my indifference for it equates with its inchoate perception and lack of expectations.
Verily, your premise is based upon a personally skewed notion of manifest destiny that the existence of any foetal form predicates a necessary uninterruption to a biological processes.
In addition, piled upon your predicate are personifications and projections of foetal expectations that do not exist at the time.
Verily, it is neither possible to share a common understanding with an inchoate foetus nor is it reasonably posslble to project personal expectations upon an inchoate foetus because it does not experience suffering and it does not have intrapersonal experiences.
Thus, I am not interested in entertaining baseless allusions to fabricated extra personal audacities.
Innuendo creates complex challenges; the ideas are sound, but you may not want to listen.
Now that we aren’t messing with your arrogant words we can get to the meat of the argument by recognizing that more brilliant minds have already discussed this and reached my conclusion.
Notice we’re talking about rational, thinking, acting, argument-forming individuals. Fetuses can’t study. Even Rothbard, who supported a mother’s right to abort and who disagreed on major issues with Ayn Rand, agreed here that rights derive from the objective nature of humans, the undeniable “facts of reality” as you might call them; others would call them a priori truths or axioms. To quote Rothbard (italics his):
To quote Hoppe on Rothbard
To quote Kinsella on Ayn Rand:
And finally, Rothbard:
So we see that rights are property rights in scarce resources, in order to respect the non-aggression principle, made necessary by our nature as rational social animals in an environment of scarce resources. None of this is relevant on any level to fetuses. Libertarian scholars don’t even attempt to argue that fetuses have rights on these grounds. Even Ayn Rand wasn’t talking about fetuses, but about humans as rational, argument-forming, acting individuals.
Fetuses fail to qualify for rights on ANY—no less all—libertarian criteria. Those who disagree are ignorant of why we have property rights. THE END.
Ownership of things outside yourself requires consciousness
Then people in a coma can’t own things? Horray!
Rand’s argument has nothing to do with whether one can study or not. You’re taking half a sentence completely out of context. Shame on you. What’s the point of citing someone if you’re not going to deal with what they say in context. Rand says here that these things are primaries, that they are not irreducible conceptually, that one can study them, meaning study existence, identity and consciousness, but cannot prove them, but must take them as the given. This is because you must exist to attempt to prove existence, you have identity if you’re acting to attempt such a proof, and you’re conscious if you try to prove consciousness. Thus you must appeal to the very things you’re attempting to prove as you try to prove or disprove and by that prove them to be axiomatic. It is the same with the laws of logic, such as the law of identity, A equals A. In fact, Rand’s philosophy and epistemology are built on the law of identity. ‘Existents/existance exists’, is her mantra.
Existence is not conditional on cognition. The fetus exists as a living human being from the moment of conception, and therefore has all the rights given to living human beings. You’re not going to be able to escape that.
Haha, that’s what you’ve been getting at? Wow. Okay. Let’s talk about that. Because it’s clear you’ve read it without really understanding what it means and what Rothbard meant by it.
First of all, Rothbard here is speaking of rights in general, not specifically the right to life and its corrolaries such as the right not to be murdered. What you don’t realize is that all of the rights and their justifications here rely on the right to life first of all, and the dependencies Rothbard lists here are mere corollaries of the right to a man’s own life. I’ll take them one by one:
Can one be an individual without life? No. Can one choice without life? No. Can one use their mind and energy to adopt goals and values or discover anything about the world, much less pursue their ends to survive and prosper, communicate or interact with others and participate in the division of labor without life? No, one cannot. The right to do all those things is predicated on the right to life. You’ve not seen the forest for the trees philosophically, and are unaware of what it means to build a philosophy systematically.
As I said, these are all corollaries to a man’s right to life. Because you possess yourself you have free choice over all you do, and thereby if you choose to do work and learn about the world, you have a right to what you produce. Self-ownership is what a man’s right to his own life actually means, there is no other way to understand it. And if you attack self-ownership then you are attacking all ownership. A man cannot survive, cannot flourish, with the right to his own life and the product of his actions.
Here Rothbard is speaking not about the conferral of rights, but about ethics. It’s clear you chose this passage because it mentions fetuses, but it does not address our topic at all. Rothbard says here that a fetus cannot form concepts and thus cannot form an ethic nor act on them, not that being unable to form concepts makes a fetus nonhuman. Nice try tho.
Notice at the end, he says “the rights of human beings”, thus he undercuts his own reasoning completely, as the fetus is demonstrably a human being. Clearly a bit of inconsistency on the part of Hoppe / Rothbard, and it’s sad that you take them at face value. It’s perfectly clear to me that fetuses and animals are incapable of communicating nor possessing rights outside themselves, but their right to self-ownership is undeniable, as it is a right given to every living human being regardless of any other consideration.
This rationale of the “scarce resource” applies primarily to property outside oneself. However, since your body is the only body you will ever have, it’s easy to view it too as a scarce resource. The primary point of Kinsella here however is control, not the scarcity of that resource. One can equally maintain property over a non-scarce resource, say water, although the world is ultimately limited. But for all intents and purposes air and water are unlimited, and one can own them easily. You’ve placed emphasis on the wrong thing. Saying that a human body of the fetus is not a scarce resource and therefore they cannot own themselves is a ridiculous twisting of her statement beyond all rationality.
The beginning of the quote should be applied as well, that no man may initiate force on another. The fetus is undeniably a human being and falls under that rubric. The fetus has initiated force on no one, and no one may initiate force against it. That you fail to even attempt to address this is silly, Hashem.
But again, you’ve failed to apply the beginning of the quote to the situation of the fetus, meaning that rights only apply to relationships and actions between human beings, and the initiation of force against a fetus on the part of a human being is exactly the situation where rights apply. You cannot murder a living human being, such as a fetus. Your only recourse is to attack the humanity of the fetus, and that’s a losing proposition for you, so I can understand why you fail to address the topic at all
As for Rothbard’s statement of a “fundamental error,” I fail to see how his point follows, but then you’ve cut out the context with your ellipsis, so perhaps it’s not surprising. The specific nature of man is clear, and self-evident; he is a self-owner, self-controller, and human by virtue of being the product of a human coupling. That alone separates man from the animals. No animal may give birth to a human being, nor vice versa. Human rights follow from humanness.
As for your statements below Rothbard’s, you’re taking these writer’s statements out of context as if they’re gospel, but they’re not. Man’s rights descend ultimately from facts about reality, not from the statement of any thinker. Man still self-owns whether any person says so or not and no statement to the contrary can change that. I see that your insistence on a quote war was just a game to you, as you’re not applying the quoted concepts consistently.
Again, you’re taking statements about property rights outside the person and extending them to rights of self-ownership… when self-ownership is the basis for ownership outside ourselves, and you don’t even realize you’re dropping the context.
I meant that to acquire ownership of a thing outside yourself by your own efforts requires consciousness; ie: work, and I said as much if you quote the full sentence
My emphasis was on individual acquisition through trade, appropriation–these acts require consciousness. Actually holding on to what you own already clearly does not require you to be conscious, as we’ve seen through the sleeping and coma examples, and certainly self-ownership does not require consciousness or else murder of the the sleeper would be ethical and it is not.
Fetuses are thus the antithesis of a rights-having being. We have rights because we need them—when we need them (that is, when there’s the potential for conflict over scarce resources).
Merely “being human” isn’t why we have rights. A fetus doesn’t meet the following universally-agreed-upon libertarian criteria, gathered from my post above with citations from Rand, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Kinsella:
- Is an individual (i.e. completely separate).
- Is rational (implies reason, i.e. having ideas aka forming arguments).
- Chooses ends and means consciously (i.e. intentionally and knowingly employs reason)
- Needs to employ reason to adopt goals and values (i.e. preferences regarding scarce resources).
- Needs to acquire knowledge in order to act on the bove (implies reason and action).
- Needs to employ scarce resources to pursue ends.
- Capacity and need to interact with other humans (i.e. an environment of multiple, inter-acting beings).
- Capacity and need to communicate with other humans (implies reason, action, knowledge, scarcity, in addition to all the above).
- Capacity and need to participate in the division of labor.
- Is social.
- Possesses the ability to reason.
- Possesses the ability to make conscious choices.
- Is able and needs to transform their environment in order to survive.
- Is able to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.
- Is conscious.
- Has free will (can act and choose voluntarily and intentionally).
- Has free choice.
- Can reason (can use logic to form arguments).
- Needs to learn.
- Needs to produce (else exchange for) consumable goods.
- Can use reason to learn about ethics.
- Must use reason to learn about ethics.
- Is conscoius (can choose and act).
- Has conceptual in addition to perceptual consciousness (can form arguments about abtract ideas).
- The ability to form concepts and act upon them.
- Uses reason to adopt values.
- Uses reason to adopt ethical principles.
- Acts to attain ends choses through reason.
- Acts (adopts values and purposes and chooses the ways to achieve them).
- Is capable of forming propositions.
- Is capable of exchanging voluntarily.
- Is capable of engaging in propositional exchange.
- Is capable of engaging in propositional exchange with other humans (i.e. is rational).
- Can communicate rationally.
You’re lying outright. The context is studying and arguing. It’s entirely inapplicable to fetuses—it would be ridiculous and pointless.
You are absolutely off base, utterly off topic. Anyone is free to go back and see. He’s talking about the nature of man and why rights are based on our capacity for conscious choice, our necessity to use our minds and energy to adopt goals and values, our necessity to use our minds and energy to learn, our necessity to use our minds and energy to pursue ends in order to survive, our capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings, our capacity and need to participate in the division of labor, that we are rational and social animals. Speicifically, he was pionting out that beings which don’t posses the ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment, and to collaborate consciously in the division of labor and society wouldn’t have rights.
No, nice misrepresentation tho. Actually, what he did was to support the liberatarian tradition’s opposition to your fallacies by agreeing that humans have rights for a plethora of reasons, all of which are entirely inapplicaple to fetuses. He stated that among these reason are our conceptual consciousness (the ability to form arguments and to choose and act), our rationality, our need and capacity to use reason to adopt values and achieve ends. Our need to act, adopt values and purposes, and choose means to achieve ends.
That’s because like every major libertarian thinker he is talking about thinking, acting individuals. You are the odd man out, the unresearched blemish in this debate. Your admitted skimming and dismissing has forsaken you.
No, you desperately want to repeat that, but it’s simply untrue. Allow me to repeat 34 generally-agreed-upon criteria:
No, here are 34 other things which most libertarians agree upon:
“My how the turn tables…”
—The Office
When you’re threatened with murder, you need your right to life.
All rights are corrolaries of the right to life that all living humans have. No person may deprive another person of life and retain their moral position without due process.
Lol, universally agreed upon? You’re funny.
A fetus is a completely independent individual. It requires only a suitable environment and nourishment to survive. You too require a suitable environment and nourishment to survive. No difference. The body the fetus possesses and inhabits is what makes it an individual.
Man is a rational animal. We say this categorically even though some are more or less rational, and man is still a rational animal when they’re sleeping or in a comma, that is they do not become less human when not thinking. That is, man is rational in the sense that he retains the ability to reason. A fetus does not lose its status as a rational being simply because it’s too young yet to reason. It’s obvious that a newborn cannot yet reason either, and that has no bearing on whether a newborn can be murdered or not, it is clear they can be murdered. So too can a fetus.
False. A newborn cannot choose ends and means consciously and can still be murdered. But newborns and fetuses will become full adults capable or choosing equal to all other human beings is simply left alone and not murdered. Once again, you’re failing to list criteria which would apply to a fetus and not to a newborn, thus being inconsistent and not fully thinking out the implications of your position. All of these criteria would have to pass the newborn test to be valid.
And again, ther’s a clear difference between self-owning and owning things outside yourself. You continue to list criteria needed for exterior ownership and back-date them to self-ownership.
A newborn cannot.
A newborn cannot.
A newborn cannot.
A newborn cannot. However, both a fetus and a newborn possess the CAPACITY to do all of these things, because they are living human beings, and you will not be able to change that fact. They will only not be able to do these things if they are first killed.
A newborn cannot. However, both a fetus and a newborn possess the CAPACITY to do all of these things, because they are living human beings, and you will not be able to change that fact. They will only not be able to do these things if they are first killed.
A new born and a fetus cannot. Both retain the capacity however.
Both retain capacity.
Both retain capcity.
A new born cannot, both nowborn and fetus retain capacity, if left alone to develop.
A newborn cannot. However both newborn and fetus can do so on an unconscious level in the sense that their bodies are capable of integrating nutrients and food into life.
A newborn and a fetus cannot, however both retain capacity to do so if left alone.
This is not required to self-own, as it is obvious that unconscious people cannot be lawfully murdered.
All living people have free will, including fetuses.
Same as above.
This is a foolish criteria, as it would mean those incapable of reason don’t have rights. However, it’s clear that those with reduced capacity, including the brain dead, can still be murdered and this criteria has nothing to do therefore with self-ownership.
Both retain capacity.
A newborn cannot.
A newborn cannot do anything of these things. Are you suggesting that it should be legal to murder newborns?
Lol. Anyone can check for themselves.
Again, you fail to realize that one cannot choose if one is not alive. The basis of all rights is the right to life, all other rights are corrolaries to this primary, because without it none of them could exist. If you do not own your body, do not possess it and control it, you won’t be alive, much less conscious.
If true, then he’s wrong, because the brain dead can still be murdered, the sleeping can still be murdered, those physically disabled or paralyze and unable to transform their environment can still be murdered, and those unable to speak or work can still be murdered–all of these people you’re saying should not have rights, and it’s obvious that that cannot be true.
Again, he was listing rights that are corollaries to the basic right to life. You cannot list rights that are corollaries and deny the right from which they are corollaries. Unless you’re, you know, completely inconsistent.
Your hero-worship and quote worship is a bit silly. What’s important is reason, not who’s reasoning.
How about actually addressing that point for once.
“Pretentious Allusions to Wrights According to Nature”
** Convolution **
Which element are you citing?
Are you citing the ridiculous hubris of inealienable wrights that are better defined as utopian conjectures or stochastic optimizations?
Or are you citing the legal positivism of a constitution that represents a state’s interest in protecting those who qualify as citizens upon the completion of birth or in equal protection for those who must also be born?
** Wish Full Thinking Within Nature **
When a lion is killing a gazelle, there is an event, however each has a different subjective realism of the event, hence the assertion of inalienable wrights has gone the way of extinct dinosaurs.
The following quotation is a nice summation of perspectivism, "In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—“Perspectivism.” —