Relationship between two self-owners? How do you figure that, other than simply the fetus being in the womb? If you want to call that a “relationship”…ok. But it’s her womb, and if some “force” in the sense of equipment is needed to remove the fetus, then so be it.
Max, no one loves abortion, except maybe a few sick people. What has been argued is that it is not a criminal act.
And the question on when human life begins has been answered by several people.
I would contend that human life occurs at conception, and the childs rights are either gained then or during the development of the cerebral cortex (which isn’t really a difinitive time).
Oh and you still haven’t answered me why ex post facto legal claims are legitimate.
How is that an answer? When does human life begin, it is not an either or possibility.
Do not all rights begin at the point is a human being? So when someone becomes a human being is the only issue with regard to abortion. Once we have determined that someone is a human being then they have the same rights s everybody else? So in the case of pregnancy once the baby is classified as a human being then we have two independent people. The next logical question is to then examine the current situation and see how the situation occurred and what rights each party has. The abortion lovers can not have this simple logical discussion because the abortion ideology is not based on individual rights. The abortion ideology refuses to recognize the existence of the other person which is why defining when a person begins to have rights is so critical to the arguement.
For example, if you say that life begins at 24 weeks then when a woman walks into the office for an abortion is it ok if an abortion is performed at 25 weeks? How would a doctor without testing know the exact gestational age of the baby especially since to some degree this is dependent on the mother providing accurate informaton about her body?
If the development of the cerebral cortex is the critical factor how are we supposed to know when that has been completed in every case? 24 weeks is just a generalization and not relevant to any specific case. Why can’t the abortion lovers answer simple logical questions to their abortion ideology?
And you say no one loves abortion, what is your problem with abortion if all that is occurring is the removal of flesh. If the fetus is simply flesh then why does it’s removal bother you? The truth is you instinctively know that it’s wrong but you feel less bothered because you follow this nonsensical abortion ideology.
Rothbard and you are wrong as I have demonstrated.
Oh, the same way you “proved” agorism is “wrong”? Stop stroking your overgrown ego.
-Jon
You don’t have an arguement to respond to. In fact since you can not even state that the woman is in fact a human being you can’t argue that she has human rights. So until you can answer why the mother who you can not demonstrate is human has some particular right you have no position that can realistically be analyzed.
As an abortion lover you obviously realize the inherent irrational nature of your position which is why you can not articulate your position.
The fact your failed ideologies are greating crushed in these debates is a result of the logical inconsistencies in your arguement. No abortion lover has yet answered any of the logical challenges to the abortion lover ideology. Why? because the abortion lover arguement is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Wow. Talk about an eristic argument. You try to paint the cerebral cortex position as absurd with some obviously disingenuous moves. First, you assume rights begin with life (i.e., conception). Then you intentionally misrepresent the argument as saying that life begins when the cerebral cortex fully develops, around 24 weeks, so as to paint his argument as absurd. But rights are not based on the simple fact of life. Lots of things are alive. They don’t all have rights. What is special about man? What are his rights based on? His rational faculty. So it is not life that begins at around 24 weeks but the actuality of his capacity for rationality (the biological basis for which being the full development of the cerebral cortex). This is when the fetus becomes a person, a bearer of rights. Then you accuse all those who aren’t absolutely 100% anti-abortion of being abortion lovers, in your typically rude and uncivil fashion. And you bring up a silly argument about 24 weeks being a generalization and how will anyone know the cerebral cortex in a particular case is fully developed? This isn’t hard. It’s a general rule that courts will employ. Prior to 24 weeks, if anyone wants to bring the aborting mother to court for her abortion, they’ll have to present some evidence that the fetus was a particularly early developer. After 24 weeks, the burden of proof will be on the aborting mother, so women who stupidly wait until right up to the 24 week line or even after will have a strong incentive to get tested first in order to have proof that they didn’t violate anyone’s rights in case someone wants to bring them to court on murder charges on the fetus’s behalf.
The fact that you did not even comprehend the arguments you’re dealing with indicates you’ve done nothing but burnt elaborate strawmen of your own device.
-Jon
The question “when does life begin” is irrelevant, but it’s also misguided.
Life doesn’t begin at any point. Before meeting in the womb, the male and female sex cells are (of course) already ‘alive’. Life is a continuum
I thought it was obvious we were discussing when human beings exist. If a human being exists then it has rights. Your position says that a human exists at approximately 24 weeks because the cerebral cortex reaches a certain developmental stage. Your position now also says that at approximately 24 weeks a woman can no longer have an abortion if it can be shown that the cerebral cortex is developed. If a woman does have an abortion after this point then that would be murder according to you arguement. How is your arguement being misrepresented?
So a woman that is approximately 24 weeks pregnant oges to have an abortion but gets sued in court to prevent it. The Plaintiff then what forces the woman to undergo a series of tests to determine the development of the baby. And what if the doctor’s disagree?
I’m not sure saying rights accompany being human is a proper justification for rights. Rationality has to play at least some part in defining when rights are gained. And the emergence of rational thought can be scientifically linked to the development of the cerebral cortex. I am not at all sure when thought emerges within a being, But it is reasonable to accept that it doesn’t occur at conception, as there is no biological mechanism to render memory or thought. I don’t think the point at which a child gains rights is difinitive. It’s a rather gray area.
No, it is quite clearly a developing human. Quit it with your lazy straw maning. Just because it is a human does not mean that the mother does not have a right to remove it.
As I’ve demonstrated, You believe ex post facto legal claims are legitimate. I do hope you’ve realized the inherent irrational nature of your position.
You have proved my point. You do not know when human life begins and you thus you do not know when a person has rights. You have no logical arguement. You say you don’t when a human exists but you are sure it’s not at conception. If you are not sure when it esists then how can you say it doesn’t exist at conception? Do you see the complete contradiction in your arguement?
How can rationality be anything other than completely subjective? I have seen no arguement that there is uniform accepted position of rationality upon which there is 100% scientific agreement. Your assertion that at 24 weeks it begins is as arbirtrary as any other such measurement.
All the abortion lovers have demonstrated is that they do not have a clear definition of what a human being is.
It’s pretty much a futile argument.
-Jon
Thus showing that you don’t know what Rothbard wrote. Why? Because you and Rothbard are in agreement!
Hoist. Petard. Your own.
Thank you for conceding the argument to me. You are dismised.
As usual the pro-abortion retreats when confronted with reason and logic. Thank you for surrendering the battlefield to the obvious victor. Just as I have crushed the irrational agorist ideology so I have crushed the pro-abortion crowd.
I don’t have the same view as Rothbard on abortion. Fascinating that you would try and use Rothbard to say that my arguement had been disproven and then say that Rothbard agrees with me, but the pro-abortion has learned to live with contradictions in their arguements so it is not unexpected.
If you had read Rothbard, you’d also be aware he takes that argument as correct (the one you’re harping on about, hence he agrees with you on the basic premises), and then proceeds to dismiss it by way of demonstration of overriding considerations.
-Jon