All I know is : An embryo or a fetus is not the same kind of entity as a newborn or a child - so it makes no sense to ‘grant’ full rights to an embryo/fetus especially when doing so means that pregnant women loose a good deal of their rights - including the right not to be killed according to Max.
I don’t think babies ‘magically’ gain rights when they are born although as a compromise it sounds more or less plausible.
Well, first of all, what do you mean “made a slave”? The baby owns the mother? At what point does a baby not own its mother anymore?
Regardless, as we have already discussed, just because someone happens to be on your property does not give you the right to do something to them that will end their life, just like if you are driving a hundred miles an hour in your car with someone does not give you the right to push them out of your car, just because it is your car.
Yes you do. A newborn baby is not the same kind of entity as a one year old, a two year old, or a 25 year old. So why does it matter that they exited the womb?
Juan, you keep scrunching up your posts. FAIL!
I haven’t even considered punishment, I’m still trying to make the case it is a crime.
So you are saying that the rights of a new life are different 1 minute before and 1 minute after birth?
Now that is a strawman.
Well sure it does. If you don’t know when life begins, then how can you be so sure when it is ok to terminate a pregnancy? Maybe life starts 1 day after a baby is born, and the first 24 hours it is fair game for rejection?
Hunh? It totally does. How can you separate the ethics of abortion from the act of conception?
Usually? What % of the time? How often do they fail? How often does the failure result in pregnancy? How many of those pregnancies are aborted?
That’s not a question I am entertaining. I’m trying to reach some sort of clarity on whether or not it is murder. Of course, you can’t say it isn’t because you don’t know when life begins. And likewise, I can’t say it is, because even though I am willing to accept your definition (whatever it may be), you fail to provide one.
The answer seems quite simple really. Unlike land, minerals, resources or other trappings of civilization, people cannot be owned. Regardless of life stage, the responsibility of the parents are to the child. They have the duty to raise the child so that it may become an independent person.
To answer your questions:
Parent’s don’t have rights, they have responsibilities.
You cannot own another person.
We are all at the whim of others’ at all times. People will either meet their responsibilities or they will not.
I think Rothbard made a mistake when he tried to define parenthood as property based. Property is a human notion. It’s a set of rules and/or customs that people mutually agree upon so one person does not steal from another. At different times and places people have defined that in different ways.
That’s not to say that people cannot come to an agreement on the responsibilities of parents. Again different times and different places have defined those responsibilities differently. The question should be what’s the optimum way to raise children to be able to secure life, liberty and happiness.
Lame attempt at evasion. Very disappointing.
There was no emotive plea made. I simply asked why you are trying to make accusations of a bait and switch, instead of arguing your position on fact and reason.
I’m not sure how to respond to this. Not all women who have abortions feel they are slaves, not all pregnant women are slaves. Whatever point you are making, I’d suggest reviewing it for clarity.
This is what you failed to respond to,
What bait and switch? It’s a straightforward question. If one can consent to create life, then does that same theory of consent work for the destruction of life, and vice versa? You don’t want to answer it, because it’s the pandora’s box of the libertarian argument for abortion. I don’t blame you. The answer doesn’t make any of us richer, it makes all of us poorer.
The question is if the fetus is not life, and the mother has a claim on it, then it is property. So under what reasoning is the creator of property through homesteading, not able to also destroy their creation? Who puts any caveat on the property (who has a higher claim to it)?
You see, the fetus is either property or a living being. If it is a living being, killing it is murder, if it is property, then it can be destroyed by it’s creator. But at what point does the fetus stop being property and start being a living being? What fundamental difference is there between a baby 1 minute before birth, and 1 minute after?
You seem to have command of the English language; it means just what is written.
And we’ve discussed that this is a false analogy. So why do you PERSIST in bringing it up?
Lame lie; how disappointing.
Bull. And please start using logic and reason.
With words.
And I didn’t fail to respond to anything. Either prove that the fetus has the right to be in the womb or give up the argument. Period. That’s how it works.
Your fail to live up to your reputation. All I see are strawmen, dodges and Ad homs. Are you also a bully in real life, or is this just an internet tough guy act?
Yes, you have now twice dodged answering TWO direct and simple yes/no questions. Why is it that the tough guys are always cowards when they run into someone who won’t put up with their bully act?
Prove whether the fetus is alive or not and we can debate it’s rights.
Nice lie.
Nice projection.
Are you this ignorant in real life, or do you just play dumb on the interwebs?
False. You have lied again. Why is it that you must lie? Why are you so cowardly? Are you being a coward because you know I won’t put up with your bully act?
Hint: I throw your ignorant rants at you when you use them. So the upshot is: don’t do it again.
Prove that such is relevant. If you can’t: give up the argument.
Regarding the first point, I’m sure it is rare, but threats can come in various degrees. If the doctor said it was 100% chance of death, would you support an abortion, simply as a form of self-defense? If yes, what if the chance was 90%? Or 50%? Or 10%? Most things in life are not clear cut 100% one way or the other. And besides a threat to life, there’s the physical and mental discomfort that can’t be fully known ahead of time. So assessing threat is not that simple (imo).
On the second point, all life ends eventually, regardless of what we do. The fact that sperm have an extremely short life span compared to a live human being isn’t really helpful, I don’t think. Even so, an embryo could be created outside of the womb, and if so, it would die as well without some kind of intervention.
I think a continuum argument is more accurate and convincing. A newly fertilized embryo is very complex chemically, but I think most of us would see our pets as more truly alive in one sense. Life as the capacity to respond and choose, which is what forms the foundation of property and homesteading and all that. Embryos have that only in the most minimal sense. As time goes on, they gain more of it. One might argue that newborn babies don’t have it as fully as adult humans do, but certainly enough that we recognize them as deserving consideration and that we can’t arbitrarily kill them.
Part of the problem with the question of “when does life begin?” is that the question assumes a digital answer.. here’s non-life, full stop.. and here’s life, full stop. The question is question-begging in a way, though I’m not saying the people who ask it are trying to do that. It’s just an unspoken assumption of the question, and I think it causes a lot of confusion in wrestling with this issue.
I have to prove that if the fetus is a living being, and thus abortion is murder, that such a fact would be relevant?
You’re taking the cowards way out again. Better to log off and hope everyone forgets your escape act by tomorrow.
I’m using the text-only editor and adding html line breaks myself. My posts look OK in firefox and explorer. I’m not sure what else is going on ?
I didn’t say that. I do say that there’s a difference between a fertilized egg which can be removed using the morning after pill, and a fetus that can survive in an incubator. Failing to acknowledge that difference leads to absurd.
I already said that life is a continuum. It doesn’t have a starting point.
Because conception is an arbitrary point.
An embryo is alive and abortion will kill it. I don’t deny that.
All I can say is that an embryo is not a human being so it has no ‘human rights’.
No, you have to prove that the fetus being a living being is relevant.
Hint: strawmen, like all fallacies, kill arguments. You’re taking the coward’s way out again. Better to log off and hope everyone forgets your escape act by tomorrow.
I think that there’s a different justification for using lethal force, though. Perhaps that’s the underlying disagreement.
Example, if someone is breaking into your home to steal your things, but justification for lethal force (for me) is based on the threat to one’s life. Very different than if you find someone passed out drunk. It’s your property in both cases, but I don’t think that lethal force, absent a serious threat to your own life or livelihood, is justified. I understand most libertarians disagree, but it seems that life should have a bit more ‘weight’ so to speak than property, mainly because property rights are only possible when there are living beings involved. Life is primary and foundational, property is only by extension.
Perhaps that’s taking the discussion too far afield, but it seems to me that those who are emphasizing property rights as the ultimate principle are too easily placing life as at best a parallel right, or somehow subsumed under the overarching idea of property. I think that’s a reversal of the true relationship.
The problem you have here is you assume that proving the fetus is a human being proves anything about the criminality of abortion (evidenced by your use of “thus”). BAAWA could grant that the fetus is a human being (with full rights as such) and his point here would be unchanged. It is not the case that “if the fetus is a living being, then abortion is murder” - what’s under dispute is more akin to, “if the fetus has a right to live inside the mother’s womb, then abortion is murder,” BAAWA is arguing that it is not the case that the fetus has the right to live inside the mother’s womb.
Just a clarification for you, because you two seem to be talking past each other.
I hear you Morty, but Baawa has lost the argument. Because even if he concedes the fetus is a living being, the mother is the one to take it into her body (short of rape).
If I invite you to my house, then kill you for being in my house, have I committed murder or not?
Baawa was also avoiding answering the question, whether or not the right to create life includes the right to take that life. If a child is property, then the parent should be able to destroy it. If the child is not property, then what is it?
Wow, way to throw a wrench into the discussion.
If I agree with you then my whole argument falls apart.
If I disagree with you, then I have to concede that the morning after pill should be illegal, which I just do not think it should be.
Not possible.
So what? Are you, like Max, daring to suggest that consent can NEVER be rescinded? Are you, like Max, daring to suggest that a woman loses ownership of her womb when she’s pregnant? Are you, like Max, daring to suggest that a woman should be enslaved to the fetus?
False analogy! How many times will you use that false analogy? NO ONE WAS INVITED INTO THE WOMB! THERE WAS NO PERSON!
And I’ve avoided nothing; you’ve avoided showing that there is a right to life, since your “can you destroy life if you create it” hinges upon that.
Go to it.
It’s funny how much that false analogy is brought up, when it is plainly invalid.
-Jon