And again this would be keeping life from starting, not ending a life that has already started. The only one I may have a problem defending against though would be the third point.
That’s the relevant point. It’s not that you ‘may’ have a problem. You do have a problem because those are facts - you can’t change them by argument.
edit:
The facts I’m referring to are : 1) ‘conception’ is the fertilization of the egg, 2) the morning-after pill does prevent fertilized eggs from implanting.
One more creation of the free-market : http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/medical-ab.htm
Medical Abortion (brand name Mifeprex) is a form of early abortion caused by the combination of two medications, mifepristone and misoprostol that is an option for women who are 8 weeks pregnant or less. Also known as RU486 or medication abortion.
Siamese twins is often a case where you have co-use of various organs and connective tissue. Neither twin ‘invited’ the other, but neither twin ‘invaded’ the other, either. Each one’s immune system does not reject the other as a foreign entity. So if my siamese twin is using my liver without my permission, I’m trying to understand why that’s not analogous to the argument for abortion, and given that, why it doesn’t have equal validity (or lack thereof).
When sperm meets egg, the woman’s body makes a similar choice. It’s been mentioned that certain drugs can interfere with that process, but in normal pregnancies, the woman’s body biochemically invites the embryo to stay.. normally, the body would kick out any perceived invader or try to kill it. In my case, as a diabetic, my immune system got the bright idea that parts of my pancreas did not belong, and proceeded to kill those cells (much to my regret).
So for those who do not like the idea of ‘inviting’ because it implies formal verbal contracts, I’m just suggesting that at a biochemical level, it’s hard to describe as anything other than invitation, and in fact, hospitality might be an even better word. Not only does the immune system not destroy the new cell, but it sets up a lifeline, a protective sac, protective fluid, and even provides antibodies to ensure some protection. This biochemical interaction is more complex than any rental agreement any of us have ever signed.
And again, I don’t say that to mean that the mother then becomes a slave to the fetus. But it’s more akin to reliance-based estoppels where the actions of one are based on an implied reliance on the actions of another. In the beginning, there’s little to go on.. but over time, and as you get closer to the end of the pregnancy, the reliance of the fetus on the mother means that progressively the fetus has more and more to lose, up to the point where it’s just a few centimeters and a push away from being independent and fully recognized.
A negative right to life would mean that if I’m alive, you can’t actively take my life. I think abortion tends to blur the lines between the positive and negative parts because people make the argument that the woman does not have to feed the child (which would go against a positive right to life), therefore she can kill it (which would go against a negative right to life). So often one ends up protesting one kind, but violating both.
What was it you said about name mocking?
Do as I say, not as I do. [;)]
I knew nothing good would come of joining this discussion! [:#]
It was a mistake on my part. I could have defeated the Knight without getting so childish.
Technically, it is a form of trespass. And your communist idea is laughable. Please disabuse yourself of that idiotic notion.
Are a red herring and borders on a variant of “ethics of emergencies”. Do you really want to play that game?
I’m trying tounderstand how it is analagous. You posit, you prove. That’s how it works.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! The body doesn’t make the choice; choice is will-based. SHE as the whole must make the choice.
And that’s merely a metaphor. Try again with valid consent and you might have something. Metaphors need not apply.
And it would mean that you cannot use me to sustain your life, nor that you could live inside me. So it looks like you’re back to square-one.
You still haven’t, Brave Sir Robin.
Knight, having defeated you soundly numerous times yesterday, despite your lewd and vehement objection, I find I must respond to this.
What is the definition of trespass you are using? All common definitions seem to accept that trespass is an act at the moment of transgression, not a persistent state.
As the mother is the one who allows entrance of sperm (not trespass) and her body produces the ovum, and facilitates the mixing of the two, I find it hard to identify with the notion that in any way the embryo has trespassed, but that rather it exists, specifically due to the nature and actions of it’s mother.
I don’t think we will reach an understanding or a resolution. Really, I don’t care. It’s not relevant to my life. However I’ve yet to meet a libertarian who has children, who also believes in the Rothbardian property approach (that they have a right to abandon their children any time for any reason).
Permission granted to whom? Contract entered into with whom? A non-person? At the time of conception, there is no person to speak of, there is no contract to speak of, there is no permission to speak of. There is the formation of a parasite that a woman may or may not wish to host. If she does not, absent a contract, and given the incoherence of slave contracts, she is under no obligation to shelter this being.
Nope, she certainly didn’t. She consented to a sexual act. There was no third party to speak of at the time.
Once the being is out of her, she may no longer aggress against it. It can be removed without inflicting harm upon it. So there is no breakdown to speak of.
If only it were relevant…
-Jon
So, owned resources can be homesteaded by latecomers? Are you sure you’re a libertarian? Actually, it has no claim whatsoever to the womb. It is a foreign parasite.
-Jon
Oh great Jon, now this is going to turn into an immigration debate! [;)]
Maybe permission is not the right word. She consented to sex, a consequence of which could be pregnancy. I’m still confused (genuinely) about how action and consequence can be separated.
Right, but that seems too simplistic for me. That’s like saying I consent to playing Russian Roulette but not getting shot in the head.
If it can be removed without harm to either party, that is awesome. I’m not some philistine who wants women bare foot and pregnant, or as breeding slaves. I am legitmately concerned that some of the libertarian perspectives on abortion can’t pass sophisticated tests of inquiry. Such as…
It is relevant, because you keep referring to the fetus or embryo as a non-person. I’m not getting the definition of a person by this train of thought. What does it take to be a person?
Thanks for the responses. I appreciate it.
Human life and human rights begin at conception. The obligation of the mother begins once the implantation in the uterus begins. So preventing implantation as one of the possibilities of a particular birth control seems a reasonable act by the mother as before implantation there is no relationship between the two. Also, at this point before implantation there is no way to know if the obligation will ever actually exist because it is certainly possible to have a fertilized egg that naturally never implants in the uterus.
I think this resolves this issue.
But for her to have an obligation to the foetus, it’d have to be something towards which such obligations could incur. That it might be a consequence of her actions is neither here nor there. The question is whether she owes it anything: and since it does not exist at the time of the action, she does not.
Again, to whom do the obligations incur?
The point is, she has no obligation whatsoever to bring this being to birth. If it can be removed safely, i.e. evicted safely, then that is a whole other matter. This is why Block’s arguments are relevant to this issue.
It’d be relevant, if it existed at the time she decided to have sex. But it didn’t. So no obligations can exist towards it. It may be a person at conception, it may be one when the cerebral cortex develops (which seems more plausible.) But either way, the pertinent argument is whether any obligations arise towards it. But why should they? Obligations can only be contractual in nature. A “contract” with a third party which does not exist at the time of contracting is no contract at all. And even if the person did exist, this would be a slave contract, thus an invalid one (another difference between the case where a human is evicted from property which is not identical to the owner, and the case where the owner in question is also the property itself…)
-Jon
Ok, from a logical standpoint, I get it now. Thank you.
Now to reconcile logic with my emotions. [:S]
What makes a human so special at that time (conception) that it may posess rights?
The fetus does exist at the time of implantation in the uterus. The obligation of the woman begins there. I tend to use conception and implantation interchangeablely because they normally occur within such close proximity but there is a difference in obligations during the period before implantation. After implantation the woman’s body has willing accepted the obligation and such is bound by that relationship.
Only if you believe that people have no obligation to care for people they have agreed to care for.
This is not a slave contract. Both parties willingly entered into the contract.
What you are afraid to state is that you believe that abortions should be allowed all the way up until the baby exits the body. As horrific and unpopular as that view is, why are you afraid to say that is what you favor?
What makes you so special now that you posess rights?