And using the morning-after pill can lead to fertilized eggs dying, which is, according to that premise, murder.
I don’t see why ? You’ve just patched your theory a bit and now it’s even more inconsistent (although I realize the result is more liberal/libertarian)
If the fertilized egg is never implanted in the uterus then the mother can’t have an obligation to the baby. Even when the mother wants to have the implantation to happen she has no control over it, so making it less likely isn’t any violation to the baby as the baby before implantation does not have a direct relationship with the mother and there is no guarantee that one will exist. The mother isn’t obligated to make her body the perfect uterus pre-implant.
The theory hasn’t changed. You brought up a good point to ask when exactly does the obligation of the mother begin. Normally I think of conception and pregnancy being the same but your point is well taken that it is not. It actually strengthens the arguement against abortion as one of the common themes of the pro-aborton group is that no person existed to be harmed whereas you rightly point out that first the person exists and then the implantation occurs, so the obligation occurs after the existence of the baby. So we have conception, the begininning of human life and rights and then we have implantation the beginning of the mother’s obligation to care for the baby and to at least deliberately not cause harm.
I actually spent some time thinking on your challenge while out for my morning run (gotta keep in shape for the revolution). Thanks for challenging the distinction, I am wiser now than I was before.
I am rational and can assert a right over my own domain. Last I looked, human blastula couldn’t do that.
The English one.
Now then, since you’re no longer responding to me, I see no reason to continue.
And remember: there’s no person before the sperm and egg meet, Hegel.
Neither can a one year old…
I think the only way to be consistent would be to claim that life does not start until the fertilized egg has attached itself. But my struggle is why would this be the case?
Even when it does, she doesn’t have an obligation to the zygote. Presuming your conclusion will only get it pointed out to you that you’re begging the question.
So do parents not have an obligation to their children then?
A one year old doesn’t posess the linguistic tools to do so, but they do posess the mental capacity for rational thought, which is what grants them rights.
Of course not.
It is perfectly consistent to say that life starts at conception. The obligation of the mother starts at attachment. Keep in mind the fertilized egg doesn’t change it’s nature at attachment only it now has a direct voluntary relationship with the mother. it is the relationship between the mother and child that change at attachment.
So parents are slaves?
Prove it.
Right, and when intercourse takes place the person is non-existent. There is no person to speak of. After this, if something pops up inside the woman, she has no obligation towards it, your proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding. Her “body” is irrelevant - only her will is germane.
Which they haven’t.
Slave contracts are willingly entered into. They’re just invalid.
What you are afraid to state is that you believe the woman is a slave to a parasite within her. As horrific and unpopular as that view is, why are you afraid to say this is what you favour?
-Jon
Yes we know the pro-abortion group is also pro starve your children to death as well. What you and your Library Libertarian friends don’t understand is that no society can exist with the underlying assumptions you make about acceptable human behavior. Yours is the ideology of genocide.
Once again confusing accountability with slavery.
No, parents do not. If the family is sitting around in the living room watching TV, and the Dad says to the Mom, “Hey, these kids are a burden, or not turning out as smart and obedient as I would like”, they can pick the kids up, strip them of their clothes, and deposit them naked outside on the sidewalk.
Do I have this right folks? I know it sounds loaded, but no sense in tippy-toeing around examples.
False. You’re once again confusing liberty with slavery.
We do? Funny. I’m not.
Somebody hasn’t read enough Aristotle and contemporary Aristotelian libertarians. Library Libertarians. LOL As John Stossel would say, “Give me a break!”
Yes, you do. However, you should note that there is a difference between aesthetics, etiquette, and morality. You are conflating them into a whole, and it’s just not the case that they are.
Now then: does a child have the right to make a slave of the parent? No sense in tippy-toeing around examples!