When exactly does this development occur? How much development has to occur? We need a specific reference point because you are making a universal claim for all human existence. That is we need an exact moment because before this its ok to have an abortion and after it would not be ok.
Even if I take your arguement and there is an agreed upon point then this point is clearly inside the womb that the baby becomes a human. So the baby at this point has the same rights as the mother.
If the baby has the same rights at the mother, then clearly we all have the right to be a parasite.
Around 6 months or so (don’t quote me on that as I’m not a physician.) Of course, this does not mean in and of itself that the mother may not evict the child from her womb… and in cases where it is fatal to her, the foetus’ rights are irrelevant, and her survival is primary (rights are inapplicable in situations where social life is impossible.) Because to assume she consented to its entry into her womb is to assume a sort of tacit contract, that devoid of context is an unwarranted inference, and it may be no more than a trespasser, whom may only be dealt with by violent ejection, possibly resulting in death.
-Jon
So under your definition the baby has no rights at all. So when does the baby have it’s full rights? Remember i did say that there were some abortion arguements that were logically consistent just horrific in their application to the point that people intrinsicly reject it.
So under your definition, we all have the right to be a parasite, and no one owns his or her own body.
I’ll just keep digging the claws in further, rending your argument and tearing it asunder in a glorious shriek of reason.
So after around 6 months then you would agree with me that abortions would be murder under most circumstances..is that right?
You might be shrieking but it has nothing to do with reason. You haven’t even come close to denting the arguement. In fact you have specifically proven my point that the pro-abortion group can not coherently answer when human life begins.
And since you and Jon share the same ideas then you are now in agreement that abortion at least after around six months is murder. See we are making progress.
A question to which you’ve provided a wrong answer. According to you a one-day-old fetus (if it’s even called a fetus) is a child. Frankly, we’re speaking different languages.
Here
"fetus : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth "
In my opinion the key point about your position is that you’re advocating the death penalty for innocent people - and calling that ‘libertarianism’ - oh well.
No, because there is still an additional premise that must come into play: that the mother consented to have a being make unlimited use of her body whilst inhabiting it. This is akin to a slavery contract, taking the mother’s consent for granted. It is unenforceable, even if one could prove assuming consent was a warranted inference. It assumes the mother may never change her mind, and that the being should have unlimited access to her body. Her will is not its to command. The only obligation the mother would have, is that if safe removal of the foetus is possible, she is bound to avail herself of it, as in this case eviction without death is possible.
-Jon
Actually, that shrieking is the sound of your fallacies recoiling in horror at the sight of proper reasoning.
Hint: when life begins is ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. Only someone using a red herring would think that it means something.
Now then, since you and Stalin believe that no one owns themselves, I see that you have no problem throwing people into the Gulag system. How wonderful. I guess we see where you really stand.
My, aren’t you the sophist. Eristic argumentation is of no use here. You are the one who said abortion after six months is murder, not I.
-Jon
Allow me to “jump in” and provide my own ramblings to the topic of abortion. I am going to assume that all of us here take self ownership as a moral axiom. From this point we get the principal of non-aggression, which allows us to make moral/ethical judgments on the relationship between self-owners (since governments are essentially a group of individuals, but never mind).
Now, when do we possess or attain self-ownership? That is the question that has been dancing unnoticed through these series of posts. I assert that self-ownership is attained at (using the same argument Hoppe takes) the “objectification” of the will.
But when do we obtain the rights associated with self-ownership? Rothbard comments “Every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.” Rothbard obviously uses the potential for self-ownership as actual attainment of the rights associated with self-ownership. In order to fully grasp the implications of this we must go further than, as Rothbard does, the act of birth. Potential undeniably begins with conception.
The rest of my argument extends from my belief that the unborn are self-owners, based on the argument of potential. After accepting this, the topic of abortion becomes a question of relationship between two self-owners. The two major arguments that have been presented so far are:
The mother is in some sort of implicit contract and must be deemed subservient to the fetus.
Or, the fetus is a parasite, living upon a self-owner.
I’ll have to hurry up and post, I’m running a bit late for a meeting, but I want to conclude with two thoughts.
I find that if we take the implications of self-ownership to their end. An act of abortion can not be anything more than eviction; anything else would trample the rights of the other self-owner. This deems as philosophically immoral most of the abortions that take place today (which include direct harm to a self-owner).
Another thought, if we do not take the potential of self-ownership as possessing the rights associated with it, then when does one attain those rights. And, if they are not self-owners, then children (post birth) can be aggressed against, as we would a wild animal. Thus, up until the rights associated with self ownership are obtained, the aggression against an entity (not belonging to someone else) cannot be condemned. Thus my questions to all of you is, “When do we possess or attain the rights associated with self ownership?”
You know what’s funny? Libertarians argue about abortion all of the time. But we never consider aborting the parasites running the state. [:)]
Thats agorism, libby [:D]
Fetuses don’t shoot back. :o)
But seriously, that’s not the reason they don’t have rights prior to around the beginning of the third trimester.
But I disgress: Are you suggesting we start an armed revolution now? Beginning with some assassinations? While I share the sentiment, it hardly seems like a good strategic move.
Not aborting, or arguing about abortion? Don’t say direct action. That takes energy. An agorist could break a nail. lol
I can’t figure out if you are obtuse or isosceles.
I really don’t know. Its a weak analogy, but I just couldn’t resist. [H]
Which would be very plebeian.
-Jon
And we can’t have that! [8-|]