Assassination Politics much?
Certainly not obtuse. But why are you so square?
Yes, I am square. Anything better than suggesting that I am advocating violence. I’m for non-violent resistance.
So we don’t agree that life starts at some point. If you are not sure that life starts at some point then you are correct that any discussion of life is irrelevant until we agree that life starts at some point.
Why is she obligated to take this action which might very well be more invasive than a simple abortion? And what does available mean, who determines that?
Just another irrelevant remark. You’re advocating murdering innocent people - that’s the bottom line. Good luck trying to sell your deranged system as ‘libertarian’.
Because it is possible to evict the trespasser without harming their physical integrity, as is the case with all other matters of trespass. Unless you deny in that case that the proprietor (where a non-lethal avenue of eviction is possible) has an obligation not to kill the trespasser in evicting them.
-Jon
Well, i am discussing the mother. The mother might have to endure a casearaean section which is more invasive than a simple abortion. So why is the woman obligated to be cut open?
Also, you failed to identify the specific moment that life is created and how this will be verified.
I am going to attempt an answer at the questions.
1-Parents have the right to raise their children as they wish, as long as they do not violate their childrens rights, which have to be balanced with the property rights of the parents. Parents own their home, and as such, have the right to make rules in the home. But they cannot have a rule of killing all their children, just because they happen to be on their property.
2-Children have self-ownership at conception. Any other line is arbitrary and therefore inconsistent. As sonomeone else stated, just because something is inside you does not give you ownership of it.
3-see answer to 2
Still wondering about the relevance of that.
You need to provide an argument for this. Simply asserting it doesn’t make it so.
Aristotelian libertarian belief is that the basis for rights is rationality. Drawing on this, a non-arbitrary line can be identified as the full development of the biological basis for rationality: the cerebral cortex fully develops around 24 weeks, or the beginning of the third trimester.
No, it is still arbitrary. Rationality is subjective. To claim a 24 week old baby is rational is ludicrous.
I could just as easily claim that since the human brain is not fully developed until around 25 years old, that anyone under 25 does not have any rights.
The only consistent argument is that humans have rights, regardless of age, at conception.
As to why humans have rights, it is because we are the only creature capable of recognizing and understanding them. But all humans have those rights,
Uh…no, it’s not.
That’s not the claim.
Different kind of claim. It’s not about how well someone can reason but whether they have the capacity for it.
Why?
What is so special about conception?
Because human beings are rational beings.
Conception begins the potential for self-ownership.
- Depending on definitions, yes rationality is subjective. Although I believe you define rationality as logic itself, in which case rationality is not subjective.
2-3) From what I can tell, your argument equates the capacity for reason as being the attainment of the rights associated with self-ownership, i.e. non agression. The problem I see is that I do not believe most human babies, directly after birth, posess the capacity to reason. But I do believe they posess the potential to posess the capacity to reason… Now, I do take an illogical step by first condemning the killing of human babies post birth and then declaring that potential must be the defining factor in the attainment of the rights of self-ownership.
-
Conception is special because it is the beginning of the potential for rational thought.
-
From what basis do you come to the conclusion that human beings are rational beings (please include your definition of human)? This question does not imply that I disagree with your statement, but I can more easily see where you are comming from philisophically if I know how you answer this question.
Oh, by the way, this post is directed first towards Geoffrey Allan Plauche and then towards all who read.
And it is not about whether someone has the capacity for it, but whether they have the capacity to develop the capacity for it.
The potential for it? But not the actuality? What does this imply?
Well, I don’t accept any definitions as fundamental that hold rationality to be subjective. How’s that? :o) And logic is a tool of reason. I’m not using the Enlightenment conception, however.
Normal human babies possess the capacity for reason. It’s just naturally and temporarily deminished. They also don’t reason well because they require education, but the ability or skill to use one’s rational capacity well is not the basis for rights. I think you’re making a similar mistake to the one Spidey made.
Potential is not actual. If you base rights on potentiality, why stop at conception? Why not extend rights to future generations? And as long as we’re ascribing rights to beings that don’t exist, why not past generations as well? Actuality is what is important.
I follow the Aristotelian tradition. The Aristotelian definition of a human being is “man is a rational animal.” This is his essential characteristic. (Keep in mind though that a concept is not just its definition.) Of course, for Aristotle, rationality necessarily involves a political (not statist) and social component. To be a rational animal is not only to be one capable of abstract thought, of forming concepts, recognizing and using logic, of knowing right and wrong, justice and injustice, but also being capable of speech, of discourse, and cooperation toward shared ends. There is no other animal on earth, to our knowledge, capable of rational thought. The others lack these characteristics. Sure many of them can cooperate but even this is not on the same level. Sure they can communicate to varying rudimentary degrees, but this is not speech.
Why not the capacity to develop the capacity to develop the capacity for it then? Like I mentioned in my previous post. Potential is not actual. It is the actual that is important. Eggs and sperm have the capacity to develop the capacity to develop the capacity for rationality. Why don’t they have rights too?
At any rate, the point at which the biological basis for rationality fully develops is clearly a non-arbitrary one. You may disagree with it, but you can’t disagree with it on the basis of abritrariness.
You are still drawing an arbitrary line. All you’ve done is move the yardstick to the degree of rationality in order to avoid the dilemma posed by the fact that a one-year old or severe autistic is incapable of rational thought as it is commonly understood. I’m not saying your measure is an illogical one; but it is still arbitrary. What you are doing is aligning the measure in accordance with your moral sensibilities. You are, as one should be, troubled at the idea of a late-term abortion or infanticide, so you move the line back to the point where you’re comfortable. Understand, I’m not trying to discredit your position because I think it’s probably a sensible one, but it is unavoidably arbitrary.
If it involves considerable harm to herself, she indeed has no obligation to do it. As has been stated already.
And this matters, how?
-Jon
Ipse dixit. Try again.
-Jon