Woof, Woof, Grrrrrrrrr, heeem heeem heeem, woof, grrr, Ow Ow owwwwwww. Woof. pant pant pant.
I’m not readily following your argument.
I’ll answer the questions and maybe you can point out what you mean:
a. don’t know enough about stem cell research to make an accurate comment
b. i’m not anti-aboration
c. not anti-condom
d. not anti- everything except sex
–
now these are personal questions (not lawful questions cause on another person’s property they could be anti- a, b, c, and d.) and I gave personal answers. could you explain what you mean?
I agree with Mises. If animals don’t have rights, humans don’t either. You cannot recognize something you do not have.
Will an animal walk up onto your property and then ask for consent to stay there? Will an animal rationalize with you before the situation slides into conflict?
Is that your dog? beautiful picture. looks friendly. Is he or she friendly? Could I pet it (assuming I was actually nearby)?
Yes. I would assume that you would have that ability. But I would guess your question goes deeper than that. Are you asking, “if I found a baby in a forest, could I smash it dead, and I not get in trouble if someone found out?” If that is your question, yes you could get in trouble. Someone who loves cute little babies might decide to kill you. What would an arbitrator say? Well, it depends on if anyone claims ownership of the baby. If someone does, then the arbitrator would probably rule that compensation is required. If no one claims ownership, then there would probably not be a case, unless of course the population gets really mad, then there probably would be.
But really, when has this scenario ever happened?
If you’re anti killing babies, how can you be pro choice?
If it’swrong to kill a baby, it must be wrong to kill a fetus. None of them have any concepts of rights. Both of them are potential moral beings.
Growl, Growl, Tail wag Tail Wag, spin in circle, spin in cricle, woof, woof.
The right to dog biscuits
Thanks wilderness, I know that you understand the importance of this. It is frustrating to hear this obsession with “ability to object” again and again.
Even positive legal systems recognize the distinction between ‘possession’ and ‘ownership’. Parental “ownership” must be delineated as “guardianship” or the whole thing falls flat on its face. The “my baby can’t object, so I can justifiably rape it” school is lock-step in line with socialist ethics and a “might makes right” property ideology.
I didn’t say I would kill a fetus. I said I didn’t see a lawful problem with abortion. It’s the mother’s property and she evicted the fetus. The fetus can not hold a mother hostage in the mother’s own property/womb.
It’s one of them. They love everybody, unless that guy everybody is trying to harm me, or one of their other dog biscuit giving friends. Then they are not. She will have to sniff your butt first. Then if you don’t pet her she will be sad.
Claiming them by using language would definitely be a first step.
She sniff’s people’s butts? lol.
I was asking cause that’s a big dog. I’m thinking that second picture are of your dogs too. That first dog looks like it could take a big chunk of meat out of a person. I guess if I’m nearby you I’d better treat you well or else I’ll have to answer to the dog.[:P]
There is no “pro choice” nor “pro life”, in a free society. There is only dispute resolution. BTW, nothing I wrote implied my stance on killing babies.
Roderick Long has a post on this here.
How so? Consider the comparison of say a rock to an apple tree. Can one say that the rock and the apple tree have exclusive traits? If so, then the claim of arbitrariness of the comparison is invalid. Lets take the basic idea of self. Self literally means an awareness of one’s thought(s). Most animals, especially physically simpler ones like insects, don’t have any sense or capacity of self. Thus, the hyphenated term, self-ownership, isn’t applicable. It would be like applying the definition of a fruit tree to the rock in the apple tree rock example. Now, this doesn’t mean there aren’t animals with self-consciousness. I believe certain dogs, ravens (corvids in general), the great apes, and a couple other species seem to have exhibited for scientific examination self-consciousness. But equally, I would state that rights in this case cannot be solely demarcated on self-consciousness. A child has self-consciousness, but does that child have rights similar to an adult? Most would say no, and the reasoning is simple: rights follow from obligations, in that rights are either afforded or awarded for the [continued] fulfillment of obligations presented by others (I have the right to a paycheck from UPS because I fulfill the obligations in terms for working them and etc). Rights in this context cannot be assumed to have a naturalistic origin, unless one assumes that some where along the way social interactions have a metaphysical bent to them. shrugs Thus, I would conclude rights cannot be assumed as in born to the person or animal or agent, thus the entire animal rights argument can be defeated right there by recognizing others ‘give’ rights (giving in terms of allowing or affording) to others.
If I kill someone, and no one finds out about it, the person does not have any rights. He or she is dead, and I got away with it. Rights, again, are just legal claims. You have to be able to make a legal claim to have a legal claim. Babies cannot make legal claims and neither can animals.
115 lbs. Super nice. The others too.
No. The investigator of the crime will know that it was murder. The way the science of justice operates now a days it is undoubtedly rare that an investigation crew (includes autopsy performed by pathologist) will not be able to know if it was suicide or murder.
Somebody in the community, maybe a Sherlock Holmes type, may track down the suspect. The rights are already known to have been violated that much is clear. The person is dead by murder.