Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Paradox for Pro-Life Libertarians

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:40:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What gives you the right to give birth toa child? If you can't take their life, how can you give them one?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 5:46:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Good Samaritan laws I presume.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 5:55:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Unless the egg yells at you. "NO. GET THE **** OUT. DONT FERTILIZE ME."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:01:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't understand your premise. Under Libertarianism, you have a right to do anything that isn't an attack upon someone else. How is giving birth prohibited by that?
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 11:11:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 11:09:38 AM, mongeese wrote:
I'd say the non-aggression principle.

Technically isn't the fetus the aggressor since it's using another person's body without permission?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 2:32:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 11:11:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/5/2011 11:09:38 AM, mongeese wrote:
I'd say the non-aggression principle.

Technically isn't the fetus the aggressor since it's using another person's body without permission?

That's what I think on the issue. It's fun to argue with my Dad on it though. He, like most well meaning people, completely see the fetus in a different light.
My manwich!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 2:51:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 11:11:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Technically isn't the fetus the aggressor since it's using another person's body without permission?
Right. So if some mafia members throw me off of a helicopter on a military base, I am using their territory without permission, and they can therefore kill me. I am the aggressor, clearly. Not the mafia.

No, the brain of the mother is the aggressor. It did not tell her to think before having sex. She should improve her mind before killing an unborn child.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 2:56:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 2:51:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/5/2011 11:11:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Technically isn't the fetus the aggressor since it's using another person's body without permission?
Right. So if some mafia members throw me off of a helicopter on a military base, I am using their territory without permission, and they can therefore kill me. I am the aggressor, clearly. Not the mafia.
You weren't thrown onto the base, you were thrown in a neighboring country. It's entirely you who up and swam all the way to the egg instead of leaking out.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:03:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 2:56:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2011 2:51:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/5/2011 11:11:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Technically isn't the fetus the aggressor since it's using another person's body without permission?
Right. So if some mafia members throw me off of a helicopter on a military base, I am using their territory without permission, and they can therefore kill me. I am the aggressor, clearly. Not the mafia.
You weren't thrown onto the base, you were thrown in a neighboring country. It's entirely you who up and swam all the way to the egg instead of leaking out.
I never swam to any egg. That was my dad. I AM the egg, partly.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:11:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well remember that family guy episode when they beamed poop digitally? Why not do the same thing with embryos and then private companies can allow them to develop in artificial wombs and indoctrinate them to only follow them so they could be used as slave labor [but they wouldn't know they were being enslaved].
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:14:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 11:11:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/5/2011 11:09:38 AM, mongeese wrote:
I'd say the non-aggression principle.

Technically isn't the fetus the aggressor since it's using another person's body without permission?

Hardly. The act of fertilization constitutes as permission.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:16:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 3:03:24 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 2:56:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2011 2:51:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/5/2011 11:11:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Technically isn't the fetus the aggressor since it's using another person's body without permission?
Right. So if some mafia members throw me off of a helicopter on a military base, I am using their territory without permission, and they can therefore kill me. I am the aggressor, clearly. Not the mafia.
You weren't thrown onto the base, you were thrown in a neighboring country. It's entirely you who up and swam all the way to the egg instead of leaking out.
I never swam to any egg. That was my dad. I AM the egg, partly.

If you're also the sperm, yes you did, and if you're the egg, you jumped down the fallopian tube, after hiding out in someone's ovaries without permission.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:20:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 3:16:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you're also the sperm, yes you did, and if you're the egg, you jumped down the fallopian tube, after hiding out in someone's ovaries without permission.

seriously ragnar? Also a potential human being is not an unfertilized egg or sperm. They are possessions owned by the entity possessing the womb and sperm. If these two individuals consentially fertilized the egg then they thereby grant permission for the fetus to access and utilize the womb and all accoutrements for the span of their birth.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:33:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You don't need a right to create someone, that would just be paradoxical: by definition people do not exist prior to the act of their creation. How do you propose that a nonexistent person's rights can be violated by any act? That's entirely notwithstanding the fact that a unicellular organism cannot be considered an entity with rights by any bizarre stretch of the imagination. The discussion about the details of conception is totally irrelevant because none of the cells involved are conscious beings in any sense that distinguishes them from rocks. Talking about eggs and sperm in this context is like a discussion about the morality of an erupting volcano burning down a forest.

As for the Nonaggression Principle, it has nothing to do with purposeful action on the part of the aggressor. If you are tossed onto someone's privately owned property, he has the right to remove you, period. You can't cry that someone else put you there, and thus you're entitled to use his house for as long as you see fit. By not leaving immediately, you are in violation of his rights. That you cannot move or communicate or that leaving his property would result in your death do not constitute legitimate excuses to so leech off of someone else.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:47:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 3:33:39 PM, Grape wrote:
If you are tossed onto someone's privately owned property, he has the right to remove you, period. You can't cry that someone else put you there, and thus you're entitled to use his house for as long as you see fit.

Incorrect description. If you are chained to the privately owned property by the owners and then they say oh well we decided we didn't want to chain you here so now we're going to shoot you to remove you. Then your rights are being violated.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:53:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 3:20:12 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/5/2011 3:16:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you're also the sperm, yes you did, and if you're the egg, you jumped down the fallopian tube, after hiding out in someone's ovaries without permission.

seriously ragnar? Also a potential human being is not an unfertilized egg or sperm. They are possessions owned by the entity possessing the womb and sperm.
Why? what's the difference?

If these two individuals consentially fertilized the egg
They didn't, they had sex. The cells do the work.

then they thereby grant permission for the fetus to access and utilize the womb and all accoutrements for the span of their birth.
By inviting me in for tea you consent to arson.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:07:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
you'd have to be really depressed to think that creating someone is an act of aggression against them :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:16:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 3:47:10 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/5/2011 3:33:39 PM, Grape wrote:
If you are tossed onto someone's privately owned property, he has the right to remove you, period. You can't cry that someone else put you there, and thus you're entitled to use his house for as long as you see fit.

Incorrect description. If you are chained to the privately owned property by the owners and then they say oh well we decided we didn't want to chain you here so now we're going to shoot you to remove you. Then your rights are being violated.

The fetus does not exist prior to conception. It's initial place of existence is in the uterus. It is not brought there, it comes into existence as a distinct individual there. Your use of the phrase "you are chained" insinuates that they brought you there from elsewhere and chained you up. That's not what happens.

If we must persist in these analogies, let's say that there exist people-plants. You water the ground and people-plants grow. A person-plant grows on someone's property from the earth as a result of his watering it. Later, he decides he no longer wants it on his property. If the person-plant cannot be removed without harming it, they may use any amount of force up to and including killing the person-plant in order to remove it.

Is there any way in which this scenario is not analogous to abortion (beyond the fact that I'm granting the assumption that a bundle of human cells is morally distinct from a bacterium)? We can go on about the minutia of the analogy forever, but the point is that there's a distinction between having someone's permission to be on his property and there being a casual relationship between his actions and your presence on his property, and neither case grants you to right to remain there indefinitely.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:19:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 3:16:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you're also the sperm, yes you did, and if you're the egg, you jumped down the fallopian tube, after hiding out in someone's ovaries without permission.

This is seriously the dumbest fücking argument I've ever heard.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:25:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 4:19:14 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 6/5/2011 3:16:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you're also the sperm, yes you did, and if you're the egg, you jumped down the fallopian tube, after hiding out in someone's ovaries without permission.

This is seriously the dumbest fücking argument I've ever heard.

That's not really much of a criticism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:25:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 3:14:43 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/5/2011 11:11:47 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/5/2011 11:09:38 AM, mongeese wrote:
I'd say the non-aggression principle.

Technically isn't the fetus the aggressor since it's using another person's body without permission?

Hardly. The act of fertilization constitutes as permission.

There is a casual relationship between the actions of the parents and the fertilization, but they do not preform the act of fertilization. It is a byproduct of their actions. Pretend that is what Ragnar was saying.

Assume that people plants can grow inside my house. It's very hot, so I open the windows so it will be more comfortable. The people-plant seeds may float in and grow on my floor if I open my windows. Does my act of opening the window constitute permission for them to use my house? Hardly.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:30:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 4:25:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2011 4:19:14 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 6/5/2011 3:16:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you're also the sperm, yes you did, and if you're the egg, you jumped down the fallopian tube, after hiding out in someone's ovaries without permission.

This is seriously the dumbest fücking argument I've ever heard.

That's not really much of a criticism.

Yeah, that was the point. I'm not even going to bother to refute it. It's asinine. Having a forum discussion with you is totally pointless, because we all know that you'll say literally anything to avoid admitting that you're wrong, you chop up posts and create strawmen to frustrate your opponents, and you always have to get the last word in to save face and so that you can feel like you've "won" the argument. No thanks.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:36:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 4:16:59 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/5/2011 3:47:10 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/5/2011 3:33:39 PM, Grape wrote:
If you are tossed onto someone's privately owned property, he has the right to remove you, period. You can't cry that someone else put you there, and thus you're entitled to use his house for as long as you see fit.

Incorrect description. If you are chained to the privately owned property by the owners and then they say oh well we decided we didn't want to chain you here so now we're going to shoot you to remove you. Then your rights are being violated.

The fetus does not exist prior to conception. It's initial place of existence is in the uterus. It is not brought there, it comes into existence as a distinct individual there.
For some reason I had the erroneous belief that they were beemed in from other planets. Thanks for that enlightening response.

Your use of the phrase "you are chained" insinuates that they brought you there from elsewhere and chained you up. That's not what happens.

Well gee really? My use of the phrase "you are chained" means from their existence to their birth they cannot voluntarily leave the space they are created in

If we must persist in these analogies,
It was your incorrect analogy that started it, not mine. If you don't like speaking in analogies then don't create incorrect ones that need correcting.

let's say that there exist people-plants.
so simple analogies weren't enough to prove a coherent thought that now you must persist in comparing plantae to fetuses?

You water the ground and people-plants grow. A person-plant grows on someone's property from the earth as a result of his watering it. Later, he decides he no longer wants it on his property. If the person-plant cannot be removed without harming it, they may use any amount of force up to and including killing the person-plant in order to remove it.

Incorrect. If two individuals decide to plant a people-plant and water it then later decide they no longer want it on their property and there is no way it cannot be removed without harming it, then they must wait the appropriate amount of time until it can be safetly transplanted onto other soils.

These two individuals enter into a contract with the fetus upon conception that the fetus has the right to occupy their property until it can safetly be removed. If they kill the fetus they are violating the contract and subsequentially the fetuses rights to life.

Is there any way in which this scenario is not analogous to abortion (beyond the fact that I'm granting the assumption that a bundle of human cells is morally distinct from a bacterium)? We can go on about the minutia of the analogy forever, but the point is that there's a distinction between having someone's permission to be on his property and there being a casual relationship between his actions and your presence on his property, and neither case grants you to right to remain there indefinitely.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:41:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 4:25:57 PM, Grape wrote:
There is a casual relationship between the actions of the parents and the fertilization, but they do not preform the act of fertilization. It is a byproduct of their actions. Pretend that is what Ragnar was saying.

Woop-de-doo. The point is that they are aware it is a potential byproduct before engaging in their actions. The point is that they do not have to kill a being with certain short term human potential simply because it was a byproduct of their actions.

Assume that people plants can grow inside my house.
Are you shitting me? Why must you always do analogies involving plants? Oh thats right because recognizing that they will be human in a few months destroys your weak argument.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:43:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 4:07:22 PM, belle wrote:
you'd have to be really depressed to think that creating someone is an act of aggression against them :P

haha for reals.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:50:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 4:36:20 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/5/2011 4:16:59 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/5/2011 3:47:10 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/5/2011 3:33:39 PM, Grape wrote:
If you are tossed onto someone's privately owned property, he has the right to remove you, period. You can't cry that someone else put you there, and thus you're entitled to use his house for as long as you see fit.

Incorrect description. If you are chained to the privately owned property by the owners and then they say oh well we decided we didn't want to chain you here so now we're going to shoot you to remove you. Then your rights are being violated.

The fetus does not exist prior to conception. It's initial place of existence is in the uterus. It is not brought there, it comes into existence as a distinct individual there.
For some reason I had the erroneous belief that they were beemed in from other planets. Thanks for that enlightening response.


So that is a distinct scenario from dragging someone on to your property involuntarily.

Your use of the phrase "you are chained" insinuates that they brought you there from elsewhere and chained you up. That's not what happens.

Well gee really? My use of the phrase "you are chained" means from their existence to their birth they cannot voluntarily leave the space they are created in

I'm aware that they can't willingly leave, that wasn't the point I challenged. A person who is chained somewhere was brought there, he did not appear there. That is the distinction I was making.


If we must persist in these analogies,
It was your incorrect analogy that started it, not mine. If you don't like speaking in analogies then don't create incorrect ones that need correcting.


The detail that you decided to challenge is irrelevant. You haven't corrected anything of any importance, I just changed the analogy to circumvent the issue entirely.

let's say that there exist people-plants.
so simple analogies weren't enough to prove a coherent thought that now you must persist in comparing plantae to fetuses?


I said they were people-plants to ignore this pointless criticism. They are mentally equivalent to humans. They are "plants" because they spring up from the Earth somewhere and cannot move.

You water the ground and people-plants grow. A person-plant grows on someone's property from the earth as a result of his watering it. Later, he decides he no longer wants it on his property. If the person-plant cannot be removed without harming it, they may use any amount of force up to and including killing the person-plant in order to remove it.

Incorrect. If two individuals decide to plant a people-plant and water it then later decide they no longer want it on their property and there is no way it cannot be removed without harming it, then they must wait the appropriate amount of time until it can be safetly transplanted onto other soils.

These two individuals enter into a contract with the fetus upon conception that the fetus has the right to occupy their property until it can safetly be removed. If they kill the fetus they are violating the contract and subsequentially the fetuses rights to life.

There is no contract. The fetus does not exist at the time the act occurs, so it could not be considered part of a contract in any meaningful sense of what a contract is. A given sexual act doesn't even always product children. You are proposing implicit contracts with nonexistent and potentially never-existent contractors and details that cannot be known ex ante. A contract normally involves existent individuals who agree something definite. This is notwithstanding the absurdity of a nonrational being entering into a contract with someone who can't communicate with it at all. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a contract?


Is there any way in which this scenario is not analogous to abortion (beyond the fact that I'm granting the assumption that a bundle of human cells is morally distinct from a bacterium)? We can go on about the minutia of the analogy forever, but the point is that there's a distinction between having someone's permission to be on his property and there being a casual relationship between his actions and your presence on his property, and neither case grants you to right to remain there indefinitely.