JCFolsom: The woman's body is under shared ownership with the unborn until its birth. To expel it would be to violate its rights. This is besides the fact that we are responsible to provide for the dependencies our neglectful/aggressive actions create in others.
The woman's body is under shared ownership with the unborn until its birth. To expel it would be to violate its rights. This is besides the fact that we are responsible to provide for the dependencies our neglectful/aggressive actions create in others.
How did said "shared ownership" come about?
JCFolsom:The woman's body is under shared ownership with the unborn until its birth.
We've been over this before. You were shown to be wrong. The fact that you continue to believe your erroneous assertion speaks to the fact that you are not intellectually honest with yourself.
Knight_of_BAAWA:We've been over this before. You were shown to be wrong. The fact that you continue to believe your erroneous assertion speaks to the fact that you are not intellectually honest with yourself.
You didn't show shite, Dumbeldork. You have this inflated sense of your own mental prowess and accomplishments that really makes me question your sanity. Next!
That's quite nice. Now then: you were shown to be wrong. No amount of tantrum-throwing from you will change that.
Morty:How did said "shared ownership" come about?
A component of the original person gained individuality, but this individuation does not change the fact that both parts of this now bifurcated individual are made of cells either there or descended from cells there when the body was first created, and so neither actually has prior claim to the other. The new human is not a new being but a tiny division of the original being that was always in the body, now developing into a different individual.
JCFolsom:A component of the original person gained individuality, but this individuation does not change the fact that both parts of this now bifurcated individual are made of cells either there or descended from cells there when the body was first created, and so neither actually has prior claim to the other.
Then the fetus has no claim to the womb. Bravo! You've refuted yourself.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Morty:How did said "shared ownership" come about? JCFolsom:A component of the original person gained individuality, but this individuation does not change the fact that both parts of this now bifurcated individual are made of cells either there or descended from cells there when the body was first created, and so neither actually has prior claim to the other. Then the fetus has no claim to the womb. Bravo! You've refuted yourself.
Are all the people from your planet incapable of reason, or do they just send their retards here? I'm afraid that I, and I suspect most people, would have trouble seeing how you drew that conclusion, dear simpleton...
JCFolsom: Are all the people from your planet incapable of reason, or do they just send their retards here? I'm afraid that I, and I suspect most people, would have trouble seeing how you drew that conclusion, dear simpleton...
It is likely drawn from the nearly non-controversial principle of first-use...
I thought the woman's body was owned by the woman, and the unborns body was owned by the unborn. Why would you think the two somehow share ownership of one persons body?
Right, and my point is that they both began using it at the same time. The eggs are formed, along with other individuated cells, as part of the mother's body during development. They are a part of the same being in the same body to the point of fertilization. At this point, they become two being, but still share the same body, and the unfertilized egg was not annihilated, but just changed, by fertilization. They were both part of the same being with literally the identical claim to the body, and I contest that the fertilization of the egg destroys that claim. The mother was altered sligtly in the loss of that cell from her self, the egg was altered in the loss of the rest of the cells from its self, but they are both a continuation of the previously existing self.
JCFolsom: Right, and my point is that they both began using it at the same time. The eggs are formed, along with other individuated cells, as part of the mother's body during development.
Right, and my point is that they both began using it at the same time. The eggs are formed, along with other individuated cells, as part of the mother's body during development.
The eggs are formed during the fetus' development in the womb. That would almost make the grandmother share the body, too. I don't think we should look at that.
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
So, unfertilized eggs have rights? Like, if a woman was to kill one of her unfertilized eggs, that would constitute murder as well? You'll excuse me if I think this position would be absolutely absurd.
If not, if personhood is not reached until fertilization, then the person does not start homesteading the body of the mother until well after the mother had already completely homesteaded said property.
katja328:The eggs are formed during the fetus' development in the womb. That would almost make the grandmother share the body, too. I don't think we should look at that.
The implications of a line of reasoning have little to do with whether it is correct or not. And yes, we are (believe me, much to my chagrin!) all part of an unbroken chain of being from days primordial. One being splitting into two over and over and over.
Morty:So, unfertilized eggs have rights? Like, if a woman was to kill one of her unfertilized eggs, that would constitute murder as well? You'll excuse me if I think this position would be absolutely absurd. If not, if personhood is not reached until fertilization, then the person does not start homesteading the body of the mother until well after the mother had already completely homesteaded said property.
Personhood is there before fertilization, but it is the same personhood as the mother has. You have the right to cut your nails or even kill yourself. You have a right to destroy an unfertilized egg because it's you, and you have an absolute right over yourself. However, upon fertilization, the egg is no longer you, it is a seperate being, but it is a continuation of the same being of which you are a continuation: the being that was the moment before that egg was fertilized.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then the fetus has no claim to the womb. Bravo! You've refuted yourself.
JCFolsom:Are all the people from your planet incapable of reason, or do they just send their retards here? I'm afraid that I, and I suspect most people, would have trouble seeing how you drew that conclusion, dear simpleton...
No, only you have that problem. Sorta like that website downforeveryoneorjustme.com--it's just you. Everyone else can see that you said that the fetus (from the word "neither", since that's neither the woman nor the fetus) has no prior claim to the woman, so the fetus necessarily has no claim to the womb. It's quite simple. No amount of tantrum-throwing from you will change that.
JCFolsom:Personhood is there before fertilization, but it is the same personhood as the mother has. You have the right to cut your nails or even kill yourself. You have a right to destroy an unfertilized egg because it's you, and you have an absolute right over yourself. However, upon fertilization, the egg is no longer you, it is a seperate being, but it is a continuation of the same being of which you are a continuation: the being that was the moment before that egg was fertilized.
And the womb is part of the woman, which you said the fetus has no prior claim to. Nor can it have a present claim, since it didn't exist before in the first place. So once again: you've refuted yourself.
I strongly urge you to just not post on this topic. And I don't mean that in a rude or condescending manner--you just really have no clue as to what you're talking about, and it would be best for you to not discuss it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And the womb is part of the woman, which you said the fetus has no prior claim to. Nor can it have a present claim, since it didn't exist before in the first place.
It did exist... as part of the same being as the mother was. As part of that being, it had a claim. Now it exists, but as an individual being, a continuation of the being that was the mother before fertilization. As a continuation of the previous being which has now been seperated into 2, it has not lost the right it has always had. I understand that you are a little dense for this, but I'll keep trying.
JCFolsom: The implications of a line of reasoning have little to do with whether it is correct or not. And yes, we are (believe me, much to my chagrin!) all part of an unbroken chain of being from days primordial. One being splitting into two over and over and over.
You do understand that, during a woman monthly cycle, if the egg is not fertilized it dies. It appears to me that your statement suggests if an egg is not fertilized it is murder?
katja328:You do understand that, during a woman monthly cycle, if the egg is not fertilized it dies. It appears to me that your statement suggests if an egg is not fertilized it is murder?
I replied to a similar query for Morty above. I'll not restate it here.
Zlatko: There doesn't seem to be anything new to this scenario from a natural rights point-of-view. From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), Rothbard in Ethics of Liberty proposes that a woman can abort her child because to force her to keep it would be a violation of her property rights (to her own body).
There doesn't seem to be anything new to this scenario from a natural rights point-of-view. From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), Rothbard in Ethics of Liberty proposes that a woman can abort her child because to force her to keep it would be a violation of her property rights (to her own body).
She has no more right to harm the fetus through willful action than anybody else does. Having an abortion is action. Not having an abortion is inaction. Birth control is moral because if we assume inaction nothing will develop from a non-fertalised egg. Abortion is immoral, because if we assume inaction a fetus will eventualy grow into an adult human. It is immoral to terminate that development in the womb as much as it is immoral to terminate it in the cradle. The mother has no more right to abort a baby than she has the right to dump a toddler in the garbage.
She is only allowed to put a baby up for adoption, because adoption entails finding someone that will release her from her obligation of raising the child by taking it on themselves. Until a substitute womb technology is invented a woman that concieves is obliged not to terminate the pregnancy because it is an action that would destroy a newly developing human being.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap