Blackout

My body reacts in ways, such as reflexively, that do not require my conscious volition, but they are nonetheless my actions. The point of that argument was to illustrate the direct link to one's own body that the mother does not have to the body of the fetus, thus any claim of ownership would first belong to the fetus. I think this concept comes from Hoppe and I'm not certain if it can be applied to the fetus, but I'm not making up arbitrary standards. We've established that the mother owns her uterus and that the mother has a positive obligation to the child she voluntarily conceives. So if you can successfully argue that the mother owns the fetus and the fetus cannot own itself or that the fetus is not a human to be treated as an end in itself, then I will concede that the mother is within her right to abort. Everything I've argued and questioned pertain to one of these. I'm not interested in consistency? My posts about consciousness, moral agency, and property pertain directly to how consistently logical arguments are being applied to the unborn fetus versus the newborn infant. I think most would agree that the reasons why a baby cannot be killed the minute after it is born also apply the minute before it is born. What about the day before, or the day before that one, or the day before that one, all the way back to implantation? I used to be comfortable with first term abortions, but that changed after we had our first child.

And yet if I were to accept that it is a part of the mother, the mother cannot "will" that part of her to any effect. That is to say, her brain has no direct nervous link to the fetus to affect ANY action. In so far as the fetus wills its own heart to beat, it owns itself.

I was responding directly to your argument that “abortion is amoral because a fetus is not a moral actor” and applying the logical argument to something else that is not a moral actor. I agree that parents voluntarily create an obligation to care for their children and I would agree that the obligation is entered into at conception. The oatmeal is not yours because you internalized it; you owned it previously. If you went to a jewelry store and swallowed a diamond, you couldn't claim you now own that diamond, right? The mother doesn’t own the fetus by virtue of it residing in her body, neither does she own it simply because it was created, in part, from her egg; a fetus is a separate organism. However, you certainly own your body and a woman owns her uterus, exclusively. I can’t force a mother to carry to term, but I can judge her for aborting the fetus. In conjunction with the first quote above, the logical conclusion would seem to be that abortion is immoral. To be fair, the a mother can always give up a baby for adoption, but there is nothing comparable for a fetus implanted in the uterus. There is no good compromise between a mother’s interest and that of the fetus.

Moral agency is only attributable to rational actors. Newborns are also not moral actors so then abandoning them to die would also be Amoral by this logic. I agree that the donor cannot assert any rights in this situation because neither the mother nor the fetus are his property. Why do you define the fetus as the mother's property? It is not comprised of the mother's cells; it is comprised of its own cells, it's own blood supply, and its own genetics.

I didn't phrase the question well enough. There is a line of argument in this thread that abortion should be permitted because the unwanted fetus is using the mother's property (the uterus) and the mother should be allowed to deny or withdraw her consent to be used this way. Based on this logic, why should a mother not be allowed to abandon an unwanted newborn since it continues to be dependent on the use of the mother's property to survive and the mother should be able to withdraw her consent to be used this way? Without bringing up when the fetus acquires its own rights, can this line of argument hold both that abortion is permissible and that child abandonment is not permissible?

I think it is a mistake to use the presence of consciousness or lack thereof to determine whether one has a right to life. At the emergence of consciousness in a fetus, the order of consciousness possessed is also possessed by many non-human animals. At age 2, a toddler has the equivalent consciousness of a grown dog, but we would not consider them to be equally dignified. There must be something else that confers dignity to the toddler that the dog does not possess; either the potential for a higher order of consciousness or the categorical proposition that all human beings belong to a higher order of consciousness. Neuroscience is making some inroads on the subject of consciousness and most scientists believe the cortex and claustrum are where consciousness originate. Stimulating certain regions can either generate conscious experiences or render a subject unconscious. Now suppose that scientists discover a way to selectively arrest certain processes of neurological development to prevent the emergence of consciousness and a rational mind. Would it be ethical to grow non-conscious human bodies for the purpose of harvesting organs for transplantation? If this scenario makes you feel uncomfortable, let me posit a possible reason: living human embryos possess the potential to develop into conscious beings with rational minds without external intervention and it is that intervention which robs it of intrinsic value. @Predicar en desiertos Would you agree that a mother has a duty to keep the baby alive after birth? If so, how do you reconcile that babies both unborn and born require the use of the mother's property (uterus, breast milk, clothing, shelter, etc) to survive?

Why not just say that instead? And what does that have to do with the rationality of either argument? Since the statement in response to someone's refusal of an argument wasn't "I sleep in on Saturdays", I assume the words were chosen for effect. Nope, nobody is required to behave that way and everyone chooses to interpret a statement one way or another. I'm just making the point that reasonable people may interpret such a statement in those ways and they may be turned off to the discussion because of it.

And what is the point of that? Either it's an ad hominem implication that the other person's argument is inferior because the person's intellect is inferior. Or it is implying that you are correct because you are smarter and you are smarter because you tend to be correct. If someone is not going to accept your well reasoned argument, why not just leave it at that? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

From Dilbert's Logical Fallacies: 15. CIRCULAR REASONING Example: I’m correct because I’m smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I’m correct.

This situation was created by the government attempting to dump money into vehicles for capital financing as well as the addiction of a poorly educated investor class to government fueled bubble money. The government is scared to death that they cannot maintain a 7% growth rate and that the people will see that government controlled economic stability is a sham. This is why they must control the banking sector and continue to force them to make loans despite the fact that the banks are already weighed down by bad loans. If you look at the Shanghai stock market, it is way overvalued compared to earnings and the volume of trades exceeds most of the world combined. Not a good sign of a healthy market.

I attended a Staind concert at the Cleveland Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the energy in the moshpit is really contagious. Even friends who normally wouldn't dance got into it cause you don't have to worry about looking foolish and everyone is just sharing the joy of the moment. In fact, I'd never seen so many free joints passed around between total strangers.

Are you asserting here that the use of a posteriori empirical observation cannot be objective because it entails the interpretation of sense data which cannot be free from pre-existent bias? I ask this because it is the only way that objective truths can become subjective thoughts. Yet, the same argument would apply to revelation as we obtain it through personal subjective experience. If you are arguing that the existence of god and moral law can be known a priori, I'd love to hear that argument.

Key differences would be that the German war debt included reparations imposed on the country as terms of surrender for 2 wars, while Greek debt was willingly sought. Another is that the debt forgiveness was to enable a capitalist driven German economy to mature, which would then be in a position to service the rest of the debt, whereas the Greek government wants debt restructuring so that it does not have to make the painful adjustments to decades of profligate spending and vote buying. Edit: Sooner or later, Greek debt will need to be restructured, but I think the rest of the bloc are looking for a pledge of reform so that this doesn't happen again.

The US actually ranks very low amongst democratic nations for voter turnout with the percentage of participants in the high 50's on a presidential year and low 40's in non-presidential years. Voter participation has been going down for decades, but we are only trending more statist. At what point do you expect this to change? Consider that the government employs 19% of and union membership comprises 11% of the workforce (there is significant overlap), with those groups having the highset voter turnout rate. Add to that the fact that women younger than 60 have a much higher turnout than men which seems to correlate pretty well with single mother welfare. These demographics predictibly support a strong and violent state, so what difference is it to them that the poll site is full or empty? This also goes back to my question about whether the government's legitimacy is all in its guns. If so, wouldn't a lack of voters just result in totalitarianism by default? Also, are you optomistic that people will stop participating in politics and start confronting the statists, when the vast majority of them can't grow enough of a spine to call the cops when their neighbors beat their kids? The logic of your post is valid, but I feel too cynical to believe it can work.

Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 7.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46 Looks like I'm Neo-Lib, slightly below Milton Friedman.

Oh, you want to increase the risk pool AND decrease the premium? What could possibly go wrong? Oh, you want healthy people to sign up, but then force the insurance companies to take sick people? What could go wrong with that? Oh, you're going to offset that by forcing healthy people to buy a $500/month policy or pay a penalty equal to $52/month? What could possibly go wrong with that? The government assumes voters are a bunch of fools and sadly they are proven right again.

What is the function of the window? 1) To block or let in light 2) To block or let in air 3) Allow one to see outside Those who prefer light, fresh air, and a good view exit through the window. The window is then closed.

No, it is the accumulation of genetic variation under selection pressure over time. A fish does not stay a fish for millions of years then instantly turns into a reptile. Genetic variation produces lunged fish with no limbs, limbed fish with gills, amphibians employing cutaneous respiration, fish with gizzards and everything in between. The ones that survive have the most advantageous genetic adaptations and when sufficient mutations leads to inability to breed with the original, a new species emerges. The theory may not be complete, but it is rational and empirical.

I listened to Stephan’s Podcast after the 2008 Ron Paul campaign defeat and his three part series on the failure of the libertarian movement. I have much respect for his analysis and agree with a lot of it. However, I am ambivalent on a couple points. Stephan states that the primary reason for the failure of the political movement is the inconsistency or contradiction on the issue of taxation. While I agree that this is fatal for the validity of any moral philosophical principle, I do not believe this is what drove voters away from the political movement. How can voters be put off by this inconsistency then move on to vote for democrats who rail on the 1% but are themselves part of the 1% and regularly give kickbacks to their biggest donors who are also part of the 1%, or republicans who rail on special interest groups but can’t seem to turn down farm and energy subsidies. Instead, I suggest that the main hurdle to libertarians gaining any foothold in politics is the lack of any specific gain for those voting for them. I feel that most people go to the polls to vote themselves a share of someone else’s income and the libertarians have nothing to offer them (and rightly so). Yet, if we can’t even convince people that a small state is better than a big state, how in the world are they going to accept that the best solution is no state at all? The other point Stephan made is that libertarian philosophy is better served by embracing liberty and voluntarism in our lives rather than the failed attempts at education and political activism. I don’t have any evidence that his approach is mistaken, but I wonder if we have made any progress since the time of Socrates when it comes to embracing the truth. How many times have you spoken the truth and been met with disdain and visceral denials? It can be absolutely horrifying to get a glimpse of a truth that could shatter the prejudices that form the pillar of your identity and I honestly think that people who aren’t philosophically minded would rather believe convenient lies than such truths. The comments made in this thread about the frustration and near futility of trying to change the system from within are well taken, but I’m still waiting to hear the argument why trying to effect less statist violence is worse than taking no action at all.

How does this not run into the same criticism of utilitarianism/consequentialism in that the sum of all consequences of any potential action are indeterminable at the time you take them and thus your are forever evaluating the moral content of your actions post-fact. What are the implications for your theory as a practical moral principle that is actionable?

My own personal experience is that the Christian narrative against material self interest and promotion of the interests of the church bias the cost benefit analysis against the individual. Add on the tendency of Christians to self criticize , judge others, and the public nature of passing donations baskets around and I certainly felt pressure to donate. Not sure if people feel that way about Stephan's show, but I find he often promotes callers to assert their own preferences and have a healthy level of self interest.

Second what webdever wrote. I have read and heard that black father absenteeism is a product of the breakdown of marriage and high incidence of teen pregnancy in the black community. This study does nothing to refute this and discounts the disparity between single motherhood in black families even though it is nearly double that of white families.

Well, endorphins are the brain's natural activators of opiate receptors which modulate the pain and stress response. I would conjecture that a low stress, peaceful lifestyle could lead to increased happiness even without a lot of endorphin releasing activities, such as exercise, whereas much more would be needed to mitigate a a very stressful lifestyle. Maybe you fit the former more than the latter.

WasatchMan, I have only a surface understanding of her work from essays and videos so I can't really say anything meaningful about it. I did pick it up this evening, so I'll soon rectify that. I'd actually never thought to question whether or not voting could be wrong until I found FDR, so this entire conversation has been very provocative. Lots of thanks to the community!

Yes, I get that the government is not real. But the guns that these thugs wield are real and, by extension, the arbitrary laws and regulation they enforce are real. How exactly am I supposed to ignore this rampaging bull in my china shop? I do get your point about people playing their game instead of putting an end to the game, but can you play the game to minimize your loss while talking the other players into walking away from it together? If you follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, why do you not end up in a jail cell, taking the ultimate moral stand against financing terror and oppression through taxation? I'm not saying you should; I just want to know why the logic doesn't lead there. I don't know for sure if abstaining from voting leads to authoritarianism, but it would depend on whether the those governing derive their power through majority consent or by the force of its guns. That is to say, if the guns are the reason they have power, then even if nobody votes but everyone continues to pay taxes, the government will exist. As to the second part, no there are not many of us but we're here to try and change that, right?