Pro Life and Pro Choice: Murder or Not Murder?

[RamynKing]

1 hour ago, ofd said:

The NAP does not create positive obligations for humans. An abortion, or leting a child die from hunger is legitimate under this premise. Under the NAP there is no right that compels you to do something.

Unless you sign a contract.

Once you have a contract with somebody, then it becomes aggression if you don't fulfill it. The contract with children is that they will be cared for sufficiently until they are able to care for themselves.

But how do we know this contract exists if we can't see it.

We know it exists because when we have sex at the right time, a baby appears in the world a little later. That baby is expecting nourishment and security - not out of some selfish desire to create unagreed obligations for us. It's expecting those things because genetically, it has been told that the parent is where those things will come from.
 

But a child can't sign a contract, especially not an unborn one.

True. In this way, procreation is more akin to kidnapping. But most people will say they are glad said kidnapping from the void happened. So, maybe it's more like winning a lottery that someone else entered you into.

But even if it is a kidnapping, that still doesn't give us the right to worsen the situation. For example, if you force someone onto a boat, and take them out to sea, you've already aggressed against them, but is it then morally neutral to throw them into the ocean?

 

 

[ofd]

 A fetus is the product of the labour (as fun as it may be) of two adults. Hence, they own the product of their labour under the NAP. This includes neglecting it or kiilling it unless it is a human (when that is is outside the scope of praxeology).

 

[RamynKing]

2 hours ago, ofd said:

 A fetus is the product of the labour (as fun as it may be) of two adults. Hence, they own the product of their labour under the NAP. This includes neglecting it or kiilling it unless it is a human (when that is is outside the scope of praxeology).

 

I don't think it is. The labor is merely a required act to unlock or start the process. It can be done without sex now. Once started, the process is basically automated. Sex is more akin to signing-up for a child, rather than actually creating one piece by piece. If a human builds a robot, I'd agree said robot is the builder's property for the reasons you stated.

[smarterthanone]

23 hours ago, RamynKing said:

When it comes to murder, we make very careful exceptions as a society. Again, we make similar exceptions for punishing criminals with the death penalty. We do this because, under the state, it is the only allowed avenue we have to achieve justice. You need to have a certain amount of justice in order to have a civilization with the living standards of the west.

These exceptions are far from arbitrary. They are constantly argued over. However, the state's laws can be quite arbitrary, such as Roe v. Wade. Yet, the debate rages on, because the sanctity of life is a cornerstone of our society. People are extremely hesitant to chip away at it for any reason, lest we go down a slippery slope toward a more casual regard for (mostly human) life.

Bandwagon fallacy. Doesn't matter how many people do it or don't do it. It is not support for or against an argument.

Many US States and western countries do not have death penalty YET have high living standards. So that is just wrong.

 

23 hours ago, RamynKing said:

Somebody breaks into your house and leaves an illegal bird inside with a note: "Take care of this bird until I return in 2 months. Give him this special food. He will die without it. He can't survive in the wild yet. And the authorities will kill him if you turn him in. I'll pay you a large sum for your service."

Sorry for the awkward scenario, but I'm trying to illustrate here a situation where the NAP allows for the killing of a life. You might be a mean person by kicking this bird out of your house, but it came to be there because someone made a choice to violate you in the first place.

I believe the same logic applies to pregnancy from rape. The rapist violates the woman's body and places there a life that she must now take care of, or it will die. A horrible scenario to be sure, but one that only exists because of a rapist's choice to violate the NAP in the first place.

I think I am on board with this. I have a few hesitations, the only one I feel like mentioning is there is a difference between putting the bird outside and it starves, and smashing it in the head with a hammer. A distinction to think about.

 

[smarterthanone]

@RamynKing and @ofd My justification for pro choice comes from the NAP. So take a peep.

Why do you have the right to life, liberty and property and an ant, or a snake does not? Why don't we require restitution or imprisonment when you kill and destroy an ant hill? Well because we generally across the board do not recognize them as having these rights.

Now there are generally two major schools of thought on who gets rights...

1. All humans. As a human, you have rights. Your genetics, the bible, equality... these are some of the justifications people use for this line of reasoning. Ants are not genetically human, ants were not granted souls in the bible, ants are not equal to us... etc

2. Our ability to reason. By being of sound mind where we can contract on our own behalf, we have rights. Thus the difference between a snake and a man, is that you can trade with a man, you cannot trade with a snake. Snakes are not capable of contracting on their own behalf or being responsible to the NAP, therefore they would not have rights. Without this ability, we aren't different in any way of importance from a snake or an ant or a dog.

Real life test.

1. Pull the plug on life support for a brain dead individual? I think most would lean No. They are human and have rights.

2. Yes. They are no longer a human and have more in common with a jellyfish so its perfectly fine.

Now hypothetical tests.

1. If you are in camp 1, and you are faced with a sentient alien life form. Do they have rights? Well they aren't human. So that argument as is goes out the window. What about an AI robot? Not human. In each scenario someone must decide if they should have rights. Who does the deciding? And what are their reasons? I don't know. I feel like the argument would be based on ability to reason. But then if you have a legit AI robot... does a robot minus the main microchip still count as life? Well a partial human does. Why not a robot?

2. Sentient alien life form, check. AI robot, check. If they are capable of contracting and being held responsible for themselves NAP they are "people". A robot without its main microchip such as its non functioning would not be a person.

Abortion...

1. Most likely Yes they are human and have rights. There are still additional arguments but I think most would say yes that they have rights and that abortion is not acceptable.

2. No. (My personal stance). If you are not capable of contracting with other entities and being responsible for yourself such that you could follow NAP. You do not have rights.

My reasoning why... It naturally does not seem right to me to call an AI robot with no function due to lack of a main microchip alive. It isn't alive. It is a piece of metal, raw materials if you will. It could become alive, but it is not currently alive. Same with undeveloped humans. They could become a contracting entity, but they aren't just yet (and they aren't guaranteed to become one).

I don't believe oh yeah just go around stomping on babies and broken robots and life support people. No. While they are not alive in such a way that they have rights as far as I believe, I think of it like pets. You don't go around killing someones dog. So why would you go around happily killing undeveloped humans. That being said, if nobody claims such dog, and its out wild in the woods, well I think you are perfectly ok to shoot it BUT we wouldn't think its ideal to shoot it. Polite normal people wouldn't. But nobody should be held to a standard of you must be a polite normal person.

And there you have it!

Now the other part of why I agree with this is due to enforcement. I do not believe it is feasible to enforce making abortion in all or most circumstances illegal. Not without a government. So while following the NAP, a ban on abortion is not possible. Will discuss more in future posts.

[Erwin]

On 7/8/2017 at 2:02 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1: How the heck can a woman raise the spawn of rape? If she can, she's crazy and will impart her craziness on the spawn. If she can't, the poor spawn will grow up bitter and possibly become a rapist like dear old dad. I suppose the opposite could occur, but when a woman sperm jacks a man, I don't think she intends to abort him/her shortly after. 

2: I want to genes of rapists and other low-lives cut from being able to survive. Genetically, we are programmed to do whatever to reproduce. I don't want rape to become "viable", therefore I want all spawn of rape to be executed/euthanized. 

3: Growing up with a single mom who hates me and wants me dead; can't imagine a worse scenario to grow up in, save battlefields, Sparta, and Africa. 

4: Degenerates normalize degeneracy and remove the social costs of degenerate behavior.

[RamynKing]

Quote

When it comes to murder, we make very careful exceptions as a society. Again, we make similar exceptions for punishing criminals with the death penalty. We do this because, under the state, it is the only allowed avenue we have to achieve justice. You need to have a certain amount of justice in order to have a civilization with the living standards of the west.

These exceptions are far from arbitrary. They are constantly argued over. However, the state's laws can be quite arbitrary, such as Roe v. Wade. Yet, the debate rages on, because the sanctity of life is a cornerstone of our society. People are extremely hesitant to chip away at it for any reason, lest we go down a slippery slope toward a more casual regard for (mostly human) life.

 

7 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Bandwagon fallacy. Doesn't matter how many people do it or don't do it. It is not support for or against an argument.Many US States and western countries do not have death penalty YET have high living standards. So that is just wrong.

My wording is unclear, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that the death penalty was needed to have high living standards. I meant that, among other things, you need justice - in whatever forms you can best muster it. The state makes it hard because we aren't allowed to experiment with our own forms of justice.

As for the bandwagon fallacy...Touche!
I will just say that I'm trying to make a point about society's views on the sanctity of life. Just like child abuse has lessened slowly but steadily, our view on life has taken time to build up and strengthen. It's the reason we now debate about abortion and euthanasia rather than just doing them casually. I think it's part of our journey to freedom from aggression.
There are forces trying to reverse this process, and they are the same ones trying to normalize abortion.

7 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

 there is a difference between putting the bird outside and it starves, and smashing it in the head with a hammer. A distinction to think about.

 

Interesting. I will.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

4: Degenerates normalize degeneracy and remove the social costs of degenerate behavior.

There's that too. I think I said "by not aborting the children of rape victims, rape becomes a viable method of reproduction for the worst in our society as well as, in the case of war, conquest for our enemies. 

[ofd]

Quote

Why do you have the right to life, liberty and property and an ant, or a snake does not? Why don't we require restitution or imprisonment when you kill and destroy an ant hill? Well because we generally across the board do not recognize them as having these rights.

You don't have positive rights under the NAP, only negative ones.

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, ofd said:

You don't have positive rights under the NAP, only negative ones.

What is a negative right? Negative as opposed to what??

[ofd]

Negative freedom is freedom from as opposed to freedom to.

Quote

Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint and contrasts with positive liberty (the possession of the power and resources to fulfil one's own potential). According to Thomas Hobbes, "a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and will he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do" (Leviathan, Part 2, Ch. XXI; thus alluding to liberty in its negative sense).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

[smarterthanone]

8 hours ago, ofd said:

You don't have positive rights under the NAP, only negative ones.

I don't get your post. Life liberty and property are negative rights and the only ones given consideration by NAP. You do not need other people to do something in order to have them. Snakes though do not have a right to life even in NAP, go kill one or maybe an ant hill, you will be OK. lol So my post is discussing why its ok to kill an ant but not a person.

[RamynKing]

44 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

I don't get your post. Life liberty and property are negative rights and the only ones given consideration by NAP. You do not need other people to do something in order to have them. Snakes though do not have a right to life even in NAP, go kill one or maybe an ant hill, you will be OK. lol So my post is discussing why its ok to kill an ant but not a person.

I'd like to hear others' thoughts, but my understanding is that the NAP is a human construct developed for the betterment of human society. It doesn't extend to other animals normally. Maybe someday it will, after we've stopped slaughtering other humans.

[ofd]

Quote

Snakes though do not have a right to life even in NAP

This may seem pedantic, but you don't have a right to life in NAP either, strictly speaking. That positive right would entail that other people support you. You have the right not to be aggressed against.

 

Quote

why its ok to kill an ant but not a person.

Read the Rothbard text, then it will be clearer why you can't use the NAP as an argument against abortions.

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, RamynKing said:

I'd like to hear others' thoughts, but my understanding is that the NAP is a human construct developed for the betterment of human society. It doesn't extend to other animals normally. Maybe someday it will, after we've stopped slaughtering other humans.

I don't think it's a question of slaughter. Having a mental concept doesn't randomly make others follow the NAP. The NAP simply a principle that governs our own actions, regardless of who it is.

[smarterthanone]

8 hours ago, ofd said:

This may seem pedantic, but you don't have a right to life in NAP either, strictly speaking. That positive right would entail that other people support you. You have the right not to be aggressed against.

Your statement is painfully obvious. The saying "life liberty and property" has been the simplest and most popular way of describing negative rights for over 200 years. Do you live in a cave? If so, stop looking at the shadows on the wall, there is a world out there.

[Gavitor]

All this arguing about rights is rather interesting, you cannot even agree on what they are.

I have a simple question for you.

If morality and "rights" can be ignored, why do they matter?

[violet]

I think that most people agree that murder of humans is wrong. They accept this at the very least because they consider themselves to be human and don't want to be murdered. So they accept the condition that they won't murder in return for not being murdered.

The key question is not really whether murder is "wrong," unless you want to be pedantic. The question is: what is the definition of human?

Everyone has a different defintion and exceptions to the rule. But arbitrary exceptions are not logically defendable. Personally, the only clear line I can see is living human DNA. If it's genetically human then it's human.

Everything else has fuzzy boundaries in my mind. So a zygote doesn't get the special class of human. At what point do they upgrade? At a certain number of weeks? What is the justification for that? Is a preborn baby a different class than a born baby? Should a baby be considered non-human? At what point does a child get protection from murder? If they're low functioning mentally, at what point are they no longer human? What if it varies over time? A baby doesn't have the same mental function as a 10-year-old. What if you suffer a brain injury and your IQ drops from 120 to 60? Are you no longer a human? If the parent of a child is a psychopathic criminal and it can be proven that the basis for it is genetic, should the child be killed? What if they're from a different, "less civilized" culture? It seems slavery was accepted in the past because some people were considered to be a lesser form of human, or non-human. 

I have questions. If you start creating exceptions, the complexity is endless.

[Gavitor]

On 7/16/2017 at 8:28 AM, violet said:

I think that most people agree that murder of humans is wrong. They accept this at the very least because they consider themselves to be human and don't want to be murdered. So they accept the condition that they won't murder in return for not being murdered.

The key question is not really whether murder is "wrong," unless you want to be pedantic. The question is: what is the definition of human?

Everyone has a different defintion and exceptions to the rule. But arbitrary exceptions are not logically defendable. Personally, the only clear line I can see is living human DNA. If it's genetically human then it's human.

Everything else has fuzzy boundaries in my mind. So a zygote doesn't get the special class of human. At what point do they upgrade? At a certain number of weeks? What is the justification for that? Is a preborn baby a different class than a born baby? Should a baby be considered non-human? At what point does a child get protection from murder? If they're low functioning mentally, at what point are they no longer human? What if it varies over time? A baby doesn't have the same mental function as a 10-year-old. What if you suffer a brain injury and your IQ drops from 120 to 60? Are you no longer a human? If the parent of a child is a psychopathic criminal and it can be proven that the basis for it is genetic, should the child be killed? What if they're from a different, "less civilized" culture? It seems slavery was accepted in the past because some people were considered to be a lesser form of human, or non-human. 

I have questions. If you start creating exceptions, the complexity is endless.

The whole issue with abortion is that people want to escape responsibility for their actions and are denying the child their humanity to justify their choice.

[smarterthanone]

On 7/16/2017 at 11:28 AM, violet said:

The key question is not really whether murder is "wrong," unless you want to be pedantic. The question is: what is the definition of human?

Everyone has a different defintion and exceptions to the rule. But arbitrary exceptions are not logically defendable. Personally, the only clear line I can see is living human DNA. If it's genetically human then it's human.

What if the child is born brain dead? Is it a human? Personally I don't think so. By your line of reasoning it would be. I define a human as that which has the main function of a human, our ability to reason. So like I said above, a robot or alien, providing it could reason, should have every right as those afforded to humans. But by your definition, an alien is not human, and therefore, even though they may be able to reason, they are not afforded the considerations of a human. I don't think this is right, I think they should be. So yes its hypothetical but by pushing the limits to each theory, one I think properly covers the hypothetical situation while the other is completely wrong.

 

 

 

[Boss]

On 7/7/2017 at 11:48 PM, Meister said:

Abortion is manslaughter, not necessarily murder.

Those are two different things.

what is the argument for this claim that abortion is manslaughter and not necessarily murder?

[RamynKing]

9 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

What if the child is born brain dead? Is it a human? Personally I don't think so. By your line of reasoning it would be. I define a human as that which has the main function of a human, our ability to reason. So like I said above, a robot or alien, providing it could reason, should have every right as those afforded to humans. But by your definition, an alien is not human, and therefore, even though they may be able to reason, they are not afforded the considerations of a human. I don't think this is right, I think they should be. So yes its hypothetical but by pushing the limits to each theory, one I think properly covers the hypothetical situation while the other is completely wrong.

But if ability to reason is the standard, then retarded people might be on the chopping block so to speak.

Maybe "a desire to be alive" should be the standard. I say this because asking people if they would have been ok with their parents aborting them usually results in a "no," even if they are disabled.

I agree that possessing human DNA is not a great standard either. But the rest of his argument is very good. Could you address it?
 

Quote

 

Everything else has fuzzy boundaries in my mind. So a zygote doesn't get the special class of human. At what point do they upgrade? At a certain number of weeks? What is the justification for that? Is a preborn baby a different class than a born baby? Should a baby be considered non-human? At what point does a child get protection from murder? If they're low functioning mentally, at what point are they no longer human? What if it varies over time? A baby doesn't have the same mental function as a 10-year-old. What if you suffer a brain injury and your IQ drops from 120 to 60? Are you no longer a human? If the parent of a child is a psychopathic criminal and it can be proven that the basis for it is genetic, should the child be killed? What if they're from a different, "less civilized" culture? It seems slavery was accepted in the past because some people were considered to be a lesser form of human, or non-human. 

I have questions. If you start creating exceptions, the complexity is endless.

 

 

[Gavitor]

14 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

What if the child is born brain dead? Is it a human?

Yes

Retarded people are human also.

You can justify killing anyone by simply removing their humanity.

 

[smarterthanone]

On 7/18/2017 at 11:04 AM, RamynKing said:

But if ability to reason is the standard, then retarded people might be on the chopping block so to speak.

Maybe "a desire to be alive" should be the standard. I say this because asking people if they would have been ok with their parents aborting them usually results in a "no," even if they are disabled.

I agree that possessing human DNA is not a great standard either. But the rest of his argument is very good. Could you address it?

1. Retarded people being on the chopping block. Well how retarded? Can they communicate their wish to live? That would prove their ability for basic mental capabilities at a human level, still far greater than an animals. So still a person.

2. Simply wanting to live, like we assume a plant wants to live because it takes in sun and water, ehhh no mental ability, an animal maybe? Well an animal cannot understand and convey the concept so ehhhh nah not really either. A human in a vegetable state? Ehh no thought, no rights.

On 7/16/2017 at 11:28 AM, violet said:

Everyone has a different defintion and exceptions to the rule. But arbitrary exceptions are not logically defendable. Personally, the only clear line I can see is living human DNA. If it's genetically human then it's human.

Everything else has fuzzy boundaries in my mind. So a zygote doesn't get the special class of human. At what point do they upgrade? At a certain number of weeks? What is the justification for that? Is a preborn baby a different class than a born baby? Should a baby be considered non-human?

3. To address: it is a false dilemma. We are asked to choose between A - Human DNA Zygote or B - Non logical arbitrary exceptions. There are other options. As I have mentioned my view already, you don't have to agree with it but it is not A nor is it B, so violets argument doesn't consider my option C nor any other possible option and uses B the non logical arbitrary exceptions to say that therefore it must be A.

 

On 7/16/2017 at 11:28 AM, violet said:

I think that most people agree that murder of humans is wrong. They accept this at the very least because they consider themselves to be human and don't want to be murdered. So they accept the condition that they won't murder in return for not being murdered.

This is essentially the NAP again. According to the NAP, there must must must be an injured party or plaintiff. In the case of an abortion, where both parents wanted the abortion, the doctor who gave the abortion was ok with it, nobody else was aware of the pregnancy... who is the injured party? Well the fetus was never of sufficient capability to ever complain, nobody else is complaining, so how could a crime have been committed? Hypothetically, you could bring the fetus back to life, yet it still cannot initiate a legal proceeding nor testify. So it cannot be a party to a suit by legal standards (unless you make special exceptions and enforce them with a government where the government is the plaintiff, similar to a marijuana possession charge). This is why I say, even if you somehow prove that abortion ought to be murder morally, you can't enforce it because there is no way to bring a case properly in a free court without a complaining party.

[smarterthanone]

I love how every post that has even borderline offensive opinions in it gets down voted. Who is the SJW here? I know there is at least one. Who is it that gets offended by... words?   LMFAO

[RamynKing]

42 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

I love how every post that has even borderline offensive opinions in it gets down voted. Who is the SJW here? I know there is at least one. Who is it that gets offended by... words?   LMFAO

I'm not a fan of the downvote system either.

But it's ironic you mentioned SJWs for the reason that those people are generally super pro-abortion. That's not an argument. But to me it's a red flag for sure.

If I was pro-abortion, I'd have to ask myself what motivation I had that's in line with the leftist ethos. If my answer was that I am generally against abortion, but I just want to make sure extreme cases are not overlooked in favor of keeping every possible thing alive - well... that's basically no different from the pro-life stance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think pro-lifers allow for special cases to be looked at individually.

[Gavitor]

4 hours ago, RamynKing said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think pro-lifers allow for special cases to be looked at individually.

Some do some don't.

[smarterthanone]

13 hours ago, RamynKing said:

I'm not a fan of the downvote system either.

But it's ironic you mentioned SJWs for the reason that those people are generally super pro-abortion. That's not an argument. But to me it's a red flag for sure.

If I was pro-abortion, I'd have to ask myself what motivation I had that's in line with the leftist ethos. If my answer was that I am generally against abortion, but I just want to make sure extreme cases are not overlooked in favor of keeping every possible thing alive - well... that's basically no different from the pro-life stance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think pro-lifers allow for special cases to be looked at individually.

Well the statement had nothing to do with abortion but about the being offended by words part... you know... like SJWs are.

[ofd]

Quote

1. Retarded people being on the chopping block. Well how retarded? Can they communicate their wish to live? That would prove their ability for basic mental capabilities at a human level, still far greater than an animals. So still a person.

Wrong. If they can't care for themselves, nobody else is obliged to. The same exact principle applies to children / babies / fetuses under the NAP.

[Eudaimonic]

On 7/12/2017 at 6:06 AM, ofd said:

The NAP does not create positive obligations for humans. An abortion, or leting a child die from hunger is legitimate under this premise. Under the NAP there is no right that compels you to do something.

The NAP doesn't create positive obligations, but you do.

If I sign a contract and fail to fulfill it, I've stolen, therefore violating the NAP.

A child (from the moment of conception) is, at the very least, a potential moral agent (i.e if it is allowed to develop normally it will become one whereas a sperm or an egg by itself could never be.) By voluntarily having sex you agree to the risks involved, including pregnancy.

Since the child is essentially a moral agent (or will be if you don't murder it and raise it) and is helpless, has not chosen to be born, will, by a huge probability, value it's life and having been born in the future and has come about by your voluntary action, you not only "owe" it life but owe the child the skills to survive and thrive on it's own (up until adulthood.) If you don't have the capacity to do so yourself, you have an obligation to find someone who can.

By killing it you destroy it's future moral agency, have committed the rankest form of hypocracy (since you value your life and would not have wanted your mother to abort you, since you are living) and have given yourself the liberty to place value  on the life of a being you created all because you think it will ruin your life (when in fact you're ruining the life of someone who could've lived, much more completely.)

It's one of the most vile things a person can do and one of the most blatant acts of violence and force against a helpless child.

The only situation where abortion is "technically" justified (though I think it's still awful) is if the woman is raped or the child is really young and incapable of responsibility. This invalidates your "contract" with the child because you didn't enter into it voluntarily. This is covered by the 'violinist argument' used by feminists, which is actually a pretty good argument.

[Eudaimonic]

The abortion argument is one of the biggest red herrings in contemporary history.

If you're willing to kill a (potential) human being that you voluntarily created when you could easily give it up for adoption (or fucking raise it yourself, or wear a fucking condom) whether it is 'moral' or not is besides the point. You're so close to a psychopath that any decent society should ostrasize you or get you some help.

"I love living, but I'm going to kill this defenseless thing which I won't consult about whether or not it wants to despite the fact that there's a 99.99999% chance that it will." The absolute lack of empathy is the most damnable thing about abortion.

It's like a person who kills animals just because. Yeah, it's not 'technically' evil, but you're pretty much a psychopath everyone should avoid.

Beyond that, abortion actually is evil.

[ofd]

Quote

If I sign a contract and fail to fulfill it, I've stolen, therefore violating the NAP.

If you can't agree to something, there is no contract.

Plus, the mother puts work into supporting it. The child doesn't homestead the uterus, it is entirely dependent on the mother for support. It's not logical consistent to say that nobody can tell you what you do with your body and at the same time call an action that affects the body of somebody evil (or wrong).

Quote

The abortion argument is one of the biggest red herrings in contemporary history.

Actually, the one about potential human beings is, when you reason using the NAP. Where does it say anything about potentiality? Furthermore, if you argue using potentiality then you are horrible person right now if you don't donate everything you have because somewhere right now a real human is dying of starvation.

 

Quote

voluntarily created

The important word here is created.


 

Quote

It's like a person who kills animals just because. Yeah, it's not 'technically' evil, but you're pretty much a psychopath everyone should avoid.

Of course. Actually, that's an interesting example for a number of reasons. Killing an animal you own doesn't violate the NAP. In that sense, and that sense only, it's not evil when done for ulterior motives. You need additional arguments a posteriori (somebody who kills animals for fun is an evil person) to condemn that person. Not every action done in compliance with the NAP is morally permissible, just as is the case with abortion. But combining these two modes of reasoning, deduction using the NAP and abduction (people who kill their animals for fun are evil) is a categorical logical error.
If an action is permissible under the NAP it's morally neutral, when it reaility it may be evil.

 

Quote

Beyond that, abortion actually is evil.

Agreed.

[Eudaimonic]

1 hour ago, ofd said:

If you can't agree to something, there is no contract.

Plus, the mother puts work into supporting it. The child doesn't homestead the uterus, it is entirely dependent on the mother for support. It's not logical consistent to say that nobody can tell you what you do with your body and at the same time call an action that affects the body of somebody evil (or wrong).

Actually, the one about potential human beings is, when you reason using the NAP. Where does it say anything about potentiality? Furthermore, if you argue using potentiality then you are horrible person right now if you don't donate everything you have because somewhere right now a real human is dying of starvation.

 

The important word here is created.


 

Of course. Actually, that's an interesting example for a number of reasons. Killing an animal you own doesn't violate the NAP. In that sense, and that sense only, it's not evil when done for ulterior motives. You need additional arguments a posteriori (somebody who kills animals for fun is an evil person) to condemn that person. Not every action done in compliance with the NAP is morally permissible, just as is the case with abortion. But combining these two modes of reasoning, deduction using the NAP and abduction (people who kill their animals for fun are evil) is a categorical logical error.
If an action is permissible under the NAP it's morally neutral, when it reaility it may be evil.

 

Agreed.

The agreement is implicit in the act of sex as pregnancy is a possible (and well known) risk of sex. Similar to how there's an implicit agreement between a customer and a grocery store that you can walk onto their property.

But despite what the mother has done, she's chosen to conceive. The fact that the baby is "part of her body" is a moot point. Because she's chosen to conceive and because the baby will become a moral agent which values life (or can make it's own choices) as long as she doesn't kill it, obligates her to keep it alive. Again, furthermore because the baby did not choose to be born and will.need certain skills, the parents are also obliged to raise it well. It is no longer "hers" to eliminate.

Murder is a violation of the NAP. If you consensually have sex, you agree to the consequences, part of which may be a child. Since the creation of the child's life is your responsibility, so is what happens to it. To kill the child when it is in the second month of delivery is to kill it at the age of one, ten, twenty-five, and fifty-six. You've eliminated it's life, the probability of which of consisted mostly in moral agency and valuation. That is the violation of the NAP. The people who are starving are not my responsibility because I haven't engaged in any actions making me responsible for the creation of their lives in the first place.

I'm confused as to your definition of evil, if you haven't violated NAP you haven't done anything evil, but certain actions in congruence with the NAP would suggest that you're capable of evil or weren't a psychologically healthy person who could pose a danger to others.

For instance, killing a brain dead person isn't a violation of the NAP, but it's sick and the lack of empathy you'd have to have to do that would get you landed in a psych ward.

As well, as a side, if you could prove the baby was so retarded/brain dead to.be unable to value life (the mental equivalent of an animal) you would be justified in killing it also.

[ofd]

Quote

The agreement is implicit in the act of sex as pregnancy is a possible (and well known) risk of sex. Similar to how there's an implicit agreement between a customer and a grocery store that you can walk onto their property.

Implicit agreements are strictly defined. They happen when you don't done agree verbally or in written form but with your actions. If you go to a dentist, it can be inferred that the dentist may violate your NAP by drilling holes in your teeth and filling them again. The act of sex is an implicit contract between at least two consenting adults. By not disagreeing, they come to a mutual understanding to have sex.

 

Quote

But despite what the mother has done, she's chosen to conceive.

Apart from cases where this is not true, what speaks against changing your mind.

 

Quote

The fact that the baby is "part of her body" is a moot point.

So you have two options when applying the NAP to you body. First, all cases not related to pregnancy where you can do what you want and then pregnancy where some options are prohibited.

Quote

I'm confused as to your definition of evil, if you haven't violated NAP you haven't done anything evil, but certain actions in congruence with the NAP would suggest that you're capable of evil or weren't a psychologically healthy person who could pose a danger to others.

The NAP is of little use when it comes to evil. The reason is that you argue only deductively from an axiom, disregarding your senses, your experiences, your morality, faith and what not. The only important criterium is "can action X be deducted from the Non-Aggression-Principle?". If that is the case, this action is permissible under the NAP. You don't know about long term consequences of actions, the psychologicla make up of persons doing it and so on.

Buying a kitten everyday and then killing it is permissible under the NAP. It is an evil act, because it causes suffering for the cat. Furthermore, torturing pets is a sign for pschopathy and so on and on. But using the NAP you claim to not know about, because of the argumentation without any sense of experience or sense data.

The NAP does not use the categories good or evil for the reasons mentioned above. The only categories are "can be deducted from the NAP" or "doesn't fall under the NAP". You need your sense too recognize evil, a brain in a vat doing deductions isn't capable of that.

[Eudaimonic]

8 hours ago, ofd said:

Implicit agreements are strictly defined. They happen when you don't done agree verbally or in written form but with your actions. If you go to a dentist, it can be inferred that the dentist may violate your NAP by drilling holes in your teeth and filling them again. The act of sex is an implicit contract between at least two consenting adults. By not disagreeing, they come to a mutual understanding to have sex.

 

Apart from cases where this is not true, what speaks against changing your mind.

 

So you have two options when applying the NAP to you body. First, all cases not related to pregnancy where you can do what you want and then pregnancy where some options are prohibited.

The NAP is of little use when it comes to evil. The reason is that you argue only deductively from an axiom, disregarding your senses, your experiences, your morality, faith and what not. The only important criterium is "can action X be deducted from the Non-Aggression-Principle?". If that is the case, this action is permissible under the NAP. You don't know about long term consequences of actions, the psychologicla make up of persons doing it and so on.

Buying a kitten everyday and then killing it is permissible under the NAP. It is an evil act, because it causes suffering for the cat. Furthermore, torturing pets is a sign for pschopathy and so on and on. But using the NAP you claim to not know about, because of the argumentation without any sense of experience or sense data.

The NAP does not use the categories good or evil for the reasons mentioned above. The only categories are "can be deducted from the NAP" or "doesn't fall under the NAP". You need your sense too recognize evil, a brain in a vat doing deductions isn't capable of that.

I don't see how this disputes my point. Pregnancy is a risk (no matter what you do) implicit and well know in the act of sex. Because you are able to opt out of having sex, whatever happens to you as a result of having sex (especially if it's known to you explicitly, which pregnancy almost always is) is your responsibility, including the life you have created.

The fact that you can't actually 'change your mind.' You can't magically go back in time to stop the sex from happening and you can't *poof* the baby out of existence. You have to kill it to 'get away' with the consequences of having sex. The baby now exists (by your own hand) and will become a moral agent if you don't murder it.

If I voluntarily sell my body into slavery, it's not mine. This doesn't violate NAP.

You can only define evil in terms of an objective (and true) principle (or value, which is what libertarian philosophers attempt to tie the NAP to, except for Stefan.) Otherwise it's nesseccarily subjective.