tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post6514027689339928802..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Unilateral Contracts and Abortionbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-70977868753770887732015-07-19T14:10:01.255-07:002015-07-19T14:10:01.255-07:00The notion of evictionism, while being the correct...The notion of evictionism, while being the correct libertarian position, is incomplete. Evictionism only applies after personhood is homesteaded by the fetus, sometime after the 20th week of gestation.Ed Ucationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375062362847706272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-47430099009271996312015-07-19T14:08:38.996-07:002015-07-19T14:08:38.996-07:00@ Joshua Bennett
You are using three different co...@ Joshua Bennett<br /><br />You are using three different concepts as if they were one and the same, when in fact they mean three different things. These concepts are human, human being, and person. You start with "human" and slide into "person." A zygote is certainly human (an adjective), as is a sperm. It is not a person, though. Personhood has to be homesteaded. A fetus homesteads personhood when it develops certain parts of the brain (the certain parts to be determined by science).Ed Ucationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375062362847706272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-18393869420480688052015-07-16T19:08:59.503-07:002015-07-16T19:08:59.503-07:00For most of history the notion of child rights wer...For most of history the notion of child rights were unknown. The worst and deadliest jobs were staffed by children with zilch safety requirements. Gilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-90312838555803998982015-07-16T11:37:59.896-07:002015-07-16T11:37:59.896-07:00Yes I know I am committing the worst of sins by sa...Yes I know I am committing the worst of sins by saying this, but on these issues, Rothbard was wrong.Joshua Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14314841330994831499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-63369850929643932532015-07-16T11:37:04.124-07:002015-07-16T11:37:04.124-07:00"The notion of evictionism is based on the fa..."The notion of evictionism is based on the fact the foetus is a guest and that privilege can be revoked at any time."<br />So if I invite you to my house, you get incapacitated for any reason while at my house, and even though I brought you there, I can kill you if you don't leave immediately? <br />Fetus: a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born.<br />And you seriously think it's ok for a parent, who brought the child into the world, that the parent has the right to decide to abandon him/her even unto death, cause he/she doesn't feel like caring for them anymore?<br />Seriously?Joshua Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14314841330994831499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28905126732427707312015-07-16T11:24:53.051-07:002015-07-16T11:24:53.051-07:00So much of this is such nonsense.
Seriously.
Zygo...So much of this is such nonsense. <br />Seriously.<br />Zygote? We aren't talking about a series of unorganized cells. We are talking about a human being. Who is no different than any other human, apart from being smaller. With the exact makeup of everyone who is writing here. Just smaller. But, everyone writing here was in the exact form earlier in their life. <br />I understand de-humanising a person (zygote) is an important part of many peoples arguments, but trying to de-humanize a person doesn't give it legitimacy, any more than trying to de-humanize Iraqis, Syrians, Muslims, Japanese, jews, blacks, and on. <br />Define your terms. And stick to them.<br />Zygote: In multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage. In single-celled organisms, the zygote can divide asexually by mitosis to produce identical offspring.<br />Certainly doesn't sound like a human does it?<br />We are talking about humans. Of course we are, otherwise this story, http://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8964513/planned-parenthood-aborted-fetuses, wouldn't be a story.<br />Do we value a humans life or not? <br />Do we scream about killing people in wars, pontificate about the NAP, and act like abortion doesn't kill a human?<br />This is the issue.<br />I like to think that living in a voluntary society would be a great thing, and I know it would be, but I have second thoughts when I read Libertarians say things like," abortion on demand is a settled issue with Libertarians" (how very Al Gorish) and "the real problem for Libertarians is the matter of children".<br />What?<br />All of us were children at one time. Children are how humanity continues. Children are as natural to human life as natural gets. And they are a problem in a Libertarian society? Seriously?<br />Let's stop the arguing of who can contract and when and blah blah. The issue, is this a human life, is really what matters.<br />Establish that first.<br />If it isn't, none of these arguments mean anything.<br />If it is, then let's argue about why it's ok to kill this human. And if it's ok, let's argue why we can't just kill any human. Joshua Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14314841330994831499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-20136849452511478212015-07-16T04:32:21.881-07:002015-07-16T04:32:21.881-07:00"How was the contract with an embryo ever ent..."How was the contract with an embryo ever entered into without any agreement from the embryo executing it?"<br /><br />An offer was made by the mother - in my example, apartment for rent. The embryo took her up on it. Proof enough.<br /><br />Beyond this, we are talking in circles.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-45843471895128724682015-07-16T04:19:07.631-07:002015-07-16T04:19:07.631-07:00"BM: And plenty of people regret many contrac..."BM: And plenty of people regret many contracts that they had previously entered into. That does not make the contract invalid…the contract isn’t void, it is voidable. Why bother with it being ‘voidable’ if it is already ‘void’?”<br /><br />All that is true after a contract has actually been "entered into." How was the contract with an embryo ever entered into without any agreement from the embryo executing it? An infinite number of "contracts" binding some embryo or hapless young lad to onerous terms are possible if, as you hold, counterparties who are minors need not agree to contracts for them to be considered executed.<br /><br />Mutual agreement is definitional for what a contract fundamentally is. While diminished mental capacity might not preclude contract formation, this does not mean lack of agreement doesn’t preclude contract formation. By claiming so, you depart the realm of contract and move into sanctioning one-way imposition of arbitrary terms onto minors.<br /><br />Imagine a teenager awakens from a tonsillectomy to discover one eye, one lung, and one kidney have all been removed. The teenager, aghast, asks the doctor what happened. The doctor replies, “I removed and sold off your organs, per our contract.”<br /><br />“What contract!” demands the teenager. <br /><br />The doctor replies, “The unilateral one I made up while you were under anesthesia. Since you are a minor, and I read Bionic Mosquito, I know your agreement to unilateral contracts is not required for them to be executed.” <br /><br />“I now void that contract!” screams the teenager.<br /><br />“Very well,” replies the doctor, “It is henceforth voided. But per BM, previously it was not void. Therefore its enforcement during that time period was legitimate and stands.”<br /><br />Freedom in the future for a counterparty to void a contract is _not_ the same as failure to enter into a contract in the first place. In the period between putative execution and voiding, the contract is enforceable. In fact, your argument relies on this fact to justify use of force to stop a mother from aborting. Even if the child later resents his birth and emphatically voids the “contract,” an ineffectual gesture, because the “contract” has already been enforced against his wishes, to his detriment, with no allowance for redress.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84983247623760419052015-07-15T20:56:22.398-07:002015-07-15T20:56:22.398-07:00The notion of evictionism is based on the fact the...The notion of evictionism is based on the fact the foetus is a guest and that privilege can be revoked at any time. By the same token so too the taking care of a child - it's a privilege not a right. The law has made the artificial minimum age of abandonment at age 15 but some may note a 15 year olds may not automatically have the maturity to take care of themselves properly. Nonetheless the law already allows adults to not be obliged to take care of other peoples' children even if it leads to death.Gilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84718102863077589202015-07-15T19:24:57.790-07:002015-07-15T19:24:57.790-07:00Anon: Definition of “contract”: “An agreement crea...Anon: Definition of “contract”: “An agreement creating obligations enforceable by law. The basic elements of a contract are mutual assent, consideration, capacity, and legality.”<br /><br />BM: None of these (except legality as in my case the object of the contract is legal) exist when the counterparty is a minor, and certainly not an infant – yet the contract is valid as long as the minor does not void it. Is it possible that an already “void” contract somehow remains in a “voidable” condition?<br /><br />Anon: Definition of “mutual assent”: “Agreement by both parties to a contract. Mutual assent must be proven objectively, and is often established by showing an offer and acceptance” Obviously bona fide assent must involve some volitional act that is distinguishable from a different act signaling dissent.<br /><br />BM: There is no bona fide assent – it is a minor, infant, or unborn child. Yet the contract isn’t void, it is voidable. Why bother with it being “voidable” if it is already “void”?<br /><br />Anon: Hopefully you agree contracts cannot be imposed upon any parties, including the mentally incompetent or minors, who have no ability to signal acceptance or refusal.<br /><br />BM: Why bring this up? I never have. My argument has nothing to do with imposing a contract.<br /><br />Anon: Plenty of people have been known to utter the phrase, “I wish I had never been born,” and mean it.<br /><br />BM: And plenty of people regret many contracts that they had previously entered into. That does not make the contract invalid.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-24474278522785809402015-07-15T17:45:48.218-07:002015-07-15T17:45:48.218-07:00Thank you for the serious response – a complete ar...Thank you for the serious response – a complete article no less. To keep the conversation moving I'll stipulate the zygote is legally equivalent to a minor for contracting purposes. I'll also stipulate that cognitive ability establishing capacity is only pertinent to the question of voidability of a contract.<br /><br />Even so, you fail to address the matter of agreement, which any contract including unilateral contracts and contracts with minors must obtain as a condition of execution.<br /><br />Definition of “contract”: “An agreement creating obligations enforceable by law. The basic elements of a contract are mutual assent, consideration, capacity, and legality.”<br /><br />Definition of “mutual assent”: “Agreement by both parties to a contract. Mutual assent must be proven objectively, and is often established by showing an offer and acceptance”<br /><br />Obviously bona fide assent must involve some volitional act that is distinguishable from a different act signaling dissent. Mere existence of embryonic tissue is not a volitional act. So how and where does the embryo indicate acceptance as opposed to refusal? <br /><br />Hopefully you agree contracts cannot be imposed upon any parties, including the mentally incompetent or minors, who have no ability to signal acceptance or refusal. That would be no contract. That would be just doing whatever you want to do to someone and calling it a “contract.”<br /><br />Restating my previous points on this matter:<br /><br />“Unilateral contract” does not mean random parties who did not agree can be presumed to agree by virtue of their mere physical presence. The debunking of “implied consent” as a valid justification of government authority proves this. Unilateral contract simply means the contract is open-ended as to counterparty. It still requires a valid counterparty to agree. A physiological progression of growth in a cluster of embryonic cells does not constitute agreement to a contract.<br /><br />Plenty of people have been known to utter the phrase, “I wish I had never been born,” and mean it. Especially, I’m guessing, ones borne of mothers who were incapable of raising their children properly but were stopped from obtaining an abortion. What such people are saying is if they had known how impoverished their situation was and how miserably they would suffer they _would_not_have_chosen_ to take up the mother’s unilateral contract offer. Demonstrating any hypothesized “assent of the embryo” is just that – hypothesized, not actual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com