tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post8279225949316865297..comments2024-03-18T11:28:36.841-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Libertarians and Abortionbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-70185275354163162612019-06-11T08:27:50.968-07:002019-06-11T08:27:50.968-07:00Thank you, RogerThank you, Rogerbionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-77197179582175865292019-06-10T22:22:33.930-07:002019-06-10T22:22:33.930-07:00I don't know how oocyte got into that list, bu...I don't know how oocyte got into that list, but it shouldn't be there. Oocyte is simply a fancy name for an unfertilized female egg cell. It is not a human being. <br /><br />My apologies. Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-7980368326301339282019-06-10T21:16:15.733-07:002019-06-10T21:16:15.733-07:00https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb....https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D (International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36<br /><br />I am in complete agreement with David and have included this link in response to your question. Dr. Irving goes into detail concerning this issue, including debunking numerous myths and misconceptions. Heavy stuff, worth reading. <br /><br />The humanity of the oocyte, zygote, embryo, fetus, child is, as David says, confirmed by science, embryonic science. The person-hood of that human is a question science can't answer and is thus left to philosophy, religion, and politics. <br /><br />I wrote a blog post about this very issue. You can see it here. https://make-difference.life/2019/03/03/without-question-the-beginning-of-human-life/<br /><br /><br />Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-61016499204773470872019-06-10T15:42:19.502-07:002019-06-10T15:42:19.502-07:00David, can you provide links that offer, definitiv...David, can you provide links that offer, definitively, where recognized science has made this call directly? In my search, I have only found clear statements that science has said it cannot make the call when human life begins - in fact it they state that isn't a question for biological science at all but for philosophy or theology. So I would appreciate this.<br /><br />As to your other comments, I agree.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-13162471420773794942019-06-10T15:19:09.747-07:002019-06-10T15:19:09.747-07:001: I didn't write "irrevocably." Rea...1: I didn't write "irrevocably." Read the post. If the tenant does not honor the lease terms, then the landlord may remove the tenant.<br /><br />2: the word "zygote" is a red herring in this discussion. Science cannot say with certainty when human life begins. We are left with conception or birth.<br /><br />As to your yelling at me about the word "chose," be careful how you throw that around. A one month old is no more capable of choosing, nor are many teenagers or those with various mental limitations. But I know many libertarians say that we may also "evict" humans such as these. Some non-aggression principle.<br /><br />3: I am not sure what to say. Start killing bums on the street. Go ahead. Or do what the US government does - bomb entire families such that there is no one to press charges. If this is where libertarianism leads, it is an incomplete theory toward liberty - but I already knew that long ago.<br /><br />As to enforcement, with dumb objections like yours, why spend any time working on this? You and I have gone back and forth extensively on other topics - neither of us makes any headway with the other. You may continue to choose to waste your time, I will no longer waste mine.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84118298627070089282019-06-09T20:45:20.554-07:002019-06-09T20:45:20.554-07:00"Philosophically, the gene complement of a ce..."Philosophically, the gene complement of a cell is irrelevant." Which is why you argue from a philosophical base. Scientifically, the gene complement of a cell makes all the difference. A human embryo is not a dog or a monkey, it is a human. It does not matter what your philosophical desire is, nature and science have already answered the question--at conception there is a human. Not a potential human, but an actual human at a stage of development. Your grandmother is not a potential wagon merely lacking wheels. Your grandmother is a human for the same reason an embryo and fetus is a human: their DNA is human. Science has answered the question and philosophy is the irrelevant person opinion.<br /><br />You posit that the basis of property rights and contract is man’s nature as a rational animal. That is philosophical gobbledygook. The basis for property rights is being human, as in DNA. Mentally incompetent and comatose people have property rights and other rights without any requirement for rational or conscience thought. Guardians are tasked with protecting them, and it is equally reasonable for guardians to protect the unborn because they are human...because they have the DNA.<br /><br />I think the weakness in the argument (and abortion arguments in general) is to incorrectly admit that science does not answer the question of when life begins and when a fetus qualifies as a human. Science clearly answers that question. As I stated, you are human from the point of conception by virtue of your DNA. It is not a matter of viability or consciousness or a heartbeat--a fetus is a stage of humanness, not a state of potential humanness. You are already a human at conception and remain a human through the stages of embryo, fetus, baby, child, and adult. <br /><br />People arguing against abortion should recognize and promote this position rather than philosophizing about no answer in science or nature. Don't agree with your opponents fallacious arguments, attack their incorrect premises. They choose their positions for a reason--they recognize a logical failure otherwise. Tell them otherwise. David Spellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06481803757660350898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-15378294613230662202019-06-09T06:30:39.743-07:002019-06-09T06:30:39.743-07:001. I think that it's difficult to argue persua...1. I think that it's difficult to argue persuasively that someone can irrevocably rent out a portion of their body. That would be akin to a voluntary-slavery contract. I know that Block argues that voluntary-slavery contracts are valid, but Kinsella disagrees, on the basis that you cannot alienate your body.<br /><br />2. You say “Subsequently, someone comes to claim the reward: the person who CHOSE to act [emphasis added].” Yes, I have read your post and Anonymous’s comments. I find Anonymous’s arguments about mutual assent, and the inability of the zygote to choose, to be much more persuasive. Under common law as it historically developed, contracts require a “meeting of the mind,” and I don’t see how this can apply with the zygote.<br /> <br />3. I don't follow your first-paragraph response. Libertarianism holds that all rights are individual rights, so that only the individual whose rights have been violated can legitimately enforce a remedy (or transfer such right to act to others). Are you disagreeing with that concept? Are you saying that if A hits B, stranger S can take action against / physically sanction A? Without some connection with B, S would be initiating force against A. (Indeed, this is one of the arguments against the state’s criminal “justice” system.)<br /><br />Moreover, why would you not address the enforcement question at the same time as the rights-violation question? Why must this be developed in series? Aren’t both essential elements of a legal action? I doubt that when the law of contracts was developing in the common law, the courts said “Let’s just develop liability first, and then once we get agreement on that, we’ll start to develop remedy.” If you’re going to put forth a credible, libertarian legal theory, don’t you need to develop all aspects concurrently?<br /><br /> *****<br /><br />I don’t know if your two closing paragraphs were directed at me or elsewhere, but I wasn’t arguing that the NAP justifies abortion. You have chosen to put a legal theory out there, and I was merely commenting on aspects that either I don’t find persuasive as stated, or need more development. <br />The NAPsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631781625841157567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-67628292612945953882019-06-08T16:54:57.972-07:002019-06-08T16:54:57.972-07:001 – As I argue a rental contract, specific perform...1 – As I argue a rental contract, specific performance seems applicable. The unborn child has contracted for a very specific and unique rental property. However, if you want to consider it something other than this, I offer:<br /><br />https://www.upcounsel.com/specific-performance <br /><br />“Generally speaking, personal property, service, or employment contracts cannot be held to performance-based remedies. The only exception is if the property or service has no easy value on the open market. It is essentially one-of-a-kind.”<br /><br />I would say that the service in question absolutely “has no easy value on the open market” and “is essentially one-of-a-kind.” The difference of life and death pretty much fits the bill.<br /><br />2 – In a reward contract all of the same concerns apply, yet it is a perfectly valid type of contract. This has been dealt with already in the post.<br /><br />3 – I do not have a good answer for enforcement. However, I think it is somewhat silly to suggest “only the victim or his designated agent or transferee can enforce a remedy against an aggressor” – in libertarianism or otherwise. There are many such people on earth. Libertarianism tells us that “anything goes” with these people? Can I enslave them? Why not? Or, maybe I cannot enslave them but I can murder them? Interesting non-aggression principle applied.<br /><br />I am not sure who, or how, this will be enforced or how punishment will be meted out in the case of the unborn child’s murder. There are at least three parties with some measure of guilt: the mother, the father, and the doctor. But I have purposely stayed away from this issue: unless advocates of non-aggression can actually agree on the idea of non-aggression, there is little point to speak of enforcement or punishment.<br /><br />It really is embarrassing that a non-aggression principle can be used to justify the most permanent and violent aggression against the most vulnerable and innocent party in this relationship. It is a non-aggression principle unworthy of the name – if this conforms with non-aggression, it makes a mockery of the English language. Anyone with an ounce of logic in their brain would laugh at this.<br /><br />If it wasn’t so pathetic, it would make me laugh. Some “non-aggression.” Maybe next we can find a reason to murder children before they reach maturity. Why not? Many of the same inconveniences apply until the little rats leave the house.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-50339339853148512692019-06-08T15:47:54.617-07:002019-06-08T15:47:54.617-07:00BM:
Don't ask me how, but I only just came upo...BM:<br />Don't ask me how, but I only just came upon this column now. If it's not too late to offer some observations/questions:<br /><br />1. While I appreciate that specific performance is a breach-of-contract remedy with a significant history in Anglo-American courts, my understanding is that courts have not awarded specific performance for personal-service contracts, on the grounds that no one should be effectively enslaved to another. It seems to me that, if you're going to analyze pregnancy on a contractual basis, then using one's body to carry another would be the ultimate personal-service contract.<br /><br />2. Your contractual analysis is “In this case, the unborn child took up the offer at the moment of fertilization. That he did not exist when the offer was made is irrelevant. There was sound basis for the unborn child to reasonably rely on his being wanted – the mother took action that gave this appearance.” How is it possible for the zygote, at the moment of fertilization, to elect to take up the offer, or to “reasonably rely” on the offer, without any cognitive ability to know, choose, or rely? I understand that your position is that the contract is voidable by the fetus at its election, but that pre-supposes a contract in the first place, and thus don’t we first have to ask whether a zygote can know about the offer, and then choose to take up or reasonably rely on it?<br /><br />3. I don’t see much discussion in this area about the whole question of enforcement, and would be interested in your thoughts. In libertarianism, only the victim or his designated agent or transferee can enforce a remedy against an aggressor. In the case of the murder of a birthed human, we commonly say that the victim’s heirs (or, if none, surviving parents or kin) can enforce the remedy, since they would have been expressly or impliedly empowered by the victim through inheritance rights. But in the case of an aborted fetus, if you classify at least the mother and the doctor as the aggressors, and assume that the father also wanted an abortion, who in a libertarian society would be entitled to enforce a remedy against the mother and doctor if abortion were considered murder? Could it be that this is not enforceable other than by communal exclusion and shunning? (Let’s ignore for now an abortion that might have breached the private-property rules of the landowner on whose land the abortion occurred, and let’s also assume that the mother had not entered into an explicit contract with a third party not to abort.)<br />The NAPsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631781625841157567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22587809955588171632018-12-17T13:29:22.569-08:002018-12-17T13:29:22.569-08:00Jun 2, 2017 Fetal Development Week by Week
If I&#...Jun 2, 2017 Fetal Development Week by Week<br /><br />If I'm not human, what am I?<br /><br />https://youtu.be/bHe8YGPGzj4Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17670554270567592957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-50705653791808450082015-08-20T06:31:21.851-07:002015-08-20T06:31:21.851-07:00I've read somewhere that coercion is justified...I've read somewhere that coercion is justified if the benefits of that which is imposed on people far outweighs what happens when people is left alone. So, for example, Government should ban abortion because the benefit of saving millions of lives is far greater than the benefit some people receive by killing those lives. Also, Government should ban alcohol, for the same reason. <br />And following this line of reasoning, it is easy to formulate arguments by which Governments should:<br />- ban prostitution<br />- ban homosexuality<br />- kill all muslims<br />- ban all drugs, including the therapeutical ones<br />- ban all vaccines<br />- forbid anything with a motor<br />- forbid internet<br /><br />Wait. How can it be that banning vaccines is more beneficial to society than mandating vaccines? Because, if we ban abortion, and vaccines save lives, therefore in thirty years there will be forty billion humans around, or more, and there is no water or food or work for all of them, so we need something to thin out numbers. We have to choose one, either we have abortions or we have vaccines. One will kill babies in utero in order to prevent them from dying from an infection, the other will cause babies to die from infections, but at least they could be born, breath air, see the sun and suck some milk from mum's breast, before the die miserably. What option is better? That is why have Governments, in order to make these difficult decisions. At least, Governments have more and better information than mere individuals.<br /><br />If we ban abortions and and mandate vaccines, the world will explode.<br />If we mandate abortions and forbid vaccines, humanity will disappear.<br />If we ban-ban or mandate-mandate, then humanity will find a balance.<br /><br />What arrangement is more antifragile? That is left as an exercise to the reader.<br /><br />Forget natural rights, forget positive rights, let's just do what we know will be best for all. How do we know that? We don't! That's the joke!<br /><br />Huemerian arguments work for all seasons. I'm lovin' it.Studentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-60443166314983696662015-07-16T02:15:32.876-07:002015-07-16T02:15:32.876-07:00How can anyone assume to say that life is not dese...<br />How can anyone assume to say that life is not deserving, even from the womb? Is there an alternative? <br />You came to be here by precisely the same measure, everyone came to be this way, since there is an undisputed right to life and there is but one means that we all acquired life, reason would say that we have no less right to live then as we do now. If murder is lawful at any point and there is no alternative to the beginnings who could reasonably determine the exact moment that it becomes deserving? If the argument can be made at one point it can reasonably be made at any point. The right to live is not subjective from the viewpoint of the subjected, no one looks to themselves and says "oh it's fine if you rob me or kill me because it's just subjective"<br />Morals are only as objective as they can be lived in reality, and they are only subjective when they are preference rather than common ethics. can you live moral relativity? Not if you define the terms. Do all you agree to do (contract law) do not transgress on anyone or their property (tort law)<br />These are universal morals that we all believe, this is evident on our own reaction to being swindled, extorted, robbed, forced, killed, raped, and just plain wronged, no one looks to themselves and says "it's fair to plunder and rape me because it's all relative anyway" if this is law, if this is none aggression, if Jeffersons words on liberty ring true, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Then it is clearly defined, morals exist and right to life is moral. When it crosses the line of the individual then it's wrong.....no subjection about it. <br />Aaron Bennett.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-3172638819892222712015-07-15T12:45:11.331-07:002015-07-15T12:45:11.331-07:00See my reply:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/...See my reply:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/07/unilateral-contracts-and-abortion.html bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-87977244605385401282015-07-15T10:53:56.983-07:002015-07-15T10:53:56.983-07:00I have read your entire post carefully, especially...I have read your entire post carefully, especially your section XI which aims to address Block's "no contractual counterparty due to nonexistence" objection. My point above is in your attempt to refute Block citing unilateral contract law you already presume the candidate counterparty is A) born and B) possesses some semblance of a cognitive faculty, i.e. is not a vegetable or an animal. The fifteen-year-old boy finding Hitler on skis in Bariloche meets both these criteria. The embryo, like the vegetable and the animal, meets neither. <br /><br />I agree with you that unilateral contracts can apply to counterparties that did not exist at the time the unilateral contract offer was first extended. But at whatever time a potential counterparty does step forward and take up the contract, he must exist _at_that_ time_. He must elect to step forward. He must have the cognitive ability to understand the terms of the contract and agree to them. An embryo lacks all this. Thus the unilateral contract is never actually taken up.<br /><br />It is one thing to say the mother makes an implicit unilateral contract offer by virtue of her informed choices of actions. It is an entirely different and entirely arbitrary thing to claim a collection of biological cells with no cognitive ability whatsoever necessarily has a particular set of values, understands the contract terms and conditions, and is necessarily agreeing to them. Literally one is making all that up in an attempt to claim a contract has been formed. It has not.<br /><br />If only a minor has the right to cancel a contract binding him, only a minor can agree to a contract binding him. “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 have 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.<br /><br />My apologies for accidentally posting my last post here in your old thread instead of your most recent post on the subject where I had meant to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-47471577016329069632015-07-13T13:08:13.053-07:002015-07-13T13:08:13.053-07:00You have not read the entire post, or you choose t...You have not read the entire post, or you choose to ignore portions of it Like an offered reward, the counter-party need not be known - or even born at the time the offer is made.<br /><br />The embryo need not be cognitive - not much different than a newborn. In any such case, as to a contract with a (non-cognitive) minor, only the minor has the right to cancel it.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-7008577605762853792015-07-13T12:54:48.738-07:002015-07-13T12:54:48.738-07:00"...no, it is most certainly NOT because the ..."...no, it is most certainly NOT because the unborn child cannot be contracted with; see section XI of the subject post"<br /><br />The problem is your section XI of the subject post fails to successfully respond to that objection. So it persists into the current day, overshadowing this matter.<br /><br />In your section XI your reasoning successfully responds to the matter of ability to contract due to physical non-existence of the counterparty at initial time of contract offer, when you liken the situation to offering a long-standing reward offer that a recently born counterparty may later on validly take up at such time as he qualifies to do so. But note you beg the question on the equally important matter of qualification to enter into contract. Your analogy stipulates the reward taker-upper is a person already born, presenting himself with full cognitive abilities as a valid counterparty.<br /> <br />By contrast, the potential taker-upper when in the form of embryo is by definition not already born. Moreover the embryo fails every conceivable minimum requirement for cognitive ability to constitute a counterparty with the capacity to take up a unilateral contract offer. An embryo is not cognitive. In fact, is hardly perceptual at a level below farm animals that are routinely dispatched. You would have a hard time proving an embryo a valid counterparty to contract based on its qualifications. If you succeeded, farm animals would also qualify. Your response to the objection in section XI is incomplete and thus fails.<br /><br />On this basis I believe both Block and yourself have failed to make either of your cases against abortion based on contract theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-13145078210255565102015-05-18T06:42:57.312-07:002015-05-18T06:42:57.312-07:00I've often made the argument that it's the...I've often made the argument that it's the woman's body, but that there's an easement on her uterus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-59491478932455282382015-01-08T07:09:23.354-08:002015-01-08T07:09:23.354-08:00“Philosophy cares only whether an organism has a r...“Philosophy cares only whether an organism has a rational capacity.”<br /><br />In the context of the unborn child, as philosophy cannot tell me the specific moment when life “is,” it cannot say when life “isn’t.” It offers no basis to make the distinction you keep wishing it could make. <br /><br />As to your “rational capacity,” any definition you offer is equally subjective and unable to be proven – let alone say with specificity when it is achieved…what is it?<br /><br />You are inserting your religion on a topic where certainty is required – a voluntary decision by one person over the life or death of another.<br /><br />I thank you for your time.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-32987763226765799322015-01-07T19:03:20.914-08:002015-01-07T19:03:20.914-08:00Yes, personhood is not a scientific matter as your...Yes, personhood is not a scientific matter as your quote of Gilbert aptly attests. Biology is agnostic to the concept of personhood, it just manages perpetual transfer of life via forever reproducing cells.<br /><br />So the question we are trying to answer here is purely philosophical. What is personhood from a philosophical perspective. The criteria of philosophy alone is relevant.<br /><br />It is a common mistake to get sucked into thinking philosophical personhood begins at conception because of the emotionally alluring fact an embryo is diploid so genetically complete while the gametes that form it are haploid thus genetically incomplete. But philosophy does not care about genetic makeup. And all somatic cells are genetically complete yet not considered each independent people.<br /><br />Some argue physiological independence from the mother grants a fetus personhood, i.e. physical fetal viability outside the womb. But that's not philosophically relevant either. Conjoined twins are physiologically interdependent yet with two independent thinking brains, philosophically they are considered two independent people.<br /><br />Philosophy cares only whether an organism has a rational capacity. This is the philosophical source of man's rights, the source of the right to property, contract, personhood. This is why trees can't have rights, dogs can't have rights, but a man with a human brain does have rights.<br /><br />Your argument is caught between Scylla and Charybdis. Either you must concede you are treating a potential as an actual when you claim a fertilized cell is a person with rights. Or you must concede a rational capacity is not necessary when you claim a fertilized cell is a person with rights.NoVictimNoCrimenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-4458591639566253362015-01-07T16:03:31.348-08:002015-01-07T16:03:31.348-08:00"1) The asserted definition of human life beg..."1) The asserted definition of human life beginning at fertilization is unjustified."<br /><br />I offer a cite in the post that science cannot answer when the unborn child attains personhood. <br /><br />Do you have a scientific method to answer this question? Absent this, I believe I stand on firmer footing at conception than at any other point in development, as every other point offers the risk of you being wrong.<br /><br />I believe your second point is answered by my comment above as well as in the subject post.<br /><br />“3) Unilateral contracts also require valid fulfillment of contract terms.”<br /><br />The terms were fulfilled. The unborn child is. <br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-77979842966810985832015-01-07T08:36:53.597-08:002015-01-07T08:36:53.597-08:00Great contribution to the body of thought. Yet I ...Great contribution to the body of thought. Yet I hold there remain serious flaws in this line of reasoning.<br /><br />1) The asserted definition of human life beginning at fertilization is unjustified.<br /><br />Philosophically, the gene complement of a cell is irrelevant. Only the rational capacity of an organism grants it rights to property and contract. Dogs, monkeys, fetuses all are neurologically responsive and behave perceptually but cannot conceptualize thus are ineligible for rights. Until the brain structures rendering the entity capable of rationality form, a fetus and even newborn is just property of its creator.<br /><br />The basis of property rights and contract is man’s nature as a rational animal. A body without a brain or a body with an unformed brain is not an organism with the capability of rationality so holds no according rights.<br /><br />2) A potential is not an actual.<br /><br />If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon. But until she gets wheels she’s just my grandmother. Fetal cells cannot be treated as capable of contracting any more than sperm cells can. <br /><br />“Actions of” and “contract terms with” anthropomorphized cells in utero as if they contained some soul or spirit with independent wants is fantasy. Imagining a non-existent being in the future and presuming around its wants then abridging the actual wants and rights of an existing real mother accordingly in the present is folly.<br /><br />3) Unilateral contracts also require valid fulfillment of contract terms.<br /><br />A unilateral contract offer can be rescinded at any time until accepted. Acceptance occurs only when all terms of the contract are fulfilled. An implicit term of any contract is that the counterparty exist as a human which means has a brain capable of conceptualization and abstract reasoning.<br /><br /><br /><br />After a newborn brain forms the ability to form its first concept, then that baby exists qua human and all the otherwise good arguments in this article apply.<br />NoVictimNoCrimenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71032055275593897132014-12-26T14:07:33.195-08:002014-12-26T14:07:33.195-08:00Excellent analysis and counter-arguments. I'm ...Excellent analysis and counter-arguments. I'm actually quite surprised that Walter Block would offer such poor analogies and arguments. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com