Victoribus Spolia wrote:You rebutted my previous argument on the grounds that consent on the part of the one possessing the slave (as a type of property) is immaterial. My question is meant to demonstrate that your rebuttal is simplistic in that the attribution of a crime (which is your whole point) would not obtain because consent in the possession of property is not entirely immaterial, for property is held in trust until a person can consent to its use or allocation for a reason.
Thus, if a fetus is guilty of being a slave owner on the basis of merely being conceived, then the fetus would only be liable to a crime when consenting to the possession of that property (the mother) at a later age. Therefore, when a child was, lets say, 16 or something, he would be asked if he "consents to having been conceived by his mother who got pregnant by accident"....at which point he would be arrested if he did not admit that "had he any say in the matter he would have abstained from existing in the first place."
Oh, i see. You are confused because you incorrectly believe that i think the fetus is guilty of a crime.
I don't understand what you are saying here. If a child inherits slaves, he is not legally culpable for the crime of slavery until he can consent of the inheritance which is legally held in trust until the he/she reaches such an age.
If you are three years old, and your drug king-pin dad wills you narcotics, you are not going to be thrown in prison at age 3 and if upon reaching the age to consent to that inheritance's allocation, you decide to turn it in to the federal authorities, you would likely be guilty of no crime.
Again, you are basing this all on your misunderstanding. I am not claiming that the fetus committed a crime. That was something you came up with.
But it is legal.
Sometimes, and in some places. It is illegal in other times and places. Anyway, the fact remains that when abortion is not legal, the woman’s will is suborned to the coercive power of the government.
Saying that the elimination of all existing caterpillars will result in the elimination of all future butterflies because caterpillars are potential-butterflies is perfectly rational. People just don't feel comfortable applying that same unassailable logic to their sex lives and discussing its moral implications......because of their "feelings." This is not absurd at all.
Saying that a fetus is somehow criminally liable for its own unintended conception because such is an enslavement of a woman, even when the pregnancy occurred after a bout of consensual sex by the parents, is indeed absurd.
Since people are not saying we should get rid of all human sperm and eggs everywhere, this comparison of yours is absurd.
And again, you are incorrect when you think I am saying the fetus committed a crime, or is criminally liable.
You say this, but the fetus still does not consent to that which it benefits from and is still the one that incurs penalty for the alleged crime, even though it is not the slave-master or the one culpable. Which also seems odd, if not absurd.
You keep referring to an alleged crime. What are you talking about?
Essentially, you are saying, that if a mother who has consensual sex has a condom break in bed, and gets knocked up, but is not allowed to abort.....she becomes the victim of slavery to the criminal of the state, wherein, the non-consenting benefactor (the fetus) is to be punished for a crime it neither committed and the benefits of which it did not consent to receive. All of which, according to you, is nullified by the fact that it is only slavery if the state outlaws abortion (which it doesn't). Is that about right?
What the fuck are you trying to argue? Do you even know?
Wow. You really took this whole “crime” thing to some absurd extreme. This has apparently confused you about what I am arguing.
Essentially, I are saying, that if a mother who has consensual sex has a condom break in bed, and gets knocked up, but is not allowed to abort.....she becomes the victim of slavery by the state, wherein, the non-consenting benefactor (the fetus) benefits from that which it did not consent to receive. All of which, according to me, is consistent with the fact that it is only slavery if there is no consent, and consent is taken away when the state outlaws abortion (which it does often). Is that clear?
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...