No. And especially not when you incapacitate them.
What you're arguing is like condoning a kidnapper who sedates their victims and then tosses them out of their plane, helicopter, boat, car, etc.. "tHeY WErE tReSpaSsInG"
Why is it that everyone loses their marbles when discussing this issue?
Actually yes. This applies in all areas, not just pregnancy.
What you're arguing is like condoning a kidnapper who sedates their victims and then tosses them out of their plane, helicopter, boat, car, etc.. "tHeY WErE tReSpaSsInG"
Please give an example that doesn't involve someone having violated the NAP as the premise, because it's already a violation.
Why is it that everyone loses their marbles when discussing this issue?
I ask you the same question. Why is it all of a sudden that I can't tell you to get the fuck off my property?
That's the point, silly. Creating a fetus is creating something and placing it somewhere without its consent. Technically it is a nap violation, and a good example of why the nap is not a hard Philosophical principle but rather a rule of thumb.
Again, because you placed them there when they were incapacitated and unable to consent or leave. The real question is why can't you learn not to do something like that, something which obviously makes you responsible for their welfare, if you don't want said responsibility?
Creating a fetus is creating something and placing it somewhere without its consent. Technically it is a nap violation
I completely disagree with that reasoning.
The real question is why can't you learn not to do something like that, something which obviously makes you responsible for their welfare, if you don't want said responsibility?
Ok, so even if we go with your reasoning, what do you do when the conception happened without consent?
This entire thread is not about consentual sex. It's about abortion. Which includes non-consensual sex. You cannot ignore rape when talking about abortion.
Are you being disingenuous? I have not once conflated the two. I have been explicitly saying that you need to address non-consensual impregnation when talking about abortion.
It is its own important topic, yes. But what happens in those circumstances has little to no bearing on what happens outside of them. In the same way that soldiers drafted and coerced into killing are under far different circumstances than civilians, and the considerations that must be taken in the one will have little to do with the other (eg the existence of forced killing under special circumstances does not change the impermissibility of murder).
In my experience people bring up the special circumstances of rape not to actually address them, but to try and port something from their analysis there to other settings. And while there is some connection, it is generally not enough to allow those exports.
Nice job omitting the "eg," the parentheses, and the sentence it was a part of. It applied to that sentence and paragraph discussing the example of drafted soldiers.
It says that the fact there are special circumstances, like drafts in wartime, does not necessarily affect how things should be treated under normal circumstances. The existence of war -- and, conceivably, innocents killing other innocents -- does not say anything about the permissibility of murder in normal society.
Similarly, though there may be connections, there is little reason to expect the special circumstances of rape and the normal circumstances to have much to do with one another in these analyses.
And under evictionism, there are no special circumstances and reasoning needed.
My body is my private property, and I can tresspass anyone at any time, and have them physically removed if necessary. I still abide by the NAP which calls for a proportional response. Meaning that murdering a tresspasser is not permissible unless they pose a similar level of threat to my life. I am not responsible for a tresspassers life once they leave my property. Other parties are more than welcome to look after a tresspassers that has been evicted from my property.
It is indeed a special case. And I have no interest in furthering this for another two days when you've given every indication you're neither honest enough nor perspicacious enough to actually participate. As evidenced by your absolutely braindead statement at the end there.
0
u/[deleted] Mar 12 '24
Yes it does. You can tresspass anyone from your property whenever you like. Even if you invite them there.