My Very Own Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If you can’t tell the difference between state run welfare, and the natural resulting life produced through the act of procreation…

I can, but I also know that a natural right must be absolute and universal.

Insofar, no one, not even a new born baby can have the right to be kept alive because very often that is simply not possible.

It always has the right not to be killed because that is always possible, under any circumstances.

I belive the embyro has a right to life, exactly where nature placed it. Can’t get anymore natural than that.

An embryo is born with an inherent property title to its mothers womb?

Is that your argument?[/quote]

Nature has placed the life in the womb, just as nature resulted in the mother’s own life. If you want to call it a property right, for the full duration of it’s term, because of an act of nature, go for it.

182

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So if, in an attempt to abort the embryo while respecting it’s right to life (puzzling), any part of it’s organic connections to it’s mother is severed, then it becomes a murder? The severing must be done solely at the end of the mother’s tissue, and her’s alone?

Assume it is a late term abortion and is alive the moment its umbilical cord it cut. The fetus is now a baby. Is the mother now required to breast feed the baby to keep it alive?

She is required to care for it, yes.

Indeed, conservatives are in favor of welfare.[/quote]

I’m in favor of not taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn.

183

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Don´t know.

You might have to break in and pay damages if you smash the door,

If I have to pay for damages, then I must’ve been in the wrong. So, I should be jailed. Or, she would’ve been justified in killing me as I attempted to rescue the infant. If this is Rothbard’s kind of world, I want none of it.

She would not be justified killing you for taking her baby, only for breaking in.

But, I’m using force in an act of breaking and entering, to steal her baby. So, she would be justified in killing me.

Obviously you would not go to jail but only pay for her door.

I wouldn’t go to jail for breaking and entering, and kidnapping (she may not wish to feed the child, but when did she ok my adoption of it)?

However, why would she purposely let the child die when you are there to take it?

Because that’s her wish.

Such an action has consequences, even when the law does not come into this.

Imagine a women who did this in real life.

She´d have no friends, no family, no job, no nothing.

And yet it, and other terrible things, happen day in day out. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

A libertarian society could be harsher in such cases than yours is.

I can’t imagine why it would.

[/quote]

I just wanted to point out that

a) nobody would tie your hands knocking down the door.

b) you´d come too late because I´d knocked it down before you, cheered on by Rothbards ghost.

c) that it runs both ways, nobody needs to care for her either. Under such circumstances shunning can be extremely effective, deadly even.

184

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

No because their parents should take care of them and if their parents can’t take care of them their governmnet should. Besides the governmnet and various charities send money to help the African kids which is fine with me. Trying to help is not a bad thing.

Besides they live in a different country across the ocean didn’t you say in another thread America should mind its own business? We can’t fight a war over seas, but we have to help everyone that needs it in the World?

Wait, so you can force other people to care for helpless people but when you yourself might get forced to provide for helpless people that did not deserve the situation they are in you try to weasel out?

Oh no, if they have a RIGHT to live, you must provide it,

Because you know, we hold these truths to be self evident that ALL MEN are born with certain, inalienable rights…

First of all you can read all the books you want, but I am actually an American and I think I know what this country was founded on. Now you are the biggest hypocrite on the planet. On the one hand you say as a Libertarian BS’er you should only protect your property and family. You can’t go to another country and fight for others because you are not directly involved or directly attacked. Now you want me to not only take care of those in my own country that need help (Which I gladly will because unlike you I am actually a man and will help other not just my self if I have the opportunity to do so), but you want me to go to every other country and help every single person what while everyone else just sits back and does nothing? You can take your BS and shove it up your ass. No matter how many books you read or how hard you try and make Libertarian principle the way the world works it simply will not.

Weasel you?re a fucking idiot.

Wow that were so many false statements and misrepresentations in your paragraph that I am actually glad you think I am an idiot.

Whatever you say, but we have argued before and those have been you arguments in the past.
[/quote]

No they weren´t but the message seems indeed to be formed by the receiver.

185

Anyone else feel this thread should’ve been titled “Killing an unborn child, without having killed it?”

186

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Holy shit this is one of the most retarded threads I have ever read.

You create a life, but don’t have to care for it?? Fucking wild animals take care of their young until they can take care of themselves. Can a baby fend for itself? No for God sake a baby relies on its mother for the most basic of necessities like food. It is a sad day when people honestly believe you can just wash your hands of your responsibilities and there be no consequences. Yes you can force a mother to take care of her children because…wait for it…She FUCKING MADE THEM! If a mother doesn’t take care of them social services takes them away and they take care of them until they can fend for themselves.

Some of you people need to put down the BS you read and think for yourselves.

You still do not get the distinction that Rothbard makes between the moral thing to do and what you can force other people to do.

The question is not whether child neglect is immoral or not, I think we all know the answer, the question is can you force someone else to provide for a child, especially if it is still in the womb.

Okay let me answer the question for you. YES!!! While a child is in the womb the mother has an obligation to care for the child. No if ands or buts about it.

I also do my own thinking so what Rothbard says means little to nothing. It sounds to me like the guy was a jack ass that cared about no one and nothing.

No I know Rothbard probably fathered 15 kids and all the women kept them so he had to work 3 jobs to pay child support. No wonder he’s bitter.

Cool, so what is the ethical principle that allows you to justify the threat of violence that is necessary to make the woman care for her child?

ummm if she doesn’t care for the child it would be murder. Ethically she is obligated to do so because she took part in the creation of that life. By creating this life she has given up her rights to not care for a baby.

You cannot give up natural rights.

And again, morally I agree with you, ethically I do not.

You can reiterate the murder argument all you want, it still remains neglect.

So then the question is what is more important your morals or you ethics?[/quote]

If I followed Rothbards distinction my morals would guide my own behavior and my ethics my behavior towards others.

187

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So if, in an attempt to abort the embryo while respecting it’s right to life (puzzling), any part of it’s organic connections to it’s mother is severed, then it becomes a murder? The severing must be done solely at the end of the mother’s tissue, and her’s alone?

Assume it is a late term abortion and is alive the moment its umbilical cord it cut. The fetus is now a baby. Is the mother now required to breast feed the baby to keep it alive?

She is required to care for it, yes.

Indeed, conservatives are in favor of welfare.[/quote]

At least we now know that they can work very hard when they do not want to face though questions.

188

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
So if I lock an adult in a cellar with no food or water, then I simply removed them from their life support system, right? No killing involved.

Uhhhh… that is aggression and is immoral. You would be violating that person’s rights by removing his liberty.

A more apt corollary would be that you are free to step over a homeless man starving in the street and not give him any of your money to keep him “alive”. You did not infringe on his right to life. If he lives he lives.

You would certainly see the ethical side of the argument if an armed police officer forced you at gun point to give him one of your dollars.

Except a grown homeless can fend for himself a baby cannot.

So do helpless people do have a positive right to be kept alive?

Clothed, fed, sheltered?

Do I have the right, a RIGHT, NO LESS, to hold a gun to your head and make you work until the last helpless person has been clothed, fed and sheltered?

Do helpless people have any other rights and where does that leave your rights?

Like I said the government should only use tax money (forced by gun scenario) to help those that NEED the help as long as they did not put themselves in that situation. A drug addict can either a) fend for themselves, B) get help via charity or c) go find a nice rock to crawl under and die, but a child that can’t take care of themselves should be provided for.

every child? Wherever it lives?

What about people who had a stroke or stepped on a land mine?

Wait, I know the last answer:

Those who planted the mines should pay for it, right?

And of course for the removal.

Every child under that particular government yes.

People have health care for strokes.

If you step on a land mine you are not going to live 9 times out of 10.

The ones that plants the mines usually pay with their lives in jail or in battle.

Why only under a particular government? What if they have no health care because they could not afford it?

Doesn´t that seem a little arbitrary do you?

Do women outside the US have the right to abort?

Does crossing an imaginary line also change the ethics of the situation for them?

And does an American bomber pilot have to pay for people in Laos that have no legs if he is not dead?

I mean, he put them into a situation they did not deserve. Should he not provide for them.

I don’t care what other countries do or do not do they have to live with the consequences.

I believe abortion is wrong universally.

Governments are created specifically to help her people. If you want the US to help everyone maybe we should the United States of the World instead of America.

How do you know the guy that has his legs blown off didn’t deserve it? His government shouldn’t have fought against ours and since his government went to war and he lost his legs as a consequence they can pay for his care.

Laos never went to war against you, but even if, how was it any peasants fault if his government had done that?

They question remains, why do embryos rights do not stop at arbitrary lines yet innocent wounded people´s do?

Is it a coincidence that that is the result that this is the most convenient for you and that you fail for the second time now to explain the ethical principle behind the distinction you make?

[/quote]

A peasant is part of that country they should have stood up and told their government not to go to war. Aren’t they just as responsible for the governments actions for not speaking up?

Innocent wounded people can take care of themselves. If they can’t their government should take care of them if the people under that government believe ethically the government is required to. Ethics are not universal. Ethics are dictated by culture were as morals are natural laws pertaining to all being able to comprehend them.

So to answer you question…I don’t want you to be in suspense…My ethics dictate I help people that I believe deserve help. For example American soldiers wounded in battle, children left for dead, the homeless guy that lost his legs in a car accident. My ethics; however, also dictate that homeless guys that can work at McDonalds go get a job or die in a gutter.

189

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
So then the question is what is more important your morals or you ethics?

How can you know that your morals are correct if you do not have an ethic to base it on?[/quote]

Because morals are universal and ethics are not.

190

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If you can’t tell the difference between state run welfare, and the natural resulting life produced through the act of procreation…

I can, but I also know that a natural right must be absolute and universal.

Insofar, no one, not even a new born baby can have the right to be kept alive because very often that is simply not possible.

It always has the right not to be killed because that is always possible, under any circumstances.

I belive the embyro has a right to life, exactly where nature placed it. Can’t get anymore natural than that.

An embryo is born with an inherent property title to its mothers womb?

Is that your argument?

Property? There are no property rights to life. Property is a man made circumstance.[/quote]

Hardly.

First, even animals have territorial instincts and children develop that distinction pretty early and second you would not except that you do not belong to you by right of birth.

And again, we hold these truths to be self evident…

191

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

No because their parents should take care of them and if their parents can’t take care of them their governmnet should. Besides the governmnet and various charities send money to help the African kids which is fine with me. Trying to help is not a bad thing.

Besides they live in a different country across the ocean didn’t you say in another thread America should mind its own business? We can’t fight a war over seas, but we have to help everyone that needs it in the World?

Wait, so you can force other people to care for helpless people but when you yourself might get forced to provide for helpless people that did not deserve the situation they are in you try to weasel out?

Oh no, if they have a RIGHT to live, you must provide it,

Because you know, we hold these truths to be self evident that ALL MEN are born with certain, inalienable rights…

First of all you can read all the books you want, but I am actually an American and I think I know what this country was founded on. Now you are the biggest hypocrite on the planet. On the one hand you say as a Libertarian BS’er you should only protect your property and family. You can’t go to another country and fight for others because you are not directly involved or directly attacked. Now you want me to not only take care of those in my own country that need help (Which I gladly will because unlike you I am actually a man and will help other not just my self if I have the opportunity to do so), but you want me to go to every other country and help every single person what while everyone else just sits back and does nothing? You can take your BS and shove it up your ass. No matter how many books you read or how hard you try and make Libertarian principle the way the world works it simply will not.

Weasel you?re a fucking idiot.

Wow that were so many false statements and misrepresentations in your paragraph that I am actually glad you think I am an idiot.

Whatever you say, but we have argued before and those have been you arguments in the past.

No they weren´t but the message seems indeed to be formed by the receiver.

[/quote]

Whatever you say big guy

192

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If you can’t tell the difference between state run welfare, and the natural resulting life produced through the act of procreation…

I can, but I also know that a natural right must be absolute and universal.

Insofar, no one, not even a new born baby can have the right to be kept alive because very often that is simply not possible.

It always has the right not to be killed because that is always possible, under any circumstances.

I belive the embyro has a right to life, exactly where nature placed it. Can’t get anymore natural than that.

An embryo is born with an inherent property title to its mothers womb?

Is that your argument?

Nature has placed the life in the womb, just as nature resulted in the mother’s own life. If you want to call it a property right, for the full duration of it’s term, because of an act of nature, go for it. [/quote]

Don´t think that that is tenable, but is an interesting way of seeing it.

193

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If you can’t tell the difference between state run welfare, and the natural resulting life produced through the act of procreation…

I can, but I also know that a natural right must be absolute and universal.

Insofar, no one, not even a new born baby can have the right to be kept alive because very often that is simply not possible.

It always has the right not to be killed because that is always possible, under any circumstances.

I belive the embyro has a right to life, exactly where nature placed it. Can’t get anymore natural than that.

An embryo is born with an inherent property title to its mothers womb?

Is that your argument?

Property? There are no property rights to life. Property is a man made circumstance.

Hardly.

First, even animals have territorial instincts and children develop that distinction pretty early and second you would not except that you do not belong to you by right of birth.

And again, we hold these truths to be self evident…

[/quote]

And even animals embryos develop in the womb. Must be self evident that embryos have a claim to their term in the womb.

Of course, they also might eat poop, eat each other’s offspring, fight (possibly to the death) each other for mating claims, or even eat their mate…

194

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If you can’t tell the difference between state run welfare, and the natural resulting life produced through the act of procreation…

I can, but I also know that a natural right must be absolute and universal.

Insofar, no one, not even a new born baby can have the right to be kept alive because very often that is simply not possible.

It always has the right not to be killed because that is always possible, under any circumstances.

I belive the embyro has a right to life, exactly where nature placed it. Can’t get anymore natural than that.

An embryo is born with an inherent property title to its mothers womb?

Is that your argument?

Property? There are no property rights to life. Property is a man made circumstance.

Hardly.

First, even animals have territorial instincts and children develop that distinction pretty early and second you would not except that you do not belong to you by right of birth.

And again, we hold these truths to be self evident…

[/quote]

Territorial instincts and property are two different things. A baby in the womb is no more the property of the mother then your own foot. Yes it is a part of you, but it is not property. Property would be things like you house, land, you wallet. Your body, mind, baby is not yours at all. It is just life. If you want to stretch it then fine we will say your foot is your “property”, but if that is your argument then a baby and their body is their own property.

195

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
So if I lock an adult in a cellar with no food or water, then I simply removed them from their life support system, right? No killing involved.

Uhhhh… that is aggression and is immoral. You would be violating that person’s rights by removing his liberty.

A more apt corollary would be that you are free to step over a homeless man starving in the street and not give him any of your money to keep him “alive”. You did not infringe on his right to life. If he lives he lives.

You would certainly see the ethical side of the argument if an armed police officer forced you at gun point to give him one of your dollars.

Except a grown homeless can fend for himself a baby cannot.

So do helpless people do have a positive right to be kept alive?

Clothed, fed, sheltered?

Do I have the right, a RIGHT, NO LESS, to hold a gun to your head and make you work until the last helpless person has been clothed, fed and sheltered?

Do helpless people have any other rights and where does that leave your rights?

Like I said the government should only use tax money (forced by gun scenario) to help those that NEED the help as long as they did not put themselves in that situation. A drug addict can either a) fend for themselves, B) get help via charity or c) go find a nice rock to crawl under and die, but a child that can’t take care of themselves should be provided for.

every child? Wherever it lives?

What about people who had a stroke or stepped on a land mine?

Wait, I know the last answer:

Those who planted the mines should pay for it, right?

And of course for the removal.

Every child under that particular government yes.

People have health care for strokes.

If you step on a land mine you are not going to live 9 times out of 10.

The ones that plants the mines usually pay with their lives in jail or in battle.

Why only under a particular government? What if they have no health care because they could not afford it?

Doesn´t that seem a little arbitrary do you?

Do women outside the US have the right to abort?

Does crossing an imaginary line also change the ethics of the situation for them?

And does an American bomber pilot have to pay for people in Laos that have no legs if he is not dead?

I mean, he put them into a situation they did not deserve. Should he not provide for them.

I don’t care what other countries do or do not do they have to live with the consequences.

I believe abortion is wrong universally.

Governments are created specifically to help her people. If you want the US to help everyone maybe we should the United States of the World instead of America.

How do you know the guy that has his legs blown off didn’t deserve it? His government shouldn’t have fought against ours and since his government went to war and he lost his legs as a consequence they can pay for his care.

Laos never went to war against you, but even if, how was it any peasants fault if his government had done that?

They question remains, why do embryos rights do not stop at arbitrary lines yet innocent wounded people´s do?

Is it a coincidence that that is the result that this is the most convenient for you and that you fail for the second time now to explain the ethical principle behind the distinction you make?

A peasant is part of that country they should have stood up and told their government not to go to war. Aren’t they just as responsible for the governments actions for not speaking up?

Innocent wounded people can take care of themselves. If they can’t their government should take care of them if the people under that government believe ethically the government is required to. Ethics are not universal. Ethics are dictated by culture were as morals are natural laws pertaining to all being able to comprehend them.

So to answer you question…I don’t want you to be in suspense…My ethics dictate I help people that I believe deserve help. For example American soldiers wounded in battle, children left for dead, the homeless guy that lost his legs in a car accident. My ethics; however, also dictate that homeless guys that can work at McDonalds go get a job or die in a gutter.
[/quote]

I do not even want to sound condescending but I guess that will be inevitable.

I honestly think that you have no ethics.

You have gut feelings that are somehow molded by American conservative mores, but no coherent ethical system.

Your repeteated misrepresantation of my post (Laos did NOT declare war on the US, neither did Vietnam or Iraq by the way) also leads me to believe that you do not want to have a coherent ethical system, because you live more comfortably without one.

Maybe this thread simply is not for you.

196

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If you can’t tell the difference between state run welfare, and the natural resulting life produced through the act of procreation…

I can, but I also know that a natural right must be absolute and universal.

Insofar, no one, not even a new born baby can have the right to be kept alive because very often that is simply not possible.

It always has the right not to be killed because that is always possible, under any circumstances.

I belive the embyro has a right to life, exactly where nature placed it. Can’t get anymore natural than that.

An embryo is born with an inherent property title to its mothers womb?

Is that your argument?

Property? There are no property rights to life. Property is a man made circumstance.

Hardly.

First, even animals have territorial instincts and children develop that distinction pretty early and second you would not except that you do not belong to you by right of birth.

And again, we hold these truths to be self evident…

Territorial instincts and property are two different things. A baby in the womb is no more the property of the mother then your own foot. Yes it is a part of you, but it is not property. Property would be things like you house, land, you wallet. Your body, mind, baby is not yours at all. It is just life. If you want to stretch it then fine we will say your foot is your “property”, but if that is your argument then a baby and their body is their own property.[/quote]

Could you at least pretend to follow the argument.

I stated from the beginning that an embryo has the right to live in Rothbard´s scenario. Obviously the embryo owns itself, just like you own yourself.

Therefore you may not kill it.

But, equally obvious, that right can only be a negative right, not a positive one.

If an embryo was property, there´d be no discussion.

197

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
So if I lock an adult in a cellar with no food or water, then I simply removed them from their life support system, right? No killing involved.

Uhhhh… that is aggression and is immoral. You would be violating that person’s rights by removing his liberty.

A more apt corollary would be that you are free to step over a homeless man starving in the street and not give him any of your money to keep him “alive”. You did not infringe on his right to life. If he lives he lives.

You would certainly see the ethical side of the argument if an armed police officer forced you at gun point to give him one of your dollars.

Except a grown homeless can fend for himself a baby cannot.

So do helpless people do have a positive right to be kept alive?

Clothed, fed, sheltered?

Do I have the right, a RIGHT, NO LESS, to hold a gun to your head and make you work until the last helpless person has been clothed, fed and sheltered?

Do helpless people have any other rights and where does that leave your rights?

Like I said the government should only use tax money (forced by gun scenario) to help those that NEED the help as long as they did not put themselves in that situation. A drug addict can either a) fend for themselves, B) get help via charity or c) go find a nice rock to crawl under and die, but a child that can’t take care of themselves should be provided for.

every child? Wherever it lives?

What about people who had a stroke or stepped on a land mine?

Wait, I know the last answer:

Those who planted the mines should pay for it, right?

And of course for the removal.

Every child under that particular government yes.

People have health care for strokes.

If you step on a land mine you are not going to live 9 times out of 10.

The ones that plants the mines usually pay with their lives in jail or in battle.

Why only under a particular government? What if they have no health care because they could not afford it?

Doesn´t that seem a little arbitrary do you?

Do women outside the US have the right to abort?

Does crossing an imaginary line also change the ethics of the situation for them?

And does an American bomber pilot have to pay for people in Laos that have no legs if he is not dead?

I mean, he put them into a situation they did not deserve. Should he not provide for them.

I don’t care what other countries do or do not do they have to live with the consequences.

I believe abortion is wrong universally.

Governments are created specifically to help her people. If you want the US to help everyone maybe we should the United States of the World instead of America.

How do you know the guy that has his legs blown off didn’t deserve it? His government shouldn’t have fought against ours and since his government went to war and he lost his legs as a consequence they can pay for his care.

Laos never went to war against you, but even if, how was it any peasants fault if his government had done that?

They question remains, why do embryos rights do not stop at arbitrary lines yet innocent wounded people´s do?

Is it a coincidence that that is the result that this is the most convenient for you and that you fail for the second time now to explain the ethical principle behind the distinction you make?

A peasant is part of that country they should have stood up and told their government not to go to war. Aren’t they just as responsible for the governments actions for not speaking up?

Innocent wounded people can take care of themselves. If they can’t their government should take care of them if the people under that government believe ethically the government is required to. Ethics are not universal. Ethics are dictated by culture were as morals are natural laws pertaining to all being able to comprehend them.

So to answer you question…I don’t want you to be in suspense…My ethics dictate I help people that I believe deserve help. For example American soldiers wounded in battle, children left for dead, the homeless guy that lost his legs in a car accident. My ethics; however, also dictate that homeless guys that can work at McDonalds go get a job or die in a gutter.

I do not even want to sound condescending but I guess that will be inevitable.

I honestly think that you have no ethics.

You have gut feelings that are somehow molded by American conservative mores, but no coherent ethical system.

Your repeteated misrepresantation of my post (Laos did NOT declare war on the US, neither did Vietnam or Iraq by the way) also leads me to believe that you do not want to have a coherent ethical system, because you live more comfortably without one.

Maybe this thread simply is not for you. [/quote]

Well I’m glad you psycho analyzed my life now I can move on and maybe make something of it.

When did I ever say Laos, Vietnam, or Iraq ever declared war on the US? Who care if they did or not I’m sure the hundreds of thousands of people that died in those non-wars might say otherwise.

Lastly I hate to sound condescending, but I think you live in your mother?s basement and have never actually ventured out into the real world. The one were all this stuff you talk about is actually happening and is a gray area not so black and white with tight little bow ties tied around them. Things are rarely as straight forward as you make them and until you venture out on your own your comments and points really mean almost nothing. Quote who ever you want, but I have actually lived through some of the things you talk about (Iraq) and I know what really goes on over there so you can think whatever you want.

198

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If you can’t tell the difference between state run welfare, and the natural resulting life produced through the act of procreation…

I can, but I also know that a natural right must be absolute and universal.

Insofar, no one, not even a new born baby can have the right to be kept alive because very often that is simply not possible.

It always has the right not to be killed because that is always possible, under any circumstances.

I belive the embyro has a right to life, exactly where nature placed it. Can’t get anymore natural than that.

An embryo is born with an inherent property title to its mothers womb?

Is that your argument?

Property? There are no property rights to life. Property is a man made circumstance.

Hardly.

First, even animals have territorial instincts and children develop that distinction pretty early and second you would not except that you do not belong to you by right of birth.

And again, we hold these truths to be self evident…

Territorial instincts and property are two different things. A baby in the womb is no more the property of the mother then your own foot. Yes it is a part of you, but it is not property. Property would be things like you house, land, you wallet. Your body, mind, baby is not yours at all. It is just life. If you want to stretch it then fine we will say your foot is your “property”, but if that is your argument then a baby and their body is their own property.

Could you at least pretend to follow the argument.

I stated from the beginning that an embryo has the right to live in Rothbard´s scenario. Obviously the embryo owns itself, just like you own yourself.

Therefore you may not kill it.

But, equally obvious, that right can only be a negative right, not a positive one.

If an embryo was property, there´d be no discussion.

[/quote]

Ok so you just squashed lifty’s property of contract argument, thanks.

But you haven’t answered how do you remove an unborn child without mutilating it’s tissue.

so your claim goes from a passive to an aggressive.

Your argument is null.

I am thoroughly confused how you are still arguing given the fact that your arguments have been trumped in numerous instances.

199

Here is an interesting right to life thought.

If life is a natural right, then too the right not to live is covered by that right. So, I could say, commit suicide, or take large risks with my life.

If the right to life is also the right not to live, it is as much a violation to create a life as to take one.

Parents in essence disturb the natural order of things by giving a child life to begin with. Because the parents did not have the right to interfere in the life status of an un-conceived child.

Many people come to believe at some point it would be better if they were never born, as they are subjected to pain and misery in life. What right did the parents have to bring you into this world?

200

[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
So if I lock an adult in a cellar with no food or water, then I simply removed them from their life support system, right? No killing involved.

Uhhhh… that is aggression and is immoral. You would be violating that person’s rights by removing his liberty.

A more apt corollary would be that you are free to step over a homeless man starving in the street and not give him any of your money to keep him “alive”. You did not infringe on his right to life. If he lives he lives.

You would certainly see the ethical side of the argument if an armed police officer forced you at gun point to give him one of your dollars.

Except a grown homeless can fend for himself a baby cannot.

So do helpless people do have a positive right to be kept alive?

Clothed, fed, sheltered?

Do I have the right, a RIGHT, NO LESS, to hold a gun to your head and make you work until the last helpless person has been clothed, fed and sheltered?

Do helpless people have any other rights and where does that leave your rights?

Like I said the government should only use tax money (forced by gun scenario) to help those that NEED the help as long as they did not put themselves in that situation. A drug addict can either a) fend for themselves, B) get help via charity or c) go find a nice rock to crawl under and die, but a child that can’t take care of themselves should be provided for.

every child? Wherever it lives?

What about people who had a stroke or stepped on a land mine?

Wait, I know the last answer:

Those who planted the mines should pay for it, right?

And of course for the removal.

Every child under that particular government yes.

People have health care for strokes.

If you step on a land mine you are not going to live 9 times out of 10.

The ones that plants the mines usually pay with their lives in jail or in battle.

Why only under a particular government? What if they have no health care because they could not afford it?

Doesn´t that seem a little arbitrary do you?

Do women outside the US have the right to abort?

Does crossing an imaginary line also change the ethics of the situation for them?

And does an American bomber pilot have to pay for people in Laos that have no legs if he is not dead?

I mean, he put them into a situation they did not deserve. Should he not provide for them.

I don’t care what other countries do or do not do they have to live with the consequences.

I believe abortion is wrong universally.

Governments are created specifically to help her people. If you want the US to help everyone maybe we should the United States of the World instead of America.

How do you know the guy that has his legs blown off didn’t deserve it? His government shouldn’t have fought against ours and since his government went to war and he lost his legs as a consequence they can pay for his care.

Laos never went to war against you, but even if, how was it any peasants fault if his government had done that?

They question remains, why do embryos rights do not stop at arbitrary lines yet innocent wounded people´s do?

Is it a coincidence that that is the result that this is the most convenient for you and that you fail for the second time now to explain the ethical principle behind the distinction you make?

[/quote]

What the fuck does Laos have to do with whether or not abortion is the taking of a human life?
Next thing you know, the Crusades! Because there were crusades, abortion is not murder.