[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m in favor of not taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn. [/quote]
Yes and since you are not a woman and therefore not capable yourself of “taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn” that means you would force another woman to carry a fetus to full term. That means you also favor aggression to the extent your wishes for an unborn fetus are carried out.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m in favor of not taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn.
Yes and since you are not a woman and therefore not capable yourself of “taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn” that means you would force another woman to carry a fetus to full term. That means you also favor aggression to the extent your wishes for an unborn fetus are carried out.[/quote]
So no one ever has the right to defend anyone else?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m in favor of not taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn.
Yes and since you are not a woman and therefore not capable yourself of “taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn” that means you would force another woman to carry a fetus to full term. That means you also favor aggression to the extent your wishes for an unborn fetus are carried out.[/quote]
I’m in favor of protecting the life of a teenager from a killer. Even though I’m not the killer. I favor law, aggression, whatever you want to call it, to stop both types of murder. The woman in question would be attempting, through aggression, to take away the developing child’s natural right to it’s term, and it’s life.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m in favor of not taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn.
Yes and since you are not a woman and therefore not capable yourself of “taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn” that means you would force another woman to carry a fetus to full term. That means you also favor aggression to the extent your wishes for an unborn fetus are carried out.
So no one ever has the right to defend anyone else?[/quote]
Well, since you yourself weren’t being aggressed against, you would be committing a pre-emptive strike. You’d have to wait your turn.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m in favor of not taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn.
Yes and since you are not a woman and therefore not capable yourself of “taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn” that means you would force another woman to carry a fetus to full term. That means you also favor aggression to the extent your wishes for an unborn fetus are carried out.[/quote]
What do you mean “force women to carry a fetus to full term”? A woman is going to carry the baby al 9 months unless she deliberately kills the baby or naturally the baby dies. If she does not kill the child nature will take its course and the baby will be born. Since a child can not protect its right to live someone else has to whether the pregnancy is wanted or not.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m in favor of not taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn.
Yes and since you are not a woman and therefore not capable yourself of “taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn” that means you would force another woman to carry a fetus to full term. That means you also favor aggression to the extent your wishes for an unborn fetus are carried out.[/quote]
Pregnacy is an act of aggression? Would not sucking a fetus out with a hoover be considered an act of aggression? After all you are forcing it to die against it’s will.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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.
[/quote]
The right to life is implied in the idea that you own your own life – at least, in the sense that no one else can own your life. It is your property and it cannot be taken from you. It is natural in the sense that your life comes to you naturally and is not given to you by anyone else.
All other rights are derived from this one right. All other rights must therefore also be negative in the sense that they can neither be taken nor given. That is also to say they differ from positive rights in that positive rights cannot exist with out taking them from someone else.
In this way, we can definitely say that no one has a right to food, clothing, shelter, or health care because it requires taking from one to give to another. We cannot deprive someone from those things that are already his because that would be an infringement of natural rights.
An animal has a life, in the sense that you can’t own it. As in, you can’t live take it, and live it’s life. Are you a vegetarian?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m in favor of not taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn.
Yes and since you are not a woman and therefore not capable yourself of “taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn” that means you would force another woman to carry a fetus to full term. That means you also favor aggression to the extent your wishes for an unborn fetus are carried out.
So no one ever has the right to defend anyone else?[/quote]
How do you do that without first infringing upon the mother’s right to her womb?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
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.
The right to life is implied in the idea that you own your own life – at least, in the sense that no one else can own your life. It is your property and it cannot be taken from you. It is natural in the sense that your life comes to you naturally and is not given to you by anyone else.
All other rights are derived from this one right. All other rights must therefore also be negative in the sense that they can neither be taken nor given. That is also to say they differ from positive rights in that positive rights cannot exist with out taking them from someone else.
In this way, we can definitely say that no one has a right to food, clothing, shelter, or health care because it requires taking from one to give to another. We cannot deprive someone from those things that are already his because that would be an infringement of natural rights.[/quote]
This goes back to the negative rights comment. Even a negative right infringes on the rights of others. A negative right says you can’t do X and Y, a positive right says you have to do Z. They both have to be forced on society.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m in favor of not taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn.
Yes and since you are not a woman and therefore not capable yourself of “taking deliberate actions leading to the death of the unborn” that means you would force another woman to carry a fetus to full term. That means you also favor aggression to the extent your wishes for an unborn fetus are carried out.
So no one ever has the right to defend anyone else?
How do you do that without first infringing upon the mother’s right to her womb?[/quote]
Like a I said, she voided her right to defend her property from a trespasser when she invited the baby in. She doesn’t have that right anymore when she choses to get pregnant.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
An animal has a life, in the sense that you can’t own it. As in, you can’t live take it, and live it’s life. Are you a vegetarian?[/quote]
Actually, all animals that are not in the wild are owned by someone else. Consequently, all animals in the wild that are now owned are on someone else’s property so it is not problem that I eat other animals – at least in the libertarian la la land that I inhabit.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Liberty has dick to do with the issue. It’s about responsibility, and the lack thereof.
Maybe you should read the question posed before you open your ignorant mouth. Now run along and let the grown ups talk.[/quote]
Why don’t you go fuck yourself? You used the stupid fucking word, you nut licking retard.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What do you mean “force women to carry a fetus to full term”? A woman is going to carry the baby al 9 months unless she deliberately kills the baby or naturally the baby dies. If she does not kill the child nature will take its course and the baby will be born. Since a child can not protect its right to live someone else has to whether the pregnancy is wanted or not.[/quote]
That is the only way to stop her from having an abortion. You need to physically hold a gun to her head.
But really, first you need to steal my money to hire an armed government thug to hold the gun and then you need to steal some more of my money to pay for the woman’s prenatal care as well as hire another armed thug to make sure she is getting the prenatal care her fetus needs.
That is how it works in a liberal, entitlement society. Any more questions?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
An animal has a life, in the sense that you can’t own it. As in, you can’t live take it, and live it’s life. Are you a vegetarian?
Actually, all animals that are not in the wild are owned by someone else. Consequently, all animals in the wild that are now owned are on someone else’s property so it is not problem that I eat other animals – at least in the libertarian la la land that I inhabit.[/quote]
That doesn’t address the problem. Humans can and have owned other humans as property. So, if you’re talking about the act of capturing and/or purchasing a person, they can be someone’s property.
Your response shouldn’t be to eat the owned animals, but to demand that they are set free.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How do you do that without first infringing upon the mother’s right to her womb?
Like a I said, she voided her right to defend her property from a trespasser when she invited the baby in. She doesn’t have that right anymore when she choses to get pregnant.[/quote]
I guess as long as you remember to kick the sperm donor in the nuts too we’re all good.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Your response shouldn’t be to eat the owned animals, but to demand that they are set free.[/quote]
Only humans have rights.
My wife would agree with your argument but then I seriously doubt that if this line of reasoning were correct we’d even be here arguing in favor of animal rights.
[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
By this logic, liberal thinking folk have no right to life since they make themselves willingly dependent on others for their own survival.
And you despise it and yet follow the same logic when it comes to an embryo.
[/quote]
I despise it because it’s idiotic, contradictory, self-aggrandizing, illogical, and dysfunctional in concept and reality. Just like this lame attempt at “logic” being used in this thread.
the whole burden on the mother thing is completely irrelevant to the topic if the thing you are killing is a human being. Prove it’s not and I won’t give a fuck what you do with it.
The only thing that matters in the abortion debate is whether or not the pre-born child is a human life or not. The rest is just linguistical gymnastics designed to make one feel better about killing another human being.
It’s murder plain and simple. Prove it’s not and we have a real debate, otherwise this is utter bullshit.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How do you do that without first infringing upon the mother’s right to her womb?
Like a I said, she voided her right to defend her property from a trespasser when she invited the baby in. She doesn’t have that right anymore when she choses to get pregnant.
I guess as long as you remember to kick the sperm donor in the nuts too we’re all good.[/quote]
Or at least be made to put up with the hormonal woman to term.
[quote]jawara wrote:
Embryo’s arent made on their own. If you can’t handle the consequences of sex (children) then don’t have sex. If you cant handle kids the woman should use the pill and the guy should use a condom. That strategy will reduce you chances down to like .00001.[/quote]
That is a good point. No matter what my views on abortion, I still think personal responsibility is a priority. Abortion isn’t a form of birth control.