My Very Own Abortion Thread

[PRCalDude]

[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit:

Nevermind. Sorry, but this is the dumbest arguement for murder I’ve ever read.

First of all it is not murder, it simply cannot be.

You’re saying that depriving an embryo of food, water, and oxygen is not murder. In the embryonic stage of human development, the embryo has no alternative to receiving these through the umbilical chord. The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change once the baby has been delivered.

It still requires all the support from caretakers, though the infant is not now in the mother’s womb. The entire basis of your argument is that the mother should not be forced to carry something “she does not want” in her personal property: “herself.”

However, the embryo/infant cannot have rights with the mother having the right to dispose of the inconvenience of the embryo (or infant) at any time. The Rothbardian ethics and your ethics are mutually exclusive.

No they are not , but you are very much invited to think it through.

For starters, a negative right and the power to exercise that right are two different things.

You are perfectly free to jump over the Atlantic, alas, it is not in your power to do so.

[/quote]

Negative rights:

[quote]To state the difference more formally: some party ‘A’ has a negative right to x against another party ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is prohibited from acting upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x; and likewise, ‘A’ has a positive right to x against ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is obliged to act upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x.

For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A’; while if ‘A’ has a positive right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of ‘A’.[/quote]

So the embryo’s negative right to life also requires the mother to refrain from killing the embryo, since abortion most certainly is killing, as it involves depriving the embryo of food, water, shelter and oxygen when it, by definition, can only receive the same from the mother in the womb.

The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change when the embryo advances to a later stage of development and becomes an infant: it still requires food, water, oxygen, and shelter from the mother or other caretaker.

The baby, at that point, still has the negative right to life and that negative right still obligates the mother not to leave it in a dumpster, at least according to US law. When the child reaches a later stage of development, and becomes more robust in terms of survivability outside the parent’s care, the situation changes.

[orion]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
What I’ve learned from this thread:

Moral Relativism is Black and White.

Who knew?

What you do not seem to have learned that this is an attack on moral relativism.

When the deliberate neglect of a baby which will almost inevitably lead to his death is discussed as some sort of logical conclusion derived from a proposed ethical system, then I’d say that morals have become pretty fuzzy, no matter your intentions.

When the poverty of large parts of a population while other people are thriving is the direct result of an ethical system then I’d say that morals have become pretty fuzzy, no matter your intentions.

I get it, you do not like a possible outcome of ethical principles, therefore they must be wrong.

That is utilitarian thinking, you judge a system by its outcomes.

Just one question, how, or by what standards, do you judge the outcome. if you have sacrificed your principles because you did not like the outcome?

The inevitable result is an “ethical system” that consists of wishful thinking.

You might call that liberal relativism, but I would either drop the term liberal because they do no longer seem to have cornered the market on that type of folly.

Oh, I agree with you that liberals have certainly not cornered the market on relativism. It seems to plague every system we have available to us today, save Islamism, interestingly enough.

However, this argument is quite simple. It has been stated over and over again. The fact that you choose to ignore or warp that which does not support your own argument does nothing to erode my own. I know it must feel good to claim victory in front of everyone, however, much like a streaker must enjoy the reactions of his “crowd.”

Here’s my ethic: Killing a human is wrong. You were the one…oh, wait, sorry, that was Rothbard. Rothbard was the one who assumed the child was human. “Neglect” is a conscious act which results in murder. Therefore “neglect” is wrong.

All of your “arguments” have done nothing to convince me that what you are proposing is nothing more than simple murder. It’s not nearly so complicated as you make it out to be.

Also, you have yet to define the word “welfare.”

Islam is pretty simple, it is a religion and therefore avoids the question of logical consistency.

Then, neglect, and that is where your “neglect is murder”-argument falls to the ground, is not an act, it is the willful decision NOT TO ACT.

But, let us say for a moment that I accepted your argument, which I don´t.

What follows?

That you are a mas murderer because millions of children die each year because you chose not to help them?

If you do not accept thus outcome of your premise, there must be to it than that.

What exactlky?

I’m going to type this very slowly: The is no neglect/murder on the part of a mother toward millions of children, because she had no part in either the creation of those children or their current misery.

The situation at hand, however, carries with it mitigating circumstances, not the least of which is that the mother in question is the architect of her child’s life. The child did not exist before her conscious decision to engage in action which eventuated its creation. The circumstances are not the same, no matter how much you would gleefully jump up and down equating the two.

And you still have not defined the word “welfare.” This is the third time I have asked for it.
[/quote]

I posted above why the “she invited it in”-bird won´t fly.

Welfare, in this case, would mean that you force someone else at the threat of violence to support a third party.

It can have other meanings, but this is the aspect of it that a conservative would find unacceptable.

[orion]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit:

Nevermind. Sorry, but this is the dumbest arguement for murder I’ve ever read.

First of all it is not murder, it simply cannot be.

You’re saying that depriving an embryo of food, water, and oxygen is not murder. In the embryonic stage of human development, the embryo has no alternative to receiving these through the umbilical chord. The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change once the baby has been delivered.

It still requires all the support from caretakers, though the infant is not now in the mother’s womb. The entire basis of your argument is that the mother should not be forced to carry something “she does not want” in her personal property: “herself.”

However, the embryo/infant cannot have rights with the mother having the right to dispose of the inconvenience of the embryo (or infant) at any time. The Rothbardian ethics and your ethics are mutually exclusive.

No they are not , but you are very much invited to think it through.

For starters, a negative right and the power to exercise that right are two different things.

You are perfectly free to jump over the Atlantic, alas, it is not in your power to do so.

Negative rights:

To state the difference more formally: some party ‘A’ has a negative right to x against another party ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is prohibited from acting upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x; and likewise, ‘A’ has a positive right to x against ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is obliged to act upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x.

For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A’; while if ‘A’ has a positive right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of ‘A’.

So the embryo’s negative right to life also requires the mother to refrain from killing the embryo, since abortion most certainly is killing, as it involves depriving the embryo of food, water, shelter and oxygen when it, by definition, can only receive the same from the mother in the womb.

The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change when the embryo advances to a later stage of development and becomes an infant: it still requires food, water, oxygen, and shelter from the mother or other caretaker.

The baby, at that point, still has the negative right to life and that negative right still obligates the mother not to leave it in a dumpster, at least according to US law. When the child reaches a later stage of development, and becomes more robust in terms of survivability outside the parent’s care, the situation changes.

[/quote]

Your definition of natural right is not sufficient because it only focuses on interpersonal relationships.

A person however has the right to life, liberty and private property even if it is stranded on a desert island where there is no one to provide anything.

Therefore, a right that depends on the ability of others to provide it, or even the existence of someone to provide it, can never be a classic, i.e. natural right.

To claim that a child has a negative right to a mothers care is a contradiction in terms.

[Cortes]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit:

Nevermind. Sorry, but this is the dumbest arguement for murder I’ve ever read.

First of all it is not murder, it simply cannot be.

You’re saying that depriving an embryo of food, water, and oxygen is not murder. In the embryonic stage of human development, the embryo has no alternative to receiving these through the umbilical chord. The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change once the baby has been delivered.

It still requires all the support from caretakers, though the infant is not now in the mother’s womb. The entire basis of your argument is that the mother should not be forced to carry something “she does not want” in her personal property: “herself.”

However, the embryo/infant cannot have rights with the mother having the right to dispose of the inconvenience of the embryo (or infant) at any time. The Rothbardian ethics and your ethics are mutually exclusive.

No they are not , but you are very much invited to think it through.

For starters, a negative right and the power to exercise that right are two different things.

You are perfectly free to jump over the Atlantic, alas, it is not in your power to do so.

Negative rights:

To state the difference more formally: some party ‘A’ has a negative right to x against another party ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is prohibited from acting upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x; and likewise, ‘A’ has a positive right to x against ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is obliged to act upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x.

For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A’; while if ‘A’ has a positive right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of ‘A’.

So the embryo’s negative right to life also requires the mother to refrain from killing the embryo, since abortion most certainly is killing, as it involves depriving the embryo of food, water, shelter and oxygen when it, by definition, can only receive the same from the mother in the womb.

The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change when the embryo advances to a later stage of development and becomes an infant: it still requires food, water, oxygen, and shelter from the mother or other caretaker.

The baby, at that point, still has the negative right to life and that negative right still obligates the mother not to leave it in a dumpster, at least according to US law. When the child reaches a later stage of development, and becomes more robust in terms of survivability outside the parent’s care, the situation changes.

[/quote]

You may as well save your breath. I posted the exact same line of reasoning on page one, and look where we are now…

[Cortes]

[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit:

Nevermind. Sorry, but this is the dumbest arguement for murder I’ve ever read.

First of all it is not murder, it simply cannot be.

You’re saying that depriving an embryo of food, water, and oxygen is not murder. In the embryonic stage of human development, the embryo has no alternative to receiving these through the umbilical chord. The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change once the baby has been delivered.

It still requires all the support from caretakers, though the infant is not now in the mother’s womb. The entire basis of your argument is that the mother should not be forced to carry something “she does not want” in her personal property: “herself.”

However, the embryo/infant cannot have rights with the mother having the right to dispose of the inconvenience of the embryo (or infant) at any time. The Rothbardian ethics and your ethics are mutually exclusive.

No they are not , but you are very much invited to think it through.

For starters, a negative right and the power to exercise that right are two different things.

You are perfectly free to jump over the Atlantic, alas, it is not in your power to do so.

Negative rights:

To state the difference more formally: some party ‘A’ has a negative right to x against another party ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is prohibited from acting upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x; and likewise, ‘A’ has a positive right to x against ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is obliged to act upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x.

For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A’; while if ‘A’ has a positive right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of ‘A’.

So the embryo’s negative right to life also requires the mother to refrain from killing the embryo, since abortion most certainly is killing, as it involves depriving the embryo of food, water, shelter and oxygen when it, by definition, can only receive the same from the mother in the womb.

The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change when the embryo advances to a later stage of development and becomes an infant: it still requires food, water, oxygen, and shelter from the mother or other caretaker.

The baby, at that point, still has the negative right to life and that negative right still obligates the mother not to leave it in a dumpster, at least according to US law. When the child reaches a later stage of development, and becomes more robust in terms of survivability outside the parent’s care, the situation changes.

Your definition of natural right is not sufficient because it only focuses on interpersonal relationships.

A person however has the right to life, liberty and private property even if it is stranded on a desert island where there is no one to provide anything.

Therefore, a right that depends on the ability of others to provide it, or even the existence of someone to provide it, can never be a classic, i.e. natural right.

To claim that a child has a negative right to a mothers care is a contradiction in terms.

[/quote]

She only has to not kill it.

[orion]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit:

Nevermind. Sorry, but this is the dumbest arguement for murder I’ve ever read.

First of all it is not murder, it simply cannot be.

You’re saying that depriving an embryo of food, water, and oxygen is not murder. In the embryonic stage of human development, the embryo has no alternative to receiving these through the umbilical chord. The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change once the baby has been delivered.

It still requires all the support from caretakers, though the infant is not now in the mother’s womb. The entire basis of your argument is that the mother should not be forced to carry something “she does not want” in her personal property: “herself.”

However, the embryo/infant cannot have rights with the mother having the right to dispose of the inconvenience of the embryo (or infant) at any time. The Rothbardian ethics and your ethics are mutually exclusive.

No they are not , but you are very much invited to think it through.

For starters, a negative right and the power to exercise that right are two different things.

You are perfectly free to jump over the Atlantic, alas, it is not in your power to do so.

Negative rights:

To state the difference more formally: some party ‘A’ has a negative right to x against another party ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is prohibited from acting upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x; and likewise, ‘A’ has a positive right to x against ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is obliged to act upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x.

For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A’; while if ‘A’ has a positive right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of ‘A’.

So the embryo’s negative right to life also requires the mother to refrain from killing the embryo, since abortion most certainly is killing, as it involves depriving the embryo of food, water, shelter and oxygen when it, by definition, can only receive the same from the mother in the womb.

The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change when the embryo advances to a later stage of development and becomes an infant: it still requires food, water, oxygen, and shelter from the mother or other caretaker.

The baby, at that point, still has the negative right to life and that negative right still obligates the mother not to leave it in a dumpster, at least according to US law. When the child reaches a later stage of development, and becomes more robust in terms of survivability outside the parent’s care, the situation changes.

Your definition of natural right is not sufficient because it only focuses on interpersonal relationships.

A person however has the right to life, liberty and private property even if it is stranded on a desert island where there is no one to provide anything.

Therefore, a right that depends on the ability of others to provide it, or even the existence of someone to provide it, can never be a classic, i.e. natural right.

To claim that a child has a negative right to a mothers care is a contradiction in terms.

She only has to not kill it.

[/quote]

And she doesn´t.

She evicts it.

Where it survives or not.

Which really depends on how much YOU value their lives.

[Cortes]

[quote]orion wrote on page 1

So, the real question for a conservative is, how he can be against abortion and also against welfare when forcing a woman to keep a child alive she does not want basically is welfare?
[/quote]

Conservatives are not against welfare as you have defined it (you knew I was going to say that, right?).

Conservatives are against sweeping, gargantuan social programs that create dependant classes. There is no contradiction here because, again, this issue is not nearly so black and white as you would like to paint it in the pursuit of “winning” your “argument.”

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Your definition of natural right is not sufficient because it only focuses on interpersonal relationships.

A person however has the right to life, liberty and private property even if it is stranded on a desert island where there is no one to provide anything.

Therefore, a right that depends on the ability of others to provide it, or even the existence of someone to provide it, can never be a classic, i.e. natural right.

To claim that a child has a negative right to a mothers care is a contradiction in terms. [/quote]

Unfortunately for your case, things aren’t as black and white as you make them. Societies that allow infanticide-by-neglect aren’t considered just or well-governed by any reasonable standard, positive or negative rights aside completely.

We tend to frown upon leaving babies in the dumpster even in the People’s Republic of California and we tend to jail mothers who neglect such infants to death. Now, the infant equivalent of abortion is basically beating your infant over the head with a bat - definitely a violation of positive rights by any sane person’s reckoning.

Societies such as ours and Europe’s who enshrine infanticide as a public virtue tend not to exist very long, which is largely what we see in Europe and in the population of the USA, which as a dismal native birthrate, except for that of the Mexicans, whose birthrate is funded by the ever-shrinking white majority who pays for their “free” baby deliveries.

I suppose we can continue to argue on the deckplates of the Titanic, if it makes you feel better.

[Cortes]

[quote]orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit:

Nevermind. Sorry, but this is the dumbest arguement for murder I’ve ever read.

First of all it is not murder, it simply cannot be.

You’re saying that depriving an embryo of food, water, and oxygen is not murder. In the embryonic stage of human development, the embryo has no alternative to receiving these through the umbilical chord. The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change once the baby has been delivered.

It still requires all the support from caretakers, though the infant is not now in the mother’s womb. The entire basis of your argument is that the mother should not be forced to carry something “she does not want” in her personal property: “herself.”

However, the embryo/infant cannot have rights with the mother having the right to dispose of the inconvenience of the embryo (or infant) at any time. The Rothbardian ethics and your ethics are mutually exclusive.

No they are not , but you are very much invited to think it through.

For starters, a negative right and the power to exercise that right are two different things.

You are perfectly free to jump over the Atlantic, alas, it is not in your power to do so.

Negative rights:

To state the difference more formally: some party ‘A’ has a negative right to x against another party ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is prohibited from acting upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x; and likewise, ‘A’ has a positive right to x against ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is obliged to act upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x.

For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A’; while if ‘A’ has a positive right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of ‘A’.

So the embryo’s negative right to life also requires the mother to refrain from killing the embryo, since abortion most certainly is killing, as it involves depriving the embryo of food, water, shelter and oxygen when it, by definition, can only receive the same from the mother in the womb.

The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change when the embryo advances to a later stage of development and becomes an infant: it still requires food, water, oxygen, and shelter from the mother or other caretaker.

The baby, at that point, still has the negative right to life and that negative right still obligates the mother not to leave it in a dumpster, at least according to US law. When the child reaches a later stage of development, and becomes more robust in terms of survivability outside the parent’s care, the situation changes.

Your definition of natural right is not sufficient because it only focuses on interpersonal relationships.

A person however has the right to life, liberty and private property even if it is stranded on a desert island where there is no one to provide anything.

Therefore, a right that depends on the ability of others to provide it, or even the existence of someone to provide it, can never be a classic, i.e. natural right.

To claim that a child has a negative right to a mothers care is a contradiction in terms.

She only has to not kill it.

And she doesn´t.

She evicts it.

Where it survives or not.

Which really depends on how much YOU value their lives.

[/quote]

See my prior post about her actions resulting in the birth of the child.

This thread is just spinning its wheels.

[orion]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
orion wrote on page 1

So, the real question for a conservative is, how he can be against abortion and also against welfare when forcing a woman to keep a child alive she does not want basically is welfare?

Conservatives are not against welfare as you have defined it (you knew I was going to say that, right?).

Conservatives are against sweeping, gargantuan social programs that create dependant classes. There is no contradiction here because, again, this issue is not nearly so black and white as you would like to paint it in the pursuit of “winning” your “argument.”
[/quote]

Well, if you want to argue how conservatives combine the classical natural rights idea that led to the American constitution with the forced retribution of wealth, I am all ears.

[orion]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit:

Nevermind. Sorry, but this is the dumbest arguement for murder I’ve ever read.

First of all it is not murder, it simply cannot be.

You’re saying that depriving an embryo of food, water, and oxygen is not murder. In the embryonic stage of human development, the embryo has no alternative to receiving these through the umbilical chord. The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change once the baby has been delivered.

It still requires all the support from caretakers, though the infant is not now in the mother’s womb. The entire basis of your argument is that the mother should not be forced to carry something “she does not want” in her personal property: “herself.”

However, the embryo/infant cannot have rights with the mother having the right to dispose of the inconvenience of the embryo (or infant) at any time. The Rothbardian ethics and your ethics are mutually exclusive.

No they are not , but you are very much invited to think it through.

For starters, a negative right and the power to exercise that right are two different things.

You are perfectly free to jump over the Atlantic, alas, it is not in your power to do so.

Negative rights:

To state the difference more formally: some party ‘A’ has a negative right to x against another party ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is prohibited from acting upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x; and likewise, ‘A’ has a positive right to x against ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is obliged to act upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x.

For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A’; while if ‘A’ has a positive right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of ‘A’.

So the embryo’s negative right to life also requires the mother to refrain from killing the embryo, since abortion most certainly is killing, as it involves depriving the embryo of food, water, shelter and oxygen when it, by definition, can only receive the same from the mother in the womb.

The situation of the embryo does not fundamentally change when the embryo advances to a later stage of development and becomes an infant: it still requires food, water, oxygen, and shelter from the mother or other caretaker.

The baby, at that point, still has the negative right to life and that negative right still obligates the mother not to leave it in a dumpster, at least according to US law. When the child reaches a later stage of development, and becomes more robust in terms of survivability outside the parent’s care, the situation changes.

Your definition of natural right is not sufficient because it only focuses on interpersonal relationships.

A person however has the right to life, liberty and private property even if it is stranded on a desert island where there is no one to provide anything.

Therefore, a right that depends on the ability of others to provide it, or even the existence of someone to provide it, can never be a classic, i.e. natural right.

To claim that a child has a negative right to a mothers care is a contradiction in terms.

She only has to not kill it.

And she doesn´t.

She evicts it.

Where it survives or not.

Which really depends on how much YOU value their lives.

See my prior post about her actions resulting in the birth of the child.

This thread is just spinning its wheels.[/quote]

Yeah, you are a mass murderer

Shout it from the mountain tops.

Just reminding you of the things you have not addressed.

Your underlying ethical principle is what again?

And it does not apply to you why exactly?

[orion]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Your definition of natural right is not sufficient because it only focuses on interpersonal relationships.

A person however has the right to life, liberty and private property even if it is stranded on a desert island where there is no one to provide anything.

Therefore, a right that depends on the ability of others to provide it, or even the existence of someone to provide it, can never be a classic, i.e. natural right.

To claim that a child has a negative right to a mothers care is a contradiction in terms.

Unfortunately for your case, things aren’t as black and white as you make them. Societies that allow infanticide-by-neglect aren’t considered just or well-governed by any reasonable standard, positive or negative rights aside completely.

We tend to frown upon leaving babies in the dumpster even in the People’s Republic of California and we tend to jail mothers who neglect such infants to death. Now, the infant equivalent of abortion is basically beating your infant over the head with a bat - definitely a violation of positive rights by any sane person’s reckoning.

Societies such as ours and Europe’s who enshrine infanticide as a public virtue tend not to exist very long, which is largely what we see in Europe and in the population of the USA, which as a dismal native birthrate, except for that of the Mexicans, whose birthrate is funded by the ever-shrinking white majority who pays for their “free” baby deliveries.

I suppose we can continue to argue on the deckplates of the Titanic, if it makes you feel better. [/quote]

You are mixing government coercive actions with a societies reaction to things.

How sad for you.

Sadder even, for a conservative?

Want something done?

Do it.

But to force someone else via government?

Jefferson would dropkick you all the way to England.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Your definition of natural right is not sufficient because it only focuses on interpersonal relationships.

A person however has the right to life, liberty and private property even if it is stranded on a desert island where there is no one to provide anything.

Therefore, a right that depends on the ability of others to provide it, or even the existence of someone to provide it, can never be a classic, i.e. natural right.

To claim that a child has a negative right to a mothers care is a contradiction in terms.

Unfortunately for your case, things aren’t as black and white as you make them. Societies that allow infanticide-by-neglect aren’t considered just or well-governed by any reasonable standard, positive or negative rights aside completely.

We tend to frown upon leaving babies in the dumpster even in the People’s Republic of California and we tend to jail mothers who neglect such infants to death. Now, the infant equivalent of abortion is basically beating your infant over the head with a bat - definitely a violation of positive rights by any sane person’s reckoning.

Societies such as ours and Europe’s who enshrine infanticide as a public virtue tend not to exist very long, which is largely what we see in Europe and in the population of the USA, which as a dismal native birthrate,

Except for that of the Mexicans, whose birthrate is funded by the ever-shrinking white majority who pays for their “free” baby deliveries. I suppose we can continue to argue on the deckplates of the Titanic, if it makes you feel better.

You are mixing government coercive actions with a societies reaction to things.

How sad for you.

Sadder even, for a conservative?

Want something done?

Do it.

But to force someone else via government?

Jefferson would dropkick you all the way to England.

[/quote]

Society and government both largely value the punishment of murder and the enforcement of laws. In fact, one of the government’s only jobs ought to punish crimes like murder. Society values the same.

Since society’s outrage against infanticide has waned (exemplified by Roe v. Wade and the millions of babies aborted in this country), the government no longer enforces sanctions against abortionists - even partial birth abortionists.

Now, for the time being, we do frown on beating your newborn over the head with a bat, and the government enforces sanctions against such behavior. But that may or may not be temporary given the trajectory of society.

That’s what it means to be “self-governed,” as we are and as our Constitution organizes us. The government IS US in this republic and vice-versa.

[Cortes]

[quote]orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote on page 1

So, the real question for a conservative is, how he can be against abortion and also against welfare when forcing a woman to keep a child alive she does not want basically is welfare?

Conservatives are not against welfare as you have defined it (you knew I was going to say that, right?).

Conservatives are against sweeping, gargantuan social programs that create dependant classes. There is no contradiction here because, again, this issue is not nearly so black and white as you would like to paint it in the pursuit of “winning” your “argument.”

Well, if you want to argue how conservatives combine the classical natural rights idea that led to the American constitution with the forced retribution of wealth, I am all ears.
[/quote]

You’re the one who posed the original argument. I suppose you should have defined the term “conservative,” too. But that wouldn’t have allowed you room to move goalposts around later, would it have?

[jsbrook]

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
Gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are unable to lead an ethical discussion.

You argue outcome oriented, you have no fixed ethical pinciples from which to derive at logical conclusions and if you do you simply deny that the conclusion logically follows.

Hell, most of you are unable to distiguish between action and inaction and positive and negative rights.

If you are typical conservatives that means American conseratism is dead, for you argue the EXACT SAME WAY LIKE UTILITARIAN LIBERALS DO.

Next time you feel like accusing a “liberal” of “moral relatiism” simply embrace him as your intellectual twin.

To play devil’s advocate, a baby has POSITIVE rights because a woman CHOOSES to get pregant in most cases. Even taking precautions, she embracces the risk of getting pregnant because they are not foolproof.

Therefore (accepting the proposition that a baby is human from conception), she may not murder the human being she chose to create. (Just as parents must provide for the birthed children they CHOOSE to bring into this world but not the homeless man down the street).

And by the way, the people on these forums are really not the typical conservatives. Although, I am not a conservative myself, true conservatives’ arguments are much less half-baked. The ‘conservatives’ on thse forums are just ideologues who scream the loudest.

While I still feel that the fact that the mother created the situation is not entirely without merit, you cannot argue that the child has a positive right.

There are several problems with this:

a) The problems of positive rights in general. Something that cannot be a right everywhere, at all times, cannot be a right.

You cannot have an inherent right that depends on the ability of others to provide it.

b) Implicit contractual obligations are hard to argue for because the child did not exist to make a contract with.

She wanted A child, but maybe not exactly THIS child?

c) What if she did not choose it and was raped?

That would imply that the negative rights of a child are depending on how that child was conceived and that is not possible.

They are either absolute or not at all, it would fly in the face of a natural rights idea.
[/quote]

You chose to frame it in the context of ‘positive rights’. But that’s only one way of looking at it. The argument is that having chosen to engage in behavior that could create a life, the mother has a RESPONSIBILITY not to murder the life she brought into the world.

Rape is a differnt story. So is pregnancy that’s dangerous to the life and health of the mother. If you accept that proposition that abortion is murder in the first place, it’s not that eiter situation makes it ‘not murder’. It’s that they make it justified.

[Sloth]

[quote]orion wrote:

I am saying that removing an embryo does not equal killing it.

Once it is removed from the mother, care for it, if you wish.

If not, don´t force others to do what you are unwilling to do.[/quote]

Wait, what? This just doesn’t even make sense. How would I bottle feed an embryo? It’s not even a fetus yet…She’s the one removing it from sustenance. And this of course leads right back to the mother starving her toddler to death while all the Rothbardians pick their nose.

[Sloth]

This is going in circles now. And while I have time to tab back and forth between this and studying, I don’t see this going anywhere. I’m outta here!

[Cortes]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
Gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are unable to lead an ethical discussion.

You argue outcome oriented, you have no fixed ethical pinciples from which to derive at logical conclusions and if you do you simply deny that the conclusion logically follows.

Hell, most of you are unable to distiguish between action and inaction and positive and negative rights.

If you are typical conservatives that means American conseratism is dead, for you argue the EXACT SAME WAY LIKE UTILITARIAN LIBERALS DO.

Next time you feel like accusing a “liberal” of “moral relatiism” simply embrace him as your intellectual twin.

To play devil’s advocate, a baby has POSITIVE rights because a woman CHOOSES to get pregant in most cases. Even taking precautions, she embracces the risk of getting pregnant because they are not foolproof.

Therefore (accepting the proposition that a baby is human from conception), she may not murder the human being she chose to create. (Just as parents must provide for the birthed children they CHOOSE to bring into this world but not the homeless man down the street).

And by the way, the people on these forums are really not the typical conservatives. Although, I am not a conservative myself, true conservatives’ arguments are much less half-baked. The ‘conservatives’ on thse forums are just ideologues who scream the loudest.

While I still feel that the fact that the mother created the situation is not entirely without merit, you cannot argue that the child has a positive right.

There are several problems with this:

a) The problems of positive rights in general. Something that cannot be a right everywhere, at all times, cannot be a right.

You cannot have an inherent right that depends on the ability of others to provide it.

b) Implicit contractual obligations are hard to argue for because the child did not exist to make a contract with.

She wanted A child, but maybe not exactly THIS child?

c) What if she did not choose it and was raped?

That would imply that the negative rights of a child are depending on how that child was conceived and that is not possible.

They are either absolute or not at all, it would fly in the face of a natural rights idea.

You chose to frame it in the context of ‘positive rights’. But that’s only one way of looking at it. The argument is that having chosen to engage in behavior that could create a life, the mother has a RESPONSIBILITY not to murder the life she brought into the world.
[/quote]

I guess you didn’t see it, JS, but orion already explained this. The mother’s role in her child’s conception has no bearing on the rights of child nor mother.

Oh, and you and I are mass murderers of starving African children.

[orion]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Your definition of natural right is not sufficient because it only focuses on interpersonal relationships.

A person however has the right to life, liberty and private property even if it is stranded on a desert island where there is no one to provide anything.

Therefore, a right that depends on the ability of others to provide it, or even the existence of someone to provide it, can never be a classic, i.e. natural right.

To claim that a child has a negative right to a mothers care is a contradiction in terms.

Unfortunately for your case, things aren’t as black and white as you make them. Societies that allow infanticide-by-neglect aren’t considered just or well-governed by any reasonable standard, positive or negative rights aside completely.

We tend to frown upon leaving babies in the dumpster even in the People’s Republic of California and we tend to jail mothers who neglect such infants to death. Now, the infant equivalent of abortion is basically beating your infant over the head with a bat - definitely a violation of positive rights by any sane person’s reckoning.

Societies such as ours and Europe’s who enshrine infanticide as a public virtue tend not to exist very long, which is largely what we see in Europe and in the population of the USA, which as a dismal native birthrate,

Except for that of the Mexicans, whose birthrate is funded by the ever-shrinking white majority who pays for their “free” baby deliveries. I suppose we can continue to argue on the deckplates of the Titanic, if it makes you feel better.

You are mixing government coercive actions with a societies reaction to things.

How sad for you.

Sadder even, for a conservative?

Want something done?

Do it.

But to force someone else via government?

Jefferson would dropkick you all the way to England.

Society and government both largely value the punishment of murder and the enforcement of laws. In fact, one of the government’s only jobs ought to punish crimes like murder. Society values the same.

Since society’s outrage against infanticide has waned (exemplified by Roe v. Wade and the millions of babies aborted in this country), the government no longer enforces sanctions against abortionists - even partial birth abortionists.

Now, for the time being, we do frown on beating your newborn over the head with a bat, and the government enforces sanctions against such behavior. But that may or may not be temporary given the trajectory of society.

That’s what it means to be “self-governed,” as we are and as our Constitution organizes us. The government IS US in this republic and vice-versa.
[/quote]

And is it not incredibly sad that the biggest criminal gang, whose leaders are determined by the lowest denominator get to set the moral agenda?

Maybe that is the main difference between libertarians and conservatives:

We have given up on government, yet you think you can use it to solve problems.

You have not quite given up the coercion thing.

edited

[orion]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
Gentlemen, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are unable to lead an ethical discussion.

You argue outcome oriented, you have no fixed ethical pinciples from which to derive at logical conclusions and if you do you simply deny that the conclusion logically follows.

Hell, most of you are unable to distiguish between action and inaction and positive and negative rights.

If you are typical conservatives that means American conseratism is dead, for you argue the EXACT SAME WAY LIKE UTILITARIAN LIBERALS DO.

Next time you feel like accusing a “liberal” of “moral relatiism” simply embrace him as your intellectual twin.

To play devil’s advocate, a baby has POSITIVE rights because a woman CHOOSES to get pregant in most cases. Even taking precautions, she embracces the risk of getting pregnant because they are not foolproof.

Therefore (accepting the proposition that a baby is human from conception), she may not murder the human being she chose to create. (Just as parents must provide for the birthed children they CHOOSE to bring into this world but not the homeless man down the street).

And by the way, the people on these forums are really not the typical conservatives. Although, I am not a conservative myself, true conservatives’ arguments are much less half-baked. The ‘conservatives’ on thse forums are just ideologues who scream the loudest.

While I still feel that the fact that the mother created the situation is not entirely without merit, you cannot argue that the child has a positive right.

There are several problems with this:

a) The problems of positive rights in general. Something that cannot be a right everywhere, at all times, cannot be a right.

You cannot have an inherent right that depends on the ability of others to provide it.

b) Implicit contractual obligations are hard to argue for because the child did not exist to make a contract with.

She wanted A child, but maybe not exactly THIS child?

c) What if she did not choose it and was raped?

That would imply that the negative rights of a child are depending on how that child was conceived and that is not possible.

They are either absolute or not at all, it would fly in the face of a natural rights idea.

You chose to frame it in the context of ‘positive rights’. But that’s only one way of looking at it. The argument is that having chosen to engage in behavior that could create a life, the mother has a RESPONSIBILITY not to murder the life she brought into the world.

I guess you didn’t see it, JS, but orion already explained this. The mother’s role in her child’s conception has no bearing on the rights of child nor mother.

Oh, and you and I are mass murderers of starving African children.
[/quote]

Did you also get why it has no bearing?

Repeat in in your own words.

If you can, shame on you.

If not, shame on you Sir.