[quote]orion wrote:
I have the right to find another person to do business with, so does the embryo.
[/quote]
Wow…
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Let me ask some novice to hike a desert with me, as a challenge. However, once deep into it’s interior, I’ll grab all the food, water, communcations, and maps in the middle of the night and leave him stranded. If he dies, he dies. If he lives, he lives.
The you lied to him and stole from him.
Both very wrong.
If you find someone in the desert and chose not to help him, that would be the equivalent.
[/quote]
Read the updated version.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Let me ask some novice to hike a desert with me, as a challenge. However, once deep into it’s interior, I’ll grab all the food, water, communcations, and maps in the middle of the night and leave him stranded. If he dies, he dies. If he lives, he lives.
The you lied to him and stole from him.
Both very wrong.
If you find someone in the desert and chose not to help him, that would be the equivalent.
[/quote]
So know you are deciding legality and rights based on subjective moral lines? It violates someone’s rights to lie to them?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.
Would this same rule apply to a mother and her nine month old? Would she have no obligation to “keep alive” a nine month old that only really has the “right to live”?
If a woman can abort at 3 months from conception, why can’t she abort 3 months after birth, given the parameters of survival - the child is completely dependent on the mother - are the same?
Exactly. This has been covered time and again in this forum. The child will not survive on it’s own for a pretty long time even after birth, so while we are rendering rights relative, we can just as easily do so with yours. Can we not force the mother to care for her child after it is born?
Anyway the child still has the negative right to life (its own), so the mother voluntarily aborting it (murder) violates that right. The negative right to life overrules her positive right to not be inconvenienced.
And again.
The embryo is cleanly separated from his Mother. It is not killed in any way. If it lives, it lives.
That does not take anything away from its absolute right to live, it just removes the mother from the equation.
And a negative right can never overrule anything except an assault on that right, which is why it is a negative right.
I don’t think you understand surgical abortion at all. It is not an embryo when aborted. They have to allow it to develop to ensure a successful killing or they can botch it.
They allow it to develop, then suck it out piece by piece. The equivalent outside the womb would be taking and infant, hacking it up into pieces, and throwing it out the window if you don’t want to take care of it anymore.
The biggest part everyone is missing is that a decision was made by the mother to create the child (except in cases of rape). She created the life and in doing so forfeits her right to be un-obligated of caring for another person.
I think I should also point out that making the argument you “liberals” are, you should be adamantly pro-life. Are you? Are you arguing that both conservatives AND LIBERALS undermine their own beliefs on this issue?[/quote]
A) Yup, the tearing the embryo to pieces is definitely a rights violation. So, if we could remove it gently, would it be ok then?
B) Does that mean that in cases of rape an abortion is ethically justifiable?
How does the “creating” of a live make you forfeit your rights?
C) I am not a liberal, so I do not care.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Let me ask some novice to hike a desert with me, as a challenge. However, once deep into it’s interior, I’ll grab all the food, water, communcations, and maps in the middle of the night and leave him stranded. If he dies, he dies. If he lives, he lives.
The you lied to him and stole from him.
Both very wrong.
If you find someone in the desert and chose not to help him, that would be the equivalent.
[/quote]
But even if I stole, that’s I’m responsible for? That’s it?
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
orion wrote:
This is mainly an argument aimed at conservatives and as far as I am aware it was first made by Rothbard in the “Ethics of Liberty”:
Let us assume, for discussions sake that an embryo was a human being with all inherent rights.
What is the nature of these rights? Are they positive, i.e. must they be provided by others, or negative, i.e. only need to be respected by others?
That is important distinction, because the same conservatives who would object to the idea that they are forced at gunpoint to provide for the needs of others, expect a mother to keep a child alive.
That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.
Therefore, let us separate the child from the mother and see if it lives.
If it doesn´t, the child´s right to live was never violated, it could exercise that right if it had only the power to do so, alas it hasn´t. It basically is in the same position like a person dying of diseases or of old age.
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?
I find it funny that generally people are against murder, but to kill what is potentially a human life is okay. I always ask the same question. What did the child do to deserve to die? It is natural for men and women to want and have sex, but who suffers the repercussions of an unwanted pregnancy? The child is killed and the parties that enjoyed the baby making go about their lives usually no worse off. How is that fair? I think it send a band message to the people of the world especially our youth that says you are not responsible for your actions.
It is also funny how people talk about war being unjust, how taking someones life other then self defense is wrong, but abortion is okay. That is strange logic to me.
Read the argument again.
If an embryo is a human being, killing it is wrong.
We are not arguing about killing it, but about removing its life support system.
A right to live is respected by others by not killing you, but it does not mean that they are bound to feed you.
The embryo has a right to live, not to a cushy environment that is provided by others at gunpoint.
So, this completely consistent with an anti-aggressive war stance.[/quote]
I disagree removing a child/embryo from its life support system is killing it. They are the same thing.
When a pregnant woman is killed is the murderer charge will one homicide or double homicide?
What cushy environment…the womb?
That is not consistent with the anti-war stance at all. All you are saying is basically you are to lazy to take care of a life you created (not you specifically, but the mother) and will no longer provide for a person that can not provide for itself leaving it with only the option to die.
[quote]pat wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why would it be ok to kill the child in the womb, when you purposefully created a child?
The argument it that it would just be removed and not “killed”. If it lives, it lives.
So, killed. Like shooting someone and killing them. Unless they happen to live.
This is why I can’t stand Rothbard.
It’s because you don’t like being faced with logical arguments that you cannot refute.
What is the ethical basis for forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term? Is that not a positive right that is being provided to the embryo that must be enforced by government? What is the distinction between this positive right and any form of welfare, for example?
At the very least, Rothbard forces you to admit you have inconsistent beliefs.
This Rothbard guy sounds like an idiot. The ethical basis for carrying a child to term is because to do otherwise willfully is to commit murder.
There’s plenty of people in my life who make my life uncomfortable and I would be better off if they did not exist, but I can’t go and blow them away. [/quote]
Not killing, stop caring for.
There is a difference.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Funny enough, I find pro-choice ‘libertarians’ to be false. They make tortured arguements for how killing the unborn child is not an act of aggression.[/quote]
I’ve always wanted to try ‘X’.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I would point a gun at the man’s head and tell him his academic exercise ends here. I was asked if I wanted to hike with him, the veteran, and his property or not, he will not now withdraw the means to my survival. [/quote]
Yes, you are forced to live with your actions and it doesn’t really matter what mortal man chooses to call them.
I chose not for force others to live a certain existence not only because it is an exercise in folly but also because I believe it is wrong.
I will, however, argue until the day I die about the actions man should have. This is the only moral way to change man’s mind.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Except a grown homeless can fend for himself a baby cannot.
[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.
Would this same rule apply to a mother and her nine month old? Would she have no obligation to “keep alive” a nine month old that only really has the “right to live”?
If a woman can abort at 3 months from conception, why can’t she abort 3 months after birth, given the parameters of survival - the child is completely dependent on the mother - are the same?
Exactly. This has been covered time and again in this forum. The child will not survive on it’s own for a pretty long time even after birth, so while we are rendering rights relative, we can just as easily do so with yours. Can we not force the mother to care for her child after it is born?
Anyway the child still has the negative right to life (its own), so the mother voluntarily aborting it (murder) violates that right. The negative right to life overrules her positive right to not be inconvenienced.
And again.
The embryo is cleanly separated from his Mother. It is not killed in any way. If it lives, it lives.
That does not take anything away from its absolute right to live, it just removes the mother from the equation.
And a negative right can never overrule anything except an assault on that right, which is why it is a negative right.
I don’t think you understand surgical abortion at all. It is not an embryo when aborted. They have to allow it to develop to ensure a successful killing or they can botch it.
They allow it to develop, then suck it out piece by piece. The equivalent outside the womb would be taking and infant, hacking it up into pieces, and throwing it out the window if you don’t want to take care of it anymore.
The biggest part everyone is missing is that a decision was made by the mother to create the child (except in cases of rape). She created the life and in doing so forfeits her right to be un-obligated of caring for another person.
I think I should also point out that making the argument you “liberals” are, you should be adamantly pro-life. Are you? Are you arguing that both conservatives AND LIBERALS undermine their own beliefs on this issue?
A) Yup, the tearing the embryo to pieces is definitely a rights violation. So, if we could remove it gently, would it be ok then?
B) Does that mean that in cases of rape an abortion is ethically justifiable?
How does the “creating” of a live make you forfeit your rights?
C) I am not a liberal, so I do not care.
[/quote]
a) Yes in that since, but no as the dependency is a result of the actions of the mother.
b) I can’t make an argument to force the mother to carry the child in that case, no. It’s an iffy issue for me.
c) Good for you.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If Lifty is arguing on your side of the argument, You have a pretty fucking stupid argument.
Why not make the argument that an embryo is nothing more than an unwanted parasite? No crime in flushing a tapeworm.
Rothbard absolves the murderous mother from any responsibility she would bare for the same actions if the child were outside the uterus.
A child is the responsibility of the parents - regardless of gestational geography.
Liberty has dick to do with the issue. It’s about responsibility, and the lack thereof. [/quote]
You have not even followed the argument because Rothbard assumed for the sake of discussion that an embryo is a human being that has human rights and sees what follows AND he argues that you do not have to feed a child either.
Or to be exact, he states that you do not have the right to force someone to provide for someone else, even if that someone else lives in her womb.
[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why would it be ok to kill the child in the womb, when you purposefully created a child?
The argument it that it would just be removed and not “killed”. If it lives, it lives.
So, killed. Like shooting someone and killing them. Unless they happen to live.
This is why I can’t stand Rothbard.
It’s because you don’t like being faced with logical arguments that you cannot refute.
What is the ethical basis for forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term? Is that not a positive right that is being provided to the embryo that must be enforced by government? What is the distinction between this positive right and any form of welfare, for example?
At the very least, Rothbard forces you to admit you have inconsistent beliefs.
This Rothbard guy sounds like an idiot. The ethical basis for carrying a child to term is because to do otherwise willfully is to commit murder.
There’s plenty of people in my life who make my life uncomfortable and I would be better off if they did not exist, but I can’t go and blow them away.
Not killing, stop caring for.
There is a difference.
[/quote]
Uh, if you stop taking care of yourself you will die. Not caring for your offspring for which you are responsible for if murder by neglect.
There is no possibility for inaction in these various scenarios. You make a choice and you your choice you have to power to terminate life or perpetuate it, there is not third element here. Choosing not to not to decide is still a choice-(Neil Peart)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
What people are arguing though is she willfully entered into an agreement with the embryo/fetus upon conception, a contract if you will. Even though it is unwritten the impetus is still there.
Technically speaking the father also entered into a contract with this fetus.
By your argument a father who does not wish to pay child support should not have to, and the government has no right to force him to, simply because the mother chooses to keep the baby.
Breach of contracts usually carry ramifications.
I cannot agree with this because conception is not a necessary feature sexual intercourse. There can be no contract with a fetus because it does not exist prior to conception. In other words, a contract only exists when individuals willfully enter into it. It is a nonsensical argument to suggest that the fetus is a contractor.
In fact, we would consider a fetus the property which comes about because of a man’s and a woman’s decision to enter into a contract – that being a sexual relationship. In this regard, the two individuals who entered into it get to decide what to do with their property, the fetus.
Um, then when do property rights end?
So you are your parents’ property? they have the right to kill you as an infant, or even now?[/quote]
obviously not because that would vilate the childs property rights.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Um, then when do property rights end?
So you are your parents’ property? they have the right to kill you as an infant, or even now?
Technically speaking I ceased being their property when they voluntarily let me leave the “nest”; though, we could argue that a person becomes his own person when he is able to assume responsibility for his own actions.
For certain, the fetus cannot be considered anything more than property because it does not have its own existence without the mother’s womb. Where does the distinction of property end? At birth?
But you do pose a really good question, the implications of which I need to consider more fully. Can I think about it some more and get back to you?[/quote]
for the sake of Rothbards argument the embryo is NOT property because then the women would be perfectly entitled to destroy it, which she is NOT,
[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why would it be ok to kill the child in the womb, when you purposefully created a child?
The argument it that it would just be removed and not “killed”. If it lives, it lives.
So, killed. Like shooting someone and killing them. Unless they happen to live.
This is why I can’t stand Rothbard.
It’s because you don’t like being faced with logical arguments that you cannot refute.
What is the ethical basis for forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term? Is that not a positive right that is being provided to the embryo that must be enforced by government? What is the distinction between this positive right and any form of welfare, for example?
At the very least, Rothbard forces you to admit you have inconsistent beliefs.
This Rothbard guy sounds like an idiot. The ethical basis for carrying a child to term is because to do otherwise willfully is to commit murder.
There’s plenty of people in my life who make my life uncomfortable and I would be better off if they did not exist, but I can’t go and blow them away.
Not killing, stop caring for.
There is a difference.
[/quote]
If you create the situation of dependency without the consent of the other person, then deny care, it is murder. So if I drugged you, tied you up in my basement, and deny you food and water, I’m not murdering you?
How is that different than pulling a trigger? You set events in motion that knowingly lead to the death of another.
Saying a baby has the right to care elsewhere is like saying you have the right to move out of the way of the bullet. So when I pull the trigger and walk away I’m absolved from the consequences of what the bullet did.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
But even if I stole, that’s all I’m responsible for? That’s it?[/quote]
Yes. You are free to do whatever you want but the morality of your actions are debatable.
But you still have not answered the real question?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But even if I stole, that’s all I’m responsible for? That’s it?
Yes. You are free to do whatever you want but the morality of your actions are debatable.
But you still have not answered the real question?[/quote]
What question?
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
orion wrote:
That is important distinction, because the same conservatives who would object to the idea that they are forced at gunpoint to provide for the needs of others, expect a mother to keep a child alive.
That child however only has the right to live, not to be kept alive at someone else´s expense.
No, it’s more about responsibility. The responsibility we each have to do our part in life by raising a family correctly and with moral values. Republicans are not against all and any programs that help people either. They are against people being dependant on the government. They are not in support of people who will not try and help themselves or become a productive memeber of society…who PAYS TAXES.
Why then, would Liberal minds prefer to protect the convicted murderer with legal rights and no death penalty, yet give free reign to anyone to kill babies? Libs would rather pay 39k a year for each of these murderers and strap the taxpayer with the bill as a result.
Save the convicted killers at all costs, yet kill any of the babies if you want. Sounds moronic.
[/quote]
I do not know what liberals want.
The key argument here is whether you can force the woman at gunpoint to provide for someone else.
The classic conservative answer is no.
Does that change if that someone is in her womb?
Does it matter how it got there?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But even if I stole, that’s all I’m responsible for? That’s it?
Yes. You are free to do whatever you want but the morality of your actions are debatable.
But you still have not answered the real question?[/quote]
If you imprison someone without food or water, you are only guilty of kidnapping when they die?