[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]
And for the umptenth time, killing it would be.
No longer supporting it would not be killing.
Otherwise we´d have no argument.
[quote]orion wrote:
Does that change if that someone is in her womb?
Does it matter how it got there?
[/quote]
Yes.
No.
[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
The embryo is cleanly separated from his Mother. It is not killed in any way. If it lives, it lives.
Umm, in what philosophical sphere is the child ever “cleanly separated from his Mother?”
So far as I know, it is sucked out limb by limb with a vaccuum hose.
Anyway your silly argument is still the same as arguing for infanticide. If the child is a human in the womb then nothing changes upon exit from the womb. So the mother can neither neglect it here nor there.
That is not even an argument.
Or if there actually is one, you are basically pro welfare and cannot really protest when your government takes your money to feed starving children in Africa.
Because that is the exact same situation you put that woman in.
See my edit. Ponder, too, the conservative stance on personal responsibility, and its bearings upon your “welfare” line of thinking.
Also, do you really believe what you are arguing, or you just like to have fun riling up the conservatives here?
I just bring up an inconsistency in their world view, if they believe an embryo to be a human being with all the rights of a human being.
What inconsistency? Saying that abortion is the taking of a human life and taking a human life is wrong? If that inconsistent, then I don’t know what consistency is…Is it “Murder is wrong unless that persons life is a problem for you then it’s ok?”[/quote]
Because, once again, no live is taken, it is no longer supported, that is all.
If I watch an old man die I do not kill him.
If I stab him in the heart before he is gone I do.
Big difference.
[quote]orion wrote:
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.
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]
The conservative ideology has already been shown to correspond with it’s stance on the issues. The liberal one has not.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
The embryo is cleanly separated from his Mother. It is not killed in any way. If it lives, it lives.
Umm, in what philosophical sphere is the child ever “cleanly separated from his Mother?”
So far as I know, it is sucked out limb by limb with a vaccuum hose.
Anyway your silly argument is still the same as arguing for infanticide. If the child is a human in the womb then nothing changes upon exit from the womb. So the mother can neither neglect it here nor there.
That is not even an argument.
Or if there actually is one, you are basically pro welfare and cannot really protest when your government takes your money to feed starving children in Africa.
Because that is the exact same situation you put that woman in.
See my edit. Ponder, too, the conservative stance on personal responsibility, and its bearings upon your “welfare” line of thinking.
Also, do you really believe what you are arguing, or you just like to have fun riling up the conservatives here?
I just bring up an inconsistency in their world view, if they believe an embryo to be a human being with all the rights of a human being.
Embryos aren’t what get aborted as previously stated.
Are you pro welfare and pro abortion? That is the only hypocritical view brought up. Unless your ideology is that a knowing adult should be void of personal responsibility. That’s the ideology that makes those two beliefs sync up.[/quote]
The question is whether you can force other people to be “responsible”.
[quote]pat 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.
Then by make that statement you must explained when, exactly, does human life begin and state why you think so…It’s be helpful to be sure if you are going to start taking it.[/quote]
Go back to page one and read the argument.
[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
orion wrote:
The embryo is cleanly separated from his Mother. It is not killed in any way. If it lives, it lives.
Umm, in what philosophical sphere is the child ever “cleanly separated from his Mother?”
So far as I know, it is sucked out limb by limb with a vaccuum hose.
Anyway your silly argument is still the same as arguing for infanticide. If the child is a human in the womb then nothing changes upon exit from the womb. So the mother can neither neglect it here nor there.
That is not even an argument.
Or if there actually is one, you are basically pro welfare and cannot really protest when your government takes your money to feed starving children in Africa.
Because that is the exact same situation you put that woman in.
See my edit. Ponder, too, the conservative stance on personal responsibility, and its bearings upon your “welfare” line of thinking.
Also, do you really believe what you are arguing, or you just like to have fun riling up the conservatives here?
I just bring up an inconsistency in their world view, if they believe an embryo to be a human being with all the rights of a human being.
Embryos aren’t what get aborted as previously stated.
Are you pro welfare and pro abortion? That is the only hypocritical view brought up. Unless your ideology is that a knowing adult should be void of personal responsibility. That’s the ideology that makes those two beliefs sync up.
The question is whether you can force other people to be “responsible”.
[/quote]
Then you attacking conservative ideology had not place on the thread either.
[quote]orion wrote:
The key argument here is whether you can force the woman at gunpoint to provide for someone else.
[/quote]
Provide for your own child? The fact that this is even a question points to a breakdown in society and moral values. It’s a damn fucking shame there are people who don’t feel they need to face the situation THEY CREATED.
If you cut your own finger off, you cut your fucking finger off…that’s it!
Take responsibility, grow up and take care of your family. There are no concequences to bad behavior anymore.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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.
So know you are deciding legality and rights based on subjective moral lines? It violates someone’s rights to lie to them?[/quote]
There is no subjective moral line.
You mislead someone to bring him into a situation where you know he is likely to die.
Then, you possibly even still from him.
I do not see how that carries over to the argument I presented.
[quote]orion wrote:
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.
And for the umptenth time, killing it would be.
No longer supporting it would not be killing.
Otherwise we´d have no argument.
[/quote]
And the single mother that left her infant in the cradle to starve to death, or to rot away with infected bed sores, she didn’t kill it? I guess it should’ve gotten up and provided for itself, too? Oh please, sometimes people try to be a little too clever. The end result of an abortion is to kill the unwanted child, period. This silly dismissal of guilt, because you didn’t rip the fetus apart, but just starved it to death is silly.
Sorry, but not everything is a clerk and customer relationship.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
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.
But even if I stole, that’s I’m responsible for? That’s it?[/quote]
See my answer above
[quote]orion wrote:
The question is whether you can force other people to be “responsible”.
[/quote]
Yeah, since our laws create the environment for irresponsible behavior, then changing the law WILL force people into responsibility.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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.
But even if I stole, that’s I’m responsible for? That’s it?
See my answer above
[/quote]
Great, I stole, at the worst. But, I’m no killer!
[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
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.
So know you are deciding legality and rights based on subjective moral lines? It violates someone’s rights to lie to them?
There is no subjective moral line.
You mislead someone to bring him into a situation where you know he is likely to die.
Then, you possibly even still from him.
I do not see how that carries over to the argument I presented.
[/quote]
I like how you edit out the rest of my argument.
In abortion your force a person into a position where it’s incapable of supporting itself. Then you are saying that letting them fend for their self is the only right to life they have.
However, when you are outside the womb, if you even mislead, much less force, some into a situation where they are incapable of supporting themselves it’s wrong?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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.
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]
Rothbard´s question is whether you have the right to force me to care for my child, in or out of the womb and if so, how is that distinguishable from welfare.
Where and why do you draw the line.
It is an interesting question really, especially for conservatives ,because it forces them to think about inconsistencies in their ethical system and whether they accept them or not.
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.
[quote]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. [/quote]
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?
[quote]orion wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
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.
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.
Rothbard´s question is whether you have the right to force me to care for my child, in or out of the womb and if so, how is that distinguishable from welfare.
Where and why do you draw the line.
It is an interesting question really, especially for conservatives ,because it forces them to think about inconsistencies in their ethical system and whether they accept them or not.[/quote]
You draw the line at a person’s ability to provide for them selves. If a person gets blown apart in a war then ya I think we the people should provide for them. If a person lives on the street because they are heroin addicts then no at that point the person should be taken care of via charity or let to die. It has to do with person choice and responsibility in each scenario a person made a choice and they have to live with the consequences, but one of them made a sacrifice for the rest of us and the other cares only for himself. A baby can not fend for itself and was never asked to be created, but was created anyway. The mother and father have a moral obligation to raise and provide for said child until they are old enough to do it themselves.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
a) Yes in that since, but no as the dependency is a result of the actions of the mother.
[/quote]
Good point.
Don´t know yet what to make of it and Rothbard is unfortunately dead, so we cannot ask him.
Maybe that answers Sloths scenario?
[quote]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?
[/quote]
Who’s decisions and actions lead the the inability of the person to care for themselves? They would be the ones to be held responsible.