It's heartening to see all this great courage showing up all over the place.
Rand Paul's filibuster and these truly courageous Congressmen in Arkansas.
Why should having a heart-beat be the standard? The point of "viability" made sense because it could go on to exist separately from the host/mother. Having a heartbeat is irrelevant because it still can't exist separately at that point. It makes no sense, but I don't think its advocates give a sod because they get closer to their ideal.
A baby feels pain.......liberals are so worried about the "death penalty" causing pain to convicted criminals, that they don't care about a little baby feeling pain as it is burned alive or torn apart. Shame on every abortion lover........BRAVO to these Pro-life people!
Firstly, it's not a "baby". It's either an embryo or fetus. Stop using emotional appeals by calling it a "baby". It's not a baby until it is born.
Secondly, why should "feeling pain" matter? We inflict pain to animals all the time. According to some, even plants feel pain when they're damaged.
I'm not talking about destroying the embryo/fetus. I'm just talking about removing it from the host/woman who does not want it inside her. If it doesn't survive being removed, then that's just nature.
You say bravo to pro-lifers, but what you're saying bravo to is the violation of the woman's property rights. You DO advocate/support property rights, don't you?
I said "capable of rationality" - That includes 2 yr old human beings, but it does not include animals. There is an epistemological gulf between the human mind and the animal mind, and it is that gulf which is the difference between having individual rights, and not having them.
If you want to prove to me that animals are rational, then go jump into a lion pen and try to reason with the lion; convince it that you won't harm it, if it won't harm you.
Quote: "There are other humans who don't recognize the rights of others and will harm them, but the law gives them certain rights to life and freedom from torture anyway"
The law does not give rights. Individuals have rights by default, since we're endowed with them by our nature as rational beings. The law simply recognizes them and protects them from violation by other individuals.
Why don't you know this? Tell me why you're so bloody ignorant? Do you think you're even effective against the Left? You're pathetic. You can't even articulate the Right's most fundamental ideas. Sheesh!
Now yes, some individuals do violate the individual rights of others, but that is the exception, not the rule.
If rationality isn't required for individual rights, then again, go into a lion pen and convince a lion that you won't harm it, if it won't harm you. Yeah, see how long it respects your unalienable individual rights, before it bites your face off. You bloody fool.
Guess you've never had pets if you don't know they are rational.
At worst, most dogs and cats have at least the intelligence (and rationality) of a 2-year-old human child. Does that mean that, since animals have no rights by reason of their "lack" of rationality (dubious statement), that 2-year-old humans don't either? There was someone in Obama's administration that thinks it's okay to kill 2-year-olds...maybe that's how he got that idea too.
There are other humans who don't recognize the rights of others and will harm them, but the law gives them certain rights to life and freedom from torture anyway.
Your new and latest argument (you've got a lot of them) is that without rationality, there are no rights. "Rationality", of course, as defined by you. (It gets kind of touchy there, and there is a question too of where to draw the line, since some of course would be borderline.) So ignorance is a reason for killing them. Those who are not rational because of rabid beliefs, the same. Ditto with the mentally ill, even if they are only temporarily ill. I would suspect Homeland Security does not consider conservatives to be rational. Or the mildly mentally handicapped who can function but not give you a rational argument have no rights. Keep going...you're making an argument for the next Hitler, and for your own dubious right of existence.
You're ignorant about the nature of rights, so let me educate you.
Animals have no rights since the nature of rights is such that only beings capable of rationality can possess them, because only rational beings can understand and agree not to harm others, in exchange for others understanding and agreeing not to harm them in return. With animals, it's purely a one-way street when it comes to humans, because try telling a shark that you won't harm them if they won't harm you - The shark will just rip your face off.
Animals DO have rights, as all living beings have rights, and laws reflect this. You seem to be a throwback to primitive times where might makes right and that is the only law.
Your thinking, when expanded to the inevitable, would kill anyone who is not "useful" or is some kind of "not quite human". Sorry you missed your best chance in Hitler's world, and hopefully that time will not come again.
Quote: "No, I don't inflict pain to animals either. And it is a crime to neglect or abuse animals everywhere in this nation...even if it's your own "property". Did you get your start by torturing animals?"
No, but I would argue that it shouldn't be a "crime" to do it, because animals have no rights, and so therefore it is not the role of the government to protect them in any way whatsoever. The government's ONLY role is to protect the individual rights.
There are lots of laws, the overwhelming vast majority of them in fact, that shouldn't exist, according to this standard.
The government would prevent the standard things like murder, theft and fraud against other individuals, because they are the most self-evident violations of the individual rights.
If you're on the Right, then it is troubling that you do not know all this, and that you actually stand behind illegitimate laws that violate the individual rights.
Quote: "Or tell me that forcefully throwing someone outdoors without clothing in 40 below zero weather is not murder. A baby, or as you like to term it, a fetus, has certain needs for life. By not giving it those needs, you are killing it, not just "removing" it"
By that logic, you're murdering vagrants when you don't give them money to buy food with. They have "certain needs for life" and you're not giving them those needs, so therefore you are killing them.
Yes, do you see, you are killing homeless people by not giving them homes, you are murdering hungry people by not giving them food, you are murdering thirsty people by not giving them water, right???
It is absurd for you to claim that my moral stature is at the mercy of their actions.
Throwing someone out of your property, unclothed and in -40 deg C weather, is murder because there were alternatives to removing them that do not involve their death. You could have left them clothed, you could have called a cab for them, and/or you could have called the police to collect them. So clearly, you had intent to kill, given that you did not explore other options. The problem with a pre-viable embryo/fetus is that there are NO other options for removal, because you can't reason with an embryo/fetus like you can reason with the vagrant in my example. If you want it removed from your property (immediately), then the only thing you can do is forcibly remove it.
Quote: "BTW, when someone kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with a double murder. Wonder why that is, if it is only a "property""
Murder is a principle only applicable to individuals, and since I don't consider pre-viable embryos/fetuses to be individuals, it wouldn't be a "double murder" in my book. It would only be a double murder if it was post-viable.
Quote: "Every law on the books recognizes responsibility for your own actions, and indeed, no society or relationship could exist without responsibility"
Yes, because the lawmakers sought to eliminate choice, sometimes for a good reason (such as respect for individual rights) and often for a bad reason (eg. Obamacare's individual mandate).
Obamacare is argued such that by fact of your mere existence, you have a "responsibility" to have healthcare insurance so as not to pass the cost on to others. So you see, even statists use "responsibility" to eliminate choice and force you to do what THEY want you to do.
"Responsibility" (or "duty" if you prefer) is one of the most abused and insidious words in the English language.
Yes, because it's the woman's property/body that the embryo/fetus is inhabiting with its property/body.
If your property/body is on a farmer's property/land, and they walk up to you and say "get the hell off my land", you should get off their land, and if you don't, then they have a right to forcibly remove you from their land.
The same principle applies to pregnancy. The woman wants that embryo/fetus to "get the hell off" her property, but because the embryo/fetus is incapable of reason, the woman has no choice but to forcibly remove it from her property.
There is no "taking precedence", because nobody is violating the property rights of that embryo/fetus, just as your property rights aren't violated if a farmer forcibly removes you from their land.
I should point out, however, that I don't even accept the idea that a pre-viable embryo/fetus has any rights whatsoever anyway, but I can show that even if it did, that abortions could STILL go ahead.
I agree that actions have consequences, but after that there is a choice about how to act. People who claim that "By having sex, you are responsible for seeing an embryo to full term" want to eliminate that choice, and force everyone to do what they want them to do. The truth is that when a woman gets pregnant, they have a choice to get an abortion or to see it to full term.
All actions have consequences. Sex often has the consequence of creating babies, which is what sex is designed to do. The person who does not first consider that possibility is no different from a drunk driver who is charged with killing people in that state and calling it "unfair" that he was so charged.
Responsibility is the necessary element between a lawless society where everyone does as he pleases, including murdering everyone else, or in a society like ours tries to be where each life is protected. Any time two or more people get together, there must be responsibility in order for all to survive at all. Your role model is the worst kind of reverse evolution there is, and few would survive it...thankfully.
In this day of birth control and the morning-after pill, there are other alternatives to abortion that do not include violent murder.
The embryo/fetus, or as I call it, a baby, has "no property other than its body". So, it is between a woman's "property rights" and a baby's "property rights", and the woman's "property rights" for some reason takes precedence?
No, I don't inflict pain to animals either. And it is a crime to neglect or abuse animals everywhere in this nation...even if it's your own "property". Did you get your start by torturing animals?
Pain doesn't matter? If it happened to you, it would matter to you. Pain matters to the unborn too.
Watch a video of an abortion in progress and tell me that that cutting and/or burning is "just removal" and not a vicious murder.
Or tell me that forcefully throwing someone outdoors without clothing in 40 below zero weather is not murder. A baby, or as you like to term it, a fetus, has certain needs for life. By not giving it those needs, you are killing it, not just "removing" it. Any argument that doesn't acknowledge that is just plain stupidity.
I would venture to guess that "property rights" are not nearly in the same category as murder in any legal system. A woman who is considering an abortion is also considering giving up her "property rights", so she must not value it that much.
BTW, when someone kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with a double murder. Wonder why that is, if it is only a "property".
No one is asking a woman to keep a child she doesn't want. There are plenty of couples who would love and treasure that baby if it was allowed to exist.
Your insistence that responsibility shouldn't be required is another stupidity. Every law on the books recognizes responsibility for your own actions, and indeed, no society or relationship could exist without responsibility. I would venture to guess that you are very lonely, and rightfully so.
This nation was founded on the principle of unalienable individual rights, with the government as the protector of said rights. This nation was NOT founded on "life", with the government as the protector of "life".
Life of what? Of plants? Of animals? Of cellular organisms? Of aliens from outer space?
"Human beings", you'll say. Ok, well tell me why human beings but no other beings? You can't answer that. You said "life", and "life" is extremely broad and encompasses everything living, including plants, animals, cellular organisms, viruses, aliens from outer space, etc. If government is to protect all of that, then it's completely ridiculous because you wouldn't be allowed to do anything.
Government's role has always been to protect the unalienable individual rights. Well then, one must ask what an "individual" is, and I have frequently argued that pre-viable human beings are not individuals because they're absolutely dependent on a host organism; they're apart of the host's body, not a separate entity in themselves, and so on. Post-viable they're individuals because they can be separated and become individual / alone / discrete.
Quote: "This disregard of life rips at the fabric of our society"
Disregard for life is how you get food on your table. If butchers didn't have a disregard for life and thus kill animals, then how would you get steak on your plate? If farmers didn't have a disregard for life, then how would you get vegetables on your plate? And so on... "life" is just so utterly freaking arbitrary that it USELESS in this discussion.
What's "ripping the fabric of our society" is the disregard for the unalienable individual rights. THAT is the real issue here.
Quote: "Having said that, don't be fooled into thinking that I would not welcome gay conservatives, a non-social conservatives, or libertarians to join in our fight to end Obama's evil reign!"
Rubbish! Religious folk are the first ones to break out the pitchforks and torches the moment they sense a "gay" in their midst. Religious folk drove them out and straight into the Left's lap, and now they vote Democrat EVERY election. Homosexuals should be on the Right, they should be champions for individual liberty, they should be fighting the Left's obsession with controlling man and limiting individual freedom.
Religious folk have given the Right a bad name. The Right is seen as a pro-theocracy, anti-science, anti-homosexual, "legislating in your bedroom", bunch of mystic medievalists. It utterly sickens me how religious folk have sabotaged the Right's virtuous message of individual freedom and rights, and made them look like they want the dark ages all over again. And I have to work with these people? Seriously?? I can't work with mystics. I can't worth with people who think and act "on faith". I can't work with altruists who hate self-interest and who think self-interest is evil. I can't work with religious folk. They've done too much damage to the Right. They're dangerous saboteurs, and that's all I shall ever consider them.
I respect your views Kordane, but not when it comes to abortion. I am afraid it is simply about life and death and I will never compromise regarding that....property rights, women's rights, Gov't intrusion, blah, blah, it is about life and that should be protected at all costs. This disregard of life rips at the fabric of our society. Having said that, don't be fooled into thinking that I would not welcome gay conservatives, a non-social conservatives, or libertarians to join in our fight to end the Obama's evil reign!
Apology accepted. It's about time you started thinking for yourself. Or was that out of a page from Ayn's writing? I can never tell with you anymore.
Quote: "Funny isn't it, that you can't understand something if you can't copy and paste from Ayn Rand. Hmmm..."
Is this seriously what you've been reduced to? You can't argue against my arguments, and so you just resort to personal attacks, just like the bloody Left do all the time.
You need to go away, meditate on your actions here today, and then come back and apologize to me.
What have you got against quoting and linking? It is done all the time in academia. Yes, it would be nice for everything said to be 'original thought', but it's ridiculous to demand that standard for all your debate opponents. I quote from Ayn Rand's work and the work of other Objectivists all the time. What matters is not that I quoted or linked their writings, but the content of what is quoted or linked.
You think for yourself do you? Well how much of your thinking did you take from the Bible? I'm willing to bet quite a lot.
I'm an Objectivist talking about and promoting Objectivism. I'm bound to quote and link writings from other people. I mostly write from my own understanding of Objectivist ideas, but every now and then I quote or link something particular that is written better than I could write it.
Quote: "it was the woman (along with the male counterpart) that put that child in that womb. It didn't go there by itself."
Embryos aren't "put" in a womb by the man and woman. An embryo does not pre-exist the act of sex itself. An embryo is created shortly after the act of sex. It begins its existence within the womb. It didn't come from anywhere. It didn't pre-exist its own creation.
I have serious issue with your use of words here, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that an embryo pre-exists the act of sex, and that the man and the woman go somewhere, grab an embryo, and "put" it inside the woman. What planet are you living on?
Quote: "Oh, yes I can. And do. You should be responsible for the consequences of your actions"
There's always a choice, and that's why you're wrong. The simple truth is that you don't want people to be free to choose; you just want to force them into doing what you think they should do. You dress it up as "being responsible" in the hope that you can disguise your desire to force people to act the way that you want them to.
That's all you really want. You want people to act the way that you think they should act. You don't give a sod about individual liberty. You're just like the Left, wanting to control people, wanting people to do what you think they should do, stomping all over their individual rights. You disgust me and are an enemy of the cause of liberty.
As for your other personal attacks, I refuse to even respond to them.
Funny isn't it, that you can't understand something if you can't copy and paste from Ayn Rand. Hmmm...
Quote: "your wacky 'property rights', no one needs responsibility, and consequences be d@mned approach to life"
There's nothing wacky about the consistent application of property rights, and there's nothing wacky about rejecting involuntary/implied responsibilities/duties.
As for your last point, I have no idea where you got that idea. It's probably just more of you twisting what I've said.
Don't look now, but Ayn is dead and there aren't all these people fighting by YOUR side. You are sadly standing out there all alone in your wacky 'property rights', no one needs responsibility, and consequences be d@mned approach to life.
Actually, your analogy of 'property rights' is laughable, at best. My point was (and I have to explain it to you, now that I know you only copy and paste from Ayn Rand's lexicon and can't think for yourself) that it was the woman (along with the male counterpart) that put that child in that womb. It didn't go there by itself. I would be normally surprised that I would have to explain that simple fact to you, but since I know you have no idea how abortions occur, I must assume you also have no idea how babies occur (hint, the stork did NOT place it there unbeknownst to the parents).
'If their intention is just to remove it...' - k
And you actually think it is??? What does Ayn Rand say about it?
'You can't say that by having sex you are voluntarily choosing to take responsibility for the possible embryo that may be created from the act...' - k
Oh, yes I can. And do. You should be responsible for the consequences of your actions (surprisingly, you said that yourself, but I guess now is the time to change your point, isn't it). What would Ayn say???
'...that you've automatically signed a contract saying you'll obey the country's "social contract"...' - k
Now you've jumped to 'social contract. What page of the lexicon did you copy that out of?
Quote: "If you kidnap that vagrant, force him to live with you in Alaska for 20 weeks, and then kick him out into the blizzard to die, then yes the responsibility for his death is yours"
The analogy isn't anywhere near the same thing, since women who get pregnant do not "kidnap" nor "force" the embryo/fetus to live with them. An embryo 'begins' its existence already inside the body. It didn't pre-exist someplace else. The woman also does not force it to live within them, since again it began its existence already inside the body. Basically, your analogy sucks.
My analogy is I think the best way to describe it, albeit it's not perfect because the vagrant isn't so much invited there as it begins its existence there. Either way, the property still belongs to its owner - Not the vagrant. The property owner can always tell the vagrant to leave, and forcibly remove them as a last resort (if they can't be reasoned with).
Quote: "You're actually trying to say that when Planned Parenthood removes a fetus, they have plans for taking care of it afterwards?"
If their intention is just to remove it, not destroy it, then you can't say that their intention is to kill it. If I remove a vagrant from my house, and then he later dies from hypothermia/dehydration/starvation, you can't say that my intention was to kill the vagrant - My intention was just simply to get him the hell out of my house. What happens after that is between the vagrant and nature.
Quote: "You do not believe in responsibility, so the person who throws you into Lake Michigan for their own purposes is quite within their rights to do so, according to you"
The only kind of responsibility I accept are ones that you voluntarily choose to take on yourself, such as when you sign a contract agreeing to do something. You can't say that by having sex you are voluntarily choosing to take responsibility for the possible embryo that may be created from the act, even though the woman would vehemently reject the notion that she made any such choice, and that you can't just assume that there's an implied acceptance just because she happened to have sex. She had sex because she did it for her own enjoyment, not to create an embryo.
This is basically what your whole "responsibility" argument boils down to. You think that by having sex, a woman is agreeing to be bound by a contract to bear a child within her, even though her having any intention of ever agreeing to such a contract. Basically you're for forcing contracts upon individuals without them agreeing to them. It's the same kind of crap as saying that because you're born in a country, that you've automatically signed a contract saying you'll obey the country's "social contract", even though you'd never have agreed to such a contract had you been given a choice about it. It's just so utterly unjust, but I think you're willing to accept injustice, so long as you force everyone to adhere to some stupid books that were written thousands of years ago.
What I pride myself on is thinking for myself. You just copy and paste from Ayn Rand's lexicon. When you start thinking for yourself, you come up with women's "property rights". I'm not sure to recommend you stay with 'copy and paste' or continue trying to think. Normally, trying to think helps, but in your case, the verdict is still out. My condolences.
Quote: "the last word should not have been "duty", but rather "selfishness". It does describe your belief to a tee"
The Objectivist ethics IS selfishness though. Ayn Rand even wrote the book "The Virtue of Selfishness". Again, altruism is something that you've simply automatized in your mind, by being raised to think that way, by having it rammed into your head at church probably, and never challenging it.
If sacrificing oneself for the sake of others is a moral obligation and the primary source of virtue, then go ahead and stop breathing, because you're using up others' oxygen; go ahead and stop eating food, because you're using up others' food; go ahead and stop drinking water, because you're using up others' water.
Breathing, eating and drinking are all selfish actions, and are therefore evil actions, so they only way to be altruistic (and therefore virtuous) is to stop breathing, eating and drinking. Yeah, just end your own life -- Your death is what altruism demands.
Why does everyone assume that religious people with religious views are automatically on the Right? There are a lot of religious views that are completely on the Left, since they're more about control over the individual and the restriction of individual freedom.
Religious folk need to stop co-opting the Right into being some "religious" side. It's not bloody religious. It's pro-liberty, pro-individual rights. Not pro-religion. If you guys want a Christian theocracy where your rights-violating mystic mandates are implemented, then sod off to the Left where you belong, along with all the other would-be tyrants with tyrannical ideas.
All of these so-called "Social Conservatives" belong squarely on the Left. Some have come close, but not quite, to calling for an outright theocracy in the US. It utterly disgusts me to have these people fighting along side me, claiming to be fighting for liberty, whilst all along undermining it by being anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-prostitution, anti-drugs, anti-pornography, etc. There are just so many bloody anti-liberty stances they take, it's utterly damaging to the Right's message.
I can't even convince homosexuals to be on the Right, because social conservatives have scared them off with pitchforks and torches in hand. Bloody idiots.
I must add, that your idol, Ayn Rand almost had it right when she said, "The acceptance of full responsibility for one’s own choices and actions (and their consequences) is such a demanding moral discipline that many men seek to escape it by surrendering to what they believe is the easy, automatic, unthinking safety of a morality of “duty.”. What she missed, and what you can't see because you merely copy and paste her words rather than thinking for yourself, is that the last word should not have been "duty", but rather "selfishness". It does describe your belief to a tee.
'So if I invite a vagrant into my house, then I have a responsibility for feeding and sheltering that vagrant? I don't agree with that.' - k
If you kidnap that vagrant, force him to live with you in Alaska for 20 weeks, and then kick him out into the blizzard to die, then yes the responsibility for his death is yours.
'...I consciously reject the idea of responsibility itself.' - k
Therein lies your problem. This conversation is not necessarily a problem with society and it's morality or lack of it. It's a problem with you. We knew that. We just wanted you to admit it. Thank you.
'...just as when I remove the embryo/fetus from the womb, I have no intention to kill it.' - k
That would be a blatant lie, but like I said before, you never hear what others are saying because if you realized what reality was, then it would counter your agenda. You're actually trying to say that when Planned Parenthood removes a fetus, they have plans for taking care of it afterwards? Your logic astounds me.
'Property isn't what you "declare" it to be.' - k
Neither is 'viability'. Thank you. You slipped again.
'It's very troubling how you don't even understand something as simple as that.' - k
I find it extremely amusing that, after your long idiotic rant, you use that argument to prove your point. Most of what you used for reasoning wasn't even relevant to the argument. One important thing did emerge, however. You do not believe in responsibility, so the person who throws you into Lake Michigan for their own purposes is quite within their rights to do so, according to you.
Without responsibility, you have no laws. Without morality, you have no society. You have, by your own words, declared that you don't recognize responsibility or morality and therefore you forfeit the right to decide for others who should live and who should die, whether it inconveniences you or not.
How did I know your arguments would be what they were. You are becoming too predictable. No wonder you think the way you do.
What on earth are you going on and on about Kordane?? You sound like a liberal philospher here...Nuke is right on my friend.
Quote: "the woman put that child in her womb. It was her responsibility (along with the father's) that caused the child to be there in the first place. There is the morality of responsibility"
So if I invite a vagrant into my house, then I have a responsibility for feeding and sheltering that vagrant? I don't agree with that.
In reality, there is no such thing as responsibility. There is always a choice. The only thing you ever really have to do is die one day. Everything else in your life is a choice.
For a fuller explanation, please read the following: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/responsibility-obligation.html
So no, it's not so much that I "don't understand" your ravings about responsibility, but that I consciously reject the idea of responsibility itself. You've automatized "responsibility/duty" into your mind because you've been raised and indoctrinated to believe in it, and have never challenged its validity in the first place; you've just accepted it as true because that's all you've ever been told and how you were raised. But go ahead, rant about how I'm responsible for this and that; tell me how I have a duty to do this, and a duty to do that. Go ahead and basically just regurgitate Kantian philosophy without even realizing that you're doing it.
Quote: "intentionally removing a fetus from the womb, knowing it will die is most certainly no different than the lake example. Just closing your eyes and saying, "oh, it must have died naturally" is disingenuous at best and criminal at the very least"
It's not my fault if an embryo/fetus dies after being removed from the womb, no more than it's my fault if a vagrant dies from hypothermia, starvation or dehydration after being removed from my property/house. It's up to that removed entity to survive on its own as an independent individual, and if it can't do that, then tough luck; nature will take it from there. If I remove that vagrant from my property/house, I have no intention to kill them, just as when I remove the embryo/fetus from the womb, I have no intention to kill it - I just want it to get the hell out of my property. I'd reason with the vagrant and call it a taxi or call the cops, but in the case of that embryo/fetus, it isn't possible to reason with it, and so forced removal is the only option.
Quote: "Two, do you really seriously believe that planned parenthood "just removes" the fetus from the womb and then is surprised when it dies? You obviously don't know how they perform abortions"
I am aware of the different procedures, but I am simply talking about either surgically removing it, or by bringing about induced labor. I'm not talking about destroying it forcibly.
Quote: "do you have the right to oxygen, just because you need it?"
You have the right to take the actions necessary to gain oxygen, but you do not have a right TO oxygen as such, because it would mean that oxygen producers would become your slaves since you'd have a right to their goods/services. This is just like the "right to healthcare" argument from the Left. The truth is that you have a right to take the actions necessary to gain healthcare, but that you don't have a right TO healthcare. You never have a right to goods/services that others must produce.
Quote: "I declare the earth and all it encompasses my property"
Property isn't what you "declare" it to be. Property is the creation of value when you use your mind and/or body.
In early America there was a system where if you could fence an area of unclaimed land, work the land, and hold it for three years, then it would become your property. That's the kind of example of what I mean. If you create value in unclaimed land/sea/air, then it becomes your property.
It's very troubling how you don't even understand something as simple as that.
You fail to understand, among many things, that the woman put that child in her womb. It was her responsibility (along with the father's) that caused the child to be there in the first place. There is the morality of responsibility that you constantly fail to understand.
As I said, it's among many things you fail to understand. I'm guessing you fail because they don't fit your agenda, therefore it's better to ignore them than confront them. One, intentionally removing a fetus from the womb, knowing it will die is most certainly no different than the lake example. Just closing your eyes and saying, "oh, it must have died naturally" is disingenuous at best and criminal at the very least.
Two, do you really seriously believe that planned parenthood "just removes" the fetus from the womb and then is surprised when it dies? You obviously don't know how they perform abortions. Or, of course, once again you feign ignorance at the truth.
Three, do you have the right to oxygen, just because you need it? The air does not belong to anyone, so taking you out of it is just a means to save it for others who may be more 'viable'. I argue these points because your arguments, although logical to your twisted way of thinking, are not truly reasonable arguments and they fall apart with the smallest examination. Of course, you will ignore what people say, repeat your same illogical reasoning, and declare that you must be right - because you declare it.
Four, I declare the earth and all it encompasses my property. You are violating that property and must leave it at once. Having done so, if you can't survive then it's only natural that you die. Very logical.
Nobody, on this site, considers your arguments worth discussing. I respond only because it amuses me to hear your responses. You don't even realize that people are laughing at you while you declare yourself a reasonable and logical debater. But in your bubble you find yourself to be viable. To others...not so much.
So, please, give me another chuckle. I await the brilliance of your tortuous path. (Why do I think I will once again hear a regurgitation of 'property rights' and 'viability'. I wonder.)
Quote: "So, if I tie cement weights to your ankles, drop you in Lake Michigan and you don't survive, that's just nature, right? I call it murder"
The fundamental distinction which you fail to understand is the difference between intentionally trying to kill someone, and just removing them from someone's property.
If I removed a beggar from my house, thus denying him shelter, and then he died later that night from hypothermia, would that have been murder, or would it have been death by natural causes? Clearly, in law the latter would be true. Individuals do not have the right to the property of others, just because they 'need' it for their survival. Likewise, an embryo/fetus does not have the right to the womb of a woman, just because it 'needs' it for its survival.
Are you in favor of property rights, or not? I think it's quite self-evident that you're against property rights. What are you, some kind of communist who puts needs before rights? eg. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Quote: "your support of "woman's property rights" is no different than the racist's support of Blacks being the property of slave owners"
I support the property rights of the individual. I don't advocate property rights only belonging to particular groups of people. It should have been self-evident to you that I support the idea that we own our own bodies. I don't even know how you got the idea that I support slavery. Quite frankly, the only people advocating slavery here are the 'pro-lifers' who want to enslave the woman to the embryo/fetus within them, forcing them to nourish and eventually give birth to the fetus, whether they want to or not. You're the real advocates of slavery here - Not me who is advocating the anti-slavery idea that we own our own bodies.
Quote: "Property rights for one, but not for another"
How so? The embryo/fetus has no property other than its body, and that remains intact/unharmed even after it has been removed from the property/body of the woman.
Even if I was to accept that a pre-viable organism had property rights (which I don't accept), then its property rights would have remained intact throughout.
If I remove a beggar from my house, how am I violating his property rights? His property rights are intact throughout. It's my property rights that are being violated so long as the beggar continues to exist without my permission on my property.
'If it doesn't survive being removed, then that's just nature.' - k
So, if I tie cement weights to your ankles, drop you in Lake Michigan and you don't survive, that's just nature, right? I call it murder.
Removing a fetus from the womb before it's ready is a violent action, not a natural thing. You like to say, if it dies, it's a natural event. But that event was caused by your unnatural interference.
What is natural is allowing a embryo/fetus/preborn/baby/child/teen/adult/senior human being to live. All those stages are the same person, whether you find his/her existence to be convenient to you or not. That is what is natural.
And your support of "woman's property rights" is no different than the racist's support of Blacks being the property of slave owners. I guess you support slavery as well, then, right? Ahh, but then you will differentiate these to suit your agenda. Property rights for one, but not for another. Viability for one, but not for another.
You just can't stick to a consistent argument, can you? Twisting an argument never wins it. It only shows your level of reasoning as being faulty.
Folks who don't want babies should have vasectomies and tubal ligations or wear a patch.
Abortion is making and then KILLING YOUR OWN CHILD - it is NOT BIRTH CONTROL.
Men who sire two babies outside of marriage and don't support them should be forced to have a vasectomy. Same with women. Then their wages should be garnished for the childrens' sake.
Sex is not a civil right. Neither is welfare.
This is great! Watch Holder, Obama and company do something unconstitutional to try to punish or diminish States' Rights.
Obama believes in central government by one man, it seems.