Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Seth]

No, but it is enforcing an obligation on the pregnant.

Thanks for pointing out that there is an obligation to be enforced, and what's wrong with enforcing an obligation...that's why it's an obligation.

[Seth]

our Constitution makes it quite plain that certain unalienable rights are not bestowed by humans

Correction: Some humans assert that some rights are not bestowed by humans. The Declaration of Independence makes that crystal clear. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." "We hold"? On what grounds? Jefferson never explains. He just asserts it is a self-evident truth.

Indeed. And so it is...to anybody but a Marxist.

[Seth]

As for the right to an abortion, yes it is a right - when it is granted, like all other rights, by the will of the people, and no, it is not a right when it is denied by the will of the people, just like every other individual right or collection of rights.

So, it's not a right, it's a privilege or permission granted by and at the pleasure of the majority.

Please note that your constitution was likewise assented to by the majority of enfranchised people in the majority of the then existing former colonies. Without such consent by the relevant people the allegedly self-evident truths and unalienable rights would not have become the foundation of your nation.

That some deny the existence of inherent, natural or god-given rights doesn't mean they don't exist as self-evident truths and unalienable rights. Such rights exist and accrue to every human on the planet regardless of the opinion, dominion or control of the collective, a dictator or anyone else. That such rights may be denied, suppressed or ignored does not change the fact that certain rights, including the rights to life, liberty and property are not functions of collective will or assent, they are biological truths that apply to all living creatures that are codified by humans but exercised by all living organisms, no matter how primitive.

That is why they are self-evident.

[Tero]

You have no rights other than those you secure by force.

Darwin rules.

[Seth]

You have no rights other than those you secure by force.

Indeed. That's the First Organic right derived from the First Organic Law.

[Hermit]

our Constitution makes it quite plain that certain unalienable rights are not bestowed by humans

Correction: Some humans assert that some rights are not bestowed by humans. The Declaration of Independence makes that crystal clear. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." "We hold"? On what grounds? Jefferson never explains. He just asserts it is a self-evident truth.

Indeed. And so it is...to anybody but a Marxist.

So you assert.

[Sean Hayden]

All men are created equal.

Okay, now what?

[Hermit]

As for the right to an abortion, yes it is a right - when it is granted, like all other rights, by the will of the people, and no, it is not a right when it is denied by the will of the people, just like every other individual right or collection of rights.

So, it's not a right, it's a privilege or permission granted by and at the pleasure of the majority.

Oh, you wish to engage in a semantic discussion? OK. Check out the definition for "privilege". Likewise, permissions give you the right to do things.

Please note that your constitution was likewise assented to by the majority of enfranchised people in the majority of the then existing former colonies. Without such consent by the relevant people the allegedly self-evident truths and unalienable rights would not have become the foundation of your nation.

That some deny the existence of inherent, natural or god-given rights doesn't mean they don't exist as self-evident truths and unalienable rights. Such rights exist and accrue to every human on the planet regardless of the opinion, dominion or control of the collective, a dictator or anyone else. That such rights may be denied, suppressed or ignored does not change the fact that certain rights, including the rights to life, liberty and property are not functions of collective will or assent, they are biological truths that apply to all living creatures that are codified by humans but exercised by all living organisms, no matter how primitive.

That is why they are self-evident.

That's about as circular as an argument can get. I see no more than an assertion followed by a repeat of the same assertion in slightly different words and finishing up with yet another repeat of that assertion.

[Seth]

our Constitution makes it quite plain that certain unalienable rights are not bestowed by humans

Correction: Some humans assert that some rights are not bestowed by humans. The Declaration of Independence makes that crystal clear. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." "We hold"? On what grounds? Jefferson never explains. He just asserts it is a self-evident truth.

Indeed. And so it is...to anybody but a Marxist.

So you assert.

It's a self-evident truth.

[Seth]

Oh, you wish to engage in a semantic discussion? OK. Check out the definition for "privilege". Likewise, permissions give you the right to do things.

In this context, the distinction between a privilege and a right is that a privilege may be revoked by the authority that grants it at that authority's will, whereas a right may not be alienated because it is not a creature of any central authority's grant, license or permission. A fundamental right pre-exists and exists independent of all forms of government because it is an inherent aspect of the human individual that cannot be alienated, and therefore it is superior to all powers that are exercised by government, which only gains its authority from the consent of the governed through a partial, co-equal, limited and revokable grant of some authority which naturally resides in the people, to those delegated to govern. The State does not grant the right to life because it has neither the authority nor the capacity to do so, and therefore it may not alienate that right because it did not create it in the first place. The right to life is an inherent aspect of a living human being that occurs by virtue of it's existence and not through any grant of permission, license or privilege by anyone at all.

That's about as circular as an argument can get. I see no more than an assertion followed by a repeat of the same assertion in slightly different words and finishing up with yet another repeat of that assertion.

It is of course recursive to you because it's self-evident, but you are unable to understand this. Those who question its self-evident nature are making errors in reasoning because they do not (or refuse to) see the self-evident facts, which of course I've explained in exhaustive and painful detail hundreds of times in the past quarter-century of trying to pound some common sense, logic and reason into the tiny crevices that liberals and socialists call minds.

[Brian Peacock]

No, but it is enforcing an obligation on the pregnant.

Thanks for pointing out that there is an obligation to be enforced, and what's wrong with enforcing an obligation...that's why it's an obligation.

The clue is in the 'FORCE' of 'enforce'.

[Seth]

No, but it is enforcing an obligation on the pregnant.

Thanks for pointing out that there is an obligation to be enforced, and what's wrong with enforcing an obligation...that's why it's an obligation.

The clue is in the 'FORCE' of 'enforce'.

The salient point is that when a persons undertakes an obligation voluntarily they are agreeing that the duty to be performed may be enforced. Undertaking an obligation and then refusing to abide by that obligation is an initiation of fraud (and/or force) upon those to whom the obligation is made, which in Libertarian philosophy authorizes enforcement of the meeting of that obligation.

If one does not wish to be forced to meet one's obligation, then one need only not incur such an obligation. Thus, if one says "I will undertake to deliver to you two bushels of corn in return for your lending me some money to buy fertilizer" and then you refuse to deliver the obliged amount of corn after the other person has met his obligation of providing you with fertilizer, then you are defrauding that person and he may take whatever action is required to collect that debt to fulfill the obligation you voluntarily undertook.

The same applies to an obligation undertaken that requires action or inaction. Thus, if I say "I will undertake to fly you from point A to point B safety and in accordance with aviation safety regulations" and I perform dangerous aerobatics or act recklessly or negligently while doing so I have initiated both force and fraud upon you and you are justified in doing whatever is required in order to secure your personal safety that is jeopardized by my actions, which may include killing me and taking control of the aircraft if that is what is necessary to preserve your life.

This applies even when you undertake an obligation that requires that you inconvenience or endanger yourself in order to comply with the voluntarily obligation, such as military service. Thus, if you undertake military service and agree to be bound by the regulations and laws of the UCMJ, but you abandon your post in the face of the enemy you are initiating force and fraud against your fellow soldiers and may be punished accordingly, up to and including summary execution.

Therefore, when a woman undertakes to have voluntary sexual relations with a fertile male, she does so knowing, as the soldier know he may be killed in combat, that pregnancy is a risk she is accepting as a part of the act. In the absence of a prior agreement on the part of the state to permit abortion of any resulting child which eliminates any obligation to carry the child to term, the woman is accepting the risk of pregnancy and therefore incurs an obligation to bring the child to term and deliver it without interfering with that gestation based on the societal determination that it is not acceptable for the woman to undertake that risk without being subject to enduring the consequences thereof.

Society may therefore enforce compliance with that voluntary obligation by prohibiting the mother from harming the child if it chooses to do so. The mother accepts that risk by voluntarily engaging in sexual activity, but need not subject herself to that imposition (not initiation) of force in defense of the child, she need only refrain from having sex with fertile males or use one of the many other methods of ensuring she does not become pregnant that are available to her.

In sum, there is nothing in Libertarian theory that precludes a Libertarian society from using force or compulsion to cause an individual to meet his or her voluntarily undertaken obligations or to prevent the individual from initiating force or fraud upon any other person.

[mistermack]

if it exists, it has achieved the state of "being" and is therefore a "human being", as opposed to, say, a "seahorse being."

Just because you are unwilling to acknowledge scientific fact doesn't mean you are correct in your assertions. You're not, you're merely demonstrating ideological bias and ignorance.

Which makes my foreskin a human being. Clearly a "scientific fact", by your ludicrous definition.
Your reasoning is so wonderfully stupid.

What do you make of a heart transplantee? Clearly that's two people, walking around isn't it?
Two sets of dna, and both are "being" = 2 human beings.

The reason that you are producing such stupid crap, is that you can't understand the difference between "being" and "a being". It's ludicrously simple stuff. Many school children could explain that.
How come it's such a problem for you?

[Seth]

if it exists, it has achieved the state of "being" and is therefore a "human being", as opposed to, say, a "seahorse being."

Just because you are unwilling to acknowledge scientific fact doesn't mean you are correct in your assertions. You're not, you're merely demonstrating ideological bias and ignorance.

Which makes my foreskin a human being. Clearly a "scientific fact", by your ludicrous definition.
Your reasoning is so wonderfully stupid.

Your foreskin, placed inside the uterus of a woman, will not naturally reproduce itself into a fully-mature human being.

What do you make of a heart transplantee? Clearly that's two people, walking around isn't it?
Two sets of dna, and both are "being" = 2 human beings.

Pettifoggery. The sum total of human beings exceeds zero, which is all that's relevant. Nor will a transplanted heart naturally grow into another mature human being over time.

The reason that you are producing such stupid crap, is that you can't understand the difference between "being" and "a being". It's ludicrously simple stuff. Many school children could explain that.
How come it's such a problem for you?

It's not a problem for me, it's a problem for you. The only reason you refuse to admit that a human fetus is a human being is because it utterly destroys your rationalization for killing it without having to address the social, moral and ethical implications of doing so. Only by de-humanizing the fetus are pro-abortionists able to live with themselves. If they admit that fetuses are human beings then according to their doctrine there's nothing wrong with someone aborting them after the fact, because their lives are just as worthless as they claim the lives of fetuses are.

[mistermack]

Your foreskin, placed inside the uterus of a woman, will not naturally reproduce itself into a fully-mature human being.

So like I said previously, you are relying on what something MIGHT BECOME to define what it is today.
In other words, you just have no understanding of time. So it's a waste of time going any further.


But thanks for the bullshit. I really mean it. It's good to talk through the idiotic arguments as well as the good ones.