1) Irrelevant. A “clump of cell”’s clumpy-ness has nothing to do with its reliance on anything. It is either a clump of cells or it is not.
2) As I said, the “all life are not equal” is the core argument used for genocide, slavery, racism and prejudie. Shouldn’t a JUST society strive to make things as equal for everyone as possible?
That is a strange question. Why ask if I see the unborn child as more valuable when I just said they should be seen as equal?
3) I cannot decide for the individual, no. But I have every right to chime in on the morality of it. W/c is what I am doing.
I disagree. No right should be absolute. Not even speech. There is a limit to what you can say (incitement of violence for example). The line is drawn when your right start to overrule another person’s rights, as I’ve always said.
1) One’s reliances does not change one’s composition.
2) Temporary slavery brought about by one’s own choices vs absolute murder of a helpless innocent. Neither is a good choice. There is only a less bad one.
3) No need for attacks, man. We’re all adults here. If this conversation is frustrating you, then maybe we should stop?
Also, there is a difference between how one sees their own value (and those close to them) vs how society should value the life of everyone. Our own individual value of life is highly subjective. Thus, we value our own lives and the lives close to us greater than we value the life of strangers/criminals/enemies/etc. and we are alllowed that. Society, however, should strive to be equal across the board to create a society where there is no oppression and prejudice. And that should be the ideal we strive for.
1. Does not counter my point. As I said, aren’t we all just clumps of cells?
2. Again does not answer my point. We are given 2 bad choices. We pick the less bad one. Biological reliance does not change a thing. In fact, you have not clarified why “biological reliance” seems to be an absolute answer to anything, just throwing the 2 words around does not counter any point.
are your cells feeding off of and excreting to a more advanced organism? Because if they are, that organism probably has more control over your life than you do.
__________________ Sig by Nuke Nixon Last Edited by Blakemore on Jan 1st, 2000, at 00:00 AM
Natural rights are absolute. Not infringing on another individual's natural rights is part of the very dna of the natural right paradigm. Something rothbard elucidates on, much better than I ever could, in the article I shared. He also specifically touches on freedom of speech and how it's only viable as long as absolute property rights act as it's foundational principle.
The only diffrence between a newborn baby and a late delivery one (if both went thru the whole 9 month period) still in the womb is location. Yet, by your logic one has rights and the other can be killed at will (since it is still connected to the umbilcal cord). Is that correct?
Why do you think this is the case tho? Personally, I feel you are entirely convinced of this fact yet cannot put into words the logical foundation on why you think this is the case.
I think it solves the problem in a way that nods to your argument that the whole abortion debacle is choosing the least sucky option out of a bunch of sucky options.
Because so far I don't disagree with what you're saying, other than property rights not being absolute.
P.s. this is nuanced and agrees with your point on justifiable reactions to squatters.
The mother is its source. Not in a sense of "it's better off with the mother," but in a sense that it will die without it being attached. So how can you give it the same human rights as yourself when you don't get the same biological reliance as it does? It's clearly not the same.
__________________ Sig by Nuke Nixon Last Edited by Blakemore on Jan 1st, 2000, at 00:00 AM
Last edited by Blakemore on Feb 21st, 2021 at 09:05 AM
Because our humanity is not dictated by what or who we depend on? That our needs do not dictate our life’s value? That being a provider does not give you the right to own someone? That this concept does not morally apply for basically everything else in this regard (being a provider giving you ownership/control/discretion over another person) but for some reason “biological” suddenly carries with it absolute power?
Feb 21st, 2021 05:41 AM
