What do you think about abortion?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And thus we go back to the dehumanization argument. A baby becomes a clump of cells. Aren’t fully grown humans just a bigger clump of cells?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Because we weigh in the temporary loss of autonomy over 9 months (plus the risks of pregnancy) vs the absolute loss of life via painful death. From the perspective of one who sees (edit) that society should value all life as equal, it is an easy choice.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Ironically, your analogy supports my argument far more than it does yours. Because the “cool beans and everyone is a winner” scenario DOES exist. Just wait 9 months and both twins get to live. Now, can the heathier twin go ahead and ask his living twin be killed because he can’t wait 9 months? Decide on the morallity in that.

Originally posted by Blakemore
1) depends, is that clump of cells 100% reliant on another clump of cells' placenta?

2) al life are not equal. It's not even born. Is it more valuable than the mother?

3) ou are neither organism, not the mother nor the offspring. you have no say. Maybe we should ask the embryo. 😐

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.

1) ?

2) abortion is slavery....telling a woman what to do is not slavery. Okay. Sure. Yeah. Gotcha.

3) you see yourself equal to an embryo? Well... you appear undeveloped, imo.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@ nib. I can't quote you.

I largely agree with your post, but I do think property rights are and must be absolute.

https://mises.org/library/human-rights-property-rights

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.

Originally posted by Blakemore
1) ?

2) abortion is slavery.... Not telling a woman what to do. Okay. Sure. Yeah. Gotcha.

3) you see yourself equal to an embryo? Well z you appear undeveloped, imo.

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.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
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.

2 see above

3 see above

Originally posted by Blakemore
1 it's biological reliance.

2 see above

3 see above

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.

3. See above.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
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.

3. See above.

Originally posted by Blakemore
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.

That does not make the “organism” have full discretion of me to the point that it can end my life on a whim. Or at least it should not.

What gives one’s biological dependence on something forfeit its rights to the thing it is dependent to? This does not make sense.

Newborn babies are totally reliant on its parents. Yet they do not forfeit their right to life on their parents’ whims.

@nib

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.

New born babies can survive without their mothers. Anything preborn cannot. Duh.

No rights, mother's choice. End of discussion.

Originally posted by Blakemore
New born babies can survive without their mothers. Anything preborn cannot. Duh.

No rights, mother's choice. End of discussion.

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?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@nib

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.

And this is what abortion is. It infinges on the natural right of another indiviual to live.

When we deal in absolutes we eventually hit a point where absolutes contradict and we then get forced to move the discussion to a more nuanced one.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
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?

Originally posted by Blakemore
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.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And this is what abortion is. It infinges on the natural right of another indiviual to live.

When we deal in absolutes we eventually hit a point where absolutes contradict and we then get forced to move the discussion to a more nuanced one.

What do you think of this ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

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.

Murder those babies yeah! Let guys and gals have unprotected sex with hookers and sluts. 💃

Originally posted by Nibedicus
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.

Originally posted by rudester
Murder those babies yeah! Let guys and gals have unprotected sex with hookers and sluts. 💃

Sarcasm is often an ineffectual form of communication.

Originally posted by Blakemore
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.

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?