smarterthanone

Corrected it for you. It is a straight up lie when you admit it is not yet a moral agent, then claim it has the rights of a moral agent. I am not saying that there is nothing to your argument but you cant make a jump from potential future moral agent to moral agent without full proving that out. Doesn't support your argument. Nobody is required to provide medical care to you in a free society. Healthcare is not a right. When more than 50% of people disagree with you, and the ones that agree with you, most of them would not actually support any enforcement, you only have a small minority to enforce it. Some examples, you ostracize abortion people, well 90% of business owners are not going to say goodbye to lets just say 50% of the populations business. So that isn't happening. How do you even know who got an abortion anyways? If a woman goes in private to a doctor, nobody would ever even know. hmm so how would you actually ostracize these people? How do you know if the man wanted it or didn't want it to ostracize him? Say you wanted to kill or imprison someone for abortion like I said, good luck when most of society would not allow you to do that. And people even who are anti abortion are not lining up to run around killing people. Say you want to PAY people looking for abortions to not have an abortion. The cost would obviously be very expensive for just 1. There are so many, it would not be possible to pay to stop all abortions or adopt all the children and then care for them to adult hood. Lets say $5000 convinces a woman to carry the child and the kid wears $500 of clothes per year, eats about $1000 of food per year, and has $500 of medical expenses and $500 of housing expenses, all per year (This would be terrible living conditions btw) $2500 per year and lets say through age 15, you need $42500 PER CHILD. And I think 600,000 is about how many abortions per year in the US... so you would need 25.5 BILLION dollars to save 1 years worth of abortion children. Good luck raising that! When something can be done between two consenting adults in private, its essentially impossible to effectively legislate or take any kind of meaningful action against.

A potential moral agent is not a moral agent. Agreed. It is impossible to enforce a ban on abortion without a government. So you obviously are a statist. If you are not, you should give up because it is impossible to enforce without a government.

I am both r and K. And I am pretty happy that way, I don't think all r qualities are bad.

Just because someone is an unsophisticated farmer in middle america doesn't mean they have a low IQ. I think you have some confirmation bias going on here.

Well the statement had nothing to do with abortion but about the being offended by words part... you know... like SJWs are.

I love how every post that has even borderline offensive opinions in it gets down voted. Who is the SJW here? I know there is at least one. Who is it that gets offended by... words? LMFAO

1. Retarded people being on the chopping block. Well how retarded? Can they communicate their wish to live? That would prove their ability for basic mental capabilities at a human level, still far greater than an animals. So still a person. 2. Simply wanting to live, like we assume a plant wants to live because it takes in sun and water, ehhh no mental ability, an animal maybe? Well an animal cannot understand and convey the concept so ehhhh nah not really either. A human in a vegetable state? Ehh no thought, no rights. 3. To address: it is a false dilemma. We are asked to choose between A - Human DNA Zygote or B - Non logical arbitrary exceptions. There are other options. As I have mentioned my view already, you don't have to agree with it but it is not A nor is it B, so violets argument doesn't consider my option C nor any other possible option and uses B the non logical arbitrary exceptions to say that therefore it must be A. This is essentially the NAP again. According to the NAP, there must must must be an injured party or plaintiff. In the case of an abortion, where both parents wanted the abortion, the doctor who gave the abortion was ok with it, nobody else was aware of the pregnancy... who is the injured party? Well the fetus was never of sufficient capability to ever complain, nobody else is complaining, so how could a crime have been committed? Hypothetically, you could bring the fetus back to life, yet it still cannot initiate a legal proceeding nor testify. So it cannot be a party to a suit by legal standards (unless you make special exceptions and enforce them with a government where the government is the plaintiff, similar to a marijuana possession charge). This is why I say, even if you somehow prove that abortion ought to be murder morally, you can't enforce it because there is no way to bring a case properly in a free court without a complaining party.

What if the child is born brain dead? Is it a human? Personally I don't think so. By your line of reasoning it would be. I define a human as that which has the main function of a human, our ability to reason. So like I said above, a robot or alien, providing it could reason, should have every right as those afforded to humans. But by your definition, an alien is not human, and therefore, even though they may be able to reason, they are not afforded the considerations of a human. I don't think this is right, I think they should be. So yes its hypothetical but by pushing the limits to each theory, one I think properly covers the hypothetical situation while the other is completely wrong.

Wrong. See pirates. See wild west. See unincorporated areas throughout history, they were not void of human life, yet had no government. There are still unincorporated places in Africa, I mean you wouldn't want to live there but people do.

Your statement is painfully obvious. The saying "life liberty and property" has been the simplest and most popular way of describing negative rights for over 200 years. Do you live in a cave? If so, stop looking at the shadows on the wall, there is a world out there.

Commitment? That she is an awesome person? <- This is what its supposed to be about. Why not make it the death penalty if a man leaves. Then you will really have an incentive to stay. I mean, what is your point. A is entitled to A and B is entitled to B. Seems fair to me. How is that not fair?

I don't get your post. Life liberty and property are negative rights and the only ones given consideration by NAP. You do not need other people to do something in order to have them. Snakes though do not have a right to life even in NAP, go kill one or maybe an ant hill, you will be OK. lol So my post is discussing why its ok to kill an ant but not a person.

Personality and IQ are mainly genetic BUT both can be greatly changed by environmental variables. For example, people with personality disorders often get it from their parents. (And not necessarily Disorder A gives child Disorder A but some work like A -> B -> A -> B etc) BUT if they were adopted to another family there is a decent chance they would break the cycle. Also personality can be changed such as a healthy normal type of personality could be changed by abuse as a child. Also environmental changes could be a depressed low energy person discovers a job that constantly engages them and rewards them in such a way they are not often depressed anymore. Their personality changed from the environment they put themselves into. A narcissist put into a position where they are obviously not the best at hardly anything will change them (its actually the only real way to cause a drastic change to a narcissist personality type). IQ is mainly genetic but if a child grows up in an environment where IQ pattern recognition is not used they can lose potential IQ, bad diet can lose potential IQ, along with some other environmental factors. You can't gain IQ though like if your genetics give you a potential IQ of 120 max then you will be 120 or below, and that will be determined by environment.

Your line of thinking makes no sense. If you buy a house together, both your names would be on it. Therefore she would be entitled to some of it. There is government child support for kids. So she is already covered. What she isn't covered on is all the assets you saved on your own, and future earnings that go towards her lifestyle. Only a gold digger would feel entitled to that. They aren't suitable partners by most men's standards.

@RamynKing and @ofd My justification for pro choice comes from the NAP. So take a peep. Why do you have the right to life, liberty and property and an ant, or a snake does not? Why don't we require restitution or imprisonment when you kill and destroy an ant hill? Well because we generally across the board do not recognize them as having these rights. Now there are generally two major schools of thought on who gets rights... 1. All humans. As a human, you have rights. Your genetics, the bible, equality... these are some of the justifications people use for this line of reasoning. Ants are not genetically human, ants were not granted souls in the bible, ants are not equal to us... etc 2. Our ability to reason. By being of sound mind where we can contract on our own behalf, we have rights. Thus the difference between a snake and a man, is that you can trade with a man, you cannot trade with a snake. Snakes are not capable of contracting on their own behalf or being responsible to the NAP, therefore they would not have rights. Without this ability, we aren't different in any way of importance from a snake or an ant or a dog. Real life test. 1. Pull the plug on life support for a brain dead individual? I think most would lean No. They are human and have rights. 2. Yes. They are no longer a human and have more in common with a jellyfish so its perfectly fine. Now hypothetical tests. 1. If you are in camp 1, and you are faced with a sentient alien life form. Do they have rights? Well they aren't human. So that argument as is goes out the window. What about an AI robot? Not human. In each scenario someone must decide if they should have rights. Who does the deciding? And what are their reasons? I don't know. I feel like the argument would be based on ability to reason. But then if you have a legit AI robot... does a robot minus the main microchip still count as life? Well a partial human does. Why not a robot? 2. Sentient alien life form, check. AI robot, check. If they are capable of contracting and being held responsible for themselves NAP they are "people". A robot without its main microchip such as its non functioning would not be a person. Abortion... 1. Most likely Yes they are human and have rights. There are still additional arguments but I think most would say yes that they have rights and that abortion is not acceptable. 2. No. (My personal stance). If you are not capable of contracting with other entities and being responsible for yourself such that you could follow NAP. You do not have rights. My reasoning why... It naturally does not seem right to me to call an AI robot with no function due to lack of a main microchip alive. It isn't alive. It is a piece of metal, raw materials if you will. It could become alive, but it is not currently alive. Same with undeveloped humans. They could become a contracting entity, but they aren't just yet (and they aren't guaranteed to become one). I don't believe oh yeah just go around stomping on babies and broken robots and life support people. No. While they are not alive in such a way that they have rights as far as I believe, I think of it like pets. You don't go around killing someones dog. So why would you go around happily killing undeveloped humans. That being said, if nobody claims such dog, and its out wild in the woods, well I think you are perfectly ok to shoot it BUT we wouldn't think its ideal to shoot it. Polite normal people wouldn't. But nobody should be held to a standard of you must be a polite normal person. And there you have it! Now the other part of why I agree with this is due to enforcement. I do not believe it is feasible to enforce making abortion in all or most circumstances illegal. Not without a government. So while following the NAP, a ban on abortion is not possible. Will discuss more in future posts.

Bandwagon fallacy. Doesn't matter how many people do it or don't do it. It is not support for or against an argument. Many US States and western countries do not have death penalty YET have high living standards. So that is just wrong. I think I am on board with this. I have a few hesitations, the only one I feel like mentioning is there is a difference between putting the bird outside and it starves, and smashing it in the head with a hammer. A distinction to think about.

Either unborn "children" have a right to life or not. Period. You cannot use that argument AND make an exception, even for rape, not without having to make lots of additional arguments that are not generally presented or presented by you here. Peoples natural emotions make you feel bad about a woman forced to raise a rape baby, so instead of using a rational argument, you are appealing to peoples emotions. That is a logical fallacy. See bold. Bandwagon fallacy.

It is a common opinion people have, but lets recognize it for what it is, a subjective willy nilly populist argument of the low IQ masses. It is your basic appeal to emotion fallacy. I expect better from those on FDR. Give me logic or give me death!

I must have hit the "lottery". I feel like I haven't but I guess I have. This doesn't sound like my experience at all. I am actually better than average either slightly to moderately in every major category you would rank a man on paper. So while I am not the hottest or the smartest or the richest... I am probably the hottest guy who is also smart and rich.... or the richest guy who is also hot and smart, or the smartest guy who is also hot and rich... you know out of any random set of 100 guys.

If a woman is pregnant because she had willing sex and another is pregnant from rape... forget the parents now... are the embryos different? No. They aren't. Either they are both people or they are both not people. Involuntary against the mother is irrelevant if your argument is that unborn children are people and thus afforded the right to life. Are rape babies not people? An exception for abortion in the case of rape could be rationalized with a completely different argument but NOT one where you claim abortion is murder. If you try to do it, then it is not logically consistent.

Aristotle? But seriously. Logic is the same as math. It is part of the human experience. It doesn't exist outside of our minds. It is a way we experience things, that is it. If humans didn't exist, there would be no being to experience math or logic and they would not exist. Not that just the concepts wouldn't exist/be invented, they literally wouldn't exist, someone must be doing the observing. Logic is all about relationships, there is no relationships without someone grouping things together in their mind.

Big government in Europe. Many groups felt oppressed and wanted to get away. So they moved to America. So people who directly knew the problems of big government would come here mostly. Imagine if Mars was terraformed and all the more libertarian conservative realm of people all started moving there to get away from REEE sjws? Wouldn't you expect Mars to then be very different in a few hundred years from now vs earth? Don't forget, these people leaving one area not only formed America but they removed themselves from Europe so it had a double effect.

Not sure specifically. It is a common argument by commies. Something about factory output is not produced by capital but by labor, that is why he argues all profits should go to labor and not capitalists. I am aware he specifically states somewhere that wealth can come from natural resources but he still assigns all output to the labor due to its mix with the natural resources.

Why not also allow abortion if the woman is under lets say 16 because the child will also have a shit life. What if the mother is a drug addict? Then abortion should be ok too. Or just really poor? What about date rape, not violent rape. What about condom stealthing situation? Someone needs to decide the specifics of your "rule". So you believe there should be some kind of master planner or government to enforce subjective reasons for which murder is allowed? Why should your opinion be law? Are you an expert in moral philosophy? A medical doctor specializing in pregnancy? What makes your opinion any different than every single other person in the worlds opinion? I guess your mom didn't say you were special from your comment in your post... but obviously someone did. Why are you so special such that everyone should defer to your judgement? And if your opinion is so great, why can't you convince everyone to follow it voluntarily? Ideas so good they need violence to make them mandatory. lol