Mel_NAP

From a practical standpoint- I don't think there is any. If someone values promiscuity (and not even bothering to use one of the many forms of bc available) more than they value not being a murderer, you're not going to reason them out of that. From a philosophical standpoint- fetuses are almost always invitees. I admit that I don't have a good argument against evictinism for babies that were the result of rape, but even they are not moral agents and as such can not commit trespass and so you can not kill them consistent with the NAP. My problem with calling it a contract is that someone could claim that the fetus is not agreeing to anything, which is true, or that they just put different "terms" on their contract. The parents invited the fetus in and caused it to be dependent. I can not morally kill a fetus invitee by evicting it in a way that would kill it anymore than I can morally kill an adult invitee by evicting it in a way that would kill it out the car door doing 90mph or through the 5th story window rather than the 1st story door. When I invite a fetus I know that it will take 9 months for me to be able to morally kick it out. When I invite you in to my car I know that it will take me slowing down and stopping (at a minimum) to morally kick you out. When I invite you to the 5th story of my building and suddenly decide I no longer want you there, I have to wait for you to have an opportunity to walk back down to the 1st floor. Different locations have different safe methods of exiting and the fact that a uterus has an exceptionally high wait time to safely kick out an invitee is my problem if I choose to invite someone to live in my uterus. It is possible to assume obligations in ways other than signing contracts. Inviting people onto your property is one of them. Since the parents caused the fetus to be dependent they are also responsible for caring for it until it is no longer dependent. When you cause someone to suffer an inadequacy you are responsible for making up for the inadequacy. This is more commonly seen in torts where if I run into with my car, I am responsible for your medical bills, lost wages, etc. It is true that causing the fetus to be dependent also caused it to exist, and it is also probably true that running you over with my car caused you to have some time off work and maybe you enjoy the meds. But I can not deduct these "gains" from my moral obligation to make you whole because value is subjective and neither my victim nor the fetus asked for these benefits in exchange for the state of dependency. I am morally responsible for the harm that I cause that is not the fault of the "victim."

Right, but that's not a contract- its taking on an obligation. Unless you're talking about unilateral contracts, which I always thought was a non-concept. It seems obvious that you can't have a contract with a zygote. Preforming an action means accepting all of its consequences, but I wouldn't call all actions contracts. You can't successfully argue morals with someone who is refusing to engage in morals anymore than you can successfully use logic with someone who is refusing to engage in logic. If leftists refuse to acknowledge morals, then what good will telling them that it is a contract or a separate person do? They can just say that they don't have a problem violating contracts or killing separate people. They are still going to use the "my body, my choice" slogan. Contemporary leftists don't so much deny that the baby is a person or a baby. They argue that the baby is impeding on the personal autonomy/body of the woman and therefore the woman has a right to dispose of it. (Though they seem to reject the same argument for adult welfare recipients.) If someone is dead set on feticide as a means of sexual promiscuity I don't think that there is anything we can say to stop them. So I don't see any point in watering down the arguments for their sake.

Conception is not a contract. Fetuses, embryos, and zygotes are (almost always) invitees. It is immoral to invite someone somewhere then kill them for being there. This is typically referred to as "murder." Evictionism is also immoral, because it is immoral to invite someone with the intent of kicking them out in a way that would be fatal to them. I can not invite you into my car then decide to kick you out on the interstate doing 90mph on the grounds that I own the car.

This. Whether or not God is disprovable is dependent on what God is being purported. Even within Christianity there is great variation. Some Gods are non-falsifiable. Some Gods are self-contridictiory. Antidotally, since most of the theists I've come across are determined to stick to a loving God, the more non-falsifiable their God is the less interested I am in disproving it.

I've only known one couple who has what I would remotely consider a successful marriage and they are somewhat leftist and therefore less "traditional" than I want to be. I believe that I know the main stuff- don't pursue a career and raise kids at the same time, manage the house, be supportive, etc. but I'm lacking in the details I guess. I know what our general roles are, but sometimes I'm not sure if I am overstepping my role or not filling it enough. It seems like I have a somewhat cartoonish guide of how this is supposed to work. My soon-to-be husband was raised by a single mom, and all of the people I grew up around, though they professed family values, were either single parents, in clearly emotionally abusive marriages, or had a parade of baby daddies/mamas with no end in sight. I wish there was a book I could read to tell me how to do this. Though I am not religious, I have tried looking to people at church, but they are just as bad. Where can I even look for this, or am I left to figure it out as I go along?

90+% of people are not brain surgeons. But if I am needing a brain surgeon that does not matter. I go and find someone who IS a brain surgeon. I look for signs that they are qualified for and intend to be a brain surgeon for the duration of the agreement. If I need to find a brain surgeon it does me no good to lament that most people are not brain surgeons. I just have to go find someone that is. And if I am successful in finding one, it does not follow that I have a 90+% chance of dying- I am not picking someone from the general public at random; it is my job to vet for this position. There are no innocent victims of divorce (at least in countries where marriage is voluntary). There may be a party that is more guilty, but both people are guilty of at a minimum picking the wrong person. Since the 50% number is skewed then don't pick a woman who has been divorced (just as you would not hire a brain surgeon who you knew has walked off the job in the middle of an operation), don't marry a single mom, a woman with a ridiculously high number, or any of the other factors that you are clearly aware of. The solution is to not marry someone who would do that. And I think that most of the men who have this happen to them knew on some level what they were getting into- they were proud to be "taking responsibility" for some other guy's kid, they "supported" their wife having a career, they "didn't judge" their wife for her "past," etc. If it still worries you, then just don't invite the State when you get married.

Hi! I came across Molyneaux several years ago when I was first discovering libertarianism. Recently got back into the show, as I also find it useful for general life stuff that I never got from, well life. I like to debate philosophy and hopefully I'd like to learn about personal societal issues (mainly family and relationship structures).