Pro Life and Pro Choice: Murder or Not Murder?

[Cryptolized]

What are your thoughts on the following:

It is wrong to bring a child to this world if at least one of the parents don't want the child.

A mother can choose to birth a child regardless of what the father thinks.
A mother can choose to abort a child regardless of what the father thinks.
A father is therefore incapacitated in this extremely important situation.

If a mother removes a child, it's called an abortion.
If a father "removes" a child, it's called a murder.

No one has the right – except in self-defence – to attack another human being. A human being who uses violence which results in the death of an unborn child, should be punished for the violence inflicted upon the mother; not for "murder" of the unborn child, as long as the mother can abort the child which in practice is the same as murder in the father's situation.

There is just one way of doing this:
– Mother and father want to keep = the child is kept
– Mother and father want to remove = the child is removed
– Mother wants to keep, father wants to remove = the child is removed
– Mother wants to remove, father wants to keep = the child is removed
– Mother wants to remove, father is unknown/dead = mother decides, as long as the father's family can't be held economically, or in other ways, responsible for the child against their will.

[fivestarman]

I don't think it should be considered murder until around 20-24 weeks, which sets a standard for both fetal viability outside the womb, and the development of the neural basis for consciousness. After that point it is a conscious human being and regular law ought to apply -- do not kill unless in self-defense (life and health of the mother at stake).

[D.D.]

7 hours ago, Cryptolized said:

What are your thoughts on the following:

It is wrong to bring a child to this world if at least one of the parents don't want the child.

Let's start with definitions.

Definition of Parent (merriam-webster):

• 1a :  one that begets or brings forth offspring just became parents of twins
• b :  a person who brings up and cares for another foster parents

Definition of Beget (merriam-webster):

• 1 :  to procreate as the father :  sire He died without begetting an heir.

Definition of Child (merriam-webster):

• 1a :  an unborn or recently born person
• 2a :  a young person especially between infancy and youth a play for both children and adults
• 4a :  a son or daughter of human parents Do you have any children?

 

Outside of the above definitions, one needs to examine the context of how a person became a parent.

For example, was it voluntary, did both people possess the knowledge of how procreation works?  If so, how was this determined?

Was the people conscious?

Definition of Conscious (merriam-webster):

• 1 :  perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation conscious of having succeeded was conscious that someone was watching

• 4 :  capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception

• 6 :  having mental faculties not dulled by sleep, faintness, or stupor :  awake became conscious after the anesthesia wore off

Edited April 19, 2017 by D.D.
Missing link.

[M.2]

Hi, Cryptolized!

I see this is your first post ever on FDR. Could you explain your position and why you chose to start with this?

Could you also answer the following: Is killing always murder? Why or why not?
In watching many debates on abortion, I have noticed that in the end the disagreement does not come down to personhood, but to the morality of murder.

[Cryptolized]

Do you mean my position on this subject? I'm watching most of Stefan's videos, but I still feel like a noob :), so excuse any "NotAnArgument" I make or if I contradict myself. The reason I asked about this here is because I guess this forum is the best place to get good answers. There is no particular reason why I chose to start with this.

I'm not a native English speaker, and I'm not versed in all the different legal definitions of ending a life. Do you mean if I distinguish between, say, homicide, manslaughter, first/second degree murder? I don't know the difference between them, so in this context (if possible) I'm talking about one human ending another human's life.

I don't think that the legal definition of "ending a life" should apply at conception. I think it should vary depending on the situation. I don't know what the "default" position of a pro-lifer is on ending a baby's life to save the mother, but I believe the mother is worth more than the baby. I also believe that an unwanted child should not be born, so it shouldn't matter at which time the pregnancy is discovered; an abortion is a solution.

My main concern is that no matter at which week any nation draws the line, there can't be a difference in the punishment for ending a life between "a kick in the stomach" and an abortion.

[Boss]

Abortion is murder.

mur·der

noun

1. 1.

   the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

You can see the biology of the human development cycle here. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)

Princeton has done a paper on when human beings begin for an easier read.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

I am not completely sure what your point is. However, the only way a father can "remove a child" from an unwilling mother is through assaulting the mother, whereas the mother can "remove a child" without assaulting the father. That may have been the point, not sure tho.


 

[Cryptolized]

The father/person who assaults the mother must be punished for the assault, but not for killing the baby if the mother can abort (kill) the baby and not be punished for it.

[smarterthanone]

Calling it a person (having personhood and thus rights) is the problem. The exact definition is subjective and has changed over time. Everyone, both sides of the issue agrees murder is wrong. If everyone agreed it was a person with rights while unborn, everyone would agree it was murder. If everyone agreed upon birth or thereafter it was a person with rights, everyone would agree abortion is not murder.

Throughout history, unborn children and young children did not have any rights whatsoever. If a child is old enough to sell, it does not really have rights now does it? So why would it arbitrarily have the right to live? Parents used to be able to kill children, sell children, do whatever the fuck they wanted with them.

Personally I see birth as irrelevant to personhood. The act of being inside the mother or outside the mother doesn't really change the entity. But I absolutely do not believe a bunch of cells in a womb is a person with rights either. I think one only becomes a person with rights once they are capable of asserting their rights. When the child is able to disobey the parent and is responsible to accept the consequences, that is when I really believe they are now a person. This is more like the historical method of determining personhood. When your father can't physically or financially make you do something any more, you are now your own person when you can provide for yourself and defend yourself.
Yes this is very off base with mainstream opinion of abortion but in order to map it to the normal discussion it would make me firmly pro choice.

The important thing to remember throughout the whole debate is what is a person, and realize the answer is subjective. Therefore in terms of a voluntary society, I would say if there is no complaint, ie the "dead entity" doesn't complain, the mother doesn't complain, the father doesn't complain, the "dead entity" if alive would have been unable to complain, and those involved personally decide what they did was correct (decided for themselves as there is no central authority)... then no crime has been committed.

[Gavitor]

On 5/24/2017 at 10:10 AM, smarterthanone said:

Calling it a person (having personhood and thus rights) is the problem. The exact definition is subjective and has changed over time. Everyone, both sides of the issue agrees murder is wrong. If everyone agreed it was a person with rights while unborn, everyone would agree it was murder. If everyone agreed upon birth or thereafter it was a person with rights, everyone would agree abortion is not murder.

Throughout history, unborn children and young children did not have any rights whatsoever. If a child is old enough to sell, it does not really have rights now does it? So why would it arbitrarily have the right to live? Parents used to be able to kill children, sell children, do whatever the fuck they wanted with them.

Personally I see birth as irrelevant to personhood. The act of being inside the mother or outside the mother doesn't really change the entity. But I absolutely do not believe a bunch of cells in a womb is a person with rights either. I think one only becomes a person with rights once they are capable of asserting their rights. When the child is able to disobey the parent and is responsible to accept the consequences, that is when I really believe they are now a person. This is more like the historical method of determining personhood. When your father can't physically or financially make you do something any more, you are now your own person when you can provide for yourself and defend yourself.
Yes this is very off base with mainstream opinion of abortion but in order to map it to the normal discussion it would make me firmly pro choice.

The important thing to remember throughout the whole debate is what is a person, and realize the answer is subjective. Therefore in terms of a voluntary society, I would say if there is no complaint, ie the "dead entity" doesn't complain, the mother doesn't complain, the father doesn't complain, the "dead entity" if alive would have been unable to complain, and those involved personally decide what they did was correct (decided for themselves as there is no central authority)... then no crime has been committed.

You are a bunch of cells, is it ok to kill you?

Also rights do not exist. So rights are irrelevant when it comes to this.

If I understand correctly anyone who can't say no (ie mute people and/or people in a coma and/or infants) can be murdered because they can't say no? Is this your position?

The fact is that if that "bunch of cells" was allowed to grow it would become a human, Sperm and eggs cannot do this alone. So as soon as the egg and sperm meet you have a human.

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Based on the NAP, all forms of infanticide is murder, and therefore a better label for "pro-choice" is "pro-Infanticide", or "anti-life". 

I would consider the following scenarios to be exceptional

1: Rape: For obvious reasons.

2: Incest: Also obvious. 

3: Miscegenation: Not obvious; mainly because I consider it immoral to purposely downgrade from an established gene pool. Exceptions to this would be Eurasians and other groups with similar IQ levels.

4: Knowledge of retardation or other crippling birth defects: I consider it immoral to force someone who is crippled to live in a world where only the fit may thrive. Mere survival is not really living, and is a curse for those without the ability to improve their situation. 

My argument for 3 and 4 go something like this: IQ is highly correlated with quality life and character; therefore anything that would significantly diminish IQ should  be treated the same as if trying to fester crime and agony. 

I am  not 100% on these positions and am welcome to any arguments against this, as I can't and won't bar someone or force someone to do something I am morally unsure of, except in cases 1 and 2 where it is black and white. 

[smarterthanone]

2 hours ago, Gavitor said:

You are a bunch of cells, is it ok to kill you?

The fact is that if that "bunch of cells" was allowed to grow it would become a human, Sperm and eggs cannot do this alone. So as soon as the egg and sperm meet you have a human.

You can say it over and over and over. You believe it is a human being or person. It is not objectively a human being. A functioning person is objectively a human being because they have all the characteristics of a human being (such as everything a fully functional adult human being would be able to do). Note I said "being" after human. Like Descartes cogito ergo sum, the being/or thinking is what differentiates a human being from an animal or human blood on the floor. The ability to do human things ie think causes one to be. Egg and sperm, either combined or separate, are genetically human but they do not have all the characteristics of a being.

Look carefully at what you said "...it would become a human..." so even you casually talk about it as not being a human being already. If it is not a human, how can you murder it?

 

2 hours ago, Gavitor said:

Also rights do not exist. So rights are irrelevant when it comes to this.

Where do rights not exist? Do you not recognize the natural rights to life, liberty and property?

 

2 hours ago, Gavitor said:

If I understand correctly anyone who can't say no (ie mute people and/or people in a coma and/or infants) can be murdered because they can't say no? Is this your position?

Way to be literal. Communicate. Mute people can communicate, believe it or not, they can write or use sign language. So scratch that from your list.

People in a coma and or infants, correct, they can not communicate. But they are however only one entity involved in voicing lack of consent. Being an infant in and of itself does not make it ok to kill you just because you cannot say no. If nobody who has an any responsibility for you is willing to say no on your behalf then it would be ok in a voluntary (dare I say ideal, we are on FDR) society. 

Example: You and a woman have a newborn. You do not want the infant, the woman does not want the infant. Nobody in your family wants the infant. Nobody in your town wants the infant. You post on the internet, still nobody wants the infant. You try to put him up for adoption, nobody wants the infant. Is it now ok to leave the infant on the side of the road? OR do you have a mandate that the infant must be provided for? I mean sure a responsible person would take the kid but hypothetically here, who issues this mandate? Who will protect the infant from being left on the side of the road? Nobody seeing as nobody was willing to take the infant. This could only be enforced with a government.

 

 

[smarterthanone]

1 hour ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Based on the NAP, all forms of infanticide is murder, and therefore a better label for "pro-choice" is "pro-Infanticide", or "anti-life". 

I would consider the following scenarios to be exceptional

1: Rape: For obvious reasons.

2: Incest: Also obvious. 

3: Miscegenation: Not obvious; mainly because I consider it immoral to purposely downgrade from an established gene pool. Exceptions to this would be Eurasians and other groups with similar IQ levels.

4: Knowledge of retardation or other crippling birth defects: I consider it immoral to force someone who is crippled to live in a world where only the fit may thrive. Mere survival is not really living, and is a curse for those without the ability to improve their situation. 

My argument for 3 and 4 go something like this: IQ is highly correlated with quality life and character; therefore anything that would significantly diminish IQ should  be treated the same as if trying to fester crime and agony. 

I am  not 100% on these positions and am welcome to any arguments against this, as I can't and won't bar someone or force someone to do something I am morally unsure of, except in cases 1 and 2 where it is black and white. 

Your exceptions break your argument. If all infanticide is murder, even in situations of rape, you would be a murderer. Change your logical reasoning, yours is not a good argument as is, unless you also argue that sometimes its acceptable to be a murderer. But that would require its completely own argument and one I don't think anyone is up to the task for.

[Gavitor]

1 minute ago, smarterthanone said:

You can say it over and over and over. You believe it is a human being or person. It is not objectively a human being. A functioning person is objectively a human being because they have all the characteristics of a human being (such as everything a fully functional adult human being would be able to do). Note I said "being" after human. Like Descartes cogito ergo sum, the being/or thinking is what differentiates a human being from an animal or human blood on the floor. The ability to do human things ie think causes one to be. Egg and sperm, either combined or separate, are genetically human but they do not have all the characteristics of a being.

Look carefully at what you said "...it would become a human..." so even you casually talk about it as not being a human being already. If it is not a human, how can you murder it?

 

Where do rights not exist? Do you not recognize the natural rights to life, liberty and property?

 

Way to be literal. Communicate. Mute people can communicate, believe it or not, they can write or use sign language. So scratch that from your list.

People in a coma and or infants, correct, they can not communicate. But they are however only one entity involved in voicing lack of consent. Being an infant in and of itself does not make it ok to kill you just because you cannot say no. If nobody who has an any responsibility for you is willing to say no on your behalf then it would be ok in a voluntary (dare I say ideal, we are on FDR) society. 

Example: You and a woman have a newborn. You do not want the infant, the woman does not want the infant. Nobody in your family wants the infant. Nobody in your town wants the infant. You post on the internet, still nobody wants the infant. You try to put him up for adoption, nobody wants the infant. Is it now ok to leave the infant on the side of the road? OR do you have a mandate that the infant must be provided for? I mean sure a responsible person would take the kid but hypothetically here, who issues this mandate? Who will protect the infant from being left on the side of the road? Nobody seeing as nobody was willing to take the infant. This could only be enforced with a government.

 

 

 

Objectively speaking a human being begins when sperm meets egg. Otherwise I could argue that anyone not human. Once the egg is fertilized by the sperm it will grow and mature, saying well you're not human until some arbitrary point in development is intellectually dishonest and can be used to justify killing anyone. An egg by itself will not grow and mature, neither can sperm. Only when combined is the human formed.

If rights exist why are they constantly violated? Rights by definition cannot be violated, the reality is all you have are privileges given to you by those that call themselves government.

You're making an assumption the mute can write, that may not be the case. what about someone who is not disabled in anyway but doesn't know how to say no? or speaks a different language that you don't understand?

Saying no one wants the child so its ok to kill said child is silly. If no one wanted the child why did they make said child in the first place? Pregnancy is extremely easy to prevent. No excuses. Making a bad choice does not make it ok for you to murder.

[smarterthanone]

1 minute ago, Gavitor said:

Objectively speaking a human being begins when sperm meets egg. Otherwise I could argue that anyone not human. Once the egg is fertilized by the sperm it will grow and mature, saying well you're not human until some arbitrary point in development is intellectually dishonest and can be used to justify killing anyone. An egg by itself will not grow and mature, neither can sperm. Only when combined is the human formed.

Not objective. That is your opinion.

Definition of human: having human form or attributes. Definition of being: the qualities that constitute an existent thing.

Neither of these terms expressly defines a combined egg and sperm as a human being. Combined sperm and egg do not have the form of a human and but they share one major attribute of DNA, so certainly they fall under the realm of human but not so much of human being. They are both words dealing with whats called "essence." When I say I am wearing a shoe, you can look at it and know, yes it is a shoe. It might be made of leather, or pleather, or fabric or rubber... but it goes on my foot and I wear it to protect my feet. If I put a hat on my foot, it may be made out of fabric and have a piece of rubber on it AND be on my foot, it is not a shoe. If I have just a shoe lace, it is not a shoe. If I have a raw piece of leather and a raw piece of fabric and a raw piece of rubber... still not a shoe. A shoe is a shoe, not something else. Just as a human being is a human being, not cells.

 

1 minute ago, Gavitor said:

If rights exist why are they constantly violated? Rights by definition cannot be violated, the reality is all you have are privileges given to you by those that call themselves government.

So you don't have a right to not be murdered? Then why are we even arguing over abortion? LOL

 

1 minute ago, Gavitor said:

You're making an assumption the mute can write, that may not be the case. what about someone who is not disabled in anyway but doesn't know how to say no? or speaks a different language that you don't understand?

If the mute cannot speak, or write, or do anything at all to communicate, then sure, same category as an infant or coma person. If they speak a different language that would enable them communicate No now wouldn't it? We are talking about their ability to mentally function, not your language education.

 

1 minute ago, Gavitor said:

Saying no one wants the child so its ok to kill said child is silly. If no one wanted the child why did they make said child in the first place? Pregnancy is extremely easy to prevent. No excuses. Making a bad choice does not make it ok for you to murder.

If you believe in voluntary society, why would you pretend to know what is best for someone else? Do you believe they should just pay taxes too because its only such a small amount of money that does a great amount of good? Same logic.

You didn't answer my question. Who mandates they have to care for the infant? Who would hold them responsible seeing as nobody cared enough to take the infant?

[Gavitor]

1 minute ago, smarterthanone said:

Not objective. That is your opinion.

Definition of human: having human form or attributes. Definition of being: the qualities that constitute an existent thing.

Neither of these terms expressly defines a combined egg and sperm as a human being. Combined sperm and egg do not have the form of a human and but they share one major attribute of DNA, so certainly they fall under the realm of human but not so much of human being. They are both words dealing with whats called "essence." When I say I am wearing a shoe, you can look at it and know, yes it is a shoe. It might be made of leather, or pleather, or fabric or rubber... but it goes on my foot and I wear it to protect my feet. If I put a hat on my foot, it may be made out of fabric and have a piece of rubber on it AND be on my foot, it is not a shoe. If I have just a shoe lace, it is not a shoe. If I have a raw piece of leather and a raw piece of fabric and a raw piece of rubber... still not a shoe. A shoe is a shoe, not something else. Just as a human being is a human being, not cells.

 

So you don't have a right to not be murdered? Then why are we even arguing over abortion? LOL

 

If the mute cannot speak, or write, or do anything at all to communicate, then sure, same category as an infant or coma person. If they speak a different language that would enable them communicate No now wouldn't it? We are talking about their ability to mentally function, not your language education.

 

If you believe in voluntary society, why would you pretend to know what is best for someone else? Do you believe they should just pay taxes too because its only such a small amount of money that does a great amount of good? Same logic.

You didn't answer my question. Who mandates they have to care for the infant? Who would hold them responsible seeing as nobody cared enough to take the infant?

human form and attributes vary greatly. and the fertilized egg exists. The fertilized egg is human because it doesn't grow into a giraffe. A human being is cells, literally!

The same argument used to support abortion is the same argument used to justify genocide. The the ones being killed are not human.

It's considered immoral to murder, doesn't mean people won't do it.

You're making my point for me, anyone who isn't able to mentally function is considered not human to you. This is what I mean about being able to justify murder.

I never once stated I know whats best for anyone, try again?

I'm simply arguing that abortion is murder by definition which is immoral. I never said you couldn't do it. What you do with that information is entirely up to you.

[smarterthanone]

13 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

human form and attributes vary greatly. and the fertilized egg exists. The fertilized egg is human because it doesn't grow into a giraffe. A human being is cells, literally!

The same argument used to support abortion is the same argument used to justify genocide. The the ones being killed are not human.

It's considered immoral to murder, doesn't mean people won't do it.

You're making my point for me, anyone who isn't able to mentally function is considered not human to you. This is what I mean about being able to justify murder.

I never once stated I know whats best for anyone, try again?

I'm simply arguing that abortion is murder by definition which is immoral. I never said you couldn't do it. What you do with that information is entirely up to you.

Wait what? *facepalm* I am not going to respond because you didn't address really anything I said, while introducing other concepts without explaining... such as genocide.

[Donnadogsoth]

On 4/19/2017 at 5:21 AM, Cryptolized said:

What are your thoughts on the following:

It is wrong to bring a child to this world if at least one of the parents don't want the child.

A mother can choose to birth a child regardless of what the father thinks.
A mother can choose to abort a child regardless of what the father thinks.
A father is therefore incapacitated in this extremely important situation.

If a mother removes a child, it's called an abortion.
If a father "removes" a child, it's called a murder.

No one has the right – except in self-defence – to attack another human being. A human being who uses violence which results in the death of an unborn child, should be punished for the violence inflicted upon the mother; not for "murder" of the unborn child, as long as the mother can abort the child which in practice is the same as murder in the father's situation.

There is just one way of doing this:
– Mother and father want to keep = the child is kept
– Mother and father want to remove = the child is removed
– Mother wants to keep, father wants to remove = the child is removed
– Mother wants to remove, father wants to keep = the child is removed
– Mother wants to remove, father is unknown/dead = mother decides, as long as the father's family can't be held economically, or in other ways, responsible for the child against their will.

Any killing of an unborn child is murder, and therefore unlawful and immoral.  The only solution is that a pregnant woman, or her legal guardian if she be incapacitated, has the right to, at any time and for any reason, have the zygote, embryo, or fetus removed.  However, she does NOT have the right to KILL the unborn child; rather, the child once removed is to be either placed in cryogenic stasis, or, if too old for that, placed in a premature infant ward in a hospital, or, where feasible, placed into the womb of a willing alternate mother.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

7 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Your exceptions break your argument. If all infanticide is murder, even in situations of rape, you would be a murderer. Change your logical reasoning, yours is not a good argument as is, unless you also argue that sometimes its acceptable to be a murderer. But that would require its completely own argument and one I don't think anyone is up to the task for.

Good point. If "murder" is merely a legal term, then it doesn't really matter. However as a moral term, I shall simply define it as "killing without just cause", like self-defense or euthanasia. 

If the killing of children born of rape, incest, miscegenation, and crippling birth defects is all euthanasia, then my argument is consistent though I am sure there will be those that disagree with me at least in part. I'm more interested in disagreements of substance rather than form. 

[Meister]

Abortion is manslaughter, not necessarily murder.

Those are two different things.

[Cryptolized]

On 21.4.2017 at 2:58 PM, Cryptolized said:

The father/person who assaults the mother must be punished for the assault, but not for killing the baby if the mother can abort (kill) the baby and not be punished for it.

Any thoughts on this?

[smarterthanone]

6 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Good point. If "murder" is merely a legal term, then it doesn't really matter. However as a moral term, I shall simply define it as "killing without just cause", like self-defense or euthanasia. 

If the killing of children born of rape, incest, miscegenation, and crippling birth defects is all euthanasia, then my argument is consistent though I am sure there will be those that disagree with me at least in part. I'm more interested in disagreements of substance rather than form. 

How is killing a "child" from rape not murder but euthanasia? A child from rape is no different than a child from normal relations. I am assuming you only want to allow abortion from rape to spare the mother... in which case that is proof that the mothers feelings and autonomy is more important than a child. Still not logically consistent.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

8 hours ago, Meister said:

Abortion is manslaughter, not necessarily murder.

Those are two different things.

Isn't that a distinction without purpose? 

5 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

How is killing a "child" from rape not murder but euthanasia? A child from rape is no different than a child from normal relations. I am assuming you only want to allow abortion from rape to spare the mother... in which case that is proof that the mothers feelings and autonomy is more important than a child. Still not logically consistent.

Well, I have about three reasons.

1: How the heck can a woman raise the spawn of rape? If she can, she's crazy and will impart her craziness on the spawn. If she can't, the poor spawn will grow up bitter and possibly become a rapist like dear old dad. I suppose the opposite could occur, but when a woman sperm jacks a man, I don't think she intends to abort him/her shortly after. 

2: I want to genes of rapists and other low-lives cut from being able to survive. Genetically, we are programmed to do whatever to reproduce. I don't want rape to become "viable", therefore I want all spawn of rape to be executed/euthanized. 

3: Growing up with a single mom who hates me and wants me dead; can't imagine a worse scenario to grow up in, save battlefields, Sparta, and Africa. 

[smarterthanone]

9 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Well, I have about three reasons.

1: How the heck can a woman raise the spawn of rape? If she can, she's crazy and will impart her craziness on the spawn. If she can't, the poor spawn will grow up bitter and possibly become a rapist like dear old dad. I suppose the opposite could occur, but when a woman sperm jacks a man, I don't think she intends to abort him/her shortly after. 

2: I want to genes of rapists and other low-lives cut from being able to survive. Genetically, we are programmed to do whatever to reproduce. I don't want rape to become "viable", therefore I want all spawn of rape to be executed/euthanized. 

3: Growing up with a single mom who hates me and wants me dead; can't imagine a worse scenario to grow up in, save battlefields, Sparta, and Africa. 

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

[Siegfried von Walheim]

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

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". 

Sure, since I'd like to purge our society of low IQ degenerates and wastrels. However without a welfare state most of those cases, if not all, will either change and become super rare or die off, therefore a free society is the ultimate and cheapest eugenics program because nature is against degeneracy.

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

So you believe there should be some kind of master planner or government to enforce subjective reasons for which murder is allowed?

No, because I fear being wrong could lead to unintended consequences. Also, the free market and no welfare state= natural and steady purge of deadbeats and degenerates with a promotion of quality and K-selection. I don't need a gun to make people be moral, I just need the guys with guns to stop pointing them at me to subsidize immorality. Social morals are natural to White and East Asians, therefore no outside impetus is necessary for us to behave justly, and the free market can create its own prisons and nooses for the NAP violating criminals, and that doesn't have to include baby killers since a K-selected majority would find that so repulsive it wouldn't be worth making illegal; it's social suicide. 

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

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 don't. I'm a free market guy with a big mouth. Therefore I think most of what I said can and will be handled in a state of freedom/

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

I guess your mom didn't say you were special from your comment in your post... but obviously someone did.

Backwards, my single mom said I was special and I said I was powerless and without ability to fix what I saw growing up, and therefore grew very hungry for power and influence. While I can't say I fully grew out of it, I can say I know better than to assume I can fix the world with an army. Well, maybe I could; just by following Pinochet's example. However that's very unlikely, since I am no militarist nor do I consider myself able enough to be a career officer. 

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

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?

I could argue being smarter than 99% of the population is why arguments are pointless, but then why would I be arguing rather than plotting and shooting? In reality, I realize I am a layman at best in most areas of interest to me, therefore I defer to experts when and where I can. If I ever did become a dictator, I'd be very laisezz faire and delegate to experts. However, such is fantasy. Instead I will simply argue my points and attempt to sway some minds, so that when the inevitable civil war comes the right ideas win out. 

3 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Ideas so good they need violence to make them mandatory. lol

Ever been or grew up in a Multikult? The denizens there aren't smart enough to live without a whip, and therefore should be far and away from a free society where they'd only cause trouble. 

Although I agree that an idea that requires force beyond ostracism to maintain are destined to fail, I do think the use of force to make an idea possible is righteous. A free society will not come peacefully, but with a storm. 

[RamynKing]

On 4/21/2017 at 8:11 AM, Boss said:

Abortion is murder.

Princeton has done a paper on when human beings begin for an easier read.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

This article did a great job of clearing up a lot of the common arguments for abortion! Thanks.

 

On 7/8/2017 at 8:15 AM, smarterthanone said:

How is killing a "child" from rape not murder but euthanasia? A child from rape is no different than a child from normal relations. I am assuming you only want to allow abortion from rape to spare the mother... in which case that is proof that the mothers feelings and autonomy is more important than a child. Still not logically consistent.

Not true. Becoming pregnant from rape is involuntary.

So not only did the rapist violate the mother, he implanted a seed of his genes into her. I think an argument could be made that anything that grows from that act is an extension of said violation. If we follow common criminal theory, where justice can include at least erasing the fruits of criminal acts, then it is logical that the mother be allowed the choice to erase the fruits of her rapist. 

I think that's a better angle than invoking euthanasia as a good. I'd love to read what this forum says about that, because I've seen some convincing arguments on why euthanasia is in the same moral category of abortion.

[smarterthanone]

1 hour ago, RamynKing said:

Not true. Becoming pregnant from rape is involuntary.

So not only did the rapist violate the mother, he implanted a seed of his genes into her. I think an argument could be made that anything that grows from that act is an extension of said violation. If we follow common criminal theory, where justice can include at least erasing the fruits of criminal acts, then it is logical that the mother be allowed the choice to erase the fruits of her rapist. 

I think that's a better angle than invoking euthanasia as a good. I'd love to read what this forum says about that, because I've seen some convincing arguments on why euthanasia is in the same moral category of abortion.

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.

[RamynKing]

13 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

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.

I agree, it is inconsistent on the terms you've laid out.

But as far as I know, generally the Pro-life argument includes exceptions for "Hard Cases," such as rape, or danger to the mother.

This is consistent with western society's views on the sanctity of life. We do kill sometimes. We have the death penalty. In a free society, I suspect we we would see convicted rapists killed more often.

 

[smarterthanone]

3 hours ago, RamynKing said:

I agree, it is inconsistent on the terms you've laid out.

But as far as I know, generally the Pro-life argument includes exceptions for "Hard Cases," such as rape, or danger to the mother.

This is consistent with western society's views on the sanctity of life. We do kill sometimes. We have the death penalty. In a free society, I suspect we we would see convicted rapists killed more often.

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! 

[RamynKing]

4 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

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.

What exactly is the "it" you are referring to here?

[smarterthanone]

1 minute ago, RamynKing said:

What exactly is the "it" you are referring to here?

 

3 hours ago, RamynKing said:

But as far as I know, generally the Pro-life argument includes exceptions for "Hard Cases," such as rape, or danger to the mother.

 

[RamynKing]

3 hours ago, RamynKing said:

But as far as I know, generally the Pro-life argument includes exceptions for "Hard Cases," such as rape, or danger to the mother.

9 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

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! 

...not an argument.
It makes logical sense to me. Care to break down why it's incorrect, then?
 

[smarterthanone]

37 minutes ago, RamynKing said:

...not an argument.
It makes logical sense to me. Care to break down why it's incorrect, then?
 

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.

 

4 hours ago, RamynKing said:

This is consistent with western society's views on the sanctity of life. We do kill sometimes. We have the death penalty. In a free society, I suspect we we would see convicted rapists killed more often.

See bold. Bandwagon fallacy.

[ofd]

Quote

Based on the NAP, all forms of infanticide is murder, and therefore a better label for "pro-choice" is "pro-Infanticide", or "anti-life". 

If you argue on basis of the NAP, you have to conclude that freedom is negative. It is immoral to be forced to do something to do something. It violates the NAP to make you feed another person. Hence it is illegal to make parents feed their children. A fortiori, it is illegal to prohibit abortion under the NAP.

Quote

 

Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

 

https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights

Personally, I think that abortion is wrong and immoral. But you cannot use the NAP to make that case.

[RamynKing]

1 hour ago, smarterthanone said:

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.

When it comes to murder, we make very careful exceptions as a society. Again, we make similar exceptions for punishing criminals with the death penalty. We do this because, under the state, it is the only allowed avenue we have to achieve justice. You need to have a certain amount of justice in order to have a civilization with the living standards of the west.

These exceptions are far from arbitrary. They are constantly argued over. However, the state's laws can be quite arbitrary, such as Roe v. Wade. Yet, the debate rages on, because the sanctity of life is a cornerstone of our society. People are extremely hesitant to chip away at it for any reason, lest we go down a slippery slope toward a more casual regard for (mostly human) life.

The NAP and Abortion.

Somebody breaks into your house and leaves an illegal bird inside with a note: "Take care of this bird until I return in 2 months. Give him this special food. He will die without it. He can't survive in the wild yet. And the authorities will kill him if you turn him in. I'll pay you a large sum for your service."

Sorry for the awkward scenario, but I'm trying to illustrate here a situation where the NAP allows for the killing of a life. You might be a mean person by kicking this bird out of your house, but it came to be there because someone made a choice to violate you in the first place.

I believe the same logic applies to pregnancy from rape. The rapist violates the woman's body and places there a life that she must now take care of, or it will die. A horrible scenario to be sure, but one that only exists because of a rapist's choice to violate the NAP in the first place.

In the bird scenario, it's possible the bird will be no trouble, which makes the person who expels it look like "a dick," as Stef has put it.
But in a rape scenario, psychology tells us bringing the child to term would likely be a very traumatic thing for the mother. It would be an extension of her initial violation all the way, unless the mother made peace with it, which is fine. But she isn't required to under the NAP. If we forced her to carry the baby, in favor of a strict view on murder, it would lead to a marked increase in overall injustice in society. Rapists could start impregnating women and enjoying the fact that they had offspring in the world, though they themselves were in jail. The resulting resentment would be an incredibly destructive force on the very fabric of society.

 

1 hour ago, ofd said:

every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.

But, in the paper from earlier in the thread, we see:

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother's and the father's chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother's tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."¹⁵ (Emphasis added.)

So mises.org may be wrong about when life begins, which would negate their resulting arguments.

Quote

  Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

But the parent's have signed a contract in a way. They made the conscious choice to create the life. From the moment of conception, until some years into the child's life, it has no a ability to survive without the care of an older human. The child did not put itself into this situation, the parents did. Therefor the obligation falls on the parents to fulfill their contract. 

 

 

[ofd]

Quote

But the parent's have signed a contract in a way. They made the conscious choice to create the life. From the moment of conception, until some years into the child's life, it has no a ability to survive without the care of an older human.

The NAP does not create positive obligations for humans. An abortion, or leting a child die from hunger is legitimate under this premise. Under the NAP there is no right that compels you to do something.