Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If abortion isn't murder

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 11:42:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Idk. It's a woman's pregnancy isn't it? Like if its a lesbian couple and one woman kills the other's baby the same way, I'd think she be brought up on charges too.

Having said that there needs to be a sort of "Man's abortion". A woman has the right to decide whether or not she takes on the responsibilities but a man doesn't. There should be a contract that absolves a man of all legal responsibilities. Said contract can only be signed during pregnancy.
#BlackLivesMatter
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 3:17:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

It's not that the fetus isn't a person, it is not a person that has rights.
I would call an abortion murder, but so is war and self-defense. However, those are legal, aren't they?
My work here is, finally, done.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 3:36:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"My question would be how the law justifies legal abortion yet finds this man guilty of murder of a pre-born child. Women can choose to kill their pre-born children but men can't....or is it really murder no matter who makes the decision? Something doesn't jive here."

"I find it odd that he is being charged with first degree murder in the death of his 7 week old child inutero. (the article refers to the baby as a child) That must mean that Florida recognises the Life in the womb as a PERSON, which would mean that all abortions are illegal in Fla! Baarraavvoo Florida, the first & only state in America to do so. Does BHO & HHS Sec Sebelious know this? Or does Fla have a "Fetal Homicide Law" like most states which exempts abortion if the mother wants to terminate. But its murder if the father wants to terminate? The insanity of keeping abortion legal, is truly insane"
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:05:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

I read a really good debate on this website that goes into this.

Basically, states are given some leeway in defining personhood. In some states, a "person of convenience" is a fetus in the 3rd trimester, and in those states aborting such a fetus would be considered murder.

If I recall correctly, the main application of such a law was to be able to throw the book at someone who assaulted a pregnant woman with the intent of killing the fetus.

Again, it was a really good debate, at least from drafterman's side. I learned a ton reading it.

http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:08:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyway, regarding the specific circumstances surrounding the OP, yeah I can see the point you're making.

Perhaps the guy shouldn't have been charged with murder, but definitely aggravated assault, maybe something just shy of voluntary manslaughter.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:18:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 3:17:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

It's not that the fetus isn't a person, it is not a person that has rights.
I would call an abortion murder, but so is war and self-defense. However, those are legal, aren't they?

It really comes down to the defense of one's rights.

If the fetus is human, it has human rights. Killing an innocent human is wrong and violates one's human rights. Killing in self defense is protecting your own human rights. If someone is trying to rob you, or even kill you, they are violating you rights. If you kill that person in self defense, you are simply protecting your own rights from being violated.

As for war, I suppose it comes down to who started it. Really, war is the same as self defense, just on a much larger scale. If country X invades the US, and we retaliate, we do so out of self defense, and are justified in doing so.

It all comes down to personal rights. Killing an innocent person who isn't harming you is wrong. Killing in self defense is not, because you are protecting your rights from being violated.

That's my take on it, anyway.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:20:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 3:17:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

It's not that the fetus isn't a person, it is not a person that has rights.

Well its clearly give rights in one cases and rights in another cases.

I would call an abortion murder, but so is war and self-defense. However, those are legal, aren't they?

I'd say that a lot of war can be considered a form of murder. In most states, it would actually be illegal to kill a person breaking into your house (Texas is one of the exceptions though).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:24:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 11:18:26 AM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/18/2013 3:17:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

It's not that the fetus isn't a person, it is not a person that has rights.
I would call an abortion murder, but so is war and self-defense. However, those are legal, aren't they?

It really comes down to the defense of one's rights.

If the fetus is human, it has human rights. Killing an innocent human is wrong and violates one's human rights. Killing in self defense is protecting your own human rights. If someone is trying to rob you, or even kill you, they are violating you rights. If you kill that person in self defense, you are simply protecting your own rights from being violated.

As for war, I suppose it comes down to who started it. Really, war is the same as self defense, just on a much larger scale. If country X invades the US, and we retaliate, we do so out of self defense, and are justified in doing so.

It all comes down to personal rights. Killing an innocent person who isn't harming you is wrong. Killing in self defense is not, because you are protecting your rights from being violated.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Why do all humans have human rights? Can you summarize their specific nature? How do you justify collective rights overriding individual rights in cases of war if another of your premises is the all humans have human rights?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:40:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

Presumably because she planned on carrying the pregnancy to term. However, this isn't any more of an argument than saying "if homosexuality isn't immoral, why is it illegal in some African countries". Plenty of laws have existed for no reason (or a bad reason).
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 1:53:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 11:20:55 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/18/2013 3:17:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

It's not that the fetus isn't a person, it is not a person that has rights.

Well its clearly give rights in one cases and rights in another cases.
Sort of. But this is not uncommon that one person has rights that others do not.

If I lock my child in a room to punish him (time out, grounded), I am restricting him; however, this is allowed. If you were to do this to my child, it would be unlawful imprisonment or kidnapping. Why should a parent be able to imprison or beat (spank) a child, while others are not?

It's the same concept. The woman has the right to abort, not anyone else. Does you have the right to chop off someone's foot against their will because their diabetes is out of control? The fetus is most definately part of the woman.

I would call an abortion murder, but so is war and self-defense. However, those are legal, aren't they?

I'd say that a lot of war can be considered a form of murder. In most states, it would actually be illegal to kill a person breaking into your house (Texas is one of the exceptions though).

The point is, government allows murder in some cases, by select individuals.

BTW, breaking into someone's home =/= self-defense. Self-defense is being beaten/hunted and defending yourself.
My work here is, finally, done.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 2:28:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

There is more to a crime than the mere act.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 2:30:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 2:28:03 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

There is more to a crime than the mere act.

To illustrate the difference here, if you go to the mall to get your ears pierced, not a crime.

If I hold you down and pierce your ear against your will, it is a crime.

Same act, different circumstances. One's not a crime, the other is.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 6:16:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 11:18:26 AM, EvanK wrote:
At 5/18/2013 3:17:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

It's not that the fetus isn't a person, it is not a person that has rights.
I would call an abortion murder, but so is war and self-defense. However, those are legal, aren't they?

It really comes down to the defense of one's rights.

If the fetus is human, it has human rights. Killing an innocent human is wrong and violates one's human rights. Killing in self defense is protecting your own human rights. If someone is trying to rob you, or even kill you, they are violating you rights. If you kill that person in self defense, you are simply protecting your own rights from being violated.

As for war, I suppose it comes down to who started it. Really, war is the same as self defense, just on a much larger scale. If country X invades the US, and we retaliate, we do so out of self defense, and are justified in doing so.

It all comes down to personal rights. Killing an innocent person who isn't harming you is wrong. Killing in self defense is not, because you are protecting your rights from being violated.

That's my take on it, anyway.

According to the 14th amendment, an unborn child is not a human, and thus not afforded human rights.

So, DK's point is valid, this man should not have been charged with murder.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 5:02:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 2:30:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/18/2013 2:28:03 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

There is more to a crime than the mere act.

To illustrate the difference here, if you go to the mall to get your ears pierced, not a crime.

If I hold you down and pierce your ear against your will, it is a crime.

Same act, different circumstances. One's not a crime, the other is.

Much more concise example than mine.
Bravo.
My work here is, finally, done.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 5:23:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a difference between kicking a homeless man out of your house and thereby causing him to die as a result of hunger and stabbing a homeless man on the street. It never ceases to amaze me that this difference evaporates for male libertarians whenever it is time to discuss abortion. I suspect than in most cases, "libertarianism" is just a code word for "selfishness". It's not really about having moral rules to stick to; it's about doing what's best for them.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 5:53:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 5:23:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's a difference between kicking a homeless man out of your house and thereby causing him to die as a result of hunger and stabbing a homeless man on the street. It never ceases to amaze me that this difference evaporates for male libertarians whenever it is time to discuss abortion. I suspect than in most cases, "libertarianism" is just a code word for "selfishness". It's not really about having moral rules to stick to; it's about doing what's best for them.

By this logic, the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are also just code words for "selfishness".

Thank you royalpaladin for this week's lesson in morality.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 5:57:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 5:53:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:23:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's a difference between kicking a homeless man out of your house and thereby causing him to die as a result of hunger and stabbing a homeless man on the street. It never ceases to amaze me that this difference evaporates for male libertarians whenever it is time to discuss abortion. I suspect than in most cases, "libertarianism" is just a code word for "selfishness". It's not really about having moral rules to stick to; it's about doing what's best for them.

By this logic, the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are also just code words for "selfishness".

Thank you royalpaladin for this week's lesson in morality.

If the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are based around standards that magically evaporate when they violates the advocates' self interests, then yes, they are just code words for selfishness.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 6:18:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 5:23:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's a difference between kicking a homeless man out of your house and thereby causing him to die as a result of hunger and stabbing a homeless man on the street. It never ceases to amaze me that this difference evaporates for male libertarians whenever it is time to discuss abortion. I suspect than in most cases, "libertarianism" is just a code word for "selfishness". It's not really about having moral rules to stick to; it's about doing what's best for them.

That's a piss poor analogy. It would be more like, creating the homelessness for someone, then inviting him to live with you, and then kicking him out in the midst of a snow storm without any clothes on his back. That is more accurate, and that is where the morality, or immorality lies.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 7:16:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 5:57:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:53:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:23:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's a difference between kicking a homeless man out of your house and thereby causing him to die as a result of hunger and stabbing a homeless man on the street. It never ceases to amaze me that this difference evaporates for male libertarians whenever it is time to discuss abortion. I suspect than in most cases, "libertarianism" is just a code word for "selfishness". It's not really about having moral rules to stick to; it's about doing what's best for them.

By this logic, the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are also just code words for "selfishness".

Thank you royalpaladin for this week's lesson in morality.

If the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are based around standards that magically evaporate when they violates the advocates' self interests, then yes, they are just code words for selfishness.

lol...the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy all come from the perspective that it is through the recognition of self-interest that leads to better moral standards. The denial of one's own perspective is typically what leads to the most atrocious of immoral acts, which IMHO royalpaladin is easily capable of.

Thank you royalpaladin for giving us a double-dose of your sense of morality.

I also want to note that a truly libertarian stance on abortion would easily lead one to conclude that Roe v. Wade is the right way to go...abortion is a private decision. If someone wants to do it or does not want to do it, the state simply should not be involved in such a matter. The only reason why anti-abortion is associated with libertarianism is because the currently most recognizable representative of the philosophy is anti-abortion - Ron Paul.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 7:37:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 11:42:25 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Idk. It's a woman's pregnancy isn't it? Like if its a lesbian couple and one woman kills the other's baby the same way, I'd think she be brought up on charges too.

Having said that there needs to be a sort of "Man's abortion". A woman has the right to decide whether or not she takes on the responsibilities but a man doesn't. There should be a contract that absolves a man of all legal responsibilities. Said contract can only be signed during pregnancy.

You know, as I was thinking about abortion in general, I came to the same conclusion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 7:50:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 5:02:52 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/18/2013 2:30:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/18/2013 2:28:03 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/17/2013 10:42:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why is this person charged w/ first degree murder:

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I think some of us can agree that his actions were wrong, but to charge him w/ first degree murder when a women wouldn't be charged for murder for doing the same thing. It doesn't make sense. If a fetus isn't a person, then the person shouldn't be charged w/ this crime.

There is more to a crime than the mere act.

To illustrate the difference here, if you go to the mall to get your ears pierced, not a crime.

If I hold you down and pierce your ear against your will, it is a crime.

Same act, different circumstances. One's not a crime, the other is.

Much more concise example than mine.
Bravo.

http://25.media.tumblr.com...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 1:23:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 6:18:10 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:23:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's a difference between kicking a homeless man out of your house and thereby causing him to die as a result of hunger and stabbing a homeless man on the street. It never ceases to amaze me that this difference evaporates for male libertarians whenever it is time to discuss abortion. I suspect than in most cases, "libertarianism" is just a code word for "selfishness". It's not really about having moral rules to stick to; it's about doing what's best for them.

That's a piss poor analogy. It would be more like, creating the homelessness for someone, then inviting him to live with you, and then kicking him out in the midst of a snow storm without any clothes on his back. That is more accurate, and that is where the morality, or immorality lies.

You can't invite nonexistent beings to live with you, and the homelessness wasn't created for that person since the people involved in the act had no say in how the conditions the fetus resides in. On top of this, I know for a fact that conservative, male libertarians could not care less about compensating people for harms done to them. The US is pretty much responsible for destroying the ozone layer above several countries as well as responsible for leaving my generation with a horrendous environment, but I know for a fact that you don't support compensating me for it. Instead, I am supposed to live in the conditions that I was born into without any compensation. Finally, libertarians do support property rights to extreme senses even if harms are generated as a result. No libertarian would say that you have an obligation to feed a homeless person no matter how dependent he becomes on your charity, and in fact, kicking him out into the snowstorm is morally permissible under libertarianism.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 1:28:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 7:16:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:57:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:53:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:23:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's a difference between kicking a homeless man out of your house and thereby causing him to die as a result of hunger and stabbing a homeless man on the street. It never ceases to amaze me that this difference evaporates for male libertarians whenever it is time to discuss abortion. I suspect than in most cases, "libertarianism" is just a code word for "selfishness". It's not really about having moral rules to stick to; it's about doing what's best for them.

By this logic, the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are also just code words for "selfishness".

Thank you royalpaladin for this week's lesson in morality.

If the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are based around standards that magically evaporate when they violates the advocates' self interests, then yes, they are just code words for selfishness.

lol...the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy all come from the perspective that it is through the recognition of self-interest that leads to better moral standards. The denial of one's own perspective is typically what leads to the most atrocious of immoral acts, which IMHO royalpaladin is easily capable of.

That's bogus. All three traditions are about limiting self-interest. The theory of natural rights puts limits on self-interest Protestantism advocates accepting one's conditions as slaves and serfs, (see Luther's discussion of freedom as spiritual freedom), and democracy is about checking the interests of leaders and communities at large (see theorists like Sunstein).
Thank you royalpaladin for giving us a double-dose of your sense of morality.

You are welcome :)
I also want to note that a truly libertarian stance on abortion would easily lead one to conclude that Roe v. Wade is the right way to go...abortion is a private decision. If someone wants to do it or does not want to do it, the state simply should not be involved in such a matter. The only reason why anti-abortion is associated with libertarianism is because the currently most recognizable representative of the philosophy is anti-abortion - Ron Paul.

Yes, that was part of my point-true libertarianism would not cause us to abandon morality for the sake of our interests. A lot of the people who call themselves libertarians should stop appropriating the label and instead refer to themselves as selfish dolts.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 5:52:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 1:28:21 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/19/2013 7:16:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:57:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:53:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:23:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's a difference between kicking a homeless man out of your house and thereby causing him to die as a result of hunger and stabbing a homeless man on the street. It never ceases to amaze me that this difference evaporates for male libertarians whenever it is time to discuss abortion. I suspect than in most cases, "libertarianism" is just a code word for "selfishness". It's not really about having moral rules to stick to; it's about doing what's best for them.

By this logic, the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are also just code words for "selfishness".

Thank you royalpaladin for this week's lesson in morality.

If the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are based around standards that magically evaporate when they violates the advocates' self interests, then yes, they are just code words for selfishness.

lol...the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy all come from the perspective that it is through the recognition of self-interest that leads to better moral standards. The denial of one's own perspective is typically what leads to the most atrocious of immoral acts, which IMHO royalpaladin is easily capable of.

That's bogus. All three traditions are about limiting self-interest. 1) The theory of natural rights puts limits on self-interest 2) Protestantism advocates accepting one's conditions as slaves and serfs, (see Luther's discussion of freedom as spiritual freedom), and 3) democracy is about checking the interests of leaders and communities at large (see theorists like Sunstein).

1) Natural rights afforded people with inalienable rights, so that oppressive governments would not alienate people from their rights. Really royal, an anarchist like you doesn't realize this? STRIKE ONE!

2) lol, Martin Luther advocated for people to actually READ THE BIBLE, as opposed to trusting to priests to convey wisdom upon them. This sounds like self-interest to me. STRIKE TWO!

3) Exactly royal, thank you for proving my point. By empowering the masses with an individualistic right such as voting, you appeal to self-interest, as opposed to convey all-power onto a monarch. STRIKE THREE!

Thank you royalpaladin for playing this latest installment of "Does Drinking Mountain Dew Make You Dumber Than Royalpaladin?"

Thank you royalpaladin for giving us a double-dose of your sense of morality.

You are welcome :)

Thank you for welcoming me!

I also want to note that a truly libertarian stance on abortion would easily lead one to conclude that Roe v. Wade is the right way to go...abortion is a private decision. If someone wants to do it or does not want to do it, the state simply should not be involved in such a matter. The only reason why anti-abortion is associated with libertarianism is because the currently most recognizable representative of the philosophy is anti-abortion - Ron Paul.

Yes, that was part of my point-true libertarianism would not cause us to abandon morality for the sake of our interests. A lot of the people who call themselves libertarians should stop appropriating the label and instead refer to themselves as selfish dolts.

What?

You're not following my argument and seem to have a few (gigantic) gaps in ideological categorizations. If you think that libertarianism is moral here, then you are equating morality with self-interest, which is a product of the Enlightenment.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 7:23:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 5:52:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 1:28:21 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/19/2013 7:16:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:57:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:53:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/19/2013 5:23:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's a difference between kicking a homeless man out of your house and thereby causing him to die as a result of hunger and stabbing a homeless man on the street. It never ceases to amaze me that this difference evaporates for male libertarians whenever it is time to discuss abortion. I suspect than in most cases, "libertarianism" is just a code word for "selfishness". It's not really about having moral rules to stick to; it's about doing what's best for them.

By this logic, the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are also just code words for "selfishness".

Thank you royalpaladin for this week's lesson in morality.

If the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy are based around standards that magically evaporate when they violates the advocates' self interests, then yes, they are just code words for selfishness.

lol...the Enlightenment, Protestantism, and Democracy all come from the perspective that it is through the recognition of self-interest that leads to better moral standards. The denial of one's own perspective is typically what leads to the most atrocious of immoral acts, which IMHO royalpaladin is easily capable of.

That's bogus. All three traditions are about limiting self-interest. 1) The theory of natural rights puts limits on self-interest 2) Protestantism advocates accepting one's conditions as slaves and serfs, (see Luther's discussion of freedom as spiritual freedom), and 3) democracy is about checking the interests of leaders and communities at large (see theorists like Sunstein).

1) Natural rights afforded people with inalienable rights, so that oppressive governments would not alienate people from their rights. Really royal, an anarchist like you doesn't realize this? STRIKE ONE!

Natural rights limit the actions we can do to others and restricts the outlets we have to express self interest. Under natural rights theory, rape is immoral, for example, even if it is in the interests of the rapists.
2) lol, Martin Luther advocated for people to actually READ THE BIBLE, as opposed to trusting to priests to convey wisdom upon them. This sounds like self-interest to me. STRIKE TWO!

LOL, ok, so he told the masses to read the Bible and also told them that it was ok for them to be enslaved. Yup, he was totally promoting self-interest.
3) Exactly royal, thank you for proving my point. By empowering the masses with an individualistic right such as voting, you appeal to self-interest, as opposed to convey all-power onto a monarch. STRIKE THREE!

Again, the idea is not to appeal to the self-interests of the masses but rather to limit the interests of the monarch.
Thank you royalpaladin for playing this latest installment of "Does Drinking Mountain Dew Make You Dumber Than Royalpaladin?"

No, you just don't understand that these ideas were all about limiting self-interest. This is why you are unemployed: you have no critical thinking abilities.
Thank you royalpaladin for giving us a double-dose of your sense of morality.

You are welcome :)

Thank you for welcoming me!

I also want to note that a truly libertarian stance on abortion would easily lead one to conclude that Roe v. Wade is the right way to go...abortion is a private decision. If someone wants to do it or does not want to do it, the state simply should not be involved in such a matter. The only reason why anti-abortion is associated with libertarianism is because the currently most recognizable representative of the philosophy is anti-abortion - Ron Paul.

Yes, that was part of my point-true libertarianism would not cause us to abandon morality for the sake of our interests. A lot of the people who call themselves libertarians should stop appropriating the label and instead refer to themselves as selfish dolts.

What?

You're not following my argument and seem to have a few (gigantic) gaps in ideological categorizations. If you think that libertarianism is moral here, then you are equating morality with self-interest, which is a product of the Enlightenment.

That's not what the Enlightenment does. If that were the case, why is absolutism considered immoral? It's in the interest of monarchs to be absolutist.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 7:38:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If we're going to argue that unborn babies are the properties of their respective mothers, then I guess this is theft/vandalism of some sort - but I don't see the murder.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 11:36:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Only a woman can murder her own baby. Come on, that's part of your right to privacy, the right to privately decide to kill your unborn child.

Get with the times DK.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 12:23:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 11:36:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Only a woman can evict her fetus/embryo. Come on, that's part of your right to privacy, the right to privately decide to evict your fetus/embryo.

Get with the times DK.

Fixed to remove fallacious appeals to emotion.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian