Topic: Abortion Thread
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #16,373
I personally support Evictionism. Not only is it something of a compromise between the two other positions, I feel it is more logically justifiable than the other two. Unfortunately, it is not well known.
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pro Choice | 19 | 70% | |
| Pro Life | 4 | 15% | |
| Evictionism | 4 | 15% |
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 28 minutes later[^] [v] #281,886
> Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, offers an alternative to the standard choice between "pro-life" and "pro-choice": what he terms "evictionism." According to this moral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of (a) eviction of the fetus from the womb; and (b) killing the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand against trespass and murder, Block supports a right to the first act, but, except in certain circumstances, not the second act. He believes the woman may legally abort if (a) the fetus is not viable outside the womb; or (b) the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus, and (c) no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus.
So what happens if somebody offers to care for the foetus? "Evicting" it kills it. You cannot have one without the other.
So what happens if somebody offers to care for the foetus? "Evicting" it kills it. You cannot have one without the other.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #281,887
@previous
> So what happens if somebody offers to care for the foetus?
Then they gain the child-rearing rights to that fetus.
> "Evicting" it kills it.
This is not always true, even today. Induced labor is eviction, and does not kill the fetus.
> You cannot have one without the other.
You most certainly can, even now! Artificial wombs exist for premature babies. Medical technology will eventually improve enough that eviction will almost never cause the death of the fetus.
> So what happens if somebody offers to care for the foetus?
Then they gain the child-rearing rights to that fetus.
> "Evicting" it kills it.
This is not always true, even today. Induced labor is eviction, and does not kill the fetus.
> You cannot have one without the other.
You most certainly can, even now! Artificial wombs exist for premature babies. Medical technology will eventually improve enough that eviction will almost never cause the death of the fetus.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #281,889
@previous
What if the abortion is at, say... 5 weeks? The abortion performed then involves taking medicines which induce a miscarriage. What if they need to use late-stage D&E? That method uses forceps to cut the baby into chunks (after they stop its heart the previous day) which get vacuumed out. Babby isn't surviving THAT rollercoaster.
What if the abortion is at, say... 5 weeks? The abortion performed then involves taking medicines which induce a miscarriage. What if they need to use late-stage D&E? That method uses forceps to cut the baby into chunks (after they stop its heart the previous day) which get vacuumed out. Babby isn't surviving THAT rollercoaster.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,902
@previous
> What if the abortion is at, say... 5 weeks?
Are you asking about now, or the future? Now, eviction will cause death. This is sad but unavoidable. In the future, though, I have no doubt that even at such an early state of development the child will be able to be safely evicted.
> What if they need to use late-stage D&E?
Any method to save the mother's life is justifiable. Also, if there are no gentler methods of removing the fetus, it would be justifiable. If however, there are gentler methods (with comparable safety in regards to the mother's health, and at a comparable price [or if the extra cost is met by pro-life charities, or the church etc.]; for the mother has no positive obligation to the child) then they must be used. If another method existed satisfying those criteria then D&E would not be permitted.
> What if the abortion is at, say... 5 weeks?
Are you asking about now, or the future? Now, eviction will cause death. This is sad but unavoidable. In the future, though, I have no doubt that even at such an early state of development the child will be able to be safely evicted.
> What if they need to use late-stage D&E?
Any method to save the mother's life is justifiable. Also, if there are no gentler methods of removing the fetus, it would be justifiable. If however, there are gentler methods (with comparable safety in regards to the mother's health, and at a comparable price [or if the extra cost is met by pro-life charities, or the church etc.]; for the mother has no positive obligation to the child) then they must be used. If another method existed satisfying those criteria then D&E would not be permitted.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,909
@previous
> In the future, though, I have no doubt that even at such an early state of development the child will be able to be safely evicted.
So this law would be based on a guess that it might be possible in the future.
> In the future, though, I have no doubt that even at such an early state of development the child will be able to be safely evicted.
So this law would be based on a guess that it might be possible in the future.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,915
@previous
If you explain your confusion in greater detail I may be able to help you.
The theory of evictionism is not based upon a guess of future technological development; it is based upon property rights. However, it allows for future technological development in a way that prochoice and prolife do not.
If you explain your confusion in greater detail I may be able to help you.
The theory of evictionism is not based upon a guess of future technological development; it is based upon property rights. However, it allows for future technological development in a way that prochoice and prolife do not.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 9 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,959
@previous
Aside from the worrying implication of classing a human being as 'property', I find Evictionism to be unworkable in the modern day because abortion currently results in a destroyed foetus. So, let us assume, hypothetically, that Obama becomes an Evictionist and as of today that is the law. What happens when Jane Doe goes for an abortion tomorrow and a pro-life protest crowd are staking claim to the foetus for each abortion? What happens then?
Also I find that the only difference between this and pro-choice is that someone can easily disrupt abortions with it in the modern day.
Aside from the worrying implication of classing a human being as 'property', I find Evictionism to be unworkable in the modern day because abortion currently results in a destroyed foetus. So, let us assume, hypothetically, that Obama becomes an Evictionist and as of today that is the law. What happens when Jane Doe goes for an abortion tomorrow and a pro-life protest crowd are staking claim to the foetus for each abortion? What happens then?
Also I find that the only difference between this and pro-choice is that someone can easily disrupt abortions with it in the modern day.
dw !AIy/L67q.s joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,993
i remember when i made an abortion thread and it got over 200 replies and they where all shit
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,045
@281,959
> Aside from the worrying implication of classing a human being as 'property',
The fetus is not the property, in question - the woman's body is. Self-ownership is the foundation of all private property rights and laws.
> I find Evictionism to be unworkable in the modern day because abortion currently results in a destroyed foetus.
There is a slight confusion of terms. From an evictionist perspective it is best to refer to operations that remove the fetus from the woman as "eviction" instead of "abortion", as abortion refers to several practices contrary to evictionism (such as poisoning the fetus, tearing it apart, etc.). There is no right to murder the fetus under evictionism, only the right to evict it. Currently, technology can support fetuses born at 21 weeks(!).
> What happens when Jane Doe goes for an abortion tomorrow and a pro-life protest crowd are staking claim to the foetus for each abortion? What happens then?
Someone from the crowd lays claim to the child, fair enough - the mother is voluntarily giving up her right to raise the child. The mother undergoes an operation to evict the fetus and the child, due to the limitations of current medical technology, tragically dies.
> Also I find that the only difference between this and pro-choice is that someone can easily disrupt abortions with it in the modern day.
I don't understand this objection. How could someone "disrupt" an eviction?
> Aside from the worrying implication of classing a human being as 'property',
The fetus is not the property, in question - the woman's body is. Self-ownership is the foundation of all private property rights and laws.
> I find Evictionism to be unworkable in the modern day because abortion currently results in a destroyed foetus.
There is a slight confusion of terms. From an evictionist perspective it is best to refer to operations that remove the fetus from the woman as "eviction" instead of "abortion", as abortion refers to several practices contrary to evictionism (such as poisoning the fetus, tearing it apart, etc.). There is no right to murder the fetus under evictionism, only the right to evict it. Currently, technology can support fetuses born at 21 weeks(!).
> What happens when Jane Doe goes for an abortion tomorrow and a pro-life protest crowd are staking claim to the foetus for each abortion? What happens then?
Someone from the crowd lays claim to the child, fair enough - the mother is voluntarily giving up her right to raise the child. The mother undergoes an operation to evict the fetus and the child, due to the limitations of current medical technology, tragically dies.
> Also I find that the only difference between this and pro-choice is that someone can easily disrupt abortions with it in the modern day.
I don't understand this objection. How could someone "disrupt" an eviction?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 14 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,059
Evictionism and Pro-Choice are the same thing.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,067
@previous
A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)
B. Eviction (pro property rights)
C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)
1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
A. no
B. no
C. yes
2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
A. yes
B. yes
C. no
3. Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
A. yes
B. no
C. no
4. Given century old technology, can the mother unilaterally determine that the fetus shall die?
A. yes
B. yes
C. no
5. Given present technology, can the mother unilaterally determine
that the fetus shall die?
A. yes
B. sometimes
C. no
6. Given future technology, can the mother unilaterally determine
that the fetus shall die?
A. yes
B. no
C. no
A. Pro-abortion (pro-choice)
B. Eviction (pro property rights)
C. Anti-abortion (pro-life)
1. Is the mother compelled to bring the fetus to term; that is, to carry it for nine months?
A. no
B. no
C. yes
2. Can the mother evict the fetus from her womb?
A. yes
B. yes
C. no
3. Can the mother kill the fetus? (Would that new pill - RU 486 - which kills and then flushes out the fetus, be legal?)
A. yes
B. no
C. no
4. Given century old technology, can the mother unilaterally determine that the fetus shall die?
A. yes
B. yes
C. no
5. Given present technology, can the mother unilaterally determine
that the fetus shall die?
A. yes
B. sometimes
C. no
6. Given future technology, can the mother unilaterally determine
that the fetus shall die?
A. yes
B. no
C. no
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 23 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,075
@previous
Being pro-choice and being pro-property rights are the same thing. Your body is your property and you have a right to choose what to do with it. I understand that eviction means not necessarily killing the fetus, but almost all pro-choicers would agree that if it can survive outside the womb then it should not be killed, and all eviction-ers would agree that even if it cannot survive outside the womb the mother still has a right to evict it. So it's essentially the same philosophy.
Being pro-choice and being pro-property rights are the same thing. Your body is your property and you have a right to choose what to do with it. I understand that eviction means not necessarily killing the fetus, but almost all pro-choicers would agree that if it can survive outside the womb then it should not be killed, and all eviction-ers would agree that even if it cannot survive outside the womb the mother still has a right to evict it. So it's essentially the same philosophy.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,076
@282,045
> The fetus is not the property, in question - the woman's body is.
Yes, and the woman is a human being. To marginalize humanity by putting a human body in the same legal classification as a house or a car would set a dangerous precedent in my view. It is also contradictory - if a woman's body is property, why can she not be owned by somebody else, or bought or sold for profit?
> There is a slight confusion of terms. From an evictionist perspective it is best to refer to operations that remove the fetus from the woman as "eviction" instead of "abortion", as abortion refers to several practices contrary to evictionism (such as poisoning the fetus, tearing it apart, etc.). There is no right to murder the fetus under evictionism, only the right to evict it. Currently, technology can support fetuses born at 21 weeks(!).
Technology can support premature births at 21 weeks. The act of abortion (stage one of which is so-called "eviction") at 21 weeks requires 1) The heart to be stopped, 2) The use of forceps to pull the corpse out of the vagina, aided by medicines which cause an artificial miscarriage, 3) The use of D&E to remove any leftover chunks (since the baby is usually torn into several pieces during part 2, either accidentally or purposefully to aid removal) which may cause infection. Additionally, not all foetuses born at 21 weeks can survive. Many die.
> Someone from the crowd lays claim to the child, fair enough - the mother is voluntarily giving up her right to raise the child. The mother undergoes an operation to evict the fetus and the child, due to the limitations of current medical technology, tragically dies.
Is anybody liable for legal action based on this?
> I don't understand this objection. How could someone "disrupt" an eviction?
Legal cases which can prevent the abortion from happening which can drag on. Religious groups could make it their aim to drag a case on past the legal age limit for abortion.
It just seems like pro-choice with additional government involvement. I thought the idea of libertarianism was less government. Also, pro-choice is not pro-abortion. It is exactly as it says: pro-choice; that is, it is the woman's choice whether to have one or not, and only that woman's choice.
> The fetus is not the property, in question - the woman's body is.
Yes, and the woman is a human being. To marginalize humanity by putting a human body in the same legal classification as a house or a car would set a dangerous precedent in my view. It is also contradictory - if a woman's body is property, why can she not be owned by somebody else, or bought or sold for profit?
> There is a slight confusion of terms. From an evictionist perspective it is best to refer to operations that remove the fetus from the woman as "eviction" instead of "abortion", as abortion refers to several practices contrary to evictionism (such as poisoning the fetus, tearing it apart, etc.). There is no right to murder the fetus under evictionism, only the right to evict it. Currently, technology can support fetuses born at 21 weeks(!).
Technology can support premature births at 21 weeks. The act of abortion (stage one of which is so-called "eviction") at 21 weeks requires 1) The heart to be stopped, 2) The use of forceps to pull the corpse out of the vagina, aided by medicines which cause an artificial miscarriage, 3) The use of D&E to remove any leftover chunks (since the baby is usually torn into several pieces during part 2, either accidentally or purposefully to aid removal) which may cause infection. Additionally, not all foetuses born at 21 weeks can survive. Many die.
> Someone from the crowd lays claim to the child, fair enough - the mother is voluntarily giving up her right to raise the child. The mother undergoes an operation to evict the fetus and the child, due to the limitations of current medical technology, tragically dies.
Is anybody liable for legal action based on this?
> I don't understand this objection. How could someone "disrupt" an eviction?
Legal cases which can prevent the abortion from happening which can drag on. Religious groups could make it their aim to drag a case on past the legal age limit for abortion.
It just seems like pro-choice with additional government involvement. I thought the idea of libertarianism was less government. Also, pro-choice is not pro-abortion. It is exactly as it says: pro-choice; that is, it is the woman's choice whether to have one or not, and only that woman's choice.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 28 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,093
@282,075
> Being pro-choice and being pro-property rights are the same thing.
No it is not, as I just proved. Feel free to refute those points where I showed evictionism and prochoice to differ.
> Your body is your property and you have a right to choose what to do with it.
Except violate other's property rights.
> I understand that eviction means not necessarily killing the fetus, but almost all pro-choicers would agree that if it can survive outside the womb then it should not be killed, and all eviction-ers would agree that even if it cannot survive outside the womb the mother still has a right to evict it. So it's essentially the same philosophy.
Not all prochoicers agree that if it can survive outside the womb that it should not be killed (for example there are many feminists and socialist writers who strongly support the right of the mother to kill her fetus at any time). What you are suggesting is that people who call themselves prochoice actually hold an evictionist view.
Abortion (when contrasted with eviction) refers to the deliberate and intentional, active, direct killing of a fetus. This is not permitted under evictionism. Eviction refers to the gentle removal of a fetus from its mother. Unfortunately, it will likely die once removed, but there is a huge categorical and philosophical, legal, moral, ethical, political distinction between this and abortion.
> Being pro-choice and being pro-property rights are the same thing.
No it is not, as I just proved. Feel free to refute those points where I showed evictionism and prochoice to differ.
> Your body is your property and you have a right to choose what to do with it.
Except violate other's property rights.
> I understand that eviction means not necessarily killing the fetus, but almost all pro-choicers would agree that if it can survive outside the womb then it should not be killed, and all eviction-ers would agree that even if it cannot survive outside the womb the mother still has a right to evict it. So it's essentially the same philosophy.
Not all prochoicers agree that if it can survive outside the womb that it should not be killed (for example there are many feminists and socialist writers who strongly support the right of the mother to kill her fetus at any time). What you are suggesting is that people who call themselves prochoice actually hold an evictionist view.
Abortion (when contrasted with eviction) refers to the deliberate and intentional, active, direct killing of a fetus. This is not permitted under evictionism. Eviction refers to the gentle removal of a fetus from its mother. Unfortunately, it will likely die once removed, but there is a huge categorical and philosophical, legal, moral, ethical, political distinction between this and abortion.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 39 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,095
@previous
Where/how did you prove that?
Where/how did you prove that?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 21 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,107
@282,076
> Yes, and the woman is a human being. To marginalize humanity by putting a human body in the same legal classification as a house or a car would set a dangerous precedent in my view. It is also contradictory - if a woman's body is property, why can she not be owned by somebody else, or bought or sold for profit?
The woman is a human being and her body is her property. This does not marginalize her, but empowers her. Without the recognition that one owns one's body, all manner of evil is permissible - slavery, conscription, rape, murder. These are all immoral because they constitute violations of property rights. Your body can not be owned by someone else because it is already owned - by you! People's bodies can be bought and sold for profit - labor, prostitution, organs etc.
> Technology can support premature births at 21 weeks. The act of abortion (stage one of which is so-called "eviction") at 21 weeks requires 1) The heart to be stopped, 2) The use of forceps to pull the corpse out of the vagina, aided by medicines which cause an artificial miscarriage, 3) The use of D&E to remove any leftover chunks (since the baby is usually torn into several pieces during part 2, either accidentally or purposefully to aid removal) which may cause infection. Additionally, not all foetuses born at 21 weeks can survive. Many die.
This is currently the gentlest way of evicting the fetus. In time, gentler ways will be perfected. It matters not that currently, or 100 years ago, or 100 years in the future, that particular methods may or may not exist. This is a principle, and thus applies regardless of circumstances. All that evictionism dictates is that one use the gentlest method possible. No gentle methods currently? Fine, continue on. But when they become available (and satisfy the requirements I mentioned earlier regarding positive obligations) they must be used.
> Is anybody liable for legal action based on this?
No.
> Legal cases which can prevent the abortion from happening which can drag on. Religious groups could make it their aim to drag a case on past the legal age limit for abortion.
There would be no law by which they could prevent the eviction. Also, evictionism recognizes no age limit for eviction.
> It just seems like pro-choice with additional government involvement. I thought the idea of libertarianism was less government. Also, pro-choice is not pro-abortion. It is exactly as it says: pro-choice; that is, it is the woman's choice whether to have one or not, and only that woman's choice.
Walter Block is an anarchist, and writes in the anarchist tradition (as opposed to Reason or Cato who write about libertarianism in the statist tradition) so evictionism can hardly be claimed to be inherently expansionist of state power. Evictionism says: The mother, having complete self-ownership, may evict the fetus; but not having ownership of the fetus, she may not murder it.
> Yes, and the woman is a human being. To marginalize humanity by putting a human body in the same legal classification as a house or a car would set a dangerous precedent in my view. It is also contradictory - if a woman's body is property, why can she not be owned by somebody else, or bought or sold for profit?
The woman is a human being and her body is her property. This does not marginalize her, but empowers her. Without the recognition that one owns one's body, all manner of evil is permissible - slavery, conscription, rape, murder. These are all immoral because they constitute violations of property rights. Your body can not be owned by someone else because it is already owned - by you! People's bodies can be bought and sold for profit - labor, prostitution, organs etc.
> Technology can support premature births at 21 weeks. The act of abortion (stage one of which is so-called "eviction") at 21 weeks requires 1) The heart to be stopped, 2) The use of forceps to pull the corpse out of the vagina, aided by medicines which cause an artificial miscarriage, 3) The use of D&E to remove any leftover chunks (since the baby is usually torn into several pieces during part 2, either accidentally or purposefully to aid removal) which may cause infection. Additionally, not all foetuses born at 21 weeks can survive. Many die.
This is currently the gentlest way of evicting the fetus. In time, gentler ways will be perfected. It matters not that currently, or 100 years ago, or 100 years in the future, that particular methods may or may not exist. This is a principle, and thus applies regardless of circumstances. All that evictionism dictates is that one use the gentlest method possible. No gentle methods currently? Fine, continue on. But when they become available (and satisfy the requirements I mentioned earlier regarding positive obligations) they must be used.
> Is anybody liable for legal action based on this?
No.
> Legal cases which can prevent the abortion from happening which can drag on. Religious groups could make it their aim to drag a case on past the legal age limit for abortion.
There would be no law by which they could prevent the eviction. Also, evictionism recognizes no age limit for eviction.
> It just seems like pro-choice with additional government involvement. I thought the idea of libertarianism was less government. Also, pro-choice is not pro-abortion. It is exactly as it says: pro-choice; that is, it is the woman's choice whether to have one or not, and only that woman's choice.
Walter Block is an anarchist, and writes in the anarchist tradition (as opposed to Reason or Cato who write about libertarianism in the statist tradition) so evictionism can hardly be claimed to be inherently expansionist of state power. Evictionism says: The mother, having complete self-ownership, may evict the fetus; but not having ownership of the fetus, she may not murder it.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,108
@282,095
I give a list of circumstances where evictionism differs from prochoice. You are now free to either retract your statement that evictionism and prochoice are the same, or refute the circumstances in which I claimed they differ.
I give a list of circumstances where evictionism differs from prochoice. You are now free to either retract your statement that evictionism and prochoice are the same, or refute the circumstances in which I claimed they differ.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,111
@previous
Your chart doesn't prove anything. Your statements are not fact. For example, on number 3, the answer for both should be yes. If evicting a fetus would kill the fetus, the evicting mother would still do it. So the answer would be yes. It may not be her intention to kill the fetus, but you're implying the intention of someone who is pro-choice is to kill the fetus. In both cases, they don't have a desire to kill the fetus, they just want the fetus out of their body and doing so will certainly kill the fetus. So I reiterate my previous statement, that both philosophies are similar, and I still say pro-choice and evictionist are the same thing.
> Not all prochoicers agree that if it can survive outside the womb that it should not be killed (for example there are many feminists and socialist writers who strongly support the right of the mother to kill her fetus at any time). What you are suggesting is that people who call themselves prochoice actually hold an evictionist view.
Abortion (when contrasted with eviction) refers to the deliberate and intentional, active, direct killing of a fetus. This is not permitted under evictionism. Eviction refers to the gentle removal of a fetus from its mother. Unfortunately, it will likely die once removed, but there is a huge categorical and philosophical, legal, moral, ethical, political distinction between this and abortion.
I want to see sources saying so, and I would also say that those women are being philosophically/ethically inconsistent, and their view is therefore incompatible with the mainstream pro-choice anyway.
Your chart doesn't prove anything. Your statements are not fact. For example, on number 3, the answer for both should be yes. If evicting a fetus would kill the fetus, the evicting mother would still do it. So the answer would be yes. It may not be her intention to kill the fetus, but you're implying the intention of someone who is pro-choice is to kill the fetus. In both cases, they don't have a desire to kill the fetus, they just want the fetus out of their body and doing so will certainly kill the fetus. So I reiterate my previous statement, that both philosophies are similar, and I still say pro-choice and evictionist are the same thing.
> Not all prochoicers agree that if it can survive outside the womb that it should not be killed (for example there are many feminists and socialist writers who strongly support the right of the mother to kill her fetus at any time). What you are suggesting is that people who call themselves prochoice actually hold an evictionist view.
Abortion (when contrasted with eviction) refers to the deliberate and intentional, active, direct killing of a fetus. This is not permitted under evictionism. Eviction refers to the gentle removal of a fetus from its mother. Unfortunately, it will likely die once removed, but there is a huge categorical and philosophical, legal, moral, ethical, political distinction between this and abortion.
I want to see sources saying so, and I would also say that those women are being philosophically/ethically inconsistent, and their view is therefore incompatible with the mainstream pro-choice anyway.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,120
@previous
> Your chart doesn't prove anything. Your statements are not fact.
This is telling of your intellectual honesty. You do not begin by retracting or refuting, but by baseless claims. You attempt one refutation, which I shall show is fallacious.
> For example, on number 3, the answer for both should be yes. If evicting a fetus would kill the fetus, the evicting mother would still do it. So the answer would be yes.
Don't say "for example". This is your only refutation, not an "example" of your many refutations. A little intellectual honesty would be nice. You are confusing (or deliberately obfuscating) actively "killing" and passively "letting die". The right to life is a negative right, not a positive right, meaning that while killing is wrong letting die is acceptable.
You keep mentioning "someone who is prochoice". I am not arguing with a person, I am arguing with a philosophy. I am not implying the intentions of any particular person who has ever lived, regardless of what they call themselves (as if self-identification means anything - see DINO, RINO, etc.).
Prochoice and evictionism are similar (currently, not in the future), but are demonstrably different.
> I want to see sources saying so, and I would also say that those women are being philosophically/ethically inconsistent, and their view is therefore incompatible with the mainstream pro-choice anyway.
Google them? Explain how they are being "philosophically/ethically inconsistent", and explain how "their view is therefore incompatible with the mainstream pro-choice" (without resorting to a True Scotsman).
> Your chart doesn't prove anything. Your statements are not fact.
This is telling of your intellectual honesty. You do not begin by retracting or refuting, but by baseless claims. You attempt one refutation, which I shall show is fallacious.
> For example, on number 3, the answer for both should be yes. If evicting a fetus would kill the fetus, the evicting mother would still do it. So the answer would be yes.
Don't say "for example". This is your only refutation, not an "example" of your many refutations. A little intellectual honesty would be nice. You are confusing (or deliberately obfuscating) actively "killing" and passively "letting die". The right to life is a negative right, not a positive right, meaning that while killing is wrong letting die is acceptable.
You keep mentioning "someone who is prochoice". I am not arguing with a person, I am arguing with a philosophy. I am not implying the intentions of any particular person who has ever lived, regardless of what they call themselves (as if self-identification means anything - see DINO, RINO, etc.).
Prochoice and evictionism are similar (currently, not in the future), but are demonstrably different.
> I want to see sources saying so, and I would also say that those women are being philosophically/ethically inconsistent, and their view is therefore incompatible with the mainstream pro-choice anyway.
Google them? Explain how they are being "philosophically/ethically inconsistent", and explain how "their view is therefore incompatible with the mainstream pro-choice" (without resorting to a True Scotsman).
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #282,121
@previous
You're the one who is deliberately obfuscating. In this case there is no difference between actively killing and passively letting die. Some who is pro-choice does not have an abortion because they want to actively kill the fetus. They have an abortion because they don't want to have a baby, and they know that killing it is the only way to do so. Similarly, an evictionist having an abortion doesn't want to actively kill the child, but they have the abortion knowing full well that the fetus will not survive outside the womb. The intentions of both women are the same, and the end results are the same, you're just trying to complicate things with labels. You claim that if future technology would allow the fetus to live outside the womb, that there would then be a difference, because the pro-choice woman would supposedly still choose to kill the fetus, but I highly doubt this and that train of thought is a gross misrepresentation of what it mean to be pro-choice. As other posters have stated, pro-choice doesn't mean pro-baby-killing, it means the exact same thing that it means to be an evictionist- that your body is your right. That is why I state that they are philosophically identical. They have the same basis, but you're trying obfuscate things with different labels.
You're the one who is deliberately obfuscating. In this case there is no difference between actively killing and passively letting die. Some who is pro-choice does not have an abortion because they want to actively kill the fetus. They have an abortion because they don't want to have a baby, and they know that killing it is the only way to do so. Similarly, an evictionist having an abortion doesn't want to actively kill the child, but they have the abortion knowing full well that the fetus will not survive outside the womb. The intentions of both women are the same, and the end results are the same, you're just trying to complicate things with labels. You claim that if future technology would allow the fetus to live outside the womb, that there would then be a difference, because the pro-choice woman would supposedly still choose to kill the fetus, but I highly doubt this and that train of thought is a gross misrepresentation of what it mean to be pro-choice. As other posters have stated, pro-choice doesn't mean pro-baby-killing, it means the exact same thing that it means to be an evictionist- that your body is your right. That is why I state that they are philosophically identical. They have the same basis, but you're trying obfuscate things with different labels.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #282,146
@previous
> You're the one who is deliberately obfuscating.
I am clearly delineating between separate concepts. This is not obfuscataion, but illumination!
> In this case there is no difference between actively killing and passively letting die.
There is no difference in outcome, but there is a difference in justification. This is of (literally) vital importance.
> Some who is pro-choice does not have an abortion because they want to actively kill the fetus. They have an abortion because they don't want to have a baby, and they know that killing it is the only way to do so. Similarly, an evictionist having an abortion doesn't want to actively kill the child, but they have the abortion knowing full well that the fetus will not survive outside the womb. The intentions of both women are the same, and the end results are the same,
Once again, you're attempting to read people's minds. Stop it, you're not a psychic. You don't know what any other individual may or may not be thinking. Stick to the arguing logic and facts.
We are discussing a philosophical justification for a practice, not the outcome of the practice. You are missing (or avoiding) the point entirely.
> you're just trying to complicate things with labels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus
I suppose he just confused everything with his "labels"? Or did he elucidate and bring order?
> You claim that if future technology would allow the fetus to live outside the womb, that there would then be a difference, because the pro-choice woman would supposedly still choose to kill the fetus, but I highly doubt this and that train of thought is a gross misrepresentation of what it mean to be pro-choice. As other posters have stated, pro-choice doesn't mean pro-baby-killing, it means the exact same thing that it means to be an evictionist- that your body is your right. That is why I state that they are philosophically identical. They have the same basis, but you're trying obfuscate things with different labels.
Once again you resort to imaginary witnesses. #dodge
The funniest part is that you seem to be evictionist. You appear to be "antichoice" when gentler methods exist! It is amusing to see you squirm and struggle vainly to escape labeling your views what they really are.
> You're the one who is deliberately obfuscating.
I am clearly delineating between separate concepts. This is not obfuscataion, but illumination!
> In this case there is no difference between actively killing and passively letting die.
There is no difference in outcome, but there is a difference in justification. This is of (literally) vital importance.
> Some who is pro-choice does not have an abortion because they want to actively kill the fetus. They have an abortion because they don't want to have a baby, and they know that killing it is the only way to do so. Similarly, an evictionist having an abortion doesn't want to actively kill the child, but they have the abortion knowing full well that the fetus will not survive outside the womb. The intentions of both women are the same, and the end results are the same,
Once again, you're attempting to read people's minds. Stop it, you're not a psychic. You don't know what any other individual may or may not be thinking. Stick to the arguing logic and facts.
We are discussing a philosophical justification for a practice, not the outcome of the practice. You are missing (or avoiding) the point entirely.
> you're just trying to complicate things with labels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus
I suppose he just confused everything with his "labels"? Or did he elucidate and bring order?
> You claim that if future technology would allow the fetus to live outside the womb, that there would then be a difference, because the pro-choice woman would supposedly still choose to kill the fetus, but I highly doubt this and that train of thought is a gross misrepresentation of what it mean to be pro-choice. As other posters have stated, pro-choice doesn't mean pro-baby-killing, it means the exact same thing that it means to be an evictionist- that your body is your right. That is why I state that they are philosophically identical. They have the same basis, but you're trying obfuscate things with different labels.
Once again you resort to imaginary witnesses. #dodge
The funniest part is that you seem to be evictionist. You appear to be "antichoice" when gentler methods exist! It is amusing to see you squirm and struggle vainly to escape labeling your views what they really are.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #282,160
@previous
> The funniest part is that you seem to be evictionist.
I would agree with you there. I never claimed I was not evictionist, nor do I claim that evictionism is wrong. All I'm saying is that there isn't much (if any) difference between pro-choice and evictionist. At very least we can agree that the two are not mutually exclusive, which is why your poll doesn't make much sense. You can be "pro-choice" and evictionist but you can't be "pro-life" and evictionist.
> but there is a difference in justification
This is where we disagree. The whole point I'm making is there is no difference in justification. I'm arguing that they both rely on the same ethical principles of property rights and the right to their own bodies, while you seem to be arguing that pro-choice people simply believe that they have a right to choose to kill babies. I don't believe that anyone who is pro-choice actually believes that. If anyone actually does believe that, then they shouldn't be taken seriously, which is why I believe that they should really all fall into the category of evictionist.
> The funniest part is that you seem to be evictionist.
I would agree with you there. I never claimed I was not evictionist, nor do I claim that evictionism is wrong. All I'm saying is that there isn't much (if any) difference between pro-choice and evictionist. At very least we can agree that the two are not mutually exclusive, which is why your poll doesn't make much sense. You can be "pro-choice" and evictionist but you can't be "pro-life" and evictionist.
> but there is a difference in justification
This is where we disagree. The whole point I'm making is there is no difference in justification. I'm arguing that they both rely on the same ethical principles of property rights and the right to their own bodies, while you seem to be arguing that pro-choice people simply believe that they have a right to choose to kill babies. I don't believe that anyone who is pro-choice actually believes that. If anyone actually does believe that, then they shouldn't be taken seriously, which is why I believe that they should really all fall into the category of evictionist.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #282,162
ITT: tl;dr
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #282,163
@previous
lazy illiterate fool.
lazy illiterate fool.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #282,164
@282,160
> >but there is a difference in justification
> This is where we disagree. The whole point I'm making is there is no difference in justification. I'm arguing that they both rely on the same ethical principles of property rights and the right to their own bodies, while you seem to be arguing that pro-choice people simply believe that they have a right to choose to kill babies.
Once again, you mention an unnamed individual whose thoughts you can read. We are not discussing any particular person, we are discussing the philosophy. This is a terrible habit you have that you need to stop.
> I don't believe that anyone who is pro-choice actually believes that. If anyone actually does believe that, then they shouldn't be taken seriously, which is why I believe that they should really all fall into the category of evictionist.
This is merely the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that I warned you about. YOu have given no reason why this would be in opposition to a prochoice, while I have shown it to be contrary to evictionism.
> >but there is a difference in justification
> This is where we disagree. The whole point I'm making is there is no difference in justification. I'm arguing that they both rely on the same ethical principles of property rights and the right to their own bodies, while you seem to be arguing that pro-choice people simply believe that they have a right to choose to kill babies.
Once again, you mention an unnamed individual whose thoughts you can read. We are not discussing any particular person, we are discussing the philosophy. This is a terrible habit you have that you need to stop.
> I don't believe that anyone who is pro-choice actually believes that. If anyone actually does believe that, then they shouldn't be taken seriously, which is why I believe that they should really all fall into the category of evictionist.
This is merely the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that I warned you about. YOu have given no reason why this would be in opposition to a prochoice, while I have shown it to be contrary to evictionism.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #282,166
@previous
I'm just using people in a narrative that expresses a philosophical idea. You can't completely take people out of the equation.
> This is merely the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that I warned you about. YOu have given no reason why this would be in opposition to a prochoice, while I have shown it to be contrary to evictionism.
You're labeling pro-choice as something that it is not, and then telling me that just because there are no people that don't believe it is what you say it is, that means you must be correct. This makes no god damned sense. No one is actually for killing babies. Other people in this thread have said this and I'm saying it. Labeling pro-choice people as "for killing babies" and saying that unless they label themselves as evictionist then they're wrong is stupid. You just can't accept that people who call themselves pro-choice follow the exact same philosophy you do but don't use the label you use. Like I said, they're not mutually exclusive. Unless you can find me one pro-choice person who says that evictionism is bullshit and they are pro-choice because they have a right to kill babies, I'm writing you off. I'm done with this stupid argument.
I'm just using people in a narrative that expresses a philosophical idea. You can't completely take people out of the equation.
> This is merely the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that I warned you about. YOu have given no reason why this would be in opposition to a prochoice, while I have shown it to be contrary to evictionism.
You're labeling pro-choice as something that it is not, and then telling me that just because there are no people that don't believe it is what you say it is, that means you must be correct. This makes no god damned sense. No one is actually for killing babies. Other people in this thread have said this and I'm saying it. Labeling pro-choice people as "for killing babies" and saying that unless they label themselves as evictionist then they're wrong is stupid. You just can't accept that people who call themselves pro-choice follow the exact same philosophy you do but don't use the label you use. Like I said, they're not mutually exclusive. Unless you can find me one pro-choice person who says that evictionism is bullshit and they are pro-choice because they have a right to kill babies, I'm writing you off. I'm done with this stupid argument.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #282,171
@previous
> I'm just using people in a narrative that expresses a philosophical idea. You can't completely take people out of the equation.
Narrative is only justifiable as an analogy. To use narrative in the way you use it is wrong - it is essentially a strawman.
> You're labeling pro-choice as something that it is not, and then telling me that just because there are no people that don't believe it is what you say it is, that means you must be correct.
You have been unable to provide a definition of prochoice that precludes such views as being part of the prochoice philosophy (what else could they possibly be?), while I have definitely excluded them from evictionism.
> This makes no god damned sense. No one is actually for killing babies.
Many people are actually PRO killing fetuses, typically for reasons of population control. Many more, while not advocating it, believe it to be a perfectly valid choice for the mother to make.
> Other people in this thread have said this and I'm saying it. Labeling pro-choice people as "for killing babies" and saying that unless they label themselves as evictionist then they're wrong is stupid.
Your invisible witness again. This is getting sad...
> You just can't accept that people who call themselves pro-choice follow the exact same philosophy you do but don't use the label you use. Like I said, they're not mutually exclusive. Unless you can find me one pro-choice person who says that evictionism is bullshit and they are pro-choice because they have a right to kill babies, I'm writing you off. I'm done with this stupid argument.
It's like you can't formulate an argument without appealing to non-existant friends. Is it so hard for you to stay within the realm of pure logic?
Stephen L. Ross Abortion and the Death of the Fetus
> I'm just using people in a narrative that expresses a philosophical idea. You can't completely take people out of the equation.
Narrative is only justifiable as an analogy. To use narrative in the way you use it is wrong - it is essentially a strawman.
> You're labeling pro-choice as something that it is not, and then telling me that just because there are no people that don't believe it is what you say it is, that means you must be correct.
You have been unable to provide a definition of prochoice that precludes such views as being part of the prochoice philosophy (what else could they possibly be?), while I have definitely excluded them from evictionism.
> This makes no god damned sense. No one is actually for killing babies.
Many people are actually PRO killing fetuses, typically for reasons of population control. Many more, while not advocating it, believe it to be a perfectly valid choice for the mother to make.
> Other people in this thread have said this and I'm saying it. Labeling pro-choice people as "for killing babies" and saying that unless they label themselves as evictionist then they're wrong is stupid.
Your invisible witness again. This is getting sad...
> You just can't accept that people who call themselves pro-choice follow the exact same philosophy you do but don't use the label you use. Like I said, they're not mutually exclusive. Unless you can find me one pro-choice person who says that evictionism is bullshit and they are pro-choice because they have a right to kill babies, I'm writing you off. I'm done with this stupid argument.
It's like you can't formulate an argument without appealing to non-existant friends. Is it so hard for you to stay within the realm of pure logic?
Stephen L. Ross Abortion and the Death of the Fetus
Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #282,172
@282,163
i duno how 2 reed lol
i duno how 2 reed lol
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 59 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #282,174
OP, don't bother trying to wear Broseph out with constant rebuttals. It's just not a battle that you're going to win.
Oh, and also he's right.
Oh, and also he's right.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #282,189
@previous
Except that he's not, as I have proved throughout this thread.
Except that he's not, as I have proved throughout this thread.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 19 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,312
@282,107
> evictionism can hardly be claimed to be inherently expansionist of state power
Except that it is pro-choice plus property law (or as I have taken to calling it, Pro-Choice/Property law) and therefore introduces a whole new legal layer to the proceeding. Pro-choice is not pro-death or even pro-abortion, it is pro-choice. A pro-choice stance is a stance which states that a woman may terminate any pregnancy should she want to, because it is the woman's right to choose. A pro-life stance is a stance which states that a woman may not terminate any pregancy, because life is too precious. An evictionist stance is a mainly pro-choice stance (the woman may choose to evict) with a dash of pro-life stance (the eviction must be made using the gentlest method possible), which sounds like a good compromise in theory. However, in the real world pro-life activists may notice after a few days that babies are still dying in the same number as they were before evictionism was the policy, and - since they are activists for the complete non-death of infants - they will then reject evictionism as exactly the same as previous laws. Until the technology actually exists for a living eviction to be viable, it is a pipe dream and not a working compromise.
> evictionism can hardly be claimed to be inherently expansionist of state power
Except that it is pro-choice plus property law (or as I have taken to calling it, Pro-Choice/Property law) and therefore introduces a whole new legal layer to the proceeding. Pro-choice is not pro-death or even pro-abortion, it is pro-choice. A pro-choice stance is a stance which states that a woman may terminate any pregnancy should she want to, because it is the woman's right to choose. A pro-life stance is a stance which states that a woman may not terminate any pregancy, because life is too precious. An evictionist stance is a mainly pro-choice stance (the woman may choose to evict) with a dash of pro-life stance (the eviction must be made using the gentlest method possible), which sounds like a good compromise in theory. However, in the real world pro-life activists may notice after a few days that babies are still dying in the same number as they were before evictionism was the policy, and - since they are activists for the complete non-death of infants - they will then reject evictionism as exactly the same as previous laws. Until the technology actually exists for a living eviction to be viable, it is a pipe dream and not a working compromise.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 25 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,320
@previous
Private property is not a function of the state, as it preceded it and will continue to exist without it.
> Pro-choice is not pro-death or even pro-abortion
This is an attempt to semantically distract the casual observer. Prochoice allows the murder of the fetus, it allows the mother to choose to kill. A legal philosophy does not endorse any moral position, so your argument is pointless.
> An evictionist stance is a mainly pro-choice stance with a dash of pro-life stance
You are conflating the outcome with the philosophical justification. Evictionism does not consider the mother to have property rights over the fetus, as prochoice does, and evictionism recognizes no positive right to life, as prolife does.
> prolife rejection
Some may very well. The wise will accept evictionism as their only chance (30 years of Roe v. Wade and prolifers have not stopped abortions) and change money from protests and lobbying etc. to medical research. This will actually save lives, and would begin working immediately.
Private property is not a function of the state, as it preceded it and will continue to exist without it.
> Pro-choice is not pro-death or even pro-abortion
This is an attempt to semantically distract the casual observer. Prochoice allows the murder of the fetus, it allows the mother to choose to kill. A legal philosophy does not endorse any moral position, so your argument is pointless.
> An evictionist stance is a mainly pro-choice stance with a dash of pro-life stance
You are conflating the outcome with the philosophical justification. Evictionism does not consider the mother to have property rights over the fetus, as prochoice does, and evictionism recognizes no positive right to life, as prolife does.
> prolife rejection
Some may very well. The wise will accept evictionism as their only chance (30 years of Roe v. Wade and prolifers have not stopped abortions) and change money from protests and lobbying etc. to medical research. This will actually save lives, and would begin working immediately.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 10 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,433
@previous
> This is an attempt to semantically distract the casual observer.
No it is an attempt to tell you that you are wrong and you are redefining a label to fit your own argument.
> Prochoice allows the murder of the fetus, it allows the mother to choose to kill.
Pro-choice allows the mother to choose to terminate a pregnancy if she so wishes. The method of termination is decoupled from this choice; if a method of termination that allowed the baby to live came into play, it would likely be adopted as standard even without evictionism.
> A legal philosophy does not endorse any moral position
Of course it does. A moral position is what every single law ever is based on.
> 30 years of Roe v. Wade and prolifers have not stopped abortions
Yes, and 30 years of abortions and Western pro-choice has not stopped pro-lifers.
> Evictionism does not consider the mother to have property rights over the fetus, as prochoice does, and evictionism recognizes no positive right to life, as prolife does.
All you are saying here is that it is not completely pro-choice and not completely pro-life - which I have already said - and dressing it up as an argument to try and make me look wrong. This is a sudden change of argument and is telling. You seem to be unable to admit when you're wrong. In fact, I bet you're mountainman, aren't you? Faggot.
> This is an attempt to semantically distract the casual observer.
No it is an attempt to tell you that you are wrong and you are redefining a label to fit your own argument.
> Prochoice allows the murder of the fetus, it allows the mother to choose to kill.
Pro-choice allows the mother to choose to terminate a pregnancy if she so wishes. The method of termination is decoupled from this choice; if a method of termination that allowed the baby to live came into play, it would likely be adopted as standard even without evictionism.
> A legal philosophy does not endorse any moral position
Of course it does. A moral position is what every single law ever is based on.
> 30 years of Roe v. Wade and prolifers have not stopped abortions
Yes, and 30 years of abortions and Western pro-choice has not stopped pro-lifers.
> Evictionism does not consider the mother to have property rights over the fetus, as prochoice does, and evictionism recognizes no positive right to life, as prolife does.
All you are saying here is that it is not completely pro-choice and not completely pro-life - which I have already said - and dressing it up as an argument to try and make me look wrong. This is a sudden change of argument and is telling. You seem to be unable to admit when you're wrong. In fact, I bet you're mountainman, aren't you? Faggot.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,482
Whatever happened to the "boss in own tummy" movement you bitches had?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,541
@282,433
> No it is an attempt to tell you that you are wrong and you are redefining a label to fit your own argument.
I am not arguing labels. You keep trying to drag this down to labels, but I have not let you. We are arguing a philosophy, not a label for a person, a philosophical system, that you seem unwilling or unable to define.
> Pro-choice allows the mother to choose to terminate a pregnancy if she so wishes. The method of termination is decoupled from this choice; if a method of termination that allowed the baby to live came into play, it would likely be adopted as standard even without evictionism.
The method of termination is NOT decoupled from this choice - it is an intrinsic and essential part of the choice. There is no requirement in prochoice to adopt the gentlest method, so it matters not if practically people would adopt those methods, because we are arguing the philosophic justifications for the acts, and area that prochoice is very sorely lacking.
> Of course it does. A moral position is what every single law ever is based on.
No, it does not. Bad laws may very well be based upon morality, but good laws are based upon private property rights, which are amoral.
> Yes, and 30 years of abortions and Western pro-choice has not stopped pro-lifers.
So? The goal of prochoice isn't to stop prolifers, it's to allow mothers to kill their fetus, and they have succeeded. The goal of prolife is to save lives, and they have failed miserably.
> All you are saying here is that it is not completely pro-choice and not completely pro-life - which I have already said - and dressing it up as an argument to try and make me look wrong. This is a sudden change of argument and is telling. You seem to be unable to admit when you're wrong. In fact, I bet you're mountainman, aren't you? Faggot.
What I said is that it is neither prochoice nor prolife, and you took this to mean it is both? They have entirely different justifications for their actions, and are irreconcilable. There has been no change of argument. YOu have not proved me wrong. That's your grand finale? An ad hominem? Pathetic. It's like you're giving up.
> No it is an attempt to tell you that you are wrong and you are redefining a label to fit your own argument.
I am not arguing labels. You keep trying to drag this down to labels, but I have not let you. We are arguing a philosophy, not a label for a person, a philosophical system, that you seem unwilling or unable to define.
> Pro-choice allows the mother to choose to terminate a pregnancy if she so wishes. The method of termination is decoupled from this choice; if a method of termination that allowed the baby to live came into play, it would likely be adopted as standard even without evictionism.
The method of termination is NOT decoupled from this choice - it is an intrinsic and essential part of the choice. There is no requirement in prochoice to adopt the gentlest method, so it matters not if practically people would adopt those methods, because we are arguing the philosophic justifications for the acts, and area that prochoice is very sorely lacking.
> Of course it does. A moral position is what every single law ever is based on.
No, it does not. Bad laws may very well be based upon morality, but good laws are based upon private property rights, which are amoral.
> Yes, and 30 years of abortions and Western pro-choice has not stopped pro-lifers.
So? The goal of prochoice isn't to stop prolifers, it's to allow mothers to kill their fetus, and they have succeeded. The goal of prolife is to save lives, and they have failed miserably.
> All you are saying here is that it is not completely pro-choice and not completely pro-life - which I have already said - and dressing it up as an argument to try and make me look wrong. This is a sudden change of argument and is telling. You seem to be unable to admit when you're wrong. In fact, I bet you're mountainman, aren't you? Faggot.
What I said is that it is neither prochoice nor prolife, and you took this to mean it is both? They have entirely different justifications for their actions, and are irreconcilable. There has been no change of argument. YOu have not proved me wrong. That's your grand finale? An ad hominem? Pathetic. It's like you're giving up.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,542
@previous
> It's like you're giving up.
Yes. You're a bad person to talk to because you just change your argument all the time. Like you just did then in that post. Again.
> It's like you're giving up.
Yes. You're a bad person to talk to because you just change your argument all the time. Like you just did then in that post. Again.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,548
@previous
Instead of just saying that, demonstrate how and where my argument changed.
Instead of just saying that, demonstrate how and where my argument changed.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 22 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,555
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,562
@previous
I will take this as a retraction of the claims you made.
I will take this as a retraction of the claims you made.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,563
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1 month ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,612
lol
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,620
@282,563
You don't know me. However, you can read, and my points remain unrefuted. If your views remain the same in the face of contradictory evidence, you can not be argued with, and I am sorry.
You don't know me. However, you can read, and my points remain unrefuted. If your views remain the same in the face of contradictory evidence, you can not be argued with, and I am sorry.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,623
@previous
What are your thoughts on statism?
What are your thoughts on statism?
Anonymous I replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,640
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,647
dw !AIy/L67q.s replied with this 1 month ago, 26 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,651
on a related note ron paul 2012
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 36 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,652
Hey OP, I know it's completely off topic, but I need an opinion about this girl. Is she cute?Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,698
@282,620
> You don't know me.
Yes I do, you're Mountainman, the world's biggest child-raping homosexual.
> You don't know me.
Yes I do, you're Mountainman, the world's biggest child-raping homosexual.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,807
@282,652
Judging from this picture alone I would say no.
Judging from this picture alone I would say no.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 23 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,808
@282,698
You don't know me. However, you can read, and my points remain unrefuted. If your views remain the same in the face of contradictory evidence, you can not be argued with, and I am sorry.
You don't know me. However, you can read, and my points remain unrefuted. If your views remain the same in the face of contradictory evidence, you can not be argued with, and I am sorry.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,812
@previous
> You don't know me.
Yes I do, you're Mountainman, the world's biggest child-raping homosexual.
> You don't know me.
Yes I do, you're Mountainman, the world's biggest child-raping homosexual.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,817
@previous
Please do not continue to post such inane fallacies. Either refute my points, retract your claims, or leave without doing either. I would greatly pity you if you choose the latter, but perhaps not surprised.
Please do not continue to post such inane fallacies. Either refute my points, retract your claims, or leave without doing either. I would greatly pity you if you choose the latter, but perhaps not surprised.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,821
@previous
> Please do not continue to post such inane fallacies.
But you're Mountainman, the world's biggest child-raping homosexual.
> Please do not continue to post such inane fallacies.
But you're Mountainman, the world's biggest child-raping homosexual.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,830
@previous
I love you, Rainbow Dash.
I love you, Rainbow Dash.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,835
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 38 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,850
@282,817
Both of us refuted your points, and both of us gave up on trying to reason with you because you refuse to acknowledge our points. Arguments are supposed to be followed with counter-arguments, but rather than address the points we've made, you keep spouting the same arguments over and over. If you're not even going to acknowledge our point of view, then what's the point of trying to reason with you?
Both of us refuted your points, and both of us gave up on trying to reason with you because you refuse to acknowledge our points. Arguments are supposed to be followed with counter-arguments, but rather than address the points we've made, you keep spouting the same arguments over and over. If you're not even going to acknowledge our point of view, then what's the point of trying to reason with you?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,905
@previous
I do not refuse to acknowledge your points. I replied to every one. I showed why your arguments are false, irrelevant, immaterial, fallacious, etc. Interesting that you object because I used the same arguments, while Rainbow Dash objects because I used different arguments.
> If you're not even going to acknowledge our point of view, then what's the point of trying to reason with you?
I believe this shows a fundamental flaw in your conception of debate. A debate is not a circlejerk for "acknowledging other's points of view"; it is a method of discovering truth through the use of arguments. I acknowledged the arguments you made, and refuted them. The point of reasoning with me is to uncover truth - you seem disinterested in this, concerned only with your "point of view" being "acknowledged" (by which I can only assume you mean "accepted as truth", since I did reply to you and refute you, but this wasn't enough).
I do not refuse to acknowledge your points. I replied to every one. I showed why your arguments are false, irrelevant, immaterial, fallacious, etc. Interesting that you object because I used the same arguments, while Rainbow Dash objects because I used different arguments.
> If you're not even going to acknowledge our point of view, then what's the point of trying to reason with you?
I believe this shows a fundamental flaw in your conception of debate. A debate is not a circlejerk for "acknowledging other's points of view"; it is a method of discovering truth through the use of arguments. I acknowledged the arguments you made, and refuted them. The point of reasoning with me is to uncover truth - you seem disinterested in this, concerned only with your "point of view" being "acknowledged" (by which I can only assume you mean "accepted as truth", since I did reply to you and refute you, but this wasn't enough).
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,912
@previous
> I showed why your arguments are false, irrelevant, immaterial, fallacious, etc
You did no such thing. You didn't even touch on the fact that the two philosophies are not mutually exclusive. You refuse to acknowledge that they are similar philosophies with similar justifications. Rainbow brought up the same point. Rather than counter this argument, you just keep on saying "No it's not, no it's not, no it's not" over and over again, as if that makes you right. Anyone who has taken ANY philosophy class (and I mean ANY, because abortion is discussed no matter what philosophy course you take) knows that the justification for evictionism are the same justifications that are brought up when discussing the pro-choice philosophy. There may be some difference, and I'm willing to discuss those with you, but if you're not going to even acknowledge this point, and you're just gonna say "nuh-uh, they're different" without backing it up, then you haven't refuted any of my, or Rainbow's, claims, let alone prove them to be "false, irrelevant, immaterial, fallacious, etc."
> I showed why your arguments are false, irrelevant, immaterial, fallacious, etc
You did no such thing. You didn't even touch on the fact that the two philosophies are not mutually exclusive. You refuse to acknowledge that they are similar philosophies with similar justifications. Rainbow brought up the same point. Rather than counter this argument, you just keep on saying "No it's not, no it's not, no it's not" over and over again, as if that makes you right. Anyone who has taken ANY philosophy class (and I mean ANY, because abortion is discussed no matter what philosophy course you take) knows that the justification for evictionism are the same justifications that are brought up when discussing the pro-choice philosophy. There may be some difference, and I'm willing to discuss those with you, but if you're not going to even acknowledge this point, and you're just gonna say "nuh-uh, they're different" without backing it up, then you haven't refuted any of my, or Rainbow's, claims, let alone prove them to be "false, irrelevant, immaterial, fallacious, etc."
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 15 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,933
@282,905
> Rainbow Dash objects because I used different arguments
I objected that you argue different things, not use different arguments. However, this is because you are a faggot, and I understand.
> Rainbow Dash objects because I used different arguments
I objected that you argue different things, not use different arguments. However, this is because you are a faggot, and I understand.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,938
@282,912
Yes, I did. All one has to do is scroll back up and look. Instead, you choose not to reply to the replies in which I refute your arguments, choosing instead to start a new thread within a topic wherein you can claim without proof that I never answered you. This is extreme intellectual dishonesty. I touched on the mutual exclusivity several times - evictionism definitively and philosophically excludes many practices that prochoice allows. Your answer to this was to state that people, although continuing to believe such behavior morally justified, would cease to engage in such behavior. You distorted the argument to the practical actions of people instead of the philosophical justifications for actions.
You are actually using the "everyone knows this so I don't even have to attempt to justify my argument or support it with any evidence" approach?
The difference is the philosophical justification for the act. Your continued illogical opposition to this belies an ulterior motive in arguing this.
I have refuted your claims, which is why you were forced to start a new thread, for you had been cornered in the original conversation.
Yes, I did. All one has to do is scroll back up and look. Instead, you choose not to reply to the replies in which I refute your arguments, choosing instead to start a new thread within a topic wherein you can claim without proof that I never answered you. This is extreme intellectual dishonesty. I touched on the mutual exclusivity several times - evictionism definitively and philosophically excludes many practices that prochoice allows. Your answer to this was to state that people, although continuing to believe such behavior morally justified, would cease to engage in such behavior. You distorted the argument to the practical actions of people instead of the philosophical justifications for actions.
You are actually using the "everyone knows this so I don't even have to attempt to justify my argument or support it with any evidence" approach?
The difference is the philosophical justification for the act. Your continued illogical opposition to this belies an ulterior motive in arguing this.
I have refuted your claims, which is why you were forced to start a new thread, for you had been cornered in the original conversation.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,939
@282,933
> argued different things
> different arguments
Sorry, but if this is your level of interaction I doubt you can add anything of worth to this conversation. Please cease the homophobic ad hominems, thanks.
> argued different things
> different arguments
Sorry, but if this is your level of interaction I doubt you can add anything of worth to this conversation. Please cease the homophobic ad hominems, thanks.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,944
@previous
I understand that you are unable to process the difference. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are unable to process the difference. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #282,950
@previous
You are unable to demonstrate any difference. There is no difference. Please cease the homophobic ad hominems, thanks.
You are unable to demonstrate any difference. There is no difference. Please cease the homophobic ad hominems, thanks.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,030
@previous
I understand that you are unable to process the difference. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are unable to process the difference. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,078
@previous
Sorry, but if this is your level of interaction I doubt you can add anything of worth to this conversation. Please cease the homophobic ad hominems, thanks.
Sorry, but if this is your level of interaction I doubt you can add anything of worth to this conversation. Please cease the homophobic ad hominems, thanks.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 36 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,081
People who argue abortion doesn't count as terminating a human life are dumb.
People who want laws against abortion are dumb.
Go ahead pick a side. You can be any dumber than either team's position.
People who want laws against abortion are dumb.
Go ahead pick a side. You can be any dumber than either team's position.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,082
@previous
Evictionism.
Evictionism.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,083
@283,078
I understand that you are unable to process the intricacies of basic logic. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are unable to process the intricacies of basic logic. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
Anonymous L replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,084
@283,082
I can't wait for this view to be applied to population control arguements.
I can't wait for this view to be applied to population control arguements.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,094
OP, after reading this thread I'm even more pro-choice. Thanks.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 7 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,215
@283,083
Homophobic ad hominem fallacies are a violation of basic logic. Please cease using them.
Homophobic ad hominem fallacies are a violation of basic logic. Please cease using them.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,219
@283,084
Explain further.
Explain further.
Anonymous L replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,284
@previous
You know. The whole planet is a living organism and humans are parasites, and therfore subject to eviction when the larger organism's survival is threatened.
You know. The whole planet is a living organism and humans are parasites, and therfore subject to eviction when the larger organism's survival is threatened.
vocalon !RigbykHwQE joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 12 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,287
@283,215
But breaking universal laws (i.e. OP is a faggot) is a egregious violation of even the simplest logic. You wouldn't throw a dart downwards and expect it to float up would you?
But breaking universal laws (i.e. OP is a faggot) is a egregious violation of even the simplest logic. You wouldn't throw a dart downwards and expect it to float up would you?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 5 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,370
@283,284
The planet is inanimate rock and magma etc.
The planet is inanimate rock and magma etc.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,392
@283,215
I understand that you are unable to process what an ad hominem is. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are unable to process what an ad hominem is. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,402
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 42 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,406
@previous
I understand that you are unable to process what an ad hominem is. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are homosexual. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are unable to process what an ad hominem is. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are homosexual. I do not judge you for this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,411
@previous
Homosexuals are able to "process what an ad hominem is". Why do you claim otherwise?
Homosexuals are able to "process what an ad hominem is". Why do you claim otherwise?
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 5 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,450
@previous
I understand that you are unable to understand what somebody is saying. This is because you are a faggot, as well as autismal. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are unable to understand what somebody is saying. This is because you are a faggot, as well as autismal. I do not judge you for this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 8 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,622
Anonymous L replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,625
@283,370
And then?
I fail to see how the biosphere can be separated from the rock, as it's not possible given our current state of technological development as a type 0 civilization.
And then?
I fail to see how the biosphere can be separated from the rock, as it's not possible given our current state of technological development as a type 0 civilization.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,633
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 6 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,720
@283,622
I understand that you are unable to understand that you are the one who is full aspie. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are unable to understand that I did not lose an argument. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are unable to understand that you are the one who is full aspie. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
I understand that you are unable to understand that I did not lose an argument. This is because you are a faggot. I do not judge you for this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 6 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,780
@previous> posting the same thing over and over
> call the other person an aspie
> unable to refute opponent's argument
> I didn't lose
LMAO!
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,781
@previous
lol
lol
Anonymous L replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,782
@283,633
Ayn Rand fucked you in skull, didn't she?
Ayn Rand fucked you in skull, didn't she?
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,791
@283,780
> complaining about someone posting the same thing over and over
> post the same image you spam reply everything I post with
> make nonsensical argument that doesn't work
> someone proves you wrong
> ignore them and repeat yourself
> they lost the argument
> complaining about someone posting the same thing over and over
> post the same image you spam reply everything I post with
> make nonsensical argument that doesn't work
> someone proves you wrong
> ignore them and repeat yourself
> they lost the argument
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 7 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,887
@283,782
I have never read Ayn Rand.
I have never read Ayn Rand.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,889
@283,791
Point me to the post where you refuted my argument and my reply failed to show that your refutations were logically invalid.
Point me to the post where you refuted my argument and my reply failed to show that your refutations were logically invalid.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 58 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #283,891
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #283,976
@previous
> unable to point to the post where he refuted my argument and my reply failed to show that his refutations were logically invalid.
> points instead to his aspie rage spam
Autism: Not Even Once
> unable to point to the post where he refuted my argument and my reply failed to show that his refutations were logically invalid.
> points instead to his aspie rage spam
Autism: Not Even Once
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 1 month ago, 13 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,109
@previous
> Make nonsensical arguments
> Ignore righteous ass-slapping
> Complain when people treat you like an idiot
Crybaby: Not Even Once
> Make nonsensical arguments
> Ignore righteous ass-slapping
> Complain when people treat you like an idiot
Crybaby: Not Even Once
Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,111
Everyone in this thread is a stupid cunt. Except me.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 7 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,233
@284,109
> Point me to the post where you refuted my argument and my reply failed to show that your refutations were logically invalid.
Oh that's right, I already you this question and you were unable to do so! Your problem is that you are so dumb you can't even conceive there are others smarter than you. You think you can convince people that your successfully defended your argument by never referring to it, and stating over and over that you did.
> Point me to the post where you refuted my argument and my reply failed to show that your refutations were logically invalid.
Oh that's right, I already you this question and you were unable to do so! Your problem is that you are so dumb you can't even conceive there are others smarter than you. You think you can convince people that your successfully defended your argument by never referring to it, and stating over and over that you did.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,265
I think it can be pretty fuclked up, but is a necessary right.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 4 weeks ago, 4 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,296
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,305
Who is going to pay for the baby? Why the fuck would you want to make a criminal?
I am pro-abortion. I'm pro-evicting and then ending the life of even viable babies. It's a strain on the public and enviroment.
I am pro-abortion. I'm pro-evicting and then ending the life of even viable babies. It's a strain on the public and enviroment.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,327
@previous
Churches, charities, people wanting to adopt. If no one is willing to pay for the eviction (as opposed to the abortion), the mother is not forced to undergo one, and may justifiably use the cheapest method.
Churches, charities, people wanting to adopt. If no one is willing to pay for the eviction (as opposed to the abortion), the mother is not forced to undergo one, and may justifiably use the cheapest method.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 4 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,336
100 get!
cat !LSD69pSotU joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,388
101 get
pro-choice
pro-choice
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 4 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,421
@284,327
there are many children who never get adopted. It's a big problem here.
there are many children who never get adopted. It's a big problem here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 5 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,543
@previous
Hence why there would be churches and charities willing to raise children.
Hence why there would be churches and charities willing to raise children.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,544
@284,388
Why not evictionist?
Why not evictionist?
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 4 weeks ago, 31 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,567
@284,543
those things are very rare now. what would you propose to increase this kind of aid to abandoned children?
those things are very rare now. what would you propose to increase this kind of aid to abandoned children?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 6 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,682
@previous
Those things are rare because most children get adopted. In 3rd world countries they are still common. I volunteered at an orphanage that had 400 kids, supported by various churches, mainly in Europe.
Those things are rare because most children get adopted. In 3rd world countries they are still common. I volunteered at an orphanage that had 400 kids, supported by various churches, mainly in Europe.
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 4 weeks ago, 39 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,683
@previous
Most kids don't get adopted in America. Where did you find this false information?
also, you never mentioned your thoughts on planning these institutions.
Most kids don't get adopted in America. Where did you find this false information?
also, you never mentioned your thoughts on planning these institutions.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,704
@previous
Most children are cared for by families, whether by legal adoption, or foster care.
> also, you never mentioned your thoughts on planning these institutions.
What would you like to know?
Most children are cared for by families, whether by legal adoption, or foster care.
> also, you never mentioned your thoughts on planning these institutions.
What would you like to know?
cat !LSD69pSotU replied with this 4 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,719
@284,544
because i'm too lazy to stfw to see what it means
because i'm too lazy to stfw to see what it means
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,720
@284,421
Killing has always been a big problem solver. I'm hoping abortion is only the beginning.
Killing has always been a big problem solver. I'm hoping abortion is only the beginning.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 55 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,733
@284,719
This is a important issue intrinsically, but also because it is a massive area of social and political debate. Abortion is the new slavery, and is dividing the union.
This is a important issue intrinsically, but also because it is a massive area of social and political debate. Abortion is the new slavery, and is dividing the union.
Anonymous R replied with this 4 weeks ago, 29 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,742
@previous
Abortion is disgustingly heterosexist. Yes of course women should have a right to their own bodies, but they should also have to use their fucking brains too. There is plenty of sex that can be had which can't possibly get you pregnant.
But that's not good enough. In the new heterosexual paradigm, a single orgasm and a future human life are an even trade. Shit like this is why we'll have no choice but to kill off the straight people one day. Well, that and overpopulation.
Abortion is disgustingly heterosexist. Yes of course women should have a right to their own bodies, but they should also have to use their fucking brains too. There is plenty of sex that can be had which can't possibly get you pregnant.
But that's not good enough. In the new heterosexual paradigm, a single orgasm and a future human life are an even trade. Shit like this is why we'll have no choice but to kill off the straight people one day. Well, that and overpopulation.
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 4 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,754
@284,704
Define most.
Define most.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 9 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,830
@previous
If orphanages are rare, and there aren't parentless kids on the street it only stands to reason.
If orphanages are rare, and there aren't parentless kids on the street it only stands to reason.
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 3 weeks ago, 44 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,836
@previous
are orphanages rare? are there children on the streets? have you researched any of this?
are orphanages rare? are there children on the streets? have you researched any of this?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 26 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,845
@previous
You claimed that they are. I have never seen a street child.
You claimed that they are. I have never seen a street child.
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 3 weeks ago, 22 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,850
@previous
ive seen homeless children. so you havent done any research into this?
ive seen homeless children. so you havent done any research into this?
Anonymous J replied with this 3 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,851
@284,836
> have you researched any of this?
I doubt it. I think OP is scared of statistics -- perhaps because the word "statist" appears in the word.
Have no fear though, OP will attempt to prove it to you by personal anecdote instead and assure you that street children don't exist because he has never seen them.
> have you researched any of this?
I doubt it. I think OP is scared of statistics -- perhaps because the word "statist" appears in the word.
Have no fear though, OP will attempt to prove it to you by personal anecdote instead and assure you that street children don't exist because he has never seen them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,859
@284,850
How many children are there in the USA who are not being cared for by their biological parents, adopted parents, in foster homes, or orphanages?
How many children are there in the USA who are not being cared for by their biological parents, adopted parents, in foster homes, or orphanages?
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,864
@previous
Do your own research.
in 2002 there were an estimated 1,682,900 homeless and runaway youth.
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/youth.html
In 2007, a study by the Empire State Coalition of Youth and Family Services, an advocacy group in New York, found that on any given night, roughly 3,800 homeless young people were on the street in New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/nyregion/10homeless.html
Do your own research.
in 2002 there were an estimated 1,682,900 homeless and runaway youth.
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/youth.html
In 2007, a study by the Empire State Coalition of Youth and Family Services, an advocacy group in New York, found that on any given night, roughly 3,800 homeless young people were on the street in New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/nyregion/10homeless.html
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,882
@previous
> majority aged 15-17
These are not orphaned infants left on the streets, but people who have left their family home. The state forbids these people from working and forces them into prostitution and drug dealing and often forbids them from making contracts such as those necessary for renting accommodation.
> The median age of the youth interviewed was 20
Once again, not actually relevant to the issue at hand at all.
> majority aged 15-17
These are not orphaned infants left on the streets, but people who have left their family home. The state forbids these people from working and forces them into prostitution and drug dealing and often forbids them from making contracts such as those necessary for renting accommodation.
> The median age of the youth interviewed was 20
Once again, not actually relevant to the issue at hand at all.
Anonymous R replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #284,894
@282,075
> Being pro-choice and being pro-property rights are the same thing.
That's not really true. To be pro-property rights would be to recognize the father's interest in the fetus just as copyright law recognizes an author's right to his own work.
The pro-choice position implies a man waives all rights to his own genetic material while it is located in the womb. The idea being that he has no right to control what happens to it simply because he is not in custody of it. But of course, were this actually true in principle, a man could not be held liable for child support payments when he's denied custody of his children. And we all know that's not how it works.
> Being pro-choice and being pro-property rights are the same thing.
That's not really true. To be pro-property rights would be to recognize the father's interest in the fetus just as copyright law recognizes an author's right to his own work.
The pro-choice position implies a man waives all rights to his own genetic material while it is located in the womb. The idea being that he has no right to control what happens to it simply because he is not in custody of it. But of course, were this actually true in principle, a man could not be held liable for child support payments when he's denied custody of his children. And we all know that's not how it works.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 15 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,022
@previous
That's assuming one holds IP to be valid, and many do not (Kinsella Against Intellectual Property). One could be pro property rights and not recognize the father's interest (apart from his willingness to pay for eviction, and/or raise the child).
That's assuming one holds IP to be valid, and many do not (Kinsella Against Intellectual Property). One could be pro property rights and not recognize the father's interest (apart from his willingness to pay for eviction, and/or raise the child).
Anonymous R replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,074
@previous
I don't see how you can say that. First of all, genetic material is REAL. It's not transcendental as IP is, so it's a good deal more appropriate to apply the concept of property to genetic material than it is to apply the concept to ideas.
Furthermore, artificial wombs will most certainly be a reality someday. When that happens, in any society striving for justice, men will ultimately secure the right to claim the fetus in the interest of keeping it viable.
I don't see how you can say that. First of all, genetic material is REAL. It's not transcendental as IP is, so it's a good deal more appropriate to apply the concept of property to genetic material than it is to apply the concept to ideas.
Furthermore, artificial wombs will most certainly be a reality someday. When that happens, in any society striving for justice, men will ultimately secure the right to claim the fetus in the interest of keeping it viable.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,117
@previous
> First of all, genetic material is REAL. It's not transcendental as IP is, so it's a good deal more appropriate to apply the concept of property to genetic material than it is to apply the concept to ideas.
It raises problems, though, if you can own your genetic material. It conflicts with the child's self ownership.
> Furthermore, artificial wombs will most certainly be a reality someday. When that happens, in any society striving for justice, men will ultimately secure the right to claim the fetus in the interest of keeping it viable.
Agreed 100%
> First of all, genetic material is REAL. It's not transcendental as IP is, so it's a good deal more appropriate to apply the concept of property to genetic material than it is to apply the concept to ideas.
It raises problems, though, if you can own your genetic material. It conflicts with the child's self ownership.
> Furthermore, artificial wombs will most certainly be a reality someday. When that happens, in any society striving for justice, men will ultimately secure the right to claim the fetus in the interest of keeping it viable.
Agreed 100%
Anonymous R replied with this 3 weeks ago, 26 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,133
@previous
> It raises problems, though, if you can own your genetic material. It conflicts with the child's self ownership.
For children sure, but it's already fairly well established fetuses cannot be thought of as children.
> It raises problems, though, if you can own your genetic material. It conflicts with the child's self ownership.
For children sure, but it's already fairly well established fetuses cannot be thought of as children.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 9 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,316
@previous
> For children sure, but it's already fairly well established fetuses cannot be thought of as children.
By whom? It is the same individual. To deny it's self-ownership until a certain point is arbitrary.
> For children sure, but it's already fairly well established fetuses cannot be thought of as children.
By whom? It is the same individual. To deny it's self-ownership until a certain point is arbitrary.
Anonymous R replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,501
@previous
Sure, but a woman has the right to destroy the organism before some point in the pregnancy but is denied that very same power afterward. This implies a level some level of development is a necessary precursor to legal recognition of self-ownership.
I agree any such point is ultimately arbitrary, but this is an unfortunate side effect of the rule of law. Efficiency in enforcement demands universality for points of legal transitions. We see it across all manner of law: age of consent, age at which you can drive, age of majority, legal drinking age, etc.
Sure, but a woman has the right to destroy the organism before some point in the pregnancy but is denied that very same power afterward. This implies a level some level of development is a necessary precursor to legal recognition of self-ownership.
I agree any such point is ultimately arbitrary, but this is an unfortunate side effect of the rule of law. Efficiency in enforcement demands universality for points of legal transitions. We see it across all manner of law: age of consent, age at which you can drive, age of majority, legal drinking age, etc.
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,711
@previous
> Sure, but a woman has the right to destroy the organism before some point in the pregnancy but is denied that very same power afterward.
This very thread is debating that "right". You can not claim that as axiomatic lol.
> This implies a level some level of development is a necessary precursor to legal recognition of self-ownership.
It doesn't imply anything (in that it could conceivably imply many different things).
> I agree any such point is ultimately arbitrary, but this is an unfortunate side effect of the rule of law. Efficiency in enforcement demands universality for points of legal transitions. We see it across all manner of law: age of consent, age at which you can drive, age of majority, legal drinking age, etc.
You have confused many issues. Arbitrary limits is not intrinsic to the rule of law, and a case could be made that where laws are arbitrary they should be abolished. You go on to list some laws which conflict greatly with individual liberty, voluntary contract and freedom of association. Age of consent is a ridiculous concept based on an antiquated view of sex as a special act, esp. a dirty act. "Consent" is not required for an adult to engage in any other act with a child. Driving age is legitimate as far as the state owns the roads. The state has no standing to legislate driving on private property. Age of majority is a pointless concept. Legal drinking age is another failed attempt at prohibition.
> Sure, but a woman has the right to destroy the organism before some point in the pregnancy but is denied that very same power afterward.
This very thread is debating that "right". You can not claim that as axiomatic lol.
> This implies a level some level of development is a necessary precursor to legal recognition of self-ownership.
It doesn't imply anything (in that it could conceivably imply many different things).
> I agree any such point is ultimately arbitrary, but this is an unfortunate side effect of the rule of law. Efficiency in enforcement demands universality for points of legal transitions. We see it across all manner of law: age of consent, age at which you can drive, age of majority, legal drinking age, etc.
You have confused many issues. Arbitrary limits is not intrinsic to the rule of law, and a case could be made that where laws are arbitrary they should be abolished. You go on to list some laws which conflict greatly with individual liberty, voluntary contract and freedom of association. Age of consent is a ridiculous concept based on an antiquated view of sex as a special act, esp. a dirty act. "Consent" is not required for an adult to engage in any other act with a child. Driving age is legitimate as far as the state owns the roads. The state has no standing to legislate driving on private property. Age of majority is a pointless concept. Legal drinking age is another failed attempt at prohibition.
Anonymous R replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #285,718
@previous
I wasn't implying anything at all, simply stating the facts ATM. Sorry to make you head explode, but I've made peace with the rule of law being a myth long ago.
I wasn't implying anything at all, simply stating the facts ATM. Sorry to make you head explode, but I've made peace with the rule of law being a myth long ago.