[Radar]

[Forge]

RunRonRun, on 21 June 2020 - 11:52 AM, said:

At what month does the barren sister intentionally inducing a miscarriage either through physical or chemical means switch from Assault to Assault and Homicide?

pregnancies vary from person to person
at 6 weeks some can develop a heartbeat
at 8 weeks it changes from embryo to fetus

giving the high and low end averages I would say voting age + 4 years of higher education because it's still a parasite on the host tax payers

[Danukem]

People shouldn't have a legal right to kill fetuses, they should have a legal a right to remove them. Let's say I throw a party one night, and while the doors are open to my house a homeless dude comes in. I find him the next day, sleeping on my couch. "Don't throw me out!" he says, "it's freezing outside and I'll die! You let me in and now I'm your guest until it's safe for me to leave on my own!" Sure it would be real nice of me to let him stay, but I don't have to. "The party's over", I say, "and this is my house. You'll have to leave now." Example inspired by Judith Thompson's libertarian case for abortion rights, circa 1971

Do you want the government telling you that you have to keep visitors safe in your house for nine months because you invited them in at some point? Even if (in some cases) it's morally wrong to expel said visitors, and even if doing so leads to their deaths, this is still not something that you should want the government to force on you.

[Radar]

Imagine actually believing abortion is a "woman's right". Women get totally screwed out of this deal. Abortion is a man's privilege to avoid responsibility. It's the very act of relegating women to nothing more than sex objects.

[Forge]

sounds like you're avoiding the responsibility of controlling the door to your house.
If you're home, then you should manage who can enter, and if they're wearing appropriate attire to attend your party.

[PokeThePower]

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 02:14 PM, said:

People shouldn't have a legal right to kill fetuses...

I simply asked at what point it legally becomes Homicide instead of just Assault. Homicide is a very explicit term with a very explicit meaning.

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 02:14 PM, said:

Let's say I throw a party one night, and while the doors are open to my house a homeless dude comes in.

Dan... babies don't just walk into vaginas on their own.

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 02:14 PM, said:

Do you want the government telling you that you have to keep visitors safe in your house for nine months because you invited them in at some point?

There are legalities based around the premise of having to fulfill reasonable expectations the other party was led to believe was an option. You can't say "You can stay here for 9 months" and then just kick them out after 3 without some sort of legitimate complaint. Enforcing verbal agreements is tougher than written ones, but it is a part of the legal system for a reason. If you say "You can stay until I arbitrarily decide you're no longer welcome" the homeless person has the opportunity to choose an alternative risk.

So again... how much time does my friend have to face merely assault charges instead of assault and homicide?

jimmy is a stupid fuck, on 21 June 2020 - 12:56 PM, said:

Cathy is overreacting...

He explicitly said you should be getting on your knees and shining shoes.

[Forge]

RunRonRun, on 21 June 2020 - 02:51 PM, said:

So again... how much time does my friend have to face merely assault charges instead of assault and homicide?

depends on which state she's in.

In oregon it would be simple assault for 8 months 29 days 23 hours 59 minutes 59 seconds.

Basically she can be falcon punched up to the point where the baby's (i mean cancerous cluster of cells) head crowns out the front hole


Virginia is a little more lenient. The baby (i mean tumor) will be taken into the next room and options discussed. At that point it's still okay to feed the sister draino and take a hammer to the baby (i mean non-self sustainable parasite)

[Jimmy]

RunRonRun, on 21 June 2020 - 02:51 PM, said:

He explicitly said you should be getting on your knees and shining shoes.

Yeah, he's a pussy just trying to appease the mob. It's an overreaction because of shit they did in the past. Sissy Christians.

Forge, on 21 June 2020 - 03:07 PM, said:

Virginia is a little more lenient. The baby (i mean tumor) will be taken into the next room and options discussed. At that point it's still okay to feed the sister draino and take a hammer to the baby (i mean non-self sustainable parasite)

Virginia is run by organ harvesting vampires.

[Danukem]

Forge, on 21 June 2020 - 02:47 PM, said:

sounds like you're avoiding the responsibility of controlling the door to your house.
If you're home, then you should manage who can enter, and if they're wearing appropriate attire to attend your party.

Ideally, yes. But do I forfeit my property rights and take on a huge extended obligation because I was careless? Morally speaking, perhaps I do in some cases. But legally I think it's a terrible idea. Anyway, you have raised one of the standard objections to the libertarian position (or more specifically, Thompson's take on it). I'm not going to regurgitate many years of philosophical literature detailing responses back and forth, but I thought it was worth pointing out that a defense of abortion does not need to be based on the contentious claim that a fetus is not a person.

RunRonRun, on 21 June 2020 - 02:51 PM, said:

I simply asked at what point it legally becomes Homicide instead of just Assault. Homicide is a very explicit term with a very explicit meaning.

It's a serious crime at any point along the way. Remember, the libertarian position does not depend on denying personhood to the fetus. Rather, it says that the mother and only the mother should have a legal right to remove it from her body. That does not mean that any other party has the right to remove it from the mother's body or cause harm to it.

RunRonRun, on 21 June 2020 - 02:51 PM, said:

Dan... babies don't just walk into vaginas on their own.

As I was saying to Forge, there's a lot of literature on this particular point, and it would take a lifetime to rehash. I'll concede that there is merit to the idea of giving tacit consent to the use of one's body, but I will insist there is plenty of room for debate over what constitutes such consent. Note that if the debate is about whether the mother has given consent for the fetus to use her body, that's a considerably different ground for debate with different implications. If I kicked out the homeless man in my example (and let's say for the sake of argument that I explicitly invited him into my house beforehand) and then he died in the snow, would I be guilty of murder? Wrongful death in civil court...maybe... but not murder.

I think you can make a reasonable argument that the mother has a moral obligation to keep a baby in some cases, depending on how the pregnancy came about and the circumstances surrounding it. But it would be a terrible idea create a legal framework around the moral obligations. That puts the government in a position where it is supposed to investigate pregnancies and delve deeply into private lives to decide which abortions are permissible.

So, even if you established that there is a moral obligation to keep a baby in some, or even most cases, that's a far cry from establishing that we should make it a legal obligation. We have many moral obligations that are not legal, and that's the way it should be. We have, for example, the legal right to cheat on our spouses, and in many cases it's a terrible and very harmful thing to do. It can potentially lead to suicides, children growing up parentless and becoming criminals, and all kinds of bad stuff. Yet, we don't want the government to enforce a law against it, and for good reason.

[Hank]

I know one, who got pregnant, belongs to the Jehovah’s Witness, and was more or less forced to give birth. Kid was abused, got hooked on stuff, ended up in mental institutions and died on those drugs they gave her. The uncle tried to get the kid into America, the moment the abuse was known, but was refused, numerous times.

Sure, it’s easy to say, you must control entry into your home. Yeah, a bum would have no chance. But what if it is a horny operator hitting on a horny home owner?

The dominant religion is Political Correctness. If it is the State Religion: then self is first, second and third. Enjoy the fuck, and if unlucky, no problem, abort, our god science gives its blessing, child. And it seems, for as long as PC rules, it may be a little more humanitarian to the unborn. Because, I think, you can't teach love to a selfish fuck.

[Radar]

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 02:14 PM, said:

People shouldn't have a legal right to kill fetuses, they should have a legal a right to remove them. Let's say I throw a party one night, and while the doors are open to my house a homeless dude comes in. I find him the next day, sleeping on my couch. "Don't throw me out!" he says, "it's freezing outside and I'll die! You let me in and now I'm your guest until it's safe for me to leave on my own!" Sure it would be real nice of me to let him stay, but I don't have to. "The party's over", I say, "and this is my house. You'll have to leave now." Example inspired by Judith Thompson's libertarian case for abortion rights, circa 1971

Do you want the government telling you that you have to keep visitors safe in your house for nine months because you invited them in at some point? Even if (in some cases) it's morally wrong to expel said visitors, and even if doing so leads to their deaths, this is still not something that you should want the government to force on you.

>Lock the door
>Don't allow strangers in
>Abortion is murder
>Removing a fetus that can survive on its own is ok


Do you disagree with any of these points?

[PokeThePower]

I'm not asking a trick question. I also spent about 15 years as a loud and proud libertarian.

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 03:45 PM, said:

It's a serious crime at any point along the way.

Assault is a serious crime. Homicide is a serious crime. They are still not the same crime. My friend would like to be very sure of the consequences before they act.

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 03:45 PM, said:

Remember, the libertarian position does not depend on denying personhood to the fetus.

So my friend, should they choose to commit their act immediately after conception, should be charged with Homicide then, correct?

[Danukem]

RunRonRun, on 21 June 2020 - 04:51 PM, said:

Assault is a serious crime. Homicide is a serious crime. They are still not the same crime. My friend would like to be very sure of the consequences before they act.

In your friends case what is being proposed is morally equivalent to wrongful homicide. The wrongfulness of taking human life derives from the fact that it takes away a future of value that an individual otherwise would have had. I do not call a first-trimester fetus a person, because the fetus lacks some traits that are necessary for personhood -- nonetheless, if allowed to develop normally the fetus can be expected to have a future of value (I'm assuming a normal fetus). If it is wrong to deprive a person of such a future, then surely it is wrong to deprive a soon-to-be-person of such a future. So, while technically not a "homicide" owing to the lack of personness, it is wrong for exactly the same reason that a wrongful homicide is wrong, so the distinction makes no difference. This is why I wrote "it is a serious crime at any point along the way". I was not dodging the question.

Morally justifiable abortions belong in the same family as morally justifiable homicides -- e.g. killing in self-defense. Note that in self-defense I do not have a specific right to the death of my attacker, but if the death of my attacker comes about as a consequence of my justified self-defensee, then I am not culpable for it. That is not to say that self-defense is the only justification available. The point is that one's individual rights can in some circumstances justify actions that lead to the death of others. This is no way implies that a third-party would be justified in killing a fetus, so defending abortion along these lines does not undermine the seriousness of what your friend proposes to do.

[PokeThePower]

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 05:22 PM, said:

... ... ...

It's abundantly clear my friend is not concerned with whether it is moral to perform the act in question. She needs to know at what point she will be charged with Homicide. Homicide is a very specific crime with very specific requirements in order for it to apply.

This should be a trivial question to answer without extraneous extrapolation about the morality of it. I'm also not asking about the mother at all, so your continuing to go back to her options is irrelevant.

So again... at what point will my friend also be charged with Homicide instead of just Assault?

[Danukem]

RunRonRun, on 21 June 2020 - 05:33 PM, said:

So again... at what point will my friend also be charged with Homicide instead of just Assault?

When will she be or when should she be? I thought I had made it abundantly clear that the penalty for her actions should be identical to the penalty for killing a full-grown person. I literally just got through saying that her action would be wrong for exactly the same reason that a wrongful homicide is wrong. However, my opinion on that has zero bearing on whether the particular state in which she lives would label it as 'homicide'. I've already explained why I would not label it as a homicide [edit: early on], and I've also explained how that's not relevant to the seriousness of the crime. I'd probably start calling it a "homicide" in the 3rd trimester, but again, that doesn't mean that it becomes a worse crime only at that point.

tldr; if you want to know whether she's going to be charged with homicide, look up the law yourself?

[PokeThePower]

So from the moment of conception her act should be treated identical to a Homicide... we just won't call it a Homicide.

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 05:44 PM, said:

I'd probably start calling it a "homicide" in the 3rd trimester, but again, that doesn't mean that it becomes a worse crime only at that point.

Then what would she be charged with prior to the 3rd trimester? She has to be charged with a *crime*. What is the crime? Assault on the mother obviously... what is the other crime that carries all the reasoning for, and consequences of, homicide but not using that word?

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 05:44 PM, said:

tldr; if you want to know whether she's going to be charged with homicide, look up the law yourself?

I'm asking you what it should be... not what various jurisdictions around the world would do.

[Danukem]

RunRonRun, on 21 June 2020 - 05:49 PM, said:

So from the moment of conception her act should be treated identical to a Homicide... we just won't call it a Homicide.

Yes. The case you described should be legally equivalent to homicide at any point in development. I'm very fussy about words, though: homicide is the killing of a person, and I'm not going to call it homicide if it's the killing of an embryo because an embryo is not a person. Note also that the wrongness of the action is directly related to the future that the developing organism can be reasonably expected to have if it is not killed. So, the fact that it is inside of a loving mother who intends to give birth to it and raise it is extremely relevant.

[PokeThePower]

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 06:00 PM, said:

Yes. The case you described should be legally equivalent to homicide at any point in development. I'm very fussy about words, though: homicide is the killing of a person, and I'm not going to call it homicide if it's the killing of an embryo because an embryo is not a person.

I'm very fussy about words as well and know perfectly well why you cannot allow it to be called Homicide. I repeat... I was a loud and proud libertarian who spent a long time making the same case you are.

You have to charge her with a crime. What is the crime? Are you proposing that a new crime needs to be invented if we are to progress to a legal system that can properly handle the first two trimesters without using the existing Homicide definition? Pre-person doesn't stop at conception... now the barren sister giving her fertile sister birth control without her awareness and consent will justifiably be charged with the same not-homicide but equivalent to homicide consequences.

[Radar]

Trooper Dan, on 21 June 2020 - 06:00 PM, said:

an embryo is not a person.

Why?

[Mark]

TD's previous post answered that. " because the fetus lacks some traits that are necessary for personhood"

I hope the slippery slope doesn't take it so far that my tube sock standing up in the corner isn't evidence enough that I killed a future child to be. It would be many multiple convictions.

[Radar]

I read that too. What are those traits?

[Morpheus Kitami]

They're removing Theodore "Big Stick" Roosevelt statues now. Sure, they say the one they're removing is only because its racist, but watch and wait as no other statues of him arrive. The only brightside is I'm sure FDR will join his cousin soon enough.
Also, de Blasio is going to be doing a commission styled after South Africa's Racial Justice and Reconciliation. Something tells me nothing good will come of it.

[Danukem]

One thing I will say for my conservative friends, is that their opposition to abortion is very much motivated by the value they genuinely place on human life. I sometimes hear liberals claim that opposition to abortion is sexist or classist, as though it were motivated by spite. Perhaps it is in some quarters, but on the whole this charge makes little sense. From the statistics about who tends to have abortions, it's evident that most aborted fetuses would have grown up to be members of stalwart liberal constituencies. By opposing abortion, conservatives are committed to accelerating the very demographic trends that threaten them. But they do it anyway because it's motivated by moral conviction and not politics.

As for answering questions like why an embryo is not a person -- the burden of proof is not on me and I'm not obligated to be cross-examined by every wannabe Socrates. Nonetheless it's easy enough to point out that persons are of a kind that has agency. Embryos do not have agency. A person may not have agency at every moment of its existence (a person may be in a deep sleep or a coma, etc.), but I would not call it a person if it had no such capacity. An embryo can grow into a thing that has that capacity, but it doesn't have it yet. For that reason, I would not call a thing a person if it was born in a vegetative state and had no prospects for agency. That is not the only way to draw the distinction, it is just a very obvious one. Again, the burden of proof is not on me -- the idea that an embryo is a person is a fringe radical position that has had little historical support and if its advocates want their idea to be accepted it is on them to convince others.

I now leave this thread for a while and yield the floor to those who want to stay on topic.

[Balls of Steel Forever]

Forge, on 21 June 2020 - 05:29 AM, said:

they are trying, it's just disguised under a different name. The most common being 'open borders'

Time to bring the commie in me out, but consumerism is just another word for slavery, the buy buy buy mentality and centralization of the US is so "the man" can not build any real power, and have no ability to truly speak.

Lobbies and special interests do have that ability, they enforce such consumerism to keep us quiet. Why there is a ban on forced labor goods (Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015) but the WROs are only obviously on things that endear the interest of an oligarchy is proof on how corrupt the system is.

In short the general populus does not have a voice, because whoever we put in power is just yet another puppet of an invisible oligarchy.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind" Edward L. Bernays

This system we have in play is efficient at creating puppets and not free thinking human beings.

Everyone said:

Abortion

There are forms of murder that are morally acceptable in society democide in order to prevent a civil war, omnicide, because if we're all dead what does it matter, medicide, tyrannicide, regicide.

There are morally gray forms of murder they include geronticide, which has been practiced in history to cull the population, and feticide.

I honestly think the best and only way to end all suffering is omnicide, but we as a people have to be in a deep dark place with no light of hope to enable such an option.

With feticide it can be morally objectionable but even without abortions being legalized abortions will still happen and have a higher chance of murdering a loved one with it, which makes abortion in essence more morally objectionable than it already was.

The fetus, embryo, or whatever, has not had any meaningful resemblance of an existence besides being a parasite, imo we're all parasites, the planet being our host, the solution being, again omnicide, but the unborn anthropomorphic parasite has not yet inspired comfort, happiness, a smile, love, anger, and headaches. These are all things that add to increasing your sense of purpose in your life whether directly or indirectly, so what's wrong with murdering something that has had no meaningful impact on anyones existence, I see no wrong.

Also we have danced around this subject multiple times.

OMNICIDE 2020

[Radar]

Dan, how is the burden of proof not on you? Of course a person born without agency is still a person, lmao.

[Forge]

Balls Of Steel Forever, on 21 June 2020 - 07:04 PM, said:

consumerism is just another word for slavery

that's why the government should not be involved in a free market

the government should minimally control health and safety standards, and environmental hazards. At the extreme end of it they could be an arbitrator with foreign free markets, but that should be the extent of it.


tl;dr
government and rampant consumerism = bad
free market and consumerism = good

[Forge]

annual number for the U.S. (approx)

Abortions: 1 million
Immigrants (legal and illegal): 1.6 million

we can sustain our own population without imports.

kill all illegals upon discovery and stop murdering babies.

morally equivalent

[Danukem]

R A D A Я, on 21 June 2020 - 07:15 PM, said:

Dan, how is the burden of proof not on you? Of course a person born without agency is still a person, lmao.

Even a newborn has a lot more agency than an embryo. And no, a human body that is incapable of agency (.e.g due to brain death) is not a person. Once again I can remind you that there is more than one way to illustrate the clear and obvious distinctions between embryos and people. You are going to fixate on what I said because it gives you a target. Once again, trying to be Socrates, expecting me to put all my cards on the table and write a dissertation while you sit back and take pot shots. I'm tired of that game.

[Radar]

Am I capable of agency when I'm asleep?

[Radar]

Also, I don't take "pot shots". I just like trying to concise my points into single sentences. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."