You know why you used it so I don't care. Did I say I'm a Libertarian? And if I did, are all libertarians the same? I support Ron Paul because of his policies, not because he is a libertarian. You're acting stupid now. Involuntary servitude? Are you fucking kidding me. What does Liberty mean? Liberty is a personal thing, it has nothing to do with how you are treated by other people's choice. I support equal rights. But being 'like' by someone else, being allowed to sit in a restaurant is not a right. It doesn't mean they are not 'equal', they are just as equal. To prove this fact. One rich Black man from Philadelphia visits Houston, but isn't allowed in a white man's restaurant. The white owner a few weeks later isn't allowed in the rich black man's restaurant. They're all equal under the law. Whether the people consider others equal or not is subject to freedom of choice, not 'equality'. Equality is only how government deals with the people. Yes you are. The Constitution was written to instruct the relationship between people and the government. Not how 'people' act with other 'people'. It says what rights the government must protect.
Not interested in repeating and answering your bullshit but I'll respond to this: The only way a person can approve the freedom of people to choose what they want to eat, is if they are pro-obesity. The only way a person can approve the freedom of people to choose their religion, is they are pro-whatever-religion-was-chosen The only way a person can approve the freedom of speech, is they are pro-hate speech, pro-fucking swearing pro-lying And here's the truth: If you are for freedom of speech then you are pro-lying...and so you,sir, are a liar. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! End of discussion.
What Trippy said was that the definition of 'parasite' does not specify if it is some 'other specie' or not. So a parasite is a parasite by its actions not by what it is. But then according to him. Brain is a parasite, as in conditions of starvation, almost all glucose and energy storage is given to the Brain and the other parts of the body are 'deprived'. But I would like to point out: Developed from that body, part of it, and part of that bodies own process. There are systems in place by the body to develop that fetus. If it is a parasite then so is the brain.
You've said that you support Ron Paul because you approve of his policies. You're also staking out the libertarian position in this thread. It turns out that you do not, in fact, support Ron Pauls' policies on abortion. This begs the question of which of his policies you do and do not support, and why you feel that the policies on which you agree with Paul are more important than those on which you disagree. It also points out a salient feature of libertarian political rhetoric. That is, its appeal and power are supposedly that it works from a compact set of putatively-obvious principles about rights, and uses clear logic to derive a straightforward set of policy implications from that. This results in very concise, strident rhetoric that makes for good sound bites. But when we scratch the surface, we quickly discover that any two libertarians, despite both supposedly working from the same clear, obvious principles and following the same ironclad logic, end up in totally different places, and applying totally different meanings and connotations to the basic terms and quantities involved. This throws the whole supposed axiomatic program into doubt - if fellow libertarians can't even agree on what the implications of this stuff actually are, then how is it supposed to work as a compelling political vehicle for interfacing with the rest of the polity? Actually, it was directly, explicitly asking you that question. Do you have an answer? You have invoked the freedom to choose and the obligation to suffer the consequences as central to your system of individual rights. So then how does this possibly apply in any straightforward way to entities that lack the agency to make choices? And this has implications for the rights of babies vis-a-vis those of their parents, does it not? It cannot be the case that they are simply equals with all the same rights and responsibilities, no? So by creating a life, one forfeits various of one's own rights, vis-a-vis that life? I.e., the two entities are not equals with the same rights as anyone else? So what? Does the human right to life supercede the canine right to life? Don't adults like to protect their lives first, before fetuses? Why should that make any difference, what people "like?" So by becoming pregnant - even unintentionally - one has forfeited the usual rights to one's own body and life. Yes? You should perhaps take a moment to note the title of this thread. I suppose so - is somebody here making a positive argument that a woman's body is her own, and that such should be the entire basis of abortion policy? Because I'm not. I haven't offered any positive prescription for abortion policy or its basis. I've only interrogated the one that you offered up. The reason to stick to first-trimester is because everything in the basis for abortion policy that you have promoted applies in the first trimester, and none of the distracting complications about viability apply. So it keeps things simple. Moreover, the first trimester is the only part of pregnancy where your proposed basis for policy would make any difference from what we have now, so that's where all of the relevant implications are to be found. Ron Paul wants for all of the states to make abortion illegal - that's the legislative preference in question. The fact that he doesn't want it handled at the federal level is neither here nor there. No, but it raises the question: which one of you represents the "correct" libertarian stance? Does libertarianism even provide a clear prescription one way or the other? Or does it produce inconsistent outcomes on the question of abortion? You don't have to agree with Ron Paul. But if you disagree, you can't both credibly claim to represent the libertarian position, unless there is no self-consistent libertarian position to speak of. But the fetus doesn't have to actually do any of the stuff with said body to get the nutrition, keep warm and healthy, etc. If that was "its own body," then it would be able to directly control such, and so contribute to its own sustenance. The relationship of a fetus to its mother's body is very different from the relationship of a normal life to its own body. The fetus has a separate bloodstream (possibly with different blood type), separate nervous system, etc. It does not control the movements of the mother's body, feel pain inflicted on said body, etc. Why? What's the difference? Right up until it isn't, apparently. If anything that is a creation of one body is thus part of that body, then children do not have their own bodies at any point. If the "inside" qualifier is crucial, then you've gone in a circle - as soon as the mother moves the body outside (though abortion, say), then the claim is broken and there's nothing to address. Then in what sense is a fetus entitled to the same rights as any other life? Individual choice, and responsibility for one's own actions, are supposedly central to your philosophical framework for rights and so all legislation. How can this apply to entities that do not have the capacity to act? Because personal choice is central to your entire conception of rights. Why does an entity that lacks so many of the salient properties required by your framework get entitled to the same rights? If the axiom is simply that all living entities have a right to life, then why doesn't this apply equally to animals, plants, bacteria, algae, etc.?
@quad Right to Life supersede's all other rights because all other rights are derived from the fact of life.So its not choice that is the central issue. Anyhow I'm done with this and all other discussions. But do keep in mind: If you are for freedom of speech then you are pro-lying...and so you,sir, are a liar.
Fine by me - obesity is an obvious, expected consequence of allowing people to eat what they want. And so, by endorsing such freedom, I am also endorsing the resultant obesity. I have no problem with this, because a person who overeats and becomes obese, isn't thereby harming anyone else. He's exercising his freedom to eat what he wants and live with the consequences, and for that I applaud him. Right, same as above. I accept that my endorsement of religious freedom directly results in the proliferation of certain religions. This is again fine, because nobody is hurting anyone by selecting a religion for themself. Again, I applaud the exercise of freedom. And again, I accept that I am in favor of all of those things (except the stuff that isn't actually covered by freedom of speech, such as fraud, slander, etc.). No problems here. Just good old-fashioned freedom. So maybe you notice the difference between your examples, and segregation: nobody gets empowered to hurt anyone else in any of your examples. In segregation, you are empowering people to hurt others. That's why it's objectionable. It's not an exercise of individual freedom, it's an exercise of racial privilege and oppression. It's less freedom for everyone, so that a minority of nasty bigots can oppress other people for stupid reasons. Nah, that's not a good analogy. Just because someone is pro-lying, doesn't mean that they actually tell lies themselves. Nor that being pro-obesity implies that they are fat, nor that they are pro-religion implies that they are religious. If you like, you can take solace in the fact that you being a racist, does not imply that you will ever personally discriminate against any particular individual. It just means that you value one race less than another, and favor policies that will subjugate the former and empower the latter. Nobody thinks you're going to move down to Alabama and open a segregated lunch counter if the Civil Rights Act gets scrapped. I just think you're racist because you value the freedom of white people to discriminate above the freedom of black people to live in dignity. Why do you have such a hard time owning up to that position?
How? What is the chain of reasoning that goes from the mere fact of life, to the myriad other rights? Why doesn't this same reasoning apply to any form of life? How does it not proscribe the taking of plant and animal life for human food? Then how is it that leaving individuals to answer for their own choices is the constant, one-size-fits-all libertarian prescription for all policy questions?
Whatever. You're entire assertion is based on the assumption that I care enough to try and find out whether or not you're a muslim in the first place. Somehow I thought the significance of that would ellude you. Nope. Liberty is a moral and political principle, or Right, that identifies the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions.In saying that I can't do some 'thing' because I am black, you are on the one hand forcing my free will to be subservient to yours, and on the other hand restricting my ability to behave according to my free will. In forcing my freewill to be subservient to yours, you are forcing me into involuntary servitude. I don't care if you like me or not, as long as you serve me in accordance with the fact that I am exercising my free will in a semi-public space (a shop is private property which has been opened for public access), and my exercising my free will is not impinging upon your free will - your choice to hate me because I'm black. You can hate me all you want, as long as your freedom to make choices does not impinge upon my freedom to make choices, or my free will, and you do not renege on the implied contract that is formed when you open your private space as a semi-public space in the first place. Vapid rhetoric. Nope. Still not confused.
No you didn't, otherwise you would have realized that defining a fetus as being parasitic is not dependent upon it's supression of the mothers immune system, however the suppression of the mothers immune system is an exampel of parasitic behaviour.
This is, to be blunt Moronic. It's also vapid, inisipid and did I say moronic already? Or can I say it again?
Wrong, the body recgonises the fetus as a foreign body, hence the fetal suppression of the maternal immune system, and there are all manner of ante-, peri-, and post-natal complications that can arise when the suppresion is ineffective, and many of those can be fatal to both the mother and the child.
When it's a seperate organism. A brain is no more a seperate organism than a mitochondria is. Not only that, but the relationship of the human brain with the human body is more of a symbiotic nature.
Because you have no control or right over my 'stuff'. You can't exercise your free will on other people's things. You can't just come and use my Xbox if I never gave you permission. You're saying If I told you to get the fuck away from my computer that I have forced you into 'involuntary servitude'. So you're saying your 'free choice' to hug me or use my things, should be respected even If choose not to hug you or lend my things? Also 'implied contract'? I opened my place so that I can serve the people I want to. If you make me serve someone I don't want that is involuntary servitude. I don't give a shit about implied contracts, you are directly impinging upon my free will, choice, and liberty. (as you put it above). And I don't think its semi-public. I can invite the whole neighborhood to my house for a party and then tell a few people you're not welcome. Just because I'm allowing the public to come doesn't make it 'public', its still private, and you can only come in if I give permission to allow you to come. Anyways I don't think I'll be changing minds, and I don't think you will either. @quad If you think Freedom of Speech hasn't been used to hurt people then you should look at some Supreme Court cases. :wave:
Note that the Civil Rights Act doesn't prevent such things - your own house, and social acitivities therein, are indeed strictly "private." There is an explicit exception for facilities not actually open to the public. That isn't the same thing as operating a storefront on a public street, though. If your business entails access to the public, then you cannot discriminate against certain protected classes of the public (race, gender, religion, national origin). Such as? Have you got any examples other than the ones I already noted are illegal (fraud, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.)? Go ahead and point me to the oppression that is protected by free speech laws that I endorse, if you want me to rethink my position.
This is assinine, and as an analogy fails miserably. No, your application of my assertions is naive (and that's being polite). If I'm, being generous, it's a strawman hypothesis. And as for implied contracts, they're legally enforceable. That's one of the reasons you can take a malpractice suite out against a Dr if you see them in a practice, and it's one of the reasons why they can pursue through debt collection processes if you don't pay up. When they agree to see you, they enter an implied contract to provide you with reasonable, ethical, and accurate advice for an agreed price. When you ask them to see you, you enter an implied contract to pay the price they request. Implied contracts have real, and enforceable legal status. Well, you're wrong, Shops are legally defined as being semi-public. This is what gives you the right to enter a shop, browse the shop, and leave the shop without first having to ask permission to enter, or without having to pay a fee, or make a purchase (private clubs are exempted, because they're, well, private).
It changes nothing I have said. Did you read my comment about ectopic pregnancies? A womb is not a requirement, the large intestine, or any other organ that has a sufficiently large blood flow will suffice. Meanwhile, if the blastocyst can not suppress the immune system adequately it can lead to anaphylaxis, and that immune respones to the blastocyst and developing fetus are believed to be the main cause of natural miscrriages. The leading theory of Pre-eclampsia, a condition that can threaten both the mother and the baby, and can occur anywhere from 20 weeks gestation, to 6 months post natal, is that it is triggered by hypoxia in the placenta, which releases proteins into the mothers bloodstream, which in turn triggers an immune response. But the irony, if it can be called that, in this scenario, is that the hypoxia is beliveed to be caused by shallow implantation of the placenta, which in turn is believed to be cause by the mothers immune response to its implantation - essentially, it's the body rejecting the foreign organism, or at least trying to unsuccessfully. The simple fact of the matter is that from the maternal perspective, the fetus is a foreign organism/body, with foreign proteins, that draws upon its hosts resources, and provides no tangible return to the host.
