3RU7AL

So a zygote is a human being.

Every day in 2020, almost 800 women died from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.

This is a global statistic, not a U.S. statistic.  In the US, I read somewhere that out of 4 million births, 800 of them result in death a year.  This is .02% chance of death on average.

Robbing someone because of your tobacco addiction is needed to satisfy your bodily autonomy to smoke if you can’t afford tobacco.  This doesn’t mean theft for tobacco should be legalized.

This is only true if they aren’t harming others to a significant extent.

I believe it’s plausible an uninsured  pregnant woman has a less than 1% chance of dying without an abortion.

but you can’t rob someone else because of

No because it violates the LUSHOOTY ethos because you are significantly harming the taxpayer to get universal healthcare.

So change the law.  Or at least advocate for changing the law.

Its really just an illusion of control.

and a state can deport anyone it wishes based on the whims of the king

When it comes to abortion, I am not really a fan of abortion, but woman's body does belong to a woman.

The only restriction on freedom is when a person does something to violate the body of another.

But abortion should be banned unless there is a 1% chance or higher the mother dies without one.

I'm also anti ICE, so the idea of it being legal to murder/deport undocumented immigrants is an idea I find repulsive.

Well, that's a stupid rule.  Qualified immunity should be repealed and ICE should be abolished.

The penalty for abortion should be community service (which factors in bodily autonomy; otherwise the penalty would be death).

So if I murder an undocumented immigrant, then should it be legal?

There is no point at which you own children, not even while they are in the womb. They are separate beings with their own goals.

No, you dont own children, you cant circumcise them or vaccinate them against their will. You also cannot tell them what to do.

At best case for you, you can engage in free trade with them by offering housing and food and other stuff in exchange for them obeying some of your rules.

At no point you may actually take away their freedom.

OP got 4 likes; it makes sense to a lot of people.

this is first and foremost about privacy

I don't understand how privacy applies.  If I rape my girlfriend in a private area, it doesn't matter if it was a private area; the law should still go after me because I harmed someone else to a significant extent.  The same would be true for abortion (although I don't agree with the death penalty or imprisonment for abortion; the penalty should be community service).

The right to privacy is for victimless things only.

N.B. There are many types and degrees of "socialism ". No one definition can be taken as complete..

Flrw, it's off topic so just PM me if you want to discuss that further.  Also I am willing to give you my phone number so you can call me and discuss how I am wrong as well

China gets things done reasonably successfully.

Bro it's not that complicated. Just pray to the Christian God and ask him to guide you to knowledge of his existence. 

Anarchy will not work , because human nature dictates that leaders and subordinates will inevitably emerge from the chaos.

I recently just watched the matrix, and asides a lot of logic gaps, one thing really bothered me. Why was the matrix actually a bad thing? For those of you who don't know the matrix is a shared simulation just like earth, but it's fake.  Is there any reason you can think of that the movie actually has a point that living in a simulation would be a bad thing? 

The jury is decider of truth, and judge is decider of the law.

PRIMAL ETHICS

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF

(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

Is that similar to non-aggression principle?

Since you would be only acting to protect those 3 against those who attack them, thus those 3 can be followed by everyone in society without a contradiction.

There is a difference between the thing itself and its relation to other things.

a novel and untested legal theory.

I’m just saying if you asked people “which is more corrupt, a politician using campaign funds from donors to pay off his mistress or using his own money” people would say that using campaign funds from donors was more corrupt. But apparently that’s what he was supposed to do according to the state of New York, which has the final say on what is or isn’t a federal elections violation

The Trial by Franz Kafka is a surreal novel about Josef K., a bank official who is unexpectedly arrested on his 30th birthday by mysterious agents. The nature of his crime is never revealed. Though not detained, Josef must navigate a bewildering and oppressive judicial system. His initial hearing is chaotic, held in a decrepit building, with officials providing no clarity. Seeking to understand and defend himself, Josef consults several figures, including a lawyer named Huld, his enigmatic nurse Leni, and a court painter, Titorelli. Each encounter only deepens the sense of absurdity and hopelessness. The legal process becomes increasingly invasive and incomprehensible. Eventually, Josef is taken by two warders to a quarry, where he is executed, ending his life with a sense of helpless resignation. The novel explores themes of corrupt bureaucracy, manufactured guilt, and the impossibility of justice in an indifferent world.

Why should everyone, even dhimmies and kafirs, abide by Allah's rule?

Maybe the FEC commissioner is wrong, but that’s not for the state of New York to decide. 

I wonder if they are now allowed to say what the underlying crime actually was.

That would be underlying crimes, 34 to be exact.

Wow, I was actually worried he might just end up getting off on most or all of the charges. I guess not! Considering how all the polls I've seen indicate that support for Trump drops significantly in the case that he is convincted of a crime, I'd say Biden's chances of winning this election have gone up significantly. 

I wonder if they are now allowed to say what the underlying crime actually was.

“…and the intent behind them were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be in violation of the law”

How many MAGA/DADA { Dumb and Dumber } Cultist vote considerations of Trumpet will change  with these 34 felony counts?

That does not mean that material and formal causes are extrinsic. Namely their existance is caused by something extrinsic. They themselves are intrinsic.

To be free effectually, which means free towards an effect that is possible from a single cause, simply means you need the intellect to know the possibilities and a will to effectuate one of them.

in order to be free causually, which means free from, you would essetially have to be God.

The functions I described are of the Form of humans.

descriptive definitions are perfectly usable in an argument.

My efficient cause is my parents. They disposed the matter to receive existance. In this sense they caused me. That is external to me.

But the intrinsic cause that maintains my being is the material cause (what we are made of) and the formal cause(which is the by what we are).

You can be free towards something. Like if someone were to ask me at the dealership which car out of the six in front of me do I want. It is a freedom towards something. It is not a freedom from something.

"a non-physical entity that acts as the principle of the life particuler to humans."