3RU7AL

Are the laws I vote on, not within my jurisdiction?

I have never claimed to be perfect.

Even if I dislike someone, or they do not provide benefit to me, it is not morally right to ignore their plight.

do you eat chocolate ?

do you drink coffee ?

do you buy gasoline ?

The murder of a close loved one, causes grief,

We write laws against murder.

An accidental death, causes grief,

We work 'against such accidents occurring.

An accident of negligence causes death, causes grief,

We might make laws requiring people hold proper awareness in certain situations.

Point is if people are willing to go to war (some people actually enlisted and died over there) over a strategical money laundering country like Ukraine, it's just as plausible they would go to war over the lives of dogs, cats, fetuses, and other things that resemble humans.

I consider it immoral, 'not to render aid, in many situations.

the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.

-John Stuart Mill

You quote it, but I doubt you or anyone else here believes it.

The actual foundation of law is the ability to enact it. There’s a reason law and order go hand in hand.

I think the most reasonable way I can answer it to say that abortion should be illegal from conception, prime facie. 

Is a miscarriage not often a cause of grief?

We live in a society, and by our existence viewing others, by our power, are 'part of the interaction.

An individual who sees a child fall in a well, says nothing, does nothing, ought be rebuked, shamed, acted against in the law.

Even if I dislike someone, or they do not provide benefit to me, it is not morally right to ignore their plight.

If criminals are reported and caught, they become more stealthy,

But this is better than criminals acting in free reign with no worry of being stopped.

I was just drinking, I didn't 'mean to run over that person with my car.

Some situations of aid being possible to render, are more clear cut than others.

Is this not how small nations become large nations?

How international law is made?

If an individual is tossed into the road, and I run over their leg,

Both causing a location for blood to escape, and by my car parking over it, 'blocking that escape of blood,

'Ought I drive off, killing that person?

How much worse if I 'ordered that person to 'be tossed in front of my car?

And how will the fetus or baby press charges, being as they are, a fetus or baby?

Some random person on the street has a moral obligation to file a complaint and or take legal action.

We seem to care about Ukraine and Russia?

It's not about 'myself being harmed,

It's about protecting those who cannot protect themselves,

It's why hospital staff report parents, if it looks like their child is suffering from abuse.

What does a fetus own?

It's not about money.

We care when a bully, bullies a victim, and we 'see it occur, for by our perception of said event, we 'are part of it.

When doctors molest patients.

We 'do seem t o care when other nations act against internationally recognized human rights.

simply let individual individuals decide what happens inside their own bodies

Sadly, people care about what happens to the fetus and stray dogs. People will go to war over the poor treatment of dogs and cats. Have you not watched John Wick?

Though 'human, does not mean 'person, I suppose.

But I myself don't agree that it follows that a fetus or newborn baby isn't a 'person.

Though 'human, does not mean 'person, I suppose.

But I myself don't agree that it follows that a fetus or newborn baby isn't a 'person.

I think you make a good argument, but if there are animals as intelligent as humans of X age,

Then by your argument, humans don't become 'human, until they are sufficiently developed,

And some (Mentally challenged) 'never become human.

Seems to me.

etter than  simply letting individual state pluralities decide what to do with their fetuses.

 why is "shame" included in free speech's purview?

who will kick them to the curb the second they leave the womb.

I don't even frequently use this forum, but I am yet to see any point that actually explains to us why the circumstances that led to the instanciation of one's life makes their life inherently inferior. 

this seems to place a monumental weight (the "value" of humanity itself) on the (rather elusive) pin-head of "free-will"

Reason and choice have monumental weight. Whether it is truly unique to humanity or not is besides the point.

they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike

By killing babies up to the moment of birth? Wow.

They literally built everything we see today.

Most people don’t want to ban abortion entirely but also don’t think it should be legal up to the moment of birth. What do you think the limit should be and why?

I do think if we're going to establish that personhood begins at conception that child support should start immediately after a positive pregnancy test. And that any benefits from welfare that the woman's receiving she began receiving for the unborn child too. And none of those benefits are returnable if she miscarries. You want to make the unborn a person then everything that a child gets once it's born it should be getting as soon as it's conceived. And any child support that the father pays between conception and a possible miscarriage is not refundable. 

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

is defending your own family "irrational" ?

Not in most cases.

It really is. You should watch some of the videos that explain it. I don’t see how people would support that, but that’s just me.

I don't see any logical reason that says a child's life would become inherently inferior because of the actions of another person

The legal opinion of any judge sitting on the supreme court carries no more weight than my legal opinion.

NASA was funded by the state and was not owned by private enterprises, thus it is not capitalist.

The faults of the system are not with capitalism. Its with rent seekers, authoritarians and criminal syndicates

Racism is irrational

If there's ever been a sincerely Communist state as Marx defined it, I am not aware of it.