Athias

Yes, we can use deadly force in opposition to politicians, police and military in order to thwart their influence over our lives. In some cases, we should (I implore you not to create another tangential thread asking something like "in what cases?").  It seems like you're trying to convey that it's useful to argue for the legitimacy of the NAP even though it is not a principle that guides our public policies today. I can see why you think that. I still disagree, least of all because getting to that place would likely require some element of violent revolution I couldn't justify at the moment, though I don't think there's anything more to say about it. I'll just add that DebateArt is probs not the most efficient way to spread your message. Very little reach. 

It actually does, which is one reason the legitimacy of government has been scrutinized to death (no pun intended) by philosophers for millennia. 

Both of these things and more. Law enforcement. Public services. 

What do you mean by disrupted? State functions would either be replaced or abandoned

Absent governments there would be other governing bodies overseeing various aspects of society

and imposing some kind of aggression over people who do not consent to their authority (which is often abused)

as they are subjected to whatever "dispute resolution organization" is there in place of government by virtue of proximity.

We know this... I'm sorry,

we can infer this not only based on observable aspects of human nature,

but by looking at history and the subsequent consequences of eliminating government.

There has never been the kind of an-cap utopian fantasy that exists in theoretical idealizations. Instead government revolutions tend to do nothing more than reshape and modernize the militaristic state.

You can google your little heart out

and won't be able to find an example of an anarchist society without some type of aggression. And even if you think you found some examples, you couldn't be sure there wasn't force in those societies. You couldn't possibly KNOW that the people living there never experienced aggression by others or the "dispute resolution organizations" based on a Wikipedia page. But anyways.

As an example, the mafia evolved from an environment of relative lawlessness.

When I used to read a lot about anarchist collectives (since I used to advocate for them) I was dismayed to see that all kinds of societies without a State were still subjected to violence, force and other aggression in its place.

Hobbes wasn't too far off. 

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.”

Another difference is that some ideas are applied, used, exercised, employed, utilized, carried out -- take your pick of verbiage meaning put into effect -- and some are not.  So while U.S. laws are ideas, and self-governance within the territory known as the U.S. is yet another idea, the latter (being neither current policy nor preference) has about as much use to me in a conversation about impending U.S. law as ideas about how to make a perfect bolognese. 

To be clear, you having time on your hands to engage here isn't why you're wrong to want to discount the influence of the Supreme Court. 

I've already answered: I think the way people engage with each other would be even more of a clusterfuck than it is now in terms of trade, labor, property and other disputes. I think the outcomes would be very undesirable (unfair, unwise or unjust). 

You're wrong.

Once again, I never said morality should be divorced from the law.

Do we really have to get into why ethical egoism is collectively self defeating, or start arguing over the prisoner's dilemma and other stuff like that?

There's no way to answer these questions without a deep dive into ethical subjects I have no interest in dissecting at the moment.   

Well if I was interested in dissecting at the moment, we could discuss some theories starting with the principle of nonmaleficence, the principle of beneficence... weak paternalism...

the harm principle, ...the welfare principle, etc.,

That's a good start. 

Because ignoring them discounts important variables that are relevant to the conversation about how laws, government and society functions. 

You cannot guarantee they would be any more effective than state agencies let alone exist peacefully in the first place. 

I asked how you would expect to transition from our system today to such a world, which does not indicate I believe that is possible or sustainable.

Do you have an answer to my question about alliances and domination over weaker groups? 

In all the ways that societies without stable governments have come up short.

Outcomes with undesirable effects, including but not limited to exploitation, manipulation, market failures and negative externalities. 

Again that's why your post is stupid.

Rights without a governing body to enforce them upon encroachment or disagreement in society either do not exist or do not matter. I do hope we can move past this. 

No such governing body is a requisite. Only the values maintained by and the practice of individuals. The fact that I don't rob my neighbor would be an example of this.

That is why I said only within a society which recognizes [rights] are they of any value. 

Why does it matter which part of the statement you emboldened?

No, I've agreed to the epistemological limit. Then I stated the justification for my inference, and you never explained why inferences are unreasonable or how the reasoning behind my inference was incorrect. 

Almost all of them. 

If you want to keep asserting the totally incorrect position that we cannot reasonably infer what kind of feelings or preferences people have (despite not being able to absolutely know them) based on their outward speech, actions or other demonstration,

 I specifically said I was not making a moral claim and I never used ad populum as a barometer for moral legitimacy.

That's fine, though it seems odd to spend time litigating such an insignificant detail to the conversation on abortion limits. 

I wonder: why did you respond to me and dissect my comments line by line in the first place if we have reached the same conclusion on abortion limits? If I had to guess, it would be that you're trying to convince me that the reasoning behind my conclusion is wrong, and that government is inherently immoral in part because it can do things like restrict abortion rights. Yet you haven't come anywhere near close to convincing me that having no state is preferable to a state that criminalizes abortion, which begs all kinds of questions about the purpose and progress of this dialog. 

I would say she should be able to exercise her own agency.

You should read a really good book on paradoxes. 

I'm not sure how much I want to get into topics like ordered logic or even principles of moral reasoning here. Moral principles can reasonably be subjected to circumstance by way of other moral principles.

There are lots of reasons that egoism has been almost universally rejected as an acceptable ethical theory, and we can discuss why, I just don't feel like it right now. 

I have and their policies do more harm than good, especially on that issue.

Why not?

That there are times stewardship over another person's body may be appropriate.

Because coercing three year olds into sex changes has no reasonable justification or purpose and may cause irreparable harm. However I believe the state should have authority to compel other kinds of surgeries which does have a reasonable justification, such as a life saving surgery that a parent may decline on their child's behalf. 

No, because this too has no reasonable justification or purpose that would on balance warrant subsequent harm. 

I disagree and don't see how it negates the point of mine you are responding to. 

Sure. Can you prove an objective moral world order?

A concern for strict logical consistency is not the only way of being rational.

There is also a pragmatic kind of rationality, where we are concerned with finding the best means to secure a desired end.

Typo. It should read "I disagree with you that an inconsistent application of premises renders it subject to moral inconsistency and therefore subsequent moral insignificance."

You want to shift the conversation to one about ethics? Jeez Louise. Not on a Friday night. 

They have the authority (that is, empowered with consequences accepted by the society I live in) whether I accept it or not, and yes I do accept it.

The Constitution. 

The branches of government that are empowered over people's lives. 

Politicians running for offices within those branches. 

Politicians, police, and military who instill an "idea."

Yes, they enforce certain ideas. 

Laws to which people are beholden aren't ideas?

Yes, they are ideas. 

Empowered by what? An idea.

Yes. 

Powered by the threat of deadly force, which is an idea. The consequences are material, i.e. death, but the influence is still an idea. 

Yes, the government is an empowered idea with material consequences backed by force. How does this have relevance to my position on late term abortion again?  

Yeah I know that's what I said and it's also why I didn't vote for him

why don't you go back and read some posts

before you make your stupid comments.

If a kid hits another child with a stick, we don't blame the stick...but we do take it away. 

@Poly

So measures hey, Big Bro and Big Sis.

Measures to curb freedom of speech,

freedom of expression

and freedom of information.

If you're not interested in alternative opinions and contentious discourse, then don't bother to read it.

Though better still, why bother to subscribe to a debate and discussion website i n the first place.

Just go to church, if all you want to do is whisper sweet religious nothings in each others ears.

disagree.

CHATTEL SLAVERY is "A form of slavery where slaves are the legal property of an individual."

PRIVATE PROPERTY is "Property to which individuals or corporations have certain exclusive property rights, but do not necessarily possess.  Property to which the state or other public organizations do not have exclusive property rights."

All private property rights are sanctioned by law by definition. 

Private property is often subsidized by the state. The USFG subsidizes trucks over 6,000lbs and many electric vehicles and the USFG will return your vehicle to you if it is reported stolen and is halted at the US border and confiscated but your vehicle is still your private property

If the government decided to end slavery on policy grounds—that is to take slaves ‘for public use’—then the masters would have to be justly compensated.

From the perspective of 1789, the only plausible interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was to assume that slaves were property, not persons. It is simply impossible to imagine that most members of Congress thought otherwise, or that any of the slave state legislators who voted to ratify the amendments believed they were threatening slavery.

unregulated gun ownership undermines domestic tranquility and  public welfare

unregulated gun ownership undermines domestic tranquility and  public welfare

So you've given up on the Constitution as a framework for democracy but still defend the least sustainable amendment.  Perverse.

That's false.  The 13th Amendment prohibited the private ownership of slaves and servants.  Would you argue that we should give up on the Constitution because we repealed slavery?

The 2nd Amendment specifies the security of the State as the desired effect but the resultant incapacity to regulate new weapons tech achieves the opposite effect- a less secure State.

Are you sincerely failing to comprehend how unregulated gun ownership undermines domestic tranquility and  public welfare

or are you just struggling to refute?

So you gave up on the Constitution before you were born. 

I never understand people wanting to chuck a right when it comes to gun ownership, simply because guns have been involved in death. To use the car example cars kill many people but no one would ever suggest that because people have had stupid driving mistakes or drunk driving that nobody should be allowed to use a car and owning a car isn't even a right. So if we don't get rid of cars because people die in cars because of some people's mistakes why is it that whenever people think about gun rights it's nobody should be allowed to have a gun cuz guns kill people even though most gun owners never hurt anybody.

The same basis we've used to dispose of the 18th Amendment: failed to achieve the desired effect, created an unsustainable degree of public lawlessness, overwhelming popular opposition.

The stated objectives of the US Constitution are:

• form a more perfect Union
  
• establish Justice
  
• insure domestic Tranquility
  
• provide for the common defence
  
• promote the general Welfare
  
• secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
  

The current state of American gun ownership has eroded and undermined all of these objectives to a considerable degree.  Objectively, this amendment is broken as the essential notion of "well-regulated" has been disregarded beyond any national advantage or even common sense.

On what basis would you throw out all the Amendments to the Constitution just because one Amendment doesn't work?  Would you argue that we should have disposed of the FIrst Amendment because we repealed the 18th?

Commit 30 1st trimester abortions 

Kill 1 toddler. 

I expect that's hyperbole.

And I think if I put someone on ban they shouldn't be able to read my posts.

I'm okay with removing the 2nd amendment from the US Constitution

And a lot of people who may have never had a problem can go in and pass the background check but they probably shouldn't have a gun because of mental illness but they're not far enough into the system for anyone to know that.

I think just like you have to do a driver's test to get a driver's license you should have to do a gun safety course and have a gun license.

But gun ownership is a right not a privilege and driving is a privilege and not a right. 

The post above is the topic. There’s no reason why this shouldn’t be a thing

That is why I said only within a society which recognizes [rights] are they of any value. 

Without a governing body, rights would either not exist or would not matter. 

Yes, that was my point. You were responding to me saying "I think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history have never lived nor wanted to live in a voluntary society, so I don't find utility in using the NAP as a metric for public policy." I repeat, the NAP is not valuable to me regarding U.S. law. 

I've already agreed to that. 

I've agreed, but we do know based on the historical documents and other artifacts throughout human history by means of literature, story telling, media, written publications, tools, weapons, protest, lawsuits, war, riots, elections, polling, art, and other kinds of politicking or demonstration that there  has never been a mass movement calling for individual rights absent of any government.

 Voluntaryism has never been a widespread nor common philosophical ideal or moral value through any observable metric we can defer to as far as discerning popular political advocacy.

I don't see the use in harping on this at all as far as our conversation re: abortion. You can dismiss the fact that anarchism has never been a widespread ideal as an irrelevant fact to its moral legitimacy;

however, I was not making that claim.

This was me saying the NAP is its own conversation--one I'm more than willing to have. Just not here.

I said multiple times it's true I cannot literally know what the majority of people think or feel, yet I have justified my comment  by explaining that my inference about people's feelings was not only reasonable but irrelevant (a red herring) to my point about the futile nature of discussing the NAP as a metric for public policy. 

That's fine, but it's very relevant to this conversation. It proves that being human and even being a born human does not mean all should have equal rights and equal status at all times, and there can be justifiable intervention by an outside party in some cases that are nuanced. 

There's no caveat regarding the separation from one's body. I noted that sometimes stewardship is appropriate over other people's bodies despite the fact that one's body is always their own (though I guess that changes after death). 

Why does it undermine the principle of self-ownership? Why can't a principle have limits and leave room for nuance or gradation, at least as far as governance within a society goes?

Does a 6  year old really have the same agency as a 30 year old as far as moral culpability for crimes and therefore warrant the same punishment?

Should a 3 year old be allowed to have a permanent sex change if they express interest?

If a two year old does not object to having naked photos of them taken or distributed, should that be something society allows even though prohibiting it is a clear violation of self ownership and free association?

The entire purpose of law enforcement / government / societies that people choose to live in and to associate with is to uphold policies with positive consequences and not just a unilateral principle of self-ownership or property. 

The number of examples of where I could see disparate application of rights applied in a given scenario being reasonable and fair -- two very justifiable goals for good governance -- are enormous, and I'm sure you've been presented with many, many examples of abhorrent things you have to defend to remain logically consistent such as no age of consent laws.

I disagree with you that an inconsistent application of premises renders it subject to inconsistency and therefore subsequent moral insignificance.

I disagree that people anyone submitting to the concept + force of government necessarily concedes to accepting all government force as legitimate by extension.

The factors and variables that have an actual impact.

Well there is a government in the sense (definition) of having specific people

and/or laws in place that people within society are beholden to whether they agree with them or not.

The empowered people and policies colloquially known as 'government'  determine how law enforcement interacts with  citizens within society based on all kinds of variables.

While I might find the application of laws or governing bodies to be illogical and/ or immoral, that makes no difference as to my being subject to their  power.

In that sense, government is not just an idea;

it is a body of ideas being enforced in practice.

The kind that are too busy for online forums and have more real world influence than justifies their attention to engage. 

Fair enough, but I'm confident the alternative would have outcomes that make society far worse off in many ways.

Yes, but you also asked "Because the interpretation of nine government goons 'matters more' than the individual, even if the burden of that concern rests solely on said individual?" implying that my deference to Supreme Court precedent was illogical or misplaced in this conversation. 

Whether or not the existence of those bodies is morally just has no bearing on the fact that they do exist, that they are empowered, and they will impact my life, family and livelihood.

Some type of black hole time suck. 

That's a cute name. 

And how would society stop greater alliances or more powerful entities from dominating the smaller, weaker and less powerful? 

Because I think the way people engage with each other would be even more of a clusterfuck than it is now in terms of trade, labor, property and other disputes. Because I think the outcomes would be very undesirable (unfair, unwise or unjust). Etc.

I agree, that is the beauty of a free market although there is some ugliness to it as well. 

Rights are a product of society and culture (government), meaning government which is also a product of society and culture establishes  and enforces those rights. Without a governing body, rights would either not exist or would not matter. 

What is the rationale and premise behind your moral view on rights and government? 

And yet it is reasonable to make inferences based on context clues like I said. If my partner complains of feeling very full, and I say "I know you don't want to eat right now," my statement may not be fully known but it is not illogical, not irrational and not irrelevant. You choosing to focus on the epistemological limitations of human knowledge rather than my point (that the NAP is not valuable to me as a pinnacle of morality or U.S. law) seems like a red herring to me. 

I think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history have never lived nor wanted to live in a voluntary society, so I don't find utility in using the NAP as a metric for public policy.

That's the thing: there's a "though" that is reasonable. 

That's right. For instance respecting bodily integrity, but understanding why that might not extend to everyone (say, toddlers) is not unreasonable to me. It's reasonable to recognize the distinction and epistemological limitations of people (say, toddlers or the impaired or the insane, etc.) and consider how that impacts their rights, especially if you think rights are primarily a product of a reason. Isn't that why they are uniquely human? Given the significant limitations of a toddler's ability to reason, why would we find it morally acceptable to reciprocate or permit the sexual advances on a toddler so long as there wasn't "aggression?" against them  

Another example: while I find free speech to be very important, I think it's reasonable for a society to consider the impermissibility of some speech in some contexts. Sexual harassment, extreme verbal abuse or mental battering by a guardian, defamation, fraud and child pornography are examples of speech I think a society can reasonably and morally restrict. 

An-caps are always having to pretzel themselves into defending horribly immoral outcomes on the basis of upholding one specific premise unilaterally at all times under all circumstances with no gradation or nuance whatsoever.

I understand that you feel differently,

ike thett I can at least intellectually respect your  commitment to an unwavering moral principle -- but I still don't find it useful to most conversations about U.S. law. 

No, unlike Santa Clause, government is a real thing that does not only exist in our imaginations.

It is not just a thesis statement; it describes people and policies with actual power and impact over our lives. 

I understand where you're coming from as far as being a contrarian intellectual online

devalue the entire legitimacy of the U.S. government

And maybe you're right (you're not though lol).

But the interpretation of nine government goons has very real consequences for people

It should, but unfortunately it doesn't. And that is the consequence of having that which are deemed "inalienable" subject to the interpretation of nine government goons.

A national/total abortion ban would affect me, not just as a woman generally, but as I started my fertility process last year I was faced with the choice of abortion at some point which I won't get into now. I feel VERY, VERY strongly at a visceral level about this being a legal option for women. The overturning of Obergefell which is threatened by overturning Roe could also impact me, especially if I explore a job opportunity in Miami that would be huge for me and move to Florida. Florida would definitely get rid of gay marriage, so that job is off the table. My wife and I have assets. We own property. We share insurance. We're having kids.

Of course my focus is going to be on deference to Supreme Court precedent which dictates these decisions and has real consequences on my life, as opposed to a theoretical universe with no government power over the individual. Cuz I don't live there. 

I'm curious - if your political ideology were to be adapted by our society (and I don't even know what I mean by "society"... I guess it would refer to everyone in the Americas? Or maybe just the U.S.? You tell me) how would you expect a transition from our system today, to a world primarily based on property + individual rights + free market and voluntaryism?

"Starting small at the local level?"

It's so wild to think about a world like that in practice.

Even an-caps disagree with each other on aspects of property and rights

let alone everyone else living amongst each other with competing values and interests + intellectual limitations. Yikes. 

What I meant is that while rights are moral concepts,  in a free society it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. In other words we cannot regulate or criminalize everything we find to be immoral. Some examples of things I find immoral that should not be illegal includes, but is not limited to, being filthy rich and not philanthropic; disowning someone for being LGBT; disregarding the physical and emotional needs of elderly family members; showing favoritism to one child over another;  being a disrespectful little bitch; etc.

I did not say they were equal or the same. 

Rights are a product of society and culture (government).

Maybe. 

Application is what matters. Rights are meaningless words unless a society recognizes them as governing.

Most are. Some are more reasonable than others. 

Gross. 

Never, although there are times stewardship over another's body might be appropriate.  

I don't but I assume they  prioritize  other values and philosophical ideals over the NAP. 

It's reasonable to make inferences based on context clues, but this is a red herring. 

No, the systems we operate under are not hypothetical. 

I never said morality should be divorced from the law. I said tangential references to the NAP are useless to conversations about U.S. laws not only because I think it's a philosophically problematic ultimatum, but because it has no status and no impact or relevance to outcomes of policy that interest and/or affect me. 

In this country, yes. Welcome to the real world.

I would agree that most rights come from self ownership or ownership as a concept. But like all rights, there are limits on how far they can go. People have compared this to property rights, but property rights are actually super complicated once a tenant gets involved, because once another person is involved there is a complicated balancing act of competing rights and interests. If a landowner allowed a tenant to live in their property for a period of time even without a lease they can't just kick them out in one day, there is a legal eviction process that must be followed that takes weeks or months. This is because our society recognizes that the rights of the landlord must be tempered with the interests of the tenant.

People being thrown out on the street without due notice to find another place is bad for society. The landlord has a right to evict, but not the right to remove a tenant immediately like one would with a guest. When it comes to pregnancy, the woman has self ownership but there is another party involved who will literally die if the abortion takes place. If there is a point of long enough occupancy at which a landlord consents to undergoing a legal process for eviction if he wants to remove the tenant, there absolutely is a point in pregnancy where a woman consents to carrying the child to term. Several months is more than enough time to think on the issue.

This is just talking about it under the "property rights" framework which I don't fully agree with.

I believe that parents have an obligation to their children that supersedes their other rights. The parent-child relationship is the most sacred bond in the world and it underpins every aspect of a healthy society.

Parents have the right to give their children up for adoption and absolve themselves of their duties not in my view because of their "self ownership" but because usually it's the best choice for the child if they can't take care of it. It's a way of exercising that obligation by doing the best they can with limited options. The idea that a parent has the right to order their 8 month fetus to be dismembered and thrown in the trash...no way. Especially when the alternative in America, which has more families wanting to adopt infants than there are infants these days, is that the child will be raised by a loving family in a first world country. 

This is why I respect your position even though I completely disagree with it. While I don’t know your philosophy that well it seems like your position comes from an absolute and unwavering commitment to a principle that I don’t share. The others I’m not so sure about

Danielle, skepticalone, and FLRW all said they support elective abortion up until the moment of birth, oragami refused to directly state that but he said he doesn’t support any restrictions 

I don’t believe that it ever does stop, of course. But I am in favor of reasonable limits on what people are allowed to do with it.

The view I have is that at *some point* (when is debatable) the right to choose has been exercised and we have to prioritize the right to life of the fetus.

I just don’t have any sympathy for someone who had like 25 weeks to get an  abortion and didn’t 

and contrary to my impression of the general consensus here

but i strongly believe everyone deserves "a clean slate"

It’s certainly something. The dehumanizing language like calling the fetus a parasite

or talking about killing it as an “eviction” definitely upsets me but it is what it is.

I don’t know  if I could ever support abortion but I understand how someone could early on.

There’s this thing, it’s the size of a blueberry, it looks like an alien and isn’t conscious etc. But you can see what babies who are born at 30 weeks (who have a 99% chance of survival) look like, saying it’s okay to kill them because of the bodily autonomy of someone after months and months of not aborting is crazy to me 

but in the US there really is a core group of advocates who won’t accept even the tiniest restriction. As evidenced by this thread 

Athias seems to think you are presenting arguments similar to those of a former debateart member, Ethang5

Sorry its taking so long to answer back…just finished radiation for breast cancer yesterday and have been feeling a bit under the weather. 

Wow 8 kids…

I agree that sex is a HUGE part of a marriage but agape love is number one. Should something medically go wrong with either one of them and sex is no longer an option….love will cover everything. 

Guess I misunderstood. So I got your concept of family, could you share your position on abortion?

What methods are immoral? When should abortion be available?

A woman makes an appointment to have the abortion done. She thinks about options….and then she pays the money to have the life inside her killed. That is pre-meditation. The doctor kills it, that too is premeditated. 

How someone who admits to the humanity of the unborn, that it is a living human being….and then say killing it for any reason and at any time is ok.

What is ethang ??? 

Anyone who supports Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine laws which are legal in the majority of states. 

Rights are a product of society and culture (government).

 They are not inherent or innate.

Only within a society which recognizes them are they of any value.

I realize this presents many opportunities for inconsistencies that frustrate you, but thankfully most people see the utility in reasonable distinctions. There's an obvious difference between forcing someone to endure pregnancy and childbirth vs. expecting citizens to pay taxes, just like there's an obvious difference between regulating sex between consenting adults vs. adults having sex with children (re: your point on legislating sexual propriety) although admittedly not everything is black and white and society is not perfect. 

I think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history have never lived nor wanted to live in a voluntary society, so I don't find utility in using the NAP as a metric for public policy.

It's a hypothetical ideal with a lot of philosophical and practical problems that will never have any  significance in the real world.

Even if I did find value in it as an insurmountable moral ideal (I do not), as a matter of U.S. law

there should be deference to Supreme Court precedent and not a theoretical universe with no government power over the individual. 

at what point did the deadbeat baby sign a lease agreement that includes free rent ?

In a free society, it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. The right to be left alone and free to do what we want (so long as nobody else's rights are being violated) is something our country values quite a bit and built into various aspects of our constitution.

Some people are disgusted by anal sex

but that doesn't mean those who choose to have it should be treated as criminals (see Lawrence v Texas).

I'm starting to see that there is likely never a justification to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will.

But at the very least abortion should be legal until viability which seems obvious.  

It would be ridiculous to treat fetuses as people under the law in terms of equal rights.

In that case, would a woman who suffered a miscarriage be charged with involuntary manslaughter?

Can we file habeas petitions on behalf of the illegally incarcerated fetus of every pregnant woman in custody?

Are we going to start fighting for a fetus' right to own property and to vote?

I just realized that I could have used voting as another example of rights that children don't have. 

If the argument is that the state can force childbirth on the basis of  an interest in growing the population, does that mean there would be justification to compel women into becoming baby making machines Handmaid's Tale style should an interest ever arise? Scary stuff. 

I think it's permissible to kill a fully grown adult human if it's living inside of another person's body that doesn't want it.

A good percentage of the population believes it's permissible to kill a human just for walking on someone's property against their will let alone inhabiting their insides.

You should stop using dramatic words like "slaughter" to make up for the inability to articulate a better argument. 

It would suggest that coercion (the rest were synonymous in context) is not the only thing that threatens the value the principle is meant to achieve for shame also threatens it.

because that's what the value implies.

because, man being a rational animal (remember what I said), shaming him for his beliefs is not the appropriate way to deal with beliefs even if they are shameful according to the values and inferences of others.

it's prudent we create a distinction between "personal propriety" and "principle."

please explain

One personally finds "racist speech" inappropriate in his/her own diction as well as that of those with whom he/she interacts, but maintenance of the principle of free speech would dictate that one's notion of inappropriate is not a measure of what one can state or express.

(IFF) you only support speech you agree with (THEN) you don't support free speech

(IFF) you only support religions you agree with (THEN) you don't support freedom of religion

I would slightly modify that, but yes, pretty much.

What is your family concept?

You indicated abortion might not be immoral.

But your list is all over the place.

I won't even address some of the things on that list. They are not in the same category as abortion.

What is abortion? It is the premeditated killing of a living human being.

To do so would be admitting that the unborn is a person. They can't do that.

The fact that you can't admit that this is absolutely barbaric is unbelievable.

I can't wrap my head around your kind of logic.

You stand up for toothpaste but sit and do nothing while the slaughter continues. 

in most cases there is an "unexpected" aspect to the pregnancy, which strongly implies the sperm and subsequent blastocyst qualifies as "uninvited"

i actually knew an individual who killed a man with a steak knife

the killed man was an uninvited intruder and tried to run away

the individual i knew, chased the intruder down and stabbed them several times in the back, outside of their home

the police told my friend later that if the "suspect" had been killed inside the home, my friend would not have been charged with murder

perhaps technically "arbitrary" but there is a very broad and historical consensus that citizenship begins at birth (and upon receipt of a birth-certificate)

it's a matter of jurisdiction

except for the fact that they are not a citizen

and they are 100% inside another person

but would you consider it a "legal matter" ?

So you hate abortion....why?

If it is wrong why do you tolerate something you think is immoral?

Would you do this with child-trafficking?

Child or spousal abuse?

Underage drinking? 

What would you stand up against if not abortion?

I think that if someone creates a need for another person, they should be required to help with that as a general rule.

If you hit my car and I need to repair it, you have an obligation to pay for the repairs.

If you have a small child, you have an obligation to feed it and have it educated to some extent.

My position is that if you freely engage in an activity designed for reproduction, then you must be prepared to accept the obligation if that results in a life.

I don’t think abortion is moral in the case of rape, but speaking from what should be the law in my opinion, I think that there needs to be some willing action from the woman who became pregnant to become pregnant in the first place, regardless of the actual desired intention (ex. Contraception failing)

If she was forced to have sex, she did not willfully accept any risk. If she did, then I think that she cannot terminate a life to free herself from the obligation.

The parents do create the dependent condition by creating the life in the first place. All life is dependent by nature for the first ~8-10 months after conception for humans. While physiology is the reason for said dependence, by creating a life, you are creating a dependent being that would otherwise not exist except for the parents’ actions.

I suppose I am for the most part (but not entirely, since you can’t kill born children conceived from rape) treating a fetus as if it was a small, born child. Toddlers are entirely dependent on their parents and we recognize that you can’t just let them die. So, with some slight modifications, it’s just a fusion of legal concepts adapted to the unique circumstances of pregnancy

Ok, why not?

(IFF) you only support speech you agree with (THEN) you don't support free speech

(IFF) you only support religions you agree with (THEN) you don't support freedom of religion

If you consent to sex and create a life, that is a causal relationship.

That life needs assistance until it can be birthed and live without assistance.

Considering the life was created (and the dependent condition of a fetus/unborn child) as a direct result of a man and woman's choice, the obligation to not kill/let it die is created.

what if one "shames" another for "no good reason" ?

isn't that still technically free-speech ?

isn't protesting government policy sorta kinda "shaming" the officials presumably responsible ?

please explain

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?

bingo

isn't "shame" also free-speech ??

Using a list of categories for illustrative purposes is a common rhetorical device, you read assumptions into it in this case.

A more informal definition of punishment might include shaming, but I included the word "shaming" to emphasize that the principle is wider than a rejection of violence, fines, or threats thereof.

If you aren't claiming they are what does it matter?

Hardly, it was clearly an example of other principles which are do not strictly exist along the lines of objective social rights.

That is what I stated. It does not rely on non-shaming being a right and I do not understand why you think the non-rightness of non-shaming means a principle can't preclude shaming.

The suggestion that one's freedom of speech is at all qualified by "shame." Why would "shame" be a factor?

Even if it were written that it was a complete list, that would not prove it was a complete list.

It is not written, and in fact another section of the constitution specifically disclaims the possibility.

The amendments aren't a complete list of everything the government shouldn't be attacking people for.

I don't see the implication. Whether non-shame is a right or not has nothing to do with it. Shame is a means short of violence to discourage something, but if that thing is valuable (or neutral) it should not be discouraged.

Of the principle of free speech?:

Man, being a rational animal, should not be punished or shamed for expressing his conclusions or making arguments public or private. This is his better nature.

To be clear there isn't exactly a "right to free speech", there is a right to not be attacked for speech.

The amendments aren't a complete list of everything the government shouldn't be attacking people for.

Racism is irrational, the genetic variations in behavior are eclipsed many times by the volitional variations.

Racism is unfair, everyone has some genetic variation from their neighbors and no one would want to feel unwelcome on account of them

Racism is against the spirit of liberty because even though privileges are not rights, a liberal mindset is gratified when people may pursue their own values and does not withhold privileges for insignificant or petty reasons.

Morally, a mother is compelled to care for her fetus but legally no state should be given such intimate authority, therefore mothers are free to abort.  Morally, fathers are compelled to care for his partner's fetus but legally no state should have the authority to compel that care.  Once a fetus is born and becomes a US citizen, the authority of the State strengthens considerably by Constitutional demand.  The same moral compulsions apply to father and mother but now legal compulsion to care for that child kick in as well.