Total posts: 2,799
-->
@3RU7AL
Autopsy arranged by family shows GRPD officer shot Patrick Lyoya in the back of the head
Why’d you leave out the part where the criminal grabs the officer’s taser and ignores at least five demands to drop the taser before the shooting?
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Trayvon Martin was a 17 year old kid walking home with Skittles that led to his being harassed and killed -- but you're describing him as a wannabe murderer? Is there a reason other than being a racist piece of shit that you would presume Trayvon Martin had an interest in killing people?
Huh, why would I think that Trayvon wanted to murder someone…. Hmmmm. Maybe it had to do with him trying to beat the shit out of a neighborhood watchman and got shot because of it?
He had skittles? More like a bloodlust. The lacerations on Zimmerman’s head and grass stains on his back proved that.
Knowing basic facts about a self-defense shooting isn’t racist
Oh please. When have you or conservatives generally ever taken a stand for white people being victimized by cops? Stop pretending that you give a shit about ANYONE being killed or harassed by police just because you're tired of hearing black people complain about it. Ya'll lick boots like nobody's business.
There were protests. But the story doesn’t stick around when MSM ignores it. Maybe if he had taken fentanyl and had different parents, people would have cared.
It seems odd that the "pro life" crowd would be so hostile to society wanting to make sure people aren't being unjustly killed.
I detest those terms. “Pro-life” and “pro-choice” are specific abortion euphemisms, not political ideologies.
Look people aren't glorifying the lives of Mike Brown and George Floyd because they want to commemorate their criminal behavior. Instead they are trying to humanize victims of police that they believe are needlessly killed.
they aren’t humanizing, they are deifying. They are claiming miracles where Floyd died and calling it sacred ground.
Just because someone is a criminal or piece of shit person doesn't mean the state has carte blanche to murder them. There's this little thing we have in the United States called DUE PROCESS, and when cops kill people unnecessarily (especially if they're unarmed) it should draw scrutiny and backlash to ensure we're holding law enforcement accountable to the standards and rights that we are all afforded in this country. Cops have more rights than regular citizens and should be held to a higher standard when it comes to violence by government actors. That doesn't mean they should be vilified in every instance of aggression, but they should welcome all scrutiny and investigation as should anyone that cares about the law and our constitutional rights.
I agree.
And I can’t speak for you personally, but the presumption always seems to be against the cops before any information comes out.
So many dipshit protestors in the 2020 riots still believed in “hands up don’t shoot” when the real case was he was punching an officer and trying to steal his gun.
Almost every high-profile police black killing was justified and/or reasonable based on circumstances. It’s clear that these are just blatant attacks on cops, and recognizing that isn’t boot licking
Created:
-->
@thett3
But we’re also supposed to believe that literally hundreds of thousands of excess violent crimes per year committed against whites that are happening right now are meaningless and don’t have any adverse effect on white people?
It applies to every issue they supposedly care about. There are numerous stories of police killing white civilians with little reason to them. Like Daniel Shaver, who was killed while crawling on all fours, crying, and begging officers not to shoot him.
The issue isn’t police violence against civilians, it is police violence against anyone but whitey that’s the problem
Yet somehow nobody remembers him while we immortalize deadbeats like Floyd and wannabe murderers like Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin.
It’s really all so tiresome. We can’t just live in a country that imposes personal responsibilities on everyone and who cares about all crime. It has to be segmented by an arbitrary victim class before it is considered newsworthy and if it is a valid concern.
Seeing the national crime victimization report for the first time blew my mind and made me lose pretty much all sympathy I had for the narrative.
They’re really banking on nobody finding out. That’s why they’re stopping the FBI crime report. If you lie to people long enough and they figure out the truth, you’ll lose all of their trust.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
So... assuming that "Blacks are responsible for more than their fair share of all US murders" is one premise in an argument, what is your conclusion?
Maybe groups of people that are genetically and culturally different are more prone to commit violent acts than others.
And just proving that differences in crime rates exist also dispels other media-driven myths such as the instances of police shootings being racially motivated because more than 12% of those shot by cops are black. If you consider the number of arrests per group, it begins to make a lot more sense….
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
This is your best post.
You just gonna let her insult your intelligence like that?
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Oh maybe he is. I thought somewhere I saw Canadian a long time ago. And I had a discussion regarding Canadian politics a lil while back and referred to Trudeau as his PM. Didn’t say anything contrary to that.
Also, I’d expect his conduct from a Leaf
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Which part did I get wrong? For the kicks.
shut-in virgins
filling their socks with life essence
Source: trust me, bro
You're a squeamish, repressed group of people and this is grownup talk.
The absence of perversion is not squeamishness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
My favourite part of this thread was bdmrocks likening having sex to mystical powers. Bunch of shut-in virgins moralising about sex and the same clowns are filling their socks with life essence every night.
Looks like the Canadian education system failed you, as you can neither guess nor spell well.
Also, again, what is it with shitlibs and constantly fantasizing about everyone else’s sex life?
Every issue from guns to abortion, you all somehow make the connection to either penis, sex, or both lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Until we actually need troops.
Sadly, most Americans are so fat and full of health issues that it would be slim pickings if we ever needed to do another draft
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
It’s amusing to me that people will go from “we have unlimited gun rights cuz the founding fathers did not support standing armies” in one minute to saying the federal government should be able to forcibly conscript you into a standing army the next minute.
The Founding Fathers clearly thought that conscription was fine: "Post Ratification of the Constitution, Article I.8.15, allows for Congress to conscript" and the fact that militias used to be a form of conscription. All able-bodied men in prescribed age ranges could be called upon if necessary. James Madison even attempted a national draft for the War of 1812.
In fact, you're much more likely to need to conscript during a conflict when you don't have standing armies lmfao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
His hot-takes lack any sort of critical thought. It’s actually quite amusing
Still trying to figure out if every post is bait
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I’m not sure what you mean by your critique of chromosomes. Whether five year olds know what chromosomes are is irrelevant, it is what those chromosomes do. That seems to be the most useful way to determine sex in my opinion- whether or not a Y chromosome is present.
There isn’t one thing that makes someone a woman or not, though.
Women have many unique organs, yet removing them through a hysterectomy doesn’t make them stop being a woman. A guy pumping himself with progesterone doesn’t mean he is a woman.
It is the same as saying someone born with an extra finger or who has Down’s syndrome is still human. Yet, humans have 10 fingers and 46 chromosomes. To some degree, while I detest the term, it is a social construct. However, I want to be clear since that term is misused. There are differences biologically, those differences matter, and they are innate without the ability to artificially alter them, no matter what said person feels about the matter.
Really, in the end, instinct seems to tell us what a woman is ~99% of the time (probably because of its usefulness in mating). The only people that can’t have been actively fighting their instincts because of pressure to conform to an ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’m wondering if anyone here either disagrees that this is a major factor in why we live in two completely different universes with regards to our news and information, and I'm also interested to see if anyone can think of examples of this on the left.
There are many examples of using "thought terminating cliches" on the Left. Such as calling someone a racist, transphobe, white supremacist, white nationalist, xenophobe, sexist, or far-right. After you hear that someone is one of these awful things, you don't have to hear them out and engage with anything they say because they are bad- therefore everything they think is bad.
I actually just brought something up regarding this in another thread. A user said that anyone that supported a law regarding abortion was a Nazi instead of articulating what was wrong with the law. That's a practical application of this laziness, suggesting that someone is evil for believing something rather than critiquing their beliefs. That used to be a common tactic during the Cold War of Republicans by suggesting that their opponents are communists, and there is still some of it on the Right today, but it seems to be vastly less common than it is used by Lefties- they even have organizations that are used to smear people like the SPLC and ADL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
if you support the production of industrial waste by purchasing productsare you responsible for the harm (to humans) caused by that industrial waste ?
The entity at fault is the one that created the waste: the company.
Whoever directly causes something is the party responsible. That's how most of our laws work (with some very specific and minor exceptions like negligence law). But I don't think that purchasing a legally-allowed product could be classified as a negligent act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."-George Orwell
I, for one, am shocked that the guy who fought against the Nationalists (the good guys) in the Spanish Civil War would oppose nationalism!
Even in his critique of nationalism, he doesn't seem to do a very good job. I do desire for my country to have more power and prestige and think that an atomized individualism is toxic.
Although, I do appreciate your public service in showing that this old democratic socialist is not conservatives' best friend. Outside of two good books critiquing authoritarianism, he has little to be praised for by conservatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
do i owe you food and shelter if you're caught in a snow storm ?
If you used mystical powers to create the snow storm, I’d say yes
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Guess we’re fundamentalists now, according to a guy from the dark ages of critical thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
All murder is horrific.
That’s what I’ve been saying this entire time but you seem dead set on contradicting this statement
Because that is where all of this moralistically superior attitude stems from.
Can you possibly lack this much self-awareness? Your entire post is nothing but unsubstantiated pontificating. Especially “I'm speaking a truth to you, that you dont want to hear” and calling everyone who disagrees with abortion a ‘virtual rapist’
I’m not going to waste my time responding again. It’s nothing but the same few words that you’ve already said but rearranged. You’ve shown a frightful inability to engage in a coherent conversation.
Liberals love to criticize religion, but I’ve never met any fundamentalist that can be so annoyingly dogmatic as a true believer in your secular cult
Thank you for reinvigorating my skepticism of “one man one vote”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The places that are talking about banning abortion all together are also talking about if a woman leaves the state to go somewhere else she can be charged with a crime because the fetus belongs to that state. They're saying that if a woman has an abortion and somebody knows about it they turn them in so that person can go to jail and then they get money for it. If that's not some Nazi f****** tactics I don't know what is. To say that you agree with that but you're not a Nazi is a lie.
I don't agree with those laws, but I believe it is possible to criticize them without calling people Nazis. I'm sure they aren't members of a 1930s-1940s German National Socialist party if they like those laws.
Discourse on politics has regressed significantly because of the tendency to associate people with maligned groups instead of providing substantive criticisms. It's just lazy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yes and why would you think otherwise when those things are organism of the pregnant woman, mother to become?Please try and use rational common sense.
I think that the common sense is with the side that says not to kill a living being in an act that would be considered the most horrific murder if done a few months later.
Patriarchal bible encourages irrational non-sense in many ways to women in general and we see the results as these anti-choice, perverted virtual rapists sticking their noses in to pregnant womans bodily busness without her consent. Please try put aside your ego based blockages to truth and use some rational common sense.
I have never cited the Bible once for my abortion stances. I don't understand your obsession with trying to tie me to the book. Regardless, even if the book is a mean and "patriarchal" text, that still doesn't mean it is wrong.
Why do you continually make irrational nons-sense comments like this? It is because you have ego based mental blockage to truth, a truth that shows your type is a perverted virtual rapist with no compassion, empathy, respect of pregnant women. Sick-n-head.
Continue showing your type as a sadistic, bloodthirsty, heartless virtual murderer with no compassion, empathy, respect of the unborn
Best you stick to what I stated and not repeatedly make irrational comments that lack common sense and not what Ive stated
You can repeatedly state that you believe in common sense and that what I say is irrational. However, I should inform you that it does little to disguise the fact that you have no thorough understanding of what you believe nor the literary skills to even describe such ideas if you possessed the capabilities to form them. Such a disappointing clump of hollow drivel that I had to sully my eyes with.
Please, if you are going to encourage me to spend my time reading responses, make them worthwhile and thoughtful. Don't waste my time with ad hominem attacks on me or religious texts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You could have been a bit more concise:
It’s okay to kill things that haven’t breathed for the first time yet
Religious people bad and only think killing bad because they hate women
Only religious people can think killing bad
Quite the thesis pro-choicers have, diabolical virtual murderers
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Minors (like fetuses) do not have the same rights as adult humans. It is unconstitutional to prevent neurotypical adults from having elective surgeries.
It is still limiting what surgeries that children can receive even with adult parental permission. Is calling things 'unconstitutional' that you don't like the new buzzword for you? Not all treatments for illnesses and surgeries that are allowed outside of the US are allowed here. We can Constitutionally ban medical treatments in the country, which is what repealing Roe allows.
I think anti-choice people like to pretend that abortion allows for constitutional and legal exceptions because they can't come up with an analogy that justifies the state exercising control over a person's body and medical decisions. In the example you gave about mandatory transplants (which I don't agree with btw) the victim's rights have been violated, and the offender's punishment is some sort of compensation to them. But a fetus doesn't have any rights that were violated and need compensating.
I think that anti-life people like to say that pregnancy is unique and that's why termination of human life is allowed, then pretend it isn't unique because they don't like responsibilities.
Well if you disagree with the transplant example, I think we are going to disagree about the application to pregnancy..... The right to life of victims is more important than the supposed right to bodily autonomy that an aggressor would have, in my opinion. Why would you disagree?
Admittedly the fact that you would be okay with forced vaccination presents a consistency in that you don't believe in bodily autonomy; you think it's acceptable for the government to seize someone's body and take control over it if it's in the interest of the state. I disagree with that position, but presumably you recognize that the government is not legally able to do that because we do have the right to privacy and bodily integrity. What the government would probably do in a situation of some super-spreading deadly virus is say that you can't be in any public place without proof of vaccination. And as limiting as that would be, it's STILL not as invasive as forcing someone to host something inside of their body and give birth to it.
By forcing vaccination, I didn't mean tie people down and stab them with needles. Not allowing them in public would be sufficient. And the interest of the state is rather unimportant for the abortion issue. In fact, it is probably opposed to the interest of the state to limit abortion. And of either of the two, vaccine mandates should be met with much more scrutiny. Abortion is a procedure specifically designed to end life, whereas accidentally getting someone sick who may die isn’t as causally related
Now to know exactly what flavor of sadism that I'm dealing with, could you enlighten me of the point at which elective abortion should be prohibited? At what point from Plan B to ripping a fetus apart with forceps does it become unacceptable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
What are some other instances where voters should get to make decisions over other people's bodies and medical procedures or elective surgeries? Are there other cases where it would be okay to force someone's body to endure things against their will? For example would it be okay to require vaccination as a prerequisite to rights and citizenship?
Well for one, at the very least preventing the mutilation and sterilization of minors through supposed “transition” surgeries. That seems to be a fairly widely accepted instance of preventing individuals from undergoing medical procedures through the actions of elected officials.
I think we can both agree that pregnancy is a rather unique situation, so I don’t really need to provide another example of when it is okay to “force someone’s body to endure things against their will”. However, an argument that I’ve previously made and am willing to stand behind is that I believe if you injure another person I would support mandatory transplants. For example, if you beat someone with a bat and damaged their kidneys, I think that you should be required to give a kidney transplant if you are a possible donor. The only thing preventing that from being a law would be the logistics of proving guilt and acquiring the organ in time to prevent the victim’s death. However, such limitations don’t exist for pregnancy.
For vaccination, under limited circumstances, people should be required to be vaccinated. If, say, 40% of people died from a disease and the vaccine was safe and very effective at preventing spread of the disease.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I love machine guns. They have no relevance to my question about the constitutional right to bodily autonomy
My point being: even if that right exists, that doesn’t justify abortion since rights aren’t absolute
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right?
In the wise words of Joe Biden, no right is absolute!
If I can’t own a machine gun, you can’t kill unborn children. Fair is fair
Created:
-->
@coal
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you both (a) did not "like" RM's comment and (b) recognize it for the stupidity that it is. However, if you unfortunately did "like" RM's comment, let us undertake a salutary learning exercise together.
I didn’t like the comment. I thought that maybe he meant to send it to someone else because I didn’t think I was being passive aggressive, nor was I trying to throw any “gotcha” comments in there. I was just stating that I think it is possible to revisit these other laws.
Now while I think you do make a pretty good argument as to the parallels between a less controversial, more recent case and Loving, that doesn’t mean that gay marriage won’t be overturned.
I don’t think the votes are there to do it, but I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if they did. The Roe v Wade case showed that the originalist judges are fairly opposed to substantive due process, which is what upheld Roe from government regulation. It was a right never mentioned in the Constitution that received Constitutional protections. Now, the same type of argument could be used regarding gay marriage since that right also isn’t specifically listed anywhere. New judges means that new rules could be applied.
That could definitely lead to also overturning Loving, but the main limitation on that would be finding a state that is willing to ban interracial marriage, which would be political suicide everywhere
Created:
-->
@badger
That is the most deluded response to what I said. That's irony, I guess.
How so? You said that nobody knows he said that and nobody talks about guns much, so him saying that doesn’t matter.
Not knowing he said that and discussing guns very little sounds pretty ignorant to me
Created:
-->
@coal
Which cases? Because I see no world where the "sincerely held religious beliefs" doctrine gets extended any further than it already has.
I wasn’t referring as much to future cases as the chance to overturn previous decisions, nor that specific doctrine.
A very strong precedent was just overturned, so I wouldn’t be surprised if, say, gay marriage was an issue returned to the states. Or perhaps gay adoption could be treated differently by more than just religious adoption agencies in a state, as a future example case.
Created:
-->
@coal
The Supreme Court will not "revisit" sodomy laws. This is yet another pathetic attempt by the leftist radicals who want to group unlike groups under the same penumbra of "oppression."The argument that SCOTUS is coming for the gays after they "came for women" (#phrasing lol) is absurd, vapid, senseless and utterly unsupported.
Somehow this isn’t slippery slope, yet progressing (or regressing) from ‘it’s what two adults privately do in the bedroom’ to ‘bake me a cake or I’ll sue you’ to ‘not teaching kids below 4th grade about homosexuals is oppressing teachers’ isn’t.
There is some merit to believing more cases will be lost for them, although I don’t think the political capital exists for sodomy laws.
They pushed far too hard and the pendulum will come crashing back. Allowing moderate abortion restrictions and stopping the push after gay marriage would have let them keep the majority of their wins (you’ll notice that gay marriage isn’t even a controversial topic anymore, quickly dropped by most conservatives after SCOTUS ruling on the matter)
Created:
-->
@badger
Nobody in my country even knows he said that
What is that old saying? ‘Ignorance is bliss’?
Not sure that they ever said ignorance was a virtue, though
Created:
-->
@badger
I really am ready for you lot to start shooting each other. This shit is like a Tarantino movie. Once Upon a Time in America.
Your PM said you don’t have a right to shoot people in self-defense.
Fantasizing about a civil war in a different country is a fine coping strategy, though
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
All government is an invasion of privacy
Don’t hear a peep about the Patriot Act, but no….. this is the final straw that eliminates our privacy. Give me a break
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
White Christian men have declared war on the rest of America. Roe v Wade's gotten rid of privacy laws so they'll be going after everything and that's how everybody wants it.
1) it was constitutionally unsound
2) even if true, this just eliminates the farce that we have privacy to begin with
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
..GODDO must have been aware of the implications when he was designing intrusion and extrusion ports.
Yes! Defecating.
Although the libs seem to do that from their mouths as well…..
Created:
Everyone will be forced to do missionary for the sole purpose of procreation, and they are gonna love it!
Buggerers beware!
Created:
They'll catch people that have to wear adult diapers at 30 years old.
Created:
The immigrants, no doubt, are going to shift US towards the very outcomes the left wing is now in hysterical fear of.
Long-term, probably. Over in Europe, when Muslim numbers are still fairly low, they’ll vote left-wing.
As soon as they make up a sizeable portion of the population, I wouldn’t be surprised to see explicitly Islamic and/or Sharia-supporting parties
It’s a bit different situation in the US because the two party system is here to stay. But the ideology isn’t all of the matter. Just letting in millions of people from one country or one geographic zone within a short period is a horrendous idea. It allows the creation of enclaves that never need to integrate into the mainstream culture.
Yet somehow domestic lefties have convinced themselves that expecting foreigners to become Americans in any sense of the word other than having our passport is unethical.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Boys and their sex toys
What’s with you libs and always fantasizing about male sex and genitals?
Created:
So literally just accept the ones that will vote Democrat? Lmao, you lost me
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Too late.You're a mongrel Nation founded on right wing Christianity.And gun toting paranoia.A bit like Russia in a way.
At least we aren't pansy infidels that are afraid of SCARY guns! *BOO*
Created:
Alright, then. Let's keep out those right-wing extremists so they don't influence the culture.
I can get behind that ^_^
Created:
You’re welcome! Now let’s work together to keep out these evil right-wing Muslims and third world immigrants 🤗
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i will love you forever
Love you too <3
you will never have to worry about anyone hurting you as long as we're together
Then never leave ^_^
Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that adults telling lies to another adult isn't predatory in the same way as manipulating people under the influence of mind-altering drugs or tricking minors.
Adults to some extent should have expectations of making rational choices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Overgeneralization. Just because I have decided upon this outlook towards on one uniquely sensitive and family-level private and gender-specific policy question does not give you warrant to assume I'd advocate the same approach for other, very different public policy issues. Please be disabused of your presumptions. You assume further that I would not regulate abortions but that is false, I would regulate abortions the same as any other standardized medical procedure. The making of the decision should not be regulated by the state according to the majority will, or any other will except the pregnant mothers, by biological dictate- the same rights afforded any patient seeking heart surgery or knee replacement.
Well no, I'm just calling it what it is, not overgeneralizing. It is simply faulty logic. Either being an expert is important or it isn't. Either being personally affected is important or it isn't. I don't think that any coherent conception of a functioning democracy can allow for such exceptions that radically change the qualifications for having a voice on issues.
But now you reject majority will on an issue as important as defining personhood and the protection of life, while absurdly pretending it is in any way comparable to a knee surgery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Why does that "need" create an obligation.
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.
Strictly speaking, consent isn't required to render it a causal relationship. If a male rapes a female (or vice versa) which results in a pregnancy, the conception of a zygote/embryo/fetus would still have been caused by that relationship--albeit coerced.
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.
Again, why does this create an obligation? Do the parents "create" the dependent condition of the zygote/embryo/fetus? Or does Human physiology and development do that? Coitus which leads to conception results in the creation of human "life." So why are the parents "indebted"?
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
Note: I reject your description of this obligation as one "to not kill/let it die."
Ok, why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
perhaps "intoxicated" qualifies ?
It can. If a woman was highly intoxicated and was taken advantage of
what is your position on false promises ?
What kind of false promise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you personally quantify coercion ?
Either forcing someone to do something against their will or taking advantage of them in some way (for example, if they aren’t mentally able to consent to something)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
please explain
If everyone is poor and depressed, that weakens the nation. So the government has an interest in solving those issues which providing roads probably won’t do.
perhaps you raised your child on a diet of salted meat ?would that count as a "causal relationship" in your book ?
If they only fed them salted meat? If that can be legally classified as child abuse, I would say yes.
There is obviously nuance because feeding anything other than the optimal diet can be considered a “but for” legal argument. But having a “but for” argument is insufficient to find someone guilty of something.
Negligence also requires proximate cause which means there must be a clear connection of an action to the harm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
imagine the example, where you didn't cause the kidney failureyou simply have two compatible kidneysyou are not expected to save every single life on earth, even if you have the ability to save some
If you are just a person who is a US citizen and have two healthy kidneys, I don't think you should have to give one to save a random person who you haven't interacted with.
However, I believe that if there is some causal relationship between you and the person needing the kidney, then there can be instances in which you should be obligated to save them.
For instance, I think pregnancy falls under this principle, except for cases of rape. 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.
Created: