Active Users:755 Time:22/12/2024 09:22:01 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
"Objecting to... murder of an individual does not engender... responsibility for their wellbeing"?! - Edit 1

Before modification by Joel at 19/08/2013 11:55:01 PM


View original post
There is a song moondog likes to quote called "Friend of the Fetus," satirizing conservatives commonly being equally and absolutely committed to the UNborn yet indifferent to the BORN. The point is quite valid and, well, "pointed," but does it not cut both ways? Caring about children certainly should not end at birth, but it should not begin there either.
Objecting to the murder of an individual does not engender any sort of responsibility for their well-being, and supporting welfare programs to prevent abortion is something akin to paying Danegeld. Conservatives support the natural rights to life, liberty and property. All three of those rights. Your right to life or liberty ends when it encroaches on my life, liberty or property. I am under no more obligation to support an entitlement program then I am to empty my wallet because a robber is holding a stranger hostage. Whatever my moral obligations in such a case, they are in that undefinable peculiar-to-each-person area that the law has no business encroaching. That's also where I place most health decisions such as the moral imperative to not abuse drugs, despite the absense of a general lawful grounding for laws governing what you put in your body (not to mention the specifically unconstitutional nature of such laws in the USA). Abortion, on the other hand, simply does not qualify, because of the aspect of taking an innocent life. The natural rights protect the right of the tax payer from being compelled to fund child-care entitlements, and the right of a child to be born. Natural law is much like Crom, god of Cimmeria, in that way. You are entitled to life and whatever liberty or property you can wring from it, and not a hell of a lot more.

Any "hypocrisy" or contradiction on the part of conservatives in this area is nothing more than a failure (deliberate or otherwise) by liberals to understand our position.


So their wellbeing does not include their life? Or an objection on its behalf is not predicated on any responsibility for it? Walk me through this.

Afterward, walk me through how invoking "that undefinable peculiar-to-each-person area that the law has no business encroaching," obviates any obligation to children law compels women bear, rather than granting women exclusive (i.e. peculiar to them) authority over when to terminate a pregnancy (i.e. a life whose status as a being is legally and medically "undefinable.") That basically uses "my body (and tax money and other property,) my choice" to reject the same legal responsibility for the post partum children of others that conservatives DEMAND for prenatal children.

Again, whether liberals dismiss children before but not after birth or conservatives do the opposite it is condradictory. It would make more sense for pro-choicers to say, "to Hell with child poverty; they are no more my concern after than before birth," or conservatives to say, "'suffer the little children,' both born and unborn."


View original post
It is curious much of society sanctions deliberately doing the very thing it goes to such lengths to prevent carelessly doing.
Indeed. And as my father likes to point out, in a liberal's perfect world the following would be illegal:
- Preventing a 14 year old girl from having consensual sexual relations
- Preventing her from having an abortion
- Telling her parents about the abortion OR pregnancy without her permission
- Letting her smoke a post-coital cigarette

Aparently a woman's right to choose what she does with her body ends at the top of the uterus.


If nothing else, you always provide a cautionary example against my temptation to put words in the mouths of philosophical foes.

Age of consent is no less than 16 in any US state, and no less than 17 in almost half. Most states modify that in cases where ALL parties are minors, but I am not sure whence you pulled 14 as the age liberals want consensual sex to be legal, because even the most liberal US state laws define that as statutory rape. In CA and OR it is 18 or nothing. Want parental notification? Exempt cases with strong evidence it is "rapist notification." Forcing that 14 year old to ask her rapist father if she must die bearing her brother-son violates the Eight Amendment as much as he violated her.

Want an abortion ban? Produce proof beyond reasonable doubt a fetus is a person, and abortion will be murder; proving it is "alive" means nothing: Semen is a human life, but if killing it were murder every boy on Earth would be in prison for life well BEFORE the age of consent. For that matter, an egg is a human life; does God murder billions of humans monthly? Without proof, well, sorry, as much as I agree life begins at conception, forbidding anyone do anything based on what one believes, or even knows but cannot prove, is untenable: It violates natural laws affirmation and assurance of liberty, and often of (proven, uncontested) life as well.

As far as cigarettes, liberals more often than not share the same view of drugs—even (especially) harmful recreational ones—that you just endorsed; conservatives often list that among liberalisms many flaws. Just yesterday I saw a staunch conservative despairingly respond to point-by-point liberal rebuttals of his unsubstantiated anti-Obama rants with "just smoke more dope and tune out." I would continue, but have said my piece, and want to go have a cigarette.


Return to message