Abortion Controversy

[xxxxxxxxx]

I rest my case.

[Geneaux486]

You were basically asking "Why post anywhere on a forum ever". Nine times out of ten the answer is going to be "Just because".

[xxxxxxxxx]

I know, isn't it wonderful?

[Geneaux486]

Meh, it's something to do.

[BTGBullseye]

Subject is something I have an opinion on, so I post in the relevant thread for as long as I feel I can contribute to the discussion about it. That's all.

And I applaud you thoroughly for it!

[Michael Archer]

Who deserves access to the intial plants? Who deserves a fair shot at the naturally occuring raw materials that are not grown or engineered by others? Everyone.

 

Sure, if you find plants no one else has taken, be my guest. You claimed them, you get the rights to them, end of story.

 

What you're advocating on the other end is the forcible seizure of goods rightfully belonging to other people to give to people that did not earn them; their lack of goods gives them the right to the goods of other people.

 

That is socialism, where you and your property belong to the state for the state to decide what to do with them. With this theory, abortion should be illegal if the government decides it's detrimental to society. The government doesn't care about what the pregnant women say; they don't own the rights to their body.

 

An argument that is only valid if one adopts your perception of rights, which I believe is twisted and incomplete.

 

Argument? I was describing statism and drawing a conclusion from statism. Initiating force is bad; statism=initiating force; therefore, statism=bad.

 

The only way this falls apart is if you think initiating force is good. Do you?

 

So you saw fit to respond with a rebuttal just as absurd?

 

This implies that your statement was equally absurd. My rebuttal just wasn't that statement; my rebuttal was "that's absurd and here's why".

 

Ergo, it follows that it's basic right to survive and grow should be protected by a government that claims to value human life.

 

This is a paradox. The more the government respects the fetus' right to life, the more it disrespects the woman's right to life. This doesn't work.

 

You can keep twisting it to make it sound illogical or evil, but that's just going to create further back and forth with me responding "that's not true and here's why".

 

I'm not twisting it; it is illogical and evil. You advocate one life over another i.e. you advocate the life of a fetus over the mother.

 

I really don't know where I stand on it when the mother's life is truly in danger. If she was definetely going to die as a result of the pregnancy, and an abortion were the only possible way to save her. It's a terrible situation and an ugly choice.

 

I never said that abortion was a pretty, happy flower-time choice. All I said is that you have the right to one, just as you have the right to parade around saying "I hate black people." Abortion is always an ugly choice, but a lot of the time, it's less ugly than the alternative.

 

I don't understand; you said the fetus had the right to life and it should be protected by a government, but now you're saying that you can dispose of it in favor of the mother. I completely agree with this, but this is contrary to what you've been saying this whole time. You said it has a basic right to grow and survive. Your logic should follow that it's not the fetus' fault that it's killing the mother and it's still a developing human being with the right to life, so that life should be protected.

 

Keep in mind, a mother will never get an abortion unless her life is in danger. Because we survive using reason, nature and biological necessity forbids us from being irrational. Irrational=death. Her reason is telling her to abort in favor of her own well-being. Keeping it when it goes against your reason=irrational=death.

 

If we do what you're suggesting and it's not up to the mother, who's to decide whether her life is in danger and therefore justifies an abortion? The government? The only way I can think is if the government sets standards as to whether or not pregnant woman's life is in danger and under what circumstances the abortion can be preformed. This is also an example of the arbitrary government.

 

But even if we ignore all this, you're also now saying that it's not ok for a woman to decide if she needs to get an abortion to save her life; other people can decide for her as if she's a child.

 

You noticed it and read way too deeply into it. By "most" I meant "except for the people who are into that sort of thing". Nothing more.

 

Ok, fine.

 

I'm not "into" people telling me what to do with my own body and under what circumstances I house my fetus. Can I get an abortion now?

 

I have no patience for that sort of behavior.

 

All this time, I have been saying that the woman's life is in danger and you keep denying her the right to get an abortion. You're the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Agreed. And skin cells still don't become people. And developing fetuses still do.

 

"Will become a person" is still future tense. The fetus "will become", but not "is a person. You just said we'd agree that we have to focus on the present. This is confusing.

 

What you've suggesed could be a possible outcome, but it does not follow that this is their motive. You think their intent is malevolent when I think it isn't.

 

I'm actually positive they don't think it's nihilistic; I think they're doing what they think is best. Whatever the reason, it's still irrelevant; what they think they're doing doesn't change what the effect is.

 

Analogy: Say someone tries to pour a pot of coffee but messes up and the pot falls to the floor; it shatters and it makes a mess. In a sense, I'm saying that person dropped the coffee and made a mess and you're saying that they were just trying to pour a cup. I don't care what they were trying to do; I care about what they're actually doing.

 

To say that they're necesarry for life is not an argument, it is a fact. I don't understand why this is relevant. Neither is a developing person. They are components.

 

I'm sorry, I thought it was self-evident. I probably typed that late at night and forgot the details:

 

It's relevant because even though it results in death, you still have the right to do it. People order doctors to remove their organs everyday (e.g. gall bladder, spleen, appendix) and they have the right to do that. You have the right to remove an organ which results in death as you have the right to remove the fetus from your body which results in it's death. Why is your right to life not valued as much as the fetus?

 

No, I'm not. I'm saying rape is a unique case in which the fetus itself exists as the result of a violation of the woman's rights.

 

Woman's right to what?

 

It's not unique; the fetus did not violate anyone's rights and is only adhering to biological fact.

 

You should've stuck with what you had. As soon as the anti-abortionists say that the abortion issue is different when the circumstances around the pregnancy are different, their argument falls apart.

 

So your answer to my question is basically that it's right to live is not forfeit, and the government which values human life will undertake the task of providing care. In our adult years the same is done via welfare.

 

Yes to before the first comma, HELL NO to the past first comma.

 

The right to life is not forfeit, but neither is anyone else's so the government can't force anyone else to take care of it. I said, a guardian is always found eventually. Until then, there are many charities that take in literally billions of dollars a year that will take care of it e.g. The christian church.

 

Welfare=statism. I don't need to repeat myself.

 

Not everything is renewable. Fossil fuels certainly aren't. Furthermore, we do not all renew and reuse our resources.

 

Well then I guess the people who took the effort to refine those resources are entitled to them until the planet dies, if you think that will happen in our lifetime.

 

I simply don't know, but I'm leaning heavily towards we'll die before the planet does.

 

A C-section differs drastically from an abortion in predicted outcome, intent, and statistical outcome. One is expected to result in the survival of the mother and child, the other regards the survival of the child as happenstance. Furthermore, going by your logic, wouldn't the fetus' newly aquired rights upon separation from the mother make the entire process morally wrong? As for the abortion survivors, well, I would bring up infanticide, but you seem to be opposed to that. There are plenty of people who believe that the abortion survivor should be left to die, I'm glad to see you are not one of them.

 

It doesn't matter; all I'm saying is what can be objectively determined from an outside bystander. All I said that it was fundamentally the same thing.

 

No, the rights of the new baby would not make the process morally wrong for the same reason that birth does not make the process morally wrong. There is no such right to live as a parasite and the fetus only lives in a mother by her permission. What rights would the new baby have that would be infringed upon because the abortion happened in the past?

 

As for infanticide: whoever claims guardianship over the new baby and leaves it to die has committed murder. If the biological mother does not claim guardianship, infanticide can not take place. Infanticide can only be preformed by the biological mother, within the first twelve months while she's suffering from postpartum depression.

 

At least, here in Canada.

 

Speaking of Canada, preforming an abortion and obtaining one is illegal and punishable by a prison sentence for both the doctor and the woman involved. Are you happy?

 

Read on:

 

PLOT TWIST!: Some guy name Dr. Morgentaler was about to be convicted of this. The Crown attorney stood up in front of the jury and said in a nutshell. "Look guys, it says here in the criminal code that abortion is illegal and Dr. Morgentaler just admitted to preforming abortions. You have no choice but to convict him.". Morgentaler's defense attorney stood up and said something like "The jury can nullify something if they believe that the crime shouldn't be a crime." Guess what? The jury nullified it. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to outlaw abortion (it went against the right to life) so now the law that abortion is illegal is unconstitutional.

 

Aww...so close!

 

And I don't believe the solution is to put the responsibility in the hands of those who only seek to make money for themselves. As corrupt as businessmen can get, I think it would be a disaster.

 

Businessmen can be corrupt as much as the government official can be corrupt. The difference between the two are that former can not violate someone's rights legally and get away with it, while the latter can pass laws that violate people's rights and get away with it. At least with the corporation, I can choose to go to another corporation that isn't corrupt; you can't do that with a government monopoly.

 

A disaster, really? How so? To feed me, I'd pick the corporation: an organization who has a personal interest in feeding me as much as I can and keep me a loyal customer so they can make as much money as they can. As opposed to the government: an organization who's only income is that which they can rob from its citizens. They might be able to feed me, they might not; it all depends on how good the things are in the capitol and if they decide if I'm needy enough. If people can't afford food for themselves, how would the government grow food? They can't, if the people don't have enough money to give.

[Geneaux486]

Argument? I was describing statism and drawing a conclusion from statism. Initiating force is bad; statism=initiating force; therefore, statism=bad.

 

The only way this falls apart is if you think initiating force is good. Do you?

 

And again, this is only valid if one adopts your view of rights. Where your argument falls apart is your labeling of my views as statism. I see the alternative, the process of aborting the baby, as forcing the developing life out of its natural environment to die. The difference is perspective, yours and mine. Again I say, your argument is only valid if one adopts your views on rights, which are not factual.

 

This implies that your statement was equally absurd.

 

You’re right, my bad. I should have said “So you decided to respond with a rebuttal that actually was absurd”.

 

This is a paradox. The more the government respects the fetus' right to life, the more it disrespects the woman's right to life. This doesn't work.

 

Again, a response that is only valid if one accepts your view of rights and who deserves them. The outcome of most pregnancies is the survival of both the mother and child. Your argument does not hold in light of this.

 

I'm not twisting it; it is illogical and evil. You advocate one life over another i.e. you advocate the life of a fetus over the mother.

 

Of course you’re twisting it. I advocate both lives, not just one. You call that advocating one life over another, and proceed to call it evil. You’re interpreting one thing I say as something else entirely. That is what twisting is. That is what you have been doing.

 

but a lot of the time, it's less ugly than the alternative.

 

I don’t believe this is true.

 

you said the fetus had the right to life and it should be protected by a government, but now you're saying that you can dispose of it in favor of the mother. I completely agree with this, but this is contrary to what you've been saying this whole time. You said it has a basic right to grow and survive. Your logic should follow that it's not the fetus' fault that it's killing the mother and it's still a developing human being with the right to life, so that life should be protected.

 

It’s not contrary to what I’ve been saying at all. Think of instances with Siamese twins. If the two share one or more vital organs and have to be separated, one must live and the other must die. The same is true for cases where the pregnancy/childbirth puts the mother in mortal danger. Only one can live. It’s a terrible choice, but the fact remains that it is a choice that must be made. Someone has to make that choice, and either choice ends with only one survivor.

 

Keep in mind, a mother will never get an abortion unless her life is in danger.

 

You cannot possibly be this naïve. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’m misunderstanding you here. I assume by “life is in danger” you mean the fetus threatens the mothers right to live as she pleases, not something as dramatic as her actual death. Again, this goes back to perception of rights, yours and mine.

 

nature and biological necessity forbids us from being irrational. Irrational=death. Her reason is telling her to abort in favor of her own well-being. Keeping it when it goes against your reason=irrational=death.

 

And yet our biological instincts can also compel us to protect our offspring at any cost. Your argument here is based on one instinct we can have, but it is not the only instinct we can have.

 

All this time, I have been saying that the woman's life is in danger and you keep denying her the right to get an abortion. You're the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Again, twisting what I’ve said to make it seem evil when it is not. I do not support abortion. I also do not think it’s okay for a person who cares about the issue to limit their involvement to simply condemning the woman who finds herself in such a predicament if they’re in a position to help.

 

"Will become a person" is still future tense. The fetus "will become", but not "is a person. You just said we'd agree that we have to focus on the present. This is confusing.

 

Semantics. I should have said “The fetus will become a fully grown person, as opposed to the developing human being it already is."

 

I think they're doing what they think is best. Whatever the reason, it's still irrelevant; what they think they're doing doesn't change what the effect is.

 

And your interpretation of the effect is, I believe, twisted and detached from what is actually going on, as I’ve said already.

 

You have the right to remove an organ which results in death as you have the right to remove the fetus from your body which results in it's death. Why is your right to life not valued as much as the fetus?

 

With your own organs you are making the choice on behalf of only yourself. There is still only one life involved, yours, therefore I still do not see how it is relevant to a situation where there are two lives involved.

 

Woman's right to what?

 

It's not unique; the fetus did not violate anyone's rights and is only adhering to biological fact.

 

The woman’s right to not get raped, if you want to get very specific. The fetus did not violate the right, the rapist did, hence why I said “as a result of the violation”.

 

You should've stuck with what you had. As soon as the anti-abortionists say that the abortion issue is different when the circumstances around the pregnancy are different, their argument falls apart.

 

I can certainly see where it would be more convenient had I said anything of the sort. Never did I say “abort the fetus if it’s the result of a rape”. I said that I believe the situation requires a great deal of understanding and care. There are other ways to administer these things without terminating the pregnancy. The reason we care about this issue is because we care about the well being of others, it is important to respond to varying situations in a way that continues this. You say I should have stuck with what I had? That is all I have done, and that is what I will continue to do.

 

Yes to before the first comma, HELL NO to the past first comma.

 

The right to life is not forfeit, but neither is anyone else's so the government can't force anyone else to take care of it. I said, a guardian is always found eventually. Until then, there are many charities that take in literally billions of dollars a year that will take care of it e.g. The christian church.

 

The government initiating its own programs to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves does not force anyone to do so against their will or sacrifice individual liberty. They would be using their own funds, while employing people who want to work at the jobs to do them.

 

Well then I guess the people who took the effort to refine those resources are entitled to them until the planet dies, if you think that will happen in our lifetime.

 

I simply don't know, but I'm leaning heavily towards we'll die before the planet does.

 

It seems like when you say we have to focus on right now, you mean we shouldn’t care about the future at all with the above point. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

There is no such right to live as a parasite and the fetus only lives in a mother by her permission.

 

And as you know, I disagree with you. I believe a human being at any stage has the right to live, grow, and develop naturally. The parasitic existence is unavoidable and therefore irrelevant in determining whether or not the right of the fetus to live are valid.

 

The difference between the two are that former can not violate someone's rights legally and get away with it, while the latter can pass laws that violate people's rights and get away with it. At least with the corporation, I can choose to go to another corporation that isn't corrupt; you can't do that with a government monopoly.

 

It doesn’t matter whether or not they get away with it, crooked businessmen have been sent to prison, and the thousands of people whose lives they’ve ruined are still ruined.

 

To feed me, I'd pick the corporation: an organization who has a personal interest in feeding me as much as I can and keep me a loyal customer so they can make as much money as they can.

 

Their personal interest is not in feeding you, it is in making money. Feeding you is a necessary action to make that money, but the moment they can no longer make money from it, their interest is no longer relevant to you at all. Various corporations continue to employ child labor in third world countries to produce their products as cheaply as possible because they know that they can exploit limited employment opportunities in various areas. Corporations do not act like individual people. The primary motive is to make as much money as possible. The more control they have, the more dangerous that becomes.

 

As opposed to the government: an organization who's only income is that which they can rob from its citizens.

 

At least in the government’s case their motive is theoretically greater than simply making money. Ideally the goal is to make money to take care of the citizens, not to make a profit for themselves. With corporations you cannot say the same thing. Hell, in the US, corporations were originally chartered by governments to carry out specific functions then disband. It was not until existing corporations took advantage of laws aimed at protecting the rights of minorities that lawyers were able to secure similar rights for individual corporations. I believe a government’s job is to secure and protect at least the most basic of rights, and should be run by individuals elected by the general public. In theory, this is how the United States is. In practice, well, as you said, there are corrupt politicians just as there are corrupt businessmen. However, in a world where neither side could get away with it, I’d prefer a government run by the people alongside independent businesses providing for our most basic needs as opposed to a corporation which has limited liability and a singular goal of turning profit at the lowest possible cost.

[Ross Scott]

Hey sorry if I'm screwing up the thread for you, but this forum section is for issues that could create really big problems for society. Things like food production, extreme poverty, etc. While abortion is a serious issue, it's not a problem on the scale that I'm talking about. I'm moving this to the general section.

[Michael Archer]

Hey sorry if I'm screwing up the thread for you, but this forum section is for issues that could create really big problems for society. Things like food production, extreme poverty, etc. While abortion is a serious issue, it's not a problem on the scale that I'm talking about. I'm moving this to the general section.

 

You speak the truth, Ross; abortion isn't a civilization issue. It also isn't a big problem for society, like you said.

 

And again, this is only valid if one adopts your view of rights. Where your argument falls apart is your labeling of my views as statism. I see the alternative, the process of aborting the baby, as forcing the developing life out of its natural environment to die. The difference is perspective, yours and mine.

 

You didn't actually say, "my perspective is right and yours is wrong and here's why". You said something to the extent of "The only difference to what you think and what I think is perspective."

 

So...you're a subjectivist? i.e. Do you think that there are different interpretations of rights, all of which have some merit? Do you think reality is meant to be interpreted rather than perceived? I ask, because you said "my view of rights". This isn't a view, this is reality observed. When I talk about rights, you speak about them as if the view was invented. This [i"view" of rights wasn't invented, it was merely observed by many intellectuals; among these people are Aristotle, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand.

 

I should've made myself clearer: frowning upon abortion is not necessarily statism; thinking that the government should punish people who perform and get abortions is statism, which you said you're advocating.

 

No matter how you phrase it, it is statism; I'm simply just observing that.

 

The outcome of most pregnancies is the survival of both the mother and child. Your argument does not hold in light of this.

 

Survival, yes; liberty and property respected, no. If a woman is not allowed to get an abortion when she wants, she loses her right to liberty and property and worst of all, life in the figurative sense.

 

Is that really a society you want? A society where all we do is just try to survive, like the Stone Age? I want a society that respects life in the metaphysical sense. A society that just respects "survival" sounds horrible.

 

I don’t believe this is true.

 

Abortion obtained: It's not a pretty process I hear; it's probably disgusting and horrifying. However, the woman fulfilling her desire to not have a baby, she's able to peruse things she actually wants to do; her mind is free and her liberty and property are respected. The abortion itself is probably emotionally overwhelming, but the outcome is different.

 

Abortion denied: She's condemned to nine months of suffering and then a very painful childbirth. Then she has to deal with finding parents that want to adopt the baby. In the meantime, she's forced to take care of it. Child bearing and raising is an impossible task for one not ready for it. To force a woman to keep it is pretty much giving her a death sentence.

 

Which is the more ugly option?

 

It’s not contrary to what I’ve been saying at all. Think of instances with Siamese twins. If the two share one or more vital organs and have to be separated, one must live and the other must die. The same is true for cases where the pregnancy/childbirth puts the mother in mortal danger. Only one can live.

 

Not true. They don't have to be separated. However, if they are separated, one may die.

 

You cannot possibly be this naïve. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’m misunderstanding you here. I assume by “life is in danger” you mean the fetus threatens the mothers right to live as she pleases, not something as dramatic as her actual death. Again, this goes back to perception of rights, yours and mine.

 

Yes, that what I meant, as I've explained many times.

 

It is as dramatic as actual death. As humans, we use reason to survive. Some animals are quick, others have sharp teeth and are strong. Humans are none of that. Reason is our survival tool. Without reason, we die. Nature does not allow us to be irrational; if we were, we would die. A woman not getting an abortion when reason tells her to is acting irrationally. Irrational=death. What's worse is that she's not actually being irrational, other people are and they are just forcing their subjectivist views on them.

 

And yet our biological instincts can also compel us to protect our offspring at any cost. Your argument here is based on one instinct we can have, but it is not the only instinct we can have.

 

That's what makes the faculty of reason so great: we can choose to override our biological instincts (in fact, most of the time, overriding is better). A woman choosing to get an abortion is overriding her instinct to keep and bear a fetus; someone choosing to give their baby up for an adoption is overriding their instinct to protect their offspring.

 

Can you imagine if we used every single one of our instincts in modern day society?

 

I do not support abortion. I also do not think it’s okay for a person who cares about the issue to limit their involvement to simply condemning the woman who finds herself in such a predicament if they’re in a position to help.

 

Is that it? Did you leave anything out?

 

I think you left out "and I think the government should punish people who perform and obtain abortions." If you didn't then that's cool; I have no issue with you.

 

And your interpretation of the effect is, I believe, twisted and detached from what is actually going on, as I’ve said already.

 

Please tell me what is actually going on then.

 

With your own organs you are making the choice on behalf of only yourself. There is still only one life involved, yours,

 

Isn't an individual's life all that really matters? All choices by rational are based on behalf of only yourself i.e. egoism; unless you're an altruist. The altruist believes that one's actions are only moral if they benefit someone other than the self i.e. self-sacrifice. Do you believe someone should sacrifice their life in favor of something/someone they don't want? Are you an altruist?

 

If so, I think it's evil that you advocate sacrificing one life in favor of another.

 

The woman’s right to not get raped, if you want to get very specific.

 

Why does she have that right?

 

I would say because of the right to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness; but I want to know what you think.

 

I can certainly see where it would be more convenient had I said anything of the sort. Never did I say “abort the fetus if it’s the result of a rape”. I said that I believe the situation requires a great deal of understanding and care. There are other ways to administer these things without terminating the pregnancy. The reason we care about this issue is because we care about the well being of others, it is important to respond to varying situations in a way that continues this.

 

You hinted at earlier that the reason for a pregnancy can be used to determine whether an abortion was ok or not e.g. the mother's life is in danger. I said you shouldn't have said that and should've stuck with your previous points.

 

I care about the well-being of others that are close to me; I wouldn't give my kidney to a random person on the street. When you say "we care about others" I think you mean "I care about others."

 

The government initiating its own programs to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves does not force anyone to do so against their will or sacrifice individual liberty. They would be using their own funds, while employing people who want to work at the jobs to do them.

 

Where do you think the government's funds comes from? In the current system, they're from taxes i.e. forcibly taking money from people against their will.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with what you said if we were using the "public corporation" method I described earlier on how to fund a government, but we don't have that.

 

It seems like when you say we have to focus on right now, you mean we shouldn’t care about the future at all with the above point. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

What I meant to say is that the future has infinite possibilities and it's literally impossible to focus on all of them, so we have to go with what we have now and what we can reasonably predict in the near future.

 

And as you know, I disagree with you. I believe a human being at any stage has the right to live, grow, and develop naturally. The parasitic existence is unavoidable and therefore irrelevant in determining whether or not the right of the fetus to live are valid.

 

Disagree with what? Are you saying there is a right to live as a parasite?

 

With modern technology, the parasitic existence is avoidable. So I guess it follows that because now it is avoidable, it is now relevant in determining whether or not the right of the fetus to live exist.

 

It doesn’t matter whether or not they get away with it, crooked businessmen have been sent to prison, and the thousands of people whose lives they’ve ruined are still ruined.

 

And they're being punished for it; that's justice. I believe in capitalism: the system of reason and justice.

 

If a government official gets away with something crooked, that's not justice and the society falls into statism.

 

Their personal interest is not in feeding you, it is in making money. Feeding you is a necessary action to make that money, but the moment they can no longer make money from it, their interest is no longer relevant to you at all.

 

Their interest is in making money.

To make money, they have to feed me.

Therefore, their interest is in feeding me.

 

Is there something wrong?

 

They will always be able to make money from me as long as I can earn it, so they will always have an interest in feeding me as I'm always hungry.

 

Various corporations continue to employ child labor in third world countries to produce their products as cheaply as possible because they know that they can exploit limited employment opportunities in various areas.

 

If it's so bad, why do they keep working there? Because the wages are better than any other local work they can find.

 

It's easy for you to sit on your high horse with enough money and food and say, "Child labor is bad! Children should be in school, not working! We need laws so children can go to school!". In reality, the kids bring in a very important income to their families, and without it, they would starve.

 

The solution to the child labor problem is not to make laws (because that would lead in mass-starvation), but to make parents more productive. How do we do that? We give them freedom.

 

At least in the government’s case their motive is theoretically greater than simply making money. Ideally the goal is to make money to take care of the citizens, not to make a profit for themselves.

 

This is why a lot of government organizations are mediocre and incompetent.

 

Google is a profit-making company which provides almost any service you'll ever need on the internet. In the USA, you can get a CAT scan within the day you need it.

 

In Canada, we have socialized medicine i.e. the government runs the healthcare industry. So that means we get "free" CAT scans; I mean, we'll have to wait four months, but it'll still be "free".

 

Hell, in the US, corporations were originally chartered by governments to carry out specific functions then disband. It was not until existing corporations took advantage of laws aimed at protecting the rights of minorities that lawyers were able to secure similar rights for individual corporations.

 

What's wrong with that? Corporations are just a collection of individuals. Why shouldn't it have the same rights of an individual?

 

Actually, corporations are the smallest minority on the planet. We need to protect them; not because they're a minority, but for the same reason we should protect an individual.

 

I believe a government’s job is to secure and protect at least the most basic of rights, and should be run by individuals elected by the general public.

 

So, a republic.

 

Keep in mind: in a republic, these individuals powers are (well, at least should) be very limited e.g. in a republic, the majority can't vote for the government to not respect individual rights.

 

I’d prefer a government run by the people alongside independent businesses providing for our most basic needs as opposed to a corporation which has limited liability and a singular goal of turning profit at the lowest possible cost.

 

Corporations don't run the government, or at least, they shouldn't. What exactly are you saying?

[Geneaux486]

Sorry in advance, QuietGrave.

 

So...you're a subjectivist? i.e. Do you think that there are different interpretations of rights, all of which have some merit? Do you think reality is meant to be interpreted rather than perceived? I ask, because you said "my view of rights". This isn't a view, this is reality observed. When I talk about rights, you speak about them as if the view was invented. This [i"view" of rights wasn't invented, it was merely observed by many intellectuals; among these people are Aristotle, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand.

 

If I’m a subjectivist, then so are you. Are there different interpretations of rights? In the legal sense, of course there are, but that’s not what we’re really arguing, is it. At the core, we are arguing about moral rights, what one living thing should or should not do to another. No, I do not believe this is just up to everyone’s interpretation. You and I clearly disagree on what moral rights are, and who and what they apply to. However, I don’t think yours works for you and mine works for me, which is subjectivism in a nutshell, I think you’re wrong, just as you think the same of me. I cannot say “You are definitely wrong” because that would not be factual, just as you cannot say the same of me.

 

liberty and property respected, no. If a woman is not allowed to get an abortion when she wants, she loses her right to liberty and property and worst of all, life in the figurative sense.

 

Is that really a society you want? A society where all we do is just try to survive, like the Stone Age? I want a society that respects life in the metaphysical sense. A society that just respects "survival" sounds horrible.

 

Life in the metaphysical sense meaning the woman’s right to get an abortion, but not a developing human’s right to live. What kind of society do you want? One where killing our young is an acceptable choice? And by extension, using terminated fetuses in stem cell research, harvesting our dead young for our own sake? That is what sounds horrible. That is what sounds evil to me. Pregnancy is a difficult thing to go through, but it’s part of life, like many other things. There is a large difference between what we can do and what we should do.

 

However, the woman fulfilling her desire to not have a baby, she's able to peruse things she actually wants to do; her mind is free and her liberty and property are respected. The abortion itself is probably emotionally overwhelming, but the outcome is different.

 

The baby already exists. It is already living, it is already growing, it is already on the path to becoming a full grown adult. What gives us the right to deprive it of the chance at life that we have all received? Nothing.

 

Child bearing and raising is an impossible task for one not ready for it.

 

This is flat out not true. I have seen firsthand that it is not true. Instincts are a powerful thing, and nine times out of ten they will kick in.

 

To force a woman to keep it is pretty much giving her a death sentence.

 

Melodramatic and logically unsound. Unless the woman’s life is actually in danger, keeping the child alive is no such thing. You make it sound far bleaker than it truly is to have a child.

 

Not true. They don't have to be separated. However, if they are separated, one may die.

 

Did I say this was the case with all Siamese twins? The answer is no, I did not. I specifically said “If the two share one or more vital organs and have to be separated”. Yes, that kind of situation does arise, and when it happens, someone has to make a life or death choice. My point here still holds, and it still explains my stance on a situation in which either the mother or child may die.

 

It is as dramatic as actual death.

 

Unless the mother actually physically dies, not it is not. That’s not even a perspective issue. Living =/= dying, plain and simple. You could say you see it as being close to death, and though I’d argue that point, at least I couldn’t honestly say it was flat out wrong.

 

That's what makes the faculty of reason so great: we can choose to override our biological instincts (in fact, most of the time, overriding is better). A woman choosing to get an abortion is overriding her instinct to keep and bear a fetus; someone choosing to give their baby up for an adoption is overriding their instinct to protect their offspring.

 

Can you imagine if we used every single one of our instincts in modern day society?

 

You could assign the instincts conversely as well. A woman who changes her mind about an abortion could be overriding her instinctive fear of what the future will hold, just as a woman giving her baby up for adoption could very well be acting in her protective instinct because she feels as though someone else will take better care of the child than herself.

 

I think you left out "and I think the government should punish people who perform and obtain abortions." If you didn't then that's cool; I have no issue with you.

 

I think a lot about how we do things needs to change. I do not think abortion should be legal or federally funded, so I guess you do have an issue with me. I also don’t think that lawmakers just up and pulling the rug out from under doctors and women in these situations and sending them off to prison is good either. In most cases, there is a reason the woman feels as though abortion is the best choice. Whatever the cause of that is, and, there are numerous, those are the issues we should focus on first. Basically, doing our best not to leave anyone helpless.

 

Please tell me what is actually going on then.

 

You said their motives don’t change the effects of their actions. You claim those effects are, in a sense, the destruction of life. I say, that view is not factual. I say they are not definitely doing any harm, or are going to do any harm, with their pro-life views. By extension, you assertion that them calling themselves pro-life is ironic, is not true. I’m basically repeating myself here.

 

All choices by rational are based on behalf of only yourself i.e. egoism; unless you're an altruist. The altruist believes that one's actions are only moral if they benefit someone other than the self i.e. self-sacrifice. Do you believe someone should sacrifice their life in favor of something/someone they don't want? Are you an altruist?

 

First of all, you’re not arguing with an archetype. Secondly, one’s actions are moral if they benefit someone else, yes, and immoral if they harm someone else unnecessarily i.e. killing something that isn’t trying to kill you. Label it however you want, it will not make a difference in this discussion, or to me.

 

Why does she have that right?

 

I would say because of the right to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness; but I want to know what you think.

 

See my earlier post wherein I stated my reasoning as to what determines rights, who they extend to, and in what capacity. I would literally just be copying and pasting that.

 

You hinted at earlier that the reason for a pregnancy can be used to determine whether an abortion was ok or not e.g. the mother's life is in danger. I said you shouldn't have said that and should've stuck with your previous points.

 

I didn’t deviate from my previous points at all. I explained my position quite clearly. In an instance where either the mother will die, or the baby will die, someone is going to have to make that choice. Either way, only one life will be spared, and in some cases both will die.

 

When you say "we care about others" I think you mean "I care about others."

 

You omitted the first part, where I said “The reason we care about this issue”, so it follows that when I say “we care about others” I mean “those of us who care about this issue”. That includes you to, though you seem hesitant to admit it.

 

Where do you think the government's funds comes from? In the current system, they're from taxes i.e. forcibly taking money from people against their will.

 

Taking money from people who choose to live in the country. Corporations having too much control would be a disaster, and the government controlling everything sort of would be to. Mixed is the best way to go, in my opinion, because some things need to be handled by an entity who’s goal is not to make a profit at any cost. Conversely, there are some things that I don’t believe the government could properly manage themselves.

 

With modern technology, the parasitic existence is avoidable.

 

No it isn’t. You can end the parasitic existence, but that ends the developing life. And, people have done that without modern technology. The fact remains that for a human being to actually exist, the parasitic existence is unavoidable.

 

I believe in capitalism: the system of reason and justice.

 

Which, in most cases, goes hand in hand with corporations that are competitive and driven by an insatiable hunger for profit at all costs.

 

If a government official gets away with something crooked, that's not justice and the society falls into statism.

 

And if a businessman gets away with something crooked, that’s not justice and the society continues to get screwed over by it.

 

Their interest is in making money.

To make money, they have to feed me.

Therefore, their interest is in feeding me.

 

And if they found a way to make money without having to feed you, or could make the same amount feeding you substandard goods, ethics alone wouldn’t stop such a large entity from doing so.

 

If it's so bad, why do they keep working there? Because the wages are better than any other local work they can find.

 

Yes, and corporations take advantage of that, compensating them for far less than their work is worth because they know they can get away with it.

 

It's easy for you to sit on your high horse with enough money and food and say, "Child labor is bad! Children should be in school, not working! We need laws so children can go to school!". In reality, the kids bring in a very important income to their families, and without it, they would starve.

 

It’s easy for you to sit on your high horse and say “This system benefits me, those other people should be grateful for what little they’ve got.” I’ve seen interviews with workers in these third world countries, and when asked if what they make from these factories is actually enough to sustain them, they say “no”. The fact is that many are being taken advantage of. They will get just enough to keep them coming back for more while losing their childhood and everything else because the corporation sees the lack of protective laws for workers there as a means to cut cost by underpaying them. Does every corporation do this? Probably not. Many do. It may be better than some other alternatives, but that does not make it the best, not by far.

 

Corporations don't run the government, or at least, they shouldn't.

 

There we are in agreement.

[Michael Archer]

If I’m a subjectivist, then so are you...I cannot say “You are definitely wrong” because that would not be factual, just as you cannot say the same of me.

 

Yet I'm saying that reality exists independently of what your mind and there are natural rights that are objectively observed.

 

You are saying that we cannot say for sure that you or I am wrong. That's subjectivism.

 

I'm not a subjectivist; I've observed that reason=life. Rights are a condition of reason. Therefore there are natural rights as a condition of man's existence; these come from the observation of reality. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, this is objective.

 

Life in the metaphysical sense meaning the woman’s right to get an abortion, but not a developing human’s right to live.

 

It doesn't have that right, because that would mean it has the right to live at the expense of another person i.e. to own another person.

 

What kind of society do you want? One where killing our young is an acceptable choice? And by extension, using terminated fetuses in stem cell research, harvesting our dead young for our own sake? That is what sounds horrible. That is what sounds evil to me.

 

"Harvesting our dead young" is only benefiting mankind as a whole and furthering knowledge. The potential in stem cells are amazing.

 

I'd much rather live in a society where he pursuit of knowledge is condoned and encouraged, rather than one where the growth of knowledge is hampered by people crying out for the "rights" of a protoplasm.

 

The baby already exists.

 

*ahem*. Fetus.

 

What gives us the right to deprive it of the chance at life that we have all received?

 

What gives the fetus the right to deprive the mother of the life that we have all received?

 

This is flat out not true. I have seen firsthand that it is not true. Instincts are a powerful thing, and nine times out of ten they will kick in.

 

So you really don't care about that tenth person. It's ok if ten percent of lives are ruined, right?

 

Melodramatic and logically unsound. Unless the woman’s life is actually in danger, keeping the child alive is no such thing. You make it sound far bleaker than it truly is to have a child.

 

Until you realize that reason=life and irrational=death, I think we are at an impasse.

 

You could assign the instincts conversely as well. A woman who changes her mind about an abortion could be overriding her instinctive fear of what the future will hold, just as a woman giving her baby up for adoption could very well be acting in her protective instinct because she feels as though someone else will take better care of the child than herself.

 

And reason is the mediator. It's like the metaphorical battle between Id and SuperEgo; Ego (reason) gets the final word.

 

I do not think abortion should be legal or federally funded, so I guess you do have an issue with me.

 

Yeah, I do. Abortion is a moral right; you're advocating the taking away of that right.

 

I say they are not definitely doing any harm, or are going to do any harm, with their pro-life views.

 

True, because individual rights are not subject to a majority vote. But I look down upon them, the same way I look down upon people who advocate racism and police states.

 

But I don't care what they're doing; I care what they're trying to do.

 

Secondly, one’s actions are...immoral if they harm someone else unnecessarily

 

It is harm to make someone remain pregnant against their will. They have the right to property and you're harming them by taking that away.

 

Taking money from people who choose to live in the country.

 

So, you advocate people living as financial slaves in a country. I'm not opposed to society; I'm opposed to people living as slaves in a society.

 

Mixed is the best way to go, in my opinion, because some things need to be handled by an entity who’s goal is not to make a profit at any cost

 

True, but "Mixed-Economy" implies the government handling more than the police, the judicial system and the military. They should keep their nose out of everything else.

 

The fact remains that for a human being to actually exist, the parasitic existence is unavoidable.

 

This does not give you the right to dictate the terms of another person's life.

 

Which, in most cases, goes hand in hand with corporations that are competitive and driven by an insatiable hunger for profit at all costs.

 

Is there something wrong?

 

And if a businessman gets away with something crooked, that’s not justice and the society continues to get screwed over by it.

 

Yes, but in capitalism, a businessman can not legally do something crooked. This is my point.

 

And if they found a way to make money without having to feed you, or could make the same amount feeding you substandard goods, ethics alone wouldn’t stop such a large entity from doing so.

 

Your point?

 

What do you mean "substandard goods?" Do you mean goods that can hurt me? If so, they're held responsible under capitalism.

 

Yes, and corporations take advantage of that, compensating them for far less than their work is worth because they know they can get away with it.

 

Their work is worth what supply and demand says it's worth. If there are so many people looking for jobs to make things that are not in high demand, then of course the wage will be low.

 

It’s easy for you to sit on your high horse and say “This system benefits me, those other people should be grateful for what little they’ve got.”

 

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying the current system is bad.

 

The fact is that many are being taken advantage of.

 

Then they shouldn't work there and they should work for someone who pays them according to supply and demand.

 

They will get just enough to keep them coming back for more while losing their childhood and everything else because the corporation sees the lack of protective laws for workers there as a means to cut cost by underpaying them.

 

So they do get paid enough.

 

They do not have the "right" to work at wages they deem "fair". If they don't like it, they don't have to work there.

[Geneaux486]

I'm not a subjectivist; I've observed that reason=life. Rights are a condition of reason. Therefore there are natural rights as a condition of man's existence; these come from the observation of reality. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, this is objective.

 

You haven’t observed reason=life, you simply think this is the case, and the conclusion you’ve drawn is insufficient and does not take into account all life and what morally should and should not be done to it.

 

You are saying that we cannot say for sure that you or I am wrong. That's subjectivism.

 

No, that is observation.

 

It doesn't have that right, because that would mean it has the right to live at the expense of another person i.e. to own another person.

 

And this biological necessity does not invalidate its right to live.

 

"Harvesting our dead young" is only benefiting mankind as a whole and furthering knowledge. The potential in stem cells are amazing.

 

And the cost of obtaining embryonic stem cells is too great. Again, what we can do vs. what we ought to do.

 

*ahem*. Fetus.

 

Fetus, baby, developing human, whatever you wish to call it doesn’t change what it is.

 

What gives the fetus the right to deprive the mother of the life that we have all received?

What gives us the right to exhale carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? We cannot avoid doing these things, therefore the fact that we must do them does not invalidate our rights.

 

So you really don't care about that tenth person. It's ok if ten percent of lives are ruined, right?

 

Is that what you believe? Or are you trying to suggest that’s what I believe?

 

Until you realize that reason=life and irrational=death, I think we are at an impasse.

 

Substitute “realize” with “believe” and you’re right, though your incorrect wording also indicates said impasse.

 

And reason is the mediator. It's like the metaphorical battle between Id and SuperEgo; Ego (reason) gets the final word.

 

This is the point where I think you’re wrong. Things that reason have rights that extend to the capacity of that reasoning. Things that cannot reason, or reason in a lesser capacity, get rights that extend to them.

 

Abortion is a moral right

 

Only if one excepts your view of rights, which has been proven to be highly debateable.

 

It is harm to make someone remain pregnant against their will. They have the right to property and you're harming them by taking that away.

 

And you cannot argue this without saying it’s okay to take the life of another human being. The fact remains, one alternative results in two lives, the other results in one life and one death.

 

So, you advocate people living as financial slaves in a country. I'm not opposed to society; I'm opposed to people living as slaves in a society.

 

You can’t call the taxpayer a financial slave to the government without calling the government a slave to the people. Not when the government is doing what it’s supposed to do with tax money, anyway.

 

True, but "Mixed-Economy" implies the government handling more than the police, the judicial system and the military. They should keep their nose out of everything else.

 

In the US, the police, judicial system, and military are all federally funded and controlled by the government, therefore “mixed-economy” does not imply anything of the sort.

 

This does not give you the right to dictate the terms of another person's life.

 

And I say the same of you, or any lawmaker.

 

Yes, but in capitalism, a businessman can not legally do something crooked. This is my point.

 

Nor can government officials.

 

Do you mean goods that can hurt me? If so, they're held responsible under capitalism.

 

If they’re caught, they would be. They aren’t always caught, and the fear of being caught is rarely enough to deter a person, much less a corporation.

 

Their work is worth what supply and demand says it's worth. If there are so many people looking for jobs to make things that are not in high demand, then of course the wage will be low.

 

But that’s just it. When I say they are underpaid, I mean they are underpaid for the product they make relative to what it is sold for shortly after it has been made.

 

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying the current system is bad.

 

As was I.

 

Then they shouldn't work there and they should work for someone who pays them according to supply and demand.

 

And when there is no better option? It’s still immoral to take advantage of them when you’re the only game in town and you know you don’t have to pay them what they’re worth.

 

So they do get paid enough.

 

To keep them coming back for more. As in, they get paid something as opposed to nothing.

 

They do not have the "right" to work at wages they deem "fair". If they don't like it, they don't have to work there.

 

They have the moral right to work at fair wages, yes. And it is morally wrong to underpay them, especially when one knows they are still the best option for the underpaid and do so for that reason.

[Michael Archer]

You haven’t observed reason=life, you simply think this is the case.

 

Reason and trade is man's survival tool. I don't know how you can contest this.

 

I don't think this; I know this.

 

...and does not take into account all life and what morally should and should not be done to it.

 

Morality is dependent on rights, not the other way around. If it was the other way around, who would decide what is moral and what is not? If you say "the individual", that's subjectivism. If you say "the government" or "the majority", that's statism.

 

And this biological necessity does not invalidate its right to live.

 

It's right to live is the right to hold another person in servitude. So biological necessity in fact does mean that the fetus has no rights.

 

And the cost of obtaining embryonic stem cells is too great. Again, what we can do vs. what we ought to do.

 

Who decides what that cost is and when it's too great?

 

What gives us the right to exhale carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

 

If our purpose is to live on the earth, we have to do it survive. This makes it right. Notice how this right does not infringe on the rights of others.

 

We cannot avoid doing these things, therefore the fact that we must do them does not invalidate our rights.

 

No human being has to do something that will invalidate someone else's right. That unique feature belongs to the fetus.

 

Is that what you believe? Or are you trying to suggest that’s what I believe?

 

You said "nine times out of ten, that's not the case". Are you implying that you're ok with condemning that ten percent of people?

 

Substitute “realize” with “believe” and you’re right, though your incorrect wording also indicates said impasse.

 

Are you saying, "Your view on rights is a belief; it's no more or less true than any other belief?"

 

That is subjectivism.

 

Things that reason have rights that extend to the capacity of that reasoning. Things that cannot reason, or reason in a lesser capacity, get rights that extend to them.

 

Can you prove this? If you're not a subjectivist, you should have no problem.

 

Only if one excepts your view of rights, which has been proven to be highly debateable.

 

If you're a subjectivist or statist, yeah. It's not a view, it's an observation. We can't both be right.

 

And you cannot argue this without saying it’s okay to take the life of another human being.

 

Taking the life of another human being when the human being in question is violating your right to life isn't an option, it's a requirement. e.g. Self-defense.

 

Is self-defense moral?

 

You can’t call the taxpayer a financial slave to the government without calling the government a slave to the people.

 

Actually, the government is a servant to the people. The government only has power that the individuals themselves can give e.g. right to self-defense.

 

In the US, the police, judicial system, and military are all federally funded and controlled by the government, therefore “mixed-economy” does not imply anything of the sort.

 

It implies that it does more than those three services.

 

And I say the same of you, or any lawmaker.

 

True. It's not up to me if someone gets an abortion; that's up to the only person with enough information and power to do something like that: the individual in question.

 

It's evil to deny someone the right to get an abortion for the same reason that it's evil to force someone to get an abortion.

 

Nor can government officials.

 

I'm lost. Where are we going with this?

 

If they’re caught, they would be. They aren’t always caught, and the fear of being caught is rarely enough to deter a person, much less a corporation.

 

Do you have a better solution?

 

But that’s just it. When I say they are underpaid, I mean they are underpaid for the product they make relative to what it is sold for shortly after it has been made.

 

Are you saying that the corporation should give money proportional to their gain?

 

If yes, it would also follow that the workers should give proportional to the corporation's loss.

 

And when there is no better option? It’s still immoral to take advantage of them when you’re the only game in town and you know you don’t have to pay them what they’re worth.

 

If it's the best option, then the corporation would actually be making them take a loss by pulling out of the area. They're grown people (mostly); you shouldn't decide for them. For the ones that are still kids, that's up to the parents.

 

To keep them coming back for more. As in, they get paid something as opposed to nothing.

 

Isn't that how all jobs work?

 

They have the moral right to work at fair wages, yes.

 

While I would contest this point at its core, t doesn't get any more fair than supply and demand. Even if it did, who decides what's fair and what's not?

 

And it is morally wrong to underpay them, especially when one knows they are still the best option for the underpaid and do so for that reason.

 

Again: who decides what's underpayment and what isn't?

[Geneaux486]

Reason and trade is man's survival tool. I don't know how you can contest this.

 

I don't think this; I know this.

 

I don’t contest this. I contest that this is a deciding factor in rights as a whole. Because it’s not.

 

Morality is dependent on rights, not the other way around. If it was the other way around, who would decide what is moral and what is not? If you say "the individual", that's subjectivism. If you say "the government" or "the majority", that's statism.

 

And your answer is just “me”. Logic dictates that rights extend to all living things according to their capacities. To believe otherwise is selfishness. Though if you’re an egoist then that explains it.

 

It's right to live is the right to hold another person in servitude. So biological necessity in fact does mean that the fetus has no rights.

 

But it has no choice in the matter, therefore it does not mean that the fetus has no rights.

 

Who decides what that cost is and when it's too great?

 

Lawmakers, is what it boils down to. But from a moral standpoint, we cannot say that we have the right to harvest our own for science.

 

If our purpose is to live on the earth, we have to do it survive. This makes it right. Notice how this right does not infringe on the rights of others.

 

Oh but it does. Rights will always infringe on other rights in a world of limited resources. Carbon dioxide is harmful to the ozone layer, but we cannot help but do it to survive, because our purpose is to live. To that point we agree.

 

No human being has to do something that will invalidate someone else's right. That unique feature belongs to the fetus.

 

There’s nothing objective about this line of thought. A fetus is just another stage of a human being’s life.

 

Are you implying that you're ok with condemning that ten percent of people?

 

No.

 

Are you saying, "Your view on rights is a belief; it's no more or less true than any other belief?"

 

That is subjectivism.

 

Your view is not factual, it is highly debateable, therefore it is nothing more than a belief. In my opinion, an incorrect one at that. Like I said, call it what you want, I don’t really care.

 

Can you prove this? If you're not a subjectivist, you should have no problem.

 

Refer to my earlier explanation as to why I believe rights apply to the things they do. Furthermore, burden of proof would be just as much on you as it would me.

 

If you're a subjectivist or statist, yeah. It's not a view, it's an observation. We can't both be right.

 

I agree that we can’t both be right. We also can’t know for sure which of us is right. Your view is just that, a view, not an observation.

 

Taking the life of another human being when the human being in question is violating your right to life isn't an option, it's a requirement. e.g. Self-defense.

 

Is self-defense moral?

 

And the human being in question isn’t violating one’s right to life, it is fulfilling a biological imperative in its development. If we go along with your line of reasoning, we would have to abort all fetuses.

 

Actually, the government is a servant to the people. The government only has power that the individuals themselves can give e.g. right to self-defense.

 

The government also has the power to pass laws that restrict our behavior as well. What point are you trying to make here?

 

It implies that it does more than those three services.

 

That’s my bad, I misunderstood you. We disagree about how limited the government should be.

 

Are you saying that the corporation should give money proportional to their gain?

 

If yes, it would also follow that the workers should give proportional to the corporation's loss.

 

The corporation should pay their workers what their work was worth. Many are not doing that. And no, it does not follow from there that the workers would have to give proportionally to the corporation’s loss. The workers should be correctly compensated for their work, bottom line.

 

If it's the best option, then the corporation would actually be making them take a loss by pulling out of the area.

 

And there have been cases where they will pull out of an area if they find another, cheaper source of labor. You’re avoiding the point here, that the corporation is still wronging a worker who they do not compensate fairly for their work. If they’re the only employer in that area, that makes it even worse.

 

Isn't that how all jobs work?

 

You’re oversimplifying.

 

While I would contest this point at its core, t doesn't get any more fair than supply and demand. Even if it did, who decides what's fair and what's not?

 

But I’m not talking about being paid relative to the going price of what the worker has made. I’m talking about situations in which they are underpaid relative to what the product is being sold for, because the company knows it can get away with it.

[Michael Archer]

I contest that this is a deciding factor in rights as a whole. Because it’s not.

 

Ok, now you're speaking with firm absolutes. This is good.

 

Still, it's irrational to think anything else. It is right to use our reason; it is right to be rational. If we were irrational, we would die. The mind needs freedom to operate i.e. a mind does not function when a gun is pointed at it. To deal with other humans, the mind must be left free. Rights define that freedom in a social context. Without rights, humans can only deal with each other through force; that's not how the mind works. That's why rights are a fundamental requirement of reason.

 

In a nutshell, to survive with reason, man needs to take certain actions that do not require any permissions (e.g. grow food, buy a house). Rights let him do that.

 

It doesn't matter if you contest this or not; this is reality.

 

Damn, this is starting to sound like The Matrix.

 

And your answer is just “me”. Logic dictates that rights extend to all living things according to their capacities. To believe otherwise is selfishness. Though if you’re an egoist then that explains it.

 

No, it's not. I don't have an answer since rights define morality, not the other way around. Me=individual, I responded to that already.

 

I'm selfish in the literal sense of the word; selfish means to act in your own self-interest to sustain your own life. When I eat, I'm sustaining my own life; I'm acting selfishly. The alternative is altuism: the tenant that says your actions are only moral if they benefit someone else. Altruism views it as moral to feed your neighbor while your own body emaciates. Are you implying the former is bad?

 

I am an egoist. I don't believe that I should sacrifice of myself to others, nor do I believe others should sacrifice themselves to me. I guess you're not, since you think that it's ok to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

 

But it has no choice in the matter, therefore it does not mean that the fetus has no rights.

 

EXACTLY.

 

The fetus has no choice; i.e. it's actions are not social. Rights are only relevant to people acting in a social context. A baby's actions are social, so it does have rights.

 

Lawmakers, is what it boils down to.

 

That's the arbitrary government which is, again, statism.

 

But from a moral standpoint, we cannot say that we have the right to harvest our own for science.

 

I think parents have the right to donate the organs of their kids so that others may live. I see this as the same as stem cell research; we're sacrificing something that is dead and no longer has rights so that others may live.

 

Rights will always infringe on other rights in a world of limited resources.

 

No, they don't. Rights cannot infringe on other rights in any way by definition, for the same reason my capacity to reason will never hamper your capacity to reason.

 

A peaceful debate and a street fight are vastly different. One is an exchange of ideas from freedom of thought; no force is being used and in a street fight, force is being used to crush your opponent. There is no force when exercising rights. There is force when sanctioning them, but that's only in retaliation to the initiation of force, which violated the right in the first place.

 

If you seriously think that rights can infringe on other rights, then you do not understand what rights are, where they come from and you have no place to tell me how they work.

 

No.

 

So that means your "nine times out of ten, a woman will always pull through" response is invalid.

 

Your view is not factual, it is highly debateable, therefore it is nothing more than a belief. In my opinion, an incorrect one at that. Like I said, call it what you want, I don’t really care.

 

The fact that you say certainty when it comes to rights, is not possible means that you're a subjectivist i.e. an irrational person.

 

I've wasted my time.

 

Refer to my earlier explanation as to why I believe rights apply to the things they do. Furthermore, burden of proof would be just as much on you as it would me.

 

What, the "do unto others" thing? We have rights because we should be nice? It doesn't really hold.

 

Burden of proof is on me too, but I thought I established that already through a few axioms, like "man uses reason" and "reason must be free".

 

I agree that we can’t both be right. We also can’t know for sure which of us is right. Your view is just that, a view, not an observation.

 

So you don't believe certainty is possible. Again, this a core tenet of subjectivism.

 

It is an observation, as I've explained many times. This the observation of reality that exists outside my mind.

 

And the human being in question isn’t violating one’s right to life, it is fulfilling a biological imperative in its development. If we go along with your line of reasoning, we would have to abort all fetuses.

 

The fetus is not violating anyone's rights per se; other people are by not allowing her to get an abortion.

 

A fetus stays by permission; a woman who lets a fetus stays retains her autonomy. Just like if I choose to let a hobo stay in my house so I can feed him and clothe him is not a violation of my rights; it would be if someone forced me to do that.

 

The difference is choice vs. force.

 

The government also has the power to pass laws that restrict our behavior as well. What point are you trying to make here?

 

My point is that the government has no rights except the ones the individuals can give to them. The government may not pass a law that violates a right because an individual is not allowed to violate the rights of any.

 

The corporation should pay their workers what their work was worth. Many are not doing that.

 

Then the worker will go work for someone who will pay them better. If your response is "no one will pay them better", then the corporation is paying them what their work is worth if no one is going to pay them better than that.

 

You’re avoiding the point here, that the corporation is still wronging a worker who they do not compensate fairly for their work.

 

"Fair" is determined objectively by supply and demand. A corporation that is not paying "fairly" is not "wronging"; it is simply acting irrationally as workers will not want to work for them. It's all about reputation.

 

If they’re the only employer in that area, that makes it even worse.

 

What, like a government sanctioned monopoly?

 

That is bad, but off topic.

 

I’m talking about situations in which they are underpaid relative to what the product is being sold for, because the company knows it can get away with it.

 

Legally, yes. Economically, no.

 

Keep in mind, employees negotiate with employers to get a wage that makes everyone happy. This is also off topic.

[Geneaux486]

Ok, now you're speaking with firm absolutes. This is good.

 

I never wasn’t.

 

It doesn't matter if you contest this or not; this is reality.

 

And again, to say that this is the only determinate as to what one living thing should or should not morally do to another is untrue.

 

I don't have an answer since rights define morality, not the other way around.

 

But this is not factual. This would be like saying legal rights define law, which is not the case.

 

since you think that it's ok to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

 

To not force a developing human life to die when it otherwise would not*

 

Rights are only relevant to people acting in a social context. A baby's actions are social, so it does not have rights.

 

And again, this is merely your opinion, not fact. It is a conclusion one can draw from observing reality, but it is not the only conclusion. Rights are relevant to all living things, extending to them in different capacities. A baby that has the capacity to grow into a full adult and is doing so has the right to live as much as anyone else.

 

That's the arbitrary government which is, again, statism.

 

Not saying I advocate it, just that that’s how it is.

 

I see this as the same as stem cell research; we're sacrificing something that is dead and no longer has rights so that others may live.

 

But it’s sacrificing an entity that is dead because its rights were violated.

 

No, they don't. Rights cannot infringe on other rights in any way by definition

 

Untrue, both going by the definition of rights, and the way the world actually works.

 

If you seriously think that rights can infringe on other rights, then you do not understand what rights are, where they come from and you have no place to tell me how they work.

 

And if you seriously think they can’t and don’t, then I say the same to you.

 

So that means your "nine times out of ten, a woman will always pull through" response is invalid.

 

No, it doesn’t.

 

The fact that you say certainty when it comes to rights, is not possible means that you're a subjectivist i.e. an irrational person.

 

I didn’t say certainty was impossible, I said you were wrong. Those are two completely different discussions.

 

What, the "do unto others" thing? We have rights because we should be nice? It doesn't really hold.

 

Not even close. It is wrong to treat someone differently in any given way if there is no discernable difference between us and them. For instance, a dog can feel pain, and it is capable of realizing that it is in pain. Our basic sense of pain is the same. We would want to be protected from experiencing undue pain, so it follows that a dog has the same right to be protected of it as well. Say we go by your logic, that rights are determined by reason. We can use that reason to determine that there is no difference between our basic sense of pain and that of a dog. Therefore, it would be logically unsound to say that the dog does not deserve what we deserve in regards to pain. Is it morally wrong to cause a dog undue pain? Yes. Is it right for a government to establish laws against animal cruelty? Yes. A dog would not, however, have the right to vote, or drive a car, because its mental capabilities make it unable to do these things. A fetus has the capacity to develop into a fully functioning human being, and will do so if not interfered with by others. There is no discernable difference between its capacity to develop and ours, which is why I believe we have no right to terminate it.

 

So you don't believe certainty is possible.

 

I believe either of us could be wrong. That does not mean certainty is impossible.

 

It is an observation, as I've explained many times. This the observation of reality that exists outside my mind.

 

And the conclusion you draw based on that observation is not factual. Some things are certain, yes. We can reason, this is undeniable. This does mean that we have rights that other forms of life do not have. That this makes the concept of rights exclusive to us is incorrect.

 

Just like if I choose to let a hobo stay in my house so I can feed him and clothe him is not a violation of my rights; it would be if someone forced me to do that.

 

But the hobo can survive physically leaving your house, and you’re still forbidden by law from killing him. Your comparison defeats itself here.

 

My point is that the government has no rights except the ones the individuals can give to them. The government may not pass a law that violates a right because an individual is not allowed to violate the rights of any.

 

Agreed.

 

Then the worker will go work for someone who will pay them better. If your response is "no one will pay them better", then the corporation is paying them what their work is worth if no one is going to pay them better than that.

 

There is no basis for such a claim. If a corporation provides the only source of employment for a community and pays them ten cents to make a shirt when those wages aren’t enough to cover expenses then sells the shirt for fifteen dollars, then yes, the workers are being underpaid and yes, it is morally wrong to do so.

 

Keep in mind, employees negotiate with employers to get a wage that makes everyone happy.

 

Not in the situations I’m describing. The fact that the corporations who do this target those areas because they know they won’t have to negotiate with employees is precisely the problem.

[Michael Archer]

And again, to say that this is the only determinate as to what one living thing should or should not morally do to another is untrue.

 

I don't think I made myself clear.

 

There are many things that are morally wrong, but are still legal e.g. advocating genocide or harming animals unnecessarily.

 

I don't know if I said this, but I do believe abortion can be morally wrong if it's undertaken on a whim.

 

But I don't think the government should outlaw abortion for the same reason they shouldn't outlaw advocating genocide. It's the government's job to protect rights, not to decide what's morally right and wrong.

 

So in a sense, you're right. Governments only exist to protect rights and just because someone doesn't violate another's rights does not mean the action is moral.

 

That's actually what I mean: I'm not opposed to the anti-abortion movement; I'm opposed to the government outlawing it.

 

But forcing someone to remain pregnant is a violation of rights, which I will get to later.

 

But this is not factual. This would be like saying legal rights define law, which is not the case.

 

Law is written down and is palpable. Morality and rights are metaphysical. Physical is not the same as metaphysical.

 

And again, this is merely your opinion, not fact. It is a conclusion one can draw from observing reality, but it is not the only conclusion.

 

This is the same reasoning agnostics use.

 

You're basically saying: "I can't prove my view is true, but you can't prove your view true. Neither of us can prove any view true or false, so I guess we don't know and we will never know."

 

This is a text-book example of an arbitrary statement. To obtain knowledge, humans have to follow strict, objective, epistemological methods. Arbitrary statements have no firm grasp on reality or has it anything to do with how humans think or obtain knowledge. Therefore, arbitrary=irrational.

 

Therefore, I'm dismissing your arbitrary statement.

 

Not saying I advocate it, just that that’s how it is.

 

You can't advocating outlawing abortion without advocating statism; it's impossible by definition. Outlawing abortion would be an infringement on individual rights i.e. the right of a woman to her body; the same right that gives her the right to not be raped.

 

Statism is the theory that some people have the right to initiate force on others as opposed to capitalism, which is the theory that only the government may use force and only in retaliation. Outlawing abortion would be initiating force as opposed to retaliatory force, since there is no force being used when someone gets an abortion. If you're going to say "the fetus is being forced to leave" that doesn't count; there is no such thing as a right to another property; you said it yourself earlier when you said the government shoudn't undertake the effort of feeding every single person. Permission is not a right; a right is not permission. Permission can be revoked at any time, and it is not force.

 

But it’s sacrificing an entity that is dead because its rights were violated.

 

We don't owe any favors to the dead; only those that have been objectively and legally defined in a will.

 

Untrue, both going by the definition of rights, and the way the world actually works.

 

Rights are inalienable by definition. Since life is the standard of all rights, your life gives you no moral power to take the life of another, which you would be doing if rights could violate other rights.

 

But you're a statist and you believe silly things like "property rights" don't exist. So I guess in that view, yeah; rights can violate other rights.

 

Not even close. It is wrong to treat someone differently in any given way if there is no discernable difference between us and them. For instance, a dog can feel pain, and it is capable of realizing that it is in pain. Our basic sense of pain is the same. We would want to be protected from experiencing undue pain, so it follows that a dog has the same right to be protected of it as well. Say we go by your logic, that rights are determined by reason. We can use that reason to determine that there is no difference between our basic sense of pain and that of a dog. Therefore, it would be logically unsound to say that the dog does not deserve what we deserve in regards to pain. Is it morally wrong to cause a dog undue pain? Yes. Is it right for a government to establish laws against animal cruelty? Yes. A dog would not, however, have the right to vote, or drive a car, because its mental capabilities make it unable to do these things.

 

This is the crux of the argument used by Peter Singer in his book, Animal Liberation.

 

You know, the same argument that says animals should not be raised for food, they should not be used for pets, we cannot use them for testing to develop life-saving drugs, and it also says that it's completely justified for individuals to destroy private property that's not theirs if it's being used for animal testing.

 

Using the same argument, if we were in a situation where we could only save a chimp or a retarded baby, we would have to sacrifice the baby, since the chimp can feel pain more acutely than adults; Singer actually uses this analogy in his book.

 

This is one of the most evil men I've ever heard of; this man is truly anti-life. The argument is also based on utilitarianism: the theory that "good" is quantifiable and every human should try to increase the good in the world; it's pretty much "the greatest good for the greatest number". Who decides the good? The greatest number. If the greatest number decides that it's ok to go murder certain individuals, then that's moral, under utilitarianism.

 

On top of that, if the government decides that animals have rights for this reason i.e. "Humans can feel pain and humans shouldn't cause each other pain. Therefore, humans shouldn't cause other beings to feel pain in the same capacity.", this would mean that we would have to treat animals differently and not cause them pain but animals would not have to treat us differently and they would morally and legally be allowed to cause us pain; that's insanity.

 

It's not immoral for humans to initiate force on animals for the same reason that it's not immoral for animals to initiate force on each other, or other humans. The only benefit humans can have from animals is through the initiation of force.

 

Even if we were to use this, that means it would follow that since an embryo at two weeks does not have the capacity to feel pain, we would be allowed to aborted it.

 

We can reason, this is undeniable. This does mean that we have rights that other forms of life do not have.

 

Rights have no meaning (or relevance for that matter) to any being besides humans. Name one animal that respects other animal's rights to life. Name one animal that is not morally condemned for stealing or initiating force on other animals. Name one animal that establishes governments to protect those rights.

 

But the hobo can survive physically leaving your house, and you’re still forbidden by law from killing him.

 

What if he can't? What if he's an invalid?

 

My point is that it would be immoral to outlaw kicking hobos out of your house, even if they would die.

 

There is no basis for such a claim. If a corporation provides the only source of employment for a community and pays them ten cents to make a shirt when those wages aren’t enough to cover expenses then sells the shirt for fifteen dollars, then yes, the workers are being underpaid and yes, it is morally wrong to do so.

 

Why stop there and say less than ten cents an hour is underpayment? Why don't we just force the corporations to pay their workers a million dollars an hour? That will end child labor and poverty and only raise the standard of living!

 

/sarcasm

 

It's not up to you, or any government. to decide what wage after the company makes their money is underpayment and what is not. That is arbitrary and irrational. I don't entertain the arbitrary.

 

Not in the situations I’m describing. The fact that the corporations who do this target those areas because they know they won’t have to negotiate with employees is precisely the problem.

 

Because they know the employees are content with their wages.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Let me bring this up before I forget:

 

An individual, is not a means to an end for you to use and dispose of; an individual has the right to not be a means to an end i.e. a sacrificial animal who belongs to something else.

 

It is insanity to suggest because women have the capacity to carry a fetus to a full term, that they have the moral obligation to continue that term.

 

Nature gives people the power to do a lot of things; it's up to the individual how they will use it and to what extent. Everyone's goals are different. A theoretical physicist has more potential and thus more benefit to man's knowledge that a tabloid editor; however, just because someone has the potential to be a theoretical physicist, does not mean that it's ok to force them to be one if they want to be a tabloid editor. An individual's mind is the tool for deciding what that individual does with the powers that nature gives them; you have no place in deciding for them.

 

Nature has given people the capacity to rape, kill and initiate force on other people; just because we have the power to do this, doesn't mean we should, or it means it is morally right. Just because the fetus can only survive by living as a parasite and a woman is the only one capable of sustaining that life, does not mean that the woman has to carry it to the full term.

 

The individual is not a means to an end you see fit; the individual is the means to themselves and their happiness.

[tisnman]

Holy cow this topic is heated

[Eedo Baba]

I'm not religious (I'm a noncommittist) but I think abortion is generally wrong. It shows a lack of responsibility. If you've gotten pregnant, you should face up to the fact that you made bad decisions, but you'll have to tough it out. Taking the easy route (an abortion) would only be continuing your irresponsible choices.

Though it certainly makes sense in some situations, such as victims of rape.

[Michael Archer]

I'm not religious (I'm a noncommittist) but I think abortion is generally wrong. It shows a lack of responsibility. If you've gotten pregnant, you should face up to the fact that you made bad decisions, but you'll have to tough it out. Taking the easy route (an abortion) would only be continuing your irresponsible choices.

 

Why do you care if other people are irresponsible if it doesn't affect you?

 

It's not up to you to tell people how to run their lives, or their bodies. Besides, abortion is not a pretty or "easy" procedure I hear; I think the person will have learned their lesson afterwards.

 

But even if they hadn't, it's not your place to be teaching other people life lessons.