[Sean K.]

I don't think contraception should be illegal. My understanding of IUD's is that they are contraception. If a morning after pill prevents conception, then I'm fine with it as it doesn't end a life. If it's used to end a pregnancy, then it should be illegal.


Both are accountable, but the predators (dealers in the illicit drug example or abortionists in the abortion example) hold a higher degree of accountability.


A man can avoid the act of rape by not entering a woman when she says so or getting out if she changes her mind mid stream. Comparing a man who lives outside to a baby who lives inside and can't possible make the same choice is simply a bad analogy. The baby has no choice and commits no crime by being there.


Rights expand as humans grow. The right to life begins at conception. The right to free speech begins sometime after we learn to talk but isn't fully instituted until we're legal adults.


I endeavor to explain my views to others and convince them to change their views. This is all predicated on the concept that their is truth & deceit, good & evil. When logic tells me that a viewpoint is truthful & good, then I'll logically believe that it is right. When logic tells me that a viewpoint is deceitful and/or evil, then I'll logically believe that it is wrong. I can say with confidence that people who believe in sex with children is moral are wrong. Likewise, I can say that those who are ok with the killing of the unborn are also wrong. If one doesn't accept the concepts of right & wrong, truth & deceit, good & evil, then no judgements about the actions of self or others can be made.

IUDs work by keeping a fertilized embryo from attaching to the lining of the uterus, so it...as well as morning after pills would be illegal under your guidelines, JFYI.

We'll have to disagree on users. They make a choice to initially use and there is no supply without demand.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, though I don't see your argument as a counter to what I said...it's just more of a dismissal without grounds IMO. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

No "crime" is committed by the man who removes himself when asked....if he stays when he's not wanted....same as the baby who's not wanted. Again, you either have bodily autonomy or you don't. There's no grey there.

The right to life hasn't been determined to begin at conception. In fact, the courts until this year would have argued in the case of abortion that right to life was at best based on the trimester. Granted, in criminal or negligence cases, a pregnant woman killed on purpose or accidentally would, in many states, result in charging the perp with 2 murders.

I also believe it's morally wrong. Morals and law don't always go hand in hand, nor should they in all cases. YMMV. Apparently you just don't hold that you own your body and neither does anyone else. That's fine, but realize that's effectively what you're saying and don't complain when you're forced to be vaccinated.

 

[TomAiello]

Today, I was in an upscale mall full of virtue signaling merchants, and I noticed that 'keep your laws off my body' has been dropped in favor of 'keep your bans off my body.'

I guess the old slogan was too easy to interpret as applying to mandatory vaccinations...

 

[Sean K.]

Today, I was in an upscale mall full of virtue signaling merchants, and I noticed that 'keep your laws off my body' has been dropped in favor of 'keep your bans off my body.'

I guess the old slogan was too easy to interpret as applying to mandatory vaccinations...

Ahh....ideological inconsistency....seems to be a constant on both sides.

 

[Bret]

IUDs work by keeping a fertilized embryo from attaching to the lining of the uterus, so it...as well as morning after pills would be illegal under your guidelines, JFYI.

OK. Thanks for explaining how they work.

same as the baby who's not wanted. Again, you either have bodily autonomy or you don't. There's no grey there.

If those in favor of abortion argued that even though there is a life within a mother, they have the right to kill it, then they would be arguing bodily autonomy. Instead, they primarily argue that it's not a life. They do this because they realize that if it is a life, they're killing a person and they know it's wrong.

The right to life hasn't been determined to begin at conception.

Scientifically, a life begins at conception. Where rights come from and what rights we have has always been debated.

In fact, the courts until this year would have argued in the case of abortion that right to life was at best based on the trimester.

It was a ruling not based in law or Constitution, but made up out of whole cloth so that seven judges tyrants could force their views on the American people who, through their elected representatives, mostly didn't agree with them.

Granted, in criminal or negligence cases, a pregnant woman killed on purpose or accidentally would, in many states, result in charging the perp with 2 murders.

This simply illustrates that the vast majority of people know that there's a life within.

I also believe it's morally wrong. Morals and law don't always go hand in hand, nor should they in all cases. YMMV.

I agree. It's just that there are some things that are so morally repugnant that others have no choice but to intervene in order to protect the weak. Rape, assault, robbery and murder are but a few examples.

Apparently you just don't hold that you own your body and neither does anyone else.

I have rights, but I don't view that my body is owned by me which I can do anything that I want to. If so, it would be property and I could literally sell it or parts of it. Should people be able to sell their body parts to others? I don't think so.

That's fine, but realize that's effectively what you're saying and don't complain when you're forced to be vaccinated.

Not at all. Recognizing that a distinct human life has the right to live is in no way the same as saying some should have the power to force vaccinate others. In fact, the killing of a baby and forced vaccination are similar because someone is using physical force to violate another.

 

[TomAiello]

Should people be able to sell their body parts to others?

I certainly think so.

We would all be better off if people were able to sell parts of their body (like organs) on a free market, to the purchaser of their choice.

Interesting article here: The Deadly Impact of Regulations on Organ Transplants | Daniel J. Mitchell

I can give you lots more articles to read and consider, if you're interested in re-examining your beliefs on this one. Most people are against a free market in organs, but have never thought through the potentially massive societal good that would come from introducing free market principles into this area. When something is critically important, that's a reason to get the government out of it--not a reason to give the government absolute control of it.

 

[Sean K.]

OK. Thanks for explaining how they work.


If those in favor of abortion argued that even though there is a life within a mother, they have the right to kill it, then they would be arguing bodily autonomy. Instead, they primarily argue that it's not a life. They do this because they realize that if it is a life, they're killing a person and they know it's wrong.


Scientifically, a life begins at conception. Where rights come from and what rights we have has always been debated.


It was a ruling not based in law or Constitution, but made up out of whole cloth so that seven judges tyrants could force their views on the American people who, through their elected representatives, mostly didn't agree with them.


This simply illustrates that the vast majority of people know that there's a life within.


I agree. It's just that there are some things that are so morally repugnant that others have no choice but to intervene in order to protect the weak. Rape, assault, robbery and murder are but a few examples.


I have rights, but I don't view that my body is owned by me which I can do anything that I want to. If so, it would be property and I could literally sell it or parts of it. Should people be able to sell their body parts to others? I don't think so.


Not at all. Recognizing that a distinct human life has the right to live is in no way the same as saying some should have the power to force vaccinate others. In fact, the killing of a baby and forced vaccination are similar because someone is using physical force to violate another.

I can largely agree with all of that except the last two paragraph/responses. I believe adults of sound mind should be able to freely contract....even the sale of their own bodies/body parts if both parties are willing to make the exchange. But I'm in favor of legalizing prostitution as well for similar reasons.

Your last paragraph contradicts itself. I agree that both are similar...in that government edicts on both topics violate bodily autonomy in both instances. Force in the abortion debate happens regardless....government imposed force making the mother to bear it, or medical force to remove the baby from the womb.

 

[TomAiello]

In the end, my reasoning on abortion goes a bit like this;

Reasonable, thoughtful, good people can come to radically different conclusions on this issue.

Highly contentious issues with a range of possible answers should be resolved by individuals, rather than by centralized powers enforcing their values on a wide range of individuals who may not share those values.

Therefore, the government should not enforce a centralized 'answer' to these questions. Any movement away from a centralized enforcement and toward an individual decision is a step in the right direction.

Making decisions on a state level is better than on a federal level. Making them on a local level is better than a state level. Making them on an individual level is best of all.

That's basically my philosophy of government in a nutshell though. Anything that can be decided by individuals, one by one, for themselves, ought to be. Any time a decision can be made at a more local level, it should be.

 

[Bret]

I can largely agree with all of that except the last two paragraph/responses. I believe adults of sound mind should be able to freely contract....even the sale of their own bodies/body parts if both parties are willing to make the exchange. But I'm in favor of legalizing prostitution as well for similar reasons.

I think this is just one of those things we're going to disagree about. In my opinion, adults of sound mind in a non-desperate position will not sell their bodies. Furthermore, those (predators) who would ask them to do so fail to respect their individual rights. Given that the purpose of government is to protect our individual rights, I believe that it is the duty of government to prevent such financial transactions from taking place.

Your last paragraph contradicts itself.

I don't think so. In both cases we're talking about an action forced upon another distinct human being.

In the end, my reasoning on abortion goes a bit like this;

Reasonable, thoughtful, good people can come to radically different conclusions on this issue.

That's not what has happened in regard to abortion. The vast vast vast majority of people who are pro abortion start with their conclusion and then search to find the facts to justify the conclusion. This is why they have such a difficult time finding scientific or moral evidence to support their position. This is exactly how it happened for me up until the point that I realized I was wrong about being in favor of abortion. I wanted abortion to be justifiable because I had bought in to the notion that being pro-life is forcing your views on others. Biologically though, I knew life began at conception. It wasn't until I met a female student in college who was unapologetically pro-life. She ultimately gave me the moral courage to change my viewpoint.

Highly contentious issues with a range of possible answers should be resolved by individuals, rather than by centralized powers enforcing their values on a wide range of individuals who may not share those values.

I generally agree, but there are three (or possibly more) parties involved when it comes to abortion. When two people decide to end the life of an innocent third person, it is the government's duty to protect. Government must protect the most basic of all rights.

Therefore, the government should not enforce a centralized 'answer' to these questions. Any movement away from a centralized enforcement and toward an individual decision is a step in the right direction.

I generally agree, but can't agree absolutely. Virtually all murderers believe they were justified in doing what they did. We just can't leave it up to individuals to decide when the killing of others is justifiable.

Making decisions on a state level is better than on a federal level. Making them on a local level is better than a state level. Making them on an individual level is best of all.

That's basically my philosophy of government in a nutshell though. Anything that can be decided by individuals, one by one, for themselves, ought to be. Any time a decision can be made at a more local level, it should be.

I agree, but will add that the purpose of government to protect individual rights has to be included in the equation. Abortion like almost all other criminal activity involving the killing of people should be handled by law at the state level.

 

[TomAiello]

That's not what has happened in regard to abortion. The vast vast vast majority of people who are pro abortion start with their conclusion and then search to find the facts to justify the conclusion. This is why they have such a difficult time finding scientific or moral evidence to support their position. This is exactly how it happened for me up until the point that I realized I was wrong about being in favor of abortion. I wanted abortion to be justifiable because I had bought in to the notion that being pro-life is forcing your views on others. Biologically though, I knew life began at conception. It wasn't until I met a female student in college who was unapologetically pro-life. She ultimately gave me the moral courage to change my viewpoint.

I think you may be over-generalizing based on your personal experience and/or the pro-choice activists you've met. The non-vocal (vast majority) of pro-choice people don't behave in the ways that you are stereotyping their behavior. I think your interactions with a small, vocal, activist minority are making you draw inaccurate conclusions about the 'vast, vast, vast majority.'

In my opinion, adults of sound mind in a non-desperate position will not sell their bodies. Furthermore, those (predators) who would ask them to do so fail to respect their individual rights. Given that the purpose of government is to protect our individual rights, I believe that it is the duty of government to prevent such financial transactions from taking place.

Not all adults will share your opinion. Those who do not should be free to engage in the behaviors they wish to engage in, and not be 'protected' from themselves by the nanny sate.

Property rights are the core of all human rights. If you don't own yourself (your labor, it's product, your physical body) then you really can't have any other rights in the long run. If the purpose of government is to protect individual rights, it must protect the rights of those making even the most fringe of minority decisions--otherwise they aren't really rights. The rights of the majority, the right to make popular decisions, the right to speak widely held opinions--none of these require any protections.

 

[Bret]

I think you may be over-generalizing based on your personal experience and/or the pro-choice activists you've met. The non-vocal (vast majority) of pro-choice people don't behave in the ways that you are stereotyping their behavior. I think your interactions with a small, vocal, activist minority are making you draw inaccurate conclusions about the 'vast, vast, vast majority.'

That's my experience based on many interactions with people who advocate for the pro-choice position. This is why the vast majority of time their arguments are easily rebuffed. That's almost always followed by raging anger or thoughtful introspection.

People fall in to three camps on this issue. One is absolutely pro-life from the moment of conception. Another is pro-abortion until birth (and in a few cases beyond). The last is filled with people who agree with contradictory arguments on both sides of the issue or have not thought of it much and generally want to have some sort of compromised resolution. They generally do so by saying that abortion is ok up until some arbitrary point in the pregnancy. The pro-abortion camp loves to count the last group as pro-abortion in order to make it look like the majority of people are pro-abortion. That's disingenuous just as it would be if I counted them as being pro-life (which they are at some point).

Not all adults will share your opinion. Those who do not should be free to engage in the behaviors they wish to engage in, and not be 'protected' from themselves by the nanny sate.

Not all adults share my opinion that child molestation is wrong. That doesn't mean that it should be allowed for them. Those who would engage in selling their body parts or prostitution would almost always do so from a position of desperation. I believe that it's a legitimate function of government to protect these people from the predators who wish to take advantage with them.

Property rights are the core of all human rights. If you don't own yourself (your labor, it's product, your physical body) then you really can't have any other rights in the long run. If the purpose of government is to protect individual rights, it must protect the rights of those making even the most fringe of minority decisions--otherwise they aren't really rights. The rights of the majority, the right to make popular decisions, the right to speak widely held opinions--none of these require any protections.

Humans, self or others, are not property to be owned. Property does not have rights. Equating rights to property dilutes what rights are. While people do own the fruits of their labor (and can trade it), that's not the same as a person's body being property.

 

[TomAiello]

Humans, self or others, are not property to be owned. Property does not have rights. Equating rights to property dilutes what rights are. While people do own the fruits of their labor (and can trade it), that's not the same as a person's body being property.

Whoa. I'm hoping your being intentionally obtuse to make a point.

Nowhere did I say that property has rights. And I'm not aware of anyone ever saying that 'property rights' means that 'property has rights.' I have never 'equated rights to property'. I'm really not even sure what that means.

Property rights are the rights of an individual to control (use, change, dispose of, sell, destroy, etc) their own property. This is the basic foundation of all human rights. You own yourself, and therefore you own your body and whatever is produced by it's labor. The root of tyranny is when some other person claims a right to your body, it's labor, or the things you create.

 

[TomAiello]

Not all adults share my opinion that child molestation is wrong. That doesn't mean that it should be allowed for them.

That's a huge straw man.

In the case we were discussing (selling your own organs at a fair market value), no third party is being harmed. To gin up a 'but you will be hurting the children' argument is entirely disingenuous.

 

[Bret]

Whoa. I'm hoping your being intentionally obtuse to make a point.

Not obtuse, but literal. Think of it this way. Property does not have rights. Therefore, humans can't be property. I was not claiming that you believe property has rights.

That's a huge straw man.

In the case we were discussing (selling your own organs at a fair market value), no third party is being harmed. To gin up a 'but you will be hurting the children' argument is entirely disingenuous.

You made the statement that not all adults share my opinion and those who disagree should be able to engage in the behaviors they wish to engage in. Your statement as I read it was not specific to organs. I think that it was overly broad, so I gave an example to illustrate its fallacy. If you were speaking specifically about selling organs, then please disregard as I misinterpreted what you wrote.

 

[Sean K.]

They generally do so by saying that abortion is ok up until some arbitrary point in the pregnancy.

It's not arbitrary though...for me, it's when the baby can survive on its own outside the womb (with heavy medical intervention) and is no longer claiming a positive right upon the mother. You may feel it's arbitrary, but at this point in medical technology, that's about 20 weeks.

 

[Bret]

It's not arbitrary though...for me, it's when the baby can survive on its own outside the womb (with heavy medical intervention) and is no longer claiming a positive right upon the mother. You may feel it's arbitrary, but at this point in medical technology, that's about 20 weeks.

Perhaps arbitrary isn't the right word, but people come up with different points within the pregnancy that the right to life begins at based on what they perceive as significant. A common one is the beating heart. While that's notable, the baby was just as alive the day before. The issue I have with the survive outside the womb idea is that it necessitates that rights can be dependent on technology. Does the right to life for unborn babies now begin earlier than it did 200 years ago? Does the right to life for unborn babies in medically developed countries begin sooner than the right to life of unborn babies in undeveloped countries? Does the right to life depend on the willingness of others to pay? I of course say no to all three. Additionally, I don't agree with the concept of positive rights. That's just a socialistic concept created to make taking the earnings of others sound more palatable. There are just rights of which the right to life is first and foremost.

 

[Sean K.]

Perhaps arbitrary isn't the right word, but people come up with different points within the pregnancy that the right to life begins at based on what they perceive as significant. A common one is the beating heart. While that's notable, the baby was just as alive the day before. The issue I have with the survive outside the womb idea is that it necessitates that rights can be dependent on technology. Does the right to life for unborn babies now begin earlier than it did 200 years ago? Does the right to life for unborn babies in medically developed countries begin sooner than the right to life of unborn babies in undeveloped countries? Does the right to life depend on the willingness of others to pay? I of course say no to all three. Additionally, I don't agree with the concept of positive rights. That's just a socialistic concept created to make taking the earnings of others sound more palatable. There are just rights of which the right to life is first and foremost.

Yes, it does in this case. Which means in the future, abortion will no longer be necessary....provided we determine as a society who's going to raise/pay for the child to grow up. It's really not much different than the 3/5ths rule in the Constitution to eventually end slavery. It's a compromise with an end goal. Abortion is morally wrong. Slavery was too.

It's not socialistic at all. You keep saying that, but you agree that one doesn't have a right to that which they cannot provide for themselves, EXCEPT in the case of the unborn baby.

Your argument of socialism is exactly the same as mine regarding a positive right. You are saying it's socialism and it's not legitimate. I'm saying it's a positive right and that it's not legitimate. Different name, same outcome....but in general terms, you have no right to that which requires someone else's input to exercise it.

 

[Bret]

Yes, it does in this case. Which means in the future, abortion will no longer be necessary....provided we determine as a society who's going to raise/pay for the child to grow up. It's really not much different than the 3/5ths rule in the Constitution to eventually end slavery. It's a compromise with an end goal. Abortion is morally wrong. Slavery was too.

It's interesting that you bring up the slavery analogy. Slavery existed in the United States because the humanity of the slaves was denied. This is also how abortion exists.

It's not socialistic at all. You keep saying that, but you agree that one doesn't have a right to that which they cannot provide for themselves, EXCEPT in the case of the unborn baby.

By that logic, a born baby doesn't have a right to life either because they cannot provide the necessities of life for themselves. Having rights means that others may not take willful acts to violate them. Just like killing an innocent elderly dependent person or an already born baby would be a willful act violating their right to life, killing an innocent unborn baby is a violation of his right to life. While those who are dependent don't have a right to our property or the fruits of our labor, I believe that we do have a moral obligation to help those who can't help themselves.

Your argument of socialism is exactly the same as mine regarding a positive right. You are saying it's socialism and it's not legitimate. I'm saying it's a positive right and that it's not legitimate. Different name, same outcome....but in general terms, you have no right to that which requires someone else's input to exercise it.

I agree that the argument is the same, but I'm just pointing out that the term "positive right" was created in order to allow the concept that people are entitled to the fruits of the labor of others without having to justify the taking. It's a bastardization of the concept of rights.

 

[TomAiello]

Thought question: How do you guys feel about removing life support from someone in a persistent vegetative state?

 

[Sean K.]

It's interesting that you bring up the slavery analogy. Slavery existed in the United States because the humanity of the slaves was denied. This is also how abortion exists.


By that logic, a born baby doesn't have a right to life either because they cannot provide the necessities of life for themselves. Having rights means that others may not take willful acts to violate them. Just like killing an innocent elderly dependent person or an already born baby would be a willful act violating their right to life, killing an innocent unborn baby is a violation of his right to life. While those who are dependent don't have a right to our property or the fruits of our labor, I believe that we do have a moral obligation to help those who can't help themselves.


I agree that the argument is the same, but I'm just pointing out that the term "positive right" was created in order to allow the concept that people are entitled to the fruits of the labor of others without having to justify the taking. It's a bastardization of the concept of rights.

And slavery will still exist for the woman who does not wish to allow her body to be the incubator for a child she does not want.

That is a valid point, except for the fact that our system of law has always recognized birth as the point at which essential rights are bestowed. And, while infanticide does occur, the vast majority of children who are born are cared for/wanted to the best of their guardian(s)' ability.

And we'll have to agree to disagree that your morals supersede other's.

Respectfully, the term "positive rights" was not coined by socialists or the left. It's a libertarian concept that in no way endorses socialism. It's not a bastardization at all...it explains why the things the left calls 'rights' cannot be (right to an education, right to a house, right to employment, healthcare, etc). It accurately explains how another person could be "enslaved" by making the claim that one has a right to that which they cannot provide for themselves.

 

[Sean K.]

Thought question: How do you guys feel about removing life support from someone in a persistent vegetative state?

Having just gone through this, legally speaking, it's the decision of the family or legally appointed power of attorney/spouse....UNLESS the person on support has made clear their wishes. In my case, I've told my wife in no uncertain terms DNR for just about any major operation....you want to do open heart surgery? No thanks....let me pass.