Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Conflating issues.
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
The problem with that analogy is that we both decided to go rock climbing. We both put ourselves at risk and I never agreed to make sure you got through the climb unscathed. I can make either decision ethically in that case.
Now, if we were in that position because I coerced you into the climb and I cut you loose, I would say my action to cut you loose is at the very least unethical.
A better analogy to pregnancy would be that you unilaterally decided to be tied to me and thus put me in a position of having to decide whether to cut you loose or not. In that case, it's at least mostly your fault. Why should I pay for your mistake?
In general, why should I die because I'm tied to you? We might agree I'm not a hero by not sacrificing myself to fall with you, we're not going to agree that by cutting you loose I've committed a morally unacceptable act.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Conflating issues.
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
But this is the key to the whole thing. It has to be of interest to you or we're just going to talk past each other to infinity.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Conflating issues.
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.
Hope this helps.
I don’t know why you keep harping on your clear position.
Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Conflating issues.
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.
Hope this helps.
I don’t know why you keep harping on your clear position.
Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.
It’s not complicated.
Right. The spatial argument, which is one of the worst. So, seconds before being pushed out and the cord cut, full person, and before, not a person at all? Horrible argument. Come on over to Savery Hall pawz.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Conflating issues.
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.
Hope this helps.
I don’t know why you keep harping on your clear position.
Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.
It’s not complicated.
Right. The spatial argument, which is one of the worst. So, seconds before being pushed out and the cord cut, full person, and before, not a person at all? Horrible argument. Come on over to Savery Hall pawz.
There really is no other argument if your position is it isn’t a decision to abdicate to the state. Since we know and agree a decision to kill a person living outside a womb is very much within the state’s purview.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Conflating issues.
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.
Hope this helps.
I don’t know why you keep harping on your clear position.
Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.
It’s not complicated.
Right. The spatial argument, which is one of the worst. So, seconds before being pushed out and the cord cut, full person, and before, not a person at all? Horrible argument. Come on over to Savery Hall pawz.
There really is no other argument if your position is it isn’t a decision to abdicate to the state. Since we know and agree a decision to kill a person living outside a womb is very much within the state’s purview.
While it lives inside the womb it is inextricably linked to the mother who risks her own life to participate in the process. While her own life is in jeopardy, it is her decision alone.
We? continue to talk past each other. I'm running out of energy for that.
The most compelling argument I've heard in the last month as a Gates Hall matter is Creep's - unfortunate necessity.
As far as a Savery Hall, late term is gross unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I have no interest in the slippery slope game from conception until delivery day.
For myself, I would elect to keep the child under any circumstance with the lone, very narrow instance that mother's life is in immanent danger.
In any instance, I still don't need, nor want, the fucking State to decide for me. "Here have this jab. It's just a we prick."
We had to put our dog down in May of 2020. The vet people risked Concentration camp to let my wife and I be in there. Vet asked me to give the dog the needle
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Conflating issues.
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.
Hope this helps.
I don’t know why you keep harping on your clear position.
Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.
It’s not complicated.
Right. The spatial argument, which is one of the worst. So, seconds before being pushed out and the cord cut, full person, and before, not a person at all? Horrible argument. Come on over to Savery Hall pawz.
There really is no other argument if your position is it isn’t a decision to abdicate to the state. Since we know and agree a decision to kill a person living outside a womb is very much within the state’s purview.
While it lives inside the womb it is inextricably linked to the mother who risks her own life to participate in the process. While her own life is in jeopardy, it is her decision alone.
We? continue to talk past each other. I'm running out of energy for that.
The most compelling argument I've heard in the last month as a Gates Hall matter is Creep's - unfortunate necessity.
As far as a Savery Hall, late term is gross unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I have no interest in the slippery slope game from conception until delivery day.
For myself, I would elect to keep the child under any circumstance with the lone, very narrow instance that mother's life is in immanent danger.
In any instance, I still don't need, nor want, the fucking State to decide for me. "Here have this jab. It's just a we prick."
Why are you still responding to me? You're position has been clear for sometime.
Abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. Why do you keep talking about it?
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Conflating issues.
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.
Hope this helps.
I don’t know why you keep harping on your clear position.
Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.
It’s not complicated.
Right. The spatial argument, which is one of the worst. So, seconds before being pushed out and the cord cut, full person, and before, not a person at all? Horrible argument. Come on over to Savery Hall pawz.
There really is no other argument if your position is it isn’t a decision to abdicate to the state. Since we know and agree a decision to kill a person living outside a womb is very much within the state’s purview.
While it lives inside the womb it is inextricably linked to the mother who risks her own life to participate in the process. While her own life is in jeopardy, it is her decision alone.
We? continue to talk past each other. I'm running out of energy for that.
The most compelling argument I've heard in the last month as a Gates Hall matter is Creep's - unfortunate necessity.
As far as a Savery Hall, late term is gross unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I have no interest in the slippery slope game from conception until delivery day.
For myself, I would elect to keep the child under any circumstance with the lone, very narrow instance that mother's life is in immanent danger.
In any instance, I still don't need, nor want, the fucking State to decide for me. "Here have this jab. It's just a we prick."
Why are you still responding to me? You're position has been clear for sometime.
Abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. Why do you keep talking about it?
Per usual, you are full of yourself.
While nominally clicking the quote option to your post, the post itself was written to Creep.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Conflating issues.
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.
Hope this helps.
I don’t know why you keep harping on your clear position.
Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.
It’s not complicated.
Right. The spatial argument, which is one of the worst. So, seconds before being pushed out and the cord cut, full person, and before, not a person at all? Horrible argument. Come on over to Savery Hall pawz.
There really is no other argument if your position is it isn’t a decision to abdicate to the state. Since we know and agree a decision to kill a person living outside a womb is very much within the state’s purview.
While it lives inside the womb it is inextricably linked to the mother who risks her own life to participate in the process. While her own life is in jeopardy, it is her decision alone.
Understood. But who put that young person in that position vis a vis the mother? Was it the young person? No. Somebody else did.
So, that young person, now in existence, has rights. Or he/she doesn't, but if you take the latter position, you are going to have to start at birth and walk backwards and tell me where the line is. Without that, you're sunk.
I have failed in my attempt to recruit you to Savery, even though this was a perfect conversaton. Sad, really. Now you must wallow in the moral mud and filth with the Practical Necessity Bros. I pray for Race, and I pray for you. Not sure about the others yet.
Although, and this will require some thought, with my new stance of zero tolerance for infringing on the inalienable rights of an innocent person, we have to think long and hard about the inherent tensions between true liberty and holding to account the cum dumpers themselves.
As a practical matter of gender roles, with which I agree btw, women wind up dealing with the kids. Good ones, bad ones, and everything in between. Men seldom get stuck, and as Bob and friends frequently remind us, the "cum and run" tendencies of some of our fellow men lead to great pressure on the welfare state, not to mention what it does to crime rates.
If we are to further our? shared interests in limiting (or, fuck, why not dream - eliminating) the welfare state and maybe do something about crime, seems to me we should apply at least as much pressure on dead beat baby daddies as we do on girls to remain chaste or use reliable birth control.
Boys, you gotta have some skin in the game besides the skin you have in the game. Do we, then, go after dead beat dads with full abandon and squeeze those reckless welfare-making mother fuckers to the bone until they at least financially support their kids? Or, instead, do we take a pure liberty approach and say to unwed and poor pregos, "hey, you could have kept your pants on."????
Interested in Mike's, Sleddy's and Roadtrip's take, and that of the others who have the right point of view on this issue. Not so much interested in the views of the morally compromised, like Preston and Fire Marshall. Still praying for Race.
In no way, shape, or form, should the State be involved to influence a doctor-patient consult or a subsequent medical procedure. Not for physician assisted euthanasia; not for an abortion; not for a fucking jab.
It's a principled position for individual sovereignty and ultimately a free society. Almost like attorney-client privilege.
An unfortunate necessity to be sure.
Sorry, the pure libertarian "out" needs some refinement. We clearly allow the state to intervene in the protection of life, and there can be no state sovereignty that can go its own way on this issue. Again, we're not going to allow the crazies in Oregon to one day declare murder is ok if someone stole your weed. If we do, the US of A is a meaningless fiction.
You're avoiding the hard part of this conversation. I've never taken you for being yella - @YellowSnow - get in the game and stop hiding behind "everyone can do whatever they want because privacy". No, they can't. We decided that a long time ago.
No refinement necessary. We both draw stark lines.
Again, since you are an attorney and would know how to do this, I recommend reading the original Roe decision. The decision is about the State's obligation to the mother's life. Yesterday was Mother's Day; I sounds like you don't think and care.
The hard part of the conversation: you seem to be willing to trade one life for another despite your all-life-is-sacrosanct altruism. The truth is that very decision is an unfortunate necessity.
If you develop some disease due to a decision you made and my liver, and only my liver, is the only thing that will cure it, is it ok for you to have me killed so that you can have access to my liver? Does that answer change even if the disease is not your fault? No, and no.
It is very hard, which is why it is only fit for discussion amongst the philosopher kings. This is Savory Hall here Pawz. We're not in Poli Sci.
Since the government (in practical terms) is the only entity that could compel your acquiescence, you are making my case for me, philosopher king.
TYFYS
So, no government intervention in private lives of citizens ever????? You vex me Pawz. At any given point in time, only the government can keep me from violating any one of your many rights under the constitution.
Same thing here. You know the right answer. I know you do.
When it comes to personal sovereignty, the medical decisions of an individual, absolutely not. Why do you only respect the personal sovereignty of the pregnant woman and not the innocent child? Disappointed in you.
We? just went through 2+ years of bureaucrats gaslighting people into being a walking medical experiment. And when that didn't work - mandates. Mandates in violation of every medical ethics book ever written. Thankfully I'm still a member of the control group. This discussion is above contemporary and temporal matters. I reminded you yesterday you're in Savory Hall, not wherever those derelict poli sci people gather
Irregardless, I still want to know why it's ok in your mind to trade one-life for another? This, mother, is what we call rhetoric and a textbook example of the strawman fallacy And why do you get to be the arbiter of which life is the greater value? Same reason you let pilots land the plane instead of taking a vote: I'm a philosopher king.
Creep the head of HondoFS's death panels. Who would have guessed. Careful. I thought we were friends. That didn't sound like were were friends.
1) Roe v Wade is about the State's responsibility to the Mother. No matter how many tims you try to ignore, obfuscate or strawman (as you accuse me) this is the simple fact.
2) This conversation is being had in William H Gates Hall.
3) We? call this projection. See above.
4) Again you inadvertently make the correct logical analogy. The mother is the pilot.
I think you are seriously conflicted. Deep down you know 3-weeks-ago argument was correct. Unfortunate necessity.
5) Nothings changed with me. I will concede I should have used question marks to take the edge off. My bad.
That said, poont is still valid. You are arbitrating for others who lives and dies. It's not your decision, nor the State's. It solely, unilaterally belongs to the sovereign birthing person.
1. I feel like you're missing the point of Savory Hall. Let me say again: as a Philosopher King, I am above the tedious workings of the SCOTUS and am well within my rights to declare them to have erred. They are a branch of government. By definition, they screw up every day.
2. The one in Savory Hall is the one that counts. The discussions in Gates Hall is about politics - nothing more.
3. "Trading one life for another" and "Arbiter of who lives and who doesn't" is rhetoric. Asking for someone to give me an intellectually honest and logically rigorous explanation for how one justifies the killing of one innocent person to save the life of another is an honest discussion and analysis of the issue. The entire edifice of your argument is very clearly an assumption that the unborn have no personhood and are thus entirely at the mercy of the discretion of the carrying mother. I'm telling you that assumption is far from obvious and, I would argue, incorrect.
4. The pilot analogy is to Platonic philosophy about who should make the rules. You can't just apply analogies to every context and expect them to work.
5. Forgiven. I'm trying to bring some wine and cheese to this arena of filth and decay. Let's not let Bob drag this beautiful and perfect discussion down in the sewer where he likes to bathe.
6. I am not arbitrating anything. I am asking society to justify the basis upon which a person can be killed in circumstances that would never cut it if we were talking about, say, you or me. Why the difference? You haven't come within 100 miles of explaining that to me.
3) I am not walking into the trap to litigate when life may or may not start. That is not the focus of my position. Before that is the right of the sovereign individual to make medical decisions for themselves. I'm unwilling to abdicate that decision to any 3rd party. If we? learned nothing on that front over the last 2 years, welp ....
4) see above. Possession is 9/10ths ... 9/10 > 1/10
6) Unfortunate necessity.
Let's say you and I are were rock climbing up a sheer wall tethered to each. Then say I slipped, fell and knocked myself out and left myself dangling 100s of feet in the air. Thus compromising your position to move in any direction and slowly but surely pulling you off the face as well. At what poont are you allowed to cut the dead weight? If you do, I'm for sure a dead man. If you don't, it's a death sentence for you.
Just cut through the bullshit. You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion.
In your point #6, of it were my child on the end of the rope, I’d not cut it if it meant the child wouldn’t die. Your analogy only supports the hypothetical that the person on the end of the rope will 100% die regardless of the decision of the person with the knife.
I never said it wasn't "life".
I said - in creeps words - it's an unfortunate necessity in the modern world. Also said I wasn't abdicating to the State medical decisions to my sovereign body under any circumstance.
If you don't cut the rope, you BOTH die. An example of an unfortunate necessity.
I didn’t say you never said it wasn’t a life. I said you agree that it is.
Your analogy is that if no abortion happens then both the mother and baby die 100% of the time. With the abortion the baby dies and the mother lives 100% of the time.
My point stands.
You agree that it’s a life, don’t care and think abortion should be available until birth.
All other arguments are there to just soften the blow of your conclusion. It’s just noise.
Conflating issues.
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.
Hope this helps.
I don’t know why you keep harping on your clear position.
Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.
It’s not complicated.
Right. The spatial argument, which is one of the worst. So, seconds before being pushed out and the cord cut, full person, and before, not a person at all? Horrible argument. Come on over to Savery Hall pawz.
There really is no other argument if your position is it isn’t a decision to abdicate to the state. Since we know and agree a decision to kill a person living outside a womb is very much within the state’s purview.
While it lives inside the womb it is inextricably linked to the mother who risks her own life to participate in the process. While her own life is in jeopardy, it is her decision alone.
We? continue to talk past each other. I'm running out of energy for that.
The most compelling argument I've heard in the last month as a Gates Hall matter is Creep's - unfortunate necessity.
As far as a Savery Hall, late term is gross unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I have no interest in the slippery slope game from conception until delivery day.
For myself, I would elect to keep the child under any circumstance with the lone, very narrow instance that mother's life is in immanent danger.
In any instance, I still don't need, nor want, the fucking State to decide for me. "Here have this jab. It's just a we prick."
Why are you still responding to me? You're position has been clear for sometime.
Abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. Why do you keep talking about it?
Per usual, you are full of yourself.
While nominally clicking the quote option to your post, the post itself was written to Creep.
Either way, thanks for reading.
How am I wrong? Abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. The Pat Hill of abortion. Unless you're going to say there is a point where you think the state should intervene... but you've said the opposite.
I heard that getting rid of Roe v Wade might end up with taking away a women's right to vote
And am wondering why that is bad
I'm hearing that overturning Roe might just be what this country needs to rediscover its moral center. After that, we need a case challenging the constitutionality of any state statute that allows it under any circumstances and the SCOTUS to strike it down as unconstitutional. Make that the law of the land. No circumstances, ever. There is no other version of a good outcome. I hope it happens. Then we'll be where we need to be; otherwise, there is no "we".
Comments
Creep's argument is from the poont of conception.
The slippery slope between the two is of no interest to my position.
Either way, it isn't a decision to abdicate to the State. That decision is between the mother, the mother's doctor and the mother's creator.
Hope this helps.
Your position is a person has no rights of any kind (natural, social, statutory, moral) as long as they are attached to the birthing person via an umbilical cord. And while attached to the birthing person the state (or any other person) has no authority to protect and/or preserve the life of the person while attached to the birthing person (they do not have the right to life).. The instant the cord is cut and the person is no longer physical attached to another, that person has all rights afforded to anyone including the basic rights of life and liberty as well as the protection of the law and authority of the state to protect those rights.
It’s not complicated.
We? continue to talk past each other. I'm running out of energy for that.
The most compelling argument I've heard in the last month as a Gates Hall matter is Creep's - unfortunate necessity.
As far as a Savery Hall, late term is gross unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I have no interest in the slippery slope game from conception until delivery day.
For myself, I would elect to keep the child under any circumstance with the lone, very narrow instance that mother's life is in immanent danger.
In any instance, I still don't need, nor want, the fucking State to decide for me. "Here have this jab. It's just a we prick."
When Seattle goes full China Zerocovid,
I think they’ll be killing the pets.
Abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. Why do you keep talking about it?
While nominally clicking the quote option to your post, the post itself was written to Creep.
Either way, thanks for reading.
So, that young person, now in existence, has rights. Or he/she doesn't, but if you take the latter position, you are going to have to start at birth and walk backwards and tell me where the line is. Without that, you're sunk.
I have failed in my attempt to recruit you to Savery, even though this was a perfect conversaton. Sad, really. Now you must wallow in the moral mud and filth with the Practical Necessity Bros. I pray for Race, and I pray for you. Not sure about the others yet.
It's never too late to join the right team Pawz.
Point out where I misrepresent your position.
Also, learn how to use the quote function!