Pro-Woman

[priceless]

You consented.

Consented to what? How? What are you talking about? Why do you say things in such a creepy, cryptic way instead of just having an explicit discussion?

 

[Disir]

You consented.

Consented to what? How? What are you talking about? Why do you say things in such a creepy, cryptic way instead of just having an explicit discussion?

What's creepy about it? I have very little patience for Libertarians and many anarchists. Very little.

It's Locke. You consented. You are not enslaved. The fact that you seek to make such a comparison is revolting.

 

[priceless]

What's creepy about it? I have very little patience for Libertarians and many anarchists. Very little.

It's Locke. You consented. You are not enslaved. The fact that you seek to make such a comparison is revolting.

First, you seem to be assuming I'm either libertarian or anarchist. Maybe what you mean to say, though, is that you have no patience for anyone who doesn't submit to the way you see things without question. If you don't like to reason with people who view things differently than you do, why are you on a discussion forum?

Second, I don't understand what you're saying about Locke, consent, and enslavement. If you want to argue about what constitutes 'enslavement,' maybe it would be better not to use the word 'slavery,' and just say that it's not right for someone to require someone else to work to support them and their family unnecessarily and/or limitlessly.

E.g. if someone needs food to eat and they don't have the means to provide it for themselves, it's not unthinkable that if someone else has a surplus of food, they should provide it to the hungry person - BUT it's not unthinkable that the hungry person should do whatever they can to repay that person for the value of the food they receive.

What you seem to be saying is that if people keep having babies, they should be entitled to everything needed to raise those children humanely and yet bear no responsibilities with regard to the labor that goes into providing for those children's welfare.

Is that your standpoint?

 

[mamooth]

3) The abortion industry represents the greatest assault on women in human history. Tens of millions of unborn baby girls have been killed for the "crime" of being a girl!

It works the opposite way in the USA, where sex selection overwhelmingly favors girls over boys. In sperm sorting clinics where a future baby's gender can be chosen, 80% are trying for girls. There's no reason to think abortion sex-selection works any differently.

More Parents Using Sperm Sorting Technique to Have Daughters | Alternet

Why? First, thanks to liberal attitudes, women have value in the USA, so girls are not disposable. If we still had conservative attitudes in the USA, it would be girl fetuses getting aborted, so thank the liberals for saving the girls.

Second, women really really want at least one daughter, while men are not particularly set on having at least one son. So there's a lot of "This last child _must_ be a girl" going on, but not much "This last child must be a boy".

So, you'd best change that argument to "abortion is pro-woman and anti-man". That is, if you're honest.

 

[Thunderbird]

Why? First, thanks to liberal attitudes, women have value in the USA, so girls are not disposable. If we still had conservative attitudes in the USA, it would be girl fetuses getting aborted, so thank the liberals for saving the girls.

Second, women really really want at least one daughter, while men are not particularly set on having at least one son. So there's a lot of "This last child _must_ be a girl" going on, but not much "This last child must be a boy".

So, you'd best change that argument to "abortion is pro-woman and anti-man". That is, if you're honest.

Killing unborn baby boys is pro-woman?!

 

[Disir]

What's creepy about it? I have very little patience for Libertarians and many anarchists. Very little.

It's Locke. You consented. You are not enslaved. The fact that you seek to make such a comparison is revolting.

First, you seem to be assuming I'm either libertarian or anarchist. Maybe what you mean to say, though, is that you have no patience for anyone who doesn't submit to the way you see things without question. If you don't like to reason with people who view things differently than you do, why are you on a discussion forum?

Second, I don't understand what you're saying about Locke, consent, and enslavement. If you want to argue about what constitutes 'enslavement,' maybe it would be better not to use the word 'slavery,' and just say that it's not right for someone to require someone else to work to support them and their family unnecessarily and/or limitlessly.

E.g. if someone needs food to eat and they don't have the means to provide it for themselves, it's not unthinkable that if someone else has a surplus of food, they should provide it to the hungry person - BUT it's not unthinkable that the hungry person should do whatever they can to repay that person for the value of the food they receive.

What you seem to be saying is that if people keep having babies, they should be entitled to everything needed to raise those children humanely and yet bear no responsibilities with regard to the labor that goes into providing for those children's welfare.

Is that your standpoint?

Libertarians and a few anarchists are two out of three groups that use that argument. Sovereign Citizens are the third. Since you have not broken out antiquated common laws that have been replaced taken from a law book in the library then it has to be the one of the first two. Alternatively, you gather your information from an astroturfing group funded by billionaire libertarians.

Don't kid yourself, I am more than willing to hear another side but I don't buy your particular brand of BS. We aren't conversing. You are dancing. I may have given you too much credit. So, let's recap.

My stance is that you do not get to make reproductive choices for women. You do not get a say in how they live. Ever. No concentration camps.

The abortion clinics are not the perpetrators and the woman making the choice does not play the role of the secondary victim.

There are groups of people that will require aid for the duration of their lives. You had a shot at that until deinstitutionalization. Reagan put the nail in the coffin on that. The ramifications of this has led us as a society to pay three times as much in different areas. You attempted to place yourself in the role of one who would require that need. By doing so you managed to avoid dealing with the prior repercussions.

No. Taxes are not slavery. Attempting to replace one word that you may think is more palatable does not alter your intent. Libertarians and a few anarchists are two out of three groups that use that argument. Sovereign Citizens are the third. Since you have not broken out antiquated common laws that have been replaced (taken out of context from a law book in the library) then it has to be the one of the first two. The only other way that you would attempt to utilize that argument is if you gather your information from an astroturfing group funded by billionaire libertarians. But, then we would be right back to where we started.

Lastly, and this is where I may have given you too much credit, this society is a social contract. Hence, slavery ≠ taxes. What does Locke say?




Attempting to change the word slavery does not alter your stance.

 

[priceless]

Libertarians and a few anarchists are two out of three groups that use that argument. Sovereign Citizens are the third. Since you have not broken out antiquated common laws that have been replaced taken from a law book in the library then it has to be the one of the first two. Alternatively, you gather your information from an astroturfing group funded by billionaire libertarians.

If person X has a thought that you identify with group X, does that automatically mean that person X subscribes to the ideologies of group X? Well, I can tell you I don't feel like getting into a debate over how much or little of other people's politics I agree with and disagree with and why so you'll just have to deal with my reasoning in terms of the reasoning itself. That may be difficult if you're used to labeling people and then responding to the label but I promise you I'm not just thinking within some boxes, however much it may appear to be so through your eyes.

Don't kid yourself, I am more than willing to hear another side but I don't buy your particular brand of BS. We aren't conversing. You are dancing. I may have given you too much credit. So, let's recap.

Dancing? I was explaining the fundamental problem that if people don't restrict their reproduction when they don't have the means to care for their children, they are shifting the burden to others or sentencing their children to resource deprivation if no one else provides for them.

My stance is that you do not get to make reproductive choices for women. You do not get a say in how they live. Ever. No concentration camps.

The question isn't whether you can force women (or men) into camps legitimately (except sending people to prison for committing crime, of course); but whether you can make chastity a prerequisite for receiving welfare benefits. Same-sex colonies would just make it easier for people to abstain.

The abortion clinics are not the perpetrators and the woman making the choice does not play the role of the secondary victim.

Forget about perpetration and victimhood for a moment. Women are being prescribed C-sections under the guise that natural childbirth is a health risk and then prescribed abortion when subsequent C-sections are deemed a health-risk. Reproduction is being controlled medically but who is the 'victim' when the health care industry is doing it 'for' the woman's health, i.e. not to 'victimize' her by taking her control over her reproductive rights away.

There are groups of people that will require aid for the duration of their lives. You had a shot at that until deinstitutionalization. Reagan put the nail in the coffin on that. The ramifications of this has led us as a society to pay three times as much in different areas.

So you're saying that be releasing people from institutions, you become responsible for taking care of them outside institutions? What is that assumption based on? John Locke? What if you don't subscribe to John Locke's social contract ideology?

You attempted to place yourself in the role of one who would require that need. By doing so you managed to avoid dealing with the prior repercussions.

Not sure what you're referring to or saying with this.

No. Taxes are not slavery. Attempting to replace one word that you may think is more palatable does not alter your intent. Libertarians and a few anarchists are two out of three groups that use that argument.

Semantics. Slaves produced products that were taken from them. If the slaves had been taxed 100% they would have had nothing to live so they were left with a certain amount for their own welfare. Slavery was taxation without representation coupled with the use of force to prevent slaves from quitting/leaving their jobs and/or from disobeying management.

Lastly, and this is where I may have given you too much credit, this society is a social contract. Hence, slavery ≠ taxes. What does Locke say?

This is assumptive. It depends on how 'society' is defined. If global society is a social contract, everyone has a responsibility to take care of all sick, starving, and poor children (and adults?) everywhere. Is that the case, according to your interpretation of John Locke? If not, why? Who gets to define what constitutes the 'society' or 'social contract' and why?

Attempting to change the word slavery does not alter your stance.

My stance is that no one has yet shown me that there is a universal society where everyone is responsible for the welfare of everyone else. Until that is the case, my question is why anyone is responsible for the welfare of anyone else. Is that unreasonable?