NationStates Jolt Archive

Axiom One: It is Unethical to punish a Group for the unauthorized act(s) of individuals.
(Conversely all Muslims/Christians/Hindus/Jews should be punished for the acts of their extremists.)

Axiom Two: It is Unethical to prevent a Person from doing what they will with their own Body.
(Conversely, Abortion should be Illegal and forcibly prevented.)

Axiom Three: It is Unethical to disallow any Person to perform any action that does not directly, or causally, Harm another person.

Axiom Four: An Action is not a thing, nor is a thing an action - Definitionally.

Therefore, it is utterly Unethical to advocate any position that denys the Right to Choose to own or perform any thing or action that does not directly or causally harm any other Legal Individual.

Therefore, It is Unethical:


to demand that having an Abortion be punishable by law.
to demand that ingesting drugs (in a way that does not endanger others) be punishable law.
to demand that owning any non-indiscriminately dangerous thing (alcohol, drugs, books, computers, chainsaws, bats, swords, knives, guns, whatever) be punishable by law.


Explain how you can be "Pro Choice" &/or "Progressive" when denying any of these Axioms.

I think you ought to have aborted two of your triplet threads.

I think you ought to abort two of your triplet threads.
Agreed. Sorry, Jolt Fart. :headbang: Will ask Mods.

Eh, say it's not their body to decide for? :p

I love your poll - so evenhanded. :)

“Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?” ~Bill Hicks

“Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?” ~Bill Hicks

LOL True.

Eh, say it's not their body to decide for? :p

I love your poll - so evenhanded. :)
It is. Either you are consistant or you are a Hypocritical Git. There are no other choices.

I can accept Authoritarians who do not believe in personal choice. I believe they are wrong, but as long as they are consistant i their beliefs I can respect them. Disagree with and fight, but respect.

I have no respect for Hypocrits.

Edit: Note too that I did not say "It is unethical to disagree with X", just that it is unethical to demand that X be illegal. Big difference.

I disagree with abortion. But it is in no way my place to deny it to those who do not feel as I do.

It is. Either you are consistant or you are a Hypocritical Git. There are no other choices.

I can accept Authoritarians who do not believe in personal choice. I believe they are wrong, but as long as they are consistant i their beliefs I can respect them. Disagree with and fight, but respect.

I have no respect for Hypocrits.

Same, unless it is a parent who learned by mistake and is no longer a hypocritical idiot.

It is. Either you are consistant or you are a Hypocritical Git. There are no other choices.I meant your use of words. Pro-choice; Anti-choice. I use Pro-choice and Pro-life, as they are quite popular and do not attack one or the other.

I can accept Authoritarians who do not believe in personal choice. I believe they are wrong, but as long as they are consistant i their beliefs I can respect them. Disagree with and fight, but respect.

I have no respect for Hypocrits.I'll agree with you there. :)


Edit: Note too that I did not say "It is unethical to disagree with X", just that it is unethical to demand that X be illegal. Big difference.

I disagree with abortion. But it is in no way my place to deny it to those who do not feel as I do.In the token of my first post, if it's not the mother's body, than whose is it? Their own. We consider doing things detrimental to others as bad things, and taking other people's lives is considered one of the worst things that can be done. It follows that it is sometimes right to allow less freedom for some when it infringes other people's freedoms, in this case their right to life.

I think you ought to have aborted two of your triplet threads.
I sometimes wonder if we all wouldn't be better off if his momma ... oh nevermind. Sigh. ;)

It is. Either you are consistant or you are a Hypocritical Git. There are no other choices.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. :)

I meant your use of words. Pro-choice; Anti-choice. I use Pro-choice and Pro-life, as they are quite popular and do not attack one or the other.That's only because the abortion debate has co-opted the term "pro-choice". I think that is, of itself, a travesty.

As I state above,I am both "pro-life" AND "pro-choice", in that I disagree with abortion but also disagree with enforcing my disagreement on anyone else.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. :)
Awww, that's just because you are old enough to still believe the Earth is flat - even though you've been on the other side of it trying to avoid being kilt. ;)

(Note too that I said "unethical" not "immoral". Unethical entails Huminastic/Political criteria and "immoral" Religious/Cultural criteria.. (Hopefully) ne're the twain shall meet until Religion is no more.)

That's only because the abortion debate has co-opted the term "pro-choice". I think that is, of itself, a travesty.

As I state above,I am both "pro-life" AND "pro-choice", in that I disagree with abortion but also disagree with enforcing my disagreement on anyone else.
Why do you disagree with abortion?

Awww, that's just because you are old enough to still believe the Earth is flat - even though you've been on the other side of it trying to avoid being kilt. ;)
Yup! I believe in a flat earth, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, every JFK conspiracy that came down the pike, the Abominable Snowman, and every word L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote! I'm an equal opportunity believer. :D

The argument that pro-Lifers have, other than religion etc., is that the unborn child is a person being harmed, which contradicts one of the axioms.

Why do you disagree with abortion?I'm interested in this too - either you believe that a fetus has full human rights (anything else is kinda silly from this viewpoint), or you think they have sharply reduced to no rights, in which case it's not unethical to kill them and why would you feel it is wrong?

The argument for banning abortion while still believing in free choice is that an abortion does harm another inidividual: the unborn baby in the mother's body.

As a side note: I am pro-choice and believe the mother should unquestionably have the right to abort her baby at least until approximately 25 weeks, when the baby begins breathing, thinking, and being able to have a good chance of survival outside the womb using modern medicine. At that point, I am undecided. I call the baby a baby at all points in development to avoid making a distinction where no clear distinction exists. I generally will say abortion should always be legal becuase trying to define precisely when the baby becomes a fully seperate person is impossible. Is even a 13 year old a person fully seperate from his parents? Legally, he has some mixed status. So does that mean parents should have the legal right to kill their 13 year old child if they want? It is their child, right? They can do what they want with themselves as long as it doesn't harm another human being. And a child is a child, not a human.

Anyway...

The argument that pro-Lifers have, other than religion etc., is that the unborn child is a person being harmed, which contradicts one of the axioms.It doesn't contradict any axiom, and I agree with all of them. He just doesn't see things the way I do, and I doubt he ever will.

As a side note: I am pro-choice and believe the mother should unquestionably have the right to abort her baby at least until approximately 25 weeks, when the baby begins breathing, thinking, and being able to have a good chance of survival outside the womb using modern medicine. At that point, I am undecided. I call the baby a baby at all points in development to avoid making a distinction where no clear distinction exists. I generally will say abortion should always be legal becuase trying to define precisely when the baby becomes a fully seperate person is impossible. Is even a 13 year old a person fully seperate from his parents? Legally, he has some mixed status. So does that mean parents should have the legal right to kill their 13 year old child if they want? It is their child, right? They can do what they want with themselves as long as it doesn't harm another human being. And a child is a child, not a human.How do you decide anything? When does a 20 year old become responsible for something? A 40 year old? Is no one responsible for anything? Is no one worth anything? Does anyone have any sort of rights whatsoever? Does anything have any rights? How do you define them?

Why do you disagree with abortion?
Gut reaction. No other reason. I simply disagree with the concept of non-spontaneous 2/3/4 trimester abortion as a way of terminating an unwanted pregnancy - especially if there are (since there are?) people waiting to adopt newborns.

But beyond that... Not my decision.
I don't do drugs either. Other people do. Not my decision.
I don't take consentual pictures of consenting sex acts and post them on the Net. Other people do. Not my decision.
I shoot guns at paper targets. I carry guns where I might be attacked. Other people don't. Not my decision. If they would rather submit to personal assault that's their choice.

Personal Responsibility means just that. Personal. No lawsuits, no Government, just acceptance for the outcome of your own decisions.

The argument that pro-Lifers have, other than religion etc., is that the unborn child is a person being harmed, which contradicts one of the axioms.Nope. Because as of yet, an unborn child is not yet a Legal Entity... though the case law isa bit muddled there...:headbang:

But beyond that... Not my decision.
I don't do drugs either. Other people do. Not my decision.
I don't take consentual pictures of consenting sex acts and post them on the Net. Other people do. Not my decision.
I shoot guns at paper targets. I carry guns where I might be attacked. Other people don't. Not my decision. If they would rather submit to personal assault that's their choice.

Personal Responsibility means just that. Personal. No lawsuits, no Government, just acceptance for the outcome of your own decisions.Obviously some decisions can be overridden. We don't go about allowing murderers to kill people; I'm sure they can live with their own decision. It's the people that are dead that can't live with their killer's decision. Do they have the right to live or not?

Nope. Because as of yet, an unborn child is not yet a Legal Entity... though the case law isa bit muddled there...:headbang:A bit muddled, as in totally useless. I'd hesitate to base my decisions based on the law alone. The law is supposed to be based on ethics, not the other way around.

The argument that pro-Lifers have, other than religion etc., is that the unborn child is a person being harmed, which contradicts one of the axioms.Aye. I don't see myself as "anti-abortion" or "pro-life", but pro-choice -- choice to live or not, with legal use of potentially lethal force in self-defense (with abortions that are necessary for your survival considered self-defense) and an obligation to personally act on (or end up doing nothing about...) your choice to die. Thus, IMO, abortion (in general), killing people in comas, euthanasia, and the death penalty should be illegal and suicide should be legal.

I'm interested in this too - either you believe that a fetus has full human rights (anything else is kinda silly from this viewpoint), or you think they have sharply reduced to no rights, in which case it's not unethical to kill them and why would you feel it is wrong?I don't believe it is "wrong"I just disagree with it. There is a difference. "Wrong" implies an overarching Ethical/Moral construct. "Disagrees With" implies only my personal oogly feeling. I also feel oogly about anal sex... though not a few of my straight friends (ignoring Fass & Keru for the moment) get off on it. Lube & Poo? Bleah. But whatever floats your boat.

Nope. Because as of yet, an unborn child is not yet a Legal Entity... though the case law isa bit muddled there...:headbang:
Do you think that that might be why they are trying to change the law to define it as one:rolleyes:

im pro choice but not completely so.

just as there can be reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, there can be reasonable restrictions on availability of abortion, the use of drugs of all sorts, the ownership of weapons.

Obviously some decisions can be overridden. We don't go about allowing murderers to kill people; I'm sure they can live with their own decision. It's the people that are dead that can't live with their killer's decision. Do they have the right to live or not?

A bit muddled, as in totally useless. I'd hesitate to base my decisions based on the law alone. The law is supposed to be based on ethics, not the other way around.
If &/or when a fetus is arbitrairly declared a "Legal Entity" then the argument will shift. Until such time my argument stands.

At the moment, I believe I will promote the "Pro-Abortion" position should a fetus gain the status of a "Legal Entity". We shall see.

im pro choice but not completely so.

just as there can be reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, there can be reasonable restrictions on availability of abortion, the use of drugs of all sorts, the ownership of weapons.Define "reasonable".

When it comes to "Freedom of the Press" the definition of "reasonable" seems far more broad than many would suggest shoud be applicable to "arms".

That's only because the abortion debate has co-opted the term "pro-choice". I think that is, of itself, a travesty.

As I state above,I am both "pro-life" AND "pro-choice", in that I disagree with abortion but also disagree with enforcing my disagreement on anyone else.
Not to mention that your OP and the poll both deal with subjects other than abortion that also deal with choice.

Now mind you, I think the absolutism inherent in your opening post is a bit much, but your choice of poll options is an accurate one.

I don't believe it is "wrong"I just disagree with it. There is a difference. "Wrong" implies an overarching Ethical/Moral construct. "Disagrees With" implies only my personal oogly feeling. I also feel oogly about anal sex... though not a few of my straight friends (ignoring Fass & Keru for the moment) get off on it. Lube & Poo? Bleah. But whatever floats your boat.Alright, you just think it's nasty.

So, can you enforce any ethical laws on other people? These people may or may not have the same beliefs as you do with regards to what is ethical or not. Can you judge them in any way? Could you interfere if you found that the thing they were doing was bad enough?

Suppose a little girl was being raped by some old men, and then one of them hacks off her leg and starts hitting her with it and finally just starts stabbing her with knife. They don't think it's unethical. Should you interfere, or would you just think it's kind of gross and walk on?

If &/or when a fetus is arbitrairly declared a "Legal Entity" then the argument will shift. Until such time my argument stands.

At the moment, I believe I will promote the "Pro-Abortion" position should a fetus gain the status of a "Legal Entity". We shall see.

In New York, for example, they are very pro-abortion yet they will charge a man who murders a pregnant woman with a double homocide. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

Suppose a little girl was being raped by some old men, and then one of them hacks off her leg and starts hitting her with it and finally just starts stabbing her with knife. They don't think it's wrong. Should you interfere, or would you just think it's kind of gross and walk on?
My, you have quiet an active imagination.

My, you have quiet an active imagination.Undoubtably. I was trying to make a point, and having it an extreme case helps to make it clear. :)

Define "reasonable".

When it comes to "Freedom of the Press" the definition of "reasonable" seems far more broad than many would suggest shoud be applicable to "arms".
reasonable should be decided by consensus, not by me.

but

im quite satisfied with our current abortion laws that allow unfettered access to medically safe abortions up to around 20 weeks and after that gradually deny abortion for any but health and life.

im quite satisfied with the prescription system for theraputic drugs (although any system can be improved) i am fairly dissatisfied with the current laws on recreational drugs since they are based on prejudice rather than reality. the non-narcotics should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol, for example.

gun laws in the US are mostly grandstanding on the part of the politicians and are fairly useless. only law abiding citizens abide by the law. i dont see a big need to regulate the moderate ownership of guns by law abiding citizens. im fine with disallowing certain sorts of weapons and bullets or regulating the number of guns in any one home.

Not to mention that your OP and the poll both deal with subjects other than abortion that also deal with choice. Yep. :D Now mind you, I think the absolutism inherent in your opening post is a bit much, but your choice of poll options is an accurate one. Z0MG! Nazz is showing some positive non-MarKos thought patterns! Quick! Put on your KosFoil(TM) Beenie or you may be co-opted! :p :p

There are many individually non-harmful personal choices that have been subverted by politics. Abortion is one. Guns are another. My point here is to re-orient people to the concept that the Freedom to do and be, as long as you do not personally, causally hurt another legal entity, superceeds Politics.

Of course, that happens to be the Libertarian Political Platform, but, whatever. :p

Thorn969']In New York, for example, they are very pro-abortion yet they will charge a man who murders a pregnant woman with a double homocide. Isn't that a bit contradictory?Absolutely. But then, NY is NY. Consistancy is no more a part of NY politics tha it is in Chicago.

Mobsters get a free pass while parking violations get heavy Police followup. Go Figure.

There are many individually non-harmful personal choices that have been subverted by politics. Abortion is one. Guns are another. My point here is to re-orient people to the concept that the Freedom to do and be, as long as you do not personally, causally hurt another legal entity, superceeds Politics.

Of course, that happens to be the Libertarian Political Platform, but, whatever. :pAgain, defining human based on what the law says. Not the best idea in my book. How would you define human in an anarchic society, where there is no law to define (that is, arbitrarily place) it for you?

Yep. :D Z0MG! Nazz is showing some positive non-MarKos thought patterns! Quick! Put on your KosFoil(TM) Beenie or you may be co-opted! :p :p

There are many individually non-harmful personal choices that have been subverted by politics. Abortion is one. Guns are another. My point here is to re-orient people to the concept that the Freedom to do and be, as long as you do not personally, causally hurt another legal entity, superceeds Politics.

Of course, that happens to be the Libertarian Political Platform, but, whatever. :p
Socially, I'm very much a libertarian, as are many fellow liberals. I'd love to see the decriminalization of most recreational drugs, and marriage and adoption rights for gay couples. I'd also like to see an end to federal gun control, as it suffers inherently from one-size-fits-all-ism. Let states and municipalities decide how best to deal with their gun issues--the people on the ground are best suited to make that call. Gun laws that work in Vermont won't work in D.C., and vice versa.

Alright, you just think it's nasty.

So, can you enforce any ethical laws on other people? These people may or may not have the same beliefs as you do with regards to what is ethical or not. Can you judge them in any way? Could you interfere if you found that the thing they were doing was bad enough?

Suppose a little girl was being raped by some old men, and then one of them hacks off her leg and starts hitting her with it and finally just starts stabbing her with knife. They don't think it's unethical. Should you interfere, or would you just think it's kind of gross and walk on?
Personally, I'd put a bullet in his head then perform triage on the kid.

I don't need thhe "law" to tell me when a crime against a person is being committed.

Although my opinions might make me unpopular...

Axiom One: It is Unethical to punish a Group for the unauthorized act(s) of individuals.
(Conversely all Muslims/Christians/Hindus/Jews should be punished for the acts of their extremists.)

Groups will always be punished, as long as there is strife and contention in the world. Man is not fit to judge. Yet I do not worry though, no mis deed will go unpunished, in the end, we will all be held accountable for our ownh actions.

Axiom Two: It is Unethical to prevent a Person from doing what they will with their own Body.
(Conversely, Abortion should be Illegal and forcibly prevented.)

People should have the right to choose what they do with their bodies, as long as they realise that in the end, they will have to account for what they have done. However, no one has the right to stop a life from being born, under any circumstances.

Axiom Three: It is Unethical to disallow any Person to perform any action that does not directly, or causally, Harm another person.

As I said above, everyone has to account for their own actions in the end, whether they believe they will, or not.

Axiom Four: An Action is not a thing, nor is a thing an action - Definitionally.

Action is doing. A thing is just that, a Thing. a thing, under its own power, cannot be an action, even if its very existence is nothing but ceaseless action, such as a star.



I've travled through life longer than what Science and most religions can accept, explain, or even understand. That which i have seen and learned over many lifetimes has revealed to me more wisdom and understanding than what any path of knowledge will ever discover. Life cannot and will never be explained completly by man, based on logic alone. I see alot of people are just starting out, there are more people today than there were an untold number of ages ago, which partly explains the faults of today, but does not forgive them. The problems given above, except possibly number four, are problems that are very old indeed, and will never vanish, but instead, live on again, and again, in one form or another, until Time itself ceases to march.

Everyone will have their own opinions and I know many will simply ignore man, throw them into question, or even ridicule them. Let them. I have said my peace, and I only hope that somebody at least, gleans a little understanding from my words.

Axiom One: It is Unethical to punish a Group for the unauthorized act(s) of individuals.
(Conversely all Muslims/Christians/Hindus/Jews should be punished for the acts of their extremists.)

Axiom Two: It is Unethical to prevent a Person from doing what they will with their own Body.
(Conversely, Abortion should be Illegal and forcibly prevented.)

Axiom Three: It is Unethical to disallow any Person to perform any action that does not directly, or causally, Harm another person.

Axiom Four: An Action is not a thing, nor is a thing an action - Definitionally.

Therefore, it is utterly Unethical to advocate any position that denys the Right to Choose to own or perform any thing or action that does not directly or causally harm any other Legal Individual.

Therefore, It is Unethical:


to demand that having an Abortion be punishable by law.
to demand that ingesting drugs (in a way that does not endanger others) be punishable law.
to demand that owning any non-indiscriminately dangerous thing (alcohol, drugs, books, computers, chainsaws, bats, swords, knives, guns, whatever) be punishable by law.


Explain how you can be "Pro Choice" &/or "Progressive" when denying any of these Axioms.
Axiom Five: This poll is flawed.

Some people could readily accept one, two or three of your "Axioms" and still be "Progressive".

Some people could accept all of your "Axioms" and not be "Progressive".

Some people could accept parts of "Axiom Four" and not accept other parts and still be "Progressive".

Personally, I'd put a bullet in his head then perform triage on the kid.

I don't need thhe "law" to tell me when a crime against a person is being committed.And, as you, I see a crime against a person being committed and will take action to stop said crime, even if it infringes some people's rights (temporarily in this case, of course). I don't require popular belief or acceptance of my views to try to enforce them through law. Even if the entire world thought that what those men were doing was acceptable, I would still try to stop it.

Same, unless it is a parent who learned by mistake and is no longer a hypocritical idiot.

Well, a hypocrite isn't one who preaches against what they've done, but one who preaches against what they do.

If you get hooked on heroine and then manage to get off the stuff, it isn't hypocritical to say that no one should ever take heroine. It is hypocritical to get yourself off of heroine and then say that anyone who takes it should be locked up in prison when you yourself were not.

That's why Bush (and Clinton for that matter) is a hypocrite on the narcotics issue. Not because they believe that what they once did is wrong, but because they advocate imposing on others, the punishments that they themselves avoided. Now if they were to turn themselves in for their past drug use...

Nope. Because as of yet, an unborn child is not yet a Legal Entity... though the case law isa bit muddled there...:headbang:

+

If &/or when a fetus is arbitrairly declared a "Legal Entity" then the argument will shift. Until such time my argument stands.


does not add up to:

Personally, I'd put a bullet in his head then perform triage on the kid.

I don't need thhe "law" to tell me when a crime against a person is being committed.

Rather inconsistent and hypocritical.

Axiom Five: This poll is flawed.

Some people could readily accept one, two or three of your "Axioms" and still be "Progressive".

Some people could accept all of your "Axioms" and not be "Progressive".

Some people could accept parts of "Axiom Four" and not accept other parts and still be "Progressive".
As you are so fond of saying... Proof?

+
does not add up to:
Rather inconsistent and hypocritical.
Nope. MY opinion will not change. IF a fetus is legally declared a person, therefore making Abprtion illegal, I will not seek out illegal abortion providers an wait for the aformentioned dismembermrnt to occur - any more than I currently seek out crack houses in an effort to catch crack dealers to execute. :rolleyes:

Morality is Cultural. Ethicstranscends culture and aproaches thelowest orderof abstraction possible in human interaction.

A Fetus is "virtual" A Human is Physical. the Lowest Order of abstraction deals with just that. What can be abstracted from logical, physical stimului. A fetus, while potentilly a non-abstract entity, is, in fact, a high order abstraction until such time as it presents itself physically. At almost any point in a pregnancy (though diminishing with each trimenter) a fetus may be spontaneously aborted. Call it an SA, call it a Still Birth. It's the same thing.

Regardless. This topic is about the Low Order Abstraction of the Human Right to Choice in actions that do not harm other members of the community. (i.e. Legal Entities). My Abortion does not hurt you. My Target Practice does not hurt You. My (Managed) Hunting does not hurt You.

If what I do doesn't hurt You, or causally hurt or endanger the community at large (an identiafiable, indiscriminate danger), then you have no rational say in what I do. Period.

As you are so fond of saying... Proof?Me. I accept all four.

A Fetus is "virtual" A Human is Physical. the Lowest Order of abstraction deals with just that. What can be abstracted from logical, physical stimului. A fetus, while potentilly a non-abstract entity, is, in fact, a high order abstraction until such time as it presents itself physically. At almost any point in a pregnancy (though diminishing with each trimenter) a fetus may be spontaneously aborted. Call it an SA, call it a Still Birth. It's the same thing.I have trouble understanding how a living being is an abstraction... also, at any point, any given person *may* die of a heart attack. Let's induce one, because you know, it's got to happen sometime and it might as well be that annoying kid that you have to support. That's an interesting point.

You practice does hurt a being - the fetus. I don't agree with you that you should be able to kill them, I don't agree that legal status is a good way of determining ethics, and I don't agree that if something does not hurt me specifically I have no right to determine whether I want to allow it or not.

Partisan Git, I take it, since I'm more pro-choice than anti.
I don't believe in a persons right to do cocaine or heroin. Why do I violate other people's right to self determination? Because these drugs cause physical addictions and frankly, not everyone is capable of handling this. I'm no fan of the "self-reliability doctrine" that's spread throughout America. It seem cruel and heartless to me to discriminate against people that are weaker by birth or experience on the grounds that "they deserve it." Yes, I believe that there is need for a "nanny-state" to some degree. Society wasn't made to benefit the strong only, it was meant to protect the strong and the weak equally.

Socially, I'm very much a libertarian, as are many fellow liberals. I'd love to see the decriminalization of most recreational drugs, and marriage and adoption rights for gay couples. I'd also like to see an end to federal gun control, as it suffers inherently from one-size-fits-all-ism. Let states and municipalities decide how best to deal with their gun issues--the people on the ground are best suited to make that call. Gun laws that work in Vermont won't work in D.C., and vice versa.
I'd better go find Kimchi and ask him to slap me up-side the head. I'm agreeing with you again... :eek:

If you own guns and aren't going hunting with them, there's really only one reason to own them... and that's not generally a good thing.


So let's stop associating abortion with ownership of weapons whose sole purpopse it is to kill other people. :rolleyes:

Thorn969']In New York, for example, they are very pro-abortion yet they will charge a man who murders a pregnant woman with a double homocide. Isn't that a bit contradictory?
Pro-choice isn't pro-abortion. Pro-abortion is "every pregnant woman should have an abortion, regardless of whether she wants one." pro-choice is "a woman should be able to choose whether or not she wants to carry the pregnancy to term"

Furthermore, those sorts of laws were pushed through by anti-choicers, not pro-choicers.

Me. I accept all four.

I have trouble understanding how a living being is an abstraction... also, at any point, any given person *may* die of a heart attack. Let's induce one, because you know, it's got to happen sometime and it might as well be that annoying kid that you have to support. That's an interesting point.

You practice does hurt a being - the fetus. I don't agree with you that you should be able to kill them, I don't agree that legal status is a good way of determining ethics, and I don't agree that if something does not hurt me specifically I have no right to determine whether I want to allow it or not.Then you are simply an Authoritarian - believing that your whim should be law.

If you own guns and aren't going hunting with them, there's really only one reason to own them... and that's not generally a good thing. Competition target shooting isn't a good thing?
So let's stop associating abortion with ownership of weapons whose sole purpopse it is to kill other people. :rolleyes:See above. And I'm not associating firearms with abortion. I'm associating them with the concept of Freedom of Choice.

It's only the partisans in the abortion debate who seem to have claimed the word "Choice" as their proprietary trademark. :rolleyes:

As you are so fond of saying... Proof?
Proof is easy. I consider myself a liberal and progressive.

Axiom One is easy to embrace.

Axiom Two is far more complex. For example, while I do believe that a woman's decision whether she wants an abortion or not rests solely with her, her God, and her doctor, I do not see the value in legalizing suicide. I also believe that legalizing and condoning the use of all drugs, is in the long run, detrimental to society as a whole.

Axiom Three can easily be defeated by the same objections I raised in Axiom Two. If committing suicide was legal, then a person committing suicide could actually hurt their friends and loved ones in the process.

Denying certain individuals, such as criminals or mentally unstable people, access to deadly tools such as firearms, can help prevent them from committing crimes which would affect other people.

Laws can be "actions" against "things", such as the sale of guns, drugs, etc.

I'm for choice to a point.

I think that the health of the society and individuals is more important than their right to choose. This is why I'm all for restricting choice for the greater good of the society.

This is why I'm for gun control because guns have an adverse effect on the health of people whether they are used legally or illegally, it still results in death and injury. And I believe that gun control decreases the amount of firearms going around.

This is why I'm for banning certain substances like some drugs because it has an adverse effect on the health of the users.

This is why I'm for abortion because a foetus has an effect on the mother's health, sometimes an adverse effect. This is why I am for the freedom to have abortion even if I find it morally distastefull and would strongly encourage any woman to have the baby if it is not too much of a health risk.

The difference between me and Syniks is that we put one civil liberty above the other. It's all a question of priority.

Proof is easy. I consider myself a liberal and progressive.

Axiom One is easy to embrace.

Axiom Two is far more complex. For example, while I do believe that a woman's decision whether she wants an abortion or not rests solely with her, her God, and her doctor, I do not see the value in legalizing suicide.Suicide is legal. You can't go to jail for trying (certainly not for succeeding). Assisted suicide is illegal. That's hypocrisy. I also believe that legalizing and condoning the use of all drugs, is in the long run, detrimental to society as a whole. Who said anything about condoning? I don't condone smoking ciggarettes, but making them illegal is absurd.
Axiom Three can easily be defeated by the same objections I raised in Axiom Two. If committing suicide was legal, then a person committing suicide could actually hurt their friends and loved ones in the process.Commiting Suicide is legal. You may get a psych eval for attempting and failing, but you won't get fined or go to prison.
Denying certain individuals, such as criminals or mentally unstable people, access to deadly tools such as firearms, can help prevent them from committing crimes which would affect other people.False. Crime is in intent and action, not what tool is used.
Laws can be "actions" against "things", such as the sale of guns, drugs, etc.False. The law isagainst the Sale (the action), not the thing.

So far the only thing you have "proven" is that your logic and position on the Freedom of Choice is inconsistant and hypocritical. Therefore, despite how "progressive" you claim to be, you cannot be "Pro Choice".

Axiom One: It is Unethical to punish a Group for the unauthorized act(s) of individuals.
(Conversely all Muslims/Christians/Hindus/Jews should be punished for the acts of their extremists.)

Axiom Two: It is Unethical to prevent a Person from doing what they will with their own Body.
(Conversely, Abortion should be Illegal and forcibly prevented.)

Axiom Three: It is Unethical to disallow any Person to perform any action that does not directly, or causally, Harm another person.

Axiom Four: An Action is not a thing, nor is a thing an action - Definitionally.

Therefore, it is utterly Unethical to advocate any position that denys the Right to Choose to own or perform any thing or action that does not directly or causally harm any other Legal Individual.

Therefore, It is Unethical:


to demand that having an Abortion be punishable by law.
to demand that ingesting drugs (in a way that does not endanger others) be punishable law.
to demand that owning any non-indiscriminately dangerous thing (alcohol, drugs, books, computers, chainsaws, bats, swords, knives, guns, whatever) be punishable by law.


Explain how you can be "Pro Choice" &/or "Progressive" when denying any of these Axioms.
You seem to jave made a leap from 'person' to 'legal individual' partway through. You need a fith axiom, that an unborn child is not a person, to plug the gap.

Further, your first three axioms refer to the ethics of acts acts, axiom four says things are not acts, and then you draw a conclusion (your third) one about the ethics of [/i]things[/i].

You seem to jave made a leap from 'person' to 'legal individual' partway through. You need a fith axiom, that an unborn child is not a person, to plug the gap.All persons are legal entities, but not all legal entities are persons. There is no gap.
Further, your first three axioms refer to the ethics of acts acts, axiom four says things are not acts, and then you draw a conclusion (your third) one about the ethics of [/i]things[/i].Nope. My third conclusion is about the act of owning/possessing. The thing being owned/possessed is immaterial, so long as it cannot be an actor in its own right.

I'd better go find Kimchi and ask him to slap me up-side the head. I'm agreeing with you again... :eek:
How about you ask yourself why you have these beliefs about liberals in general instead? Why do you buy into the stereotypes?

All persons are legal entities, but not all legal entities are persons. There is no gap.
There was a gap until you proposed that extra axiom there - 'all persons are legal entities'. I think many people would argue that the legal definition does not encompass their own concept of 'person'.

How about you ask yourself why you have these beliefs about liberals in general instead? Why do you buy into the stereotypes?
Because most of the time they hold true? ;)

Because most of the time they hold true? ;)
Of course they do. Just like all christians are raving nutballs who believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago and theat God put fossils in the earth to fuck with us. Just like all libertarians are self-righteous prigs who would rather see old people starve than pay a penny more in taxes.

Of course they do. Just like all christians are raving nutballs who believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago and theat God put fossils in the earth to fuck with us. Just like all libertarians are self-righteous prigs who would rather see old people starve than pay a penny more in taxes.Seems about right. :D

Then you are simply an Authoritarian - believing that your whim should be law.Note my political compass score. I doubt I'm overall an authoritarian. Also, note that the situation I gave you with the girl is basically the same as I percieve abortions to be, and you agreed with me on what to do in that situation. I suppose I'm "authoritarian" in that sense, just as you are - I find that some actions do not justify the breach of ethics they involve, and would prevent them if I could.

I just find that some things are worth taking a stand for, and human life is one of those things. If you feel differently, fine, but know that I will actively disagree with you.

Note my political compass score. I doubt I'm overall an authoritarian. Also, note that the situation I gave you with the girl is basically the same as I percieve abortions to be, and you agreed with me on what to do in that situation.

The situations are not remotely similar from any rational perspective. For you to be in the position to "percieve" an abortion to fit your scenerio requires more than simple proximity. It requires you to actively seek out the situation, which, unless you are in Law Enforcement, is a crime in and of itself. That's the line where defense of self and others becomes vigelantisim. If you can't see the difference then I expect you will be seeing the inside of a jail.
I suppose I'm "authoritarian" in that sense, just as you are - I find that some actions do not justify the breach of ethics they involve, and would prevent them if I could.But you can't. Not without breaking the law and becoming a violent criminal yourself.
I just find that some things are worth taking a stand for, and human life is one of those things. If you feel differently, fine, but know that I will actively disagree with you.
I feel that Freedom is more important than one, or one million, lives. That's why we fought our "good" wars. Remember?

Murder is murder no matter what you call it. It is not a matter of rights, simply murder. If I stab the guy next to me and say "I can do what I want" I wil go to jail, but millions of babies are killed because society thinks that unless it looks like a baby it is OK to kill it? What a sad state you liberal anarchist have put this world in.

Murder is murder no matter what you call it. It is not a matter of rights, simply murder. If I stab the guy next to me and say "I can do what I want" I wil go to jail, but millions of babies are killed because society thinks that unless it looks like a baby it is OK to kill it? What a sad state you liberal anarchist have put this world in.
Good thing abortion is not murder and that a foetus is not a baby, then.

The situations are not remotely similar from any rational perspective. So I'm irrational then. It's a good thing I'm the irrational one, because if it wasn't me, it would have to be someone else, and you're the only other one available.

Seriously, if it takes irrationality to be able to protect the innocent, then sure enough, I am irrational.

For you to be in the position to "percieve" an abortion to fit your scenerio requires more than simple proximity. It requires you to actively seek out the situation, which, unless you are in Law Enforcement, is a crime in and of itself. That's the line where defense of self and others becomes vigelantisim. If you can't see the difference then I expect you will be seeing the inside of a jail.
But you can't. Not without breaking the law and becoming a violent criminal yourself. Which is why I try to mitigate the damage done by assisting various charities and resource centers, and am in favor of banning it. No, I don't have to be in proximity either; ever watch "The Silent Scream"? I wonder if that's evidence enough for you. I hardly have to actively seek out talk of abortion, and finding evidence is hardly more than a click away.

I oppose abortion in the same way I oppose the death penalty - I think it's wrong, and I want it gone, but I realize that to do anything effective I must go through legal channels. Busting into a jail and rescuing a prisoner is hardly going to save his life or the rest of the people on death row. Banning the death penalty, however, is a much more effective option.

But you can't. Not without breaking the law and becoming a violent criminal yourself. Just like you would if you murdered those men attacking that kid? Amazing.

I feel that Freedom is more important than one, or one million, lives. That's why we fought our "good" wars. Remember?You feel. You think. The only way you can feel that way is if you're alive in the first place. You should decide for yourself only whether your life is worth living.

Anybody hear about this:

"Oglala Sioux Tribe President Cecelia Fire Thunder recently said she hopes to establish a clinic that provides abortion services on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation -- which covers millions of acres within the state's borders south of Rapid City -- in the event that a South Dakota law (HB 1215) that bans abortion except to save a woman's life goes into effect, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reports (Ramos, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 3/28). According to an opinion piece by Tim Giago published in the March 20 edition of the Native American Times, Fire Thunder responded to the approval of the law by saying, "To me, it is now a question of sovereignty," adding, "I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the state of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction" (Indianz.com, 3/21). The Oglala Sioux Tribal code says, "A child conceived but not born is deemed to be an existing person so far as may be necessary for its interests and welfare to be protected in the event of its subsequent birth." The code does not mention abortion specifically, Charlie Abourezk, a Rapid City-based attorney who has represented the tribe and Fire Thunder, said. "In our culture, children are sacred, but women are sacred too, and somebody who has been victimized by rape or incest should have options," Fire Thunder said in a statement (Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 3/28)."
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=36322

You feel. You think. The only way you can feel that way is if you're alive in the first place. You should decide for yourself only whether your life is worth living.
Which is entirely my pont. Neither You, nor I, nor anyone else has the right to decide for a third party.

Which is entirely my pont. Neither You, nor I, nor anyone else has the right to decide for a third party.But you do it by aborting fetuses. Whether you think they are people or not, I do, and I cannot just allow it to happen without doing something, just as you could not allow the men to kill the girl.

But you do it by aborting fetuses. Whether you think they are people or not, I do, and I cannot just allow it to happen without doing something, just as you could not allow the men to kill the girl.
You should do something positive, then. Like adopt an orphan.

I have no problem with any of the axioms, nor any of the conclusions, except the one regarding weapons. Weapons, because of their obvious potential use to harm others, cannot be legitimately construed to fall within Axiom Three, especially if there are no other effective means to restrain their use.

You should do something positive, then. Like adopt an orphan.Like I said, I do charities, etc., but I'm unable to support kids right now. I might if I get the chance in the future, however.

Like I said, I do charities, etc., but I'm unable to support kids right now. I might if I get the chance in the future, however.
I'm planning to do it in the future, myself. Probably after we have two children of our own.

But you do it by aborting fetuses. Whether you think they are people or not, I do, and I cannot just allow it to happen without doing something, just as you could not allow the men to kill the girl.
No. You are still missing the point. I do not abort anything. I philosophically disagree with abortion. But I also philosophically disagree with forcing my will on people. Aparantly you do not. :rolleyes:

The somthing I do is support adoption centers and Fully Informed Patient rules. But the ultimate choice is not mine. It will never be mine. Hopefully it will never be yours either.

I'm niether.

I have no problem with any of the axioms, nor any of the conclusions, except the one regarding weapons. Weapons, because of their obvious potential use to harm others, cannot be legitimately construed to fall within Axiom Three, especially if there are no other effective means to restrain their use.

(A) Define "weapon". Anything can be a "weapon" because anything can have an "obvious potential use to harm others".
(B) How will you restrain the use of any thing? If it can be used legitimately, it can be used illigitimately. If you restrain possesson, you restrain legitimate action - and that is unethical.

Axiom Three: It is Unethical to disallow any Person to perform any action that does not directly, or causally, Harm another person.

A "weapon" is only a "weapon" when it is used in a weaponlike manner - i.e. to cause harm. Until such time as it is used to cause harm that "weapon" is a simple, inanimate tool, whether it is a chainsaw, axe, cricket bat, boning knife or firearm.

No. You are still missing the point. I do not abort anything. I philosophically disagree with abortion. But I also philosophically disagree with forcing my will on people. Aparantly you do not. :rolleyes: So having knowlege of a planned murder and doing nothing to stop it besides telling the perpetrator, "Oh, you really shouldn't, there's other options." is somehow acceptable to you? Lol, whatever.

The somthing I do is support adoption centers and Fully Informed Patient rules. But the ultimate choice is not mine. It will never be mine. Hopefully it will never be yours either.The choice is not the mother's either. When the baby is an adult it can decide whether it's life is worth living or not. Until then, neither you nor anyone else should take what it has away.

I tend to think we should follow the whole "Your right to swing your fist extends as far as your neighbors nose" which is pretty much what you've spelled out here. If you want to do drugs fine just don't do them in a way that infringes on my rights.

So far the only thing you have "proven" is that your logic and position on the Freedom of Choice is inconsistant and hypocritical. Therefore, despite how "progressive" you claim to be, you cannot be "Pro Choice".
By your libertarian standards I suppose, but by my "progressive" standards, I am not at all inconsistent. That is why I suggest that your Axioms fail. I can favour gradual reform, with reforms that extend democracy as a progressive and in certain instances, I can favour pro choice. I do not totally adhere to a laissez faire doctrine. The libertarian experience can lead to anarchy and constant upheavel....no thanks. It is also a system that marginalizes the weaker segments of society and thus is a less caring society.

(A) Define "weapon". Anything can be a "weapon" because anything can have an "obvious potential use to harm others".

Naturally, you have to use reason and practicality. What sort of need exists for this particular weapon? Are there legitimate uses? Is it actually used as a weapon with significant regularity, and not merely a weapon in the theoretical imaginings of those who like to quibble?

I am only rejecting the absolutist declaration that it is never legitimate to restrain their use.

I classify doing so, at least in some cases, not as an attempt to deprive someone of their right to act freely as long as no one is harmed, but rather as a practical enforcement mechanism against the use of weaponry to harm others - a goal which is most definitely legitimate.

I happen to oppose gun control, for what it's worth.

(B) How will you restrain the use of any thing? If it can be used legitimately, it can be used illigitimately. If you restrain possesson, you restrain legitimate action - and that is unethical.

The potential for legitimate action should be taken into consideration.

A "weapon" is only a "weapon" when it is used in a weaponlike manner - i.e. to cause harm. Until such time as it is used to cause harm that "weapon" is a simple, inanimate tool, whether it is a chainsaw, axe, cricket bat, boning knife or firearm.

Or a nuclear bomb.

Axiom Three: It is Unethical to disallow any Person to perform any action that does not directly, or causally, Harm another person.
The problem with this axiom is that "harm" is subjective.