Why Don't Right To Lifers Support Government Paying 50% of Child Support?
Bret Cahill
more opposition to abortion.
Bret Cahill
Neolibertarian
<f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> more opposition to abortion.
>
The problem is, abortion is murder.
You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
committing murder.
--
Neolibertarian
"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan
Jenny6833A
> In article
> <f65a530f-0282-4531-9430-df03b027d...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> > more opposition to abortion.
>
> The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> committing murder.
NOMINATED FOR THE NONSEQUITUR OF THE MONTH AWARD, THE MOST ASSININE
POST OF THE MONTH AWARD, AND THE NINCOMPOOP OF THE MONTH AWARD,
:-(
Jenny
Ray Fischer
> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> more opposition to abortion.
>>
>The problem is, abortion is murder.
A bald-faced lie. Abortion is not and has never been murder.
Pro-liars never tell the truth.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
thomas p.
news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> In article
> <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> more opposition to abortion.
>>
> The problem is, abortion is murder.
Obviously it is not.+
>
> You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> committing murder.
>
> --
> Neolibertarian
Obviously you are not.
Franklin Hummel
> On May 8, 10:53 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <f65a530f-0282-4531-9430-df03b027d...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> > > more opposition to abortion.
> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> > committing murder.
> NOMINATED FOR THE NONSEQUITUR OF THE MONTH AWARD, THE MOST ASSININE
> POST OF THE MONTH AWARD, AND THE NINCOMPOOP OF THE MONTH AWARD,
Seconded!
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>In article
><f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> more opposition to abortion.
>>
>The problem is, abortion is murder.
No, it's eviction.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Dakota
> In article
> <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> more opposition to abortion.
>>
> The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> committing murder.
>
the murders of doctors.
Jerry Okamura
"Dakota" wrote in message news:T82dnfVtH4Z...@giganews.com...
What is the "right headed" concept?
Jerry Okamura
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:poofs6h8882rt65sc...@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>In article
><f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> more opposition to abortion.
>>
>The problem is, abortion is murder.
No, it's eviction.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
Jerry Okamura
"thomas p." wrote in message
news:4dc7c705$0$56780$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> In article
> <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> more opposition to abortion.
>>
> The problem is, abortion is murder.
Obviously it is not.+
No, what is obvious is it is not treated as murder....except when you murder
a woman in her third trimester of pregnancy.
Jerry Okamura
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
news:4dc78359$0$31390$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> more opposition to abortion.
>>
>The problem is, abortion is murder.
A bald-faced lie. Abortion is not and has never been murder.
Who is lying? Have people been charged with the murder of the unborn? Yes,
they have.
Jerry Okamura
"Jenny6833A" wrote in message
news:a15edbad-f548-43fb...@b7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Why?
Jerry Okamura
"Neolibertarian" wrote in message
news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
In article
<f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> more opposition to abortion.
>
The problem is, abortion is murder.
That may be true, but if it is allowed, it does not really matter if it is
murder or not, does it?
You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
committing murder.
No, you don't "need to" do that, but we do do that.
Jerry Okamura
support, then you won't have a need for the government to pay child support.
After all, a woman cannot get pregnant without some man doing his part. So,
why should he get off scot free, when he is responsible?
"Bret Cahill" wrote in message
news:f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Zacharias Mulletstein
"Don Kresch" <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote in message
news:poofs6h8882rt65sc...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>>In article
>><f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>>> more opposition to abortion.
>>>
>>The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> No, it's eviction.
No, it's murder, anarchist.
--
I am a Fundamentalist Christian Pentecostal Warrior for the One lamb virgin,
Jesus Christ.
Ben Kaufman
>Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>>> more opposition to abortion.
>>>
>>The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
>A bald-faced lie. Abortion is not and has never been murder.
>
>Pro-liars never tell the truth.
And it exposes another lie too, he/she is not interested in "the lives" they
are just interested in control because given a chance to $save$ a life, oh no.
Ben
Ben Kaufman
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>
> "Don Kresch" <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote in message
> news:poofs6h8882rt65sc...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>>>> more opposition to abortion.
>>>>
>>> The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>> No, it's eviction.
Evicting people that don't pay their mortgage, starving and old or
children that will die from the eviction... is OK by you!
Why would you vote for welfare when the freeloaders inside the uterus
and outside the uterus all should be evicted and put out to suffer.
I'm sure you are consistent and treat all of these situations equal!
You don't want to enslave me any more than you want to enslave the
pregnant woman. So you want to end Welfare and all Federal aid programs
so that I can support charity as I see fit, rather than having my labor
stolen by a government IRS task master.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Abortion isn't the issue.... it's killing the baby before you abort it
that is.
All babies are aborted naturally and eventually, and usually around 9
months after conception.
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>
> "Don Kresch" wrote in message
> news:poofs6h8882rt65sc...@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>> In article
>> <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>>> more opposition to abortion.
>>>
>> The problem is, abortion is murder.
Technically...
> No, it's eviction.
Removing a dead body.
> You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
...they kill the baby in the uterus, so the abortion takes place after
the killing is done, but sometimes they mistakenly do abort the baby
alive and before they have confirmed they killed it.
james g. keegan jr.
Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is, abortion is murder.
please educate yourself and learn what abortion is and what murder is
before making a fool of yourself again.
--
"When are you going to just finally come out of the closet, you homo?"
Eagle46 <ospr...@hotmail.com>
<cc6a7e12-0d2f-4e7d...@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
james g. keegan jr.
Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com>
wrote:
> On 5/9/2011 12:11 PM, Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Don Kresch" wrote in message
> > news:poofs6h8882rt65sc...@4ax.com...
> >
> > On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
> > <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >>> more opposition to abortion.
> >>>
> >> The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> Technically...
not even that
thomas p.
news:NnUxp.23244$vT3....@newsfe06.iad...
At which time she receives life in prison or capital punishment?
thomas p.
(correction of top posting)
>
> "Bret Cahill" wrote in message
> news:f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> more opposition to abortion.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:OsUxp.23275$uh5....@newsfe02.iad...
> That is a good question. But I would ask, why doesn't the father pay
> child support, then you won't have a need for the government to pay child
> support. After all, a woman cannot get pregnant without some man doing his
> part. So, why should he get off scot free, when he is responsible?
The father is legally responsible for child support, as is the mother. That
does not mean that either one can or will do so - rather obvious I would
have thought.
Virgil
"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zmulle...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
>
> No, it's murder, anarchist.
Then your alleged god is guilty of mass murder, as by far the majority
of abortions are "spontaneous", i.e., would be the acts of such a god,
if there were one.
--
ScotchBright
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>more opposition to abortion.
>
>
>Bret Cahill
>
They don't support that because they only care about kids
until they're born.
Lisa Lisa
> In article
> <f65a530f-0282-4531-9430-df03b027d...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> > more opposition to abortion.
> The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> committing murder.
So are you ready to support the kid after it's born?
PONY UP OR BELT UP.
Lisa
>
> --
> Neolibertarian
>
Don Kresch
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> scrawled in blood:
And eviction is still eviction, yes. Which is what abortion
is.
Don Kresch
<Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> scrawled in blood:
>On 5/9/2011 1:13 PM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Don Kresch" <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote in message
>> news:poofs6h8882rt65sc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>>>>> more opposition to abortion.
>>>>>
>>>> The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>>
>>> No, it's eviction.
>
>Evicting people that don't pay their mortgage, starving and old or
>children that will die from the eviction... is OK by you!
Yes. You need to separate the moral from the aesthetic, for
the two are not the same.
>
>Why would you vote for welfare
I wouldn't; I'm an anarchocapitalist. I don't want there to be
a government at all.
Jerry Okamura
"thomas p." wrote in message
news:4dc835b9$0$56788$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
I don't know who that "she" is.
Zacharias Mulletstein
"Don Kresch" <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote in message
news:dgsgs65ce1n8a116s...@4ax.com...
No, you're a corporation worshiper. Bow down to your corporate gods.
chibiabos
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
They've also been charged with running away from their owners, being
card-carrying members of a legitimate political party, and being
Jewish. What's your point?
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Bret Cahill
> > more opposition to abortion.
>
> The problem is, abortion is murder.
Don't you want to stop it?
> You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> committing murder.
Then why are they murdering millions of unborn babies every year?
Bret Cahill
Olrik
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 13:40:41 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> Why would you vote for welfare
>
> I wouldn't; I'm an anarchocapitalist.
BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Neolibertarian
<2cbff747-4f2f-494a...@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Lisa Lisa <harryh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Heh. Funny.
I'm saving up for college and cars right now. Two boys, 14 and 15.
Bottomless pits, both of them. I buy groceries, fill up the
refrigerator, and the next morning, it's empty. They walk through a room
and things break all around them. It's like magic. I don't they could
help it even if they tried. I buy them an iPod and a cell phone, and if
they still know where they are a week later, I count myself lucky.
I can't imagine "not paying up."
Nor can imagine having more fun than I've had over the last 15 years.
If it were about money, I'd have swallowed a revolver a long time ago.
It's not about money. It's about wealth.
I'm one of the wealthiest people I've ever known.
--
Neolibertarian
"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan
Ray Fischer
>>> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>>>> more opposition to abortion.
>>>>
>>>The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>>A bald-faced lie. Abortion is not and has never been murder.
>
>Who is lying?
You can't even READ attributes, moron?
> Have people been charged with the murder of the unborn?
You're changing the subject asshole. I referred to abortion.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Neolibertarian
Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon 5/9/11 0:53, Neolibertarian wrote:
> > In article
> > <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bret Cahill<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> more opposition to abortion.
> >>
> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
> >
> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> > committing murder.
> >
> Your wrong headed concept of what constitutes murder is what leads to
> the murders of doctors.
I don't advocate murder in any case.
And please explain how "my concept" is "wrong headed."
Neolibertarian
Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
> >In article
> ><f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> more opposition to abortion.
> >>
> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> No, it's eviction.
>
All well and good, but you're evicting the human being to its certain
death.
According to Maritime Law, for instance, evicting a passenger when well
out to sea hardly exonerates a ship's captain from charges of murder.
Besides, that's not how it's done, anyway. You're "evicting" the human
in question with a scalpel to his/her cranium. I've rented from some
pretty nasty and cruel landlords, but...
Neolibertarian
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> > In article
> > <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> more opposition to abortion.
> >>
> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> Obviously it is not.+
Murder is both a legal term and an ethical term. I'm referring to that
part of it which overlaps both.
If murder can be defined as intentionally killing another human being
for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of another human
being's life, then abortion is clearly murder.
>
> >
> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> > committing murder.
> >
> > --
> > Neolibertarian
>
> Obviously you are not.
A Neolibertarian?
How so?
Neolibertarian
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> more opposition to abortion.
> >>
> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> A bald-faced lie. Abortion is not and has never been murder.
>
> Pro-liars never tell the truth.
And yet, abortion is obviously murder. Scientific evidence clearly
indicates this.
Neolibertarian
<a15edbad-f548-43fb...@b7g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Jenny6833A <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 10:53 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <f65a530f-0282-4531-9430-df03b027d...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> > > more opposition to abortion.
> >
> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
> >
> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> > committing murder.
>
> NOMINATED FOR THE NONSEQUITUR OF THE MONTH AWARD, THE MOST ASSININE
> POST OF THE MONTH AWARD, AND THE NINCOMPOOP OF THE MONTH AWARD,
>
> :-(
Perhaps you don't understand the term.
In this case, murder can be defined as the intentional killing of a
human being for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of
another human being's life.
The reason my response is germane to the original assertion, is because
the poster assumed "liferism" needs to be supported by subsequent acts;
i.e., if one is against abortion, then one must logically support
tax-funded financial aid for distressed mothers.
Literally, this would mean anyone opposed to murder should necessarily
advocate financially supporting people in order to prevent them from
murdering each other.
This doesn't seem ludicrous to you? I'm quite certain that, if the only
thing standing between law and order and murder in the streets is some
welfare checks, this society is doomed, anyway.
Neolibertarian
<77b3a495-8a32-47a8...@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> > > more opposition to abortion.
> >
> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> Don't you want to stop it?
Outlaw it, yes.
>
> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> > committing murder.
>
> Then why are they murdering millions of unborn babies every year?
Because they're cowards.
Neolibertarian
"james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com>,
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
>
> please educate yourself and learn what abortion is and what murder is
> before making a fool of yourself again.
Murder can be defined as the intentional killing of a human being for
reasons other than 1) self-defense, or 2) in defense of another human
being's life.
In the case of an abortion, you have a complete corpus delicti: you have
the body, the murder weapon, and a signed piece of paper in which the
executioner confesses to being involved in a conspiracy to commit murder
with the mother.
If CSI Miami had it so good, those tv episodes would last only about 3
minutes.
Virgil
"Zacharias Mulletstein"
Answer the question!
--
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >>
>> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>> A bald-faced lie. Abortion is not and has never been murder.
>>
>> Pro-liars never tell the truth.
>
>And yet, abortion is obviously murder.
You're clearly a lying crackpot. Abortion is not and has never been
murder.
> Scientific evidence clearly
>indicates this.
LOL! What a stupid lie! Murder isn't defined by "scientific
evidence". It's defined by law.
You fascist turds really cannot tell the truth about anything.
Ray Fischer
>In article <4dc7c705$0$56780$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>> > In article
>> > <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >>
>> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>> Obviously it is not.+
>
>Murder is both a legal term and an ethical term. I'm referring to that
>part of it which overlaps both.
Actually you're just lying.
>If murder can be defined as intentionally killing another human being
Then abortion is never murder.
Neolibertarian
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" wrote in message
> news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> In article
> <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> > more opposition to abortion.
> >
> The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> That may be true, but if it is allowed, it does not really matter if it is
> murder or not, does it?
It matters because it strikes at the fundamental humanness of any or all
of us.
I'm willing to live with "allowing" murders to occur under certain
circumstances without legal consequences.
For instance, in our society, a policeman may commit murder in the line
of duty without fear of legal punishment--though almost always this is
in self-defense or in defense of someone else's life (yet not /always/).
Likewise, a soldier commits murder; in fact he is required to do
so--also without fear of legal punishments. In the soldier's case,
self-defense is not usually what alleviates legal repercussions--after
all, a "flanking maneuver" is merely a euphemism for "shooting the
bastards in the back." He is assumed to be defending himself, his unit,
his army, and his country by shooting an enemy in the back; or by
dropping a bomb on him from 20,000 feet; or by firing a Paladin 155mm
Howitzer at him from 6 miles away.
Similarly, a licensed physician may commit murder (not just in the case
of medical abortions)--also without fear of legal consequences, at least
under a well defined set of criteria. Physicians do so all the time, and
I can't believe any rational person would want it any other way.
In all cases, the circumstances of the murder are what define the legal
repercussions, or absence thereof. In all cases, it is explicitly
understood that the killing of a human being has occurred.
The reason abortion law is so troubling is that it's the only case I
know of where the victim has to be defined as "not human" in order for
the act to not be considered murder. If it wasn't for this redefining of
the victim as "non human," abortion would clearly be first degree murder
and conspiracy to commit first degree murder.
Justice Blackmun (who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v Wade) is no
help whatsoever. His written opinion is frustrating because he claims
the decision will necessarily touch on the nature of personhood, but he
then proceeds to ignore that issue completely. Instead, Blackmun bases
his decision primarily on a fictional "right to privacy," which he
admits, in so many words, can't be found in the Constitution of the
United States.
Abortion law, such as it is today, is an abrogation of a primary duty to
ourselves--an abrogation not just by the Supreme Court, but by We the
People, as well. It is dangerous to believe "it doesn't matter," or that
it's "settled law" Why? Because this redefinition is fundamentally
self-deceiving, that's why. Nothing is more dangerous in this world than
self-deception.
I'm perfectly willing to live in a society that "allows" abortions. But
I completely reject a society that can only allow legal abortions by
redefining the meaning of "human being," or worse, only by /implying/
such a redefinition, and shying away from the responsibility.
Such redefinitions and cowardly avoidance are what allowed humans to
enslave other humans for hundreds of generations. Such redefinitions are
what allowed the slaughter of the jews in Nazi Germany; the Tutsis in
Rwanda, the Chinese in Nanking. If you read what Mohammed Atta wrote
before 9/11, you'll see he clearly didn't define those screaming
passengers he was to take hostage as fully human.
(Of course, if it's true he spent his last nights in the US at a Vegas
strip club, one might understand how he could jump to this conclusion.)
> You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> committing murder.
>
> No, you don't "need to" do that, but we do do that.
Only because we're cowards.
Ray Fischer
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >>
>> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>> No, it's eviction.
>>
>All well and good, but you're evicting the human being to its certain
>death.
Another outright lie. According to every legal syatem, past and
present, a human being's life begins at birth, or later. Never
before.
Ray Fischer
> Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon 5/9/11 0:53, Neolibertarian wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bret Cahill<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >>
>> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>> >
>> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
>> > committing murder.
>> >
>> Your wrong headed concept of what constitutes murder is what leads to
>> the murders of doctors.
>
>I don't advocate murder in any case.
Unless she's pregnant.
Ray Fischer
>In article
><77b3a495-8a32-47a8...@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> > > more opposition to abortion.
>> >
>> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>> Don't you want to stop it?
>
>Outlaw it, yes.
Just another big-government control freak who wants to force
everybody to obey his Big Brother.
thomas p.
> In article
> <a15edbad-f548-43fb...@b7g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Jenny6833A <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 8, 10:53 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <f65a530f-0282-4531-9430-df03b027d...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> > > more opposition to abortion.
>> >
>> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>> >
>> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
>> > committing murder.
>>
>> NOMINATED FOR THE NONSEQUITUR OF THE MONTH AWARD, THE MOST ASSININE
>> POST OF THE MONTH AWARD, AND THE NINCOMPOOP OF THE MONTH AWARD,
>>
>> :-(
>
> Perhaps you don't understand the term.
>
> In this case, murder can be defined as the intentional killing of a
> human being for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of
> another human being's life.
You can define murder any way you choose; abortion is still not murder.
>
> The reason my response is germane to the original assertion, is because
> the poster assumed "liferism" needs to be supported by subsequent acts;
> i.e., if one is against abortion, then one must logically support
> tax-funded financial aid for distressed mothers.
Well only if one has a sense of responsibility for the consequences of one's
ideas.
>
> Literally, this would mean anyone opposed to murder should necessarily
> advocate financially supporting people in order to prevent them from
> murdering each other.
No actually it does not.
>
> This doesn't seem ludicrous to you?
Yes, your position does sound ludicrous and (even so) not libertarian.
snip
thomas p.
> In article <4dc78359$0$31390$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >>
>> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>> A bald-faced lie. Abortion is not and has never been murder.
>>
>> Pro-liars never tell the truth.
>
> And yet, abortion is obviously murder. Scientific evidence clearly
> indicates this.
Scientific evidence has nothing to do with it.
thomas p.
You don't? You are the one who brought her up. Short-term memory loss?
thomas p.
> In article <4dc7c705$0$56780$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>> > In article
>> > <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >>
>> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>> Obviously it is not.+
>
> Murder is both a legal term and an ethical term. I'm referring to that
> part of it which overlaps both.
>
> If murder can be defined as intentionally killing another human being
> for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of another human
> being's life, then abortion is clearly murder.
Since murder is the killing of a person, abortion is not murder.
>>
>> >
>> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
>> > committing murder.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Neolibertarian
>>
>> Obviously you are not.
>
> A Neolibertarian?
>
> How so?
You want to control what other people do with their own bodies.
Ben Kaufman
Or lack of understanding how to quote '>' what he is replying to in a newsgroup.
Ben Kaufman
>In article <4dc7c705$0$56780$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>> > In article
>> > <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >>
>> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>> Obviously it is not.+
>
>Murder is both a legal term and an ethical term. I'm referring to that
>part of it which overlaps both.
>
>If murder can be defined as intentionally killing another human being
>for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of another human
>being's life, then abortion is clearly murder.
If murder can be defined as eating hay then horses are murderers.
Clearly, a zygote is not a human being. And before you start talking about later
development stage of embryogenesis, state that you are OK with aborting a zygote
first. If not, stick with a zygote, because you are not really interested in
saving human being, you are interested in controlling them.
Ben Kaufman
<SNIP>
>For instance, in our society, a policeman may commit murder in the line
>of duty without fear of legal punishment--though almost always this is
>in self-defense or in defense of someone else's life (yet not /always/).
<SNIP>
So you really don't understand what murder is.
Ben
Ben Kaufman
wrote:
>On May 9, 1:53 am, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <f65a530f-0282-4531-9430-df03b027d...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> > more opposition to abortion.
>
>> The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>> You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
>> committing murder.
>
>So are you ready to support the kid after it's born?
>
>PONY UP OR BELT UP.
>
>
>Lisa
>
>>
Let's also put in for some insurance incase the woman is disabled or dies as a
result of the pregnancy.
Bret Cahill
> > > > more opposition to abortion.
>
> > > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> > Don't you want to stop it?
>
> Outlaw it, yes.
Here, try again:
Don't you want to stop it?
> > > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> > > committing murder.
>
> > Then why are they murdering millions of unborn babies every year?
>
> Because they're cowards.
At least they have the courage to answer questions.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >> > > more opposition to abortion.
>
> >> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> >> Don't you want to stop it?
>
> >Outlaw it, yes.
>
> Just another big-government control freak who wants to force
> everybody to obey his Big Brother.
A baby is about to be murdered but his first impulse isn't to save the
baby but to lock someone up.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > more opposition to abortion.
> The problem is, abortion is murder.
Well?
Don't you want to stop all these murders?
> You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> committing murder.
Well?
Don't keep everyone settin' on the edges of their chairs.
Tell everyone here how you were successul is stopping all these
murders.
Bret Cahill
Gary Forbis
You didn't accept the answer. The answer to "Don't you
want to stop it?" was "Outlaw it, yes." When someone
answers a different question than the one asked he or
she is also answering the question without answering it.
The person knows outlawing behavior doesn't stop it. The
person also knows outlawing a behavior leads to bigger,
more intrusive government and more incarceration. Either
we support the jailed or we turn them into slave labor.
The person doesn't want to stop the behavior because
that would mean understanding it. Instead he wants big
intrusive government and more misery.
I think it's part of a Christian cult of suffering. Actions that
increase human suffering are identified as good and actions
that reduce human suffering are identified as bad. If one
frames their actions in this way it makes sense to say
"I want to outlaw abortion but I don't want to pay to support
any children not aborted."
Bret Cahill
> > > > > > more opposition to abortion.
>
> > > > > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> > > > Don't you want to stop it?
>
> > > Outlaw it, yes.
>
> > Here, try again:
>
> > Don't you want to stop it?
> > > > > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> > > > > committing murder.
>
> > > > Then why are they murdering millions of unborn babies every year?
>
> > > Because they're cowards.
>
> > At least they have the courage to answer questions.
>
> You didn't accept the answer.
The answer is either "yes" or "no."
You are either on God's side or Satan's side.
You are either on the side of the baby murderers or you are on the
side of the baby savers.
Government paying 50% of child support is a baby saver.
If you don't support saving babies then and you're a de facto baby
murderer.
Millions of humans are being murdered and the murdering has been going
on for 40 years.
There is no end in sight to millions of babies being murdered.
And what are you doing? What results are you getting?
Absolutely nothing except whining and playing silly word games!
Here's a opportunity to save those unborn human beings and you start
dodging questions.
Here, we'll try again:
Don't you want to stop millions of unborn babies from being murdered?
All you get are two choices, "yes" or "no."
Don't try to dodge the issue by not answering either "yes" or "no."
Bret Cahill
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>In article <poofs6h8882rt65sc...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >>
>> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
>>
>> No, it's eviction.
>>
>All well and good, but you're evicting the human being to its certain
>death.
Irrelevant.
>
>According to Maritime Law, for instance, evicting a passenger when well
>out to sea hardly exonerates a ship's captain from charges of murder.
So what.
>
>Besides, that's not how it's done, anyway. You're "evicting" the human
>in question with a scalpel to his/her cranium
Every single time? O RLY? You really want to blatantly lie
like that?
Try again when you can be honest and not use hysteric
hyperbole. And have a read of Walter Block's writings on this.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>In article
><a15edbad-f548-43fb...@b7g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Jenny6833A <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 8, 10:53 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <f65a530f-0282-4531-9430-df03b027d...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> > > more opposition to abortion.
>> >
>> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>> >
>> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
>> > committing murder.
>>
>> NOMINATED FOR THE NONSEQUITUR OF THE MONTH AWARD, THE MOST ASSININE
>> POST OF THE MONTH AWARD, AND THE NINCOMPOOP OF THE MONTH AWARD,
>>
>> :-(
>
>Perhaps you don't understand the term.
>
>In this case, murder can be defined as the intentional killing of a
>human being for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of
>another human being's life.
Which does not apply to abortion. Abortion is the removal of
an unwanted intruder from the person.
Tell me: is there such a thing as the right to exist within
the confines of another being? Is there such a thing as the right to
be a parasite?
Bret Cahill
> >> >> more opposition to abortion.
>
> >> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> >> Obviously it is not.+
>
> >Murder is both a legal term and an ethical term. I'm referring to that
> >part of it which overlaps both.
>
> >If murder can be defined as intentionally killing another human being
> >for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of another human
> >being's life, then abortion is clearly murder.
>
> If murder can be defined as eating hay then horses are murderers.
>
> Clearly, a zygote is not a human being. And before you start talking about later
> development stage of embryogenesis, state that you are OK with aborting a zygote
> first. If not, stick with a zygote, because you are not really interested in
> saving human being, you are interested in controlling them.
They start off posturing like they are interested in the life of an
unborn baby but after a few questions it turns out they are really
interested in using gummint to threaten force.
Bret Cahill
Gary Forbis
I don't accept the notion that "unborn babies are being murdered".
I don't want to stop the killing of unwanted fetuses.
I want to reduce sufferring. Sometimes the choice is between
two bad outcomes. I can't afford to support people to the extent
to mitigate all their bad choices. What I can do is not step in
the way of their own mitigating choices.
Most of life's issues have a financial component. If one wants
to reduce abortions then one needs to remove as much of that
component from the decision as one can.
Sex is a major drive. If one wants to reduce abortion then one
should promote "safe" sex.
Do you want to reduce suffering?
Heck, I'm not against euthanasia. I don't restrict my philosophy
to the unborn. I even extend it into the supposed afterlife. I can't
accept the notion of eternal suffering. I think anyone who believes
in a god who would inflict eternal suffering is sick.
Bret Cahill
Then you need to start another thread to tell that to those who _do_
believe (or at least claim to believe) unborn babies are being
murdered.
The OP says nothing about abortion being good or about right to lifers
being wrong about abortion being murder.
That's not the issue here.
The issue here is if you posture like you want to save the lives of
unborn babies, if you talk the talk, then you ought to be willing to
tax and spend to save the lives on unborn babies.
After all, we tax and spend on fire departments to save lives, we tax
and spend on health care to save lives, we tax and spend on quagmires
of mass distraction to save lives . . .
Bret Cahill
NeoLibertarian
> "Neolibertarian" <cognac...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:f07aa$4dc8c805$18f556a5$10...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <a15edbad-f548-43fb-a90b-381068b30...@b7g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 8, 10:53 pm,Neolibertarian<cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > <f65a530f-0282-4531-9430-df03b027d...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> > > more opposition to abortion.
>
> >> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> >> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> >> > committing murder.
>
> >> NOMINATED FOR THE NONSEQUITUR OF THE MONTH AWARD, THE MOST ASSININE
> >> POST OF THE MONTH AWARD, AND THE NINCOMPOOP OF THE MONTH AWARD,
>
> >> :-(
>
> > Perhaps you don't understand the term.
>
> > In this case, murder can be defined as the intentional killing of a
> > human being for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of
> > another human being's life.
>
> You can define murder any way you choose; abortion is still not murder.
>
Degree) is the intentional (premeditated) killing of a human being for
reasons other than self defense, or other than in defense of another
human being.
Whether one is referring to law, or to ethics and morals, it's
definitely murder.
>
> > The reason my response is germane to the original assertion, is because
> > the poster assumed "liferism" needs to be supported by subsequent acts;
> > i.e., if one is against abortion, then one must logically support
> > tax-funded financial aid for distressed mothers.
>
> Well only if one has a sense of responsibility for the consequences of one's
> ideas.
>
In a free society, one needn't have a sense of responsibility for the
decisions of others.
>
> > Literally, this would mean anyone opposed to murder should necessarily
> > advocate financially supporting people in order to prevent them from
> > murdering each other.
>
> No actually it does not.
>
Actually it does. If I must assume financial responsibility for
others, merely because I expect them to refrain from murder, it's
pretty much the same. It could easily be considered extortion.
>
> > This doesn't seem ludicrous to you?
>
> Yes, your position does sound ludicrous and (even so) not libertarian.
>
I'm not responsible for how my ideas sound to you, nor whether you
think they match your notions of libertarianism.
Besides, I never claimed to be a libertarian, did I? Libertarianism
and Neolibertarianism aren't necessarily apples to oranges, but they
are something like tangerines to oranges. Similar but different.
That said, I believe you'll find most libertarians are in favor of
legal penalties for murder. Perhaps not for self-mutilation, self-
poisoning, nor suicide. But definitely for murder.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
NeoLibertarian
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:11:18 -0500,Neolibertarian
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><a15edbad-f548-43fb-a90b-381068b30...@b7g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 8, 10:53 pm,Neolibertarian<cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > <f65a530f-0282-4531-9430-df03b027d...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> > > more opposition to abortion.
>
> >> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> >> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> >> > committing murder.
>
> >> NOMINATED FOR THE NONSEQUITUR OF THE MONTH AWARD, THE MOST ASSININE
> >> POST OF THE MONTH AWARD, AND THE NINCOMPOOP OF THE MONTH AWARD,
>
> >> :-(
>
> >Perhaps you don't understand the term.
>
> >In this case, murder can be defined as the intentional killing of a
> >human being for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of
> >another human being's life.
>
> Which does not apply to abortion. Abortion is the removal of
> an unwanted intruder from the person.
That's unnecessarily evasive. "Removal" is a death sentence. Besides,
in many states, death /must/ be administered before removal.
>
> Tell me: is there such a thing as the right to exist within
> the confines of another being?
Certainly, since your right to life stems from your own humanity. Your
position relative to the vagina is hardly reason to draw a
distinction, is it?
Is the vagina a chrysalis?
> Is there such a thing as the right to
> be a parasite?
Of course there is.
You might be surprised at your legal responsibilities under, for
instance, Maritime Law.
If you're cruising out in the ocean in your boat, and you see a fellow
human being, distressed and floundering in the water, you're obligated
to pull alongside and haul him up. Whether or not it's an
inconvenience, you must do your best to get him ashore and to medical
help, if necessary.
You could be days out from the nearest land. For that time he'll be a
complete parasite--yet you're legally obligated to assist him and keep
him alive.
Btw, this is not just a /legal/ obligation.
Neolibertarian
<bd686aa1-328f-4d73...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> > > more opposition to abortion.
>
> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> Well?
>
> Don't you want to stop all these murders?
I'm on record as being against murder.
>
> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> > committing murder.
>
> Well?
>
> Don't keep everyone settin' on the edges of their chairs.
>
> Tell everyone here how you were successul is stopping all these
> murders.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
If I were living in 1840, and I was against slavery, for example, I
would have to say I was summarily unsuccessful in preventing slavery in
the United States.
Such would be irrelevant in exactly the same way.
The strategy in 1840 was to draw attention to the nature of slavery, and
clearly define the issue. The next step was to eliminate its expansion.
The third step was to eliminate it everywhere by law. In the meantime,
it was best to provide an escape route for the few individuals it was
then possible to save.
That's a pretty good strategy until something better comes along.
Neolibertarian
Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
It is simultaneously a moral and a legal term.
What do you imagine I don't understand?
Neolibertarian
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On the contrary, it has almost everything to do with it.
Neolibertarian
Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:08:45 -0500, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <4dc7c705$0$56780$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> > "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >> news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> >> > In article
> >> > <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> >> more opposition to abortion.
> >> >>
> >> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
> >>
> >> Obviously it is not.+
> >
> >Murder is both a legal term and an ethical term. I'm referring to that
> >part of it which overlaps both.
> >
> >If murder can be defined as intentionally killing another human being
> >for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of another human
> >being's life, then abortion is clearly murder.
>
> If murder can be defined as eating hay then horses are murderers.
Words mean things. I haven't altered the meaning of murder at all.
However, in order to consider abortion "not murder," you must first
alter the definition of human being.
>
> Clearly, a zygote is not a human being.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A human zygote is most
definitely a human being, by every objective definition.
> And before you start talking about
> later
> development stage of embryogenesis, state that you are OK with aborting a
> zygote
> first. If not, stick with a zygote, because you are not really interested in
> saving human being,
But, whatever it is that makes you a unique human being is already
present in the diploid zygote.
The entire structure of your body, all your organs, including your
brain, is already extant, though yet to be fully expressed or realized.
This is also true at five years, btw. And 18. And 25.
> you are interested in controlling them.
>
I'm not interested in controlling anyone.
However, your responsibility to balance your own books is sine qua non
to participation in a free society.
For instance, you don't get to commit murder for financial reasons, nor
for convenience.
Nor do you get to redefine "human" in order to do so.
Neolibertarian
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:e667b$4dc8c76c$18f556a5$10...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> > In article <4dc7c705$0$56780$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> > "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >> news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> >> > In article
> >> > <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> >> more opposition to abortion.
> >> >>
> >> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
> >>
> >> Obviously it is not.+
> >
> > Murder is both a legal term and an ethical term. I'm referring to that
> > part of it which overlaps both.
> >
> > If murder can be defined as intentionally killing another human being
> > for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of another human
> > being's life, then abortion is clearly murder.
>
>
> Since murder is the killing of a person, abortion is not murder.
>
Very good!
So, let's explore what's meant by personhood. After all, how can we
summarily determine if an unborn human being is or is not a person,
until we first define personhood?
This is something which Blackmun completely ignored in his majority
opinion for Roe v Wade. He states that his decision would necessarily
involve a clarification of the definition of personhood, yet he then
proceeded to ignore any such throughout the rest of his opinion. Perhaps
he believed that it would be up to others to define personhood in the
aftermath of Roe v Wade, but no one since has ever attempted to rise to
that challenge.
The dictionary is not much help here, since most entries you'll find
merely indicate that a person is a human being.
On the other hand, the term "human being" is rather clearly defined by
science, and scientific theory. The theory has gone far beyond the mere
classification, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, of course. Genetics, for instance,
indicates all human beings share a DNA sequence unique to Homo Sapiens
Sapiens. For the purposes of this discussion, we can think of our
chromosomes as a "blueprint." This blueprint is an unimaginably complex
set of triggers which produces and maintains our bodies, with all its
specialized proteins, tissues and organs. In other words, all of our
physical characteristics are merely an expression of a code that resides
in our chromosomes.
While there are still many among us who would ask: "when does life
begin?" there really is no doubt left. In the case of our species, the
instant you have a diploid zygote (fertilization; conception), by
scientific definition, you have a unique and living human being; It is
alive by the scientific definition of life, and its DNA sequence will
show beyond a shadow of doubt the zygote is both human, and a unique
individual.
Furthermore, this DNA sequence will remain mostly immutable from that
instant, and for the lifetime of the individual (barring quantum events
or other environmental catastrophes). While remaining essentially
unchanged, the chromosomes will express different characteristics
throughout an individual's life. For example, if you'd compare the photo
of a six-day-old infant boy, and another picture of 94 year old man, it
might seem impossible that you're looking at the same individual being.
But geneticists explain that the chromosomes are expressing different
traits through the different stages of life.
Your confusion is merely a result of ignorance-based shape prejudice.
> >> > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> >> > committing murder.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Neolibertarian
> >>
> >> Obviously you are not.
> >
> > A Neolibertarian?
> >
> > How so?
>
> You want to control what other people do with their own bodies.
What you do with your own body is definitely your own business.
For instance, it should be well within your rights to sell your own
organs.
However, a zygote-embryo-fetus is not your own body. It has a different
DNA than its host.
Your organs all have identical DNA with the host (they are composed of
your own tissue). An embryo does not. That's how you can tell the
difference.
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
And yet abortion isn't that; it's the eviction of the fetus.
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>On May 10, 8:06 am, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
It's neither unnecessary nor evasive.
>> Tell me: is there such a thing as the right to exist within
>> the confines of another being?
>
>Certainly,
That is impossible. Since we each own ourselves, there
necessarily cannot be any such thing as the right to exist within the
confines of another being, for that would violate self-ownership.
>> Is there such a thing as the right to
>> be a parasite?
>
>Of course there is.
That again violates self-ownership
>
>You might be surprised at your legal responsibilities
You might be surprised that I don't care about legal
positivism.
>Btw, this is not just a /legal/ obligation.
Yes, it really is simply legal positivism.
Neolibertarian
Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:07:24 -0500, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
> >In article <poofs6h8882rt65sc...@4ax.com>,
> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
> >> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
> >>
> >> >In article
> >> ><f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> >> more opposition to abortion.
> >> >>
> >> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
> >>
> >> No, it's eviction.
> >>
> >All well and good, but you're evicting the human being to its certain
> >death.
>
> Irrelevant.
Hardly irrelevant to the human being (who, after all, was invited to be
there in the first place) being evicted to a certain death.
> >According to Maritime Law, for instance, evicting a passenger when well
> >out to sea hardly exonerates a ship's captain from charges of murder.
>
> So what.
You have responsibilities to your fellow human beings, whether you like
it or not.
There are even cases where you might be required to risk your life for
your fellow human beings. Not just morally, but legally required to do
so. This was made explicit in the Nuremberg Trials, for instance.
> >Besides, that's not how it's done, anyway. You're "evicting" the human
> >in question with a scalpel to his/her cranium
>
> Every single time? O RLY? You really want to blatantly lie
> like that?
I'm afraid you're the only one claiming "every single time," Mr.
Strawman.
>
> Try again when you can be honest and not use hysteric
> hyperbole. And have a read of Walter Block's writings on this.
>
I'm sorry. You've provided no reason whatsoever to do so. If Mr. Block
constructs better arguments than you do, that would be entirely your
affair.
Neolibertarian
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
> >> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
> >>
> >> >In article
> >> ><f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> >> more opposition to abortion.
> >> >>
> >> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
> >>
> >> No, it's eviction.
> >>
> >All well and good, but you're evicting the human being to its certain
> >death.
>
> Another outright lie. According to every legal syatem, past and
> present, a human being's life begins at birth, or later. Never
> before.
1820's English Common Law distinguished between a fetus and a "quickened
fetus." There were legal consequences to killing a quickened fetus.
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>What you do with your own body is definitely your own business.
>
>For instance, it should be well within your rights to sell your own
>organs.
>
>However, a zygote-embryo-fetus is not your own body. It has a different
>DNA than its host.
And exists within a host which has the right to remove it from
itself. Deny that and you endorse slavery.
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>In article <atdis61qsfqporsr3...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:07:24 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article <poofs6h8882rt65sc...@4ax.com>,
>> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> >> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>> >>
>> >> >In article
>> >> ><f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >> >>
>> >> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's eviction.
>> >>
>> >All well and good, but you're evicting the human being to its certain
>> >death.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>Hardly irrelevant to the human being (who, after all, was invited to be
>there in the first place)
Blatantly, utterly, and bald-facedly false. Since there was
nothing there to have been invited, clearly your analogy is false. Did
you fail basic biology? You do recall that the egg and sperm must meet
first. As such, before that there was no "thing" to be "invited".
Further, you cannot claim that sex itself is the invitation, for such
is both a non sequitur and begged question (consenting to sex is
simply consenting to sex, not to pregnancy) and disproved by
non-consentual sex (rape).
>> >According to Maritime Law, for instance, evicting a passenger when well
>> >out to sea hardly exonerates a ship's captain from charges of murder.
>>
>> So what.
>
>You have responsibilities to your fellow human beings,
Only if I choose such contractually insofar as you're talking
positive responsibilities. Otherwise, I merely must not interfere in
that which someone else has the right to do. And not interfering is
simply not doing anything.
btw: I think people who hold to legal positivism (such as
yourself) are mind-numbingly stupid.
>> >Besides, that's not how it's done, anyway. You're "evicting" the human
>> >in question with a scalpel to his/her cranium
>>
>> Every single time? O RLY? You really want to blatantly lie
>> like that?
>
>I'm afraid you're the only one claiming "every single time,"
No, you are. You did it by not restricting your claim. Sucks
to be you. Perhaps you'll be more careful in the future.
>> Try again when you can be honest and not use hysteric
>> hyperbole. And have a read of Walter Block's writings on this.
>>
>I'm sorry. You've provided no reason whatsoever to do so.
Sucks to be you.
NeoLibertarian
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:01:48 -0500,Neolibertarian
>
> >What you do with your own body is definitely your own business.
>
> >For instance, it should be well within your rights to sell your own
> >organs.
>
> >However, a zygote-embryo-fetus is not your own body. It has a different
> >DNA than its host.
>
> And exists within a host which has the right to remove it from
> itself. Deny that and you endorse slavery.
I understand this is the entirety of your point.
However, only in the case of rape is the human in question not first
invited to be there.
Your house is your property, as well. If you invite someone into your
home, you don't have the natural right to evict them, if doing so will
kill them. Say, while this human was visiting, a wildfire or a flood
had broken out outside. Do you have the right to evict him/her to
their certain death?
Of course not.
That would be murder.
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>On May 10, 9:13 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:01:48 -0500,Neolibertarian
>> <cognac...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >What you do with your own body is definitely your own business.
>>
>> >For instance, it should be well within your rights to sell your own
>> >organs.
>>
>> >However, a zygote-embryo-fetus is not your own body. It has a different
>> >DNA than its host.
>>
>> And exists within a host which has the right to remove it from
>> itself. Deny that and you endorse slavery.
>
>I understand this is the entirety of your point.
Don't need anything else.
>
>However, only in the case of rape is the human in question not first
>invited to be there.
Nonsense. There was no human to be invited!
What you claim goes against basic biology and ontology. There
is no human before the conception, despite your claim otherwise.
Please do not lie and say that you're not claiming that, for you ARE
logically claiming that there is some human which is invited before
the sperm and egg come together. Yet there clearly isn't.
Bret Cahill
> > > > more opposition to abortion.
>
> > > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> > Well?
>
> > Don't you want to stop all these murders?
>
> I'm on record as being against murder.
Position papers + 89 cents = cup of coffee. Of course, you could get
the coffee with just the 89 cents.
Here we are talking about what is effectively a Holocaust of
abortionists murdering millions of unborn babies and you are sitting
on your obese fanny writing position papers?
It's starting to look like you don't really give a rat's behind about
saving unborn babies.
Anyway, you dodged the question:
Here, try again and remember, the answer is either "yes" or "no."
Don't you want to stop all these murders?
> > > You don't need to financially support people in order to keep them from
> > > committing murder.
>
> > Well?
>
> > Don't keep everyone settin' on the edges of their chairs.
>
> > Tell everyone here how you were successul is stopping all these
> > murders.
>
> Irrelevant to the discussion.
Just admit it. Writing position papers and being "on record" hasn't
worked at stopping all these murders.
Not only are you a complete failure at stopping all these murders, you
seem quite sanguine about being a complete failure at stopping these
murders.
Supposing the allied troops in WWII decided to write position papers
while the nazis were murdering millions of Jews/year for 40 years?
Talk is cheap, as cheap as a position paper
More evidence you don't really give a rat's behind about saving unborn
babies.
> If I were living in 1840, and I was against slavery, for example, I
> would have to say I was summarily unsuccessful in preventing slavery in
> the United States.
Would you have helped as many slaves as possible escape? Many
abolitionists did, i.e., underground railroad, etc.
Your analogy brings us back to saving unborn babies.
Don't you think you could save as many unborn babies' lives as
possible if the government paid 50% for child support?
It doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon to see you are more interested
in punishing murderers than saving the lives of unborn babies.
Bret Cahill
NeoLibertarian
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:36:23 -0700 (PDT),NeoLibertarian
> <cognac...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
What if you first invited the individual human being in question
inside your body?
Your fictional characterization of the human as an intruder runs
pretty thin, all things considered.
>
> >> Is there such a thing as the right to
> >> be a parasite?
>
> >Of course there is.
>
> That again violates self-ownership
No, it doesn't. You acted to place the human there inside your body.
That was your right.
Once there, you don't have the right to kill nor evict to certain
death.
> >You might be surprised at your legal responsibilities
>
> You might be surprised that I don't care about legal
> positivism.
You asked if there were "such a thing as a right to be a parasite." I
was merely answering your question in good faith.
>
> >Btw, this is not just a /legal/ obligation.
>
> Yes, it really is simply legal positivism.
That would be Oliver Wendell Holmes, not me.
"The first requirement of a sound body of law is, that it should
correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community,
whether right or wrong."
---Oliver Wendell Holmes
That way lies tyranny and chaos.
Morality and law in a free society must be as close to the same thing
as humanly possible.
Holmes' ideas ushered in the regime of the populist-bureaucrats.
Something I suspect he was quite comfortable with.
I am opposed to that regime.
With every fiber of my being.
NeoLibertarian
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 19:32:44 -0700 (PDT),NeoLibertarian
> <cognac...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 10, 9:13 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:01:48 -0500,Neolibertarian
> >> <cognac...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
> >> >What you do with your own body is definitely your own business.
>
> >> >For instance, it should be well within your rights to sell your own
> >> >organs.
>
> >> >However, a zygote-embryo-fetus is not your own body. It has a different
> >> >DNA than its host.
>
> >> And exists within a host which has the right to remove it from
> >> itself. Deny that and you endorse slavery.
>
> >I understand this is the entirety of your point.
>
> Don't need anything else.
>
>
>
> >However, only in the case of rape is the human in question not first
> >invited to be there.
>
> Nonsense. There was no human to be invited!
Not until you invited the visitor in the first place. The invitation
is what makes the existence of the human being possible in the first
place, of course.
And it is an /active/ invitation.
>
> What you claim goes against basic biology and ontology. There
> is no human before the conception, despite your claim otherwise.
Please show where I claimed any such thing.
> Please do not lie and say that you're not claiming that, for you ARE
> logically claiming that there is some human which is invited before
> the sperm and egg come together. Yet there clearly isn't.
No, what I'm claiming is that you invited the human to be there. It
couldn't be inside your body otherwise.
It couldn't exist, otherwise.
And it couldn't exist inside your body (which is definitely your
property) otherwise.
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
There was no human being prior to the conception. So clearly:
THERE WAS NO INVITATION!
Your fictional tale of an invitation runs counter to biology
and ontology. You fail. Further, there is the right to change one's
mind even granting your fictional tale as true for the sake of
argument.
>> >> Is there such a thing as the right to
>> >> be a parasite?
>>
>> >Of course there is.
>>
>> That again violates self-ownership
>
>No, it doesn't.
Yes, it most certainly does.
> You acted to place the human there inside your body.
And one can act to remove it. It's called self-ownership. You
should probably brush up on that concept.
>
>That was your right.
>
>Once there, you don't have the right to kill nor evict to certain
>death.
Yes, you do. Again: it's called self-ownership.
>
>> >You might be surprised at your legal responsibilities
>>
>> You might be surprised that I don't care about legal
>> positivism.
>
>You asked if there were "such a thing as a right to be a parasite." I
>was merely answering your question in good faith.
No, you answered it in zombie fashion.
>>
>> >Btw, this is not just a /legal/ obligation.
>>
>> Yes, it really is simply legal positivism.
>
>That would be Oliver Wendell Holmes, not me.
And it's still legal positivism.
>Morality and law in a free society must be as close to the same thing
>as humanly possible.
Yes, it should. And morality deals with rights, not your
aesthetics.
>
>Holmes' ideas ushered in the regime of the populist-bureaucrats.
>Something I suspect he was quite comfortable with.
>
>I am opposed to that regime.
>
>With every fiber of my being.
Clearly you're not, since you argue for slavery.
NeoLibertarian
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:05:25 -0500,Neolibertarian
> <cognac...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <atdis61qsfqporsr3v6qp5eom0dtosd...@4ax.com>,
> > Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:07:24 -0500,Neolibertarian
>
> >> >In article <poofs6h8882rt65sc940eileroicn4m...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500,Neolibertarian
>
> >> >> >In article
> >> >> ><f65a530f-0282-4531-9430-df03b027d...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
> >> >> >> more opposition to abortion.
>
> >> >> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
>
> >> >> No, it's eviction.
>
> >> >All well and good, but you're evicting the human being to its certain
> >> >death.
>
> >> Irrelevant.
>
> >Hardly irrelevant to the human being (who, after all, was invited to be
> >there in the first place)
>
> Blatantly, utterly, and bald-facedly false. Since there was
> nothing there to have been invited, clearly your analogy is false. Did
> you fail basic biology? You do recall that the egg and sperm must meet
> first. As such, before that there was no "thing" to be "invited".
> Further, you cannot claim that sex itself is the invitation, for such
> is both a non sequitur and begged question (consenting to sex is
> simply consenting to sex, not to pregnancy) and disproved by
> non-consentual sex (rape).
It may not be an invitation in the usual sense, yet basic biology will
inform you that you had to act, positively act, in order for the human
to exist inside your body in the first place.
This act is, in every important sense, an invitation. (Please don't
continue to be confused about who was invited, and how. You can also
invite danger, or disaster, or many other things without any other
person involved.)
It's my suspicion that you know this very well, but you're attempting
to evade with red herrings, straw men and other irrelevancies.
Consenting to sex is very much consenting to pregnancy. I invite you
to show otherwise. From depro shots, to latex sheaths, the
manufacturers are careful to warn users that consenting to sex is
still very much consenting to pregnancy.
Lawyers and insurance companies insist on that message being printed
in black and white.
> >> >According to Maritime Law, for instance, evicting a passenger when well
> >> >out to sea hardly exonerates a ship's captain from charges of murder.
>
> >> So what.
>
> >You have responsibilities to your fellow human beings,
>
> Only if I choose such contractually insofar as you're talking
> positive responsibilities. Otherwise, I merely must not interfere in
> that which someone else has the right to do. And not interfering is
> simply not doing anything.
Correct.
No one would consider a miscarriage a murder, for example.
>
> btw: I think people who hold to legal positivism (such as
> yourself) are mind-numbingly stupid.
Well, I /don't/ hold to legal positivism, nor do I think those who do
are stupid.
I think those who do are exceedingly dangerous.
>
> >> >Besides, that's not how it's done, anyway. You're "evicting" the human
> >> >in question with a scalpel to his/her cranium
>
> >> Every single time? O RLY? You really want to blatantly lie
> >> like that?
>
> >I'm afraid you're the only one claiming "every single time,"
>
> No, you are. You did it by not restricting your claim. Sucks
> to be you. Perhaps you'll be more careful in the future.
Please swim back up thread and fetch the evidence for your claim. I'm
positive you won't find it, but I invite you to try.
>
> >> Try again when you can be honest and not use hysteric
> >> hyperbole. And have a read of Walter Block's writings on this.
>
> >I'm sorry. You've provided no reason whatsoever to do so.
>
> Sucks to be you.
Perhaps so, but that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>On May 10, 9:20 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
In any sense.
>yet basic biology will
>inform you that you had to act, positively act, in order for the human
>to exist inside your body in the first place.
And basic logic will tell you that said action does not imply
invitation for something that simply doesn't exist at that time.
Any belief to the contrary is a non sequitur.
>> >> >According to Maritime Law, for instance, evicting a passenger when well
>> >> >out to sea hardly exonerates a ship's captain from charges of murder.
>>
>> >> So what.
>>
>> >You have responsibilities to your fellow human beings,
>>
>> Only if I choose such contractually insofar as you're talking
>> positive responsibilities. Otherwise, I merely must not interfere in
>> that which someone else has the right to do. And not interfering is
>> simply not doing anything.
>
>Correct.
>
>No one would consider a miscarriage a murder, for example.
And only those who don't understand the concept of
self-ownership would consider abortion as murder.
>>
>> btw: I think people who hold to legal positivism (such as
>> yourself) are mind-numbingly stupid.
>
>Well, I /don't/ hold to legal positivism, nor do I think those who do
>are stupid.
Yet you clearly espouse legal positivism.
>> >> >Besides, that's not how it's done, anyway. You're "evicting" the human
>> >> >in question with a scalpel to his/her cranium
>>
>> >> Every single time? O RLY? You really want to blatantly lie
>> >> like that?
>>
>> >I'm afraid you're the only one claiming "every single time,"
>>
>> No, you are. You did it by not restricting your claim. Sucks
>> to be you. Perhaps you'll be more careful in the future.
>
>Please swim back up thread and fetch the evidence for your claim.
>> >> >Besides, that's not how it's done, anyway. You're "evicting" the human
>> >> >in question with a scalpel to his/her cranium
Right there, twinkletoes. You didn't restrict your claim. It
thus becomes universal.
>> >> Try again when you can be honest and not use hysteric
>> >> hyperbole. And have a read of Walter Block's writings on this.
>>
>> >I'm sorry. You've provided no reason whatsoever to do so.
>>
>> Sucks to be you.
>
>Perhaps so, but that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
It has everything to do with it, really.
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>On May 10, 9:41 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 19:32:44 -0700 (PDT),NeoLibertarian
>> <cognac...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 10, 9:13 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:01:48 -0500,Neolibertarian
>> >> <cognac...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >> >What you do with your own body is definitely your own business.
>>
>> >> >For instance, it should be well within your rights to sell your own
>> >> >organs.
>>
>> >> >However, a zygote-embryo-fetus is not your own body. It has a different
>> >> >DNA than its host.
>>
>> >> And exists within a host which has the right to remove it from
>> >> itself. Deny that and you endorse slavery.
>>
>> >I understand this is the entirety of your point.
>>
>> Don't need anything else.
>>
>>
>>
>> >However, only in the case of rape is the human in question not first
>> >invited to be there.
>>
>> Nonsense. There was no human to be invited!
>
>Not until you invited the visitor in the first place
There was no visitor; it didn't exist.
>> What you claim goes against basic biology and ontology. There
>> is no human before the conception, despite your claim otherwise.
>
>Please show where I claimed any such thing.
"Not until you invited the visitor in the first place"
>
>> Please do not lie and say that you're not claiming that, for you ARE
>> logically claiming that there is some human which is invited before
>> the sperm and egg come together. Yet there clearly isn't.
>
>No,
Yes, that's what you're claiming.
>what I'm claiming is that you invited the human to be there.
The human didn't exist then! How can you invite something
which doesn't exist?!
You clearly haven't thought this through.
NeoLibertarian
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 20:19:25 -0700 (PDT),NeoLibertarian
> <cognac...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
> And only those who don't understand the concept of
> self-ownership would consider abortion as murder.
Owning yourself has nothing to do with owning another human being.
In other words, possession is nine points of the law, but only when
speaking of chattel.
--
Neolibertarian
Don Kresch
<cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>On May 10, 10:23 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 20:19:25 -0700 (PDT),NeoLibertarian
>> <cognac...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>
>>
>> And only those who don't understand the concept of
>> self-ownership would consider abortion as murder.
>
>Owning yourself has nothing to do with owning another human being.
You're claiming that the fetus has the right to be in the
womb, i.e. that the fetus has some property right to the womb, i.e.
that the fetus owns at least part of the woman, i..e the denial of
self-ownership, i.e. slavery.
Bret Cahill
> >> self-ownership would consider abortion as murder.
>
> >Owning yourself has nothing to do with owning another human being.
>
> You're claiming that the fetus has the right to be in the
> womb, i.e. that the fetus has some property right to the womb, i.e.
> that the fetus owns at least part of the woman, i..e the denial of
> self-ownership, i.e. slavery.
A fetus has the 2nd Amend. right to defend his home 'n hearth and
conservatives should make sure every fetus is armed. That way when
the abortionist sticks his hand in or if the fetus "gits pushed too
far" the bad guys will get shot dead just like in an excitin'
Hollywood movie!
Bret Cahill
Don Kresch
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> scrawled in blood:
Yeah, trolling is frowned upon.
Bret Cahill
> >> >> self-ownership would consider abortion as murder.
>
> >> >Owning yourself has nothing to do with owning another human being.
>
> >> You're claiming that the fetus has the right to be in the
> >> womb, i.e. that the fetus has some property right to the womb, i.e.
> >> that the fetus owns at least part of the woman, i..e the denial of
> >> self-ownership, i.e. slavery.
>
> >A fetus has the 2nd Amend. right to defend his home 'n hearth and
> >conservatives should make sure every fetus is armed. That way when
> >the abortionist sticks his hand in or if the fetus "gits pushed too
> >far" the bad guys will get shot dead just like in an excitin'
> >Hollywood movie!
>
> Yeah, trolling is frowned upon.
Is there any way the right to lifers can be taken at face value when
they won't even life a finger to save an unborn baby's life (other
than, of course, shooting up an abortion clinic)?
You don't need the wisdom of Solomon to know the entire anti-abortion
"debate" is nothing but posturing, a complete farce.
Bret Cahill
Ray Fischer
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Since murder is the killing of a person, abortion is not murder.
>>
>Very good!
>
>So, let's explore what's meant by personhood.
Person is defined to be that which is 1) human, 2) alive, and 3) born.
That has been the definition for most of human history.
[...]
>While there are still many among us who would ask: "when does life
>begin?" there really is no doubt left. In the case of our species, the
>instant you have a diploid zygote (fertilization; conception), by
>scientific definition, you have a unique and living human being;
A bald-faced lie.
1) There is no such "scientific definition". It does not exist.
2) Fertilization is not an instant
3) Fertilization results in anywhere from 0 to 6(ish) infants being born.
The pro-liar would claim that identical twins are, in fact, one person.
> It is
>alive by the scientific definition of life,
There is no such scientific definition.
> and its DNA sequence will
>show beyond a shadow of doubt the zygote is both human,
Circular argument. You're using human to define human.
> and a unique
>individual.
It does not exist as an indiviual. It is part of a pregnant woman.
>Furthermore, this DNA sequence will remain mostly immutable from that
>instant,
Another stupid lie. DNA changes all the time, from shortening of
telomeres to random mutations.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Ray Fischer
>On May 10, 9:13 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 21:01:48 -0500,Neolibertarian
>> <cognac...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >What you do with your own body is definitely your own business.
>>
>> >For instance, it should be well within your rights to sell your own
>> >organs.
>>
>> >However, a zygote-embryo-fetus is not your own body. It has a different
>> >DNA than its host.
>>
>> And exists within a host which has the right to remove it from
>> itself. Deny that and you endorse slavery.
>
>I understand this is the entirety of your point.
>
>However, only in the case of rape is the human in question not first
>invited to be there.
She invited an abortion when she chose to have sex.
You invited death when you chose to drive.
Ray Fischer
>In article <rg6is6t5c9ojl7ob7...@4ax.com>,
> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:08:45 -0500, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4dc7c705$0$56780$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
>> > "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> >> news:d8a83$4dc7807f$18f556a5$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >> >>
>> >> > The problem is, abortion is murder.
>> >>
>> >> Obviously it is not.+
>> >
>> >Murder is both a legal term and an ethical term. I'm referring to that
>> >part of it which overlaps both.
>> >
>> >If murder can be defined as intentionally killing another human being
>> >for reasons other than self-defense, or in defense of another human
>> >being's life, then abortion is clearly murder.
>>
>> If murder can be defined as eating hay then horses are murderers.
>
>Words mean things. I haven't altered the meaning of murder at all.
You have tried to alter the meaning of "human being".
>> Clearly, a zygote is not a human being.
>
>Nothing could be further from the truth.
You are further from the truth.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:53:48 -0500, Neolibertarian
>> >> <cogn...@gmail.com> scrawled in blood:
>> >>
>> >> >In article
>> >> ><f65a530f-0282-4531...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It would be an easy way to get more support for right to liferism and
>> >> >> more opposition to abortion.
>> >> >>
>> >> >The problem is, abortion is murder.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's eviction.
>> >>
>> >All well and good, but you're evicting the human being to its certain
>> >death.
>>
>> Another outright lie. According to every legal syatem, past and
>> present, a human being's life begins at birth, or later. Never
>> before.
>
>1820's English Common Law distinguished between a fetus and a "quickened
>fetus."
And STILL a fetus was not a human being.
> There were legal consequences to killing a quickened fetus.
There are consequences to destroying a park bench. That doesn't make
the bench into a human being, pro-liar.