[that brain-damaged retarded shit-bucket's insane set of newsgroups repaired]
On 7/2/2022 11:26 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 14:04:58 -0400, > #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:
>
>> On 7/2/22 4:57 AM, KWills wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 10:40:27 -0400, > #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> You are always required to be alive to inherit property, because until
>>>> you reach a certain age you can't do those things and for having
>>>> property and other RIGHTS being exercised, you have to be alive and then
>>>> for some of it the Constitution says you have to be born or basically no
>>>> longer gestating in a uterus and for some you have to be 18 years old.
>>>> You have to be alive to exercise liberty, and that's why "life" takes
>>>> priority over personal wants and preferences. And why abortion is the
>>>> RIGHTS of the human life in the uterus being violated in the worst way.
>>>
>>> But, as you know, there is no human life in the uterus.
>>>
>>
>> You want to kill it, you have prove it.
>>
>> Human Life doesn't need to prove it exists, you need to prove it doesn't.
>
> Based upon what?
>
> Where is the requirement that every possible individual [sic] must
> exist?
That's a straw man and a red herring. No one arguing here about abortion has
said that every individual *person* must exist. ['individual' is not a noun;
it's an adjective]
There actually *is* a utilitarian argument, which is complete bullshit, that we
"ought" to increase the number of happy sentient beings, including animals. The
thinking is that the universe is "better off" the more happy beings there are in
it. That's bullshit because the universe itself does not have an individual
welfare, so the universe cannot be "better off" in one state than in another, by
definition. Now, some individual human persons, who are the only beings that
can care about things like that, may feel that they, personally, are better off
the more happy beings there are in existence, but that's irrational and
nonsensical. *If* beings come into existence, then you should want them to be
as happy as possible, but there's no reason that more beings "ought" to come
into existence in the first place. We just want whatever beings who do come to
exist to be as happy as possible.
Now, it's pretty rare to find a person — a human being — who wishes he had never
been born. You can find suicidal people who *no longer* wish to exist, but at
some point in their lives, they were happy enough to be alive. They do regret
the overall fact of their existence; they just no longer wish to live. With
that in mind, thinking regarding only the welfare of any conceived person — and
the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/developing child *is*, of course, a person —
then you can make a case that that person *ought* to finish developing and be
born. The problem is you can't limit your moral consideration to only that
person. You have to give moral consideration to the wishes of the woman who has
that person developing inside her, and who may not want that person there. The
woman has fully legitimate welfare interests of her own, and if you're a moral
person, i.e. a person who is able and *obliged* to give moral consideration to
the interests of others, then you may not morally disregard her interests.
Here's the question from which Hartung continues to run screaming in terror,
because he knows he can't rationally, coherently and persuasively answer it:
does the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus have a "right" to remain in the uterus
of a woman who doesn't want it there? A very large majority of people say "no,"
and Hartung can't show them to be wrong; he merely asserts, without any kind of
coherent argument, that they are.