Active Users:211 Time:28/03/2024 01:02:54 PM
I deny his consistency, not clarity. Joel Send a noteboard - 23/08/2013 03:50:24 PM

View original post
View original postContradictions are self-rebutting, hence the subject line quote.

There is no contradiction, us telling someone they can't smother their aged parents doesn't require we support them. That is clear, and not really debatable, you choose not to read its clear meaning because it violates your narrative. You could simply say, as I do, that the nation has the resources to care for its poor and a moral obligation to make a reasonable effort to do so, and that as children are least able to care for themselves and least responsible for their state we have them as greatest priority. Note that point doesn't contradict the above, it is separate.

Society cannot interfere halfway; "interruptus interruptus." In for a penny, in for a pound. If we can and must intervene within someones body despite their objection, all because a fetus MAY be a person, we can and must intervene outside it with their urging because they are CERTAINLY a person.

"I am removing my cancerous arm before it kills me."

"No, your arm MAY be a person; that would be murder."

"Then treat my cancer."

"Not my business, not my problem."

Except society MAKES it our problem if we demand a role; we cannot demand the role then abandon it when its consequences are undesirable. It is either our business or not, and if invasively for presumptive lives, that much more noninvasively for undeniable lives. If we are always absolutely—supercedingly—"pro-life" we cannot stand idly saying our right to retain all wealth supercedes life. Perhaps one is preeminent, perhaps the other, but they cannot BOTH be preeminent.

Bottom line: One cannot be pro-life and anti-sustenance. Life is impossible without sustenance, so any obligation to life is necessarily and equally obligation to sustain life, though there are potential added state obligations (e.g. readiness, productivity, etc.) It is irresponsible and unreasonable to mandate life yet not its support.


View original post
View original postBeing not-broke is not a preeminent need; surival is. We must take Locke VERY literally to believe even POSSESSING—not just retaining—property a natural right; perhaps that was part of why Jefferson revised it to "pursuit [rather than attainment] of happiness." Otherwise we take Locke for a Marxist demanding wealth redistribution, which very few people would do.

"I'm starving; I'm thinking about stealing food."

"No, you can't do that."

"Alright, can you give me some food then?"

Most people agree the answer should be "yes," if only to prevent theft of food the moment our back is turned; that is why we have things like food stamps. There is no reasonable nor other doubt of a beings existence there, so societys active duty (and self interest) is clear.


You state that to steal food when starving is an exception, yet weirdly the idea of other acts of self-preservation involving harming others has come up in our discussion before and you seem at best lukewarm on it for those. There's no dissonance in my remarks, a person should not steal, but in defense of another's life it is forgivable, usually. Same as slapping a hysteric trying to harm themselves. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is not "right", simply forgivable, like driving a bleeding person to a hospital instead of calling and ambulance. There are almost inevitably, especially in modern society, superior alternatives, we just recognize that those in extremis or close enough often don't make great decisions.

I have never objected to killing to prevent another death, nor even to prevent serious injury. I listed many complaints against capital punishment, but not that one, nor do I object to guns under reasonable conditions. Remember, I support certified responsible private ownership of tanks and fighters; my preferred certification requirements would just be prohibitively high for most civilians.

Anyway, where known alternatives exist to stealing food or anything else to save a life, excuses to do so are NONexistent. Absent such options though, few juries would convict Jean Valjean, not because stealing to save a life is the lesser of two evils, but because it is no evil at all. Unsurprisingly, it is as with abortion: "Morally" refusing to steal what cannot be bought when someone will die without it is passively killing them, just as letting someone else kill a child is passively doing it oneself. The pro-choice issue has never been "is killing babies OK?" but "is a fetus a baby, and if so, when?" For all the "baby killer" slurs, pro-lifers implicitly recognize that distinction with each bill declaring fetuses people—because under current law they are NOT.


View original post
View original postWhen reasonable doubt exists we cannot, or should not, INTERVENE over the objections of those involved.

Stop right there, that is simply a proclamation, you don't justify it, merely "Joel says", and hence may be discarded. especially as it contradicts the very concept of probable cause.

It is a proposition, yes, but a foundational one in Western law: In Americas case, the Fifth Amendment prohibits deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and due process only permits liberty forfeiture on criminal conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Incidentally, that protection notably does NOT include liberty to retain wealth, hence monetary and other civil judgements are binding, despite requiring only proof by preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt. The liberty of a persons, well, PERSON, however, IS covered, hence a person may not be imprisoned without conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise, the state may not dictate what medical procedures competent free citizens obtain.
View original post
View original postSupposing a child is trapped in a well does not justify ignoring a "no trespassing" sign unless one proves the childs presence.

Wrong, it absolutely does. The supposition must merely be 'reasonable', thinking you hear a voice, even if it turns out you didn't, is sufficient. How do you not know that?

I cannot explain how, but if referring to case law, no, I am not aware of it. If even subsequent proof is needless that is a dangerous precedent/statute: Anyone could legally justify going anywhere by saying they believed someones life in danger; sincere and fabricated claims are indistinguishable. Reasonable evidence less than proof would be another thing, but even within law the precise meaning of "reasonable" can be very uncertain despite (or because of) its legal definition.
View original post
View original postNow, I agree we should err on the side of caution in uncertainty; that, absent serious maternal risk, abortions should be neither obtained nor performed unless/until we establish fetuses are nonbeings.

Congrats, you are now officially pro-life, no surprise to me.

I have always been personally pro-life; if everyone were content I alone never have an abortion there would be no debate. I have, however, gone back and forth at least three times on whether I am also pro-choice, before finally (apparently...) concluding I am. Ultimately, the clincher is abortion bans do not prevent abortion, only make it far deadlier for those obtaining one anyway. That is, abortion bans do not save a single fetus' life, only ensure far more women die with them; from a pragmatic perspective bans are tragically pointless.

Aside from that though, I adamantly support self-determination, and the possibility it MAY apply is not sufficient to overrule it where it INDISPUTABLY applies.


View original post
View original postI have always encouraged that view in everyone: The difference is I will not MAKE others live in accordance with what I BELIEVE but cannot PROVE. In fact, I CANNOT, only imprison them for refusing—if they survive the added dangers legally imposing my beliefs places on refusal.

I can't prove human life is sacred, I damn well will force others to act as though it is. I can't prove a brain damaged human is still a person, I expect them to be treated as such. We're not talking about the ridiculous, that is encompassed in 'reasonable' doubt, a tree is not a person, neither is a television, that can be established beyond reasonable doubt if not with absolute certainty. We barely have anything approaching a definition of personhood though, and none with precision are well agreed upon.

Yes; I read Justice Blackmuns majority opinion in Roe. The sticking point is whether the vast uncertainty over when/what a person is justifies banning or permitting abortion. I keep coming back to definite-person>maybe-person. The second the latter is medically on par with the former my position on abortions legality does a 180°, but we are far from there. I (et al.) favor the view that if death occurs when brainwaves cease life occurs when they begin, but even when brainwaves begin—even what "brainwaves" are—is fiercely and widely debated precisely because of the implications on abortion. Even a relatively unbiased source devoted to general medical ethics yields this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1375108/

You may recognize Dr. Goldenrings name from the Komen/Planned Parenthood thread a while back, or the hotly debated article I cited at the time from an author who bills herself as an (unaccredited) experienced professional on womens health issues (i.e. she wrote a few rabidly pro-choice About.com entries and LTEs.)

Point being, our definite knowledge of when life begins is about where it was 40 years ago when Justice Blackmun rightly noted we had virtually none, and concluded that precluded any basis for prohibiting abortion. Since then, partisans on both sides have greatly clouded the issue with slanted presentations of research biased and otherwise, without advancing certainty an inch. The issue remains whether government should legislate critical medical decisions for millions of people based on a hotly debated impossible-to-resolve supposition. One can argue government should, even (theoretically) make a reasonable case for it—but no libertarian can, nor can anyone who insists the right to retain all property preempts the right of millions of fellow Americans to not starve or freeze to death on the street.

If life is preeminent, life is preeminent; preeminence permits no qualifiers. Life either trumps being "taxed enough already," or is not preeminent.


View original postNor am I concerned about the 'added dangers' to those who resist us 'imposing' our belief that fetus are people. Anymore then the added danger to a man who believes his Down's Syndrome afflicted child is not a person. Why should I worry and tiptoe and hesitate to ban murdering the mentally retarded for fear of upsetting their parents?

Mm, yes; but murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, obviously impossible if we cannot even prove beyond doubt there was even a person there to be murdered in the first place. If pro-lifers spent as much time PROVING fetuses are people as they do legislating it, again, there would be no debate. Because, again, pro-choice=/=baby murderer. Really. "Proclamation," indeed; good thing some are less easily offended than others.

Anyway, ban someone aborting their Downs Syndrome afflicted child and they would still do it, so if it WERE a baby it would be no less dead: The only difference is there is a good chance the mother would die with it, or be maimed. It would not be the fathers call in any case unless it were in his uterus (but that messed up aspect of the abortion debate was already covered elsewhere.)


View original post
View original postMy concern for and obligation to their immortal souls does not justify me preventing their observance of other religions (or none,) and my concern for and obligation to their unborn children does not justify me preventing their abortion. It is NOT. MY. CALL.

Then it isn't your call to tell them murder is wrong, theft is wrong, not paying their taxes is wrong, or anything else. That's a valid position but only if you carry it all the way. Otherwise it is nonsense. Position weak and unsupportable you fallback on utter nonsense. Seriously, how the hell do you even have the ability to mutter such gibberish? You can't tell them not to kill people but you've got no problem telling them not to own a gun?

"That's a valid position but only if you carry it all the way. Otherwise it is nonsense." Congrats, in turn, on conceding my initial point on consistency.

To the point in question: Murder indisputably takes a persons life; again, abortion can not be proven to take a persons life and thus be murder, else there would be no debate. Likewise with theft; it indisputably preys on another person. Even refusal of taxation does indirectly, because you and I must either make up the difference or do without the government goods and services denied (or both.)

The issue is NOT whether women may kill a person inside them for any reason or none, but whether it IS, indisputably, a person. Proving it beyond reasonable doubt would be good enough, IMHO, because proof beyond reasonable doubt is good enough for a murder conviction, but we do not even have a preponderance of evidence. It is a supposition or, if one prefers, a "simply a proclamation, you don't justify it, merely '[Isaac] says', and hence may be discarded." Once we discard "abortion is murder" though naught remains to debate.

Also once again, I do not object to "people" having guns: I object to criminals and/or the incompetent having them. Another one of those funny things; almost no one would hand a violent felon, paranoid psychotic or a toddler a gun, let alone a law-abiding rational adult "merely" ignorant of how to even load or even clean the weapon. Yet just try passing a law against it and suddenly that is tyranny.


View original post
View original postMost Libertarians view (ironically) taxpayers feeding people who would otherwise starve and/or turn to crime just that way, yet insist such life-saving intervention is obligatory prenatally. The state MUST forbid women kill possible beings within their own bodies, but must NOT take a dime from anyone to save those lives once unquestionably beings. That is contradictory: If life-saving society intervention despite individual objections is obligatory for possible pre-natal beings, it is no less so for definite post partum beings. If the latter is state tyranny, so is the former. We cannot demand a possible beings right to life, then stand idly letting it die when born.

Well, news flash, most libertarians are pro-choice, its only recently that most of them stopped flipping out on those who called themselves pro-life libertarians.

News flash, Libertarian=/=libertarian, no more than Bush offerd Kerry a consolation prize by pledging "a democratic Iraq." It is increasingly hard to see much difference between the Libertarian Party and Log Cabin Republicans (sometimes right down to the anarchist wing(s)) but libertarians include far more persuasions.
View original postIn any event, we've established you're fine with forcing people to support other people unless that other person is their own child.

We established nothing of the sort. I am fine with forcing people to support other people if 1) the other people are incapable of supporting themselves and 2) proven beyond reasonable doubt to BE people. For example, I do not agree the proper way to deal with a fetus diagnosed with Downs is to deliver it, then leave it on a street corner to starve/freeze. Just like when that HS girl had her baby, dropped it in a dumpster and went back to prom she was prosecuted for murder; we did not simply say, "well, it was outside the womb; no harm, no foul."
View original post
View original postIt is a question of active vs. passive, with multiple reasonable answers. No contradictory ones are reasonable though.

You weren't given any contradictory ones.

I was told preeminent sanctity of life makes the state responsible for lives of prenatal quasi-people but not postnatal definite people. That is contradictory on its face: Either the state is responsible for all peoples lives, or none; it is not responsible for peoples lives when—and only when—that suits Cannoli (or any other individual.)
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 23/08/2013 at 04:16:23 PM
Reply to message
Parental Rights- A Rant? - 18/08/2013 05:38:13 PM 1123 Views
Part of the problem is the way we do child support and alimony - 18/08/2013 07:32:39 PM 803 Views
Rant away. - 18/08/2013 07:58:41 PM 720 Views
damn cell phones - 19/08/2013 05:54:08 PM 810 Views
My body, my choice, your paycheck... - 19/08/2013 09:40:10 PM 848 Views
I am unsure how one can be a man (especially in the South) without knowing and caring. - 19/08/2013 02:28:07 PM 805 Views
*Snip* - 19/08/2013 05:47:59 PM 915 Views
yes it made sense, and I totally agree *NM* - 19/08/2013 09:10:31 PM 558 Views
It made perfect sense, and I agree. - 19/08/2013 09:49:54 PM 861 Views
Re: It made perfect sense, and I agree. - 19/08/2013 10:10:56 PM 866 Views
"Objecting to... murder of an individual does not engender... responsibility for their wellbeing"?! - 19/08/2013 11:00:09 PM 803 Views
You didn't actually rebut his point though - 23/08/2013 09:42:02 AM 705 Views
His point was taking responsibility for a life does not require taking responsibility for it. - 23/08/2013 10:57:03 AM 782 Views
No, he was quite clear as was I, you're distorting the remarks beyond reason - 23/08/2013 12:17:16 PM 830 Views
I deny his consistency, not clarity. - 23/08/2013 03:50:24 PM 923 Views
deleted by poster - 21/08/2013 04:07:41 AM 1166 Views
Best flounce I've ever seen *NM* - 21/08/2013 02:03:07 PM 355 Views
*NM* - 22/08/2013 03:03:28 PM 367 Views
Mostly agree - 19/08/2013 09:50:16 PM 792 Views
Which Political Action Committee did you join? - 19/08/2013 06:21:07 PM 733 Views
The PC(USA) - 20/08/2013 12:43:16 AM 762 Views

Reply to Message