Political Theory

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Monk-Eye — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 12:40:10 GMT

"Obvious Clues Cued Less"

** Completion Requirements **

Non-citizens or any other may be equally protected, which directly implies a necessary requirement of birth, else the non-citizen or other would be receiving greater protections than that afforded to citizens who must be born.

Roe v Wade is well thought out decision and utilizing the logical fallacies of bandwagoning and appeal to authority with the phrase "generally considered a very poor decision by legal scholars" is errant and irrelevant.

** Ethical Difference Of Sophistication **

Monk-Eye:
A substantive basis of nature is indifferent for event outcomes and, also, a subjective element can arise through sophistication of natural systems; you have agreed with that several times.

Although your position petitions to an ethical component for an inchaoate and indifferent foetus, my ethical ethial position is based upon a mutual understanding of sentience by which a foetus is capable of self identity and subjectivity.

Obviously omitted from your reply, therein is the distinction.

** Anthropocentrism Versus Biocentrism **

Anenome:
So, where's the ethical difference?

Aside from the difference being a baseless standard for sentience, another error of your premise, that there is a necessity for mammon to exist because it exists, in general implies that self ownership and a necessity of existence applies to other animals as well.

And yet your position holds that the human ape is entitled to exploit, kill, cause suffering, and even extinct the reality of other animals for hue man gain because of some lack in sophistication.

The basis of the proclivities is an allusion to a pretence that man is not an animal, made in the image of a supposed extrinsic deity, which fails to consider that all are intrinsic with nature and all is an image of its qualities by induction.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Anenome — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 06:16:44 GMT

Non-citizens can still be murder. The court weaseled their opinion--it's generally considered a very poor decision by legal scholars. It holds because those with power continue to support abortion; it's immaterial to a discussion of rights of the unborn.

Again, you will not be able toe scape the fact that the fetus is alive, human, sentient, and therefore deserving of rights.

As for viability, it's a ridiculous criteria. For one thing, it varies considerably. For another, it may one day be entirely possible to mechanize the womb, to raise a fetus from conception to birth in a machine. That would equal viability from the point of conception--which kind of destroys the argument for viability, as well as the arguments of others that the fetus is not an individual body.

All a fetus needs to survive is:
- suitable environment (warmth)
- nutrition

Born people too need:
- suitable environment (warmth)
- nutrition

So, where's the ethical difference?

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Monk-Eye — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 05:07:41 GMT

"Ground Rules"

** Objectivity of Indifference **

Anenome:
Anenome:
Monk-Eye:
Is nature ethically indifferent to the event consequences?
Yes, ...
... Reality and nature need only give us the nature of man, from which are drawn legal rights. They are inalienable because nature has given them, because a man cannot exist without them.

Anenome:
Monk-Eye:
One cannot allude to law and excise nature from its foundation!
Exactly, but you've essentially said that nature has no values, that nature has no written-law, and this is true, but immaterial to the discussion because values are only contingent to action and nature cannot act, and law is applies to people not nature. ... Oh, and, finally you've agreed that nature is to be the epistemological foundation of law! Thanks for agreeing to epistemological absolutism :P

** Contradiction And Paradox **

Anenome:
Monk-Eye:
Again, an unconscious person, whom has been born, receives constitutional protections!
Why then should birth have anything to do with protection from murder? You deny the underlying reality of a living human being whom is unborn. There is no ethical component to birth. A newborn is just as helpless 5 minutes before birth as it was 5 minutes after birth. It still cannot be murdered.

A substantive basis of nature is indifferent for event outcomes, and also, a subjective element can arise through sophistication of natural systems; you have agreed with that several times.

Although your position petitions to an ethical component for an inchaoate and indifferent foetus, my ethical ethial position is based upon a mutual understanding of sentience by which a foetus is capable of self identity and subjectivity.

The opinions of Roe v Wade reviewed common concepts of providence through manifest destiny and cultural norms for membership in society (air breathers) amongst others.

The court logically concluded that the legal positivism of a state is concerned with the wrights of citizens, in particular the wright to life, when one becomes a citizen at birth.

The court deduced that the state's interest in a wright to life became more compelling with the onset of viability and it established time lines accordingly.

Coincidentally, through science, the JAMA has determined that the formation of thalamocortical spindles and the onset of sentience correlates with the viability time line as outlined in Roe v Wade.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Anenome — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:55:07 GMT

Monk-Eye:
Now, one may engage in mutualism with a purpose of improving the likelihood of their own survival or for fostering a fruitious environment and herding animals do it all the time.

In that respect, an individual exchanges natural freedoms for citizenship in a collective, with protected (reprisable) wrights according to a constitution, which acts as a greater individual in order to improve one's own survival or to foster a fruitious environment.

Regardless whether one engages in mutualism or coercion as a means of survival, to survive they must support their own life, gain property, use consciously generated action, etc., all of which exist as the means of mankind to achieve their ends.

Monk-Eye:
Note, however, that such a construct is provisional, a fabrication without a moral necessity by nature.

Except that life, action, property--these are a necessity of reality and no person can live without them.

Monk-Eye:
My objectivity does not allow me to throw the logical term truth about indiscriminately.

Is that what all the word-play games are about, attempting to come off as objective? lol. I don't think it's working like you want it to work. Anyone taking a stance is no longer objective, you've taken a values-based approach to the question at issue. What matters is whether there is truth behind your stance, and truth has an innate connection to reality. Thus, to be objective means to reflect reality as closely as possible.

Monk-Eye:
There are expected values from events, goals from procedures, and consequence from conditions, which may be true or false depending upon a defintion of the problem.

The problem is 'how to live (or how to remain alive).' It is a problem forced upon everyone by reality itself. Even the man living by himself, outside mutualism, must value certain things to remain alive.

Monk-Eye:

** Nature of Society **
Anenome:
Monk-Eye:
Is nature ethically indifferent to the event consequences?
Yes, but that is outside the scope of the discussion. The question is not whether nature is ethically indifferent, but whether society should be.
It is not outside the scope of the discussion, it is the discussion!

Then you've misunderstood the discussion or at least my points, as rights are ethical concepts written into the law, and derived from the nature of man, and regard action between men. Reality and nature need only give us the nature of man, from which are drawn legal rights. They are inalienable because nature has given them, because a man cannot exist without them.

Monk-Eye:
One cannot allude to law and excise nature from its foundation!

Exactly, but you've essentially said that nature has no values, that nature has no written-law, and this is true, but immaterial to the discussion because values are only contingent to action and nature cannot act, and law is applies to people not nature.

Oh, and, finally you've agreed that nature is to be the epistemological foundation of law! Thanks for agreeing to epistemological absolutism :P

Monk-Eye:
Objectively, a subjective argument should not deny that it is subjective!

It is not a subjective statement to say that man is alive, free, rational, and a property owner. This is man by nature, independent of anyone's mind or thoughts. Thus, objective.

Monk-Eye:
An absolute assertion for necessary rights is entirely based within subjective reasoning!

Unless it is, you know, based on logic, reason, and science--in which case it would be objective reasoning. One does not launch a rocket to the moon via subjective reasoning.

Monk-Eye:
Stop mixing legalism with natural freedoms.

Murder is a legal term meaning to kill in violation of a written law (w.right).

Murder is a legal term that respresents an abstraction drawn, by reason, from the reality of the situation. The situation is that a man's life has been taken from him, that which nature gave him he has been deprived. It is not the law that makes murder wrong, but the underlying reality. Thus ethics are objective.

Monk-Eye:
Again, an unconscious person, whom has been born, receives constitutional protections!

Why then should birth have anything to do with protection from murder? You deny the underlying reality of a living human being whom is unborn. There is no ethical component to birth. A newborn is just as helpless 5 minutes before birth as it was 5 minutes after birth. It still cannot be murdered.

Monk-Eye:
If one cannot accept that a wright exists because there is an entity capable of reprising a violation of given conditions, whence all killing is murder, then see theological reprisal.

No, see reality. It was not theology that gave a person life, it was reality itself.

Monk-Eye:
Verily, an esoteric interpretation of newton's third law of motion does not imply anything about the ethical or moral consequences of an action; no good deed goes unpunished and what comes around goes around.

Do you think justice a subjective concept too, or is that a property of reality that mankind discovered? By this I mean not that reality is just, but rather that justice was discoverable within reality, just as, say, mathematics is discoverable within reality. Mathematics is valid, true, objective, despite being an abstraction from reality. So too, I put it, is ethics and justice.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

GavinPalmer1984 — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:14:17 GMT

The law of conservation of mass is the ultimate reason why we can be faced with situations where there can not be life without death. Consider "Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571". The environment has very little life-giving fuel. And the companions that surround you are really the only source of life-giving fuel. Given the right conditions - it would be inevitable that someone die so that you may continue living.

In the sense of "natural rights" which many of you uphold - I say we have none. But I do think that thought is one of the most fundamental and powerful prime movers an individual can access... and is therefore deserving of the highest regard.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Anenome — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:14:39 GMT

GavinPalmer1984:
There are numerous situations where the life of a person depends upon the death of another person.

Let's have them.

GavinPalmer1984:
By accepting some notion of "right to life" - you are faced with inevitable contradictions to that notion.

Give your example of such a situation and I'll show you how there is no contradiction.

GavinPalmer1984:
The closest thing I can think of to a "natural right" - is the right to think.

You cannot think without a right to your own life. Thus, the right to think pre-supposes your right to life, for by depriving you of life you are also deprived of thinking. You don't realize that the right to life is the fundamental right to which all others are corollaries.

GavinPalmer1984:
Once you are possessed by the hypocritical and selfish belief that everyone has a "right to life" - you begin acquiring all kinds of false "rights".

Such as?

GavinPalmer1984:
But I am merely saying that your maxim is not practical... else there would be no arguments like the one in this thread. I submit that we have the right to perform thought activations in defense of our life. But I do not submit that we have a right to life. These are very different maxims.

Again, your "right to thought" presupposed a right to life and therefore is inconsistent and self-refuting.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

GavinPalmer1984 — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:04:05 GMT

There are numerous situations where the life of a person depends upon the death of another person. By accepting some notion of "right to life" - you are faced with inevitable contradictions to that notion. The closest thing I can think of to a "natural right" - is the right to think. We can absorb information and use that information to influence the world. Your body is also part of that world - even though it is likely your thoughts can't exist without your body. But if you are going to get down to the fundamental factor - it has to be thought.

Once you are possessed by the hypocritical and selfish belief that everyone has a "right to life" - you begin acquiring all kinds of false "rights". But I am merely saying that your maxim is not practical... else there would be no arguments like the one in this thread. I submit that we have the right to perform thought activations in defense of our life. But I do not submit that we have a right to life. These are very different maxims.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

GavinPalmer1984 — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:31:02 GMT

To both the responders of my post - your thoughts stem from the delusion that you have some "right to life". Everybody dies.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Monk-Eye — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:04:10 GMT

"Curve Ball"

** Coarse Course **

Anenome:
Anenome:
At some point, the term inalienable implies "something that cannot be alienated". Thus, upon what causality may one assert that "because one is alive, then one ought to continue to be alive"?
No man can deprive another of life or liberty and maintain their moral position.

Male lions kill the cubs of former prides so that their genetics may be passed into the future, the strong anthropic principle does not compromise, one is genetically present or one is not genetically present.

Recall the history of military campaigns by mammon clads in search for territories and resources to supply its survival; although one may subjectively disagree with the methods, one must objectively accept the incidences of both success and failure according to the strong anthropic principle.

Hence, any moral valuation of what ought to be is simply a matter of perspective.

** Systematic Formalities **

Anenome:
Those who do not respect life are a threat to society, and justice demands the harshest treatment, and their separation from society. These are things that men felt intuitively before we had concepts to delineate them intellectually.

Now, one may engage in mutualism with a purpose of improving the likelihood of their own survival or for fostering a fruitious environment and herding animals do it all the time.

In that respect, an individual exchanges natural freedoms for citizenship in a collective, with protected (reprisable) wrights according to a constitution, which acts as a greater individual in order to improve one's own survival or to foster a fruitious environment.

Note, however, that such a construct is provisional, a fabrication without a moral necessity by nature.

** Free Will **

Anenome:
Monk-Eye:
Perspectivism does not reject discrete outcomes, rather it "... separates truth from a particular (or single) vantage point,"
Seems more like it's denying the possibility of truth whatsoever. Do you agree that perspectivism is antithetical to epistemological-absolutism? If so, you deny the ability to discover truth whatsoever, you in fact would thereby deny that reality exists, for that is my epistemological foundation, and would thereby expose yourself as little more than a neo-mystic.

My objectivity does not allow me to throw the logical term truth about indiscriminately.

There are expected values from events, goals from procedures, and consequence from conditions, which may be true or false depending upon a defintion of the problem.

My objective is to optimize advantages without pretences for grandiose allusion to moral absolutes.

** Nature of Society **

Anenome:
Monk-Eye:
Is nature ethically indifferent to the event consequences?
Yes, but that is outside the scope of the discussion. The question is not whether nature is ethically indifferent, but whether society should be.

It is not outside the scope of the discussion, it is the discussion!

One cannot allude to law and excise nature from its foundation!

Objectively, a subjective argument should not deny that it is subjective!

An absolute assertion for necessary wrights is entirely based within subjective reasoning!

Even though, conditions of society can be established to objectively improve subjective preferences.

** Specious Species **

Anenome:
Monk-Eye:
Verily, I am content to allow others to make a subjective assessment and decision for themselves regarding their own inchoate foetus until an onset of sentience which provisions an opportunity for mutual understanding.
Then, would you agree to allow others to decide for themselves whether a sleeping, unconscious person can be lawfully kiled because they are not currently sentient? In either case you're allowing the murder of a living human being. Again, you will not escape that fact.

Stop mixing legalism with natural freedoms.

Murder is a legal term meaning to kill in violation of a written law (w.right).

Again, an unconscious person, whom has been born, receives constitutional protections!

If one cannot accept that a wright exists because there is an entity capable of reprising a violation of given conditions, whence all killing is murder, then see theological reprisal.

Verily, an esoteric interpretation of newton's third law of motion does not imply anything about the ethical or moral consequences of an action; no good deed goes unpunished and what comes around goes around.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Anenome — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:19:25 GMT

Monk-Eye:

At some point, the term inalienable implies "something that cannot be alienated".

Thus, upon what causality may one assert that "because one is alive, then one ought to continue to be alive"?

No man can deprive another of life or liberty and maintain their moral position. Those who do not respect life are a threat to society, and justice demands the harshest treatment, and their separation from society. These are things that men felt intuitively before we had concepts to delineate them intellectually.

Monk-Eye:
One may infer from statements that your answer is "because one wants to be alive", from which you apparently extrapolate "a biological processes" as being consistent with want.

First of all, why are you putting that phrase in quotes as if I wrote it, since it's a phrase you originated, not I.

Secondly, what's important is what people will do willingly versus what others force on them. To force death on someone makes it ethical to force death on the aggressor, makes it just and commensurate. Most people do want to remain alive, both on an unconscious level and a conscious level. It cannot be denied that the body is a continuing process of life whose aim is to remain alive. It continues this process until it is unable. Even those who commit suicide cannot convince their body to stop creating and sustaining life within them.

Biological life is a given.

Monk-Eye:
And, yet, one does not continue to be alive per design of nature; therefore wanting to continue to be alive cannot represent a law that one must continue to be alive.

Not quite as you formulate it. Rather, if one wants to continue to be alive they must do certain things. They must feed themselves and provide water and suitable living conditions. Thus, to deny one's right to the product of their labor is to deny them food and water and shelter which is to deny them life. To deny the life of someone attempting to maintain their life is to aggress against them and unethical. Rights enshrine the nature of man, that being exactly what you said, that while nature doesn't make us a live as a matter of course, nature requires certain actions of us and it is these we must fulfill to remain alive. Anyone blocking such activites is not valuing life but valuing death. You cannot abstain from valuing, you must choose either or.

Monk-Eye:
Again, it is straight forward to deduce that the gazelle has a will to be alive that can be alienated.

Again, a person's life can be alienated or taken from them, but only by force, and this does not allow the killer to maintain their moral position in regard to other men.

Monk-Eye:

Verily

"Verily"? Seriously?

Monk-Eye:
Perspectivism does not reject discrete outcomes, rather it "... separates truth from a particular (or single) vantage point,"

Seems more like it's denying the possibility of truth whatsoever. Do you agree that perspectivism is antithetical to epistemological-absolutism? If so, you deny the ability to discover truth whatsoever, you in fact would thereby deny that reality exists, for that is my epistemological foundation, and would thereby expose yourself as little more than a neo-mystic.

Monk-Eye:
For example, given certain physical conditions in a chemical reaction, where specific byproducts are created, perspectivism would challenge that the purpose of the byproducts is subjective and wholly dependent upon personal need. while the stochastic processes which form a byproduct are ethically indifferent to the consequence.

Rights deal only with the actions and relationships of men to other man. Of course chemistry has no ethical component, but rather what one does with the chemicals.

Monk-Eye:

"This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made.

But not all of them valid.

You might say to me "man must eat to live" and I would say that you are correct, except that you are not wholly correct. Man must eat good food, for one can also eat poison and die. Thus, while you are free to value whatever you like--values after all are a product of thinking--you are not free to prosper equally on any value system. A system which values poison cannot ignore the reality that poison will kill you.

So to, a political order must recognize the facts about man's nature and inculcate a value system that respects man's right to life and the corollaries if that society is to proper.

Monk-Eye:
This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

This is a limited view that amounts to such sayings as "there's no best flavor of ice cream." Such a statement cannot be imported into the realm of factual data to which value has not been applied. There may be no one best flavor of ice-cream, but there certainly is ice-cream. Ice-cream exists, that much we can say with 100% certainty. To deny the validity of a value judgment and apply that rubric to factual questions is the fallacy of the frozen abstraction, of concept importation out of context.

Monk-Eye:
Is nature ethically indifferent to the event consequences?

Yes, but that is outside the scope of the discussion. The question is not whether nature is ethically indifferent, but whether society should be.

Monk-Eye:
Certainly, one may suppose that there is reciprocity in nature - a karma.

Do you believe in karma? I do not. Once again, should you say you do, mysticism.

Monk-Eye:
The extent to which reciprocity occurs in nature for abortion of an inchoate foetus is a subjective perception.

I have seen no one suggest such a thing; certainly I have not.

Monk-Eye:
Verily, I am content to allow others to make a subjective assessment and decision for themselves regarding their own inchoate foetus until an onset of sentience which provisions an opportunity for mutual understanding.

Then, would you agree to allow others to decide for themselves whether a sleeping, unconscious person can be lawfully kiled because they are not currently sentient? In either case you're allowing the murder of a living human being. Again, you will not escape that fact.

Monk-Eye:
right exists because there is an entity which is capable of reprising a violation of its conditions.

Correct, inasmuch as rights are the legal enshrinement of ethical principles. However, those ethical principles cannot be changed by changing a law. An ethical violation is still unethical even if there is no law to condemn or reprise its violations.

Monk-Eye:
Therefore, a premise for inalienable wrights is mandated upon an allusion to theological reprisals.

Hardly. One needs only a state to coerce aggressors, not a theological entity of any kind. This is a specious line of argumentation.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Anenome — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:51:28 GMT

GavinPalmer1984:

I think most of the confusion stems from the fact that many people are Capitalists and think that we have a right to property.

If you had no ability to own and dispose of property, you could not live. You must eat. Yet, food cannot be eaten corporately. It can be eaten by only one person, and is disposed of utterly and consumed utterly. It is a property. If you did not have a right to the product of your efforts you could not eat that which you produced, nor own the tools to produce food. If you had no property you would not even have a body, and thus could not be alive, as you own the physical constituents that make up your physical form and produce consciousness within you.

GavinPalmer1984:
I realize that I don't have a right to life.

If you have no right to life then you have no right to the things that sustain your life, including work, production, and food. Are you honestly suggesting that it is ethical to deprive you of these things unto your death?

GavinPalmer1984:
I only have a right to my thoughts which I can invest into this world.

Thoughts alone cannot keep you alive. You must eat, drink, interact. One chained in darkness can think, but they will not live very long without the material necessities of life.

GavinPalmer1984:

I personally would avoid abortion of a fetus because I don't think we have given that fetus a chance. That fetus could be a great thinker. But I would have less of a problem killing a 13 year old kid that has proven their incompetance as a respectful human being.

Then you are evil. Lacking respect hardly rises to the level of deserving death. You have a twisted value system.

GavinPalmer1984:
I would prefer the non-violent approach of enslaving the 13 year old child so they might learn respect - at which time they could gain their freedom.

Non-violent? Suppose she tries to escape as you are enslaving her, will you use force to restrain her? Is it still non-violent? Enslaving anyone is an aggression, an abrogation of their free will and reprehensible.

That said, the fetus does not enslave the mother, it cannot. It did not cause its coming into existence. It cannot aggress.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Friedrich Dominicus — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 04:36:48 GMT

"I realize that I don't have a right to life. "

Just one word: ridiculous

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

Monk-Eye — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 03:48:48 GMT

"Saving Private Ryan"

Anenome:
Monk-Eye:
Anenome:
All rights are corrolaries of the right to life that all living humans have. No person may deprive another person of life and retain their moral position without due process.
Are you citing the ridiculous hubris of inealienable wrights that are better defined as utopian conjectures or stochastic optimizations?
I'm talking about the source of rights, that is man's nature and observations thereof.

....

I say that, for instance, a man's right to life is inalienable, you call that hubris, but it's true because it is a fact of reality that a person is alive. And if anyone in society expects to have their life respected they must apply that equally to others, creating mutual respect for life. Thus, to murder, is to deprive of life unlawfully.

** Help Less **

At some point, the term inalienable implies "something that cannot be alienated".

Thus, upon what causality may one assert that "because one is alive, then one ought to continue to be alive"?

One may infer from statements that your answer is "because one wants to be alive", from which you apparently extrapolate "a biological processes" as being consistent with want.

And, yet, one does not continue to be alive per design of nature; therefore wanting to continue to be alive cannot represent a law that one must continue to be alive.

Anenome:
Care to expand. Your point seems to be that a lion and a gazelle both experience the event from different viewpoints, therefore inalienable rights are irrelevant. Come again?

Again, it is straight forward to deduce that the gazelle has a will to be alive that can be alienated.

** Churn More **

Verily, it is difficult to discern the meaning that many attach to the term right.

Firstly, dexterous and sinisterism are antonyms of handedness, levorotatory and dextrorotator are antonyms of enantiomers, however neither of the pairs are likely to objectively represent moral or ethical opposites.

The terms right and left are antonyms for direction and one should use the terms correct or incorrect to describe conditions or outcomes.

Also, the use of the term right is an abbreviation from upright, which has an attached connotation of "standing up".

As such, an assertion that mammon is not an animal because it stands upright is arrogant nonsense.

Extrapolation of the mind body paradigm to a deity which is extrinsic to nature is a misgiving that naturalism rejects.

** Here Say **

Anenome:
Just because you accept perspectivism does not force me to :P It is little more than relativism, and based on a fundamental error in epistemology. There -is- an epistemological absolute and it is reality and the method of obtaining knowledge is science. ... If Nietzsche were correct, science would not work.

Perspectivism does not reject discrete outcomes, rather it "... separates truth from a particular (or single) vantage point,"

For example, given certain physical conditions in a chemical reaction, where specific byproducts are created, perspectivism would challenge that the purpose of the byproducts is subjective and wholly dependent upon personal need. while the stochastic processes which form a byproduct are ethically indifferent to the consequence.

"This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

** Reflexive Emanation **

Is nature ethically indifferent to the event consequences?

Certainly, one may suppose that there is reciprocity in nature - a karma.

The extent to which reciprocity occurs in nature for abortion of an inchoate foetus is a subjective perception.

Verily, I am content to allow others to make a subjective assessment and decision for themselves regarding their own inchoate foetus until an onset of sentience which provisions an opportunity for mutual understanding.

** Tiny Article **

Emphatically, a wright exists because there is an entity which is capable of reprising a violation of its conditions.

Therefore, a premise for inalienable wrights is mandated upon an allusion to theological reprisals.

Now a "chance at eternal life" and "final judgment" are metaphors for perpetuation of one's introspection and genetic identity through one's children, and a soul is a metaphor for a sole.

A strong anthropic principle states that "one exists because one is present to attest that they exist"; it is a tautology which does not attempt to compromise beyond concrete reality.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

hashem — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 01:32:12 GMT

Well, I probably meant in recorded history, Wheylous. But shame on your sources for being heavy with guesswork and assumption.

Re: Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

GavinPalmer1984 — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:47:29 GMT

I think most of the confusion stems from the fact that many people are Capitalists and think that we have a right to property. I realize that I don't have a right to life. I only have a right to my thoughts which I can invest into this world.

I personally would avoid abortion of a fetus because I don't think we have given that fetus a chance. That fetus could be a great thinker. But I would have less of a problem killing a 13 year old kid that has proven their incompetance as a respectful human being. I would prefer the non-violent approach of enslaving the 13 year old child so they might learn respect - at which time they could gain their freedom. We might also use the insane 13 year old child to learn the environmental causes of mental retardation among developing minds.