Comprehensive Libertarian Pro Life Argument.

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.

"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.

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?

"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.