Ban ammunition — Michael

>:O

Education-----Very good idea; let's try it. — Bitter Crank

(Y)

Abortion: Pro-abortion in some cases, in all other cases pro-choice — darthbarracuda

So sometimes you're left and sometimes you're not right?

;)

To become rich is not glorious; it's antisocial — Bitter Crank

I love this. Albeit I believe there needs to be some kind of initiative for achievement outside of the collective good (I don't have that kind of faith in humanity).

I suppose you could say that. I don't condone childbirth but I don't actively, vehemently oppose it either. Most likely a child born in a first world country will live a decent life but it's still not going to be anything exactly remarkable or worth starting the life in the first place.

There are times though that I really have to question why a person had a child. If you have a bad genetic defect or live in a warzone like Palestine, don't have a kid!

Wait, so by "pro-abortion" you actually meant forced abortion? I thought you meant to write "pro-life" but got mixed up.

Not forced, that would contradict my libertarianism even if I believe that my opinion is better. I'm not entirely persuaded by the argument that you are harmed when you are born (non-identity problem and whatnot) so not doing anything about birth is not analogous to me not doing anything about my neighbor being murdered.

That being said, I do support abortion with a certain kind of private enthusiasm.

private property...
but with common/cooperative ownership of the means of production — Thorongil

Pick one.

I find these questions and answers more relevant, to know about a person, than I have read or been asked in a while. I am all around impressed with your honesty and somewhat ruffled by it 8-)

Surveillance-----Surveil the surveilors — Bitter Crank

Surveillance has a long history; everybody does it. I surveil my neighbors all the time. What are they up to today? Three unrelated men and one woman in one house... who's sleeping with whom? Inquiring minds want to know. My neighbors surveil me, as well. "Oh, where have you been?" It's normal.

I assume my government has good reason to practice surveillance. They will tap wires, open letters, put up micro-cameras to keep watch, have people parked across the street with electronic listening gear, and so on. I just don't want one part of the government deciding to do all the surveilling they want without other parts of the government being quite aware of what they are doing, and having the wherewithal to effectively say "NO." There needs to be both legislative authorization, judicial oversight, and citizen awareness.

There also needs to be just cause. Deciding to suck up the entire traffic of the Internet and then sort through it, looking for... something... without telling anybody that this is going on, is a violation of citizens' trust and is flatly inappropriate.

That's what I meant by 'surveil the surveillors'.

No.

Abortion - The right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of those infringing upon it; so permissible so long as birth requires inhabitation of a body, but not otherwise — The Great Whatever

Suppose the fetus is 8 1/2 months old?

Abortion: Legal up until birth — Moliere

This is absurd.

If you believe in ensoulment, perhaps. But I am not one of them. Morally speaking the question hinges on personhood, I would say, and how you approach that topic. Legally speaking, however, people like very precise times for when you should and shouldn't, and birth works by convention.

As for your 8 1/2 month old fetus -- I would put to you that the 8 1/2 month old fetus is not a person, and therefore, is not to be treated in the same manner as the mother who is already clearly a person. That doesn't mean that abortion should be taken on lightly in those circumstances -- morally speaking I am more conservative. But legally speaking I am not. I don't think the question is amenable to the necessary precision we expect of law nor should it be answered by the force of the state.

I agree. We should be more like the Spartans and allow it after birth, too.

↪Hanover I agree. We should be more like the Spartans and allow it after birth, too. — Michael

It is exchanges like this that make me fall in love with thinkers all over again~
8-)

Morally speaking the question hinges on personhood, I would say, and how you approach that topic. — Moliere

Then why arbitrarily choose birth as the moment of personhood? It's not like a 1 day old infant can do a whole lot of the things that fully fledged kids can do and they certainly can't do what fully mature adults can do. Morally speaking, though, they may be superior to those who actually believe that 8 1/2 month old fetuses should be killed with impunity.

morally speaking I am more conservative. But legally speaking I am not. I don't think the question is amenable to the necessary precision we expect of law nor should it be answered by the force of the state. — Moliere

If you're speaking legally, then you'll need to cite to the law that permits the abortion of 8 1/2 month old fetuses. We do in fact have precision in the law when it comes to abortion. It's just a matter of looking it up and reading it. Any highly disputed area of law is going to be subject to some arbitrary decision, whether it be when a person is endowed with rights, to how much emissions are acceptable, to how much privacy I am afforded. The power granted to those to decide isn't arbitrary, but to some extent decisions have to be made. I'd say, though, that the simple fact that it might be disputed whether the government can walk into my open yard and look for me but they can't walk into my open garage, for example, hardly means that it's disputed whether there are some limits I have from government intrusion. The outer parameters are obvious (like 8 1/2 month old fetuses), but at some point we reach a gray zone.

We should be more like the Spartans and allow it after birth, too. — Michael

In a showdown, who would win, the Spartans, the Vikings, or the Mongols?

No. — Thorongil

Fair enough.

We're all allowed to contradict ourselves.

We all contain multitudes.

Liam Neeson.

I think that you and I simply differ on where said decision should be made, then. Birth works well enough for me because it's far before the gray zone you're referring to. I'd say personhood, in the metaphysical/moral sense, occurs well after birth.

I don't care if it's 30 years old.

I think personhood begins at birth. However, an 8 1/2 month old fetus is a viable infant, probably without any help. Under the circumstances, it would seem like a viable fetus (like 8 1/2 months) is too close to count as a non-person. The closer to the 36th month, the more justification that would be needed to proceed with an abortion. 12 weeks? No justification at all. 28 week viable?? Substantial justification. 34 weeks? If labor can't be induced, do a C-section.

I didn't contradict myself.

Gun policy: personal responsibility for personal protection, no logging, tracking or licensing unless or until firearm is involved in an illegal incident. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I.e. personal responsibility for public irresponsibility, and no safeguards until it's too late.

We're obviously working with different definitions. Going by the traditional usage of those terms in the literature, having both 'private property with the common/collective ownership of the means of production' is contradictory by definition.

I suspect by 'private property' you mean something like 'personal property' (along the lines of your shelter, computer, television, and so on)?

I think personhood begins at birth. However, an 8 1/2 month old fetus is a viable infant, probably without any help. — Bitter Crank

Allowing abortion up until "personhood" is a philosophical concept, asserting that only "people" have an inherent right to live. A "person" are those entities endowed with whatever essential qualities other people have. The word "essence" is just a secular word for "soul."

Viability is a legal concept, enshrined by the US Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade case that asserts that only those human entities that are capable of living outside the womb have the right to life. The inherent problem with that view is that viability changes as medical technology advances. The advantage of the position is that it avoids all this impossible personhood talk.

My point here is simply to point out that you've intermingled the personhood and viability arguments. It would seem that if you had a fetus that was endowed with personhood, it would be wrong to kill it simply because it was still dependent upon the womb (i.e. not viable). On the other hand, it wouldn't seem particularly wrong to abort a non-person even if it were possible to support that entity outside the womb. That is, if we could take a two minute old united sperm and egg and incubate it until it was a fully formed baby, I wouldn't really consider it murder if we instead just poured it down the sink (which is what is commonly done in fertility clinics).

I don't care if it's 30 years old. — The Great Whatever

I don't care if you're 30 years old.

I think that you and I simply differ on where said decision should be made, then. Birth works well enough for me because it's far before the gray zone you're referring to. I'd say personhood, in the metaphysical/moral sense, occurs well after birth. — Moliere

Yes, but if birth is also clearly before the gray zone, then we should allow parents to drown their kids in the well for some period of time after birth. Well drowning is cheaper and more medically safe than abortion, and it allows the parent to look at the child and see if its worth keeping. It also gives the well water that much desired new baby smell.

People are always confusing private property (the basic collection of stuff with which we conduct our domestic affairs--coffee pot, couch, broom, shirts, shoes, etc.) with 'capital' property -- factories, railroads, mines, etc. So naturally they assume their favorite blanket and pillow will be nationalized.

Sigh.