John Locke, the intellectual father of America.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

No, I would not agree with your logic below at all.

I don't see a time when an evolved society gives rights to something that has no independent life to a person, i.e. a woman and their right to choose what they do with their own body.

I have argued before and hold to the argument, that up until the time that a fetus could be harvested from a woman with a relative certainty that it could live independent of that woman, that the right to terminate the pregnancy belongs to the woman, not the state.

If at the time the fetus could be harvested, if the woman doesn't want to carry the child, she allows the state to take possession, and full responsibility...both legally, financially, spiritually, etc. for that fetus until the age of maturity (say 18 to 21 years of age) and the cost of this is extracted from those who favor doing so.

Meaning, that those who would demand the fetus become dependent on the outside agency that harvested the unwanted fetus...should pay for it.

Now if you are asking me if abortion is a sin against God...for clearly it is not a sin against man in my opinion...that is up to God to decide.

Until such time that modern science establishes when in fact a fetus could be harvested...the choice belongs to the woman to terminate pregnancy, just as it is her right to determine whether or not to get pregnant in the first place.
More...
So, you make the legal standing that if a person is fully dependent upon another person then that caretaker can exert property rights over the former.

This concept would make the life of operating nursing homes much simpler. You enter as a citizen then once they regress to a state of dependency they become property.
__________-
There are many actions citizens take that place economic burdens on the public. Alcoholism, Gun crime, auto accidents...etc..Just part of living in a society.
_____________
If we agree a fetus is property why can the creator of 50% of that property get ownership rights. The Man.
 
Yes, as a "progressive" he is in favor of euthanizing the elderly, much cheaper for the state that way. After all the elderly don't work and pay taxes, so no good to the state...

Quote from Mercor:

So, you make the legal standing that if a person is fully dependent upon another person then that caretaker can exert property rights over the former.

This concept would make the life of operating nursing homes much simpler. You enter as a citizen then once they regress to a state of dependency they become property.
__________-
There are many actions citizens take that place economic burdens on the public. Alcoholism, Gun crime, auto accidents...etc..Just part of living in a society.
_____________
If we agree a fetus is property why can the creator of 50% of that property get ownership rights. The Man.
More...
 
As I am defining fully dependent, that means said dependent could not live outside of the biological support system of the host.

So any comparison of a fetus to black human beings is rather silly, IMO.

A man decides to donate a kidney to someone. It is extracted with his consent.

A man has a kidney extracted against his consent by someone who plans to sell the kidney for profit.

In both cases, an organ is extracted...but in one case he has choice, in another he has no choice. The kidney knows nothing of the process. The kidney has no rights, nor does a non viable fetus. Both exist, but are not to be confused with a human being, or a viable fetus.

A fetus is akin to an organ within the body, that may, or may not become a born independent human being.

At a time when science can harvest the fetus with high certainty...even against the will of the woman...as long as the fetus is cared for properly, and if that is in the best interest of society...I would support that.

What I have observed though from the "right to life crowd" is that they want to deny a woman's right to choose, force her to carry and give birth to an unwanted child...and then not take responsibility for the child that was the product of a forced birth.

I don't see that in the best interest of our society.

"If we agree a fetus is property why can the creator of 50% of that property get ownership rights."

If the man wants the aborted fetus, fine by me.

If the man wants to put up the money to pay to support the viable extracted fetus until the age of consent, fine by me. He has to take full responsibility in the process, full parenthood, all rights and all obligations, subject to severe punishment should he fail to do so in any way.


Quote from Mercor:

So, you make the legal standing that if a person is fully dependent upon another person then that caretaker can exert property rights over the former.

This concept would make the life of operating nursing homes much simpler. You enter as a citizen then once they regress to a state of dependency they become property.
__________-
There are many actions citizens take that place economic burdens on the public. Alcoholism, Gun crime, auto accidents...etc..Just part of living in a society.
_____________
If we agree a fetus is property why can the creator of 50% of that property get ownership rights. The Man.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:


...primitives who wish for nothing more than their offspring to remain nothing but followers without a brain.
More...
That's a pretty good description of modern liberals.



Thread run down so far.

Optional/ZZZZzzzzz calls John Locke the intellectual father of America, which isn't even true. He's actually widely known as the Father of Liberalism. A man who supported slavery and considered the Negros slightly smarter than apes. And then Optional goes off on one his endless intellectual wannabe tirades trying in vain to defend his hero, which defended slavery (normally a major pet peeve for Optional) and his (Optional) own indisputable hypocrisy. Then Optional, as usual, gets lambasted and eviscerated by his completely justified detractors.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Thread run down so far.

Optional/ZZZZzzzzz calls John Locke the intellectual father of America, which isn't even true. He's actually widely known as the Father of Liberalism. A man who supported slavery and considered the Negros slightly smarter than apes. And then Optional goes off on one his endless intellectual wannabe tirades trying in vain to defend his hero, which defended slavery (normally a major pet peeve for Optional) and his (Optional) own indisputable hypocrisy. Then Optional, as usual, gets lambasted and eviscerated by his completely justified detractors.
More...

That about sums it up for me. Soft-headed liberal yammering mostly. After years at a liberal university and I don't much tolerance left for it.
 
1. Todays liberal is a big govt socialist - commie. Todays liberals and progressives were an anathema to Locke and Jefferson.

Locke and Jefferson would be todays libertarians.



2. Regarding the the definition by optional.

A baby can live outside the womb at 22 - 24 weeks.
So a progressive should agree that partial birth abortion is a barbaric act and murder of an innocent life.

.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:



"If we agree a fetus is property why can the creator of 50% of that property get ownership rights."

If the man wants the aborted fetus, fine by me.

If the man wants to put up the money to pay to support the viable extracted fetus until the age of consent, fine by me. He has to take full responsibility in the process, full parenthood, all rights and all obligations, subject to severe punishment should he fail to do so in any way.
More...
If a woman decides to abort against the wishes of a man should she compensate the man for his lost of one half of the property?

The law now is pretty clear that the man must provide child support.
 
Which is why you libturds are on the way out.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

No one has any chance should they cling to ignorance, dogmatism, stupdity, regressive thinking in a modern world, etc.
More...
 
Time for him to pull the stalking card!
Quote from Lucrum:

That's a pretty good description of modern liberals.



Thread run down so far.

Optional/ZZZZzzzzz calls John Locke the intellectual father of America, which isn't even true. He's actually widely known as the Father of Liberalism. A man who supported slavery and considered the Negros slightly smarter than apes. And then Optional goes off on one his endless intellectual wannabe tirades trying in vain to defend his hero, which defended slavery (normally a major pet peeve for Optional) and his (Optional) own indisputable hypocrisy. Then Optional, as usual, gets lambasted and eviscerated by his completely justified detractors.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top