Let's say you get into a car accident. Let's say that car accident was your fault. Now let's say you wake up in the hospital with an IV line hooked up and transferring your blood to the other car crash victim. They say you are the same blood type and you have to stay hooked up because, after all, it's your fault this person ended up here.
Let's also add that the accident victim will die if you refuse to continue with the blood transfusion, and you are the only possible donor in the world.
So you hurt this person, and now only you can save his life. Your actions put him in this situation, so aren't you morally obligated to help him out of it?
I would say I'm morally obligated to help him.
But I'm sure you'd agree what is moral isn't always what is or should be legal/illegal.
Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.
You have to figure out what's right and wrong first, before you can write a just law.
Except they believe it goes beyond moral obligation to where the state gets to decide.
I believe gambling is wrong. I also believe smoking is wrong. Do you think I support laws banning these things?
Yet you have no problem with state deciding which drugs she may take,
how much she may work for,
who she may trade with, whether she may own a firearm, and so on and so forth. This is just one more thing added the incredibly long list of things you support having the state decide.
We are talking about rights in a social context, not personal vices.
Where did I ever say that? I believe adults should be allowed to take whatever drug they choose.
The state issues the business licenses so the state sets the rules for business regulations, including minimum wage. Outside minimum wage, the business and the worker (or her union) can negotiate whatever wage terms they want.
Did you know that practically every pro-choice advocate endorses regulations on health care, INCLUDING abortion clinics and doctors?
There is a world of difference between regulations to ensure proper business practices and laws that would imprison (or worse) women for making personal reproductive health choices.
So you support abolishing the prescription drug system, correct?
As I said, you support having the state make all kinds of decisions for her, thereby limiting her options, and making her less free. Abortion is just one more decision for the state to make for her.
Of course. I'm not sure how pointing out their inconsistencies becomes a rationale for yours.
No, there isn't, and all "proper" means is approved by politicians. The last thing anyone should want is politicians deciding economic matters, as virtually all freedom is economic.
Economic Freedom vs. Personal Freedom
There is a false dichotomy pushed by the political left - that economic freedom is somehow different (and much less important) than personal freedom. But the truth is, personal freedom is derived from economic freedom and property rights. I'll provide some examples to make this clearer. 1...debatepolitics.com
A blood transfusion that lasts months?Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.
You have to figure out what's right and wrong first, before you can write a just law.
Let's also add that the accident victim will die if you refuse to continue with the blood transfusion, and you are the only possible donor in the world.
So you hurt this person, and now only you can save his life. Your actions put him in this situation, so aren't you morally obligated to help him out of it?
But a "just" law in matters of emotion, morality, and others can be ambiguous. If I can turn my head one way and say that pro-life is the right way because of x, y, z and you can turn your head the other way and say pro-choice is the right way because of x, y, z -- then maybe the "justness" of the situation is logically undefinable. Perhaps its an issue that should be left up to the individual instead of federal, state, or local government simply -because- it's undefinable.Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.
You have to figure out what's right and wrong first, before you can write a just law.
I believe it is morally good to help, but not morally obligated. If there is someone in a burning building would you think the state should punish you if you don’t run in and save them if you are the only one around?Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.
Leaving it up to the individual is just pro-choice with extra steps.But a "just" law in matters of emotion, morality, and others can be ambiguous. If I can turn my head one way and say that pro-life is the right way because of x, y, z and you can turn your head the other way and say pro-choice is the right way because of x, y, z -- then maybe the "justness" of the situation is logically undefinable. Perhaps its an issue that should be left up to the individual instead of federal, state, or local government simply -because- it's undefinable.
But a "just" law in matters of emotion, morality, and others can be ambiguous. If I can turn my head one way and say that pro-life is the right way because of x, y, z and you can turn your head the other way and say pro-choice is the right way because of x, y, z -- then maybe the "justness" of the situation is logically undefinable. Perhaps its an issue that should be left up to the individual instead of federal, state, or local government simply -because- it's undefinable.
I believe it is morally good to help, but not morally obligated. If there is someone in a burning building would you think the state should punish you if you don’t run in and save them if you are the only one around?
The pro-lifer believes the embryo is a child and I don't.Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.
You have to figure out what's right and wrong first, before you can write a just law.
I actually have no problem with the state deciding which drugs are sufficiently unsafe to be banned for everyone's use, how low a financial reimbursement for work can be without the work verging on a danger to be banned for everyone, what trades and firearms present a clear and present danger to social life.Yet you have no problem with state deciding which drugs she may take, how much she may work for, who she may trade with, whether she may own a firearm, and so on and so forth. This is just one more thing added the incredibly long list of things you support having the state decide.
The unwanted forcing of generation of overpopulation and unwanted production of children at the risk of others' life and heath is a personal vice that is also a violation of rights in a social context.We are talking about rights in a social context, not personal vices.
I actually have no problem with the state deciding which drugs are sufficiently unsafe to be banned for everyone's use, how low a financial reimbursement for work can be without the work verging on a danger to be banned for everyone, what trades and firearms present a clear and present danger to social life.
Should everyone be forced to donate their body after their death?
Should everyone be forced to donate their body after their death?
No, it isn't. There should always be articulated reasons for restrictions based on balance of rights, or general welfare of society.Yes, so having the state control her vagina is consistent with your beliefs.
So then dead people have more rights than pregnant people.
No, it isn't. There should always be articulated reasons for restrictions based on balance of rights, or general welfare of society.
Drug use should not be criminalized, result in jail time. Drug sales, distribution should be regulated, as that is for general welfare.
Abortions should be between a pregnant person and their doctor, but that doesn't mean that abortion cannot be regulated
No. Pro-birthers provide excuses and/or religious beliefs mostly.1. Pro lifers do provide reasons.
2. Politicians do not know what's best for society. I can provide a mountain of evidence to support that assertion.
I've been buying unregulated drugs in unlabeled containers from unlicensed sellers since I was a teenager. What I buy and put into my own body is simply none of your business, and it's certain none of the government's business.
If it's controlled by politics, then it isn't between a woman and her doctor. Having it controlled by government is precisely what gives politicians the power to ban it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?