[B0ycey]

Hard to be convincing when you aren't trying to convince. lol

"I accept your implicit concession"

Oh good. Then please address the fallacy with appealing to nature for moral obligation that I pointed out.

Fallacy! Appeal!

Are you for real! I have said that nature has no morals. There is nothing to appeal to!

[Pants-of-dog]

The pro-choice does not make that argument either way, only that the right to choice is overriding. That is why nothing was advanced.

I just made that argument. If you ignore it, then I guess you could say nothing was advanced, because you ignored the part that was advanced.

In terms of accessing the body of another for life, neither born people nor fetuses have that right. This is an example of both parties having the same rights.

Besides the fact that I don't see how a Brit like Solarcross would make that mistake, you are correct in assuming that this argument of yours is not marxist, nor do I see how it can be held consistently within a Marxist moral paradigm.

Marxism is not a moral system. It is an ideology focusing on economic relationships.

Anyway, you both seem to be using it to mean “progressive”. Is this correct, or do you mean “Marxist”?

Don't shift the burden of proof, you are the one making the claim and just because Marxist countries banned abortion that does not mean they did so consistently with their worldview and so this would prove nothing. I am asking YOU how your argument is consistent with Marxist moral philosophy regarding rights and their forfeiture, I am not asking the Castro family.

What is the claim that you think I am making?

I think pointing out that actual Marxists have supported a woman’s choice is evidence that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Since I never made any claism about “Marxist moral philosophy”, I do not see why I am supposed to suport those claims.

This is my point, if you do not believe that one's rights are absolute, whether regarding your body or property, how can appeal to such a right against life-support systems and therefore for the right of abortion? If a person does not have a right to do with their body whatever they wish or their property in other circumstances, why this one?

Because your body and your property are two different things. Marxism is about property, not about your body.

And no rights are absolute. They are all social constructs depending on certain material conditions. Doesn’t mean that we cannot use them as a basis for arguments.

[Crantag]

It needn't be the state, private charities or religious organisations can (and did) fill that role. The governors (or "state" since you like to anthropomorphise inanimate property) might be interested in all these unwanted children as they could be raised as a caste of slave-soldiers like the janissaries of the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise the religious institutions will have them and turn them into true believers of their faith, missionaries and priests.

As an aside the medical researchers main interest in legal abortion is to secure a steady and substantial supply of human bio-matter, specifically stem cells. Those are essentially commercial interests and could certainly be considered to be exploitative.

What did you think of my leftist style argument against abortion?

I didn't think much of it.

The story about the government turning orphans into Janissary slaves is the sort of Brave New World fantasizing which relegate the notion to an extreme idea, as I said in my previous post. Mostly because of fear mongering along the lines you aptly demonstrate, so thanks.

No, religious charities are not a substitute for the state, despite what the ultra religious fringe like to think.

Don't like how I use the word 'state'? Let me suggest you blow it out your butt next time, as there's nothing wrong with my usages.

[jimjam]

yeah, but we get to sled-ride.

I enjoy your posts because they are intelligently provocative. Nice change from, for example, "All liberals/conservatives are liars and stupid."

[Victoribus Spolia]

I enjoy your posts because they are intelligently provocative. Nice change from, for example, "All liberals/conservatives are liars and stupid."

I appreciate it, that is what I strive for.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Marxism is not a moral system. It is an ideology focusing on economic relationships.

So there is nothing "wrong" with oppressing others? According to Marxism? Therefore there is no "positive reason" why one should actively seek to liberate the international proletariat? I mean, if Marxism is merely a description of economic relationships and is not a moral system, why strive for such ends?

What is the claim that you think I am making?

I think pointing out that actual Marxists have supported a woman’s choice is evidence that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Since I never made any claism about “Marxist moral philosophy”, I do not see why I am supposed to suport those claims.

You are claiming that your libertarian argument for abortion is consistent with your non-libertarian worldview, I am saying it is not. Citing that Marxist regimes are pro-choice adds nothing in defense of the contrary.

Because your body and your property are two different things. Marxism is about property, not about your body.

And no rights are absolute. They are all social constructs depending on certain material conditions. Doesn’t mean that we cannot use them as a basis for arguments.

Then why, under your worldview, would it be wrong to use someone else's body as a life support system? If people do not have absolute rights and we can require people to use their body in service of the State, then why can't such persons be required to save or support the life of someone else? Why shouldn't such people be required to do so? Under your system of thought?

[Pants-of-dog]

So there is nothing "wrong" with oppressing others? According to Marxism? Therefore there is no "positive reason" why one should actively seek to liberate the international proletariat? I mean, if Marxism is merely a description of economic relationships and is not a moral system, why strive for such ends?

If you want to know what Marxism is, feel free to Google it.

Again, Cuba and other Marxist countries have upheld the right of a woman to control her own body. So, people who are actually practicing Marxism on a day to day level actually support this.

You are claiming that your libertarian argument for abortion is consistent with your non-libertarian worldview, I am saying it is not. Citing that Marxist regimes are pro-choice adds nothing in defense of the contrary.

Please explain why they are inconsistent.

I think that part of your problem is that you want to see some sort of theoretical discussion where people quote Marx and show some step by step logical argument of ideas. Marxism, outside of the developed west, does not necessarily work that way. It works on a much more practical level.

Cuba supports abortion because Cuban women were getting abortions even when they were not legal, and this caused health problems for the women. In order to avoid that, they legalised abortion. It is a practical policy, not ine based on the theories of dead European guys.

Then why, under your worldview, would it be wrong to use someone else's body as a life support system? If people do not have absolute rights and we can require people to use their body in service of the State, then why can't such persons be required to save or support the life of someone else? Why shouldn't such people be required to do so? Under your system of thought?

My system of thought does not require people to use their body in the service of the state. This is some weird strawman of Marxism you have there.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you want to know what Marxism is, feel free to Google it.

Again, Cuba and other Marxist countries have upheld the right of a woman to control her own body. So, people who are actually practicing Marxism on a day to day level actually support this.

This is not an answer to my question. This is evasion.

Please explain why they are inconsistent.

Why should I have to explain how a libertarian moral concept is inconsistent with Marxism? Your a big boy, you should know these things already.

My system of thought does not require people to use their body in the service of the state. This is some weird strawman of Marxism you have there.

Oh really, so Marxist/Socialist governments do not believe they have a right to conscription? Or euthanasia? Do you want to go down this road my friend?

[ingliz]

euthanasia

Why do you seek to deny someone the choice? I can only assume it's for religious reasons - The evangelical church rejects self-murder - but putting that to one side, do you have any rational reason for insisting that a person must prolong his own suffering.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Why do you seek to deny someone the choice? I can only assume it's for religious reasons - The evangelical church rejects self-murder - but putting that to one side, do you have any rational reason for insisting that a person must prolong his own suffering.

I haven't developed a syllogistic rational for this issue as with contraception if that is what you are asking, and I generally defer to my doctrinal-informed morals on such matters. Ultimately, I am a man of faith when it comes to morality, I use logical arguments only to demonstrate what I believe God has established as true in the Scriptures. Hence, my proofs are not really what convinces me, they exist only to demonstrate the reasonableness of what I already believe by faith.

However, my point in bringing it up is only to test PoD's ideological consistency on an issue that is pretty-much universally accepted among his ilk.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is not an answer to my question. This is evasion.

Why should I have to explain how a libertarian moral concept is inconsistent with Marxism? Your a big boy, you should know these things already.

Oh really, so Marxist/Socialist governments do not believe they have a right to conscription? Or euthanasia? Do you want to go down this road my friend?

The libertarians use a similar argument, but Rothbard did not formulate this argument until 1982, which was long after Cuba had already legalised abortion. It seems odd to call it a libertarian argument when the Marxists were already doing it before the libertarians even figured it out.

I do not see conscription as using someone’s body without their consent.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I do not see conscription as using someone’s body without their consent.

But it is, you are told to sacrifice your own person by state obligation, without your own personal approval of the matter.

The libertarians use a similar argument, but Rothbard did not formulate this argument until 1982, which was long after Cuba had already legalised abortion. It seems odd to call it a libertarian argument when the Marxists were already doing it before the libertarians even figured it out.

You keep bringing this up. That Marxist regimes have been pro-choice is not the point of contention. I agree that the left is pro-abortion, Margaret Sanger was advocating for abortion from a marxist paradigm since the days of Anthony Comstock.

Its the particular argument YOU are using for abortion that is the subject of debate. How is the argument you are currently advancing consistent within the Leftist paradigm you subscribe to? I am not talking about other leftists being pro-choice, they are likely completely consistent, but I have not heard them advancing the argument that you are making that a fetus has equal rights to an adult and that the right of abortion is only active due to the fact that no one has a right to another person's body as a life support system. This rationale was not used in communist Cuba or by Sanger, it is used by you and I am asking how you justify it in light of your presuppositions.

[SolarCross]

The libertarians use a similar argument, but Rothbard did not formulate this argument until 1982, which was long after Cuba had already legalised abortion. It seems odd to call it a libertarian argument when the Marxists were already doing it before the libertarians even figured it out.

I do not see conscription as using someone’s body without their consent.

You are mixing up an argument with a policy. Cuba may have legalised abortion as a policy way back when but what, if any, argument was made for doing it? Not the same one as Rothbard or even a similar one surely?

https://www.havanatimes.org/?p=95481

According to the above link the reason for "legalising" abortion in Cuba was to prevent hack doctors botching the job in back alleys. That may be a valid reason for legalising abortion but it isn't a "liberty" argument.

Conscription is certainly a non-consensual use of someone's body, but then consent is a concept you don't really understand so I guess it is understandable you can't see that.

[Pants-of-dog]

But it is, you are told to sacrifice your own person by state obligation, without your own personal approval of the matter.

Actually, in war you are supposed to make the other person die, since dying for your country doesn’t actually help.

You keep bringing this up. That Marxist regimes have been pro-choice is not the point of contention. I agree that the left is pro-abortion, Margaret Sanger was advocating for abortion from a marxist paradigm since the days of Anthony Comstock.

Its the particular argument YOU are using for abortion that is the subject of debate. How is the argument you are currently advancing consistent within the Leftist paradigm you subscribe to? I am not talking about other leftists being pro-choice, they are likely completely consistent, but I have not heard them advancing the argument that you are making that a fetus has equal rights to an adult and that the right of abortion is only active due to the fact that no one has a right to another person's body as a life support system. This rationale was not used in communist Cuba or by Sanger, it is used by you and I am asking how you justify it in light of your presuppositions.

Oh, you are simply trying to troll me because of some incorrect ideas you have about Marxism and me.

Since I never claimed that this was a Marxist argument, this is just you being confused. In fact, I even pointed this out before.

It is an argument based on the liberal idea of equality.

As I also said before, Cuba supports choice for other, more practical reasons.

—————————————

You are mixing up an argument with a policy. Cuba may have legalised abortion as a policy way back when but what, if any, argument was made for doing it? Not the same one as Rothbard or even a similar one surely?

https://www.havanatimes.org/?p=95481

According to the above link the reason for "legalising" abortion in Cuba was to prevent hack doctors botching the job in back alleys. That may be a valid reason for legalising abortion but it isn't a "liberty" argument.

I guess you and VS both misunderstood. See above.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Actually, in war you are supposed to make the other person die, since dying for your country doesn’t actually help.

Thats not the point. You know it. Quit evading. You join the military, your Ass belongs to Uncle Sam. Thats the point. The reason libertarians oppose conscription is because no government has the moral right to a citizen's person. The Left (of which you are a part) disagrees with this libertarian reasoning, and yet, you are using this same basic libertarian reasoning in your defense of Abortion. That doesn't seem consistent, I want you to explain how it is. That the whole fucking conversation in a nutshell.

Oh, you are simply trying to troll me because of some incorrect ideas you have about Marxism and me.

Since I never claimed that this was a Marxist argument, this is just you being confused. In fact, I even pointed this out before.

It is an argument based on the liberal idea of equality.

If by trolling you mean the execution of a cross examination based on established definitions, then yes.

I never said that you claimed your abortion argument was a Marxist argument, once again that is not the point. You have claimed to be a Marxist to me before and your argument for Abortion is not consistent with that worldview because it is a libertarian argument. I am trying to discern how a Marxist can use a libertarian argument consistently.

Thus, you may be using a liberal argument from equality (in the classical liberal sense) to justify abortion, but that is not a consistent view of equality with what is held by the Left, Progressivism, and Marxism. The argument you are using is based on an absolutist notion of inherent individual equality (libertarian), not a conditional, progressive, teleological, and collectivist notion of equality (marxist). The former would deny conscription as a right to the government and would deny the idea of sacrificing a few for the the greater good of the many, the latter (marxists, etc) have no problem with either of these scenarios.

Thus, your argument for Abortion does not appear to be consistent with your worldview, if you disagree, please explain why.

I guess you and VS both misunderstood. See above.

No, your just so notoriously convoluted in your attempts to explain yourself that you have the rather incredible ability to confuse everyone in an entire thread as to what the fuck you are trying to say. This is neither the fault of me or @SolarCross.

You are one of the few exceptions to the general rule that clarity correlates to brevity. Indeed, the more succinct you attempt to be, the more unintelligible your propositions become. Its quite baffling actually.

[Pants-of-dog]

Thats not the point. You know it. Quit evading. You join the military, your Ass belongs to Uncle Sam. Thats the point. The reason libertarians oppose conscription is because no government has the moral right to a citizen's person. The Left (of which you are a part) disagrees with this libertarian reasoning, and yet, you are using this same basic libertarian reasoning in your defense of Abortion. That doesn't seem consistent, I want you to explain how it is. That the whole fucking conversation in a nutshell.

Again, conscription and banning abortion are qualitatively different, and Marxist countries do not use what you call the libertarian argument anyway for allowing abortion.

If by trolling you mean the execution of a cross examination based on established definitions, then yes.

I was talking about your repeated insistence that I made a claim when I didn’t and your odd idea that I can only make arguments based on Marxism because I am a Marxist.

I never said that you claimed your abortion argument was a Marxist argument, once again that is not the point. You have claimed to be a Marxist to me before and your argument for Abortion is not consistent with that worldview because it is a libertarian argument. I am trying to discern how a Marxist can use a libertarian argument consistently.

We live in a liberal democracy. One of the tenets of liberal democracy is equality under the law. Thus, our society should supoort equality. Thus, equality arguments are applicable for our modern society.

This is true regardless of who is writing out the equality argument.

The veractiy of claims is not dependent on the ideology of the person stating the claims.

Thus, you may be using a liberal argument from equality (in the classical liberal sense) to justify abortion, but that is not a consistent view of equality with what is held by the Left, Progressivism, and Marxism.

...and now we are back to you (deliberately?) confusing progressives and Marxists.

Your opinion of me as an inconsistent person is irrelevant.

The argument you are using is based on an absolutist notion of inherent individual equality (libertarian),

Actually, many libertarians do not believe in equality.

not a conditional, progressive, teleological, and collectivist notion of equality (marxist). The former would deny conscription as a right to the government and would deny the idea of sacrificing a few for the the greater good of the many, the latter (marxists, etc) have no problem with either of these scenarios.

Thus, your argument for Abortion does not appear to be consistent with your worldview, if you disagree, please explain why.

I do not care about whether or not people see me as being consistent with their (often incorrect) notions about what Marxism is. It isn’t a game where you get points for style. For Latin American socialists and women seeking abortions, it is real life, which means that appearing consistent for western right wingers is not a concern.

No, your just so notoriously convoluted in your attempts to explain yourself that you have the rather incredible ability to confuse everyone in an entire thread as to what the fuck you are trying to say. This is neither the fault of me or @SolarCross.

You are one of the few exceptions to the general rule that clarity correlates to brevity. Indeed, the more succinct you attempt to be, the more unintelligible your propositions become. Its quite baffling actually.

It was actually you and @SolarCross who decided I was being inconsistent, solely because of your ideas of what Marxism and libertarianism and my beliefs are. This whole discussion only exists because you guys want to fit me into a box that fits with your ideas of Marxism.

We live in a liberal society so it makes sense to use liberal arguments for abortion.

If we lived in a Marxist society, then I would use Marxist arguments. Not that I would need to, since we would already have abortion.

[LehmanB]

Depands what the cause of killing.