[Truth To Power]

No. A heartbeat does not indicate life. Brainwaves do, and it is not until the second trimester that the brain even operate the organs.

Both heartbeat and brainwaves indicate life, just not a SEPARATE life until it can LIVE SEPARATELY.

That said, Abortion is not murder. It's also off-topic.

IMO it is relevant.

[Truth To Power]

I have heard that the heartbeat can be detected on day 21 and the brainwaves can be detected on day 40. So then we must have a living baby in the womb by day 40 when both the heartbeat and the brainwaves indicate life.

It's living, like any other part of the woman's body, but it is not a SEPARATE living thing until it can live apart from her body, and it is certainly not a "baby."

[Truth To Power]

But to me, that is no reason to remove it from the womb and let it die.

But also no reason not to.

As long as it is still growing and shows those signs of life, we should allow it to continue and not deliberately murder it.

"We" should?? Not "murder" "it"? One can't "murder" something that is not even a separate living human being. Does removing someone's appendix, a cyst, or a tumor "murder" it? Give your head a shake.

[Truth To Power]

Well, it is least killing it, since it is very likely that it will be born as a healthy boy or girl if not interfered with.

It might well become a healthy baby, boy or girl, and even with a much higher probability than a sperm and egg in a petri dish. But it isn't one yet, any more than the sperm and egg in the dish are.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, it is comparable to the regulation the chinese are doing with their one child policy.

We were discussing whether or not the abortion debate was relevant to your poll. You said it was not relevant, and now you seem to say it is comparable.

Religious prohibition of abortion does not seem comparable to China’s one child policy. There are at least two significant differences:

1. China’s policy is about limiting population growth. Religious bans on abortion are about increasing population, among other things, and

2. China’s policy was entirely state driven, while religious bans on abortion are driven mostly by churches, which are non-state institutions.

I am going with Laissez faire so in most cases that would be "the woman" deciding I guess (though I do understand and sympathise with the pro-life contingent, they are well meaning if nothing else).

Have you heard Rothbard’s argument for abortion?

https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights

They are supporting some regulation of reproduction. A little regulation is not "centralisation" or else the land of the free, the US, is already a communist hellhole. Laissez faire and Keynes are both capitalism, both are de-centralised production just the latter has a master pulling the strings a little.

This weird comparison you are making between childbirth and economics seems nonsensical.

Is there an actual logical point of similarity between childbirth and state control of the economy?

The point of worker ownership of the means of production is to get rid of economic exploitation. Since childbirth does not create exploitation (economic or otherwise), there is no need to control it.

Your comparison fails.

[SolarCross]

We were discussing whether or not the abortion debate was relevant to your poll. You said it was not relevant, and now you seem to say it is comparable.

Religious prohibition of abortion does not seem comparable to China’s one child policy. There are at least two significant differences:

1. China’s policy is about limiting population growth. Religious bans on abortion are about increasing population, among other things, and

2. China’s policy was entirely state driven, while religious bans on abortion are driven mostly by churches, which are non-state institutions.

It isn't relevant because all variants of the reproductive models that I mentioned could take either position on that debate. See:

Pro-life laissez faire: "I don't want the government to force me to subsidise the murder of children!"
Pro-choice laissez faire: "I want to decide for myself whether I murder my children!"

Pro-life keynesian: "It is necessary for wise and holy rulers to prohibit their subjects from murdering their children!"
Pro-choice keynesian: "It is necessary for wise and holy rulers to make sure the people don't breed too much, making a burden on welfare provision, and so offer incentives and subsidies for killing their children, in case not enough are willing to do that on their own!"

Pro-life marxian: "Dear Leader is perfect and precious beyond all measure and thus all his clones are perfect and precious beyond all measure, even the defective ones, thus the hive can not permit the destruction of even one dear leader clone!"
Pro-choice marxian (lol that's an oxymoron): "Only the most perfect clones are fit to honour Dear Leader with existence, thus even the slightest deformity must be purged!"

Let's be real we have all participated in the abortion debate on one side or another and it always degenerates into a shitshow where people just repeat the same boring arguments without even listening to the other side. It's a black hole topic and I don't want it devouring my thread.

This weird comparison you are making between childbirth and economics seems nonsensical.

Is there an actual logical point of similarity between childbirth and state control of the economy?

The point of worker ownership of the means of production is to get rid of economic exploitation. Since childbirth does not create exploitation (economic or otherwise), there is no need to control it.

Your comparison fails.

Economics is supposedly the study of the production and distribution of goods and services, and that includes livestock, so it could, should and does study the production and distribution of human livestock. So when some fruitbat says "wouldn't it be great if the communists had a monopoly on the means of production, like it was even illegal to own a means of production, unless you were a communist?"; it is fair to wonder if there are any limits on which means of production is to be monopolised, if it includes farm animals why would it not include human animals? It is actually for you and other communist totalitarians to specify the parameters of your monopolistic agenda. If you don't specify the limits then it is safe to assume there are none.

[Pants-of-dog]

It isn't relevant because all variants of the reproductive models that I mentioned could take either position on that debate. See:

Pro-life laissez faire: "I don't want the government to force me to subsidise the murder of children!"
Pro-choice laissez faire: "I want to decide for myself whether I murder my children!"

Pro-life keynesian: "It is necessary for wise and holy rulers to prohibit their subjects from murdering their children!"
Pro-choice keynesian: "It is necessary for wise and holy rulers to make sure the people don't breed too much, making a burden on welfare provision, and so offer incentives and subsidies for killing their children, in case not enough are willing to do that on their own!"

Pro-life marxian: "Dear Leader is perfect and precious beyond all measure and thus all his clones are perfect and precious beyond all measure, even the defective ones, thus the hive can not permit the destruction of even one dear leader clone!"
Pro-choice marxian (lol that's an oxymoron): "Only the most perfect clones are fit to honour Dear Leader with existence, thus even the slightest deformity must be purged!"

Let's be real we have all participated in the abortion debate on one side or another and it always degenerates into a shitshow where people just repeat the same boring arguments without even listening to the other side. It's a black hole topic and I don't want it devouring my thread.

Yes, you have really shown how the economic model comparison you are trying to use for childbirth is ridiculous.

Thanks.

Economics is supposedly the study of the production and distribution of goods and services, and that includes livestock, so it could, should and does study the production and distribution of human livestock. So when some fruitbat says "wouldn't it be great if the communists had a monopoly on the means of production, like it was even illegal to own a means of production, unless you were a communist?"; it is fair to wonder if there are any limits on which means of production is to be monopolised, if it includes farm animals why would it not include human animals? It is actually for you and other communist totalitarians to specify the parameters of your monopolistic agenda. If you don't specify the limits then it is safe to assume there are none.

And you have now ignored my explanation as to why Marxists want to seize the means of production.

Go back, read it, and then rewrite this so that it takes my explanation into account.

[SolarCross]

And you have now ignored my explanation as to why Marxists want to seize the means of production.

Go back, read it, and then rewrite this so that it takes my explanation into account.

Your "explanation" is a lie. The means of production is already available to the "working class" or indeed anyone, to rent or own, no one needs to seize anything. No communist regime has done anything but deprive the "working classes" of ownership of the means of production. Your lies are irrelevant.

[Pants-of-dog]

Okay, you are not interested in actual debate.

Later.

[SolarCross]

Okay, you are not interested in actual debate.

Later.

You are speaking for yourself, but good riddance anyway.

[Pants-of-dog]

I explained why Marxists want to seize the means of production.

I showed how childbirth has nothing to do with that objective.

I then explained how this made your central comparison meaningless.

You then called me a liar.

I have presented an argument (or more specifically, a refutation of your central point) and you have no rebuttal.

[SolarCross]

I explained why Marxists want to seize the means of production.

No Rule 2 Violation about why the marxists want to steal people's stuff.

I showed how childbirth has nothing to do with that objective.

No you didn't.

I then explained how this made your central comparison meaningless.

Gainsaying is not explaining.

You then called me a liar.

Rule 2 Violation

I have presented an argument (or more specifically, a refutation of your central point) and you have no rebuttal.

I have made rebuttals but Rule 2 Violation by pretending it didn't happen.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is a fact that people have historically used their power and money in order to protect or increase their power and money. And they still do.

This economic leverage is what makes capitalism so strong.

If we take away the means of production, we take away the capitalist’s ability to get or protect their power over others.

We can then end economic exploitation.

Now, you have had a Marxist explain to you why we want to seize the means of production. You can not say we did not explain it to you.

[SolarCross]

^

Your "explanation" is a lie. The means of production is already available to the "working class" or indeed anyone, to rent or own, no one needs to seize anything. No communist regime has done anything but deprive the "working classes" of ownership of the means of production. Your lies are irrelevant.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, that was when you called me a liar instead of addressing my argument.

Since you have no logical or intelligent criticism or rebuttal of my point, I will assume that you accept it as logically sound even if you do not believe it.

Now, when it comes to childbirth, we have seen examples of people trying to control it. The most obvious example is the religious bans on abortion, which show that it is actually exploitative to try and control the means of childbirth: i.e. women.

So, if the Marxist attempt to seize the means of economic production is an attempt to end exploitation, and the attempt to control childbirth is an attempt to create exploitation, the two are not comparable but instead stand in stark contrast to eaxh other.

[SolarCross]

Yes, that was when you called me a liar instead of addressing my argument.

Since you have no logical or intelligent criticism or rebuttal of my point, I will assume that you accept it as logically sound even if you do not believe it.

Now, when it comes to childbirth, we have seen examples of people trying to control it. The most obvious example is the religious bans on abortion, which show that it is actually exploitative to try and control the means of childbirth: i.e. women.

So, if the Marxist attempt to seize the means of economic production is an attempt to end exploitation, and the attempt to control childbirth is an attempt to create exploitation, the two are not comparable but instead stand in stark contrast to eaxh other.

I addressed your "argument" by saying:

The means of production is already available to the "working class" or indeed anyone, to rent or own, no one needs to seize anything. No communist regime has done anything but deprive the "working classes" of ownership of the means of production.

A factual statement which you are pretending didn't happen.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I am familiar with your explanation as to how I am lying.

But that has nothing to do with the argument we are having.

The comparison between Marxist expropriation and controlling childbirth is still illogical.

[SolarCross]

Yes, I am familiar with your explanation as to how I am lying.

But that has nothing to do with the argument we are having.

The comparison between Marxist expropriation and controlling childbirth is still illogical.

De-centralised production vs centralised production.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I am aware of the reasons for thinking they are comparable.

This does not change the fact that the reasons for control (or lack thereof) are diametrically opposed to each ither in this “comparison”.

[SolarCross]

Yes, I am aware of the reasons for thinking they are comparable.

This does not change the fact that the reasons for control (or lack thereof) are diametrically opposed to each ither in this “comparison”.

No, they aren't because marxists are lying about why they want to steal all the stuff, as evidenced by history.