The Violinist

The violinist argument fails for several reasons, mainly the fact that the intent of an abortion is to kill the fetus, not to terminate the pregnancy. However, it also fails because it assumes that it is morally permissible to unplug the violinist.

First of all, in this analogy you in no way caused the violinist to hook up to you. This attachment occurred against your will and "the society of music lovers" has in this case severely violated your rights. I would like to demonstrate in this post, however, how the common moral intuition in this case fails when scrutinized logically.

As I see it, the main reasons many people see unplugging the violinist as acceptable are twofold.

Firstly, being attached to the violinist is a huge pain in the neck. You need to stay in bed until the violinist recovers. I doubt many people would have the same sense of outrage if you could more or less go about your business. However, as I demonstrated yesterday, the right to life supersedes the right to liberty. Just like the intention of act of causing the avalanche, the intention of act of unplugging yourself is to regain your liberty and to "undo" the situation you have been unjustly placed in to.

The objection based on positive and negative rights will be addressed in the next section.

Secondly, the situation they are placed in is incredibly unjust, and unplugging is seen as merely returning to the situation prior your kidnapping in which the violinist was dieing of natural causes and you had no greater moral obligation towards him than towards a man on the other side of the planet. However, regardless of how this situation came to pass, we need to consider the present situation.

I will grant that the violinist lacks the positive right to life: the right to use your body; if you could unplug yourself without killing the violinist, I doubt anyone would object. Also, if the violinist were to approach you and demand your assistance, I would be the first to say that you have no obligation to come to his aid; this represents a situation in which you are passively letting the violinist die.

However, in the present situation, you are already hooked up to the violinist. As such, you cannot disconnect yourself because the violinist's death would be a direct result of your action; this is a situation in which you are actively killing the violinist. Because of this fact, the violinist's negative right to life comes into play, just as in the avalanche scenario. Regardless of how this situation came to pass, even though the violinist has no right to your body, your moral obligation to not kill (cause the death of) him takes over.

I may seem like I'm repeating myself, but I want to make sure I have made my point in a way everyone can understand. It may seem counterintuitive that the society of music lovers could impart upon you an obligation that you didn't previously have, or impart upon the violinist a positive right he never had, but the point I'm trying to make is that the application of negative rights is more than adequate to show why unplugging yourself is wrong. Positive rights apply to inaction while negative rights apply to action. Many see the act of unplugging as merely choosing not to allow the violinist usage of your body, but that choice has already been made (I'm sure we can all agree that the society of music lovers have violated your rights).

Because unplugging the violinist is not an act of inaction, the violinist's negative right to live comes into play, and as such, it is immoral to unplug yourself.

However, because your intent was not to cause the violinist's death, in the current legal system of the United States would most likely charge you with manslaughter and not murder. In addition, if the violinist chose to be plugged in, unplugging would be justified as self-defense.

To sum up, while you have no moral obligation to remain plugged in, you do have an obligation not to act in such a way that said action leads to the death of an innocent human being.

Why abortion is NOT a privacy right

In addition to the doctrine of reproductive rights, the pro-abortion crowd often cites the right to privacy as a justification of abortion. This clearly is not the case, as the same argument could be applied to child abuse or spousal rape.

Abortion is a violent act against an innocent human being, and, as such, the government has a legitimate interest in preventing it (in fact, the protection of natural rights is the main purpose of government).

And the Court has gone as far as to admit* that, if the unborn are persons, abortion is illegal.

*This admission is known as the "Blackmun Hole" and is the reason for the Personhood Movement.

I may have posted this before, but...

Morally equivalent does mean politically equivalent.

I am very, very, very offended by the assertion that I am "anti-choice". You claim I want others to follow my beliefs and that everyone should be allowed to follow their own conscience. This is the relativist fallacy. This is clearly not true; if the unborn have rights, it is the duty of every human being to respect those rights.

Some people think lynching is okay.

Some people thought slavery was okay.

Some people believe it is okay to fly planes into buildings to kill the infidel.

Clearly, this is not an issue of being "anti-choice". I take it that you do not oppose those laws criminalizing rape, or assault, or arson? Does that make YOU anti-choice? After all, that IS forcing others to follow your morality.

The claim that I am a terrorist is simply absurd. I have never attempted to make a government surrender by force. I am a pacifist.

My desire to have everybody respect the natural rights of every other human being does not make me a terrorist.

It makes me a humanist.

EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that the author adds the caveat "as long as they don't hurt other people." Well, then. I guess he refuted his own argument.

Baby Velez

Read this article then come back.

Now, instead of addressing the humanity of the unborn, the author tries to go on a red herring tangent and address the logistical problems of listing an unborn child in a list of victims. Because the sex of the child is unknown, and the child lacks a name, Malusinka argues, he or she is not a person.

Anybody with half a brain can see why that doesn't make sense, but I know that an entire half brain is too much to expect from some people, so I will go into detail.

First of all, parents are typically given a number of days after birth to decide on a name for their baby. Does an unnamed newborn not have any rights? Of course (s)he does.

We know nothing about many casualties of war. Were those incinerated by atomic bombs never persons because we don't know their sexes? Does the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier house the remains of non-persons? Were their deaths meaningless? Of course not.

Now, on to the issue of the deaths of people not counted in the population. Again, registration of infants doesn't always happen at the instant of birth. And what about someone the census didn't count for some other reason, whether they be homeless or immigrants or visitors? Historically, was the death of a slave only three fifths of a tragedy?

...or, you could just list the names of the victims and add "and Velez's unborn child".

EDIT: The victim of the Virginia infanticide case had no name and was not yet registered. Does that mean it was okay?

Broodmares of the state?

No, not the 1937 Soviet porno flick of the same name.

I'm referring to the "argument" that pro-lifers just want to force women to pop out babies. This is absurd. I would be okay if nobody reproduced ever.

The definition of reproduction indicates that at least one additional organism is produced. The law of biogenesis states that organisms reproduce after their own kind: dogs make dogs (puppies), cats make cats (kittens), cows make cows (calves), wolves make wolves (pups), and humans make humans (babies).

Therefore, once reproduction occurs, another human being is brought into existence. And along with this human being comes human rights. One of the human rights is the right to live.

Twitter

PersonhoodUSA is going beyond its mission on Twitter and has become the illegitimate child of ALL and the Libertarian Party. I'll be giving them a talking to.

Natural Law Party

This is an argument I see all to much.

I agree that education and resources are needed to prevent abortions.

However, natural law does not dictate that the mother should be responsible to no one for the death of her unborn child. It is not the person most affected that should decide if one option is the death of an innocent human being. This is not a private issue that only affects her; it is the destruction of a human life. However, it is also true that the person affected most is the child, who is killed. Because the child cannot speak for him-/herself; this is the government's job.

In any other situation in which one human being decides to kill another human being (we call this "homicide"), the government steps in. This is, in fact, what natural law dictates: that the government should protect human beings from each other.

As for "legislating morality", this is almost the definition of legislation. The reason we have laws against assault, murder, and rape are because these actions are immoral and violate the rights of other human beings. An action that inflicts violence upon another human being is never a private issue, and if it were the entire concept of natural rights would fall apart.

The analogy to prohibition is invalid because the consumption of alcohol does not violate anyone else's rights. The notion that a mother may harm herself in the process of killing her unborn child does not mean that the unborn child should not be given the full protection of the law demanded by basic human rights.

Thanks, ALL!

I've always seen the American Life League as the PETA of the anti-abortion movement, with their anti-sex agenda, but they actually saved me some trouble by fisking a video I'd been meaning to get to.

Interesting conversation

I'm okay with ZJemptv on most things, but we're having an interesting conversation at this video's comments.

He seems to think that customers have a right to force their morality upon business owners and that not wanting to kill another human being is a "completely arbitrary and unnecessary basis" upon which to decide how to excercize your liberty.

Let's say there's a restaurant that refuses to serve veal for ethical reasons. What do you do if you want veal? Don't eat there! You have no right to force anyone to sell a product that they do not want to sell, regardless of the reason they refuse to sell it. You have no right to force them to comply to your morals.

Them not selling BC is no more forcing their morality on you than a store closing on Sunday forces their religion on you.

If I run any sort of business, I have the right to choose what products to sell. I could open a candy shop and refuse to sell Jujubees because I think they're part of an evil plot to turn toddlers into smores. You still have no right to tell me what products to carry. If I'm looking for jujubees, I loose you as a customer.

I could sell clothes and arbitrarily not carry blue socks.

I could close on Sunday even if "cultural homogeneity" means every other business in town is closed on Sunday too.

Omegle

("..." means I've deleted an irrelevant comment.)

Stranger: Wouldn't u rather live happily for all eternity than just big black nothingness?

You: Believing something different isn't going to make an afterlife materialize

You: that's an argumentum ad consequentium

You: aka wishful thinking

Stranger: Except there really is afterlife. If there wasn't what's the point in being born and created?

You: Who says there has to be a point?

You: I was conceived because a sperm happened to fertilize an egg

You: Life began because Carbon likes to bond into long chains

Stranger: How do you think you were created? And the universse? Where'd it come from?

You: When a mommy and a daddy love eachother very much...

Stranger: They don't have to love each other

You: I know

You: it's just a cliche'

Stranger: But into the world. Where'd ppl come from?

Stranger: I know that

You: what do you mean by people?

Stranger: Humans

You: We evolved from simpler lifeforms. duh

Stranger: Where'd the simpler lifeforms come from?

You: Like I said, carbon likes to form chains

Stranger: Where'd the carbon come from?

You: Stars

Stranger: And stars, where are they from?

You: Stars are formed when clouds of gas are pulled together by gravity and are compressed enough to begin fusion

Stranger: Where'd all that stuff come from. Something had to create everything

You: The gas?

You: It's just hydrogen atoms mostly.

Stranger: But who created that?

You: Who?

You: Nobody.

Stranger: Then how'd it get there?

You: When gamma rays cool down enough, they become matter

You: e=mc2

You: forces like electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces pull together and maintain the atoms

Stranger: ...

You: The gamma rays were cooled by the expanding universe

You: ...

You: Anyway

Stranger: ...

You: The gamma rays and universal expansion came from the big bang

You: ...

You: ...

Stranger: ...

You: brb, don't disconnect

Stranger: Ok

Stranger: ...

You: ...

Stranger: ...

You: ...

Stranger: ...

You: ...

You: ...

Stranger: ...

You: yes

Stranger: ...

You: kk

You: Anyway

You: back to universal history

You: The gamma rays came from the Big Bang

Stranger: Alright

Stranger: I'd still think it's scary to live life thinking this is all you have. A fucked up life and then nothing after u die. Not too comforting

You: It'd be an awful life to live finding out that I live in a celestial dictatorship

You: that there's no way out of

You: And that there's a god who punishes people for not guessing (s)he exists when the universe was made in such a way as to suggest the Big Bang

You: and when we were given the power to reason

You: Plus everlasting life would get boring eventually

Stranger: No I don't think it would

You: and I'd never be able to rest knowing that billions of souls are burning forever

You: and that I couldn't communicate with those on earth

You: I'd probably stage an uprising against God

You: Because he's a dick.

Stranger: But it's their fault. Plus in heaven u can't feel pain so either you wouldn't know or it doesn't bother you

You: Then that's plain manipulation

Stranger: I'm sorry you think like that

You: I wouldn't want to be happy if it means mindcontrol

You: It'd be like being drugged

Stranger: Wow. You're ... difficult ...

Stranger: I'm drugged right now.. Vicodin plus pot equals fantastic

You: lol

You: It'd be like being drugged against my will

You: I'd rather keep my brain thankyouverymuch

You: and my reason

Stranger: Arghh I got chocolate on my blankets

You: and freewill

You: Yum

Stranger: Well you're entitled to your beliefs and opinions so I'm nor gunna push u into Christianity

You: But, anyway

Stranger: I don't like when people do that

You: If God drugs people into complacency

You: Then I don't want to worship him

You: If he exists, I hope he gets overthrown

You: I'd replace him with a democracy

You: a constitutional democracy

Stranger: ...

You: He'd go in jail for mass murder and property damage

Re: Sam Harris on stem cell research

A quick Google search would've told Sam that not all those opposed to ESC research on ethical grounds is religious, and not all atheists are utilitarians.

After WWII, Germany split into two. Is this one nation becoming two? Even later, Germany merged into one nation. What happened to the extra nation?

Therefore, Germany was never a country.

Harris is positing that souls, entities he does not even believe in, cannot merge and fuse like cells. Why?

Religion

Seriously, the more I read it and the more I think of it, the more ridiculous religion seems. There's an invisible man in the sky, watching and judging our every move. How do we know this? It's said in a book. How do we know the book is true? Because the book says so!

But actually reading the book and its stories such as the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark that are practically indistinguishable from all the other Origin and Flood stories of the time, and all of its laws that were clearly written by arrogant, self-centered, misogynistic, xenophobic bronze-age goat herders, and all of its scientific inaccuracies and flat-out self-contradictions, one realizes that to claim that it is somehow the literal truth or an ultimate guide to morality is absurd. Sustained social taboos against the criticism of religion will lead directly to further outrageous abuses.

What's the difference between a religion and a cult? About a century.

As said by lonerook860 of YouTube, religions are runaway cults that became political.

The Holey Babble

Should a woman be killed for being raped (Deut 22:23-24)? Oh, I'm sorry. Only if she was raped in the city. Because if she was raped in the city, she must'ven't cried out loud enough. The idea that no one was in range, or that nobody cared enough, or that she had a knife to her throat, of course, never crossed God's mind. And only if she was "betrothed unto a husband", because everyone knows women are property!

And if a man marries a woman and does not find an intact hymen (because women should never play sports!), she must be killed. (Deut 22:13-21)

If you say "...but that's the Old Testament!", I give you Matt 5:18-19.
If the Old Testament didn't apply, why keep it in the Bible? I'l tell you why: the OT is for cherry-picking; if it lets you deny evolution it's correct, but you can ignore the hatred of women and foreigners and just keep the homophobia.

Well, off to burn in hell for my polycotton (Deut. 22:11).

Words

I've spent a great deal of time here explaining the euphemistic nature of the term "pro-choice". The whole question is irrelevant, however. I could say I'm pro-rape, and, when called out on it, clarify that I do not personally agree with rape, but I support the right of a man to rape a woman if he so chooses. I would not impose my personal morality on men; after all, it's his penis. If person A supports the right to rape, and person B supports rape itself, they are going to have largely the same impact on the law: more votes towards the legalization of rape. And both are equally abhorrent positions to hold, or at least the difference is insignificant.

Anti-abortion folk should all adopt?

Am I not allowed to speak out against my neighbor's abuse of his family if I am not willing to to house them myself?

A Roebot has questions for me...

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/01/03/even-more-questions-for-pro-lifers/

1: Even if personhood starts at fertilization, citizenship still comes at birth, a more convenient date.

2: Infant mortality used to be so high it through this off. The solution is simple: we use the mean age of death.

3: No.

4: I fail to see your point. There's a difference between someone being killed and dieing of natural causes. Gay rights activists protest hate crimes, not STDs.

5: Even now prenates can have insurance.

6: If the mother knows she is pregnant and behaves overly recklessly she should be charged with child endangerment.

7: She should be charged with voluntary manslaughter under duress.

8: http://l4l.org/library/thomviol.html

9: Yes.

10: The same as they'll have after birth.

11: Clearly, not everyone who comes in would use their own eggs. A woman would have the procedure, and the next women would use the excess eggs.

12: Imagine there's a man in front of you with a bulge in his coat and there's an 80% chance he'll shoot you. These cases arise all the time, and there are legal procedures in place to deal with them.

Roebots have this thing where they think they can trip you up on really simple questions.

**NEWSFLASH***

Simple questions have simple answers.

Voting Age

Some ten-year-olds are mature and knowledgeable enough to vote. Then again, some aren't. But the characteristics you list obviously aren't determiners of one's rights. A completely stupid and uneducated 18-year-old is still allowed to vote, but a politically knowledgable and opinionated 16-year-old cannot.

Some people still think Obama was born in Kenya, or is a Muslim. They still have the right to vote. Many people voted for Bush because he was the same intelligence level as them. Some people thing the Holocaust never happened, or the moon landing was faked, or the government planned 9-11. They are still allowed to vote. If anything, voting rights should be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, this would clearly be unfeasable, as whoever controlled the test would control the world.

It used to be thought that women were too stupid to vote, or would just vote with their husbands. Now, it is true that young people would tend to vote with their parents. So do old people. The number one fector in determining one's political affiliation is one's upbringing. However, the secret ballot ensures that nobody will be intimidated by anyone else to change their vote.
Different age groups generally have different needs. These needs will not be met if they have to wait to vote, as they will then have different needs. When you get right down to it, voting is about expressing your opinion, and your opinion cannot be wrong.

Children are the future. The future is now.

Hiroshima

The WW2 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral; the US government is guilty of genocide and mass murder. Regardles of whether or not the war was ended early, thousands of innocents were killed. If more had been killed in a longer war, it would be the fault of the individuals who killed them, not those who did not murder innocent men, women, and children.

Science

Here's a note to all creationists or supporters of "Intelligent Design". Develop a cohesive theory and put it through the scientific method. Don't just try to legislate it into schools. Science is a meritocracy, not a democracy. Creationism may be supported by a majority of Americans, but there is still no evidence to back it up.

Wikipedia

This is a note to all professors/teachers.

You have been pwned.