Alabama Senate approves measure to ban all abortions


They are not pro-abortion just for convenience, but to the point of infanticide. If a baby is born alive during an abortion, according to NY law now, the baby can be left to die on the table. What kind of monster would do that? Even animals protect their young! Many women getting abortions use it as a form of birth control. Too lazy and stoopid to avoid sex in order to NOT get pregnant.

The left today mirrors much of the ideology of the Nazis. PP’s foundress ol’ Maggie was a Nazi sympathizer.


Of course it is. Many pro-life advocates support the death penalty. I don’t support the death penalty, and I think the reason I don’t should give pause to abortion proponents.

I would bet your way off base here. Many, maybe most, pro-lifers believe that a fetus is a baby human with an actual right to life, and as such they also worry very much for the unborn child. Dunno about PD, but I know I’m in that category.

You have a right to kill yourself and to get assistance from anyone you choose in doing so – for any reason you choose. I do not think this devalues life. I think it recognizes the rights of human beings.


There is a seriously qualitative difference between executing a GUILTY murderer and a totally innocent, unborn baby. THAT’S why many anti-abortion people are not anti-death penalty…myself included.


I’m definitely not with you here. I don’t think suicide/assisted suicide recognizes a legitimate right; it fails to recognize how precious all human lives are to God.


Scientists/medical research has already confirmed that human life begins at conception. Not when a heart beat is determined or any other sign of life. At the moment the sperm enters the egg, a new and unique human being is present.


Especially when mental health reasons are the reason for many suicides. Lack of treatment is what needs to be addressed. This is heavily weighted when the subjects are military veterans.


The youth are also very much at risk, with suicide being either the second or third most common cause of death among them. The last thing we need to be doing is teaching them that there’s anything acceptable or wholesome about suicide.


Indeed. When I hear or read about young people murdering each other it makes me very sad. They seem to have no concept of death or life for that matter. The reality of it, and this is especially true for abortions, is that the person murdered was a unique and special creation never to be given another chance at life. When you think of all the billions of people who lived on the Earth before us and who will live on the Earth after us, no one has been or ever will be that murdered person. We each get one chance at life. That’s it. When someone takes that precious life away it will never be again.


I’m not commenting about whether it’s right or wrong in front of God. That’s a personal decision to be made freely one way or another by free people in our world. God may judge them later, but that’s between them and God. Not me, you, the government, them and God. In the kind of free society we supposedly live in, humans are free to sin without legal repercussions. In a free society, you and I are also allowed to comment on it.

The mere legal right to do something does not suggest that it’s acceptable. A legal right is not a justification for any action. Rather than doubling down on the power of the state, we should work on divorcing people from the internalized idea that the state is the final arbiter of what is acceptable or wholesome or moral.

This is a necessary viewpoint for those of us who claim that rights pre-exist the state. In the case of CSB, morality is generated through the state by society itself (based on suffering and happiness etc). When you argue that suicide ought to be prevented by the state, you argue his position on rights – not the founding fathers’ position.

This is my belief. I’m not sure it’s proven by research, but it just makes sense.

You might even reasonably think that all suicides are the result of mental health issues – or emotional health issues.


Yeah, I’ve heard the “right to life” argument.

So I’d ask you the same question I asked FC, but in a different way.

Do animals have a right to life?

Obviously not. Any “rights” animals have we confer to them.

I’d argue that the rights we confer to animals are how we confer rights to each other. The difference is that we confer rights to animals because we want to. There’s no negotiation, they don’t argue, we just do it (or refuse to). But humans make arguments as to why others should respect their rights and either people agree and work to enforce those rights through the state, the community, the tribe, whatever.

Therefore, I don’t think anyone has any more rights than the group that enforces them has agreed to bestow upon members of that group.

“Natural rights” and “god given” rights are just examples of the justifications that people try to convince one another for respecting the rights of others (course you already know all of this.


You do realize that your exact argument is literally “might makes right”, right? You try to hang a pretty bow on it, but it’s still tanks and bombs and machine guns. That is the exact same attitude that saw Jews murdered on an industrial scale to the tune of 6 million souls, up to another 9 million “dissidents”, “malcontents”, immigrants, foreign nationals, and ethnic minorities “purged” under Stalin for “disloyalty” (+ 5.5-6.5 million more dead from famine caused by misused state force), and another 15 million in “the great leap forward” + 2 million more in the “cultural revolution”, because “the group that enforces them” (rights) decided those people didn’t get any. And that’s how you construct a moral framework, as a comfortable abode for the ideologies of Hitler, Stalin and Mao? By that rationale, there can be no condemnation for them.



I don’t agree, simply because allowing or promoting (I’ll argue that it is indeed promoting) suicide is very much harmful to society.

It is in the mind of the public. And it’s the kind of damage to society that can take generations to correct (like attitudes on abortion), if ever.

I’ll dispute this, too. Just because we believe that rights are God-given and pre-existing doesn’t mean that a particular thing is a right.

I dispute this, and I challenge you to prove your contention that God-given rights are a contrivance of man. You’re making an assertion, not an argument.


I know this is really, really hard to comprehend. And I’m not being condescending when I say that. Part of it is my fault because I still struggle to coherently express it.

I don’t beleive that what the group says is right. I just beleive that whatever rights are conferred to individuals of the group are granted by those within the group that has the power to enforce those rights. That could be a single ruler or a pure democracy or something in between.

The questions is, why do groups of people choose to bestow some rights on the group and not others.


How do groups make choices?

That depends on the social structure, culture, the value placed on education and the scientific method, how tradition and religious ideas factor in, political and social corruption (and I’m just scratching the surface here).

It’s no coincidence that societies (we’re talking large scale here), where citizens have the most rights, are societies where people tend to be freer and have higher standards of living.

This is the cornerstone of America. The subjective decision to mutually agree that people have rights.

That was a CHOICE.

Pure, subjective, choice.

Now we’ve dressed it up and said that rights are “natural” or “endowed by our creator” or “god given”, but in reality whatever you think about rights and where they emanate your ability to practice them ultimately comes from the choices people make in society (assuming that individuals have the capacity to affect the decisions of the group).

As I said, when people choose to grant rights like freedom of speech, of the press, the right to own property and ones labor ect, those groups tend to flourish more than groups run by despots and corrupt governments that oppress most people to enrich themselves.

So you said that I beleive that “might makes right”.

No, might (the will of those capable of enforcing rules and laws) decide what is right, but that doesn’t mean that I beleive that is what should be considered right.

The question is, how do we decide what a successful society looks like?

Again, we are left with CHOICE.

Tell me, what does an ideal society look like?

Whatever you think it is, I presume that you would be able to justify the choices you make citing specific outcomes.

For example, why should people have the right to free speech?

Now we just look at the outcomes free speech produces vs a society where people don’t have free speech.

Again, choices based on desired outcomes that relate to experience.


What is the source of “rightness”, then? Does the condition of correctness exist independent of the group, or is it defined by the group?


Remarkable. Wemens are free to choose with regards to killing babies in their bellies. They are not allowed to choose whether or not they can carry a gun to protect their lives though.



Here’s the part that’s hard for people that think that rights need a concrete source, especially the idea that for any system of rights to work, the source must be external to us. The argument is that if rights aren’t a concrete metaphysical concept handed to us, then each person can simply create their own concept of what is right.

As I’ve argued several times, there are lots of social structures that already exist where the rules are created and agreed upon but are not external to us. They aren’t concrete, they aren’t given, they are created.

Stop lights as an example. You come to an empty intersection and you can see you could easily cross without any risk. Why don’t you? Can’t you just assert that red lights don’t apply to you? Isn’t stopping bad for you if the intersection is clear? Why should society impose this rule upon you making you less efficent than you could be if you just decided that the rules don’t apply to you.

Because you know that the subjective concept of stop lights only works if everyone does it. You also know that the imposition upon you to stop actually makes your travel more efficient because without traffic lights chaos would ensue and the possibility of being harmed in a traffic accident increases.

So you abide by the social agreement of stop lights. No one had to hand this concept down to you, it’s a purely social convention that exists because if results it produces, but it only works when virtually everyone agrees.

So stoplights…

  1. Increase efficiency when measuring the system as a whole as district from individuals that might benefit from a chaotic system thus making society overall more efficient, even if it imposes on individuals.

  2. It decreases the possibility of harm when (most) everyone adheres to the rules.

This is why when we see people callously run red lights people react violently because that increases the potential for harm, plus it’s just unfair, we follow the rules, shouldn’t everyone?

Rights are no different. They are social conventions that we agree to in order to achieve certain goals.

I’d argue that in Russia, China, and WWII Germany, they had severely limited rights (and some still do today).

The point is, the source for rights is how effective they are at achieving the goals of a free society whatever those goals are.

If those goals become something malevolent, like genocide then obviously there exists a contradiction. My guess is that Hitler valued his freedom, thus taking rights away from others creates a contradiction that is easily exposed and one much of the world understood and rose up in opposition to defeat (the social consequence of not valuing the rights of others).

That said…

Rights don’t exist independent of others and as such saying that you think that rights apply only to you, I’d argue that’s not a right. That’s a desire, a want, but it’s not a right.

If you were all alone, the concept of rights wouldn’t just be a waste of time, it’s something that wouldn’t even occur to you to ponder. It is only in the context of others that rights exist.

Would you waste your time explaining to a bear about to disembowel you that you have the right to go free? No, of course not. You can only negotiate your rights with people who are willing to contemplate the consequences of actions and the capacity to empathize.


Do you want other people to harm you against your will? (I’ll assume no…)


How best do you think the goal of avoiding harm can be accomplished?

I’d suggest that the concept of mutual rights exists because people understand that mutual respect of rights is one of the best ways to achieve the goal of being free from harm. Society develops a culture of rights and creates institutions to enforce rights and society as a whole benefits.

The other option is to rise to the position of supreme ruler so you can define what rights everyone has. I think America was founded on the idea that fighting over power and the capacity for a small group to decide the rules for everyone else was something the founders wanted to get away from.

Here’s where the real disconnect is.

Just define a handful of rights you think we should have.

Then tell me why you think that we should have those rights.

Whatever your definitions are there are quantitative and qualitative reasons which can be measured with respect to goals. The only question is, how do the rights you assert affect others? How will the rights you assert affect society?

So for instance.

You beleive that everyone should have the right to private property. There are qualitative and quantitative ways to measure the effects of such a right. If the result is positive and society benefits, then the experience should tell us that private property is good.

Now let’s say that you believe you should have the right to steal from people with red hair. How do you think that will work out?

Again, in simple terms imagine playing the game of Checkers and telling your opponent that you should get to go twice in a row, or move backward, how do you think that game will end?

Apologies if that wondered a bit, I’m still working out how to communicate this idea.



Yes, I’m aware of your argument.


You could argue that, yes, but what if you oppose legal constraints while continuing to discourage it? It’s unfortunate that the government has such a powerful role in determining right and wrong.

It will never be corrected until we live it, educate and persuade others. We cannot make a change if we all continue to acknowledge the government as the authority on right and wrong.

He’s not a believer It would seem exactly like a contrivance. It leaves only the relativistic viewpoint he holds, that indeed justifies the atrocities of human history.

I see he responded to Qix, and he’s having a hard time coherently trying to shoehorn “oughts” from collective opinions sort of the like the the Objectivism’s “oughts” from “is.”

Which just kicks the argument down the road one step without answering it.

Did you ever have a conversation with J.Anderson about this?

That’s very much in doubt, which is interesting because as an analogy, this works as an argument for far, far less government. This makes sense. Liberty leads to better outcomes. It’s measurable in this case.

The chaos that ensues when you remove the traffic control is fewer accidents – that’s the experience of the European cities that have experimented with just exactly this sort of chaos. It also increases traffic flow efficiency to allow the chaos! It’s analogous to free market capitalism.

This statement presupposes a goal of a thing that cannot think. It is not so different from presupposing rights and undermines your argument. Still, cooperation is at the heart of a peaceful, successful society.

Not if it means taking the rights of a minority, exterminating them and never dealing with any of them ever again. Then the man and his master race can be happy.

If so, you are no doubt justified as morally right in the previously mentioned genocide – if you can get away with it and it increases happiness and decreases suffering for your “society of the master race.” The ability to get away with it eliminates any particular need based on self-interest to avoid harming the victims.

In the right place, it’ll work out just fine.

It’s good to work it out. It’ll sort of work out for you, but it’ll always be open to dispute. Either you accept that it’s relativistic and justifies atrocity, or you will have to elevate something on your own as an authority against atrocity. That’s why I believe it’s hard to articulate. I think Objectivism from the complete opposite direction, has a similar problem. (you look through these pages, you’ll see me defending Objectivism a lot). But it ultimately tries to get an “ought” from an “is.” And you want a “ought” from a “we want.” It’s no more satisfying an answer.


In other words, the answer to my second question in your mind is “No, the condition of correctness does not exist independent of the group”. It then follows that Hitler, Stalin and Mao acted correctly, since they defined that status for their groups. It also follows that the allies were evil aggressors imposing their will the unwilling collectives of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and imperial Japan.

That’s how collectivist ethics works.


Sigh. That’s what you got out of what I said?

Do you think people in Nazi Germany were free to express their opposition to Hitler without fear of reprisals??

If the answer is no, and clearly that was the case, then it’s not society that’s determining what’s right and wrong, but some portion of society with the power to enforce their concept of rights unopposed.

Again, the idea of rights and freedoms lead to certain outcomes and those outcomes can be measured with respect to certain fundamental ideas like freedom from harm etc…


Any social system that can CREATE your rights can also take them away from you. THAT’S why our rights are God-given and not given by those who seek to govern us.