Are you REALLY this naïve? We KNOW that Uranium One started shipping uranium OUT of the U.S. before the ink was dry on the sale agreement. Where it went from Canada, nobody has been able to find out.
You can count me as one of the (classical) liberals that supports abortion at any time, for any reason.
I also believe that racism and misogyny are two of the greatest threats to liberty at the current time. Does that make me a SJW?
1 On the “reasonable regulation” front, the 2nd Amendment as worded is any arm a person wants to keep and bear. Now, I’m not keen on the idea of every Tom, Dick, and Harry being able to drive around with a nuclear missile in a trailer, but the solution (that was never implemented) is amending the Constitution; not doing an end-run around it. That latter thing is what leftist politicians have been doing at least since FDR’s Gun Control Act of 1933. And even now, you have all these HS students protesting and demanding stricter gun control in the wake of the Florida school shooting. I’d like to remind them that purges numbering in the millions (tens of millions, in the cases of the Mao, Stalin, and Nazi purges) are the legacy of an effectively disarmed population.
2 Like I said, aboriton is becoming less popular as the moral implications are becoming more clear to the general public (in spite of PP and NARAL lying through their teeth).
3 I’ll argue that it is, if not full-blown. It’s still involves government armtwisting to the (temporary) benefit of labor.
4 EPA, OSHA, FCC, FAA, contorted regulations on fishing and hunting, house construction codes run riot, etc.
5 The military used to be a lot bigger then; now instead, government is bloated with programs (although FDR started a lot of it).
6 I’ll argue that many on the left want all the guardrails, wall cushions, safety nets, etc. in lieu of taking responsibility to be careful with their physical, social, and financial wellbeing.
7 I think it’s mainly those who come from Mexico who tend to vote left. Those from Cuba tend the other way.
8 How am I supposed to argue with you when you agree with me…
9 Not disagreeing, but wanting to emphasize that the schools aren’t teaching it, or are terribly distorting it (this “living document” nonsense is a case in point).
10 Not really practical for me to do; I’m on an older browser, and don’t like to visit unfamiliar sites.
No modern liberal ACTUALLY believes in liberty any longer. REAL liberty, anyway. If you can find it on-line, watch the premier episode of “Life, Liberty and Levin” with his guest, Walter Williams.
It’s true that the Democratic party doesn’t give a shit about liberty. But then again, neither do Trumpian conservatives.
Plenty of Classical liberals would disagree, because of a natural human aversion of things that create human corpses. Social forces are congregating around 20 weeks as the rational cut off; after that point, the question is hard to avoid “Why didn’t you act before this point? The child now has human form, and can experience pain.”
Coincidentally, it’s also the earliest you could deliver a baby, satisfying both claims in the situation, and denying “killing” as an appropriate response.
No, just blind.
Misogyny is no real threat to liberty at this point. The inverse cultural archetype, the devouring mother, has steadily sought to silence free speech of people who take issue with “gender pronouns”, because speech is being equated with violence, and the upcoming generation buys this nonsense.
Jordan Peterson, all day long.
Another real threat to liberty comes from passive over regulation, which can be substantiated by our falling ranking in economic freedom, and growing federal register.
“The great break”. We’ve eliminated decades of innovation because of how short-sighted we’ve been over human action.
It’s hard to imagine any classical liberal principle that would justify using state violence to force a mother to remain pregnant against her will. It’s also quite difficult to imagine how classical liberal ideas could be used to justify the use of state violence to force her to undergo specific medical procedures against her will. Personally, I find both of these notions extremely noxious and offensive.
Your position on misogyny is absurd. There’s currently a bill in Oklahoma that considers women “hosts” and would force them to get a man’s permission before terminating a pregnancy. It’s difficult to think of a more extreme imposition on individual liberty than using state violence to take away a woman’s self-ownership and hand over her right to self-determination to a man.
Just as an aside, who are the serious current classical liberal philosophers who support state-enforced pregnancy? I’m asking in good faith, because I don’t know of any. I could easily rattle off a few dozen classical liberal philosophers who strongly oppose state-enforced pregnancy, however, for obvious reasons (the state should not have the right to coerce women into remaining pregnant and enduring extreme changes to her body, mind, and life, against her will).
20 weeks. After that, she has to give birth. That’s a rational cut off, because it weighs in the fact that a human life is on the line by that point.
You can’t ignore this; technology has made it so babies can be delivered early. If their life can be saved while also respecting the mother’s desire not to be pregnant, then you don’t have a choice to kill.
Self-dense law works on a similar principle. You don’t get to kill someone just because they stepped on your land or touched your person, or even hurt you. If there’s a non-lethal way of amending the situation, you have to pursue that first.
I don’t agree. The state has zero right to force her to remain pregnant against her will, enduring extreme changes to her body, mind, and life. This is not analogous to property rights in land. Property rights to self-ownership of one’s body are far more urgent, intimate, and profound.
The state also has zero right to force her to undergo a medical procedure against her will.
Women as it stands have zero right to a partial-birth abortion. This is no different.
If the life can be saved, you have to save it. You can’t use presence in the womb as a pretext to kill if there’s another option to immediately amend the situation.
By 20 weeks, the child has the same dignity as another human being, because they are a human being.
By any biological measure. Which means they have the same rights as any of us, and we are placed with the equal duties to recognize those rights.
Even assuming the fetus is a full moral person, it has no right to the charity of using the mother’s body against her will, inflicting on her extreme changes to her body, mind, and life. Nor does the state have any right to force this upon her. Obviously, if you’re supporting limiting her liberty in this extreme of a fashion, you’re going to have to make some pretty powerful and rock solid arguments (fundamental liberal principle: the burden of proof is on the person seeking to limit liberty). At a minimum, given the extreme imposition on liberty you’re proposing, you’ll need air-tight theoretical arguments for the following propositions:
- The fetus is a full moral human being; otherwise, the argument is over
- assuming (1) is true, that the fetus has a charity right to use the mother’s body against her will or that the fetus has some ownership right over the mother’s body.
It’s a question of values. J. Anderson values the imposition of the mother more than he values the life and experience of an unborn child.
IMO, there comes a point in development that the child begins to experience life and can feel pain. I value freedom from pain. At some point (not sure exactly when, but it might be before the 20-week mark), IMO, the rights of the child superceed that of the mother. I don’t believe that is at the moment of conception, rather I connect it to physical development and experience of the child.
No, you just avoided what I presented.
Before 20 weeks, abortion is still allowed.
After 20 weeks, it isn’t because then the baby can be delivered.
Both claims are satisfied. The mother doesn’t want to be pregnant, and the baby doesn’t want to die.
You also missed where I said, even when someone hurts you, hurts your person, you can’t immediately use that as pretext to kill. You can only kill, if that is the only way you can discern to save yourself “To the wall.” That is the maxim.
When we are dealing with a full moral person, and by 20 weeks, the child most certainly is, you need to give them the full respect self-defense law calls for.
As your viewpoint would have it, actual burglars who’ve assaulted someone are being given more moral standing, than innocent life. That isn’t right, and I think you know that.
The first is automatically true, the second isn’t valid.
The child is no longer being given “charity” if you’re delivering them early (in fact, you’re likely harming them). The mother’s concern is still being addressed, just in a non-lethal way.
I think you are missing some cause and effect here.
Children do not just “pop” into the wombs of unsuspecting mothers. Mothers and fathers choose to engage in activity with very specific consequences. Mothers and fathers need to take responsibility and make difficult choices. At some point, before the child is born, the parent’s loose that choice as the unborn child becomes a person with rights.
J. Anderson values the imposition of the mother more than he values the life and experience of an unborn child.
This is a dumb take. My “values” are beside the point. I could personally value “the life and experience” of the fetus more than the rights of the mother, and still logically hold that the state has no right to force women to remain pregnant against her will.
This isn’t about personal values, it’s about rights and the limits of state power.
This is an example of why I don’t have time for this.
You talk about the state as if it is separate from the people that make it up and the values they hold.
I’ve argued many times that rights in society are a reflection of the values people hold. Virtually all societies value life. The state is simply a reflection of those values.
The only thing that makes this conversation murky is that two lives are sharing the same body. I think AS is spot on when he points out that there comes a point at which one life can be separated from the other and we maximize liberty for both.
I suspect the difference between me and my Christian friends is that I value life, they value potential life.
It’s also about duties, rights don’t exist without them (oh hi classical liberalism). And the tortured, excruciating way we’ve affirmed self-defense law, shows that even when someone else is completely in the wrong, and causing you harm, you still don’t have an automatic right to kill.
There is a duty to affirm the other person’s life, even in that situation.
With an unborned child, the claim is less lopsided, and it isn’t asking anything more of a mother to give birth than to perform an abortion. After 20 weeks.
Both abortion and giving birth fix the situation immediately, but since birth does it non-lethally, it is the option they have to opt for, or they are needlessly killing someone.
And you do not have an ever expansive right to kill.