Why I'm Pro Choice

Dude, its her words, not mine, and to me, its also a matter of personal politics. This is why I try to stay away from topics like abortion, because people of the opposing viewpoint "cannot sit idly by while someone is voicing a different opinion." This always happens to me when I enter these types of discussions. To be honest, I'm the type to say "if you can do something, I should be allowed to think less of you because of it"...its my personal politics and that's the only explanation I need.

...You know, this is totally off topic but I have to rant for a moment here.

This kind of mentality...is retarded. I apologize if you're offended but it is. It's completely and utterly retarded.

You want to have an opinion on something...without people saying why they think you're wrong? Are you serious with this? You DO understand that this basically makes any and all conversation pointless, don't you? You DO understand that the point of discussing an issue is to try and understand the opposition, as well as try and convince those with opposing viewpoints why they might be mistaken in their viewpoints, don't you?

This postmodernist mentality of bullshit pisses me off on a semi regular basis. My mom and dad have both asked me the question in the rare times I decide to try and connect with them, "Why can't you just let people who disagree with you alone?" You wanna know why? Because they fucking VOTE. And if they don't they at least talk to people who do.

I fucking give a shit if what I believe is true. And the total lack of people who really want to investigate truth, who really want to figure things out the best they can is fucking STAGGERING.

Do not come to a fucking forum labeled "Serious Discussion" and give an opinion on something, and then bitch and fucking moan when someone disagrees and tells you why.

Either be open to debate, or shut the fuck up entirely. Until you're willing to put it out there and argue about it, you don't get to have a fucking opinion in my view.

Sorry, my time on the Escapist makes me edgy, I tend to jump to conclusions.

Well... Abortion should only be used in SEVERE cases, for instance, rape, incest, and risks of death. If there is an extreme complication with the birth, and it WILL cause the woman's death, than it's a better idea to do the abortion. Now, abortions are NOT a form of birth control, and if you "Forgot" to use protection/birth control, you need to suck it up, and take responsibility.

That's my stance.

-The Fakkuist.

Abortion can be used as birth control as far as I'm concerned. The thing's not a person, it doesn't have an inherent right to life when it's leeching off the mother.

I don't think you understand the labor and pain that a woman has to go through to care for a baby. 9 months of getting larger, fatter, out of shape, being nauseous all the time and being hungry all the time. Chemical imbalances in the brain, mood swings, unstable emotions in general, not to mention the fact that there is ALWAYS an inherent risk of death in ANY pregnancy carried to full term.

And you're saying, "If you screwed up and forgot that pill, then screw you, carry it and birth it."

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Wow. What about "The Miracle of Life". I'm sorry, but people should know better than to have sex without protection, they know the risks, and it's not right for people to have sex and go "Opps, i'm pregnant, guess i have to get an abortion." That is complete and utter BULLSHIT. It's not right, and it should never be used as a form of birth control. There is not ALWAYS a risk of death in ANY pregnancy. There are too many variables to count that have a direct impact on the pregnancy, and the woman's health.

Don't believe in miracles, so you're barking up the wrong tree there. How can something that's a natural biological ever recurring thing be considered a miracle? Or even mystified to be called one just because of how 'wondrous' we find it?

Babies are born every day, conceived every day, and get miscarried, aborted, or killed every day. A miracle they are not.

"They know the risks" So? Knowing the risk, yet deciding to participate in an act of love is not a given consent for an unwanted parasite to leech off your body for 9 months.

This is not an easy decision to make, nobody actually goes through the thought process, "Fuck, pregnant, oh well, abortion's the magical cure."

Especially since Planned Parenthood makes sure that those thinking about abortion get a nice pamphlet and a mandatory amount of time to think about it before they're allowed to get one at any abortion clinic.

"There is not ALWAYS a risk of death in ANY pregnancy" yes there is. And you saying, "Nuh uh." is not an argument.

I recommend to you two videos that were addressed to a christian youtuber named "thepuppyturtle" on this subject.

First one is long and addresses the nonsense that anyone actually says, "Whoops got pregnant, time to pwn this bitch lol."



It also links to this statistic.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#7

The second is just an overall fantastic argument in favor of abortion, as well as points out the fact of the matter, all births are inherently dangerous.



Yeah, they're both long, but if you actually give a shit about the issue, I recommend watching them.

I pretty much agree with this. I also think only people who have at least had a baby should really discuss the issue. Moralists who have never gotten pregnant, nor know what it feels like, even without aggravating circumstances like rape, are a joke that should not even be listened to.

You know it's bad if your tldr's are uninteresting think of a better topic like the weather

Bumped for relevancy in another topic I've been posting in that veered completely off topic into Abortion.

So, here we are. This is a position you've held for months, not that I thought differently given your responses in the other thread, but when you said "I don't want a child, ever". Want me to tell you the honest to god truth in my heart: "Thank God." I thank whatever beings may or may not be out there, that made it so that such a selfish, vain, egotistical person would never want a child.

If you, god forbid had a child, I'm convinced that you would abandon the child immediately. That is assuming of course, it gets through the pregnancy. Hell, if you're a guy, I have fear for your GF. You don't value the fetus, you probably don't value the girl as much. Infact, if impregnated by you, she's as much of a parasite to you as the 'cells' are. And I can only imagine what you'll do in that case.

If you're so callous to the lives of others, as well as to the life of yourself. Please do keep to your isolationist beliefs, the danger of you ever physically contacting a woman is far too great. You're far from emotionally ready for a relationship. That is, if you can even see yourself having one.

Egotistical? You're the one that started with the, "I'm on the Dean's list motherfucker!" arguments.



If I don't value the fetus...I don't value the girl? Well that doesn't logically follow at all. So good job on that jab of stupidity.

I'm not one to think that 'people' are parasites. And nothing I've said in this thread indicates as much.



Where do I state anything about being callous to my own life? You're really just making shit up at this point Lustful. It's kind of sad.

I of course also never spoke in favor of isolationism either, but hey, it's 'make shit up about your opponent' day apparently.

I've had relationships. I enjoyed them, they ended with very little problems. But hey, it's great that you somehow know everything about me without actually knowing me.

Yes, egotistical, anyone who has a position of: "Since this life has not evolved to where I'm at, it has no rights." Is egotisitical. Your position of life being a privilege is the definition of egoism. I cannot proclaim to such an egotistical position as it regards the fetus.

It follows logically, you just don't think logically. Here, a thought map to help you out. Biglundi hates children, you don't think they have the right to birth, hell you don't even want one. Biglundi makes out with "X" and one day "X" gets pregnant. You don't see "X" as a woman anymore, at least not as long as she has "that thing" in her system.
And as you've said, the women has absolute choice. So if she decides to bring the child into the world, you who hates children will either have to A: Leave the relationship(Scumbag), or B:Even worse, you'll commit murder with your own hands.

I'll admit, some of what I stated earlier and even now is speculation. Speculation based on your own anti-human drivel. I can hardly see you(and you even admitted at the end of your post) as a guy that'll ever settle down with a consistent relationship.

I didn't "make shit up" about you, I made inferences based on your miserably-built character.

All rights are priveleges. Humans assign rights in the first place, and rights can be taken away if abused. That's basic polysci.Unless you don't even think we should have prisons.



Nobody 'thinks logically' that's a computer thing, we only try to understand logically.

You don't get to just say, "Yes it is logical" when I point out a non sequitur. That's not how logic works.



Well that's patently absurd.



A fetus is not a child. : /



That's called a fallacy of composition. So that's also not logical.

Just because a woman has a non person in her doesn't mean the woman is not a person anymore. That's a fallacy. :D




Or I can suck it up and go through with it anyway. Not only don't I hate children, but even if I did, the option to override my hatred for virtuous reasons is still there, whether you believe it or not.



Nothing I have said is anti-human so lol.



Well those inferences are unsound. So...you make shit inferences, and I'm glad to inform you where you're wrong about me.

Ignoring you two reaping each other throat with ad hominem I would like to point out something about your position BigLundi.



A right is not a privilege. A privilege is an entitlement to immunity from a specific situation. A right is a natural, inherent and irrevocable entitlement held by all human beings from the condition of their existence. From the moment you exist, you are already entitled to a number of primordial rights that form some of your freedoms, like your physical integrity for example. This is true political science. Under these terms, if a fertilized egg is an human being, it has the right to live. A right doesn’t need the concession of the state, or any other, to exist.

A prison is, primordially, just a political device in which someone is recognized as a threat to society's well being and has its right of locomotion removed to assure someone else's natural rights won't be violated by the one which was been recognized as a threat. A prison exists specifically to secure the rights of the majority, not to take them.

So you believe rights are inherent. Do you believe rights are built into the human body? Where do our rights come from?



Not at all. That's just something that we, as humans, in a civilized society, tend to agree is a right to give to newborns, and even then, it's limited. If a kid doesn't wanna get an immunity shot, too bad, their parents get to make that decision for them. If a kid doesn't want to go to school, then too bad, you will be forced by society to go for at least some amount of time before you can even drop out, or at LEAST get homeschooled.



Yes it does. Where do rights come from, if not from the state?



Yet, it takes the rights of those who have abused their rights. I have the right to say what I want, to a certain degree. But if I take it too far, like yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre,e then my right to freedom will be momentarily taken away. Same if I abuse any other right, like the right to drive on the road, or the right to drink alcohol, or the right to even PURCHASE alcohol, as soon as a right is abused, it is either taken away, or at the very least your right to freedom is.

Humans are the source of rights. Therefore humans can take away rights. This is a fact.

Edit: I discussed this issue with some friends of mine that have majored in political science and history, and they've been giving me some decent insight onto this very topic of rights.

If it is the case that you argue for natural rights, then governments, from your perspective, don't grant rights, but simply exist to protect some rights over other rights. But then rights would then be defined as the right to do anything not prohibited by nature, which would include things like genocide, etc.

So I have the right to commit genocide then. Meaning that even then, women would still have the right to abort their fetuses if they wish. Even if that fetus has the right to life in your perspective. So what you're doing is arbitrarily picking some rights to be more important than others. And that's not a good way to determine law.

If there is any sort of natural human right, I would think Hobbes puts it best as "to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto."

And I'm going to guess that this isn't something you consider a right, or at the very least you consider it nonsensical that nature gives me the right to violate my nature. And I would agree, which is why nature isn't what gives us rights.

Let me ask you, did cancer violate Christopher Hitchens' right to life?

And another question, if we DO have rights...can you give me a list of them, and where they come from? And how you know them?

From our morality, yes, humans are the ones who give rights to other humans, but these rights have been argued, debated upon and are a social norm based on our expectation of how to interact with others. In this day and age, we do not discriminate rights, based on one's gender, race nor religion. Basically, we do not discriminate against minorities.

I would argue, that a developing fetus is a minority(IE:Inferior), you yourself acknowledge it as such. Therefore an open-ended abortion policy, is a form of discrimination against the fetus.




No, we give that right to everyone. Up until a person violates another's physical integrity, your physical integrity is yours and will remain as such. Unless, of course, under suspicion of a crime and due process and investigation. And while the parent makes the child's health decisions, a moral parent will not diktat to his child what he/she wants. Part of being a parent is listening to your child. Again, this is why I'm thankful you're not a parent:

You look at it robotically, you do not comprehend morality as it relates to decision, or ethics. Human Morality IS a fundamental factor in our decisions, you will find almost every criminal lacks a sense of morality. What they do not lack, in most cases is intelligence. In fact, many of the world's serial killers are brilliantly intelligent(See:Loughner, Holmes.)

The only reason a parent may overrule the child, sometimes misguidingly(IE:Not enough knowledge of the situation) is only due in fact to a high moral standard or in other words: The parent seeks to uphold the sanctity of the child's life. The child, who does not possess the years of experience *in most cases* to make that decision, cannot make that decision with all of the information.

This, sometimes, neglects the fact that what the child lacks in years, the child has in immediate experience(IE:The child is the one attending said school 7 days a week, 365 days a year), and say if the child is bullied or the teacher's neglecting his studies?

The child has immediate knowledge of this(and in most cases), eventually the parent sees this and remedies the situation. As a parent, one must always remember that a child is often right there, in the middle of the problem and you can see the truth through your child's eyes.



Rights are fundamental beliefs that we believe other people should have, so as to maintain a civilized society. The right to privacy and other rights were not granted by the Kingdom, but the people themselves had to march for these freedoms.

The same is true in the civil rights movement, the African-Americans made the case for their own freedom, joined by even the Caucasian community in the recognition that rights for minorities, equal rights for all. All significant movements for human rights, were pushed for by humans, not aristocrats.

The State, is often the greatest oppressor of human rights and dignities.




Good job...repeating what 42 said? I mean, what was the point of this passage? Believe it or not, there are only thousands of criminals, as compared to millions of human beings. I don't believe imprisonment for misdemeanors(such as yelling fire in a crowded theater) is the solution, that's a huge part of the problem of our prison system(different debate), the idea that we can just lock everyone up and throw away with the key.

In fact, that mentality is one that's devoid of a higher moral position and hence why criminality continues. Right now, prison is nothing more than a place of rotting, decaying beings that supports...nothing but the continuation of rotting and decaying behavior. Is there any reason, not to believe they won't engage in criminal activity when they get out?

There are two moral positions that we can(and must) take in order to seriously address the problem of inmates, prison overpopulation and the continuing of serious crimes. Either the Light Yagami Thesis(Morality to a high extent, as to seriously punish the offender. Making it utterly clear that crime is unacceptable.) Or a serious Reform Thesis, that puts the emphasis on trying to reform the criminal offender.

As of now, prisons in the U.S. have less than 2% of these programs. And my response to the fact: Are you freaking kidding me? We spend thousands of millions on career politicians, millions on the debated open-abortion policy, millions on wall-street. But we cannot afford a Reform Program inside our prisons?

Again, a lack of morality is a huge reason for America's financial and moral decline. And if it continues, we won't be able to call ourselves the *world's superpower* anymore.



Human Morality is the source of rights, it's the violation of Morality that takes away rights. I want to seriously ask you: What does the word 'morals' mean to you? Do you think morals exist? And if not, what are human emotions governed by?

Where did you study political science? Seriously, this is not a rhetorical question. The basics of political science begins with Plato and Aristotle and both of them prove the concept of Natural Rights as far as I remember (well, not so much for Plato). This is the basics of political science... unless you come from these modern schools of thought who think the Government and Society are gods.

Yes, the exercise of many rights are dependent on someone else's guarantee that given action or state will not be intervened, but this talks about the exercise of rights, not their origin or existence. A right that is arbitrarily given to a subject is the concept of Legal Rights. Rights that are usually a made out of a consensus in a given group, a right inherent to a certain culture, made to create the sense of order in the perception of a that culture. Actually, many Legal Rights infer in the concept of duties to others but even then, Guarantee is very different than Privilege.

A Natural Right is a right that is independent from laws, beliefs, customs or consensus and is universal to all human beings because its a right directly connected to Reality and the Human nature. A natural right stems directly from the concept of Ownership which in turn is directly connected to the concept of Power. All natural concepts.

To own something you need to have Power over something, and Power is specifically the Capacity of Action. If you cannot perform an action you do not have power, you cannot own, if you cannot own whatever the object is, you don’t have any right over it. And the concept of Natural Right exist specifically because as soon as you start to exist as an entity you automatically need a physical body, as soon as you have a physical body you control this physical body (Capacity of action), therefore you own your body before anyone else can come to bestow one about you. A natural right to the integrity of your own body. Seriously, this is the basics of the philosophy of freedoms and rights. Or do you believe people could not walk and breathe before a governmental figure appeared to concede them these rights? Even the concept of Violation of Rights need the Right to exist before (you cannot violate something that doesn't exist). Under the concept of rights as privileges, attacking an outcast out of nowhere is no right violation because as natural rights do not exist and there wasn't any governmental figure to concede the outcast the right to his body before the attack, the attack isn't violating any right at all as the outcast doesn't have any. It destroys the concept of freedom and that all men are born equal and things like Slavery (to own someone else's freedom over the power you have over his/her body) becomes morally sustainable. It's a very primitive and wild understanding of rights where the law of the stronger is above everything else. It completely disregards our natural social structure and becomes nothing different than the wild life of primitive animals.

If right is only privilege then the freedom you have over your own entity is just a different degree of slavery, as your freedom is primordially controlled by someone else. Which is ironic, if right is a privilege and all rights are only legal rights then you should have no problem with the anti-abortion movement, as it's a movement rooted on christian beliefs which is the majority in the USA, they can simply make all the laws as they see fit and screw your natural rights of freedom of thinking and expression. They can pretty much take that privilege from you as they are the majority and can control the consensus. A democratic dictatorship, where the majority rules all and the minority only exist as the weak to justify the strong.

Luckily for us Plato developed the concept of Republic to undermine the power of will from the majority and Aristotle forged the base of natural universal rights, and because of that you have the freedom to believe whatever you want about what is a Right, even if that belief goes against yourself.



These are legal rights, rights that are made out of consensus from a culture, which in turn are dependent to the cosmological perception of reality from that culture. And they'll obviously change from society to society.

And even then, a kid's natural right is always secured, body integrity for example.

A child's rights are of course undermined in the face of an adult's right but that is specifically because the capacity of action from a child is much lower than that of an adult, a child doesn’t have a natural capacity to understand many complex subjects because its cognition is still on formation, therefore cannot make important decision on their own or manage a complex system. These legal understandings are essential to the concept of Age of Consent, Liability and Family Structure.

The right to education is not a natural right, it needs a guarantee from another, its a Legal Right.



From the concept of ownership.



You seem to be reversing the logic of rights. You're not being reprimanded because you “abuse” your rights, you are being reprimanded because you're threatening the right of others, invading their field of control (ownership). And of course, as legal rights will change from society to society your degree of freedom will change from society to society, and if you believe USA is a laissez-faire society you're very mistaken. A governmental body, as any other entity, can decide to overrule natural rights with their own legal understanding (as many totalitarian society have done in the past), but that isn't to say natural rights don't exist as an empirical conclusion.

So I’ll repeat, if a fertilized egg is an human being, it has natural rights of its own, and the abortion would constitute the violation of one of these rights, an act of killing.

Edit: Just saw your edit now.




No because the right to kill another human being cannot be a natural right as it constitutes the violation of someone else's right to live. The right to kill is only justified under the concept of ownership if your own physical integrity is threatened directly by someone else's action, meaning that someone else would have to violate your right first. The principle of first aggression.



Natural right is not absolute freedom.


Cancer is not a human being.

About Hobbes, even though I consider him a bad philosopher that isn't to say everything he said was wrong. But that statement of his was empty, it doesn’t truly quantify anything, it pretty much talks that we think before we act, but doesn’t give an insight of how the act behaves.



Well, I cannot remember all of them from the top of my head, I don't even remember seeing a concise list of them, but from what I can remember right now: Right to Live, to move, to think, to express... basically anything related to your own body (the primordial ownership).

And to know about natural rights just study philosophy over the topic of freedom.



Oh, that explains then.

That kind of makes me wonder where you studied political science (penn state for me) because that's the biggest load of bull I've ever heard.

Plato did a lot to contribute to what we call modern philosophy, but as far as politics and laws and morals go, he got a lot of shit wrong. Here's some things he said.

1. Children should be taken from their parents and raised in creches.
2. There ought to be a Philosopher King chosen from the guardian class.
3. There ought to be an authoritarian dictatorship.

Did you think that the concept of rights and the discussion of such stopped 2 thousand years ago? We're kind of...advanced past them by a very wide margin.

There's also the strange and long abandoned concept of Platonic metaphysics, where Plato thought there was a physical substance literally called "The Good" that is in the world that we encounter.

Plato and Aristotle were wrong.

And as far as anything being 'proved' within philosophy, you demonstrate a lack of understanding as to how any epistemology works. Except for mathematical proofs, there's no such thing as a 100% airtight sound and valid proof of anything in philosophy. There's always a chance for error, no matter how good an argument is. And I'm echoing sentiments of christian philosophers who wish they could prove god existed like Alvin Plantinga and Soren Kierkegaard and Blaise Pascal(who was a mathematician, literally the best of his time and possibly of all time).



It'd be great if you could demonstrate how. Besides, abortion and the ability to choose is a Legal Right. So even if you were right and Natural Rights were even a tenable position, taking into account legal rights, natural rights clearly have nothing to do with being pro choice.



Firstly, Ownership is a legal thing. I don't get to just own land because I want it. I have to perform work on it, reciprocate it, and even then I have no right to just go onto someone else's land, work on it, and then claim it's mine. This is Locke 101. So as far as Ownership goes, that's what you would define as a Legal Right. And the only right that 'power' could possibly give is the right to kill, or prevent killing, which are contradictory rights, and as such power is an absurd thing to derive any rights from.



So without really demonstrating the validity of your case for natural rights, you simply assert a misunderstanding of Locke's position of Ownership and Capacity to Action, but even if I were to presume everything you just said is true, then I can easily use it to support the pro choice side of the argument. The baby, is trespassing on the mother's territory. The mother has the 'natural right' to her own body, and the fetus, without being able to do anything except essentially drain the mother's body of vitality and cause her sickness without even being consciously able to understand that that's what it's doing, is for some reason given domain over it? You're violating your own position.



So if rights are privileges, we're all slaves. Appeal to consequences fallacy and a rather huge slippery slope argument that makes no sense. While the case of me having freedom within society is controlled(and it is controlled, even by your standards it's controlled because we have prison systems) what I choose to DO with that freedom is soley controlled by me. So it's not slavery. That's retarded.

Also, calling the anti-abortion movement a christian movement is epically retarded. I've argued with atheists that are pro life, I've argued with jews that are pro life, I've had other christians actually tell me they're pro choice, I KNOW several christians personally that are pro choice, so it's not so simple as, "Christianity is the basis for some of the anti-abortionists, christianity makes up the majority, therefore it's ok."

Besides, where did I ever say that might makes right? We don't live in a democracy we live in a democratic republic, for good reason. Because by and large people are stupid and the Founding Fathers knew ahead of time that mob rule is not a rational way to determine policy. But you already knew that and we'll be getting into that in a moment.



1. Plato thought we should live in a dictatorship, so I'm not giving him credit for us having a republic.
2. Aristotle didn't forge jack shit, and wouldn't need to for us to have the ability to believe whatever we want about anything because we already have that right bestowed upon us by the government and each other because...we can't read minds. Of course, if we COULD read minds, then that DOES in fact become an option we can disagree or agree with.
3. Aristotle's only lasting contribution to western thought has been in the realm of Ethics, and even then those have had to be reformulated to be what they're now called 'Neo-Aristotlian Ethics"

So yeah. I kind of know a little bit more about these guys and how philosophy works than you, evidently.



1. Legal Rights, as far as I'm concerned, seem to be the only rights we have. As you haven't demonstrated any 'natural rights' that cannot be impeded upon by other people. And if they are "natural rights" then they shouldn't be able to.
2. A child has the Capacity to Act in defiance of his parents, but we don't really care, and decide the parents get the right to inject him with a needle for his own safety. We also have the right to take that right away from the parents and give them to other people if the parents don't demonstrate a capacity to perform responsibly.



Which, from your definitions, would be a legal right. That's why we have these things called Deeds.

Why do you think it is the case that when I perform work upon the Ocean, and have the capacity to act upon the Ocean, or pour my own property into the Ocean, I never gain an ocean? I never own the ocean? Why is that the case if this "ownership" thing is just so all encompassing.



Through the abuse of your own. Yes. Exactly. Thanks for repeating what I said.



I'm fucking GLAD it's not a laissez-faire society. That would ruin us.



Actually it is. Because if something grants unto you a Right, then the only thing that can take that Right away, is the one who granted you that Right. And since society can take away rights, then society is what gives you those rights. Simple. If they're natural rights, we shouldn't be able to take them away. But through some sort of miracle apparently we can.



Well you can define a human being as having whatever arbitrary right you came up with all you want but the fact of the matter is that we don't grant 'human beings' the right to life, in fact we can revoke them in the cases of the death penalty if we so desire. We give 'persons' the right to life. And 'person' and 'human being' are not synonymous. :)



Nature doesn't really care if you're violating another person's right to life. It certainly doesn't do anything to prevent you from committing genocide does it? Therefore Nature doesn't grant us that right, if it is the case that we do not have the right to genocide, because, as I said, nature doesn't prevent us from doing it, whatsoever.



Then where do you draw the line and how?
Hint: this is a rhetorical question ,as drawing any line is a result of you determining rights, not nature. ;)



No, but it is all natural. And it has all the DNA of a human in it. so what prevents it from being a human being in your opinion? I agree, I just think this'l be funny, as I'm going to guess whatever you use to delineate it from being a human being can be equally applicable to a zygote.



So you have no comment on it except, "I don't see how that means anything substantial." gotcha. No refutation there. Also I would LOVE to know your justification for thinking Hobbes is a bad philosopher. Since he, oh I dunno, is one of the reasons the U.S. has the government t has today.



As if this is some sort of mainstream fully agreed on consensus among philosophers, I just have to lol. You can bollocks on about 'ownership' all you want, but it's been established since Locke that ownership has to do not just with the capacity to act, but also agreement over who gets what, which can be determined by who does more work, or was there first, or a number of other different things. It's not a natural thing, it's an agreed upon thing.

If you don't have a full and concise list of all the natural rights, where they come from, how we came to have them, and an explanation as to how it's impossible for humans to take away those rights, then I'm sorry, but from my perspective it just seems to me you're making shit up, calling whatever you want to feel secure about a natural right, and that you don't know what you're talking about.



*shrug* well excuse me for thinking my one semester of political science isn't enough to justify what I say, and I would prefer a friend who has a Master's in the subject check my work and what you say before I comment on it. It's just intellectual honesty.

Honestly your whole argument to me feels like you just want to believe in natural rights because it makes you feel good.