Capitalist Paradise

To The Allied States of Reed Audio

I didn't say that your mind was jumbled or unclear, rather I said that your points were. You've been expressing yourself in a manner that shows an obvious (and I don't mean to blame you for it) lack of a classical education. Some of your points make sense, and are broken down into each individual paragraph, but often you'll have one point broken into several incomplete sentences across two or even three paragraphs, and many of your points aren't even applicable to the situation; for example, why do you keep targeting liberals? You aren't arguing with liberals. This is a debate about a libertarian philosophy vs. a conservative philosophy on abortion. You and The Rogue Nation of Randian have done a very good job of presenting yourselves as the conservatives, whereas (and I don't mean to say we're totally on the same side) The Democratic Republic of Xyanth and myself have presenting views closer to that of libertarian philosophy. No one here is representing liberal views, so please see why I say that your points have been rather unclear.

I'll address the same question to you, that I addressed to Randian, because to me, that's the nature of this issue: At what point is it the role of government to tell a person that they may not remove another person from their property, charity, or body?

To The Democratic Republic of Xyanth

I'd like to start with an apology for missing a previous point of yours, in response to one of mine. I must have gotten too caught up in debating the other nations to see your post. As it really hasn't been much of a debate as of yet, besides you and I posting what we believe over and over again in the hope of making ourselves clear to the conservatives, I'd like to address the main point you made.

"If you permit late term abortions (except to save the mother) or permit the euthanasia of defective children where are you going to draw the line. What is murder, what is euthanasia? Who would you trust to draw that line? Who would you trust to adjust that line in the future? (You know that very few laws remain the same if for no other reason then the legislators believe they have to justify their existence.)"

For me, it is a matter of trespass. If anything is absolutely your property, it is your body. I feel a woman seeking an abortion is someone who wants to remove a trespasser from her body. If the child can survive, of course, I'm no fool, babies, and even toddlers are helpless, but helplessness doesn't mean they have the right to violate the property rights of others. When the baby is removed from the mother, if the child survives, she may choose to keep it. If not, she has the option to try to find a third party to take care of the child, and if she does find one, that's all well and good, but if she can't, or simply doesn't want to, that should be well within her right as an individual, and she leaves the hospital, baby-free, and responsible-free (with the exception of the bill, of course). Now, the child has been left in the hospital, and the hospital has three options. Option one: the hospital takes care of the child. Option two: if option one is a charity the hospital doesn't want or can't do, they may try to find a third party to take care of the infant. Option three: if option one and option two are both options that the hospital won't or can't do, they are now dealing with a trespasser on their property, and so option three is the forceful removal of the trespasser from their property, any way they deem necessary, so long as it does not violate the property rights of others. Now, there's another thing that could happen, in which hospitals require mothers sign contracts that if the baby survives, the child is their responsibility to remove from hospital property upon the mother leaving, in which the mother is simply given the same three options the hospital is given. This is how The Incorporated States of Mnai deals with this issue.

Well of course. Human empathy will dictate that the first two options will be chosen 99.9% of the time. I just don't believe it is the role of government to force people into parasitic relationships or charity.

By creating a child, the parents haven't signed any binding contract. They never made an agreement with anyone. They gave the child life, and that is all. They owe the child nothing.

Also, people should have a right to say who gets to stay and who has to leave their property. Would you consider it a beneficial if government decides for you, who's allowed on your property, and who you are allowed to expel? That's an obvious infringement on your rights as a property owner, and stands in the way of capitalism.

To The Allied States of Reed Audio

You see it as a cop out, I see it as simple biology. Somewhere there is a line were a fetus changes from a growth to a child. We will have to agree to disagree on where that line is.

To The Allied States of Reed Audio

I do oppose Barack Obama, but I believe for different reasons than you do. I highly doubt that Barack Obama has backed legislation that kills babies that have been born... and request that you post the name of the bill that allows that practice.

As for whether the baby survives after being born, the Mnaian approach is that if someone's willing to take care of the child, the child lives, but if not, no one ought to be forced to, and the child unfortunately becomes medical waste.

You still didn't answer the question I asked, so I'll ask it again: At what point is it the role of government to tell a person that they may not remove another person from their property, charity, or body?

The Protectorate of Mass Cannibalism

We Mnaians are almost in agreement. We don't believe the child is property of the parents, and they can kill the child of they wish, but if they no longer want to take care of the child, that's their decision, and it is in their rights to evict the child from their home by any means they deem necessary.

To The Sultanate of Jebediah Von Whittaker

You acquire property when you are alive. It's not that others are allowed to violate the property rights of the infant, but that the infant is not allowed to violate the property rights of its parents, the hospital, school, church, nursery, orphanage, what have you, and that each of these parties are allowed to defend their property by any means necessary. The dilemma of Mnai is that all property is private, meaning there is not public place with which to put an unwanted child, and so an unwanted children become part of the problem of homeless Mnaians. In the case of homelessness in Mnai, you have people actively trespassing and littering on the property of others, lowering property values, and acting in a state of perpetual violation of the property rights of others, and because of this, Mnaians, when dealing with homeless trespassers on their property, are encouraged by the Mnaian Corporation through private advertisement to use lethal means to defend their property. In effect, we have capital punishment for homelessness, and that extends to all demographics.