Well, in practice, you can't stop a mother from tripping over a set of stairs and kill the baby by an intentional accident.

What is your point?

Baby being in her uterus or in her arms.

My point is, we can still make a moral judgement regardless of how practical it is to enforce.

I'm talking about this from a legal perspective, not a moral perspective.

But the whole question is what moral values determine what the law should be.

Morals shouldn't be the sole thing that determines laws, you have to factor in whether enforcing the law is feasable or even possible.

"A human being should have the freedom to do with his/her body whatever he/she wishes" versus "no life should be sacrificed to save somebody a discomfort".

Moral principles are what give origin to laws.

Why should any life be saved?

Okay, okay, slow down a bit.

More specifically, why should the state have the obligation to save any life?

I mean, if a bridge collapses, and a bunch of people die, let their surviving family members sue whoever is responsible for the bridge's collapse. Why should the state get involved?

With abortion laws, it's pretty much you either legalize it or you make it illegal. If you legalize it, a small portion of women will kill babies because the pill is too difficult. However, making it illegal will cause a portion of women who were impregnated against their will to be forced to raise a child they didn't ask for.

One could argue that the state has a moral obligation to ensure everyone has a chance to survive.

One could also argue the state has a moral obligation to ensure everyone has the right to not have their lives ruined by forces outside of their control.

Only 1% of abortions are done as result of rape, mind you.

See: flood insurance

Do you really think that women are just going to start aborting babies for trivial reasons just because it's legal?

Less than 1% of abortions are done to save the mother's life.

If a woman is aborting a baby and going through all of that emotional trauma, there's likely a damn good reason for it.

They already *are* aborting for trivial reasons.

Define trivial.

I'm not talking about saving women's lives, I'm talking about saving their chance to have a life outside of poverty.

Okay, let me answer this question before you ask another.

Women are allowed to give their baby for adoption.

When I say trivial, I mean women should be allowed to abort a baby if it's going to screw over their life. The woman is the one who decides that.

Let's simplify this discussion; I'm making the same points as Crowder, it's easier to see where he went. Then you can decide if you have a better response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCSZYJywQPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd6Z_zyXZM

If you truly think a 9 month baby isn't worth saving because the mother doesn't want, then, like Crowder, we don't have much to discuss.

Then indeed you need to make the point of what life, if any, deserves protection.

I genuinely doubt I could change your mind, regardless of what sort of reason I use to explain it. You've done a great job explaining your point of view, but it isn't going to change my mind either. Good talk though, you really had me at a loss a few times. 👍

I strongly recommend you to watch those two videos. He's legitimately trying to find a common ground. He's not being sarcastic, dismissive, or anything. The point is, if you can't derive your politics from anything other than tribal instinct of "us vs them", you might be wrong and you don't know it. And by "wrong" I mean contradict a principle you yourself hold true. One of the big divisions between left and right is, one thing the government has the duty to guarantee comfort, the other thinks the government has the duty prevent death.

He didn't make any religious argument by the way.

holy tits thats like an hour and 40 minutes of video

It's various conversations.

You can watch one or two or however many you think it's worth it.

I'll have to watch like half tonight and the rest tomorrow, thanks for sharing the vids with me

Come on, if you watch JBP, that's not bad.

I've seen some of Crowder's stuff and I thought most of it was pretty funny

I thought he was just a clown, but the Change My Mind videos made me actually pay more attention to him.

He's very smart.

Oh, maybe skip the first one, it's 1 hour with one bitch that just keeps going around in circles, talking about her own abortion and just ignoring anything Crowder said. "My pregnancy was traumatic, are you saying I shouldn't have aborted?"

The second one is much better.

Yeah, the lady in the first one clearly doesn't really know what she's doing.

She's talking about it from a personal perspective, which significantly narrows her view.

She seems to treat the issue as though every case is the same as her own.

She might be too trad for me my dudes

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVEUtnYWkAEUSHJ.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/960614513224667136

whats wrong about a white ethnostate?

What's wrong with turning the frickin frogs gay

Liberal non ideological server

no but Liberal

eh?

I don't understand what you guys are saying

They put SOY in the Starbucks and all of the men start wearing bikinis

https://screenshots.firefox.com/RFLxWBiYG7GIBtKH/www.reddit.com

the NHS is powered on the people's will

like, it may well be running on fumes... but it's running at all because everyone who uses it or works for it believes in having a national health service

so I don't see it ever going "bust", just getting butchered by cuts

I get the impression there's always more money to be had for the NHS, it's jut they're being constrained because they're using their funding inappropriately. I've heard things about them expanding middle management, and cutting nurses/therapists, and I've heard things about plans to keep GPs open 7 days a week by outsourcing to private companies who will cost us more in the long term... then there was the whole issue with Spine, intended to stop the NHS from running on paper, but ended up being run by some private company who did the job wrong and cost the NHS billions

I think it's good that they're investing in NHS Digital, and launching Spine 2... I can really see it paying off in the long run (as long as it's done correctly)

but they're huge projects... so the NHS is gonna be strapped for cash in the meantime

I just get pissed off with all these 'kind' people that REEEE abvout the NHS

none of them would ever actually work for it

Privatize the nhs now tbh

there would be riots

Temporary price to end an immoral socialist system

All socialism needs to end, regardless of how that makes worthless socialists feel

<:deus_vult:382980746727522305>

well let's assume that we get spine 2 up and running and we're able to streamline data processing... presuming data governance rules allow it, think about the potential for large-scale scientific studies. it would be unparalleled. and it's only possible because the NHS is one company with unilateral control over its own data, rather than a bunch of private companies with closely guarded data gathered from small-scale studies

That's theft of resources. Private companies can do research through voluntary investment and donations

Forcing people to fund unaccountable government research is wrong

well consider what harm it can do. it would be like facebook, but where the data benefits all of mankind rather than turns a profit

and you give the data in exchange for free healthcare

so is it theft?

you also consent

data governance rules for healthcare data are the most stringent rules around

Free healthcare is socialism and theft and arguably slavery. You're not entitled to someone else's labor

this is such a one-track line of thinking that I can only assume you're memeing. presuming you're not, I don't think I could convince you either way, so I'll bow out

Typical socialist, wanting free stuff and forcing me to provide it for you

memeing confirmed 😛

Not an argument

rape is morally justifiable if done on private property

prove me wrong

cadavers can't consent

prove me wrong

Consent is the basis for civilization. If consent is denied, rape is wrong, even on private property. This is also why socialism is wrong

you mean there's a *social contract*

and so the individual *cannot come first*

they consent to forfeit their rights when they step foot on private property

<:pepe_smile:378719407977005068>

Social contract is consent by individuals

so the collective wants to imprison you for what they decided was a crime, and you disagree and do not consent

and it doesn't violate your rights

?

People consent to the legal structure at the start

no you don't

try to live outside of society

and see if it doesn't constitute an offence

try to - say - take possession of property. what if the collective don't consent? you have no property

otherwise what you do in taking property is an offence against an individual, or society

you have no rights unless the collective *allow* you to have those rights

the social contract is imposed upon you

Uh yeah obviously the collective oppressed people. That's why I'm against all forms of collectivism, including socialism and socialized healthcare

what I'm saying is that not living in a collective is not an option

you can be as opposed as you like, your rights are contingent upon the consent of the collective

in whatever type of society

Not in a libertarian society where everyone consents to the law (for children implied consent until they can make their own choices) if you don't consent you can leave

pahaha

*leave*

ok, so let's say you have a libertarian society where it's determined everyone gets their own slice of land except you, and everyone agrees to the way it's divided up (except you, obviously)

where do you go?

you have nowhere to go *to*

you can try and take some land for yourself

but then that's an offence agains the collective, or an idividual

how do you justify an offence against an individual?

The libertarian society would support private property

Through hard hard you could purchase land

so you're suggesting the collective would organise society in such a way that the individual comes first...

...then there is no collective

or there is no individual

it's a paradox

the collective is still determining the right sof the individual in this situation

it's not a contract you can bow out of

A collective is a philosophical concept. What matters is not giving such a concept legal power to oppress individuals in such a matter that can't be justified by consent from the start

that feels like you'tre changing the goalposts somewhat. my point was that you have no choice but to live in a collective

you can have degrees of individualism/collectivism

giving birth is immmoral and ultimately colllectivist. A baby can't consent to being born, yet he is forced into the world. Reproduction is many times worse than the holocaust but no one bats an eye when hundreds of millions of babies a violently birthed into the world every year.

This ^

An unborn child can neither consent nor refuse to consent so his consent is withheld. If he eventually revokes consent, he should kill himself

is really straying from the topic and is complete crap

saying such a thing is just stupid and you are not taking there discussion seriously

The point is that the individual has certain rights on their property that ensures their saftey from people who wish harm (burgulars and such). However, the collective have a right to be safe as well so they impose some laws that may infringe on peoples indivdualality. THIS is why rape is bad and why growing weed is okay.; weed does little harm and so can be grown on ones property because the collective say so.

I personally believe that john was meaningfully contributing to the discussion by invoking the collectivist implications of reproduction.

NO rape is bad because it violates CONSENT of the INDIVIDUAL.

The individual is what's real. What acts and feels and decides. The collective only exists as a philosophical concept

yet how do people then live in a soicety.

Only the ladder is real

yeah a society isn't a tangible object, either

and yet...

A society can be reduced to the level of cooperating (or not cooperating in the case of socialist societies) individuals.

When you try to give power to collectivist entities you're really just giving power to certain individuals. Concepts such as the collectivist arise because they help us understand the world around us. But people are inclined to get confused, believing that the collective exists independent of the individual and is entitled to its own rights and powers

Lets just come down for a sec. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6FSh11QPlc

catholics love the collective

Boomer: I HEAR YOURE A RACIST NOW FATHER

Me:

that is why they do not believe in contraception

take father ted here

And Catholics also love smashing alterboi rectums

a totally terrible thing

can an anus consent independently of the consciousness of the mind?

the anus is nothing withou the collective body and SHAFT

whose the black sex machine SHAFT

black sex machine can be interpreted as all black people thereby being a collective

even though there are indivduals (SHAFT) they make up a whole body (sex machines)

silence speaks volumes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zkL91LzCMc

The collective may be 'created' as you say but it exists becasue people act like one.

Another example from the ever on top of Father Ted

He offends Asians, which then results in all asians on the island taking offence. Therby acting as a collective and being imune to what a lite joke, also showing that collectives can have similar traits like being humourless unless and the 'whites' expence (see bar scene in same episode)

It's still individuals taking offense. It's also not that irrational if ted is insulting traits that they all share or denigrating all people who belong to that group

"A society can be reduced to the level of cooperating (or not cooperating in the case of socialist societies) individuals."

so if a group of cooperating individuals choose to suspend the rights of a non-cooperating individual...? 🤔

FUCK GOOKS KILL ALL CHINKI NIP SCUM

Do you mean gooks as a collective?

dont be ridiculous

individual gooks act as members of a greater hivemind

similar to Jesus's role in the holy trinity

In the same way insulting Christ is personally offensive to the holy spirit, insulting gooks is offensive to the chink hivemind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGXx56WqqJw

Individuals become collective take this scene from monty python French v English

There's no great confusion there. You just don't have a high enough iq to understand. There's nothing inconsistent with individualism about punishing individuals who violate a shared agreement among individuals to obey certain rules or face certain consequences

Individuals make up collectives and so in ways that have been blinded to me you seem to have a point John

Explaining using Gooks makes it understandable

I suppose their hive mind while maybe a collective it then demands them to act as indivduals and take over the media and large businesses

I am sorry for wasting your time discussing such an ignorant person as I was.

Now I will examine gooks acts on their on merits and not leep to blame them all for acts of some

woke ^

John is woke af on the gook question

maybe your IQ is too high for you to realise my original point still stands that you have no choice but to live in a collective

and can maybe renegotiate the terms of your social contract, but the contract is imposed upon you

That's like saying the grass is green. It's not an argument for socialist policies

oh but it is

how do you distribute land such that everyone has the opportunity to own a home

for example

you can't have indefinite property ownership

you can't own land as a corpse

you have a right to 50 years burial in the UK

you pay council tax for a right to stay on your land

you pay capital gains tax

understanding there are limits at which point putting your rights before those of everyone else becomes a problem is just being realistic

understanding there are hierarchies of rights is being realistic

although that wasn't the original point now, was it

you said:
"People consent to the legal structure at the start"
"Uh yeah obviously the collective oppressed people. That's why I'm against all forms of collectivism, including socialism and socialized healthcare"
"Not in a libertarian society where everyone consents to the law (for children implied consent until they can make their own choices) if you don't consent you can leave"
and my point has been, and will remain to be:
"you don't get a choice"

Why are you against socialized healthcare?

Isn't it better to pay slightly more taxes for healthcare than to pay for private healthcare?

>slightly more
Where the hell do you live

The US

Over here if you don't have Medicare or Medicaid you will 100% for sure go into debt if you go to the hospital

Unless you make tons of money

"slightly more"
for you

wut

I don’t have to foot the bill so it’s free

100 go into debt

<:knowdeway:400439075703881731>

What do you mean slightly more for me?

tfw you paid 30,000 dollars in taxes

I think "providing healthcare" should fall into the "government needs ensure people can live" thing.

You’re going to pay slightly more for jackshit

It does in pretty much everywhere except the US, DKO

where does it say that is the job of the gov

The problem is, government-run healthcare system tends to go to shit.

Unless you're an anarchist, what do you think the role of the government should be?

protecting negative rights

To make war and conquer right neocon?

that are laid out by our constitution

Should the government ensure the population isn't being poisoned?

wut

does

that

have

to

do

with

anything

Keep your panties on, faggot.

Should the government ensure the population isn't exposed to diseases due to bad sanitation?

Is sanitation a public issue that the government should handle?

I have already said what the gov should do

Okay, don't engage then.

and there are private sanitation companies

Sick people should make the money and pay for their treatment if they want to get better, right?

Times like this I miss a popcorn emoji

yes

im glad we agree

I really like the idea of negative income tax

As a form of welfare, I mean

Gibs

Not just in general for everyone

The bottom line: out of 171.3 million tax units this year, 77.5 million—or 45.3 percent—won't pay income tax. In contrast, our last estimate had 66.2 million of 163.8 million tax units not paying tax this year.

really great idea

How likely is that a poor person will get sick? How likely the poor person can pay for health services? Do you want poor people to just die off?

Because muh government wont help

people will die

What does that statistic have to do with negative income tax as a form of welfare

Us will never have a free healthcare system.

What should be done instead is a form to make the prices a bit better.

Or In cases of serious treatment, the government should either pay a part or pay the whole thing

You're just deflecting, so I'm assuming you know you're wrong, you're just trying to joke about it.

"some people don't pay taxes, therefore neg. income tax as a form of welfare is bad"

that is a dumb assumtion

i am in VC