Quite so. Now Max would have to show a contract between the extant (the woman) and the not-yet-extant (the as-yet-unfertilized egg/fertilized egg). Max refuses to show it. He just cries “responsibility”–as if that will solve all his problems. It won’t.
Don’t care, not relevant, etc.
A free society does not require your preferences to be forced upon them to resist child murder and/or molestation.
Please stop pretending to be a benevolent vanguard for us idiotic masses that seem to be too evil & wicked to follow in the footsteps of your holy conception of the “free-society”.
The State does not prevent people from being moral as individuals, nor does it make people moral as individuals (possibly because while the the state is also coercive, it is also a rather utilitarian institute, of which no matter who is in power, the state is always rationalized to exist on the basis of majority consent & serving the majority to ensure the greatest amount of overall perceived & subjective satisfaction).
Your justifications, which sound more and more like reactionary conservatism, that if people don’t follow your version of a “free society”, become sillier with each of your posts.
You’re just angry not everyone is going to immediately agree with your preferences, & somehow think it is justified in forcing your preferences upon others, & then rationalizing that this is logically required for a “free society”.
The “morality of humans” will not collapse in a stateless society, & you keep insisting that without your noble preferences being followed, all morality will somehow cease. This is nonsensical scare tactics to get others to agree with you.
Don’t forget to reach for your gun if someone tells you to piss off.
No, but an extensive argument based upon subjective views & preferences rationalized by an underlying naturalistic fallacy seems pretty obtuse.
What is your definition of the “free-society”, btw? It doesn’t sound very free to me, or are you still working out the bugs in your rhetoric?
Then it is not coercion. Just a really crappy friend.
Can you invite someone on your boat and in the middle of the ocean ask them to leave?
Now prove that the woman invited the as-yet-then-not-extant fetus.
Invitro fertilization would seem to be a specific example where a woman clearly is inviting implantation.
Pleasure is the side effect. The basic biolgical instinct is to reproduce. It occurs in all creatures regardless of whether there is pleasure involved.
Do you have a number to back that up? Most religions disapprove of abortion, most of the world is religious.
And if given a free society without your state protections it would go back to being an obscure procedure done in back alleys.
That’s the problem isn’t it, you don’t know until you are already on it.
What contract is that? Is the boat owner a slave and not able to control their own actions?
I am not angry about it. I have already conceded we will not agree and that the only resolution of the matter will have to be with violence. Does the notion that in a free society that there will be violent conflict over issues like this surprise you? Some issues like child murder and child molestation are going to spark violence. We just differ on whose side we will be on. I am not striving for some universal agreement on everything like you are.
I am not saying morality will collapse. The exact opposite as a matter of fact.
Yes, to argue reproductive organs are for reproducing is obtuse, your right.
Better yet what is your defintiion of a free society? I strongly suspect it is an impossibility. As for me, I already live in a free society.
That’s the problem MaxLiberty with your stance. You revert to violence - your actions are coercive. That’s not liberty. Thus, I think your advocacy is wrong.
my suggestion then is to choose your friends wisely.
Let’s assume for the moment that you’re correct. Are you really trying argumentum ad numeram?
Prove it.
By the way, in the little and deranged world of MaxSlavery, free-trade would be banned as well. At least free trade in goods like the morning-after pill and similar drugs.
From my perspective, I am defending innocent people from being murdered. It is you who initiate the violence, I simply react to it. You want to kill babies, be prepared for the consequences.
So where does that leave us? There is no middle ground.
Good suggestion, but that shows the flaw in your view of freedom and supports my position more than it does yours. You can recognize it’s wrong but don’t want to admit it.
In a free society, like you envision, you had better be willing to accept the consequences of your baby killing because the state won’t be there to protect you. What you don’t want to accept is that there can be no agreement on the issue. It can’t be resolved by discourse. It can’t be proven because we can not agree on the underlying assumptions for humanity.
nah. The mother didn’t kill the baby. Nature did.
no flaw. Choose your friends wisely. It’s quite simple.
Nobody advocates baby killing. Fetuses are not babies. Stop lying.
No, that’s the lie you tell yourself so you can feel better about treating women like chattel.
I notice that you’ve stopped responding to me. That’s ok, Max: everyone knows that you have nothing to offer anyway. So less of nothing is better.