Abortion and Welfare

[Zoharland]

A lot of people in the abortion thread have said that no person should be forced to support another human being (or fetus, whatever.)

Well, isn't welfare just that? You are forced to pay a tax that is given to another human being so they and their ilk can continue to survive.

Basically you are forced to support another human being and help keep them alive, even if you don't want to. Isn't this wrong?

[Bottle]

This is a new and original line of argument.

[Fartsniffage]

You are not forced to support others, you have the options of leaving the nation or working to change the system politically.

By staying you are choosing to support others.

[Rhodmhire]

There isn't enough force in the known/unknown universe to make me be kind towards others if I don't please.

People tend to learn that very fast.

Therefore, your argument is obsolete.

[Czardas]

A lot of people in the abortion thread have said that no person should be forced to support another human being (or fetus, whatever.)

Well, isn't welfare just that? You are forced to pay a tax that is given to another human being so they and their ilk can continue to survive.

Basically you are forced to support another human being and help keep them alive, even if you don't want to. Isn't this wrong?

We had a thread on this exact topic about a month ago, I think. Someone made the exact same comparison, and some other people explained in great detail exactly why the argument was wrong.

Thus, rather than posting on NSG, I'd recommend seeking out that thread so you can read all of the counter-arguments without us having to post them here again.

[Xsyne]

I never knew the dollar was an organ.

[Rhodmhire]

A lot of people in the abortion thread have said that no person should be forced to support another human being (or fetus, whatever.)

Well, isn't welfare just that? You are forced to pay a tax that is given to another human being so they and their ilk can continue to survive.

Basically you are forced to support another human being and help keep them alive, even if you don't want to. Isn't this wrong?

We had a thread on this exact topic about a month ago, I think. Someone made the exact same comparison, and some other people explained in great detail exactly why the argument was wrong.

Thus, rather than posting on NSG, I'd recommend seeking out that thread so you can read all of the counter-arguments without us having to post them here again.

OMG!! LAZI! LAZII!!

LAZY FATTIE! NO WELFARE 4 U!!!

NO WELFARE 4 U!!

My MONiE! MINE!!!!

Sorry, I'm in a mood today.

[Tech-gnosis]

So those who are against abortion should be be advocates of a generous welfare state?

[Rhodmhire]

So those who against abortion should be be advocates of a generous welfare state?

Since those who are pro choice tend to be more left leaning, from what I've witnessed, I'm going to say it's usually just the way it works.

But you don't necessarily have to be both, I'm sure there's some way to support/advocate one and dislike/lack tolerance of the other.

[Zoharland]

You are not forced to support others, you have the options of leaving the nation or working to change the system politically.

By staying you are choosing to support others.

I know that.

But is it morally right to force someone to give up their possesions or parts of themselves for the benefit of another? I mean, whether its something like abortion, welfare, or compulsory organ donation is it really right to force someone to do something for the benefit of someone else?

If it isn't right for someone to be forced to share their body and its fruits with another living being (one that they brought into the world, even if they didn't mean to) so that that other can survive why should I be forced to give the fruits of my labor to another human being so that they can survive?

[Birminghamia]

We can also relate this to breathing.

Since you are breathing oxygen made primarily by plants, and (eventually) all of the oxygen would convert to carbon without plants, I can terminate your life on behalf of a blade of grass in Central Park, because you are dependent on the blade of grass (for all we know).

Makes perfect sense.

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

We can also relate this to breathing.

Since you are breathing oxygen made primarily by plants, and (eventually) all of the oxygen would convert to carbon without plants, I can terminate your life on behalf of a blade of grass in Central Park, because you are dependent on the blade of grass (for all we know).

Makes perfect sense.

Not really.

[Zoharland]

We can also relate this to breathing.

Since you are breathing oxygen made primarily by plants, and (eventually) all of the oxygen would convert to carbon without plants, I can terminate your life on behalf of a blade of grass in Central Park, because you are dependent on the blade of grass (for all we know).

Makes perfect sense.

Are you really comparing a blade of grass to a human being?

[Czardas]

You are not forced to support others, you have the options of leaving the nation or working to change the system politically.

By staying you are choosing to support others.

I know that.

But is it morally right to force someone to give up their possesions or parts of themselves for the benefit of another? I mean, whether its something like abortion, welfare, or compulsory organ donation is it really right to force someone to do something for the benefit of someone else?

If it isn't right for someone to be forced to share their body and its fruits with another living being (one that they brought into the world, even if they didn't mean to) so that that other can survive why should I be forced to give the fruits of my labor to another human being so that they can survive?

The argument in favour of abortion is based around property rights. In short, others cannot use your property without your consent, whether they are burglars or unborn babies.

Libertarians who are pro-choice will agree that welfare is just as much of a violation.
Left-wingers who are pro-choice will claim that you can withdraw your consent to provide mandatory welfare by moving to another country, the same way that you can withdraw your consent to provide mandatory pregnancy by aborting.
I who am pro-choice will claim that it's a social requirement to provide welfare, since almost all of society agrees that you have to, while it's not a social requirement to carry a pregnancy to term, since almost all of society agrees that you don't have to if you don't want to.

That about summarizes the rest of the thread for the next 20 pages.

[Tech-gnosis]

But is it morally right to force someone to give up their possesions or parts of themselves for the benefit of another? I mean, whether its something like abortion, welfare, or compulsory organ donation is it really right to force someone to do something for the benefit of someone else?

If it isn't right for someone to be forced to share their body and its fruits with another living being (one that they brought into the world, even if they didn't mean to) so that that other can survive why should I be forced to give the fruits of my labor to another human being so that they can survive?

You haven't answered my question. Your argument can be reversed so that any who oppose abortion should be an advocate of spending on welfare payments? Do you agree?

[Zoharland]

But is it morally right to force someone to give up their possesions or parts of themselves for the benefit of another? I mean, whether its something like abortion, welfare, or compulsory organ donation is it really right to force someone to do something for the benefit of someone else?

If it isn't right for someone to be forced to share their body and its fruits with another living being (one that they brought into the world, even if they didn't mean to) so that that other can survive why should I be forced to give the fruits of my labor to another human being so that they can survive?

You haven't answered my question. Your argument can be reversed so that any who oppose abortion should be an advocate of spending on welfare payments? Do you agree?

Yes. Luckily, I don't oppose abortion.

So why should I be forced to give away parts of my body or my labor for another? Especially seeing as a mother is supposedly not required to give up her body for another?

[Grays Harbor]

You are not forced to support others, you have the options of leaving the nation or working to change the system politically.

By staying you are choosing to support others.

the OP argument was rather wrong, but the argument of "if you don't like it, then move to another country" is equally wrong.

[Czardas]

You are not forced to support others, you have the options of leaving the nation or working to change the system politically.

By staying you are choosing to support others.

the OP argument was rather wrong, but the argument of "if you don't like it, then move to another country" is equally wrong.

Yeah? Well, you're wrong!

[Zoharland]

You are not forced to support others, you have the options of leaving the nation or working to change the system politically.

By staying you are choosing to support others.

I know that.

But is it morally right to force someone to give up their possesions or parts of themselves for the benefit of another? I mean, whether its something like abortion, welfare, or compulsory organ donation is it really right to force someone to do something for the benefit of someone else?

If it isn't right for someone to be forced to share their body and its fruits with another living being (one that they brought into the world, even if they didn't mean to) so that that other can survive why should I be forced to give the fruits of my labor to another human being so that they can survive?

The argument in favour of abortion is based around property rights. In short, others cannot use your property without your consent, whether they are burglars or unborn babies.

Libertarians who are pro-choice will agree that welfare is just as much of a violation.
Left-wingers who are pro-choice will claim that you can withdraw your consent to provide mandatory welfare by moving to another country, the same way that you can withdraw your consent to provide mandatory pregnancy by aborting.
I who am pro-choice will claim that it's a social requirement to provide welfare, since almost all of society agrees that you have to, while it's not a social requirement to carry a pregnancy to term, since almost all of society agrees that you don't have to if you don't want to.

That about summarizes the rest of the thread for the next 20 pages.

How does most all societies agreeing to something make it morally right? At one time most societies agreed that slavery was okay. Is that right?

[Zoharland]

You are not forced to support others, you have the options of leaving the nation or working to change the system politically.

By staying you are choosing to support others.

the OP argument was rather wrong, but the argument of "if you don't like it, then move to another country" is equally wrong.

How so?

Why should anyone be forced to do anything for another human being? That includes having a kid or supporting another through welfare. How is my thinking that you shouldn't be forced to help another wrong?

[Fartsniffage]

You are not forced to support others, you have the options of leaving the nation or working to change the system politically.

By staying you are choosing to support others.

the OP argument was rather wrong, but the argument of "if you don't like it, then move to another country" is equally wrong.

That wasn't my argument and if you'd read my post you would have realised that instead of knee-jerking.

[Zoharland]

You are not forced to support others, you have the options of leaving the nation or working to change the system politically.

By staying you are choosing to support others.

I know that.

But is it morally right to force someone to give up their possesions or parts of themselves for the benefit of another? I mean, whether its something like abortion, welfare, or compulsory organ donation is it really right to force someone to do something for the benefit of someone else?

If it isn't right for someone to be forced to share their body and its fruits with another living being (one that they brought into the world, even if they didn't mean to) so that that other can survive why should I be forced to give the fruits of my labor to another human being so that they can survive?

The argument in favour of abortion is based around property rights. In short, others cannot use your property without your consent, whether they are burglars or unborn babies.

Libertarians who are pro-choice will agree that welfare is just as much of a violation.
Left-wingers who are pro-choice will claim that you can withdraw your consent to provide mandatory welfare by moving to another country, the same way that you can withdraw your consent to provide mandatory pregnancy by aborting.
I who am pro-choice will claim that it's a social requirement to provide welfare, since almost all of society agrees that you have to, while it's not a social requirement to carry a pregnancy to term, since almost all of society agrees that you don't have to if you don't want to.

That about summarizes the rest of the thread for the next 20 pages.

And furthermore, why should I have to leave my home because society has the wrong idea about what charity is?

Lets say hypothetically that somehow, some sort of Nazi party was elected to power in the US. Is the only option I have really just to leave the country, or do I have the right to oppose them?

And if the majority of said society supports the ideals and platforms upon which this party is elected, and the actions that they carry out, does that make those ideals and actions morally right?

[Ashmoria]

A lot of people in the abortion thread have said that no person should be forced to support another human being (or fetus, whatever.)

Well, isn't welfare just that? You are forced to pay a tax that is given to another human being so they and their ilk can continue to survive.

Basically you are forced to support another human being and help keep them alive, even if you don't want to. Isn't this wrong?

if you were being forced to support a stranger, it would be kinda wrong.

the government supporting citizens--not so wrong.

[Zoharland]

A lot of people in the abortion thread have said that no person should be forced to support another human being (or fetus, whatever.)

Well, isn't welfare just that? You are forced to pay a tax that is given to another human being so they and their ilk can continue to survive.

Basically you are forced to support another human being and help keep them alive, even if you don't want to. Isn't this wrong?

if you were being forced to support a stranger, it would be kinda wrong.

the government supporting citizens--not so wrong.

So I personally know every citizen in the United States?

And if I don't, doesn't that make them strangers?

And its okay to be forced to do something (say give up your house) to someone else as long as you know them?

[Czardas]

How does most all societies agreeing to something make it morally right? At one time most societies agreed that slavery was okay. Is that right?

It was then. It's not now.

And furthermore, why should I have to leave my home because society has the wrong idea about what charity is?

Society is what lets you maintain your home. If there were no society, anyone could just take your home from you and face no legal repercussions. If you disagree with some aspects of your society, then, you can either work to change them or move to a different society.

Lets say hypothetically that somehow, some sort of Nazi party was elected to power in the US. Is the only option I have really just to leave the country, or do I have the right to oppose them?

I'm not talking about the state, mind, but if over 95% of the US agreed with Nazi ideals -- to the point where opposing Nazism would be widely considered immoral -- the only option you would have would be to leave the country, since convincing 280 million people or thereabouts to change their minds isn't easy.

This is a stupid hypothetical, though, since even the real Nazi party didn't have the support of the majority of society; it maintained its rule through fear, not through popular support.

And if the majority of said society supports the ideals and platforms upon which this party is elected, and the actions that they carry out, does that make those ideals and actions morally right?

Depends on the percentage of society.

I mean, if 97% of society decides killing people is wrong, the 3% who disagree become "immoral". If only 51% of society decides killing people is wrong and a sufficiently large minority (in this case 49%) disagrees, there's no clear consensus, so we can't make a statement on the morality of killing people one way or the other and instead have to think up logical (not ethical) arguments for or against it. Consensus ≠ majority, or even supermajority; consensus = majority view + time + indoctrination, more or less.