Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[The Founding Fatherland]

No, because murder is a universal crime. Abortion, however, is only and should only be a crime in the eyes of God. The state can only benefit from abortion in order to prevent the birth of unwanted children who will likely be abused or abandoned, as well as controlling population growth. I may be a Christian, but I'm also a fascist and a supporter of the Separation of Church and State.

Abortion is murder. They aren't different acts.

Murder is the taking of an innocent life without provocation, and as such requires the "victim" to be alive first. Through the miracles of science we have determined when exactly an unborn child is in fact alive. As such, abortion during or after said point is murder, yes.

But not before.

[Genivaria]

So, should a woman be able to abandon her child to die?

If we were talking about a woman abandoned on some primitive island somewhere, or handing off the child to an orphanage in a country with a high infant mortality rate? Yes. If we're talking about a woman who would have to go through a great deal of trouble to find a way to abandon a child in such a way that it will die rather than be picked up by the community or modern social services? No.

Also I should point something out that just occured to me.
There have been times in different societies where families would abandon either their children or old folk in the wilderness to have less mouths to feed and this was considered sad but acceptable by the society.

The main example I can think of is that creepy forest in Japan whose name escapes me.
Aokigahara that's it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Killing a Siamese twin because their sibling doesn't like them is inherently cold and barbaric. It's taking individualism way too damn far. One doesn't have to be the complete antithesis of a Communist in order to be anti-Communist.

And chaining someone to a human being they have no obligation to isn't cold and barbaric? If my solution is murder, your's is slavery.

All humans have obligation to all other humans.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Abortion is murder. They aren't different acts.

Murder is the taking of an innocent life without provocation, and as such requires the "victim" to be alive first. Through the miracles of science we have determined when exactly an unborn child is in fact alive. As such, abortion during or after said point is murder, yes.

But not before.

In that case, you're just outright rejecting the teachings of the Church, and should go to confession.

[Conserative Morality]

I mean, if she won't take care of it, even in modern society, it will die. Should she be able to kill it or allow it to die for using her resources?

In modern society, if there was such a situation where, say, the child needed her and her specifically for some weird genetically fucked up reason, she should be allowed to refuse and let it die, yes. Killing in such a manner is only acceptable if done humanely and after other options are exhausted.

[Hakons]

If we were talking about a woman abandoned on some primitive island somewhere, or handing off the child to an orphanage in a country with a high infant mortality rate? Yes.

This is completely despicable. You can't abandon a child because it's convenient. This is murder, pure and simple.

[Genivaria]

....?
I was making a distinction between a part of a person's body and another person.
What are you talking about?

The mother is only legally responsible to help her child. Perhaps you implied morally as well.

I also base the scenario on the assumption that whoever is caring for the child actively chose to take responsibility.
Of course in the real world we know that there are plenty of adults who find themselves with that responsibility with no desire or ability for it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I mean, if she won't take care of it, even in modern society, it will die. Should she be able to kill it or allow it to die for using her resources?

In modern society, if there was such a situation where, say, the child needed her and her specifically for some weird genetically fucked up reason, she should be allowed to refuse and let it die, yes. Killing in such a manner is only acceptable if done humanely and after other options are exhausted.

The most depraved and disgusting answer I could expect. You truly are the epitome of degenerate individualism. I can only hope that your beliefs and those like yours will be crushed by Christ's heel along with your master.

[Genivaria]

If we were talking about a woman abandoned on some primitive island somewhere, or handing off the child to an orphanage in a country with a high infant mortality rate? Yes.

This is completely despicable. You can't abandon a child because it's convenient. This is murder, pure and simple.

If it is inconvenient for them to have the child it begs the question why they even have the child.

[Conserative Morality]

This is completely despicable. You can't abandon a child because it's convenient. This is murder, pure and simple.

I can abandon you because it's convenient. Why can't I abandon someone else?

[Hakons]

This is why people say morality is in danger without religion.

[Sanctissima]

Killing a Siamese twin because their sibling doesn't like them is inherently cold and barbaric. It's taking individualism way too damn far. One doesn't have to be the complete antithesis of a Communist in order to be anti-Communist.

And chaining someone to a human being they have no obligation to isn't cold and barbaric? If my solution is murder, your's is slavery.

It's not really chaining someone if they are already chained at birth.

I gotta say CM, it's amusing to observe your evolution into a liberal Ayn Rand.

[Conserative Morality]

The most depraved and disgusting answer I could expect. You truly are the epitome of degenerate individualism. I can only hope that your beliefs and those like yours will be crushed by Christ's heel along with your master.

Hope will get you nowhere. There are three strains of thought in the modern day, and none of them are the kind of communal theocracy you crave. If all you do is hope, all that's going to happen is failure.

[Hakons]

This is completely despicable. You can't abandon a child because it's convenient. This is murder, pure and simple.

I can abandon you because it's convenient. Why can't I abandon someone else?

Gee, I don't know, because it will kill them?

[United Muscovite Nations]

The most depraved and disgusting answer I could expect. You truly are the epitome of degenerate individualism. I can only hope that your beliefs and those like yours will be crushed by Christ's heel along with your master.

Hope will get you nowhere. There are three strains of thought in the modern day, and none of them are the kind of communal theocracy you crave. If all you do is hope, all that's going to happen is failure.

Then we must also use force. We must purge the evil from among us.

[The Founding Fatherland]

Murder is the taking of an innocent life without provocation, and as such requires the "victim" to be alive first. Through the miracles of science we have determined when exactly an unborn child is in fact alive. As such, abortion during or after said point is murder, yes.

But not before.

In that case, you're just outright rejecting the teachings of the Church, and should go to confession.

If the teachings are wrong, then they should be rejected. I will not accept anything blindly simply because the Church said it. While I respect the authority of the Church, they aren't always right.

[Conserative Morality]

It's not really chaining someone if they are already chained at birth.

By whom? Who makes the chains? Who decides to chain them? The 'already chained' argument presumes a pre-existing obligation.

I gotta say CM, it's amusing to observe your evolution into a liberal Ayn Rand.

I'm pretty sure I've had this same conversation as far back as '12. It's not an evolution of my views.

[Hakons]

CM, I thought you were a respectable liberal. That perception has completely eroded.

[Conserative Morality]

Gee, I don't know, because it will kill them?

So you are an advocate of forcing people to care for others if their lives depend on it?

[United Muscovite Nations]

In that case, you're just outright rejecting the teachings of the Church, and should go to confession.

If the teachings are wrong, then they should be rejected. I will not accept anything blindly simply because the Church said it. While I respect the authority of the Church, they aren't always right.

By definition, the Church is always right. We do believe in the infallibility of the Church.

[Conserative Morality]

Then we must also use force. We must purge the evil from among us.

Unless Christ is going to make you bulletproof a la the Boxer Rebellion, I think you're going to need more than force.

[United Muscovite Nations]

CM, I thought you were a respectable liberal. That perception has completely eroded.

NOW do you see why I think nihilist literature should be banned and its advocates imprisoned?

[Conserative Morality]

CM, I thought you were a respectable liberal. That perception has completely eroded.

For saying that people do not automatically have an obligation to give up their lives for the sake of others?

If I took the other position, I wouldn't be much of a liberal. Just about everyone here would be guilty of violating that obligation.

[Genivaria]

I can abandon you because it's convenient. Why can't I abandon someone else?

Gee, I don't know, because it will kill them?

If me cutting your rope line will save my life and there's no chance to save us both then I'm cutting the rope.
I might agonize over, freak out afterwards over what I did, but I'm still cutting the rope.
Sorry.

[Hakons]

Gee, I don't know, because it will kill them?

So you are an advocate of forcing people to care for others if their lives depend on it?

I'm an advocate for not tossing a baby into the woods because it's convenient, yes.