Capitalism Exploits Us

Ah, so that's why you're in favour of allowing abortions? Makes sense.

 

That doesn't follow. I can be (and am) against abortion. What I said in the post you quoted means you can't be compelled to defend the life of an unborn person.

 

In other words, abortion is 100% fine according to the constitution, and it would be absolutely illegal to do anything to restrict it. Good to know.

 

What about the right to die from hunger and exposure to the elements?

 

No. An unborn child's right to life is not abrogated because another person isn't compelled to prevent an abortion. These are two completely unrelated things. Abortion infringes the right to life of the child. Compelling you to interfere with an abortion would infringe your freedom.

In my earlier example, the fact that you're not compelled to run into an alley to protect me from a mugger doesn't mean the mugger isn't committing a crime. Theft and assault (mugging) is a crime regardless even though you're not required to come to the aid of a victim of that crime.

 

No no no, you've got to make up your mind. You said, and I quote; "I have a right to defend myself and I have a right to feed myself but those rights can't compel someone else to defend me or feed me".

So, the right to life doesn't give one the right to be fed at the expense of anyone else. That's obviously your motivation for not giving a crap about starvation. But now you're saying that unborn fetuses(I know, using that word will piss off Trump) are allowed to live entirely at the expense of a human being?

Make up your mind.

 

There is no comparison between your obligation to a random person on the street and the obligation inherent in the parent child relationship. A person does not have an obligation to protect and defend others in general but they do have a parental obligation to protect and defend their child and his/her rights. Similar to inviting a guest to take a ride in your car. You can't decide at speed that the guest is now a trespasser to be ejected from the moving vehicle. You have an obligation as the host of your guest to protect them from harm and do no harm to them yourself. If you conceive a child voluntarily, you have an obligation to that child to protect them and do them no harm. In the case of a child conceived involuntarily, the child is an unwanted guest inflicted on the mother by the rapist. Since the child is blameless, the offender should be held liable for all damages and costs associated with his crime, including inflicting a debilitating 9 month injury on the mother, but the child should not be harmed.

 

Except talking about children is irrelevant, since they are not the issue. The issue is about undeveloped fetuses, not children.

 

How exactly should the offender be held liable while also preserving the life which has yet to actually be a child? Is the mother now obligated to carry a child in her womb for 9 months? A child she did not want nor planned for? I understand the moral dimension of 'pro-life' advocates but situations are different. A woman can become pregnant even while taking every precaution to not become pregnant. Shouldn't it be the choice of the actual would be parents whether or not they want to bring up a child into the world?

 

Holding an offender accountable in my opinion would be something like putting them in debtors prison until they pay the debt set by the court for his offense. Of course in such cases the victim may never be made whole but giving the life's production of the offender to the victim is probably the best that can be achieved. As to "has yet to actually be a child", perhaps you can enlighten me. When, in its development, does the child become a child and not a tumor? At conception it has a unique set of dna and its own blood type. Left alone, undisturbed in the womb it becomes a human at some point. That development that begins at conception doesn't end until adulthood. If the zygote isn't a human being, is the 2 year old?

Yes, just as the victim of an attack must bear the wounds until they can be healed, so the child is an imposition that must be healed, hopefully without creating another victim. A women will not become pregnant if she takes every precaution. Not having sex is an option that is successful every time its used. That is the point of choice, you have sex and take the consequences. In some cases the consequence is a child, which should have the same rights as any other individual including the right to life. If a person makes the choice to take the risk of pregnancy by having sex and ends up with a child, they have in fact, chosen to create a life. After the child can be sustained independent of the mother other choices can be made such as keeping the child or giving it up for adoption.

 

The issue of abortion is about when in the gestation process the baby becomes a human being. At conception the child has its own blood type and unique dna. From the moment of conception until adulthood the child continues to develop. Is the child sufficiently human at 3 weeks gestation, 3 months gestation, 3 years after being born that you wouldn't condone killing it? Its still a parasite unable to survive or fend for itself until many years after its born. Maybe the test that grants individual rights should be, "can the thing tie its own shoes?".

But this thread is about capitalism, not abortion so lets not derail it further.

 

Capitalism does not exploit us. Time you spend working is not time wasted for an employers benefit. Your labor is negotiated and mutually beneficial between you and your employer. If capitalism did not exist in your life, who is responsible for your well being? Everybody has to work or have somebody to work for them.(parents for example). The more you are educated and prepared to be productive, the better off you will be. That will minimize the time you must work for others, unless you want to work more to get more stuff or have more children to support. Capitalism gives us choices.

 

An offender is already held accountable if caught. You can throw him in debtors prison but, if he's in jail and not making any money, how useful is he in providing for the kid?...

The difference between a zygote and a 2 year old is that a 2 year old is self-aware, self-conscious being that feels pain. Zygote on the other hand is not. No more than an embryo or a sperm cell.

This is like saying communism will work very well if only a people will stop being self-centered beings and put everything and everyone around them above themselves. Dealing with reality I'd think would solve more problems than trying to change reality. 'Don't have sex' is a nice piece of advice but it's not reality. Imagine a 12 year old getting pregnant because she was young and simply didn't know any better. Instead of giving her options, you want to burden her with things she's simply not ready to tackle.

There is a big difference between actually killing a child and preventing one from ever existing. Given what I assume, your conservative views, I'd think you'd be against something like regulating sex, a person's choice whether or not be a parent, etc... I understand the moral dimensions in your view that it's simply killing a child however, where we differ is that I don't view a fetus as a child until it actually is a child.

 

Holding a person accountable by merely incarcerating them does nothing for the victim. Debtors prison historically allowed a person to leave prison to do his job so that he could pay his debts. With the range of jobs (telemarketing, product support, etc.) that can be done remotely today, there is no reason a prisoner couldn't draw a paycheck without necessarily leaving his cell.

The difference between a sperm cell and a zygote (or embryo) is that a sperm cell will not develop into anything else unless it fertilizes an egg, while a zygote will develop into a two year old if left undisturbed. If the test of whether its okay to kill an individual is that they are unconscious, un-self-aware and don't feel pain, all that would be necessary to kill anyone is that they first be sufficiently sedated.

Reality is that if someone has sex they may become pregnant. People should be held accountable for their actions. I'm not saying that anyone shouldn't have sex but I am saying that if they have sex they should be prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If a girl is too young to have children she shouldn't be doing the thing that will create a child.

That is the relevant issue. My position isn't moralistic, its individualistic. I am against regulating sex and a person's choices about parenthood however, the choice of parenthood isn't made after the child is conceived, its made when a person chooses to engage in the activity that creates the child. If there isn't a developmental change that happens between conception and birth that imbues the zygote with humanity and therefore human rights it must be the original change where a sperm cell and egg are transformed into an unique and discrete individual with its own unique dna and bloodtype.

 

"And in that relationship [employer/employee] lies a fundamental conflict, tension, anger, resentment. Why? Because some people are doing all the work, and producing more than they get, a more that we nowadays call 'the surplus'."

Employees aren't doing all the work. That's the error in the argument presented in the video.

 

Employees are not taking any risks as well.

 

Correct. That is one part of the work they are not doing.

 

Ah, so there you are objecting to statism, not capitalism. I agree with you.