Hypocrisy on Abortion?

[EricHiggin]

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

One way or another someone dies. Either he snaps and kills her because she's a bit loony and drives him nuts, or he kills himself because he can't take it anymore and won't use other means to legitimately separate from her.

He's financially taking care of them both. Without his money, she requires another host. Whether it be another partner, a business, the state. On her own she is basically screwed, or ends up homeless, etc.

How is this much different than not wanting a fetus leeching off of you that cannot survive without you as it's host, or not wanting to have to go through giving birth and dealing with the aftermath even though other means are available?

The difference here is that... Those two actually entered into a social contract, that is what a marriage is.

However... There is also the option of divorce and both going their separate ways and potentially living happily ever after not at the expense of the other individual.

The fact is, your example cannot really be adhered to the abortion dilemma because they are fundamentally different... A fetus biologically requires the body of another to survive... Your example does not, it's just a thought experiment.

So two coming together to create another is not a contract and shouldn't be?

I explained he doesn't want to because he feels she is leeching off him financially and doesn't want to give her a penny more through divorce. Based on how I've described her she's not the type of woman to just up and leave with nothing. Much like the option to put the baby up for adoption after birth which some want nothing to do with.

How does the fetus live inside the host and how does the host survive and provide for that fetus? Nutrients? Which come from food? Which is purchased with money? Which is made by working? Etc.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

I'm comparing abortion to this hypothetical voluntary manslaughter case.

I'm asking is it a woman's fault for getting into the situation in the first place and becoming pregnant (non forced), as much as she doesn't want to be? Is it ok to terminate the fetus because this wasn't planned or expected to turn out this way, even though other options exist? Since her mind and body are also at risk, and it's her body to decide what to do with, should she be allowed to kill another to save herself from harm?

If it's ok because the fetus doesn't know or feel what's happening, then if the loony woman is knocked unconscious before she dies, does that change things and make it ok since she won't feel or know that her existence was ended?

The difference is... In this manslaughter case there are two adults, they don't require biological ties to survive, but rather financial and social ones... And neither individual has the rights to dictate the terms of the body of the other individual.
The fact that laws may be broken that may result in death is entirely redundant, that's just a side effect of the ordeal.

At the end of the day... Even if the fetus could feel, could understand what is happening... Is moot. They don't have full autonomous control over the mothers body and thus don't get the right to dictate the terms.

Now if a woman is unconscious, she is unable to provide consent, thus the decision will fall towards next of kin, which would likely be the partner or family member.
There has been instances where a woman has been rendered "dead" but clinically kept alive for the sake of an unborn child as the partner provided consent on her behalf.

You don't become an adult if you aren't given the chance to live that long. She requires a host to survive. Right now that host is her husband. If not him, she needs another person, or a job from a business that someone else runs, or hand outs from the state run by people. All biological hosts, mind you not as direct as a fetus. If she can't dictate what he does with his body then since he used it to beat her to death he shouldn't be held accountable? So do the laws themselves matter? If abortion were made illegal and people started breaking the rules you would agree they were wrong or would it be the law that's wrong? If some laws are wrong, why bother following any of them if you don't agree with them?

So since the wife can't control the husband, it's ok for him to beat her to death, since she's the reason he felt the need to do it?

Err on the side of caution then correct? That's what it boils down to? Why not give the male (if he's around) an equal right to choose and potentially give the fetus a chance to live because maybe things will be ok? If the mother isn't likely to die from the fetus or wasn't raped, assume life is better than death, even if it's a 'crappy life'? Who's to say the poor mother doesn't win the lottery the week after the baby is terminated or was to be born? What if the baby get's adopted and grows up being the key reason cancer get's cured, through it's own intelligence, the foster parenting or both?

How many people in 'horrible' situations who are alive today would agree that being dead would be better? There's plenty of people who think illegally crossing borders is better than death, and many who seem to think forcing them to go back and try to get in legally will possibly lead to their death's, which they say would be a terrible thing.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

How many of those countries went full blown socialist? How many have been even partially socialist for a long time if not their entire existence? How many were capitalist before? How much stronger do countries become the more socialism you implement?

If war ever comes to Norway, NZ, or Aus, how well is socialism going to help protect them? How is America easily able to protect itself, as well as much of the rest of the world?

War is always happening. Australia cannot ever be invaded because of how vast the continent is... And how inhospitable the geography/environment is, it would be a logistical nightmare.

America can protect itself thanks to it's strong economic might... And strong alliances.
However... Russia during the cold war was able to achieve the same despite it's very strong socialist underpinnings before it's collapse.

China is leveraging both socialist ideas and capitalism and will likely overthrow the USA fairly soon as the largest power on Earth.

Socialism isn't actually a bad thing, it's a group of fundamental ideas... And can actually work really well for any modern capitalistic democracy... We don't have some of the highest standards of living in Australia for nothing you know.

America and her full might couldn't take down Australia? I'd hope she never decides to try, because I wouldn't bet against her. No offence, she'd take down Canada too, winter or not. Like you said, much of Aus is inhospitable, so all they would need to do is focus on the most hospitable regions, and the Aus military and people would be screwed, since if forced to fall back from those area's, they wouldn't be able to remain in the inhospitable environments long themselves.

Yet America is still here, is stronger, and is looking to get even mightier in the coming years and beyond.

If Trump doesn't get his way China will likely overthrow the USA eventually, but it will no doubt be messy. America isn't going to just watch itself fade into second place. It's not their style. If Trump gets his way, China will continue to grow, but America is going to boom again.

Socialism in small doses can enhance capitalism, but too much isn't great and go too far and it tends to lead to a tipping point. If socialism made things so much better you would think a place like Canada would at least gain some attention and respect from a country like the USA, but they couldn't care less for the most part overall. America could stomp us out without much hassle if they really wanted to, and not just from a war perspective. Does that make our more socialized system better than their's?

A big part of why America's military might is what it is, is because of the push for more and better, due to the incentives, and the freedom that power gives it's people. Push too much socialism in America and she'll eventually end up having a military like Canada, and they better hope another world power doesn't take over and that it's not hostile. How friendly is Aus with China?

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 20 May 2019