fayfreethinkers.com

On nwapolitics.com, we're having a debate using limericks (don't ask) about abortion. Here's one I wrote that may amuse you.


There once was a fundie dirt granger
Who awakened conjoined to a stranger
But surgical detachment
Would kill the attachment
So he lived with his guest in a manger.

"I'm pro-life," he said with a moan
Though my guest is adult and full-grown
I've no right to my person
I'm hostage and cursin'
The freeloader's life trumps my own.

"You're sovereign," Lysander inserted
"You own your own life," Ayn asserted
Don't live for another
Cut off the intruder
Don't let your rights be subverted.

The point is that age nor humanity
Can ever excuse the insanity
Of an unwilling host
Being live hitching post
All because of misguided Christianity.

Linky.

I'm kinda partial to IR's limericks, but I think he'd tell you I'm biased...

I tried to make a point rarely seen in the abortion debate. Namely, that whether a fetus is human life or not is irrelevant. No one, human or not, soulless or not, moral agent or not, has a right to live off another.

Hogeye wrote:No one, human or not, soulless or not, moral agent or not, has a right to live off another.

DAR
Geez, isn't that the driving force, the actually reality when practiced in it's full unfettered glory, the goal, of Capitalism? Not always of course but it seems that history gives us some pretty nasty examples (early England?, child labor etc.?) of unfettered capitalism and greed leading to a very small number of exceedingly rich people living "off" of destitute masses.
It's just curious and ironic that you seem to champion a system which would seem to lead to a lot of people living in a situation you (I think) describe above as immoral.

D.

Hogeye> No one, human or not, soulless or not, moral agent or not, has a right to live off another.

Darrel> Geez, isn't that the driving force, the actually reality when practiced in it's full unfettered glory, the goal, of Capitalism?

No, the driving force of capitalism is freedom of trade, with both parties to a trade benefitting ex ante. Capitalism is is goal-state, like world peace, the end of poverty, or freedom of speech. It has never existed for long on any large scale. In actual reality it has only been partially implemented at best, and never practiced "in it's full unfettered glory." There has always been statism, property allocation by conquest, and so on.

The essence of capitalism is beautifully expressed in John Galt's passphrase:

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

(from "Atlas Shrugged", by ultra-capitalist Ayn Rand)

Hogeye> In actual reality it has only been partially implemented at best, and never practiced "in it's full unfettered glory." There has always been statism, property allocation by conquest, and so on.

DAR
I wonder why that is? I really wish you guys would capture an island or country and give it a go so we could see how it all turns out.

D.

Darrel wrote:

Hogeye> In actual reality it has only been partially implemented at best, and never practiced "in it's full unfettered glory." There has always been statism, property allocation by conquest, and so on.

DAR
I wonder why that is? I really wish you guys would capture an island or country and give it a go so we could see how it all turns out.

D.

DOUG
They did. It's called "Somalia." And it isn't working.

Abortion is where we come up against two really strong concepts - fetus as parasite and fetus as soul or human or whatever the current fundie buzzterm. A fetus, like the pre-born young of any mammal, is living and developing inside the mother (hostess?) body, utilizing some of the food the mother eats for what it needs to develop and passing wastes back to the mother's body to dispose of. To a certain extent, you could say it's the same job the mother has once the kid is born - feed the baby and take care of the waste products - and there are those who might say it's easier while the kid is inside. Of course, once the kid is out, the care and feeding can be handed off to someone else (presupposing the mother can find or afford someone else to do it). To that extent, fetuses and babies are paracites.

Babies are expensive in any culture. In ours they are exceedingly so. Pregnancy is dangerous. Ours is the most dangerous of any of the industrialized/1st world nations. If it were any other job in the world - diverting that much time, energy, and money away from other purposes - it would be a given that the giver of that time, energy, and money would have a choice as to whether or not to take it on. If it were any other job - the closest to it would be active service military - then these days it's considered a given that it should be a volunteer job.

That's the real issue here - is the person signing on for this job - or drafted? It's not like the human species will become extinct if the women who don't want to take it on, don't. At over 6 billion, the species doesn't need to force unwanted children into the world. Unwanted is the worst thing you can do to a child - and all of the nastinesses that equate to abuse in children start with unwanted.

Barbara wrote:That's the real issue here - is the person signing on for this job - or drafted?

Right. We look at this issue the same way. I like to underline the fact that whether the fetus is human/has a soul/has rights is irrelevant to this issue. (So 99% of the abortion discussion you hear is irrelevant.) The mother clearly has rights and is self-owned.

Not only is there the question of whether the mother consented to have a baby, but (even if that were the case) the question of opting out of voluntary servitude.