Then the state is not a party to the transaction and it should stay out.
If a rapist has a 6 year old, can the woman kill that one instead? Why not?
Overall, your post was pretty cool. However, I canât go in with âliterallyâ because there are examples of people who have had multiple abortions and they obviously donât give a f*** and use abortion as birth control.
All value-judgements refer to an objective.
Ex-utero abortions were practiced in many places.
Their objectives were not indiscriminate inclusivity, and self-comforting.
Moderns prefer uniform quantities because it makes them feel safe.
They selectively reduce diversity to a social construct.
1 Like
The man is party to the transaction or exchange yet the state intervenes at times to exclude him, whatâs your point?
Because in that part of the argument there is the semantics of mental cognition versus non-cognition which to me is irrelevant because life is life to me, even potential future ones. A potential life snuffed out is still a life wasted and terminated. The fact it is still in development doesnât change that.
Under the theory that the agreement is between the man and the woman, you could argue that the man could sue to enforce that agreement and prevent the abortion. But thatâs not whatâs happening when abortion is made illegal, because then even if both man and woman agree to the abortion itâs still illegal.
Instead, the state is co-opting the womanâs labor, forcing her to work without her consent and without compensation. Under your theory, the woman has man no agreement with the state, so the state should compensate her if it wants the benefit of her labor.
I disagree, but I donât think is matters for your theory: even taking as a given that there is another life involved, and that the state has an interest in using the womanâs body to protect that life, the woman still owns herself and should be allowed to control the use of her body. If the state wants her to use her body for someone elseâs benefit, the state should compensate the woman sufficiently that she will choose to use her body that way.
1 Like
âI donât see it like that at all, the family unit has everything to do with child rearing, something that is more stable when a mother and father are both involved in a childâs life.â
In some circumstances, yes, but societies have existed where raising the childrens was a task shared by a whole bunch uh n*ggaz at the same time. You would have groups of random, totally unrelated women helping to take care of somebody elseâs childrens. Sometimes, the old man wouldnât even be around. Youâd have unrelated dudes playing parental roles around somebody elses childrens too. Teaching the young punk how to make a flint or stretch a skin for curing.
But you are right too⌠and for reasons i explained. It was far less about creating a way to better rear and raise childrens and more about a way of sectioning off zones of property to house one male and one female homo sapien sapiens pair who will remain dependent on employment and produce more homo sapien sapiens to be employed. It was just the logical thing to do after feudalism when the peasants were no longer in a contract with the king (who owned everything). The peasants that had the most property and were the most resourceful became the first merchantile class while the rest became paid laborers. Eventually, because of the âdouble coincidence of wantsâ problem, money has to be invented, and then banks are built. The banks and the merchants work together to create the capitalist class. The capitalist class only becomes possible when money as capital can be amassed⌠and that doesnât happen until banks that can give loans exist.
The capitalist was the first person to borrow somebody elseâs money, use it to build a factory, employ and exploit laborers, and turn a profit big enough to pay the bank parasite back and leave enough to live nicely on. So he borrows (bank) then steals (pays wage to laborer less than the value of his product).
1 Like
And no shit heâs literally like a cancerous gene. Like that analogy wouldnât even be a stretch. Heâs inserted into the perfectly efficient and healthy functioning relationship between the various producers and consumers in the cell. Through his interference, the cellular activity becomes unstable and erratic. Overproductive. His presence taxes the energy of the other functioning parts. As the cell bodyâs productive activity is drastically increased by this presence, a tumor begins to develop and spread⌠finally to kill the animal.
Think of London right after the industrial revolution. A giant stack of fuming factories and half starving peasants running around begging men in extraordinary top hats to buy their labor.
1 Like
Charles Dickens comes to mind.
One of my favorite sayings is that females are the sexual capitalists of the relationship owning and controlling the means of reproduction where men are the sexual proletariats, so yeah, it doesnât surprise me in this era the state often sides with women against men in these matters.
Well, he could sue but it would fail and flop because the state for the most part always intervenes on the womanâs behalf.
âwhere men are the sexual proletariatsâ
I dunno, man. My bosses (girlfriends) always paid me the exact value of my sexual labor in return. You wouldnât believe how many raises Iâve gotten, either.
Buh dum tshh!
Thank you, thank you! Youâre too kind.
1 Like
If that was only the case for a majority of men in the world we would be better off. Honestly if more people got laid in this world it would be a better place, so much pent up rage and stress everywhere nowadays. Everybody looking so miserable or lonely, a damn tragedy of the overall human spirit.
Thankfully I am no longer a single man myself. Been married for six years now.
I donât look back with envy wanting to be a single man all over again especially with what single men have to go through presently.
1 Like
Congrats on gettinâ hitched. You two made any next generation laborers that despite being well raised by loving parents and educated will very very likely not end up with their own business and become wage slaves instead, yet?
1 Like
Lots of children between us, yes.
You put them damn kids to work, son. They gotta carry their weight around here.
1 Like
It means to conspire or plot against others behind closed doors in secret to commit harm which is why it is its own completely different distinct word in English.
Talking about the Spartans with an aborted infant thrown over a canyon to its death? Yes, some civilizations or cultures would do such with the belief that inferior offspring didnât deserve life, but it was practiced on a much smaller scale in terms of population numbers. [Ancient populations were nowhere as large as the kinds of populations we have today.]
The modern practice of abortion is mass death on an industrial mass production scale, itâs not very comparable, and I would argue that the sheer numbers of the modern practice makes it even more devastating in terms of negative consequences for society.
Mostly what youâre talking about is a type of structure that only aristocrats or royalty would enjoy for their children.
For the average peasant or person child rearing has always been done by a mother and father together with the exception of single parents and adoptive parents as well.
The point, I was trying to make, is that thereâs nothing intrinsically good or bad about anything.
All value judgments are good, bad, successful, failures, advantageous, disadvantageous, whatever adjective you want to use, relative to an objective.
For modern/postmodern abortions are âbadâ because their objective is inclusion, safety, safety, uniformity,âŚand for the conservatives it is âbadâ because their objective is power, success, wealth, dominanceâŚ
For the Spartans infanticide was good if it cultivated a superior army.
Any use of values and value judgements, other than in regards to an objective, is erroneous and may be intentionally misleading.
There is nothing intrinsically good bad.
The fact that most humans consider certain actions âevilâ is because we are a social species, and societies are important to us. Anything that contradicts or degrades social cohesion and stability is considered âbad.â
Survival is the objective used to determine individualâs bad behaviors. Individual survival, for social species, is dependent no groups,. so all moral behaviors evolved to preserve group health.
Altruism, tolerance, compassion, loveâŚall of them.
1 Like
My definition of morality or even ethics is whatever maximizes the overall positive
efficiency of society, whatever is the most beneficial to a majority of the population, and whatever creates the most happiness within security. In other words, social and existential stability.
I donât need to fall into traps or pitfalls of what is objective, subjective, and universal, stability is all that matters, existential necessity dictates the creation of morality where it is only logical to abide by it. We absolutely live in a chaotic world and universe, but necessity of us existing in it dictates that we must create order to survive well within it.
1 Like
This is Marxist morality in a nutshell. If anything, we should congratulate you for being so uncompromisingly Marxist.
This is also where Marxism loses me. This preponderance of the whole, society, over its parts, in the sense that whatever is good for society must be good for me too. To remain on topic, if I were a woman, abortion would be my personal problem, notwithstanding what âsocietyâ thinks or not. Itâs my body that has to deal with the consequences of an abortion (or with carrying on an undesired pregnancy).