Abortion

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

There may be a difference, in theory. In reality, I don't see how you could keep your "anarchy" from degenerating into this "omniarchy", without rule (rule includes laws, whether written or implied). This utopian idea of a functional society without rule just has not, and will not exist. Why? Because the strong will conquer the weak, without some type of law and system for enforcement to prevent it from happening. If you think otherwise, then you hold an unrealistically optimistic (naive) view of human nature.

I do agree, that the laws of nature seem to apply themselves to society as well as the physical world. The similarities between entropy and our natural degradation into chaos in terms of societal structure are no coincidence.
I don't doubt that you also understand that entropy is overcome by work, and the natural chaos that comes from society can be defeated by the unity, or work, of the anarchist society as a whole. If you think otherwise, then you hold a fruitless, pessimistic view of human nature.

1 Reply

@Peter phil,

Do you have any examples of what you would consider a true anarchy that has succeeded over the long term? What is the largest society that has done so and for how long? Without historical precedent can you be sure that such a society would be anything short of lawless mayhem and suffering?

1 Reply

@lakeshoredrive,

lakeshoredrive;38214 wrote:

If you think otherwise, then you hold a fruitless, pessimistic view of human nature.

No, I just have some knowledge of history. The recorded actions of warring, self-interested humankind throughout the last few millennia support my pessimistic, realistic view of human nature. There are some terrifically interesting works of literature that outline your utopian view, but they are fantasy. Smile

0 Replies

@Peter phil,

Pangloss;38209 wrote:

Perhaps...but it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A quick look on WebMD says that the specific cause of placental abruption is often unknown...

That is all true, though if someone tests positive for cocaine at the time of an abruption (and cocaine is only briefly detectable) and there is no alternative cause demonstrated, then that's a pretty solid case.

But it's a moot point -- the issue is not the medical particulars, the issue is the scenario of a woman engaging in what would otherwise be criminally negligent homicide.

Furthermore, I disagree that semantics are important here. The words murder and feticide and homicide, etc, are semantic technicalities that presuppose that the victim has the moral stature of a human being. The argument for abortion being murder only has relevance because of that very presupposition.

So my point remains valid -- that if we are to legally regard the fetus as a human for the purposes of murder, then all OTHER laws governing the human victims of violent crime must also apply.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

But it's a moot point -- the issue is not the medical particulars, the issue is the scenario of a woman engaging in what would otherwise be criminally negligent homicide.

Sure. And this is really a moot point, because as the law stands now, this isn't going to be of concern in the foreseeable future...probably never. Abortion has been sold. The law will likely not change, but we can argue the morals of it all day...and as you said, the law cannot always be based on morals or belief, so where does that leave us? The whole debate, legally, is a moot point unless someone can come up with a good argument against the roe v wade decision (and perhaps the right judges are in place).

Quote:

Furthermore, I disagree that semantics are important here. The words murder and feticide and homicide, etc, are semantic technicalities that presuppose that the victim has the moral stature of a human being. The argument for abortion being murder only has relevance because of that very presupposition.

I'm just talking about legal-speak in general. When dealing with the law, semantics always are important. Murder, homicide, and feticide are all treated differently, in general. Sorry, it's just rubbed off on me; my family is full of lawyers, and they are always sure to correct me when I say "murder" instead of "homicide"... Surprised

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;38219 wrote:

Sure. And this is really a moot point, because as the law stands now, this isn't going to be of concern in the foreseeable future...probably never... so where does that leave us?

I'm just trying to show how the pro-life argument that a fetus should be legally a full fledged human leads to some absurd scenarios that will never happen. I've made many other arguments far earlier in this thread. Go to WebMD and look up hydatidiform mole. That's also a product of conception -- is it a human being? :sarcastic:

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Do you have any examples of what you would consider a true anarchy that has succeeded over the long term? What is the largest society that has done so and for how long? Without historical precedent can you be sure that such a society would be anything short of lawless mayhem and suffering?

List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many of those fit my standards. Specifically, Utopia, Libertatia, and Freetown Christiania (which is still around today)

Pangloss wrote:

No, I just have some knowledge of history. The recorded actions of warring, self-interested humankind throughout the last few millennia support my pessimistic, realistic view of human nature. There are some terrifically interesting works of literature that outline your utopian view, but they are fantasy.

I have some knowledge of history as well, and from what I understand, mankind as a whole is constantly evolving, both in his body and in his mind. You must at least concede that utopia is possible, no? Regardless of the odds (which, to you, may appear quite slim), an anarchist utopia is what I aim to be a part of.

2 Replies

@lakeshoredrive,

lakeshoredrive;38221 wrote:

List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many of those fit my standards. Specifically, Utopia, Libertatia, and Freetown Christiania (which is still around today)

Virtually all of the modern ones that were more than small communities were in the setting of appalling violence. I mean the Spanish Civil War with what 500,000 dead?? And all of the non-modern ones were tiny communities, too.

So an anarchist society would require the dismantlement of all political boundaries, like national / provincial borders. And then what in god's name would stop war?

1 Reply

@lakeshoredrive,

lakeshoredrive wrote:

List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many of those fit my standards. Specifically, Utopia, Libertatia, and Freetown Christiania (which is still around today)

Well...even wikipedia admits that the "pirate community" of libertatia might not have really existed. "Utopia" existed as a community, still within the overall protection of the United States government. Freetown is in a similar situation. I suppose you could call this a "society", but its existence is still only possible due to the non-anarchist society with rule of law that it exists within. If it weren't for the laws, economy, and international recognition of the states surrounding small communities like "Utopia" or "Libertatia", could they exist? No.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

So an anarchist society would require the dismantlement of all political boundaries, like national / provincial borders. And then what in god's name would stop war?

It's not like the State has a great track record with the whole "stopping war" thing either...
A better question to ask, might be, what in God's name starts war?

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

If it weren't for the laws, economy, and international recognition of the states surrounding small communities like "Utopia" or "Libertatia", could they exist? No.

You say that as if you know it for a fact. Seeing as the small communities have not had the opportunity to live independently of State, there is no way to know. Either option is an equal possibility.

1 Reply

@lakeshoredrive,

lakeshoredrive wrote:

You say that as if you know it for a fact. Seeing as the small communities have not had the opportunity to live independently of State, there is no way to know. Either option is an equal possibility.

No. They have not lived independently of the state, and that is a fact. So, the burden of proof is on you, as you propose this idea. There is no evidence that this can occur in reality, and history attests to this fact.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Many Sioux Indian tribes are examples of anarchism being applied to independent populations, also. This example escaped my mind in my previous post.
Here is what Lame Deer, a Sioux medicine man, had to say about the 'community' he lived in.
"Before our white brothers came to civilize us we had no jails. Therefore we had no criminals. You can't have criminals without a jail. We had no locks or keys, and so we had no thieves. If a person was so poor that he had no horse, tipi or blanket, someone gave him these things. We were too uncivilized to set much value on personal belongings. We wanted to have things only in order to give away. We had no money, and therefore a man's worth could not be measured by it. We had no written law, no attorneys or politicians, therefore we couldn't cheat."

0 Replies

@Peter phil,

Some of the earlier, smaller native American communities were quite egalitarian, and as you describe. But, these were very small communities that soon gave way to larger agricultural-based societies, where rule of law was commonplace. Something which you describe could not exist in the modern world without the state's protection. Power politics work against these communities.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Some of the earlier, smaller native American communities were quite egalitarian, and as you describe. But, these were very small communities that soon gave way to larger agricultural-based societies, where rule of law was commonplace. Something which you describe could not exist in the modern world without the state's protection. Power politics work against these communities.

Who ever said anarchism had to work on huge groups of people? If it works only on small communities historically, that still means it works.

1 Reply

@lakeshoredrive,

lakeshoredrive wrote:

Who ever said anarchism had to work on huge groups of people? If it works only on small communities historically, that still means it works.

First of all, these communities border on being prehistorical...we really don't know if it worked or didn't work. There is anthropological evidence, and maybe some unreliable written accounts by third parties. Second, there would be no reason to believe that such communities were any better off than a larger state with rule of law. There was still much fighting between groups of native Americans, these societies were not "peaceful". Third, this type of community did not last very long for a reason. Larger societies with rule of law came about because they trumped the old way of living, politically. The anarchist utopia will not last over time, because a unified state will always be more powerful than a loosely-organized group of self-interested individuals. The more powerful state will conquer the weak.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Your discourse on this subject has been fascinating and enlightening. IMO, you are both right. I agree with lakeshoredrive in that laws, mandates, rules and power should evolve to guiding principles all can live by. As pangloss iterates it cannot exist or attempt to exist unless all are involved as history has violently noted. The strong will overpower the weak. No doubt about it. Our focus, IMO, needs to be on eliminating the catalyst that spurs power, greed and control and that is objective value. As long as we place value on objects for exchange, there will always be bloodshed. Always, as our number one objective is to amass as much as we can, that up until the present, has define an individuals worth, his status and the worship he receives.

For instance, take a bar of gold. Perhaps one day we will find a purpose for it, but as yet, it is absolutely worthless as it relates to it's utility in the overall scheme of things. It's only value is what we place on it which is an illusion. Unfortunately those who have amassed the most of it, (money) rule the world and have the military might to enforce whatever mandates, laws and control they wish regardless of how "selfish" they are. In some cases it can be equated the accumulation of gold in the wrong hands would be like putting a Uzi in the crib of a two year old.

Personally I don't like laws, rules, mandates or controls that force me to do anything. Help, guidance, teaching and assistance work real well for me. I can live with that, no problem. To imagine a world that "operates" this way is indeed idealistic for there are no precedents and those in power have maintained and continue to enforce a reality that has everyone convinced there is no other way this world can operate. And that is absolute bullshit. There are other ways. Of course those self made Kings who have amassed the most of this worthless "gold" will not hear of it regardless of what shape the world is in. Currently the laws are designed to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor and protect the thrones of those who rule. But to arbitrarily eliminate them in our current state will.....I can't even imagine what would ensue. We did not get into this shape overnight and it will take time to solve our problems. And I think collectively cooperating together we can accomplish that. But it has to be a global affair. I think most will be amazingly surprised at how so very little people need to be truly happy, content and free.

Personally I don't care to "own" anything, just have the use of it without fear of losing it. Any "more" will come as a reward for those contributions, gifts, talents and skills I offer that will enhance the existence of others, whatever they may be. If I have nothing to offer, I should not be penalized. With the help of others I will learn how I can help, for that is the greatest drive in man is to be a part and offer what he can. That's what worth is all about. You deem him worthless and you create "dead weight", a burden we all will bear and the consequences that will ensue. I like the story about the Indian, buy the way. God, talking about getting off topic, Ha, I have got to stop doing that. You guys started it. Ha. Smile

For what it's worth.
William

1 Reply

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

I just have to wonder, is it truly bad? We eat veil.

I don't, why do you?
Cause its on the menu?
I guess abortion for you then is too?
Which do you choose?
Right or wrong?

=
MJA

1 Reply

@MJA,

I choose right when I know it is; but sometimes I have to guess.
I hope I always guess right too.

=
MJA

0 Replies

@William,

William;38249 wrote:

Personally I don't care to "own" anything, just have the use of it without fear of losing it.

Interesting, how do you propose to have a system where you can use something without the fear of losing it, if private ownership is not possible? Private ownership is a powerful incentive within society, for people to work hard for, and take care of their possessions...read as far back as Aristotle or Aristophanes for this idea, or more recently, Adam Smith, on the necessity of private ownership.

There are some things that we might be able to link up with what we perceive as being "bad" in society. Private ownership -> Greed? I think greed is always there...greed for the self, whether it be through material possessions, honor, power, etc. Before we can talk about seriously changing laws or the economic system, we will need a cultural shift in values. Right now, our culture is one that values wealth and individual freedoms. Neither one is good if taken to excess...

I see many problems with the laws of the state as well. They are unfair, sometimes cruel or oppressive. But let's not just see that and then conclude that rule of law must be scrapped altogether. We do have political processes in place in this country where there can be change made. We should be fighting for good laws, not no laws.

That's the end of my off-topic response...back to abortion. Smile

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know