So, you make the legal standing that if a person is fully dependent upon another person then that caretaker can exert property rights over the former. This concept would make the life of operating nursing homes much simpler. You enter as a citizen then once they regress to a state of dependency they become property. __________- There are many actions citizens take that place economic burdens on the public. Alcoholism, Gun crime, auto accidents...etc..Just part of living in a society. _____________ If we agree a fetus is property why can the creator of 50% of that property get ownership rights. The Man.
Yes, as a "progressive" he is in favor of euthanizing the elderly, much cheaper for the state that way. After all the elderly don't work and pay taxes, so no good to the state...
As I am defining fully dependent, that means said dependent could not live outside of the biological support system of the host. So any comparison of a fetus to black human beings is rather silly, IMO. A man decides to donate a kidney to someone. It is extracted with his consent. A man has a kidney extracted against his consent by someone who plans to sell the kidney for profit. In both cases, an organ is extracted...but in one case he has choice, in another he has no choice. The kidney knows nothing of the process. The kidney has no rights, nor does a non viable fetus. Both exist, but are not to be confused with a human being, or a viable fetus. A fetus is akin to an organ within the body, that may, or may not become a born independent human being. At a time when science can harvest the fetus with high certainty...even against the will of the woman...as long as the fetus is cared for properly, and if that is in the best interest of society...I would support that. What I have observed though from the "right to life crowd" is that they want to deny a woman's right to choose, force her to carry and give birth to an unwanted child...and then not take responsibility for the child that was the product of a forced birth. I don't see that in the best interest of our society. "If we agree a fetus is property why can the creator of 50% of that property get ownership rights." If the man wants the aborted fetus, fine by me. If the man wants to put up the money to pay to support the viable extracted fetus until the age of consent, fine by me. He has to take full responsibility in the process, full parenthood, all rights and all obligations, subject to severe punishment should he fail to do so in any way.
That's a pretty good description of modern liberals. Thread run down so far. Optional/ZZZZzzzzz calls John Locke the intellectual father of America, which isn't even true. He's actually widely known as the Father of Liberalism. A man who supported slavery and considered the Negros slightly smarter than apes. And then Optional goes off on one his endless intellectual wannabe tirades trying in vain to defend his hero, which defended slavery (normally a major pet peeve for Optional) and his (Optional) own indisputable hypocrisy. Then Optional, as usual, gets lambasted and eviscerated by his completely justified detractors.
That about sums it up for me. Soft-headed liberal yammering mostly. After years at a liberal university and I don't much tolerance left for it.
1. Todays liberal is a big govt socialist - commie. Todays liberals and progressives were an anathema to Locke and Jefferson. Locke and Jefferson would be todays libertarians. 2. Regarding the the definition by optional. A baby can live outside the womb at 22 - 24 weeks. So a progressive should agree that partial birth abortion is a barbaric act and murder of an innocent life. .
If a woman decides to abort against the wishes of a man should she compensate the man for his lost of one half of the property? The law now is pretty clear that the man must provide child support.