• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A question of freedom

It's that which you need oppression to appreciate properly.
 
"Freedom's just a word. If I have to die for a word, my word is 'poontang.'"
 
Ok, now to raise the level of intellectual activity (since I am at home and can post until the wife finishes showering)

Do you mean Freedom of Action or Freedom of the Will?

I will assume freedom of action.

FoA is the ability to turn our choices into actions. It is limited by TLOP (the laws of physics). Meaning if I choose to jump to the moon I can't turn that choice into an action. Another way to say this is I can choose to jump to the moon, but that choice cannot become motivating. I can jump and jump all day but I won't reach the moon.

Therefore I lack the FoA to jump to the moon.

Laws also limit our FoA. If there is a law that says I will be whipped if I pick my nose in public then I am constrained by that law. I am constrained because the threat causes the elimination of my ability to choose other then I chose.

So if I really, really want to pick my nose in public but I know that if I do I will be whipped, then I am not free. I lack freedom because anyone who is reasonable like me would never choose to pick their nose in public.

But what level of FoA should we desire? Good question.

I believe that we should be granted a level of FoA that is complete. I believe that the only laws that humans should pass to limit FoA is to restrict us humans from constraining other human's FoA. Like I shouldn't kill people because it prevents them from having ANY FoA. I also shouldn't kidnap someone because it constrains their FoA. I shouldn't threaten people. But if I want to use drugs on myself, then I'm an idiot, but I'm not limiting anyone elses FoA.

Yes, RUSTY is a libertarian! AAAHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
 
I believe we define it by how it is removed. It's the freedoms we take that conversely opress others that i find interesting.

Does your right to not be punched override my right to punch people? Does my right to eat override a vendor's right to be paid in cash for the food he is selling? Does my right to have an abortion override the infant's (or fetus') right to life? Does my country's right to exist override an opposing soldier's right to lise?

All i can say for sure is that Freedom is one complicated cookie.

EDIT: Strange... rusty immediately talks about Free Will, and i immediately talk about moral freedoms... some things are everything to everybody, i guess.
 
It's probably becasue of my interests. I like Free Will and it becomes important to seperate FoW from FoA, so I guess I just approach it that way.

So lets spice this thread up a bit.

Should we have the freedom to have an abortion?
 
Oog. That's a whole different animal...

I've noticed that the general opinion is that it's wrong to have an aboriton 5 hours before giving birth. This is likely a reaciton based on the physical state of the child, and it's resemblance to a human being.

The only question here is "By what criteria do we define a human being?" This has been thrashed to death else where, though.

I'm more interested in knowign wether a woman has the right to continue wit ha birth that is garuanteed to end with the death of her, as well as that of the child. Does the woman get to chose? Or is it the doctor's call?
 
Akots said:
Oog. That's a whole different animal...

I've noticed that the general opinion is that it's wrong to have an aboriton 5 hours before giving birth. This is likely a reaciton based on the physical state of the child, and it's resemblance to a human being.

The only question here is "By what criteria do we define a human being?" This has been thrashed to death else where, though.

I'm more interested in knowign wether a woman has the right to continue wit ha birth that is garuanteed to end with the death of her, as well as that of the child. Does the woman get to chose? Or is it the doctor's call?
Click to expand...


That is more interesting indeed!

I say that since women are inferior species due to their menstrual cycle causing chemical brain imbalances that a male doctor should make the decision for them.
 
j/k ;)


Do we say that the baby has any chance? What about a c-section birth?

Do we ultimately state that we know there is 0% chance of life and 100% chance of death (or just really really high chance, like 95%?)
 
Rusty_the_boy_robot said:



That is more interesting indeed!

I say that since women are inferior species due to their menstrual cycle causing chemical brain imbalances that a male doctor should make the decision for them.
Click to expand...

I'll roll with that. :rolleyes:

Does the woman's husband's right to chose in the above situation override the doctor's?

EDIT: Saw your j/k. Your no fun! :D If the woman and baby are in danger, who's choice overrides if the odds of survival are:

a: 50% Baby, 0% Woman
b: 50% for both
c: 0% for both

In all cases, if the infant is aborted the odds of the woman surviving are 100%.
For this argument, assume the infant is "a real person" as such.

Hm... what if killing the woman garuantees the infant's survival? I never thought of that... Source forbid i ever have to make any such choice myself. :(
 
Akots said:


I'll roll with that. :rolleyes:

Does the woman's husband's right to chose in the above situation override the doctor's?
Click to expand...

ok I'll go along, but I want to make it so clear that no one is not clear on this! RUsty does not believe that the women menstrual cycle renders her inferior in any way! It was a joke that was hillarious to all, but to clear it all it was a joke!!!

HAHHAHAHA

Ok.

No perhaps the doctor should go to a judge and the judge should decide? Or we can base it on the percent that the doctor thinks is true and viable for the baby + mother = death equation. If it is 95% or higher then we say dead baby.

If it is 94% or lower then we say let parents decide.

If it is between 94% and 95% we let Rusty decide.
 
Oops... edited. See above! Witness the temporal paradox!!

I prefer to keep odds at 0%, 50%, or 100%. Assumign uncertainty, either it will happen, it won't happen, or we don't know. :p


EDIT: Temporal Flux Man... AWAY!

I just realized the question of killing one to save the other is decidedly lopsided... seems to me that killing the baby to save the wife is the "selfish" choice, while the mother dying to save the baby is the "noble" choice. If i'm not mistaken, in viking mythology, women who died because of childbirth went to the same afterlife as warriors who died honorably in battle.
 
Akots said:
Oops... edited. See above! Witness the temporal paradox!!

I prefer to keep odds at 0%, 50%, or 100%. Assumign uncertainty, either it will happen, it won't happen, or we don't know. :p


EDIT: Temporal Flux Man... AWAY!

I just realized the question of killing one to save the other is decidedly lopsided... seems to me that killing the baby to save the wife is the "selfish" choice, while the mother dying to save the baby is the "noble" choice. If i'm not mistaken, in viking mythology, women who died because of childbirth went to the same afterlife as warriors who died honorably in battle.
Click to expand...

Well it all depends on how big the woman's boobs are. If they are really big then keep the woman and have another baby. Otherwise keep the baby and use it to get the big boobied woman.

j/k j/k I swear! AHH MY wife is beating me!! I'm an abused husband!

,. .
Ok. I dont' know what I would do. I suppose if we assume that both the baby and the woman are people it gets even harder. Who's life is worth more...?

Well if the chance is only 50% for both then I'd say let the woman decide. I don't see why we should force someone to give up some of their FoA.

But if it is 100% then dead baby.

Although if I am going to claim that we should not allow the baby's FoA to get taken away then how can I let the woman decide that?

I dunno, I guess I keep coming back to assuming that the baby is not a person.
 
Well really, the question is not who you would pick to let live; it's about if you would obey the mother's choice, or the doctor's, if either the mother or the baby are in danger.

Hm... maybe the root of this dilemma is "Do i have the right to kill myself?" If i really really really want to kill myself, there's not much you can do to stop it. But is it a right?

Abortion only stems from that problem because of confusion over wether an infant/fetus/inseminated egg has rights and such. Not wether murder is ok, but wether it is murder at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom