Natural and Legal Right to Abortion!!-- Nothing Wrong With Killing A Fetus
In my opinion, women should be granted both the natural and legal right to abortion, because there is nothing morally wrong with killing a fetus. Yes--abortion, intentionally ending a pregnancy, involves killing the fetus. *Gasp!* So what?
The word “kill” may sound cruel, but think about it: we’ve all killed other living beings like bacteria, mold, plants, and even some animals without batting an eye! The act of “killing” not immoral, unless it’s malicious, unlawful, and without justification, i.e “murder”.
Maybe it seems wrong to kill a developing fetus because it’s made of biologically living human cells. Do you know what else can grow inside a person and is made up of biologically living human cells? Tumors, whose cells we aim to eradicate or entirely surgically removed as soon as they’re detected!
But what about when we kill living human cells with the potential for personhood? A fetus has not ever experienced consciousness, feeling, or the physical, emotional, cognitive, and moral capabilities of personhood, but if it survives throughout the pregnancy and birth, it potentially could. Since a fetus isn’t not a sentinant person, I don’t believe it should be entitled to natural or legal human rights. The life, liberty, and the pursuit of person cannot apply to beings lacking personhood! This explains why when a person becomes permanently brain-dead, they’re unable to experience personhood or keep its associated rights, so it’s not harming them or immoral for their family to remove life support.
Since a pregnant woman clearly is a living, feeling, conscious person, how could it be moral for others to force her to carry an unwanted fetus to term, experience the pain of childbirth, and make the mental, physical, financial, sacrifices associated with motherhood? Subjecting a woman to these conditions against her own will does cause harm! The decision of if, when, and how a woman takes on a disruptive, determinative role, such as pregnancy and motherhood, in her life(or not) is essential to her autonomy and privacy and should always be a personal matter. The ban or restriction of abortion unlawfully violates women’s basic human rights, for the aim at higher potential of a non-person.
I have not found a single substantial reason to believe abortion is wrong, or that it should be illegal, and actually I think it’s unjust to criminalize actions that aren’t objectively wrong.
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Different rules and protections apply to natural persons and corporations, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which applies only to natural persons. --Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
So if this is the legal definition of a natural person(man) that has been accepted for millennia, then how is it being a Strict Legal Constructionist to overturn it and throw to the wind, years of legal distinction between an entity and a natural person?
In light of the "natural brown sugar" post you all should know that there are other words (in addition to the ones mentioned in the title) that have no legal definition and can therefore just be added for marketing purposes. Applied to the EU and the US as well, though the US has even more loose definitions.
A product labeled "natural turkey breast" had listed it's ingredients as 45% turkey and 55% chicken.
Other words like traditional or artisanal also don't really mean anything and it just there to make the product sound more fancy.
I included the quote from Rousseau that got me to my above question.
December 25th 2017
“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.” ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Upon reading this quote by an Enlightenment Philosopher my first thoughts go to the idea of private property and the rights surrounding this concept. Thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes wrote about this idea before Rousseau but the Lockeian approach is in contrast to the monarchy of his time and land being under the ownership of one human, as well as, the fruits of the labor of the land. Why care so much about private property? This is because I believe, as humans we work or tend to the land or property we own and it is our labor we put into it which means what comes from this property is ours to do with as we wish. In the case of modern times private property is not an agricultural endeavor for the majority of citizens. Private property in America has been a part of our heritage and has been keenly focused on the money that can be acquired from the property one owns. That could be land for cotton and tobacco, housing developments, or commercial buildings that are leased out. To put it simply, we care about our property because we worked for it and we want the money and value that comes from it. However, Rousseau is pointing at something more than just the resources of property but the consequences of greed, selfishness, and war. It has been shown that Western Countries such as England, Germany, and America, have put up a lot of blood and money to stave off any practice of equality in property ownership and still embrace a system that allows for many people to own a little and a few to own a lot. Rousseau may have been speaking directly at the monarchies of his time and their vast ownership or property, but could his quote be in tandem with a capitalist country? Where is the justification of the accumulation of wealth at the level of class division? I cannot reach to the Bible for such justification. Christ and Paul do not advoc
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Upvote if you're keen for delt-king Derek to give us a video on an all natural/legal stack that will get a motherfucker jacked!
So far, the science is promising when it comes to:
- Tongkat Ali @ 400mg per day
- Fadogia Agrestis @ 600mg per day
- Turkesterone @ 48mg per day
- Creatine @ 5000mg per day
Why? It'd be great to get results using supps authorities won't confiscate at customs!
[EDIT] - A working list of what else I've found:
- Epicatechin - 300mg p/day
- Cordyceps @ 1000mg - 3000mg per day
- Lion's Mane @ 6mg p/kg per day
- Horny Goat Weed @ ?mg per day
- Ashwagandha @ 500mg - 600mg per day
[EDIT] - I think I've found it: It's a product called N2GENERATE ES
