Tony Abbott on 'Insiders' at 9am.

bordsilver said:
SilverSanchez said:
This may seem at first to be benign, but if you think about it carefully it is definitive.

To write into law the Abortion legislation, they had to take a person who was clasified as a human being, an Australian citizen, and strip away those rights and that citizenship.
Click to expand...
This is tricky. The difficulty is how to maintain the rights of the trespasser whilst recognising that the trespasser's rights are clearly secondary to the mother's rights. A register and trading room allowing the adoption of unwanted foetuses by people willing to fund the associated costs is needed, but we also need to a very strict mechanism to prevent that being twisted into the State automatically becoming the paid guardian for any untraded foetuses - which is extremely likely in the current environment - as this will create far, far more issues than annulling the rights of an entity which technically only has the potential to acquire the rights of a child and eventually to have the potential to acquire full adult rights.
Click to expand...


You have instantly framed it in a way that makes the baby morally responsnable for its own existance in the womb. The baby doesnt climb in there, they are not trespassing. And you have missed the pooint.... this has nothing to do with women's rights, babies rights, doctor rights, - - the point was people were demoted from human to sub-human by nothing other than government decree.
 
I know what you're saying and I disagree. Ignoring loaded terms like human and sub-human, my point was that they don't have rights in the same sense so they are legitimately different in the eyes of the law on moral grounds. How you convert the morality into law is then the question.
This is a topic for private messaging though, so I will take off line and will try to be clearer about what I mean.
 
Well, what I noticed was a distinct change in ABC's most militantly pro-labor journalists... namely Barry Cassidy, LeighSailes & Fran Kelly. Like the comment made about Federal Treasury officials needing to start lookkng for new jovs, so to these ABC journalists must realise their cause is finished & their blatant bias won't go un-noticed or unpunished.

Gerard Henderson's visit 2 episodes in a row won't count as a Mea Culpa for all the past rhetoric from the likes of David Marr or Karen Middleton.

Having said that... I still didn't vote for the red, blue or green teams & I don't consider mine to be a wasted vote. Also, As the cute blonde with big knockers on the panel said in closing, ... watch the informal vote.
 
SilverSanchez said:
bordsilver said:
SilverSanchez said:
This may seem at first to be benign, but if you think about it carefully it is definitive.

To write into law the Abortion legislation, they had to take a person who was clasified as a human being, an Australian citizen, and strip away those rights and that citizenship.
Click to expand...
This is tricky. The difficulty is how to maintain the rights of the trespasser whilst recognising that the trespasser's rights are clearly secondary to the mother's rights. A register and trading room allowing the adoption of unwanted foetuses by people willing to fund the associated costs is needed, but we also need to a very strict mechanism to prevent that being twisted into the State automatically becoming the paid guardian for any untraded foetuses - which is extremely likely in the current environment - as this will create far, far more issues than annulling the rights of an entity which technically only has the potential to acquire the rights of a child and eventually to have the potential to acquire full adult rights.
Click to expand...


You have instantly framed it in a way that makes the baby morally responsnable for its own existance in the womb. The baby doesnt climb in there, they are not trespassing. And you have missed the pooint.... this has nothing to do with women's rights, babies rights, doctor rights, - - the point was people were demoted from human to sub-human by nothing other than government decree.
Click to expand...

Who promoted this mass of multiplying and dividing cells from sub-human to human to begin with?

Nature seems to have a pretty clear demarcation point on where "sub-human" becomes "human". We call that point in the developmental process "birth".
 
Big AD,

So your method of validating humans is that they are 'born', how then does an elephant be destinguished from a human. So all 'born' things are human? That does not stand up to scientific classification.
Pick a quantitative method of scientifically identifying something as 'human' and I garentee an unborn baby will be human my that method.

Therefore any dilution or exclusion of basic human rights (pick your designated 'rights' provider, for this example ill pick the U.N.) under the UN convention of the rights of the child - is a violation. (example "article 6. - Children have the right to live a full life. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily."

I say again, any quantitative method for classification of something as 'human', would prove the unborn to be just as human as a fully matured 'human'. But the law is not based on quatitative method, its based on arbitrary and subjective 'quality' basis. The very same basis which caused other people groups through out history to be clasified as sub-human, the Tutsi, the Jews, Barbarians, Blacks...etc and now in our day the latest group to lose their status as 'human' are the unborn (especially the disabled unborn).

This method of developing law is called 'Positive Law' as opposed to 'Natural Law'. Possitive law is the basis of all socialist legal systems from fabian socialists all the way through the spectrum to marxists and anarchists. And the point again is that if we live in an evironment of possitive law - then your personal property or any law that protects it (including you bank deposits) are mere illusion. There is no security provided by law in a possitive system, law is a tool of government, not a restrainer of it.
 
Just to be clear my point is about positive law vs natural law.

Possitive law provides no security in that it restrains government from action that is opressive. Law is a tool of government in a possitive law system.

Natural law is not given by the state, it is upheld by the state and may not be violated by government. Natural law restrains everyobody not just the plebs, but the governement as well. Basic rights (not the socialist 'human rights') are universal and one person's rights cant 'trump' another. Basic human rights cant violate eachother because they are basic, to preserve and protect, not to shape and funnel.
 
SilverSanchez said:
Big AD,

So your method of validating humans is that they are 'born'
Click to expand...

Look, I know this is a sensitive subject for a lot of people and I'm not out to offend anyone.

The fact that humans reproduce using a period of gestation in the females' uterus means that there is a period of time where any possibility of a live birth is wholly and solely reliant on the pregnant female continuing to carry the foetus.

Obviously medical science can work around that to a certain extent, so if you can remove the foetus and have it survive and grow into a child, you can make a good argument for it having rights. Since that point doesn't occur until the third trimester, the foetus is effectively part of the woman until then.

I think in all the semantics of positive versus natural law you're forgetting that in order for the foetus to have rights you need the woman to assume some responsibilities which she may not be happy to. Forcing that responsibility onto the woman essentially means we loose the right to have control over our own bodies.

I don't know whether it's a tenet of "Natural law" but the laws of nature say we each have our own bodies.

Personally, I'm happy to look after what happens with my testicles and let women look after what happens with their uteruses. It's an arrangement that has worked well in the past and I'm not comfortable handing over control of my balls to anyone until they've at least bought me a few drinks.
 
Ok,
The fact that its joint responsability due to sperm cell and an egg is required probably does mean something.

But lets get back to my point and let it stand

Natural law is founded on the existance of life, liberty and property. These things exist therefore laws are written to prevent injustice and the theft of life liberty and property.

Possitive law asserts the life liberty and property only exists because laws sanction them. therefore Government can redistribute or redefine life liberty and property from one to whom it belonged, to one to whom it did not previously belong.
 
With regards to post 12 (Tolly 67) Iagree 100% with his first paragraph.

However Australia is a country that has huge logistic problems because of distance..
Goods made in Melbourne shipped North to Cairns and further. Adelaide and Perth to the west, Tasmania to the South and Alice Springs and Darwin to the center. This is not all one way either, what about products and food produced in the other Capital Cities, they all have to moved around a country nearly the size of the USA , China or the whole of Europe. The cost of transporting these items in a high priced petrol driven world is a high price to pay as well as the upkeep of the roads.. Every year in the rainy season, roads in Qld are washed away in parts and the potholes that appear take a heavy toll on vehicles.

Now as for low paid workers being imported for $25 a day..Well I can see that going down well with worker here on SS..You may well think it is a good idea until the day you are made Redundant.

I am sure the workers in China would be over the moon with $25 a day but then again they are manufacturing jobs... What does Singapore manufacture beside offering IT and Banking/Finance as well as an oil refinery.

My fear for Australia that we are a farming, mining, Tourism, retail and human services for the young and the aged..Manufacturing as in the USA has moved off shore just like it has done in Australia.. Victoria and NSW will bear the brunt of the death of manufacturing in Australia. It has happened before with people leaving Victoria in droves to go the mining states of Qld, NSW and WA..However, this time the Mining boom in construction is over.

Nothing the red or blue team can do to stop this happening for Australia with both blue and red team leaders making free trade deals with Countries like NZ, the USA, South Korea, Singapore and several others. Our leaders say we are part of the global world and as world citizens we have to compete.

Have you ever heard of our leaders telling us how to compete.

Eg. NZ apples vs Australian Apples
stone fruit
dairy products
There is no comparasion, taste or price. We have a free trade pact with NZ so these goods will flow in until there is no fruit industry left.. Tasmania is feeling the effects on their potato farmers, Why because the big fast food chains can buy them cheaper in NZ.

What can we do to turn this around? I don't know but someone had better do something soon or next election we will be debating which social welfare payments will be cut and pity help the red or blue team if they hold the reins.

Regards Errol 43
 
doomsday surprise said:
A woman has a right to do with her body as she sees fit. FULL STOP. End of story!! It is her choice!!!
Click to expand...

I'm with SilverSanchez, murdering an unborn baby is not a woman's "right". Women that commit murder because of "lifestyle" choices make me sick.
 
doomsday surprise said:
A woman has a right to do with her body as she sees fit. FULL STOP. End of story!! It is her choice!!!
Click to expand...
She has no right to smoke marijuana, drink raw milk, end her life in a way she sees fit, but may kill an unborn child. Cool.
 
Byron, I agree

No governemnt can rip someone's status as 'citizen' or 'human' away from them simply because of social pressure. The law of 'Murder' is the unlawful killing of a human being so the government (in order to end run the rights of the unborn) made it legal to kill by removing the status of 'human' despite easily being able to prove that they are human by ANY and ALL quatitative scientific means. Abortion and Euthanasia would be dead in the water (forgive the pun) if there were not people who are willing to kill other people.

Now if a government can do that to unborn children, they can do that to others also.
So my point about this 'positive law' is that we are all in danger now. Nothing is secure, as testified by Rudd's plan to steal a part of each deposit in an Australian bank.

The propagander has been believed by many, that the state is the bestower of justice, not the keeper of it, as if justice is created by the state, rather than life, liberty and property being the foundation for law to protect justice. Socialism believes that THE STATE and its rule is justice and the foundation for life, liberty and property.

Many people on here talk about a free market capitalism, the right to save money and use personal capital as a tool for investment. Under possitive law - your money is the wealth of the State (abolishion of Gold as money), and your life is the commodity of the state, and your property is the assests of the STATE. You are merely a custodian holding it in trust for the state. (thats when you take it to the extreme).
 
Doomsday - the topic is positive law vs natural law - look it up! And stop jumping on my evidence (abortion) that we are under a positive law system (socialism/communism), as if it (abortion) is all that is being talked about. You'll all get this thread frozen and it wont be my damn fault.
 
SilverSanchez said:
Byron, I agree

No governemnt can rip someone's status as 'citizen' or 'human' away from them simply because of social pressure. The law of 'Murder' is the unlawful killing of a human being so the government (in order to end run the rights of the unborn) made it legal to kill by removing the status of 'human' despite easily being able to prove that they are human by ANY and ALL quatitative scientific means. Abortion and Euthanasia would be dead in the water (forgive the pun) if there were not people who are willing to kill other people.

Now if a government can do that to unborn children, they can do that to others also.
So my point about this 'positive law' is that we are all in danger now. Nothing is secure, as testified by Rudd's plan to steal a part of each deposit in an Australian bank.

The propagander has been believed by many, that the state is the bestower of justice, not the keeper of it, as if justice is created by the state, rather than life, liberty and property being the foundation for law to protect justice. Socialism believes that THE STATE and its rule is justice and the foundation for life, liberty and property.

Many people on here talk about a free market capitalism, the right to save money and use personal capital as a tool for investment. Under possitive law - your money is the wealth of the State (abolishion of Gold as money), and your life is the commodity of the state, and your property is the assests of the STATE. You are merely a custodian holding it in trust for the state. (thats when you take it to the extreme).
Click to expand...
Have to pull you up on that - particularly when you are now adding frickin euthanasia into this. You are twisting this shit into it being a state forced thing. I clearly (very bloody clearly IMO) laid out that it has nothing to do with a state forcing a particular definition of being human or so-called sub-human. Even if you deny the natural rights of others by forcibly enslaving them to obey your definition of murder vs kill as being some "Natural law" I have already laid out that the two are not incompatible. You can have both natural rights of mother & baby being acknowledged and respected. Whether our Government currently does so is secondary and more worthy of debate. Euthanasia is fundamentally Natural Law and it is only because of the state asserting positive law that it is a punishable crime.

We all know the state forces its positive law into abrogating property rights in so many aspects of our lives and that is why a bunch of us are on this forum in the first place. We hate the fact that the state arbitrarily forces its laws onto us. As Big A.D. and I have said, being anti-euthanasia and anti-mother's rights is being anti-private property rights of the most fundamental nature. If you are anti-private property rights then I call you a socialist irrespective of the good points you are trying to make about the evils and irrationality of our legal system. You can't have both because they are fundamentally inconsistent.

You (and others) need to seriously revisit what are the fundamental maxims on which natural law is based - namely: individuality, liberty and property. You cannot ascribe that every person has the natural right to defend, even by force, their person, liberty and property and be against or willing to take away another's defense of their person, liberty and property without a damn good reason. The absence or initiation of aggression is the key to understanding why one person keeps while another person loses their natural rights to their property, liberty or even to their person. This is completely and utterly separate from the notion of the state being the organisation that resolves disputes. Bastiat was railing against the state forcibly taking the role of being the dispute resolution organisation to protect these natural rights and then forcibly abrogating these rights by forcing non-natural rights laws onto society thereby perverting the check upon injustices into an instrument of injustice.

(And I still have to finish reading Bastiat.)
 
You havent even finished reading the book, you didnt even know what the differences between natural and positive law were (nor did you even know those terms before I talked about em) and you say

"You (and others) need to seriously revisit what are the fundamental maxims on which natural law is based".....

not to mention you are not really representing what the issues of abortion and euthanasia represent

Abortion is not about women not wanting children and euthanasia is not about people who want to die..... you are believing the propagander

Abortion and euthanasia is about poeple being legally immune to the charge of murder, by an end run around legal definitions by shifting them as if the governemnt has the authority to re-define and re-value. In the same way that American bankers were/are immune to prosecution as long as they are in service of the governement's interest, in the same way the unelected UN oficials are unaccountable to any authority but itself... *shakes his head* so frustrating.... POSITIVE LAW. Im talking about the damn LEGAL Modus operandi.... NOT THE DAMN SOCIAL DEBATE
 
And I openly agreed with you RE the modus operandi. I disagree with you saying that murder or other abrogation of rights is not consistent with natural law. It is fully consistent in certain circumstances and the presence of the state is irrelevant.
 
Another way to put it is to say you recognise the economic liberty implications stemming from natural law but are not recognising the social liberty implications. You are arguing the things argued by social conservatives. In contrast Big A.D. is arguing for social liberty implications of natural rights but - ordinarily - does not apply the same concepts to the economic dimension. He is typically economically socialist. I'm saying people should apply the same fundamental concepts in both areas.
 
bordsilver said:
And I openly agreed with you RE the modus operandi. I disagree with you saying that murder or other abrogation of rights is not consistent with natural law. It is fully consistent in certain circumstances and the presence of the state is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


No it isnt, unless you are meaning something different when you speak about 'Natural Law'.

A right under 'Natural Law' is inalienable meaning it cannot be taken away.
As soon as you say you can take them away - i know you are not speaking about 'Natural Law', or when you use that term you mean something completely different to me.

When a 'doctor' is immune from infanticide or murder because a governmental legal decree renounes a previously held status of 'human'..... oh what the crap this is useless, forget it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top