@anornymorse
Do you have better arguments than this? Or no?
@dsfgs @kick @mewmew @shampoobottle @nerdman @a7
@anornymorse
It goes like this; three are freedoms people can have. Freedom of speech is one of them. A government can choose to revoke as many of these as they wish, depending on its structure. If a government revokes one of them, either completely or partially (right to private property, for instance, is slightly revoked by taxes and gun laws), they still have the remaining freedoms.
Of course, I completely understand if one feels that if one freedom is removed, they don't have freedom. For you, perhaps, it's killing babies. For me, it would definitely be freedom of speech and religion. But the reality of distinct freedoms must not be forgotten.
@dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman
You do realize you're coming from a presupposition that freedoms and/or rights are "granted" to you from above, rather then you being born with them, right?
Which goes back to the original point: The government cannot enforce a claim over something it doesn't have at least a trustee interest in. Until you get a birth certificate, it's considered a maritime issue, outside of state jurisdiction.
@anornymorse
Well, that needs to change, then.
I'm not sure what the difference is between being born with rights and being given them by God tho.
@dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman
If you feel that we should reverse 1776 in order to enforce your moral beliefs, which is what it would take to "change" that foundation of our Republic, don't be surprised if you find yourself in a minority.
For the sake of argument/atheism, there is no difference between being born with rights or having then granted at birth by God. The fact remains that the government cannot guarantee them without a contract in place. And they need UCC 3-202 in order to get that. Before then, Nothing can be done.
@anornymorse @dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman note that I am only arguing for enforcing my morality on others up to a specific point; if no one is causing physical harm to anyone else or violating their rights, I don't really have a right to tell others what to do. The only reason I'm arguing against abortion is because I believe it violates the rights of the fetus, which is human. (If a fetus is not human, there's no justifiable reason to ban abortions, in my book.)
@anornymorse @dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman Perhaps I am misunderstanding state contracts and "state ownership of the vessel", as I cannot understand why you're equating them to fraud and slavery.
Legally, until you get that birth certificate, you exist only in maritime jurisdiction. the BC allows the state beneficial interest in your property (the bag of meat that is you) pledged to the Trust (a shared title to property) that the BC creates. Before then, any contract would have to be presumptive in nature, and therefore fraudulent.
@anornymorse @dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman
Why is state ownership necessary? Why not declare fetuses to be...not maritime jurisdiction? (Forgive me, I'm not quite sure which jurisdiction the child would be in, but I would argue that it should be inherited from the mother.) Thus, giving it the rights of a human.
Normally, a child goes from Maritime -> State Ownership at 7 -> Federal Citizenship at 18. Through their own signature, or lack of one at 7.
Oh shit son! Did a wild free inhabitant appear?
@nerdman
What do you mean by "property of the state"?
@dsfgs @shampoobottle @anornymorse
That's what property has: a series of revocable privileges in lieu of unalienable rights.
@anornymorse
A birth certificate really says you no longer have a right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness?
@dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman
I blame drugs. I had to smoke a lot today on the job in-between meetings.
@anornymorse
Is all this necessary? I feel like this is from the infant's POV, and they can't really exercise any rights except for life, so that is the only one that needs to be protected. Barring women from being able to get abortions should be enough.
@dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman
@anornymorse @dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman
I feel like what you're saying makes more sense if you're trying to defend free speech, right to assembly, property rights, etc. for a fetus, but that doesn't seem very reasonable, considering those are rights a fetus cannot act upon and enjoy, even if granted.
There is no right to a presumptive contract to ensure you are actually born. That would probably cause far more harm than good if it actually happened. That being said, I'll have to disagree about reasonable rights for a fetus; We're literally talking about the fetus' property (it's bag of meat), and it's right to contract, and it's better to be born with a ton of unalienable rights than none at all, provided you can get a trustee to enforce them post-birth. The problem is getting that contract in-place so that it doesn't deprive the rest of the world of their rights in order to make that happen, and I don't see a path to that.
@anornymorse
I am merely advocating for a law that would ban abortions.
@dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman
@anornymorse
Not really, but I respect your opinion, and it seems that you respect mine. At this point, I am not sure that either of us are gaining ground in this discussion.
@dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman
To protect their rights would be to presume a contract, which is fraudulent, or to presume ownership of a person, which is slavery.
@realcaseyrollins @dsfgs @shampoobottle @nerdman That’s the ultimate implication of House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5th, 1933, and it’s interplay with the 14th amendment of the constitution. You’re free until you a) contract away your rights, or b) create a UCC 3-202(a) trust through your Birth Certificate, and fail to claim your trustee interests before the age of 7.
All of which is complex bullshit in order to gain implied consent to being governed by a party. But getting that extended to abortion has been extraordinarily difficult due to the timing of the consent. You could potentially nunc pro tunc a trust to before the birth date, which would give the state beneficial interest, but I’m not sure UCC 3-202(a) would equate “infant” and “fetus” to allow for a contract blocking abortion. IIRC, the state doesn’t allow you to be capable of making a contract with until you’ve left your mother’s water.