// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

kritarchy and the abortion debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • kritarchy and the abortion debate

    We should have kritarchy because disputes are inevitable and should be settled and resolved with sound principles. Furthermore, on the principle that a strong person should not exploit a weak person or dispense with him (a group of weak persons) without any consent from the latter, a dispute should be created with the strong person by a judge appointing himself or someone else to act in and on the behalf of the weak party. The strong party may or may not elect to act in and on his own behalf by himself. If he does not, he may hire a counsel to represent him, or ask the judge to appoint one.

    The relevance of kritarchy to the abortion debate becomes obvious. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant and it becomes obvious to a judge that the embryo (fetus, baby) in question is in danger of being aborted, the judge may then and there create a dispute by appointing an agent to act in and on the embryo's behalf.

    In most cases the judge (or a panel of judges) probably will rule in the favor of the embryo. However, in some cases it may be that the judge will rule for the mother; for example, doctors think she will die unless the embryo is terminated early.
    Last edited by Truthseeker; 05-02-2014, 08:40 PM.
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

  • #2
    We should have kritarchy because disputes are inevitable and should be settled and resolved with sound principles.
    A strong man must first believe in and enforce the principles through violence, else they are made a mockery of through empty repetition and lack of enforcement.

    Yes, I literally stopped reading right there. I may read the rest later on if it actually applies.

    Comment


    • #3
      Okay, I'll critique a bit more:

      Furthermore, on the principle that a strong person should not exploit a weak person or dispense with him (a group of weak persons) without any consent from the latter, a dispute should be created with the strong person by a judge appointing himself or someone else to act in and on the behalf of the weak party. The strong party may or may not elect to act in and on his own behalf by himself. If he does not, he may hire a counsel to represent him, or ask the judge to appoint one.

      The relevance of kritarchy to the abortion debate becomes obvious. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant and it becomes obvious to a judge that the embryo (fetus, baby) in question is in danger of being aborted, the judge may then and there create a dispute by appointing an agent to act in and on the embryo's behalf.

      In most cases the judge (or a panel of judges) probably will rule in the favor of the embryo. However, in some cases it may be that the judge will rule for the mother; for example, doctors think she will die unless the embryo is terminated early.
      Utterly foolish argumentation that names "persons", "judges", and finally "women", but makes absolutely no other provision for biology, particularly not of the "husband" or the "father," which is a damn shame on a supposedly Christian theology forum. Here's a good modified argument to use that not only doesn't denigrate strength, but uses it effectively:

      'The stronger will generally rule over the weaker, therefore the husband rules over his wife, and the wife, her children. Despite this rule, it is an affront against God, the highest and strongest of us all, to kill those weaker than us who we are responsible for, and who will in all likelihood become stronger than us one day if we raise and teach them properly. Therefore, just as it falls on the entire community of men to police the transgression of the man who kills his wife, it falls to the entire community of women to shun she who kills her children. For it is the future strength of the community that is being attacked.'

      Granted, this reasoning is a bit light on the whole 'we must continue encouraging and empowering single moms and their bastard children' rhetoric often favored by pseudo-cons and their churches, but, much like Republicans, they're not really in the restoration business so much as the 'find a need, make a career out of talking about it as much as possible while collecting donations' business.

      The actual solutions to the problem, fortunately, aren't really that complicated, and their structure can be reasoned or approximated based on human experience without the need for lawyers or consultants.

      Comment


      • #4
        Of course if not enough people try to live in accordance with a certain set of principles, it would have no more than a slight influence on the world.

        Even if so, if the principles are good ones (at least believed to be worth upholding), the hows of their application and enforcement are worth discussion, yes?

        I assumed that the father of the fetus would not be interested in its fate or is ignorant of its existence. But later on we could discuss the case of the father who is concerned about it.

        Someone in a coma would need a guardian/advocate. Why not likewise a fetus facing the threat of abortion?
        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

        [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

        Comment


        • #5
          A guardian ad litem (which is what you are proposing) would at least be better than what we have now.
          The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
            Of course if not enough people try to live in accordance with a certain set of principles, it would have no more than a slight influence on the world.

            Even if so, if the principles are good ones (at least believed to be worth upholding), the hows of their application and enforcement are worth discussion, yes?

            I assumed that the father of the fetus would not be interested in its fate or is ignorant of its existence. But later on we could discuss the case of the father who is concerned about it.
            Principle number one is not a good one, to put it mildly.

            Someone in a coma would need a guardian/advocate. Why not likewise a fetus facing the threat of abortion?
            "Facing the threat" is immaterial to the ability to carry out the threat. Aside from women who are psychologically damaged enough to try it themselves, you need a doctor for abortions, whether to prescribe RU 486 or to carry out the surgical procedure. (The number of high-profile abortion doctor deaths combined with the still relatively small number of doctors willing to perform abortions means that in many places, this is much less of an issue than in previous years.)

            Usually, the guardian/advocate would be the parents/grandparents of the child in question. Realistically, raising any child is work enough to be a full time job, and the only ones likely to do it at least passably well in the long haul are blood relatives. So my platform against abortion would be:

            1. Tell women to stop pursuing higher education.
            2. Throw feminists out of the universities.
            3. Remove Title IX, all quotas, and all HR departments.
            4. Give the jobs that weren't actually make-work to men, a large number of whom can't really earn a family-supporting wage precisely because the entry of women into the workforce pushes down their wages.
            5. Profit, in both fewer abortions, more employment opportunities, and more affordable family formation.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
              A guardian ad litem (which is what you are proposing) would at least be better than what we have now.
              This is an example of how a judge may get involved. Now understand that kritarchy does not necessarily mean government or the State, i.e., the judges aside, we have anarchy. The mother of the pregnant woman gets wind of her condition. The mother fears her daughter will get an abortion. The mother knows a judge and asks him to intercede. There is a possible conflict between the daughter and the mother--disagreement over what to do with the fetus.

              Maybe an agreement would be worked out whereby the woman's parents will take care of the baby after birth.
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment


              • #8
                How is something which assumes fetuses are people relevant to "the abortion debate," when a central disagreement is whether fetuses are people?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
                  How is something which assumes fetuses are people relevant to "the abortion debate," when a central disagreement is whether fetuses are people?
                  I'm not certain I understand. I'll venture out anyway . . . The judge is supposed to be impartial. She wants to help find a way to resolve the dispute that is brought out to her.

                  Dee Dee Warren for Judge of Colorado Springs!
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by seanD, 10-18-2020, 05:25 PM
                  2 responses
                  63 views
                  3 likes
                  Last Post seanD
                  by seanD
                   
                  Started by Whateverman, 10-18-2020, 01:23 PM
                  6 responses
                  74 views
                  2 likes
                  Last Post Whateverman  
                  Started by CivilDiscourse, 10-18-2020, 10:30 AM
                  67 responses
                  419 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Whateverman  
                  Started by Starlight, 10-16-2020, 06:20 PM
                  23 responses
                  245 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Maranatha  
                  Started by Whateverman, 10-16-2020, 06:20 PM
                  17 responses
                  169 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Sparko
                  by Sparko
                   
                  Working...
                  X