There Is Freedom In Truth @superdriver321 - Tumblr Blog

In memory of Charlie Kirk:

“The tyrant dies and his rule is over; the martyr dies and his rule begins" - Søren Kierkegaard

RIP Charlie Kirk, a husband, father and son

President Trump went off on CNN while speaking about the $1.776 billion weaponization fund on Wednesday, crediting CNN for the persecution o

stupittmoran

Time to get election results: 🇧🇷 Brazil: 2 hours (124M ballots) 🇫🇷 France: 4 hours (34M ballots) 🇮🇳 India: 24 hours (640M ballots) 🇩🇪 Germany: 8 hours (51M ballots) 🇦🇷 Argentina: 6 hours (25M ballots) 🇺🇸 California: 37 DAYS (10M ballots)

anamericangirl

Another follow up from abortion ask:

We generally agree that you have the right to use lethal force to stop someone from violating your physical safety or occupying your property against your will. If pregnancy is viewed as a "physical occupation" that one no longer consents to, the "self-defense" logic applies.

The right to freedom and autonomy is so fundamental that its violation justifies an "active" ending of life, similar to how we justify force to stop other bodily violations.

It's actually a very consistent right-wing stance because it prioritizes the individual's sovereignty over their own physical "property" (their body) above almost everything else.

In fact, a lot of us think if someone trespasses into our property and refuses to leave, we have the right to shoot them. I think the same and I wouldn't hesitate to end a life to protect myself or my property. Why can't this apply to abortion?

So I think the problem here is you are viewing pregnancy as something it categorically is not.

A baby is not violating your physical safety by existing in exactly the place it's supposed to exist. And lethal force, to be justified, has to be reasonable. There is no circumstance I can fathom where a person would be so threatened by a baby that lethal force would be justified. And pregnancy doesn't count because it's not a violation of physical safety.

And the right to shoot someone trespassing on your property can't apply to abortion because it's not the same thing. The baby is not trespassing. It's not like there was an embryo floating around looking for a uterus to invade. The mother and father chose to engage in an act that created that baby. The baby was made and placed there through no fault of their own. It is no way similar to trespassing. It is more like inviting someone into your home and then shooting them in the head when you decide you don't want them there anymore.

Furthermore, age is a factor in all of the situations you're bringing up. Unless you want to justify shooting a toddler that wanders uninvited onto your property?

You're talking about a parent and child relationship. A child is not a trespasser onto their parent's property.

Let's say though that I have a boat and take it out to the middle of the ocean. After I've been out for a while, I find a five year old stowaway on my boat. I don't know this child and they are technically trespassing on my property. Now, because property rights justify ending a life, can I throw this five year old overboard or am I obligated to not harm the child until I can get them somewhere safe?

maddmman2

The House of Representatives on Wednesday voted 215-208 to end the war with Iran.

superdriver321

A totally meaningless gesture by the House.

markfaustus

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

The FBI has arrested a California tech CEO living in a lavish $35 million mansion after federal authorities accused him of secretly supplyin

FBI RAIDS $35 MILLION CALIFORNIA MANSION — Tech CEO Arrested for Allegedly Supplying U.S. Equipment to Iran’s Nuclear and Military Programs While Reporting Just $20K Income