(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate

[Brett]

WHAT? Kucinich is a socialist who wants to force people at gunpoint to pay for everyone else's healthcare.
Beck is a neocon who wants to force everyone at gunpoint to pay for middle east mass murder.

What's this got to do with freedom?

Because Beck supports economic freedom and Kucinich supports foreign policy freedom.

The good is not the enemy to the pure.


The question I submitted to the Judge for Beck was "What is the libertarian position most difficult for you to accept? You sometimes praise non-interventionism, but for Israel..."

He'd probably say abortion. The Judge and Beck both aren't libertarian there.

[Matt Collins]

He'd probably say abortion. The Judge and Beck both aren't libertarian there.Quit perpetuating the idea that libertarianism is pro-abortion :rolleyes:


There are libertarians that are pro-life, and others who are pro-abortion. Although it is a logical fallacy to be libertarian and pro-abortion, there are people who consider themselves to be libertarian and want to allow the murder of unborn children. I obviously disagree with it, but it's not like there is a solid consensus among every libertarian on the issue.

[Brett]

Quit perpetuating the idea that libertarianism is pro-abortion :rolleyes:


There are libertarians that are pro-life, and others who are pro-abortion. Although it is a logical fallacy to be libertarian and pro-abortion, there are people who consider themselves to be libertarian and want to allow the murder of unborn children. I obviously disagree with it, but it's not like there is a solid consensus among every libertarian on the issue.

Napolitano himself has come out saying that he describes himself as a "Pro-life libertarian". If he feels the need to distinguish it then I'd say it's pretty accepted.

Plus the libertarian platform, libertarian powerhouses like Rothbard, etc, all were pro-choice.

[akforme]

Quit perpetuating the idea that libertarianism is pro-abortion :rolleyes:


There are libertarians that are pro-life, and others who are pro-abortion. Although it is a logical fallacy to be libertarian and pro-abortion, there are people who consider themselves to be libertarian and want to allow the murder of unborn children. I obviously disagree with it, but it's not like there is a solid consensus among every libertarian on the issue.

WTF? pro abortion, that's like when others calling us pro-racists.

[ChaosControl]

He'd probably say abortion. The Judge and Beck both aren't libertarian there.
Then anti-murder laws and anti-theft laws aren't libertarian either.

[Matt Collins]

Napolitano himself has come out saying that he describes himself as a "Pro-life libertarian". If he feels the need to distinguish it then I'd say it's pretty accepted.He probably felt the need to distinguish it because there is rampant ignorance out there about it, and it continues to be perpetuated; you're a prime example!





Plus the libertarian platform, libertarian powerhouses like Rothbard, etc, all were pro-choice.(sadly) the LP is irrelevant. Can you cite for me where Rothbard was pro-abortion?

As I have said, the libertarian position of being able to own your own body and the concept of dignity of the individual means that it is impossible to advocate abortion, a form of murder, and be libertarian.

[Brett]

He probably felt the need to distinguish it because there is rampant ignorance out there about it, and it continues to be perpetuated; you're a prime example!
If he actually thought libertarians are majority pro-life he probably would have taken on the Democrat on freedomwatch on the last episode. Instead he shook it and asked his next question.




(sadly) the LP is irrelevant. Can you cite for me where Rothbard was pro-abortion?
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp


As I have said, the libertarian position of being able to own your own body and the concept of dignity of the individual means that it is impossible to advocate abortion, a form of murder, and be libertarian.
And I'm in agreement with you, but I doubt the majority of libertarians are.

[Kregisen]

It all matters where you believe rights start at.

If you believe the unborn (up to a certain age) don't have rights then pro-choice is the libertarian stance.

If you believe the unborn have rights, then pro-life is the libertarian stance.

Ron Paul himself has delivered 4,000 babies and is very pro-life. One of his arguments is he can get sued if something happens with the unborn baby/fetus.....that would mean the fetus has rights.


It's probably pretty close to a 50-50 split for libertarians....I wouldn't say either is the more libertarian stance. It all depends on beliefs.

[Matt Collins]

And I'm in agreement with you, but I doubt the majority of libertarians are.Most of the libertarians I know are pro-life, but I live in the South. I am willing to bet there might be more pro-abortion libertarians the further west one travels.

[VBRonPaulFan]

It all matters where you believe rights start at.

If you believe the unborn (up to a certain age) don't have rights then pro-choice is the libertarian stance.

If you believe the unborn have rights, then pro-life is the libertarian stance.

Ron Paul himself has delivered 4,000 babies and is very pro-life. One of his arguments is he can get sued if something happens with the unborn baby/fetus.....that would mean the fetus has rights.


It's probably pretty close to a 50-50 split for libertarians....I wouldn't say either is the more libertarian stance. It all depends on beliefs.

To me, it is even deeper than that. I think it depends on where you really believe life begins at. Conception? Birth? Somewhere in the middle? I don't think this is really a political issue but more of a moral one. Most people make the decision on whether they are for or against abortion based on their beliefs, their family and community influence, etc. I don't think the government should be involved with abortion either way. If you want to get one, you should find a doctor who shares your beliefs that will actually do the procedure. But aborting a birth affects you, your relationship with the person you conceived with, your family, etc.

[MichelleHeart]

To me, it is even deeper than that. I think it depends on where you really believe life begins at. Conception? Birth? Somewhere in the middle? I don't think this is really a political issue but more of a moral one. Most people make the decision on whether they are for or against abortion based on their beliefs, their family and community influence, etc. I don't think the government should be involved with abortion either way. If you want to get one, you should find a doctor who shares your beliefs that will actually do the procedure. But aborting a birth affects you, your relationship with the person you conceived with, your family, etc.

It is often said that life begins at 40. Is that open for interpretation? Can some person just go out and kill everyone under 40 if they happen to hold that belief? After all, making such a thing illegal infringes on a person's right to decide when life begins.

[dmitchell]

libertarian powerhouses like Rothbard, etc, all were pro-choice.

Do you have a source for this information? Rothbard has always struck me as pretty conservative; I would have put him in the "abortion is murder" camp, and maybe put Ayn Rand in the pro-choice camp. (But I'm probably wrong about both.)

Edit: Never mind, I googled it and it certainly seems that Rothbard was stridently pro-choice.

[VBRonPaulFan]

It is often said that life begins at 40. Is that open for interpretation? Can some person just go out and kill everyone under 40 if they happen to hold that belief? After all, making such a thing illegal infringes on a person's right to decide when life begins.

No, but there is a significant difference between a 40 year old man who can sustain himself and a fetus that would almost immediately die when removed from the mother. I personally believe that life begins at conception, but i'm not going want to force that belief on any woman and tell her she isn't in control of her body to abort the pregnancy if she so chooses. Maybe the reason this is such a sticky issue is because two lives are involved?

[specsaregood]

No, but there is a significant difference between a 40 year old man who can sustain himself and a fetus that would almost immediately die when removed from the mother.
How about a 40yr old on life support or a full-on quadriplegic?

[VBRonPaulFan]

How about a 40yr old on life support or a full-on quadriplegic?

Good questions for someone who would want to end a pregnancy, I suppose.

[mtj458]

Most of the libertarians I know are pro-life, but I live in the South. I am willing to bet there might be more pro-abortion libertarians the further west one travels.

Maybe if you keep referring to it as pro-abortion you'll win some people over to your side! Of course its possible that people who disagree with you on the issue would see you as a close minded jerk and disregard your whole platform because of it but why worry about that?

[Matt Collins]

would see you as a close minded jerk and disregard your whole platform because of it but why worry about that?My thoughts exactly :cool:

[Teaser Rate]

It all matters where you believe rights start at.

If you believe the unborn (up to a certain age) don't have rights then pro-choice is the libertarian stance.

If you believe the unborn have rights, then pro-life is the libertarian stance.

Ron Paul himself has delivered 4,000 babies and is very pro-life. One of his arguments is he can get sued if something happens with the unborn baby/fetus.....that would mean the fetus has rights.


It's probably pretty close to a 50-50 split for libertarians....I wouldn't say either is the more libertarian stance. It all depends on beliefs.

True, but I would also add the variable of whether or not someone believes the government can effectively reduce abortion rates if they believe it to be a morally wrong action.

In the same way government prohibition of drugs created a black market and more addicts, government prohibition of abortion might lead to similar unintended consequences. (see what happened in Mexico)

[emazur]

government prohibition of abortion might lead to similar unintended consequences.

DIY abortions. Who knows how many went by unnoticed. Or the women who could afford it would just travel to a country with legalized abortion and have it done there
YouTube - Techniques used by women before abortion was legal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmoqc2KUt84)

[ClayTrainor]

Most of the libertarians I know are pro-life, but I live in the South. I am willing to bet there might be more pro-abortion libertarians the further west one travels.

Most libertarians I know, including myself do not have a firm black & white position on abortion, and are sympathetic to both sides of the argument for various reasons.

[kkassam]

It all matters where you believe rights start at.

If you believe the unborn (up to a certain age) don't have rights then pro-choice is the libertarian stance.

If you believe the unborn have rights, then pro-life is the libertarian stance.

Ron Paul himself has delivered 4,000 babies and is very pro-life. One of his arguments is he can get sued if something happens with the unborn baby/fetus.....that would mean the fetus has rights.


It's probably pretty close to a 50-50 split for libertarians....I wouldn't say either is the more libertarian stance. It all depends on beliefs.


To me, it is even deeper than that. I think it depends on where you really believe life begins at. Conception? Birth? Somewhere in the middle? I don't think this is really a political issue but more of a moral one. Most people make the decision on whether they are for or against abortion based on their beliefs, their family and community influence, etc. I don't think the government should be involved with abortion either way. If you want to get one, you should find a doctor who shares your beliefs that will actually do the procedure. But aborting a birth affects you, your relationship with the person you conceived with, your family, etc.

There is an important distinction made here. Libertarianism (more specifically the deontological libertarianism I see mostly expressed by people on this forum as opposed to the consequentialist variety favoured by people like David Friedman) is a political philosophy that says that noone, including the government, may initiate violence against persons or their property. These persons have claims against all other people called rights. The reason that self-identified libertarians disagree on abortion policy is not that their political philosophy differs, but because they have a different notion of at what point personhood begins and rights are acquired. NB: the dispute is not over when life begins, many libertarians would concede that a 1 day old foetus and a adult cow are both alive, but that both may be killed because neither of them are rights-possessing persons.

In summation, libertarianism, which is purely a political philosophy and not an entire moral theory (all of you know that there can be atheist libertarians & Christian libertarians with real disagreements over moral issues) while it can resolve issues like whether taxation or involuntary detention ought to be licit, cannot determine alone whether abortion should be. Some further moral view about personhood is necessary. There is no single libertarian view on abortion.

If I may make some appeal to authority, the Walter Block includes abortion (along with immigration, incitement, and voluntary slave contracts) as one issue on which libertarians may legitimately disagree. I also strongly recommend his lecture (http://mises.org/media/1479) and articles (http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf)[pdf] on the topic of abortion for a compelling and characteristically radical solution to the abortion dilemna, which he characterizes as a compromise between standard pro-life and pro-choice views.

[ChaosControl]

To me, it is even deeper than that. I think it depends on where you really believe life begins at. Conception? Birth? Somewhere in the middle? I don't think this is really a political issue but more of a moral one. Most people make the decision on whether they are for or against abortion based on their beliefs, their family and community influence, etc. I don't think the government should be involved with abortion either way. If you want to get one, you should find a doctor who shares your beliefs that will actually do the procedure. But aborting a birth affects you, your relationship with the person you conceived with, your family, etc.

So it is okay to allow murder because someone else doesn't believe it is murder?

[Kregisen]

True, but I would also add the variable of whether or not someone believes the government can effectively reduce abortion rates if they believe it to be a morally wrong action.

In the same way government prohibition of drugs created a black market and more addicts, government prohibition of abortion might lead to similar unintended consequences. (see what happened in Mexico)


The unintended consequences argument aids the argument to legalize all drugs, but I much prefer to argue principles than "practical consequences" I guess you could say. Sure, the laws against drugs don't stop people from using drugs, they're everywhere....but I'm against it first and foremost because it's an infringement of freedom.

Sure, if you prohibited abortion, many would still be done in back alleys, but if there's nothing you can do about it, there's nothing you can do about it.

You could make the very same argument for first-degree murder....if you ban murder, it still goes on. That doesn't mean you should legalize it.

[QueenB4Liberty]

He probably felt the need to distinguish it because there is rampant ignorance out there about it, and it continues to be perpetuated; you're a prime example!




(sadly) the LP is irrelevant. Can you cite for me where Rothbard was pro-abortion?

As I have said, the libertarian position of being able to own your own body and the concept of dignity of the individual means that it is impossible to advocate abortion, a form of murder, and be libertarian.

.....ok you believe in bodily ownership so you can't call yourself pro-life. Or you don't believe in bodily ownership, which you've already said you are pro-life so you don't. If women own their own bodies, why shouldn't they be able to abort? I understand a fetus is a living human being, I don't understand how libertarians can say they believe in bodily ownership and be pro-life. It's inconsistent. "I believe a woman owns her body, unless there's a fetus inside..." *door opens for exceptions*

[VBRonPaulFan]

So it is okay to allow murder because someone else doesn't believe it is murder?

Well that's a little different I guess. Do the rights of the child supersede the rights of the mother carrying the child?

[VBRonPaulFan]

There is an important distinction made here. Libertarianism (more specifically the deontological libertarianism I see mostly expressed by people on this forum as opposed to the consequentialist variety favoured by people like David Friedman) is a political philosophy that says that noone, including the government, may initiate violence against persons or their property. These persons have claims against all other people called rights. The reason that self-identified libertarians disagree on abortion policy is not that their political philosophy differs, but because they have a different notion of at what point personhood begins and rights are acquired. NB: the dispute is not over when life begins, many libertarians would concede that a 1 day old foetus and a adult cow are both alive, but that both may be killed because neither of them are rights-possessing persons.

In summation, libertarianism, which is purely a political philosophy and not an entire moral theory (all of you know that there can be atheist libertarians & Christian libertarians with real disagreements over moral issues) while it can resolve issues like whether taxation or involuntary detention ought to be licit, cannot determine alone whether abortion should be. Some further moral view about personhood is necessary. There is no single libertarian view on abortion.

If I may make some appeal to authority, the Walter Block includes abortion (along with immigration, incitement, and voluntary slave contracts) as one issue on which libertarians may legitimately disagree. I also strongly recommend his lecture (http://mises.org/media/1479) and articles (http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf)[pdf] on the topic of abortion for a compelling and characteristically radical solution to the abortion dilemna, which he characterizes as a compromise between standard pro-life and pro-choice views.

Very well said. That is essentially the point I was trying to make, I just wasn't as articulate about it as you were :)

[QueenB4Liberty]

Well that's a little different I guess. Do the rights of the child supersede the rights of the mother carrying the child?

I think this is it for pro-lifers. The rights of the fetus are greater than the rights of the woman carrying it, temporarily.

[Sentient Void]

I live in the Boston, MA area and am a staunch An-Cap libertarian. I am *mostly* pro-choice, personally, but see and understand both sides of the argument. however, I believe there are practical and moral grounds to being pro-choice.

For moral/deontological grounds, I point to Rothbard. Although some may say it is a 'cold' approach, I feel that Rothbard's explanation behind being pro-choice is sufficient and logically consistent with liberty and said self-ownership. It may sound cold, but the fetus, according to the mother, would be viewed as a parasitic entity that is committing aggression on her person (as unintended it may be). Sounds messed up, I know - but if we are to follow the principles of liberty to their logical conclusion... well, there it is. In the end, she and the father must work it out themselves and live with any moral consequences and that of their conscience.

For practical/consequential grounds... I point to (as did others) the concept of unintended consequences.

BTW, I refer to myself as 'mostly pro-choice', because even though I understand and agree mostly with Rothbard on his conclusion, I have a personal view that abortion should not be done after a point as to when the fetus could survive outside the womb with support (through charity or hospital donations/assistance). Even still, I would *never* advocate enforcing this view on anyone at any governmental level.

[Matt Collins]

If women own their own bodies, why shouldn't they be able to abort?I own my own body and my house. Why can't I kill my roommate? :rolleyes:



I understand a fetus is a living human being, I don't understand how libertarians can say they believe in bodily ownership and be pro-life. It's inconsistent. "I believe a woman owns her body, unless there's a fetus inside..." *door opens for exceptions*Because by killing another human being, they have violated the rights of that other human being. They have denied that other human being their right life. It's really simple.


The rights of the fetus are greater than the rights of the woman carrying it, temporarily.No, the rights are equal.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I live in the Boston, MA area and am a staunch An-Cap libertarian. I am *mostly* pro-choice, personally, but see and understand both sides of the argument. however, I believe there are practical and moral grounds to being pro-choice.

For moral/deontological grounds, I point to Rothbard. Although some may say it is a 'cold' approach, I feel that Rothbard's explanation behind being pro-choice is sufficient and logically consistent with liberty and said self-ownership. It may sound cold, but the fetus, according to the mother, would be viewed as a parasitic entity that is committing aggression on her person (as unintended it may be). Sounds messed up, I know - but if we are to follow the principles of liberty to their logical conclusion... well, there it is. In the end, she and the father must work it out themselves and live with any moral consequences and that of their conscience.

For practical/consequential grounds... I point to (as did others) the concept of unintended consequences.

BTW, I refer to myself as 'mostly pro-choice', because even though I understand and agree mostly with Rothbard on his conclusion, I have a personal view that abortion should not be done after a point as to when the fetus could survive outside the womb with support (through charity or hospital donations/assistance). Even still, I would *never* advocate enforcing this view on anyone at any governmental level.


I agree with everything you said. +1776

[QueenB4Liberty]

I own my own body and my house. Why can't I kill my roommate? :rolleyes:


Because by killing another human being, they have violated the rights of that other human being. They have denied that other human being their right life. It's really simple.

No, the rights are equal.

You can't murder another human being. I can't believe you're comparing a fetus inside a woman to a roommate. Not even comparable.

How can they be equal? The woman is denied her right to liberty and to pursue happiness/own her body as long as the fetus is inside? How are the woman's rights not violated if she is FORCED to remain pregnant?

[specsaregood]

How are the woman's rights not violated if she is FORCED to remain pregnant?

She waived away her rights when she chose to participate in the act that got her pregnant? Thus, no violation.

[Matt Collins]

You can't murder another human being. I can't believe you're comparing a fetus inside a woman to a roommate. Not even comparable. An unborn child is another human being :rolleyes:


How can they be equal? The woman is denied her right to liberty and to pursue happiness/own her body as long as the fetus is inside? How are the woman's rights not violated if she is FORCED to remain pregnant?
ANSWER THIS:
How are you not violating the rights of the unborn child by killing it? :rolleyes:

And in 99.99% of pregnancies, the woman was not raped which means it was a choice to engage in activity that could lead to pregnancy.

[Agorism]

Should it be illegal to drink alcohol while pregnant?

Just asking.

People shouldn't of course, but is it enforceable to monitor what people are doing on this level?

[Matt Collins]

Should it be illegal to drink alcohol while pregnant?
Yes it absolutely should because harm will be caused to another individual in the course of this activity.


but is it enforceable to monitor what people are doing on this level?I do realize however that it is by and large not enforceable.

[Kregisen]

I think this is it for pro-lifers. The rights of the fetus are greater than the rights of the woman carrying it, temporarily.

The rights of the fetus are conflicting with the rights of the mother. I believe the right to life is greater than the right to your body.





She waived away her rights when she chose to participate in the act that got her pregnant? Thus, no violation.

I think that argument has nothing to do with this at all. People's choices don't matter, in the end whether someone got raped or chose to have sex, that doesn't change whether there is a fetus with or without rights or not.

You wouldn't ban abortion because "they chose to have sex therefore it's a just punishment" - it's not to punish the mother, it's to protect the rights of the child.




Should it be illegal to drink alcohol while pregnant?

Just asking.

People shouldn't of course, but is it enforceable to monitor what people are doing on this level?


This is a much grayer area....in principle, yes it should be illegal to consume alcohol while pregnant but the practicality of enforcement and unintended consequences (if you can't consume alcohol while pregnant....where does the line stop? Can you not do anything else deemed "dangerous"?)





I think there are very good arguments on both sides of this but I'm pro-life.

[KAYA]

He probably felt the need to distinguish it because there is rampant ignorance out there about it, and it continues to be perpetuated; you're a prime example!




(sadly) the LP is irrelevant. Can you cite for me where Rothbard was pro-abortion?

As I have said, the libertarian position of being able to own your own body and the concept of dignity of the individual means that it is impossible to advocate abortion, a form of murder, and be libertarian.

Agree 100%. The pro-"choice" libertarian position is hypocritical and deeply flawed. The taking of innocent life for the conveyance of another is as anti-liberty as it gets.

[FrankRep]

He'd probably say abortion. The Judge and Beck both aren't libertarian there.


Quit perpetuating the idea that libertarianism is pro-abortion :rolleyes:

I would have to reject Libertarianism if it was pro-Abortion. Thanks for defending Matt.

[ChaosControl]

I would have to reject Libertarianism if it was pro-Abortion. Thanks for defending Matt.

Same here.

[jmdrake]

Napolitano himself has come out saying that he describes himself as a "Pro-life libertarian". If he feels the need to distinguish it then I'd say it's pretty accepted.

Plus the libertarian platform, libertarian powerhouses like Rothbard, etc, all were pro-choice.

Well that's one interpretation. Another is that libertarians are split evenly on the issue so you have "pro-life" and "pro-choice" libertarians. Anyway if you believe a fetus is an individual than having an abortion is no more of a private decision than is killing your newborn in the "privacy" of your own home. And you have to have a really seared conscience to go as far as some have in suggesting that a baby that has almost come to term, is pulled halfway out the birth canal and is then killed is somehow not an individual.

[KAYA]

.....ok you believe in bodily ownership so you can't call yourself pro-life. Or you don't believe in bodily ownership, which you've already said you are pro-life so you don't. If women own their own bodies, why shouldn't they be able to abort? I understand a fetus is a living human being, I don't understand how libertarians can say they believe in bodily ownership and be pro-life. It's inconsistent. "I believe a woman owns her body, unless there's a fetus inside..." *door opens for exceptions*

This reasoning is ridiculously flawed. To be pro-life one cannot believe in bodily ownership? This is inconsistent? Are you kidding? What about the body of the unborn?

This unborn life is its own sovereign being and has a right to life endowed by its creator (unless of course you believe rights come from government). That's the whole point of abortion, to exterminate another body, another life. Its an abortion not an amputation.

[ChaosControl]

Re: Abortion.

You have bodily ownership and can do with it what you want UNLESS you are harming another person's freedom when you do something with it. You aborting is violating someone's right to life, which is of higher priority than your comfort or convenience.

[eOs]

re: abortion.
You've signed the proverbial contract when you had sex and conceived a human inside your own body. Your body now houses another life, how can someone think it's OK to murder him/her just because of where he/she lives?

[KAYA]

You can't murder another human being. I can't believe you're comparing a fetus inside a woman to a roommate. Not even comparable.

How can they be equal? The woman is denied her right to liberty and to pursue happiness/own her body as long as the fetus is inside? How are the woman's rights not violated if she is FORCED to remain pregnant?

You are subject to the consequences of your own actions!

What about parents who already have children? What if they want to take all of their hard earned money and spend it on their own pleasures and pursuits? Should they be FORCED to feed, cloth and spend time taking care of these children if its gets in the way of their own selfish pursuits? Don't they "own" their own bodies and fruits of their labor?

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Re: Abortion.

You have bodily ownership and can do with it what you want UNLESS you are harming another person's freedom when you do something with it. You aborting is violating someone's right to life, which is of higher priority than your comfort or convenience.

What about the fact that if the woman does not want the baby in her body, the baby is violating her property rights. If you believe in property rights, women need to be allowed to decide who they want to have/keep in their body. And if you're a libertarian and don't believe in positive obligations, abortion has to be allowed. I don't like abortion either, but I don't think forcing women to keep the baby is the right answer.

[FrankRep]

What about the fact that if the woman does not want the baby in her body, the baby is violating her property rights. If you believe in property rights, women need to be allowed to decide who they want to have/keep in their body. And if you're a libertarian and don't believe in positive obligations, abortion has to be allowed. I don't like abortion either, but I don't think forcing women to keep the baby is the right answer.

Abortion uses aggressive force and violates the rights of the baby.

[EN81]

What about the fact that if the woman does not want the baby in her body, the baby is violating her property rights. If you believe in property rights, women need to be allowed to decide who they want to have/keep in their body. And if you're a libertarian and don't believe in positive obligations, abortion has to be allowed. I don't like abortion either, but I don't think forcing women to keep the baby is the right answer.

That argument would hold up if the baby had invaded the woman's body, without invitation. That's never the case, however. When a woman engages in the act of procreation, she must realize that procreation might take place. Having an abortion is a cheap way of trying to evade personal responsibility for her own actions.

[malkusm]

That argument would hold up if the baby had invaded the woman's body, without invitation. That's never the case, however. When a woman engages in the act of procreation, she must realize that procreation might take place. Having an abortion is a cheap way of trying to evade personal responsibility for her own decisions.

So in other words, you would be ok with abortion in the case of rape?

[ChaosControl]

What about the fact that if the woman does not want the baby in her body, the baby is violating her property rights. If you believe in property rights, women need to be allowed to decide who they want to have/keep in their body. And if you're a libertarian and don't believe in positive obligations, abortion has to be allowed. I don't like abortion either, but I don't think forcing women to keep the baby is the right answer.

It isn't a positive obligation. It is a "Do no harm" obligation.

Life > Property.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Abortion uses aggressive force and violates the rights of the baby.

If there's someone on property that I don't want and who won't leave, force is entirely justified to enforce my property rights. It just comes down to whether you believe 100%ly in property rights or not.

[eOs]

So in other words, you would be ok with abortion in the case of rape?

In cases of rape, I would be OK with a woman having an abortion.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

It isn't a positive obligation. It is a "Do no harm" obligation.

Life > Property.

[/QUOTE]

So if I'm starving, it is justified for me to steal your stuff and I should not get punished for that? So if a population is in a food-shortage, it is also justified for the government to confiscate the food and try to issue it in the way they think most people will get it? Sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you on that issue.

If there's someone on my property, I can kick him off. If you think that I have the obligation to keep that person on my property so it can stay alive, that is a positive obligation.

[MRoCkEd]

How does the property rights argument apply to a born baby?

You don't want it in your house, so can you kill it, or just physically remove it (leave it outside)?

[RM918]

So in other words, you would be ok with abortion in the case of rape?

Abortion involving cases of rape, incest, or genetic defects are only 1% of abortions performed.


If there's someone on property that I don't want and who won't leave, force is entirely justified to enforce my property rights. It just comes down to whether you believe 100%ly in property rights or not.

What if that person is on your property because you forcibly brought them there and then you caused a condition in which if they left your property, they'd die?

This isn't, "You either believe in property rights or you don't," this is an extraordinary situation and immediate danger to life has a higher priority than property.

[EN81]

So in other words, you would be ok with abortion in the case of rape?

I think the woman should have a choice if the pregnancy is forced upon her, against her will, yes. If she decides to have an abortion in such a case, the rapist bears full moral responsibility for the loss of life.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

What if that person is on your property because you forcibly brought them there and then you caused a condition in which if they left your property, they'd die?

If you believe life starts at conception, then the child was not "forcibly brought" there, but its existence began there.

[ChaosControl]

So if I'm starving, it is justified for me to steal your stuff and I should not get punished for that? So if a population is in a food-shortage, it is also justified for the government to confiscate the food and try to issue it in the way they think most people will get it? Sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you on that issue.

If I am starving, you can be certain I would steal if I had to. And I should not be put to death for that.

The situation isn't that you actively have to be a decent person and try and help someone, the situation is just that you don't be an evil person and try and kill someone who is just trying to live.

But the baby didn't even do anything wrong.

[RM918]

If you believe life starts at conception, then the child was not "forcibly brought" there, but its existence began there.

The child was. If there wasn't any unmitigated copulation, in which the owner had to agree to to occur, that child wouldn't be there. The child had no choice in the matter. The property owner is responsible for that child's condition. The child wasn't hiding in the bushes and jumped in her womb unawares, then forced the mother to carry it around for 9 months like a parasite. It was an active decision on her part to allow the circumstances to be as they are.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

If I am starving, you can be certain I would steal if I had to. And I should not be put to death for that.

Of course you would steal, but that doesn't mean that you were acting ethically correct and therefore you would be punished for that theft (not put to death of course, because killing someone for stealing food is not an appropriate "use of force" in general).


The situation isn't that you actively have to be a decent person and try and help someone, the situation is just that you don't be an evil person and try and kill someone who is just trying to live.

But if that person completely depends on you and only on positive behavior from your part can stay alive. It's the same as if you're in a relationship and you want to leave your partner, but the partner says "If you leave me, I'll suicide, I can't live with you!" - should you be forced to stay with her even if you know that doing so will result in her death? The libertarian answer would clearly be no.


But the baby didn't even do anything wrong.

Yes, and that's why I oppose abortion on a moral level. But a woman needs to have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body and who she allows to be in it.

[RM918]

Yes, and that's why I oppose abortion on a moral level. But a woman needs to have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body and who she allows to be in it.

She does, the only difference is that instead of making that choice at the right time - by having intercourse responsibly - she decided she'd rather wait until her decision resulted in someone's life being lost.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

The child was. If there wasn't any unmitigated copulation, in which the owner had to agree to to occur, that child wouldn't be there. The child had no choice in the matter. The property owner is responsible for that child's condition. The child wasn't hiding in the bushes and jumped in her womb unawares, then forced the mother to carry it around for 9 months like a parasite. It was an active decision on her part to allow the circumstances to be as they are.

You can't use force on someone that doesn't exist. The child's existence began after the point of time where you assert forced was used on it. Also, "The property owner is responsible for that child's condition" clearly asserts that you believe in positive obligations. You may of course do so, but that has nothing to do with libertarianism or free choice at all.

In my earlier example with the partner that says "If you leave me, I'm gonna kill myself" you could also say that starting the relationship was an active decision. Does that mean that you have to keep the relationship going forever or until the partner also agrees to stop it? Again, no real libertarian would answer yes to that question.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

She does, the only difference is that instead of making that choice at the right time - by having intercourse responsibly - she decided she'd rather wait until her decision resulted in someone's life being lost.

So if I decide that I want to burn down my house, but wait a few months and by the time I decide to burn my house, you are currently visiting me there. You don't want me to burn my house and don't leave. Should I be forced to keep that house forever now, bring you food and fresh clothing, don't do anything irresponsible that might endanger the house, because of your unwillingness to leave?

[RM918]

You can't use force on someone that doesn't exist. The child's existence began after the point of time where you assert forced was used on it. Also, "The property owner is responsible for that child's condition" clearly asserts that you believe in positive obligations. You may of course do so, but that has nothing to do with libertarianism or free choice at all.

In my earlier example with the partner that says "If you leave me, I'm gonna kill myself" you could also say that starting the relationship was an active decision. Does that mean that you have to keep the relationship going forever or until the partner also agrees to stop it? Again, no real libertarian would answer yes to that question.

That analogy doesn't fly because said partner is extremely responsible for that circumstance, since they're trying to force the other into complying with that. There was no way you could've known at the beginning they'd act like that, as well.

With pregnancy, the lines are pretty clear. You won't get pregnant if you don't have sex, and the child created by it has no choice on where it's created because the act of creating it was decided by the property owner and another party. The property owner engaged in an act that made the child exist in that circumstance to need to be reliant upon her in order to live.

[ChaosControl]

Of course you would steal, but that doesn't mean that you were acting ethically correct and therefore you would be punished for that theft (not put to death of course, because killing someone for stealing food is not an appropriate "use of force" in general).
So you think killing someone who is just trying to stay alive is wrong and yet at the same time you also believe that killing someone who is just trying to stay alive is acceptable. Which is it?


But if that person completely depends on you and only on positive behavior from your part can stay alive. It's the same as if you're in a relationship and you want to leave your partner, but the partner says "If you leave me, I'll suicide, I can't live with you!" - should you be forced to stay with her even if you know that doing so will result in her death? The libertarian answer would clearly be no.
If you don't feed your born child, is that okay? That child depends on you too and will die if you don't feed him or her. Or is it only okay when you cannot see their face yet, when they aren't cute enough for you? There is two parts to this issue.

First is the do no harm. This should be a general philosophy people have. Abortion is a violent act, it is an infringement on not causing harm to others. It is violating someone else's liberty. Pretty anti-libertarian really.

Second is parental obligation. You have a duty as a parent to take care of your child. There are situations, such as rape, where you didn't ask for the child, and that is unfair, but it is still your child in the end and your obligation doesn't end just because the father was a scumbag.


Yes, and that's why I oppose abortion on a moral level. But a woman needs to have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body and who she allows to be in it.
She has that right, but like any right, once it infringes on the right of another she no longer has it.

[ChaosControl]

Seriously though if this is your idea of "libertarians". That property > *. Then yeah I will say I am certainly not a propertarian.

[RM918]

So if I decide that I want to burn down my house, but wait a few months and by the time I decide to burn my house, you are currently visiting me there. You don't want me to burn my house and don't leave. Should I be forced to keep that house forever now, bring you food and fresh clothing, don't do anything irresponsible that might endanger the house, because of your unwillingness to leave?

I chose to go on your property, I have the ability to leave completely at my discretion. I think the right decision is to have me forcibly removed (Since I'd be fine if I was), but I think burning a house down on me is rather overzealous.

[Peace&Freedom]

Abortion involving cases of rape, incest, or genetic defects are only 1% of abortions performed.

What if that person is on your property because you forcibly brought them there and then you caused a condition in which if they left your property, they'd die?

This isn't, "You either believe in property rights or you don't," this is an extraordinary situation and immediate danger to life has a higher priority than property.

But this is the same reasoning that has defacto gotten us elective abortion under general circumstances. Arguing that the life/health of the mother and rape cases are legitimate objections has given pro-abortion forces the leeway (from Doe v Dalton on) to stretch the definition of the "physical health" to psychological health impact on the mother. Rape cases that can traumatize have been stretched to mean any circumstance that the mother says traumatizes her are legit grounds for abortion.

The bad exceptions create a precedent for abortion on demand. Where does a commitment to legal protection for the pre-born ever begin, if 100% of the discussion excludes defining it, and dwells only on the mother? The chief extraordinary danger to life that is to be avoided is destroying the innocent pre-born child, who is done to death in every instance of abortion, and so has a higher priority than circumstances the child is not guilty of causing.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

That analogy doesn't fly because said partner is extremely responsible for that circumstance, since they're trying to force the other into complying with that. There was no way you could've known at the beginning they'd act like that, as well.

Moral responsibility is completely irrelevant in that case - and what would be if said partner just went through a really tough time losing half of her family, circumstances which she clearly isn't responsible for. What if she doesn't try to force me into staying with her by threatening suicide, but I know that she plans to do if in case I left her? Should I then be forced to stay with her?


With pregnancy, the lines are pretty clear. You won't get pregnant if you don't have sex, and the child created by it has no choice on where it's created because the act of creating it was decided by the property owner and another party. The property owner engaged in an act that made the child exist in that circumstance to need to be reliant upon her in order to live.

Well, if you want to avoid a situation as described by me above, it's also simple: Don't start a relationship at all! Just because I create something doesn't mean that I automatically agree to keep it forever (or until it wants to leave on its own). And usually in cases of abortion, the mother didn't even intend to create the child, it happened by accident.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

I chose to go on your property, I have the ability to leave completely at my discretion. I think the right decision is to have me forcibly removed (Since I'd be fine if I was), but I think burning a house down on me is rather overzealous.

Of course it is extreme, but it is not like the mother has a real alternative that would protect her property rights and keep the child alive anyways. Let's hope science will find a solution like this soon so this debate can become meaningless, but until then I stand with the rights of a woman to exert full control over her own body.

[RM918]

Moral responsibility is completely irrelevant in that case - and what would be if said partner just went through a really tough time losing half of her family, circumstances which she clearly isn't responsible for. What if she doesn't try to force me into staying with her by threatening suicide, but I know that she plans to do if in case I left her? Should I then be forced to stay with her?

Then that is her choice. She has the ability to choose to do so. She is the one purposefully relying on you to prolong her life and has set the criteria for it, and you didn't force the situation to become as such. You both have free will, the child doesn't and you're one of two parties completely responsible for that.


Well, if you want to avoid a situation as described by me above, it's also simple: Don't start a relationship at all! Just because I create something doesn't mean that I automatically agree to keep it forever (or until it wants to leave on its own). And usually in cases of abortion, the mother didn't even intend to create the child, it happened by accident.

If she chose to have sex, it wasn't an accident. Accident or no, she knew what that behavior could produce and caused it anyway. Relationship or no, you aren't directly responsible for your spouse's existence or circumstances.

[justinc.1089]

The judge and Ron Paul are true libertarians when it comes to abortion.

All men have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


Hmm... I wonder when does life truly begin? Its great that we have this thing called science now that can look at cells and clearly show when the human being begins to form, so now we can define the point where life begins! It makes it easy to understand where life begins now, so that we know when we have to start defending an individual's right to live.



But on another note, Ron Paul himself has said that libertarians are divided on the issue of abortion, and he is correct. I'm a libertarian and I'm also pro-life because defining life as beginning anywhere other than the first human cell formed doesn't make much sense to me really, and it would also be incredibly difficult to determine if there was truly a person formed yet or not.

So... technically the "true" libertarian position according to libertarians themselves is that there's not one because we have no agreement about it.

But I still argue the true position is pro-life because all individuals have a natural right to life, and science easily shows where life begins. There is no "right to choose," because a right to choose is really a right to choose to kill or not to kill if you extend the statement to actually make sense, and not just be ambiguous about what is being chosen by not saying kill or not kill.

I mean seriously, its even considered killing a person legally if you kill a pregnant woman's baby somehow, but yet its not if the woman decides for that to happen herself? Abortion is a political agenda and people need to realize that.


Finally, does Freedom Watch come on tonight later than 8? Because I missed it now and will be working later tonight at 8.

[RM918]

Of course it is extreme, but it is not like the mother has a real alternative that would protect her property rights and keep the child alive anyways. Let's hope science will find a solution like this soon so this debate can become meaningless, but until then I stand with the rights of a woman to exert full control over her own body.

I also hope technology will make the argument bunk at some point, but immediate concern for human life trumps property rights especially when that very condition was created due to the property owner doing so of their own free will. In a sense, I agree that a woman has the ability to exert full control over her body - I just think her choice in the matter should have been made before she knowingly engaged in an act she knew would create the child.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Then that is her choice. She has the ability to choose to do so. She is the one purposefully relying on you to prolong her life and has set the criteria for it, and you didn't force the situation to become as such. You both have free will, the child doesn't and you're one of two parties completely responsible for that.

But in an abortion, the reason why the fetus dies is not that you want to kill it, but that its physical composition needs at the time requires the positive behavior of a mother for staying alive. And yes, in he above example she is the one relying on you t prolong her life, but it is the same with the child. On its own, the child can't survive, it is relying on the mother for creating the circumstances at where life for the child is possible.




If she chose to have sex, it wasn't an accident. Accident or no, she knew what that behavior could produce and caused it anyway. Relationship or no, you aren't directly responsible for your spouse's existence or circumstances.

Of course it can still be an accident. A maybe more likely accident than in the first case, but still an unintended consequence and therefore an accident. And just like you shouldn't be held responsible for your partner's existence, the same applies to your offspring. If you were, that'd be a positive obligation.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

I also hope technology will make the argument bunk at some point, but immediate concern for human life trumps property rights especially when that very condition was created due to the property owner doing so of their own free will. In a sense, I agree that a woman has the ability to exert full control over her body - I just think her choice in the matter should have been made before she knowingly engaged in an act she knew would create the child.

But then she doesn't have full control. I agree that it would be preferable if women (and men) always acted morally responsible, but they don't and it's wrong to use force to get them to do so. And unless she explicitly agrees to take care of the child, she has not made that choice. This discussion reminds me of when people bring up the "social contract" that somehow says that people agree to government by acting in within society where a government is present. I think the concept of implied contracts is very authoritarian at its core.

[RM918]

But in an abortion, the reason why the fetus dies is not that you want to kill it, but that its physical composition needs at the time requires the positive behavior of a mother for staying alive. And yes, in he above example she is the one relying on you t prolong her life, but it is the same with the child. On its own, the child can't survive, it is relying on the mother for creating the circumstances at where life for the child is possible.

Of course it can still be an accident. A maybe more likely accident than in the first case, but still an unintended consequence and therefore an accident. And just like you shouldn't be held responsible for your partner's existence, the same applies to your offspring. If you were, that'd be a positive obligation.[/QUOTE]

I see it as two parties. You have the child, who had no choice in its creation, no choice in its predicament, no choice in whether it should live or die. None, not a bit. On the other hand, you have the mother who had complete control over whether or not it would be created, and was one of two parties utterly responsible for its existence. If she did not engage in the act she knew would result in this circumstance, it wouldn't have happened.

The actions and wants of one party, who will die if removed, are completely irrelevant. The actions of another, who will not die if the child is removed, is paramount. They decided to engage in behavior to create the other party. They weren't forced into this circumstance. I can't stand on the side of allowing one party to be killed even though the other party already had multiple choices in this matter when a life was at stake, through no fault of the child.


But then she doesn't have full control. I agree that it would be preferable if women (and men) always acted morally responsible, but they don't and it's wrong to use force to get them to do so. And unless she explicitly agrees to take care of the child, she has not made that choice. This discussion reminds me of when people bring up the "social contract" that somehow says that people agree to government by acting in within society where a government is present. I think the concept of implied contracts is very authoritarian at its core.

It has nothing to do with morals in my opinion, it has to do with taking away someone's life even though that person had complete control of whether that person would be reliant on them for their life.

I think the mother's property rights already had the decision to be made, and she chose to cede them by engaging in risky behavior.

[specsaregood]

Abortion involving cases of rape, incest, or genetic defects are only 1% of abortions performed.


If you outlawed abortion, there would be a helluva lot more and a spike in claims of rape.

[RM918]

If you outlawed abortion, there would be a helluva lot more and a spike in claims of rape.

True on a pragmatic point, but that's why I support letting the states take care of it as far as actual policy.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

see it as two parties. You have the child, who had no choice in its creation, no choice in its predicament, no choice in whether it should live or die. None, not a bit. On the other hand, you have the mother who had complete control over whether or not it would be created, and was one of two parties utterly responsible for its existence. If she did not engage in the act she knew would result in this circumstance, it wouldn't have happened.

She did not have complete control and you can be sure that the mothers that do have "complete control" won't have an abortion because it is a rather painful procedure. Usual abortions happen because of mistakes. Again, to the other example: In a relationship it is very possible that the other person becomes dependent on you - one has to know that it is a possibility and that the result of the relationship could end in such a way (even if rather unlikely).

Still, in both cases the unwanted result is an accident and in both cases the question, whether force should be used to prevent the first partner or the mothers from exercising their self-determination rights to their bodies. If you answer yes, you are arguing for positive obligations.


The actions and wants of one party, who will die if removed, are completely irrelevant. The actions of another, who will not die if the child is removed, is paramount. They decided to engage in behavior to create the other party. They weren't forced into this circumstance. I can't stand on the side of allowing one party to be killed even though the other party already had multiple choices in this matter when a life was at stake, through no fault of the child.

That is a moral judgment and I agree with it. However, I also want human beings to always have the right of self-determination. The woman also didn't make the choice to create the child, but made the choice to have sex with the child's creation as an unintended consequence. Also, the baby is not killed, but it dies (by not being able to be kept alive through the mother's life support).


It has nothing to do with morals in my opinion, it has to do with taking away someone's life even though that person had complete control of whether that person would be reliant on them for their life.

That is just not the case. If the mother had complete control and she didn't want a child, the child wouldn't have come into existence. The only possible characterization of the incident would be as accident.

[RM918]

She did not have complete control and you can be sure that the mothers that do have "complete control" won't have an abortion because it is a rather painful procedure. Usual abortions happen because of mistakes. Again, to the other example: In a relationship it is very possible that the other person becomes dependent on you - one has to know that it is a possibility and that the result of the relationship could end in such a way (even if rather unlikely).

Still, in both cases the unwanted result is an accident and in both cases the question, whether force should be used to prevent the first partner or the mothers from exercising their self-determination rights to their bodies. If you answer yes, you are arguing for positive obligations.



That is a moral judgment and I agree with it. However, I also want human beings to always have the right of self-determination. The woman also didn't make the choice to create the child, but made the choice to have sex with the child's creation as an unintended consequence. Also, the baby is not killed, but it dies (by not being able to be kept alive through the mother's life support).



That is just not the case. If the mother had complete control and she didn't want a child, the child wouldn't have come into existence. The only possible characterization of the incident would be as accident.

I think she did have complete control, because if she said 'No', it wouldn't have happened.

We're just going to keep arguing in circles if this continues, so I'm just going say that I don't think holding my position goes against property rights because I believe this to be a specific circumstance where one party is choosing to completely eliminate the property rights of another, even though that party is responsible for things even getting to that point to begin with and the party losing their life is not responsible at all.

I don't see a violation of property rights because I don't see it as a violation at all. I suppose I could take my stance further involving rape & incest, but that's not an area I feel like getting into an ideological quagmire with. I can only hope technology makes this particular area of the argument obsolete, and soon.

[QueenB4Liberty]

This reasoning is ridiculously flawed. To be pro-life one cannot believe in bodily ownership? This is inconsistent? Are you kidding? What about the body of the unborn?

This unborn life is its own sovereign being and has a right to life endowed by its creator (unless of course you believe rights come from government). That's the whole point of abortion, to exterminate another body, another life. Its an abortion not an amputation.

Ok, so instead of abortion, how about if women just remove the fetus from their bodies. It dies? So that'd be okay. Letting it die. But saying you are obligated to give the fetus your resources for 9 months because you had sex is bullshit. Rothbard sums up the abortion debate quite nicely. It may be harsh, but no one has the right to use your body without your consent. Period. Just like if someone is on your property you dislike, you can kick him off. Even if you invite him on, you aren't forced to accommodate him. You can't kill him, but since fetuses that are aborted couldn't survive out of the womb anyhow, sadly there isn't another choice. (Unless you think it should just be removed and you could watch it die)

You can say you do not believe in bodily ownership, and that's fine. But if you believe a woman can't get an abortion, you should also believe it should be illegal to drink alcohol when pregnant, eat certain foods, do certain activities, etc. And all of it is anti-liberty. Someone's rights have to take priority here. You can say the fetus trumps a grown human being, but realize it is what you're saying, and that's anti-liberty.

[KAYA]

Ok, so instead of abortion, how about if women just remove the fetus from their bodies. It dies? So that'd be okay. Letting it die. But saying you are obligated to give the fetus your resources for 9 months because you had sex is bullshit. Rothbard sums up the abortion debate quite nicely. It may be harsh, but no one has the right to use your body without your consent. Period. Just like if someone is on your property you dislike, you can kick him off. Even if you invite him on, you aren't forced to accommodate him. You can't kill him, but since fetuses that are aborted couldn't survive out of the womb anyhow, sadly there isn't another choice. (Unless you think it should just be removed and you could watch it die)

You can say you do not believe in bodily ownership, and that's fine. But if you believe a woman can't get an abortion, you should also believe it should be illegal to drink alcohol when pregnant, eat certain foods, do certain activities, etc. And all of it is anti-liberty. Someone's rights have to take priority here. You can say the fetus trumps a grown human being, but realize it is what you're saying, and that's anti-liberty.

Extermination of innocent life is what's anti-liberty. And your statement in bold is sick and twisted. Why stop there? According to that logic I guess parents have no obligations to feed and cloth their children since you believe it is bullshit that they be obligated to give up their resources just cause they had sex. Liberty does NOT mean one should be free from the consequences of their own actions. On the contrary, liberty is about personal responsibility and living with the consequences of ones own actions.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

I think she did have complete control, because if she said 'No', it wouldn't have happened.

We're just going to keep arguing in circles if this continues, so I'm just going say that I don't think holding my position goes against property rights because I believe this to be a specific circumstance where one party is choosing to completely eliminate the property rights of another, even though that party is responsible for things even getting to that point to begin with and the party losing their life is not responsible at all.

I don't see a violation of property rights because I don't see it as a violation at all. I suppose I could take my stance further involving rape & incest, but that's not an area I feel like getting into an ideological quagmire with. I can only hope technology makes this particular area of the argument obsolete, and soon.

Let's just respectfully agree to disagree then. I believe that one should have complete control over what happens to one's own body and unless either by having violated someone else's rights (which simply having sex does not equal to) or having explicitly agreed on giving up that right at an earlier point. If neither of those two things happened, you should have the right to remove anyone and anything from your body, by force if needed.

[.Tom]

So it's okay to kidnap someone and put them in a cage for the rest of their life for taking a pill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone)?

[low preference guy]

So it's okay to kidnap someone and put them in a cage for the rest of their life for taking a pill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone)?

Bad argument. Is it OK to put someone in a cage for locking a door? Well, if the door is locked to ensure that someone inside starves to death, of course it's OK to put them in a cage.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Extermination of innocent life is what's anti-liberty. And your statement in bold is sick and twisted. Why stop there? According to that logic I guess parents have no obligations to feed and cloth their children since you believe it is bullshit that they be obligated to give up their resources just cause they had sex. Liberty does NOT mean one should be free from the consequences of their own actions. On the contrary, liberty is about personal responsibility and living with the consequences of ones own actions.

So you are against removing the fetus and watching it die. Once the fetus is born, parents can give it up. Even up to certain ages in some states. Not everyone is responsible. I would never have an abortion of my own, but I do realize that it's not my place to speak for other women because I don't know their circumstances, and I'm not willing to pay for their children if they need to go on welfare. What if you're addicted to drugs? You should have a baby even though even if you stopped the drugs for the duration of the pregnancy your body would be a horrible incubator for a fetus?

I don't have any problems with preventing unwanted pregnancies and doing everything possible to discourage abortion, but in the end, it's the woman's choice because unlike a born human being, the woman is the only person who can take care of the fetus. And like I said earlier, you'd have to make all these draconian laws like making alcohol illegal for pregnant woman, making certain foods illegal, prohibiting certain activities, pretty much anything that could possibly induce a miscarriage. It's easier just doing everything in your power to discourage it.

Abortion to me is about bodily autonomy and with me you either have it or you don't.

[charrob]

...had to throw this one out there when I saw this thread:





Conservatives believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth.
~Barney Frank :D
..

[tasteless]

So you are against removing the fetus and watching it die. Once the fetus is born, parents can give it up. Even up to certain ages in some states. Not everyone is responsible. I would never have an abortion of my own, but I do realize that it's not my place to speak for other women because I don't know their circumstances, and I'm not willing to pay for their children if they need to go on welfare. What if you're addicted to drugs? You should have a baby even though even if you stopped the drugs for the duration of the pregnancy your body would be a horrible incubator for a fetus?

I don't have any problems with preventing unwanted pregnancies and doing everything possible to discourage abortion, but in the end, it's the woman's choice because unlike a born human being, the woman is the only person who can take care of the fetus. And like I said earlier, you'd have to make all these draconian laws like making alcohol illegal for pregnant woman, making certain foods illegal, prohibiting certain activities, pretty much anything that could possibly induce a miscarriage. It's easier just doing everything in your power to discourage it.

Abortion to me is about bodily autonomy and with me you either have it or you don't.

Do you support a parent's right to put a 1 month old baby on the street?

[QueenB4Liberty]

Do you support a parent's right to put a 1 month old baby on the street?

No, why would I? You can give the child up for adoption or drop him off at a foster home, etc. if it's born.

[tasteless]

No, why would I? You can give the child up for adoption or drop him off at a foster home, etc. if it's born.

OK, but while you're looking for someone to transfer custody to, you still have to take care of the baby right? And if you can't find someone to take it, you can't just abandon it, right?

[.Tom]

OK, but while you're looking for someone to transfer custody to, you still have to take care of the baby right? And if you can't find someone to take it, you can't just abandon it, right?

Wrong.

You can just abandon it. No one should be forced to keep someone else alive.

[Bman]

Quit perpetuating the idea that libertarianism is pro-abortion :rolleyes:

It's not pro-abortion, but it is pro-choice. That doesn't mean that some people who overall consider themselves to be Libertarians are not pro-life.

Directly from the LP platform.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

[justinc.1089]

True, but I would also add the variable of whether or not someone believes the government can effectively reduce abortion rates if they believe it to be a morally wrong action.

In the same way government prohibition of drugs created a black market and more addicts, government prohibition of abortion might lead to similar unintended consequences. (see what happened in Mexico)

DAMN that is a good point that I have NEVER thought about. Man am I feeling stupid right now for never having thought about that.

That is a good question, can the government making abortions illegal really reduce the number of abortions... hmm.

One thing that comes to my mind though, is what if the government subsidizes legal abortions? And therefore increases the number of them, just like making them illegal would do if that actually did cause more abortions to occur?

If we talk theoretically and assume that making abortion illegal increases the number of abortions, I'm thinking on the making abortion legal side the government subsidizing them by funding them to make them available would also increase the number of abortions. So I'm thinking it would be about the same even if that theory is correct.

But I am still in favor of it being illegal because to me it only makes logical sense to define life as beginning at conception. It makes scientific sense to me because if you try to use a later point in life, where maybe a brain develops, whatever idk, it would become very, very hard to determine if that point had been met or not yet. The point where life would be said to begin would also become very arbitrary then as well, since one second a fetus (baby/ unborn child) would not be a person, and then in the next second it would be a person.

Maybe since you brought up that excellent pro-choice point, you could also tell me at what point you think a fetus/ unborn child/ baby should be considered alive? And killing it should be considered murder? I'm seriously just curious because pro-choice people hardly ever say when they define life's start, and for pro-life people like me, we see the only logical point to define life's start as being the first point where you can scientifically see cells starting to form a person. Or well at least thats my opinion on it, but I'm sure other pro-life people have similar thoughts even if they are for different reasons why.

I know religion is a big reason, but its not for me. I would rather rely on looking at the matter from a scientific perspective than a religious one, because to me it seems easier to define when life begins according to science than religion since religon can at times be vague in my opinion.

[justinc.1089]

It's not pro-abortion, but it is pro-choice. That doesn't mean that some people who overall consider themselves to be Libertarians are not pro-life.

Directly from the LP platform.

The Libertarian Party? Is that some ultra-liberal party?

When the LP gets like .05% of the vote, how much does the actual party really matter?

I bet if you took a poll on here among people on here that consider themselves libertarians, not necessarily Libertarian voters perhaps though, you would see around a 50/50 split on the issue.

Some libertarians think you should have the right to choose (to kill or not kill an unborn child, the hard truth), because they buy into the whole "right" to choose propaganda.

And other libertarians think the individual has a natural right to life.

Just because the LP officially sided on pro-choice doesn't mean all libertarians have to be pro-choice, or that most are. All that means is that way back decades ago the pro-choice libertarians may have had 50.1% of a vote against 49.9% of the vote of pro-life libertarians. And that wouldn't even include thousands of libertarians not even involved with that. Heck, I'm a libertarian but I have yet to ever cast a vote for the actual party because I'm young and haven't participated in many elections yet.

(I feel like I was misled into voting for Baldwin instead of Barr. I heard Barr voted for the patriot act, but later found out apparently he did that so they could put a sunset clause in it. And I don't like the CP's drug war support and religious stuff either, so I would have rather voted for Barr knowing what I found out months later.)

[tasteless]

Wrong.

You can just abandon it. No one should be forced to keep someone else alive.

So it's OK for a parent to starve their children? Leave their kids out on the street? Play an online videogame while allowing their child to die?

[.Tom]

So it's OK for a parent to starve their children? Leave their kids out on the street? Play an online videogame while allowing their child to die?

Putting a gun to someones head and forcing them to work to feed someone else that they don't want to is not okay.

Abandoning your child out in the street is not something I would do, but I don't believe any individual should be forced to take care of anyone else against their will.

With that said, in a free society I'm sure there would be plenty of charitable individuals and groups that would help take care of the child, way better than the State could I might add.

[tasteless]

Putting a gun to someones head and forcing them to work to feed someone else that they don't want to is not okay.

Abandoning your child out in the street is not something I would do, but I don't believe any individual should be forced to take care of anyone else against their will.

With that said, in a free society I'm sure there would be plenty of charitable individuals and groups that would help take care of the child, way better than the State could I might add.

So what you are saying is, parents have no responsibility to their children and vice versa?

Then are parents doing something wrong if they forbid their children from going out at night? Would you support intervention against the parents on behalf of the children? After all, the children are responsible for themselves and the parents are infringing on their freedom.

[foofighter20x]

Just throwing this out there to add to the discussion:

With respect to abortion, the best libertarian argument is the one that posits reproductive rights within the individual woman.

For, if the power of the state to interfere with reproductive rights is admitted in the case of whether a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, then the precedent of state interference in reproductive rights generally is conceded.

And a logical end to such an admission would lay the foundation for the state to limit or deny the reproductive rights of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. While we would not likely see general eugenics or population control laws, the state would likely used the power conceded to intervene where it feels the woman is unfit to motherhood.

I need not elaborate on the details of government's past forays into these topics approximately a century ago. See Buck v. Bell and the forced sterilization and eugenics laws circa 1910-1940.

I pretty pro-life, but this argument is why I say that any laws regarding abortion must be left to the most local level of government possible.

[jmdrake]

No, why would I? You can give the child up for adoption or drop him off at a foster home, etc. if it's born.

Do you support late term abortions then? A partial birth abortion is a halfway completed birth. That's like putting your kid halfway out the house then shooting him in the head and claiming it was ok because he was still on your property.

[jmdrake]

Seriously though if this is your idea of "libertarians". That property > *. Then yeah I will say I am certainly not a propertarian.

The "property rights over everything" argument is flawed in multiple ways. For instance my children are not my property. But I they are having a temper tantrum in the store I have a right to pick them up and physically carry them out. (I've done it before). I fall more in like with the rights-responsibilities and/or rights = exercise of free will school of thought.

[Akus]

....One thing that comes to my mind though, is what if the government subsidizes legal abortions?......It actually does. In fact, that was one of the Libertarian party talking points on why Evangelical Christians should vote Libertarian...

I am also thinking (since it's an abortion debate thread) that wouldn't it be nice if every single pro-life person, instead of getting God complex and shoving their views down everyone's throat through legislation, would just go to the abortion clinic, find a woman wishing to abort her child, and offer to adopt the new born? It doesn't have to be some crazy number of kids, even just 1 would do.....

That way the newborn baby will not be aborted, the Christian pro-life family can raise a child with wholesome Christian values and the mother who wanted to abort and didn't wouldn't have to put up with a child she never wanted.

[jmdrake]

It actually does. In fact, that was one of the Libertarian party talking points on why Evangelical Christians should vote Libertarian...

I am also thinking (since it's an abortion debate thread) that wouldn't it be nice if every single pro-life person, instead of getting God complex and shoving their views down everyone's throat through legislation, would just go to the abortion clinic, find a woman wishing to abort her child, and offer to adopt the new born? It doesn't have to be some crazy number of kids, even just 1 would do.....

That way the newborn baby will not be aborted, the Christian pro-life family can raise a child with wholesome Christian values and the mother who wanted to abort and didn't wouldn't have to put up with a child she never wanted.

Pro life people actually try to do that. But the federal government has passed laws making it illegal to try to talk to women headed to an abortion clinic once they have gotten outside the "free speech zone". Yes the "right" to an abortion which is not in the constitution actually trumps the first amendment these days.

[Brian4Liberty]

That is a good question, can the government making abortions illegal really reduce the number of abortions... hmm.

The black market in illegal abortions would certainly increase, and their profits would increase. Overall numbers might very well stay exactly the same, as the "taboo/rebellion/illegal" factor would not apply to this particular situation (to increase numbers).

[.Tom]

So what you are saying is, parents have no responsibility to their children and vice versa?

Then are parents doing something wrong if they forbid their children from going out at night? Would you support intervention against the parents on behalf of the children? After all, the children are responsible for themselves and the parents are infringing on their freedom.

The relationship between parents and their children should be a voluntary association just like any other. You can make the rules for your house and your children can choose to live there if they want, just like any other landlord/tenant arrangement. However, most children want to be with their parents assuming they are not being abused, and will therefore probably follow your rules.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Do you support late term abortions then? A partial birth abortion is a halfway completed birth. That's like putting your kid halfway out the house then shooting him in the head and claiming it was ok because he was still on your property.

No, I don't support late term abortions. I don't support abortions when the fetus is viable because then it could live outside the womb without the mother.

[QueenB4Liberty]

OK, but while you're looking for someone to transfer custody to, you still have to take care of the baby right? And if you can't find someone to take it, you can't just abandon it, right?

Well I don't believe in just abandoning your born baby because like I said, you can transfer custody to someone else. When it's the size of a pea inside of you that isn't really possible. Until we have artificial incubators, I'll support women making decisions for themselves about what they think is best for them.

[that1guy]

Everyone that is so strongly against abortion needs to immediately go and adopt a rape baby, or a crack baby, or a handicap baby that the parents have absolutely no chance at giving a decent life.

All we need are millions more children that will be brought up in a terrible environment. Whom, more times then not, will have very crappy lives and ultimately become burdens on society. On a rather cynical note, i betcha those children often end up voting more liberal, looking for the free ride.

So many people are absolutely horrible parents, giving children very unhappy lives. Do you really want them to have a number of kids? If so, then first thing in the morning, you need to contact the adoption agency, because they're going to. It's not like they are going to think about the consequences first, and then decide not to have sex... that would be the responsible thing to do. And i'm just not naive enough to think they'll do that.

[jmdrake]

Everyone that is so strongly against abortion needs to immediately go and adopt a rape baby, or a crack baby, or a handicap baby that the parents have absolutely no chance at giving a decent life.

All we need are millions more children that will be brought up in a terrible environment. Whom, more times then not, will have very crappy lives and ultimately become burdens on society. On a rather cynical note, i betcha those children often end up voting more liberal, looking for the free ride.

So many people are absolutely horrible parents, giving children very unhappy lives. Do you really want them to have a number of kids? If so, then first thing in the morning, you need to contact the adoption agency, because they're going to. It's not like they are going to think about the consequences first, and then decide not to have sex... that would be the responsible thing to do. And i'm just not naive enough to think they'll do that.

There are already so few babies available for adoption that people are going halfway around the world to China to adopt newborns. Argument fail.

[tasteless]

The relationship between parents and their children should be a voluntary association just like any other. You can make the rules for your house and your children can choose to live there if they want, just like any other landlord/tenant arrangement. However, most children want to be with their parents assuming they are not being abused, and will therefore probably follow your rules.

How does an infant voluntarily enter a relationship with a parent?


Well I don't believe in just abandoning your born baby because like I said, you can transfer custody to someone else. When it's the size of a pea inside of you that isn't really possible. Until we have artificial incubators, I'll support women making decisions for themselves about what they think is best for them.

Even if the decision is murder?

[idirtify]

Even if the decision is murder?

Of course not. Stop misdefining the action. “Murder” is killing (non-consensual, without justification) an individual person with rights (redundant). Speaking of such a person; it’s impossible for anything that’s inside of them to have individual rights. It’s not yet an individual person under any definition of the term as it relates to rights.

Using terms that are dependant on the concept of “rights” is merely a tactic when discussing that which can not possibly have rights.

[tasteless]

Of course not. Stop misdefining the action. “Murder” is killing (non-consensual, without justification) an individual person with rights (redundant). Speaking of such a person; it’s impossible for anything that’s inside of them to have individual rights. It’s not yet an individual person under any definition of the term as it relates to rights.

Using terms that are dependant on the concept of “rights” is merely a tactic when discussing that which can not possibly have rights.

So geographic location is all that determines personhood? Personhood only begins once you are outside of the womb?

Which is more of a person, a 28 week premature baby that has been delivered, or a full term baby that is still in the womb but minutes away from delivery?

[idirtify]

So geographic location is all that determines personhood? Personhood only begins once you are outside of the womb?


Elementary biology establishes that the pre-born can not have rights; as does any elementary science that deals with location of matter. The elementary distinction is of course that the unborn is INSIDE another’s body, which dictates that it can not physically or literally or practically be an “individual person” (the term implying the characteristic of having rights).

“Individual” means “single / solitary / separate unit”. Although the pre-born may arguably exist as a somewhat defined “individual” human, its location inside the body of a certified “individual person” inescapably means that it can not be a “person”; since everything about rights are dependant on the body of the person occupying its own space.



Which is more of a person, a 28 week premature baby that has been delivered, or a full term baby that is still in the womb but minutes away from delivery?

Say whatever you want about degrees of pre-personhood, but it won’t much matter to the fact that being inside another’s body makes individual rights impossible.

[Gray Seal]

As there exists natural rights, amongst these rights are the privacy rights. It should be acknowledged that privacy rights should include the right to one's own health and to reproduction. Parents also have rights. The state should not be able to intercede upon natural rights.

The Bill of Rights lacks a specific recognition of these rights though they are represented in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. No Supreme Court opinion has recognized a right to one's health, reproduction, nor parental rights though partial inconsistent definitions and references do exist in opinions (Pierce vs Sisterhood, Griswold vs Connecticut).

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians believe the power of the state, with a simple majority, can negate natural rights. Is it because you believe control over your own health is the business of the state? Should the state control your reproduction? Does the state interest in your children supersede decisions you have in their regard? The consequence of such positions has be been bad and will be dire.

To give controlling interest in any of these areas to the state is a severe detriment to freedom. Proselytize, convince, argue all you want to individuals to make ethical decisions but never should these rights be diminished. We should unite in protecting natural rights and not propose they be swept away.

[tasteless]

Elementary biology establishes that the pre-born can not have rights; as does any elementary science that deals with location of matter. The elementary distinction is of course that the unborn is INSIDE another’s body, which dictates that it can not physically or literally or practically be an “individual person” (the term implying the characteristic of having rights).

“Individual” means “single / solitary / separate unit”. Although the pre-born may arguably exist as a somewhat defined “individual” human, its location inside the body of a certified “individual person” inescapably means that it can not be a “person”; since everything about rights are dependant on the body of the person occupying its own space.



Say whatever you want about degrees of pre-personhood, but it won’t much matter to the fact that being inside another’s body makes individual rights impossible.

So as I understand, you are saying the unborn child is a person, but not an individual and therefore lacks rights. The fact that they are located in the womb dictates that they have no rights, just like how a person in a jail cell lacks rights.

Then should we punish all pregnant women for infringing on their childrens' rights by holding them in the womb?


As there exists natural rights, amongst these rights are the privacy rights. It should be acknowledged that privacy rights should include the right to one's own health and to reproduction. Parents also have rights. The state should not be able to intercede upon natural rights.

The Bill of Rights lacks a specific recognition of these rights though they are represented in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. No Supreme Court opinion has recognized a right to one's health, reproduction, nor parental rights though partial inconsistent definitions and references do exist in opinions (Pierce vs Sisterhood, Griswold vs Connecticut).

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians believe the power of the state, with a simple majority, can negate natural rights. Is it because you believe control over your own health is the business of the state? Should the state control your reproduction? Does the state interest in your children supersede decisions you have in their regard? The consequence of such positions has be been bad and will be dire.

To give controlling interest in any of these areas to the state is a severe detriment to freedom. Proselytize, convince, argue all you want to individuals to make ethical decisions but never should these rights be diminished. We should unite in protecting natural rights and not propose they be swept away.

What about the right to life?

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians will marginalize a certain subset of human beings by calling them nonhuman and/or denying them their rights. It is troubling when libertarians oppose the State when it tries to protect the fundamental right to life, and in the next breath, cite State court decisions as a reason why the right to privacy overrides the right to life.

[Peace&Freedom]

What about the right to life?

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians will marginalize a certain subset of human beings by calling them nonhuman and/or denying them their rights. It is troubling when libertarians oppose the State when it tries to protect the fundamental right to life, and in the next breath, cite State court decisions as a reason why the right to privacy overrides the right to life.

+1. The incoherency and disingenuousness of these self described libertarians, who turn on or turn off recognizing the few legitimate roles of the State to suit their preference per issue, is one of the main internal reasons why the movement has failed to galvanize a political coalition to restore liberty. As shown with Paul in 2008, the rift between the LP and the CP is mendable if the right unifying candidate is sought. The movement would have been a lot stronger a lot earlier, if libertarians had manned up and supported restoring legal protection to the unborn.

[klamath]

Libertarians that support abortions=neocons times 10. I have far more respect for anarchists that believe in the law of the jungle (might makes right) where there is no self rightious belief in "their rights and freedom!"

[Gray Seal]

What about the right to life?

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians will marginalize a certain subset of human beings by calling them nonhuman and/or denying them their rights. It is troubling when libertarians oppose the State when it tries to protect the fundamental right to life, and in the next breath, cite State court decisions as a reason why the right to privacy overrides the right to life.There are not any natural rights which are more important than others. They are all important.

You do not agree. You do not believe people should own their healthcare nor their reproductive decisions. Have you thought through the potential consequences of this position?

Does the health and life of the fertilized egg take precedence over the woman's health and life?

Should all women be required to register with the state when they may be pregnant? Women can not be trusted to look out for an embryo. It is not the woman's decision as to what the embryo is exposed to. All aspects of a pregnancy should be at the discretion of the state.

Do you want protection from the state for determining your healthcare? Should the state determine what medical treatments you will or will not have? Or do you want such protection but not for pregnant women?

[tasteless]

There are not any natural rights which are more important than others. They are all important.

You do not agree. You do not believe people should own their healthcare nor their reproductive decisions. Have you thought through the potential consequences of this position?

Does the health and life of the fertilized egg take precedence over the woman's health and life?

Should all women be required to register with the state when they may be pregnant? Women can not be trusted to look out for an embryo. It is not the woman's decision as to what the embryo is exposed to. All aspects of a pregnancy should be at the discretion of the state.

Do you want protection from the state for determining your healthcare? Should the state determine what medical treatments you will or will not have? Or do you want such protection but not for pregnant women?

You do not believe people have a right to live.

Have you thought through the potential consequences of this position?

I want protection for the right to life. Because without the right to live, you cannot have any other rights.

Since when does healthcare involve the intentional destruction of human life? Sounds like the opposite of healthcare to me. Murder != healthcare.

Since when does punishing murder restrict reproductive rights? If the woman became pregnant voluntarily, she exercised her reproductive rights. If involuntarily, it was the rapist who infringed on her reproductive rights, she should not punish the child by killing it.

[Gray Seal]

+1. The incoherency and disingenuousness of these self described libertarians, who turn on or turn off recognizing the few legitimate roles of the State to suit their preference per issue, is one of the main internal reasons why the movement has failed to galvanize a political coalition to restore liberty. As shown with Paul in 2008, the rift between the LP and the CP is mendable if the right unifying candidate is sought. The movement would have been a lot stronger a lot earlier, if libertarians had manned up and supported restoring legal protection to the unborn.I do not think it is incoherency nor disingenuousness which troubles you. What turns you off is a different core basis for determining government function. One is based upon morality where the defense of embryos enables the state to negate all natural rights of an individual at its discretion. The other is based upon freedom and inalienable natural rights. Neither is right nor wrong on their face but the question remains as to the successful functionality of either approach.

Morality is not a good basis for governance. It is dependent upon a group belief system rather than a model of promoting the value of freedom for individuals. There will be compromising of freedom when morality is used to determine governance.

Freedom philosophy has the role of government domestic policy to be reserved to protection against fraud, pollution, and coercion. What do you see as government's legitimate role?

[Gray Seal]

You do not believe people have a right to live.

Have you thought through the potential consequences of this position?

I want protection for the right to life. Because without the right to live, you cannot have any other rights.

Since when does healthcare involve the intentional destruction of human life? Sounds like the opposite of healthcare to me. Murder != healthcare.

Since when does punishing murder restrict reproductive rights? If the woman became pregnant voluntarily, she exercised her reproductive rights. If involuntarily, it was the rapist who infringed on her reproductive rights, she should not punish the child by killing it.You can not get around the health and life question in pregnancy. It has to be decided which life takes precedence. Is it the life of the pregnant woman or the life in the womb? Whose health takes precedence? It is not as simple as saying, "I want protection of the right to life." Whose life? Whose health? At the expense of whom?

If you think there is a natural right to be a parent, to have inalienable reproductive rights, to have inalienable health choices for yourself then there is a different conclusion than if you think natural rights do not exists but are determined by group morality which is enforced by the state.

[Krugerrand]

Elementary biology establishes that the pre-born can not have rights; as does any elementary science that deals with location of matter. The elementary distinction is of course that the unborn is INSIDE another’s body, which dictates that it can not physically or literally or practically be an “individual person” (the term implying the characteristic of having rights).

“Individual” means “single / solitary / separate unit”. Although the pre-born may arguably exist as a somewhat defined “individual” human, its location inside the body of a certified “individual person” inescapably means that it can not be a “person”; since everything about rights are dependant on the body of the person occupying its own space.

Say whatever you want about degrees of pre-personhood, but it won’t much matter to the fact that being inside another’s body makes individual rights impossible.

That's very interesting. None of the biology courses I had taught about "rights." None of the biology books I read taught about "rights."

However, fundamental biology does teach that like produces like. Chickens produce chickens. Humans produce humans. Fundamental biology teaches that the human embryo is a unique organism from its mother just like an un-hatched chicken inside the egg is a separate organism from the hen.

[klamath]

I do not think it is incoherency nor disingenuousness which troubles you. What turns you off is a different core basis for determining government function. One is based upon morality where the defense of embryos enables the state to negate all natural rights of an individual at its discretion. The other is based upon freedom and inalienable natural rights. Neither is right nor wrong on their face but the question remains as to the successful functionality of either approach.

Morality is not a good basis for governance. It is dependent upon a group belief system rather than a model of promoting the value of freedom for individuals. There will be compromising of freedom when morality is used to determine governance.

Freedom philosophy has the role of government domestic policy to be reserved to protection against fraud, pollution, and coercion. What do you see as government's legitimate role?
"Natural rights" are a joke made up by moralist humans. The ONLY natural right is the right to be stronger and anililate anything and anyone you feel necessary for your own survivial or any other reason. If you are not stronger then tough luck. Nobody owns you anything liberty, life or otherwise.

[Krugerrand]

You can not get around the health and life question in pregnancy. It has to be decided which life takes precedence. Is it the life of the pregnant woman or the life in the womb? Whose health takes precedence? It is not as simple as saying, "I want protection of the right to life." Whose life? Whose health? At the expense of whom?

If you think there is a natural right to be a parent, to have inalienable reproductive rights, to have inalienable health choices for yourself then there is a different conclusion than if you think natural rights do not exists but are determined by group morality which is enforced by the state.


What wonderful sounding terms. Please define for me "inalienable reproductive rights" and "inalienable health choice."

[reillym]

You do not believe people have a right to live.

Have you thought through the potential consequences of this position?

I want protection for the right to life. Because without the right to live, you cannot have any other rights.

Since when does healthcare involve the intentional destruction of human life? Sounds like the opposite of healthcare to me. Murder != healthcare.

Since when does punishing murder restrict reproductive rights? If the woman became pregnant voluntarily, she exercised her reproductive rights. If involuntarily, it was the rapist who infringed on her reproductive rights, she should not punish the child by killing it.

Murder is killing a human being. A clump of cells != human. Science is crazy! Why should a woman be enslaved for 8 months for the society of the future? That's the exact opposite of libertarianism. No woman should be held against her will for the PROSPECT of a life in the future.



So as I understand, you are saying the unborn child is a person, but not an individual and therefore lacks rights. The fact that they are located in the womb dictates that they have no rights, just like how a person in a jail cell lacks rights.

Then should we punish all pregnant women for infringing on their childrens' rights by holding them in the womb?

What about the right to life?

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians will marginalize a certain subset of human beings by calling them nonhuman and/or denying them their rights. It is troubling when libertarians oppose the State when it tries to protect the fundamental right to life, and in the next breath, cite State court decisions as a reason why the right to privacy overrides the right to life.

The state has no business in what happens in a bedroom or in a house. That's the essence of libertarianism. A growing fetus isn't a human until it can support itself from its mother. Forcing anybody to sacrifice her body for another is slavery.

[Gray Seal]

What wonderful sounding terms. Please define for me "inalienable reproductive rights" and "inalienable health choice."Reproductive rights would be where the individual makes decisions in regard to reproduction. Inalienable means government could not interfere upon the right.

Health choice (right) would be where an individual decides for themselves all medical questions. Again, inalienable means government could not infringe upon this right.

[reillym]

Pro life people actually try to do that. But the federal government has passed laws making it illegal to try to talk to women headed to an abortion clinic once they have gotten outside the "free speech zone". Yes the "right" to an abortion which is not in the constitution actually trumps the first amendment these days.

bullcrap. Any woman who is getting an abortion doesn't need to be pestered by a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags. She is already making probably the hardest decision in her life. More grief is not needed and thats exactly what the crazy Christian taliban does at the clinics. If she was going to give the baby away, she wouldn't be at an abortion clinic.

And lets be honest, most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed. That's certainly pro life.

[Krugerrand]

Murder is killing a human being. A clump of cells != human. Science is crazy! Why should a woman be enslaved for 8 months for the society of the future? That's the exact opposite of libertarianism. No woman should be held against her will for the PROSPECT of a life in the future.

The state has no business in what happens in a bedroom or in a house. That's the essence of libertarianism. A growing fetus isn't a human until it can support itself from its mother. Forcing anybody to sacrifice her body for another is slavery.

I strongly suggest you not tell a woman who just experienced a miscarriage that it was just a clump a cells.

In many states if you kill a pregnant woman you are rightly charged with two counts of murder.

You should re-study basic biology. To the extent that the unborn child is just a clump of cells, you too are just a clump of cells. Both you and the unborn child are unique human organisms.

[Krugerrand]

Reproductive rights would be where the individual makes decisions in regard to reproduction. Inalienable means government could not interfere upon the right.

Health choice (right) would be where an individual decides for themselves all medical questions. Again, inalienable means government could not infringe upon this right.

As of yet, I know of no way for individuals to reproduce by themselves.

[Krugerrand]

bullcrap. Any woman who is getting an abortion doesn't need to be pestered by a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags. She is already making probably the hardest decision in her life. More grief is not needed and thats exactly what the crazy Christian taliban does at the clinics. If she was going to give the baby away, she wouldn't be at an abortion clinic.

And lets be honest, most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed. That's certainly pro life.

First, I had to chuckle that you would preface that "most protests end" comment with "lets be honest." There are protests happening EVERY DAY. Are doctors killed every day?

Plus, your attempt to discount those who recognize the importance of protecting unborn children as "a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags" is also flat out untrue. Please refer to the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League (http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html).

It sounds like you don't support the 1st amendment rights of those who disagree with you.

[QueenB4Liberty]

How does an infant voluntarily enter a relationship with a parent?



Even if the decision is murder?

If a woman hates the fetus inside of her and stabs herself in the stomach, I guess you could call that murder, temporary insanity, whatever. But a woman having an abortion is not and will never be murder.

[reillym]

I strongly suggest you not tell a woman who just experienced a miscarriage that it was just a clump a cells.

In many states if you kill a pregnant woman you are rightly charged with two counts of murder.

You should re-study basic biology. To the extent that the unborn child is just a clump of cells, you too are just a clump of cells. Both you and the unborn child are unique human organisms.

I am a clump of cells capable of surviving on my own. A fetus is not. Murdering a pregnant woman is very different from abortion. That argument has no place here and doesn't apply.


First, I had to chuckle that you would preface that "most protests end" comment with "lets be honest." There are protests happening EVERY DAY. Are doctors killed every day?

Plus, your attempt to discount those who recognize the importance of protecting unborn children as "a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags" is also flat out untrue. Please refer to the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League (http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html).

It sounds like you don't support the 1st amendment rights of those who disagree with you.

Again, most anti-choicers base their decision on religion. To argue otherwise is silly. And 1st amendment? When did I bring that up? When did I say someone doesn't have the right to voice their opinion? I didn't. I wouldn't on a public discussion board otherwise.

And let's be honest, anti-choice protests do encourage violence and hate. Especially at clinics where the people need no more stress. Abortion is legal, protesting at abortion clinics is not protesting the law, it is protesting the WOMEN. They are innocent people, and so protesting there is hateful and rude and selfish (and self righteous)

[idirtify]

So as I understand, you are saying the unborn child is a person,


Call that which resides inside another’s body whatever you want; it won’t change its logistical relationship to the host’s body.



but not an individual and therefore lacks rights.


Because of its logistical situation as it relates to the host’s body, it lacks rights; that is correct.



The fact that they are located in the womb dictates that they have no rights,


Correct.



just like how a person in a jail cell lacks rights.


Not correct. Loss of rights from being in a prison is quite a separate topic; and I don’t believe there is an analogy to being inside an individual person’s body.



Then should we punish all pregnant women for infringing on their childrens' rights by holding them in the womb?


How did you arrive at such a backwards conclusion?

[idirtify]

That's very interesting. None of the biology courses I had taught about "rights." None of the biology books I read taught about "rights."

However, fundamental biology does teach that like produces like. Chickens produce chickens. Humans produce humans. Fundamental biology teaches that the human embryo is a unique organism from its mother just like an un-hatched chicken inside the egg is a separate organism from the hen.

Maybe I misspoke. Of course “elementary biology” isn’t a “political science” and doesn’t include political theory or teach about rights, but its scientific facts “establish” that the unborn is inside an individual person’s body. Is that clearer?

And speaking of what biology does not teach…The fact that species reproduce their own kind says nothing about this topic. Besides, your analogy of a chicken egg could not be less analogous, since the chicken’s egg is outside the chicken’s body - and for wisdom about chicken’s rights, I suppose one must consult chickens;).

[idirtify]

In many states if you kill a pregnant woman you are rightly charged with two counts of murder.


A law does not establish rights, or support your argument..



You should re-study basic biology. To the extent that the unborn child is just a clump of cells, you too are just a clump of cells. Both you and the unborn child are unique human organisms.

Since born twins each have rights, uniqueness does not qualify as a determining criterion for assessing rights. Cancerous tumors may also be “unique”, but they certainly have no rights.

[charrob]

--haven't read this whole thread, but can't help but be curious:

if there was a choice between saving a healthy, thriving, intelligent (>= human intelligence) living-and-swimming-in-the-water sperm whale, dolphin, or porpoise in the gulf,

which would you save: the already living independent mammal or the human fetus?

[Meatwasp]

--haven't read this whole thread, but can't help but be curious:

if there was a choice between saving a healthy, thriving, intelligent (>= human intelligence) living-and-swimming-in-the-water sperm whale, dolphin, or porpoise in the gulf,

which would you save: the already living independent mammal or the human fetus?
The fetus so it could grow up and be a eco person and save the whales. Heh

[jmdrake]

bullcrap. Any woman who is getting an abortion doesn't need to be pestered by a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags. She is already making probably the hardest decision in her life. More grief is not needed and thats exactly what the crazy Christian taliban does at the clinics. If she was going to give the baby away, she wouldn't be at an abortion clinic.

And lets be honest, most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed. That's certainly pro life.

:rolleyes: And there you have the irrationality of the pro-choice side. I respond to one pro-choice person who says "If pro lifers are really against abortion they should go try to talk women trying to have abortions into giving the baby up for adoption" by pointing out that you can't legally do that and I get this nonsense "bullcrap" attack from a different pro-choicer. I stand by what I said earlier. If you think the unborn are individuals then being pro-life is consistent with being a libertarian. If you are pro-choice then you have rejected the individuality of the unborn. That's certainly your "choice". But what is "bullcrap" is when you can't see the other side of the argument. And "most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed" IS JUST LEFT-WING LIBERAL LIES! That's NO DIFFERENT THEN NEOCONS CALLING ALL RON PAUL SUPPORTERS TERRORISTS! This movement is better than that.

[jmdrake]

--haven't read this whole thread, but can't help but be curious:

if there was a choice between saving a healthy, thriving, intelligent (>= human intelligence) living-and-swimming-in-the-water sperm whale, dolphin, or porpoise in the gulf,

which would you save: the already living independent mammal or the human fetus?

Show me a dolphin that can speak 7 languages and/or has created a symbolic language (moving shells and rocks around to form visible symbols would count) and then come back and talk to me about how dolphin intelligence >= human intelligence.

Anyway, the best way to save life in the gulf is to not to punish oil companies that haven't done anything wrong based on the mistakes of BP. It's to allow drilling more in shallower water and in places like ANWAR where they've actually been able to fully test their equipment.

[jmdrake]

The fetus so it could grow up and be a eco person and save the whales. Heh

Thread winner!

[RM918]

:rolleyes: And there you have the irrationality of the pro-choice side. I respond to one pro-choice person who says "If pro lifers are really against abortion they should go try to talk women trying to have abortions into giving the baby up for adoption" by pointing out that you can't legally do that and I get this nonsense "bullcrap" attack from a different pro-choicer. I stand by what I said earlier. If you think the unborn are individuals then being pro-life is consistent with being a libertarian. If you are pro-choice then you have rejected the individuality of the unborn. That's certainly your "choice". But what is "bullcrap" is when you can't see the other side of the argument. And "most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed" IS JUST LEFT-WING LIBERAL LIES! That's NO DIFFERENT THEN NEOCONS CALLING ALL RON PAUL SUPPORTERS TERRORISTS! This movement is better than that.

Amen. I disagree with the pro-choice crowd, but I understand their mindset. I may believe it's wrong, but I still understand it. I don't call them genocidal loons or mass murderers or whatever. Same with progressives. I think they've come to their conclusions out of a misinformed sense of compassion, but I don't call them lazy communists. Making broad, sweeping generalizations about people just because they disagree with parts of your political philosophy makes you quite the same as anyone else who'd use that tactic.

[charrob]

Show me a dolphin that can speak 7 languages and/or has created a symbolic language (moving shells and rocks around to form visible symbols would count) and then come back and talk to me about how dolphin intelligence >= human intelligence.


Dolphins communicate with each other extensively for their survival: they're very social creatures. Their hearing is of primary importance because of their need to communicate: because oil exploration produces seismic booms that are some of the loudest noises on earth, this often harms and even destroys their hearing ability: when this happens, they cannot survive.

Additionally, dolphins understand human language.

Now show me a human who understands what dolphins are saying to each other? Even more, show me a fetus that understands what dolphins are saying... :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

Dolphins communicate with each other extensively for their survival: they're very social creatures. Their hearing is of primary importance because of their need to communicate: because oil exploration produces seismic booms that are some of the loudest noises on earth, this often harms and even destroys their hearing ability: when this happens, they cannot survive.

Additionally, dolphins understand human language.

Now show me a human who understands what dolphins are saying to each other? Even more, show me a fetus that understands what dolphins are saying... :rolleyes:

Dogs "understand" human speech on a rudimentary level. I guess you think dogs are smarter than humans too? :rolleyes:

Also a newborn baby doesn't understand very much. Can he then be "aborted" postpartum?

So far there is no evidence that oil exploration is causing the extinction of whales and dolphins. But if it is such a problem then that's all the more reason to allow more oil exploration closer to shore and in places like ANWAR (you never answered that) which are currently off limits.

[specsaregood]

Now show me a human who understands what dolphins are saying to each other?

I do believe the last time I talked to one, what it said roughly translated to: "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish!"

[jmdrake]

For what it's worth.

http://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Talks-Whales-Communication/dp/B000KHXC26
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
In The Man Who Talks to Whales, an internationally known pioneer in interspecies communication vividly describes his experiences of forging new relationships with animals in the wild. Using music as a common language, he "talks" with dolphins, whales, seagulls, buffalo, and bears in their natural environment. He doesn't hesitate to get up-close and personal, either. He swims ten feet from gray whales, stands within forty feet of a 2,000-pound bull buffalo and its herd, and plays music to killer whales who surface next to his kayak and vocalize their response. His astounding encounters with these creatures offer controversial new evidence of the deep natural wisdom of animals and the interconnectedness of all life.

This new edition of the book formerly titled Dolphin Dreamtime includes a chapter, "Interspecies Protocol," on the idea that an animal is an individual with its own personality, deserving of respect from humans. There is also a substantial new epilogue that brings readers up to date on the current state of dolphin research. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
About the Author
Jim Nollman was born in Boston in 1947 and graduated from Tufts University in 1969. He has been a composer of music for theater, an internationally distinguished conceptual artist, and an environmental activist. He is the founder of Interspecies Inc. (IC), which sponsors research for communicating with animals through music and art, and whose best-known field project is a 25-year communication study using live music to interact with the wild orcas on the west coast of Canada. He is currently directing a project in Arctic Russia to communicate with and protect the last beluga whales in Europe.

[Krugerrand]

...And 1st amendment? When did I bring that up? When did I say someone doesn't have the right to voice their opinion? I didn't. I wouldn't on a public discussion board otherwise.

And let's be honest, anti-choice protests do encourage violence and hate. Especially at clinics where the people need no more stress. Abortion is legal, protesting at abortion clinics is not protesting the law, it is protesting the WOMEN. They are innocent people, and so protesting there is hateful and rude and selfish (and self righteous)

You didn't bring up the 1st ammendment. jmdrake did.


Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
Pro life people actually try to do that. But the federal government has passed laws making it illegal to try to talk to women headed to an abortion clinic once they have gotten outside the "free speech zone". Yes the "right" to an abortion which is not in the constitution actually trumps the first amendment these days.

To which to replied.

bullcrap. Any woman who is getting an abortion doesn't need to be pestered by a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags. She is already making probably the hardest decision in her life. More grief is not needed and thats exactly what the crazy Christian taliban does at the clinics. If she was going to give the baby away, she wouldn't be at an abortion clinic.

And lets be honest, most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed. That's certainly pro life.

Free speech means more than protesting the government. How much time have you spent with pro-lifer's at abortion clinics? Many that I've seen are simply there praying and say nothing to other people. I guess those are the violent types you're worried about.

I stand by my challenge: It sounds like you don't support the 1st amendment rights of those who disagree with you.

EDIT ADD: "And let's be honest, anti-choice protests do encourage violence and hate." try not paying your taxes that go to Planned Parenthood and you'll see some real violence and hate.

[jmdrake]

A law does not establish rights, or support your argument..



Since born twins each have rights, uniqueness does not qualify as a determining criterion for assessing rights. Cancerous tumors may also be “unique”, but they certainly have no rights.

How many cancerous tumors grow up to be president? Ok, scratch that. How many cancerous tumors grow up to be brain surgeons? Are cancer patients advised to sing to their cancer tumors in order to increase the chance of the tumor becoming intelligent? If someone's cancer dies of natural causes does the hospital offer them counseling and condolences for their loss? Go to any obstetrician and ask him or her for materials they give their patients who have miscarriages. See if any of this material calls the miscarriage a "clump of cells" and get back with us.

[jmdrake]

I am a clump of cells capable of surviving on my own. A fetus is not. Murdering a pregnant woman is very different from abortion. That argument has no place here and doesn't apply.


Why is murdering a pregnant woman worse than murdering a non pregnant woman if only one individual is murdered in each case?



Again, most anti-choicers base their decision on religion. To argue otherwise is silly. And 1st amendment? When did I bring that up? When did I say someone doesn't have the right to voice their opinion? I didn't. I wouldn't on a public discussion board otherwise.

And let's be honest, anti-choice protests do encourage violence and hate. Especially at clinics where the people need no more stress. Abortion is legal, protesting at abortion clinics is not protesting the law, it is protesting the WOMEN. They are innocent people, and so protesting there is hateful and rude and selfish (and self righteous)

Most pro-life protesters are peaceful. Your attack on an entire movement based on the actions of a view is truly sad. And if you think peaceful protesters shouldn't be able to try to talk women out of having abortions then you are attacking the first amendment whether you have the courage to admit that or not. Also while most pro life protesters are not hateful, it wouldn't matter if they were for first amendment purposes. "Hate" speech is still speech and should be protected. You're engaging in your own version of "hate" by "hating" on people you don't know, don't like and don't understand. (Pro-life protesters). While you are wrong in doing that you are within your first amendment rights.

[Krugerrand]

Maybe I misspoke. Of course “elementary biology” isn’t a “political science” and doesn’t include political theory or teach about rights, but its scientific facts “establish” that the unborn is inside an individual person’s body. Is that clearer?

And speaking of what biology does not teach…The fact that species reproduce their own kind says nothing about this topic. Besides, your analogy of a chicken egg could not be less analogous, since the chicken’s egg is outside the chicken’s body - and for wisdom about chicken’s rights, I suppose one must consult chickens;).

I stand by my chicken analogy. Many people on the thread are trying to discount the unborn child as not being a unique individual human. I will concede that the unborn child is inside its mother. Still it is as much an individual human as its mother is. Just as a unborn child does not magically become human once it is born, an unhatched chicken not magically become a chicken once it hatches.

Some here will concede that the unborn child is a unique human yet because it happens to live inside its mother it may still be murdered. That is not the specific argument I was addressing. I was addressing thsoe who wrongly fail to admit the turth of what that unborn child is.

[Krugerrand]

A law does not establish rights, or support your argument..

Since born twins each have rights, uniqueness does not qualify as a determining criterion for assessing rights. Cancerous tumors may also be “unique”, but they certainly have no rights.

You are correct on the law. Again, I'm first establishing that the unborn child is a separate human, unique from its mother.

While genetically copied, each twin is a unique individual human.

[Krugerrand]

--haven't read this whole thread, but can't help but be curious:

if there was a choice between saving a healthy, thriving, intelligent (>= human intelligence) living-and-swimming-in-the-water sperm whale, dolphin, or porpoise in the gulf,

which would you save: the already living independent mammal or the human fetus?

If I'm hungry, I'm willing to eat the dolphin.

And why do you put human fetus opposite of "already living?" It is already living.

[Krugerrand]

Dolphins communicate with each other extensively for their survival: they're very social creatures. Their hearing is of primary importance because of their need to communicate: because oil exploration produces seismic booms that are some of the loudest noises on earth, this often harms and even destroys their hearing ability: when this happens, they cannot survive.

Additionally, dolphins understand human language.

Now show me a human who understands what dolphins are saying to each other? Even more, show me a fetus that understands what dolphins are saying... :rolleyes:

Some of that applies to ants as mush as dolphins. I'd eat dolphin before I eat ants.

[idirtify]

How many cancerous tumors grow up to be president? Ok, scratch that. How many cancerous tumors grow up to be brain surgeons? Are cancer patients advised to sing to their cancer tumors in order to increase the chance of the tumor becoming intelligent? If someone's cancer dies of natural causes does the hospital offer them counseling and condolences for their loss? Go to any obstetrician and ask him or her for materials they give their patients who have miscarriages. See if any of this material calls the miscarriage a "clump of cells" and get back with us.

Obviously, growth potential is not a factor in determining personhood or you would be arguing against the killing of any human sperms or eggs, against birth control, and against sterilization and abstinence.

[tasteless]

Not correct. Loss of rights from being in a prison is quite a separate topic; and I don’t believe there is an analogy to being inside an individual person’s body.

How did you arrive at such a backwards conclusion?

I'm not coming to any conclusions... I'm asking you to explain inconsistencies in your argument. What rights you have isn't contingent on where you happen to be in the world. Your rights are there when you become a human being.

How far outside the woman's body does a child have to be to be considered an individual? Once the head is out? More than half the body? If even a hair is out? What's the margin of error? A centimeter? Millimeter? One angstrom?

To illustrate further how ridiculous this notion is, lemme ask you. What about when one has sex? Does a man lose his personhood when he's inside the woman? Or does he just lose the rights to his penis? Do only women get to suspend someone else's rights when they are inside the woman, or does it apply to homosexual men performing sodomy?


Since born twins each have rights, uniqueness does not qualify as a determining criterion for assessing rights. Cancerous tumors may also be “unique”, but they certainly have no rights.

Substitute the word unique with discrete.

[idirtify]

I stand by my chicken analogy. Many people on the thread are trying to discount the unborn child as not being a unique individual human. I will concede that the unborn child is inside its mother. Still it is as much an individual human as its mother is. Just as a unborn child does not magically become human once it is born, an unhatched chicken not magically become a chicken once it hatches.

Some here will concede that the unborn child is a unique human yet because it happens to live inside its mother it may still be murdered. That is not the specific argument I was addressing. I was addressing thsoe who wrongly fail to admit the turth of what that unborn child is.

If you want to stand by what I have refuted, it would be wise for you to supply some sort of new/better support for it; beyond merely reasserting it.

[idirtify]

Again, I'm first establishing that the unborn child is a separate human, unique from its mother.

While genetically copied, each twin is a unique individual human.

If you want to stand by what I have refuted, it would be wise for you to supply some sort of new/better support for it; beyond merely reasserting it.

[Krugerrand]

If want to stand by what I have refuted, it would be wise for you to supply some sort of new/better support for it; beyond merely reasserting it.

Please clarify how you believe you refuted it. The closest I could find was your line: "since the chicken’s egg is outside the chicken’s body."

As I pointed out, this does not affect my analogy. You had been arguing that since the unborn child is inside the mother, it has no rights. My analogy was not about the rights of the unborn child. My analogy was that the unborn child is a unique human.

If you can find a way to refute the analogy, I'll gladly address it.

EDIT: as I read back through this again ... I realize that I should have placed my analogy in reply to somebody who was questioning that the unborn child is an individual human. So while I stand by the analogy ... it was misplaced and did not address your points.

[Krugerrand]

Elementary biology establishes that the pre-born can not have rights; as does any elementary science that deals with location of matter. The elementary distinction is of course that the unborn is INSIDE another’s body, which dictates that it can not physically or literally or practically be an “individual person” (the term implying the characteristic of having rights).

“Individual” means “single / solitary / separate unit”. Although the pre-born may arguably exist as a somewhat defined “individual” human, its location inside the body of a certified “individual person” inescapably means that it can not be a “person”; since everything about rights are dependant on the body of the person occupying its own space.

Say whatever you want about degrees of pre-personhood, but it won’t much matter to the fact that being inside another’s body makes individual rights impossible.

Allow me to take another stab, since this is where I detoured off of your point.

If everything about rights depends on the body of a person occupying its own space, how does this affect conjoined twins?

[idirtify]

I'm not coming to any conclusions...


Of course you are.



I'm asking you to explain inconsistencies in your argument. What rights you have isn't contingent on where you happen to be in the world.


Of course they are contingent on location, when “where you happen to be” is INSIDE another.



Your rights are there when you become a human being.


“Human being”? Call it whatever you want, but “personhood” (implying “with rights”) happens when you have an individually separate body.



How far outside the woman's body does a child have to be to be considered an individual? Once the head is out? More than half the body? If even a hair is out? What's the margin of error? A centimeter? Millimeter? One angstrom?

That’s your best point so far, but it only consists of hair splitting. Let me propose an example which may shed light on your answer (as I said, there’s no good analogy): If someone were to hold you down without your consent and shove their arm in your rectum, wouldn’t you agree that the arm loses all rights it previously had? IOW your rights immediately trump the arm’s rights. And if you could, you would be rightfully justified in dissolving that arm in acid while it remains inside you – but technically/maybe not any other part of the offender’s body. Would not you agree? Now that might be splitting hairs too, but it’s no worse than yours. AND your next paragraph, when you ask about an inserted penis, confirms my point. If that penis has been inserted without consent (no matter the gender of the victim), the victim certainly has the right to remove it in any way – including destruction (if it were physically possible).



To illustrate further how ridiculous this notion is, lemme ask you. What about when one has sex? Does a man lose his personhood when he's inside the woman? Or does he just lose the rights to his penis? Do only women get to suspend someone else's rights when they are inside the woman, or does it apply to homosexual men performing sodomy?







Substitute the word unique with discrete.

huh?:confused:

[klamath]

This space argument has to be one of the dumbest ones out there for abortion. The unborn baby occupies its own space even if it is surrounded by the women. I guess Austria has no right to exist because it is surrounded by other countries. If you own property surrounded by other peoples property then you have no right to it.

[idirtify]

This space argument has to be one of the dumbest ones out there for abortion. The unborn baby occupies its own space even if it is surrounded by the women. I guess Austria has no right to exist because it is surrounded by other countries. If you own property surrounded by other peoples property then you have no right to it.

Your comparison is illegitimate. If real estate had rights like individual human persons, you might have a point. But property does not only not have rights, it is that which can rightfully be OWNED (certainly CAN NOT have rights).

[idirtify]

Allow me to take another stab, since this is where I detoured off of your point.

If everything about rights depends on the body of a person occupying its own space, how does this affect conjoined twins?

Good question; similar debate - although CTs aren’t normally “inside” one another. Unless hopelessly intertwined (low survival rates anyway), they generally have bodies that are perceivably separate enough to identify.

[Krugerrand]

Your comparison is illegitimate. If real estate had rights like individual human persons, you might have a point. But property does not only not have rights, it is that which can rightfully be OWNED (certainly CAN NOT have rights).

You've mostly sumarized Walter Block's abortion argument:
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf

It addresses the answer above about "how far out of the body." Block argues that an unborn child is a unique human WITH RIGHTS. However, the mother's rights to her own body must not be infringed: she must have the right to evict the "trespasser." If the trespasser cannot survive the eviction process, then that is not a liability of the mother. Thus, he argues for allowing abortions before babies reach an age of viability. After that point, any desire to evict must be made with an attempt to save the child's life.

I'm not sold on the argument ... but I think it makes a far better starting point for discussion.

[klamath]

Your comparison is illegitimate. If real estate had rights like individual human persons, you might have a point. But property does not only not have rights, it is that which can rightfully be OWNED (certainly CAN NOT have rights).
No your whole occupying the same space argument is illegitimate.

[charrob]

Some of that applies to ants as mush as dolphins. I'd eat dolphin before I eat ants.



Making the case for 'whale rights'

-By Rob Reynolds


The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has convened in Morocco for a five-day meeting that is expected to lift a 24-year-old ban on whaling.

The ban was imposed after many species were hunted nearly to extinction.

The move to resume legal whale hunts comes as scientists and conservationists say new evidence shows whale intelligence is in many ways as sophisticated as that of humans.

Whale rights

For decades, opponents of whale hunting have used several arguments to push for a total ban on killing the creatures - saying that they are too rare and endangered, or simply too beautiful.

Now scientists and ethicists are advancing a new argument: Whales, they say, should be accorded legal rights, just like people.

Tom White is a professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and a long-time advocate for whale and dolphin preservation.

"The most important right that would be involved is the right not to be killed, and the right not to be owned as a piece of property," he says.

When humans consider whales and dolphins, he says, they must realise that "there is a who there, not a what. This isn't an object, this is a being; this is a person, not property".

Scientific research steadily accumulated over the past 30 years shows that whales are self-aware, can solve complex problems, communicate with each other on a sophisticated level, and even show grief at the loss of offspring or a close companion.

Whales, many scientists say, have a culture all of their own.

Richard Ellis is a whale expert from the American Museum of Natural History in New York. He says: "There is no question that cetaceans - that is, whales and dolphins - certainly have the highest level of intelligence of any mammals on earth, probably higher than human beings, although [it is] very, very difficult to measure it."

In May, an international gathering of scientists in Helsinki, Finland, issued a declaration calling for non-human rights for cetaceans.



'Ethically untenable'

Japan, Norway and Iceland are the only remaining countries that hunt whales commercially and the IWC is now expected to approve limited numbers of whale kills over the next ten years.

But countries including Brazil, New Zealand and the UK say they will fight the plan to lift the 24-year-old ban.

When it was introduced, the ban was championed by Ronald Reagan, the then US president. But now, conservationists are outraged at Barack Obama, the current US president, for breaking his campaign promise to end whale hunting.

Instead, the Obama administration is leading the effort to lift the ban, allowing countries once more to legally slaughter whales.

"What I find especially disappointing," White says, "is that he is not looking at the most important scientific data. His position is ethically untenable in the face of the scientific data."

The US administration says the deal will actually spare thousands of whales by preventing the three whale hunting countries from cheating on quotas and exploiting legal loopholes. Japan kills thousands of whales each year in the name of so-called scientific research.

But conservationists do not buy that argument. They say enough is now known about the creatures to make whale killing as morally abhorrent as murder.

Ellis says: "It's as if a spaceship came down to earth and some strange looking creatures popped out, and we took a look and said those are really weird creatures, we can't communicate with them, I know, let's kill them and eat them. And that's what we've done."

It is quite obvious that whales and dolphins far exceed the knowledge and abilities (and independent life) of a fetus. Would you eat a fetus?


http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/20106221125759162.html

[Krugerrand]

It is quite obvious that whales and dolphins far exceed the knowledge and abilities (and independent life) of a fetus. Would you eat a fetus?


http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/20106221125759162.html

Nope. My reasoning - a human fetus is ... human! BTW, have you read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal."

I also would not eat a particularly stupid human or handicapped human that lacks certain levels knowledge and abilities. It's not the brain power for me but avoiding cannibalism.

I could consider eating a whale fetus or a cow fetus.

To be consistent ... if somebody performs an abortion on a pregnant whale, I would consider that the killing of a baby whale ... not some hypothetical potential of being a whale.

EDIT ADD: and another thing ... I seriously doubt an hungry lion would not eat me simply because I'm (hopefully) more intelligent than it.

[jmdrake]

Obviously, growth potential is not a factor in determining personhood or you would be arguing against the killing of any human sperms or eggs, against birth control, and against sterilization and abstinence.

:rolleyes: Do you sing to your sperm? Do men cry in the morning after having nocturnal emmissions? If you put your sperm in a petri dish will it subdivide and grow on its own? Do medical doctors have books in their offices to give to men how "miscarry" sperm telling them that "What you've really lost is 1 million babies"? No? Then you honestly do not have a point! The medical community treats a fetus as a "baby" if it dies of natural causes and as a "mass of cells" if it's killed on purpose.

[idirtify]

You've mostly sumarized Walter Block's abortion argument:
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf

It addresses the answer above about "how far out of the body." Block argues that an unborn child is a unique human WITH RIGHTS. However, the mother's rights to her own body must not be infringed: she must have the right to evict the "trespasser." If the trespasser cannot survive the eviction process, then that is not a liability of the mother. Thus, he argues for allowing abortions before babies reach an age of viability. After that point, any desire to evict must be made with an attempt to save the child's life.

I'm not sold on the argument ... but I think it makes a far better starting point for discussion.

Thanks for the summary of the 46-page report. I like it. Never heard of the guy and no time to read it now, but it sounds reasonable enough. I mean we could argue over how two conflicting rights can coexist, but I’m not sure it would be meaningful. I mean “abortion” doesn’t actually REQUIRE the death of the unborn, only the removal; and if “trespassing” is a good analogy, it is true that the trespasser still retains the right to not be shot for merely trespassing. So as long as an attempt to save the life of the late-term fetus is all that is required to recognize the supreme rights of the mother, I can’t imagine that would be a problem – unless the attempt to save the fetus included an extra risk to the mother.

Now…how do we determine the exact point of “viability”?

[jmdrake]

It is quite obvious that whales and dolphins far exceed the knowledge and abilities (and independent life) of a fetus. Would you eat a fetus?


http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/20106221125759162.html

Let me guess. This article was dictated by a whale to Jim Nollman (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2760487&postcount=143) right?

Anyway, your proof that whales are more intelligent than humans is that whales can understand human but humans can't understand whales. Well there is research that suggests a fetus can understand and react to stimulation (http://www.askdrsears.com/html/1/t010608.asp) from the world around it. In fact modern research suggests a fetus can even recognize its father's voice (http://www.modernmom.com/article-5387-when-does-a-baby-in-the-womb-hear-sounds/)! Now using your logic that because whales can "understand" people but people can't "understand" whales (and I've already shown that's not necessarily true), whales must be smarter than people, does the fact that a fetus can recognize an adults voice but the adult can't recognize the fetus voice mean the fetus is smarter? Oh and don't give me that "But the fetus can't talk" argument! Whales can only click and whistle, but they are supposedly the superior intellect. And what about all of the other animals that can react to human language but people can't understand?

[idirtify]

No your whole occupying the same space argument is illegitimate.

Disagreements are usually attended with explanations. Where’s yours?

[ChaosControl]

It is quite obvious that whales and dolphins far exceed the knowledge and abilities (and independent life) of a fetus. Would you eat a fetus?


http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/20106221125759162.html

How about we give both rights that they both deserve?

[idirtify]

:rolleyes: Do you sing to your sperm? Do men cry in the morning after having nocturnal emmissions? If you put your sperm in a petri dish will it subdivide and grow on its own? Do medical doctors have books in their offices to give to men how "miscarry" sperm telling them that "What you've really lost is 1 million babies"? No? Then you honestly do not have a point! The medical community treats a fetus as a "baby" if it dies of natural causes and as a "mass of cells" if it's killed on purpose.

Are you operating on principle? If so, why make inconsistent remarks? For example, why imply that singing to something or crying over something gives it rights, when you surely know that plenty of other examples will readily defeat your point?

[jmdrake]

Are you operating on principle? If so, why make inconsistent remarks? For example, why imply that singing to something or crying over something gives it rights, when you surely know that plenty of other examples will readily defeat your point?

:rolleyes:

The singing point is that the scientific community recognizes the benefit of singing to babies in utero. There is nothing inconsistent about me pointing that out.

The crying point is that just about every human on the planet recognizes a miscarriage as a real loss. Nobody that I know of recognizes nocturnal emissions as a real loss. Not even the most strident anti birth control Catholic takes the position you are trying to assert.

So no. There are not "plenty of other examples" to "defeat my point". And right now you haven't even really asserted a point. You tried to imply a fetus is like "cancer". Try backing that up with scientific literature as I have backed up my point about singing to babies in utero.

[Krugerrand]

The medical community treats a fetus as a "baby" if it dies of natural causes and as a "mass of cells" if it's killed on purpose.

I seem to recall Ron Paul pointing out the inconsistency that on one floor of a medical office building a doctor can be sued for injuring an unborn child while on another floor another doctor can be collecting fees for chopping up the unborn child and putting it in the trash.

[Krugerrand]

:rolleyes:

The singing point is that the scientific community recognizes the benefit of singing to babies in utero. There is nothing inconsistent about me pointing that out.

The crying point is that just about every human on the planet recognizes a miscarriage as a real loss. Nobody that I know of recognizes nocturnal emissions as a real loss. Not even the most strident anti birth control Catholic takes the position you are trying to assert.

So no. There are not "plenty of other examples" to "defeat my point". And right now you haven't even really asserted a point. You tried to imply a fetus is like "cancer". Try backing that up with scientific literature as I have backed up my point about singing to babies in utero.

I'm going to have to stand up for idertify on this one - since it's my fault our banter went astray. While I think the "cancer" line was not a good choice - he was trying to refute a point that I made - back when I misdirected a response to him. His argument was about rights. idertify never directly challenged (in this thread that I can find) the human essence of the unborn child.


A law does not establish rights, or support your argument..

Since born twins each have rights, uniqueness does not qualify as a determining criterion for assessing rights. Cancerous tumors may also be “unique”, but they certainly have no rights.

[ChaosControl]

I seem to recall Ron Paul pointing out the inconsistency that on one floor of a medical office building a doctor can be sued for injuring an unborn child while on another floor another doctor can be collecting fees for chopping up the unborn child and putting it in the trash.

Our laws are quite illogical, probably why I have no respect for law.

[idirtify]

:rolleyes:

The singing point is that the scientific community recognizes the benefit of singing to babies in utero. There is nothing inconsistent about me pointing that out.

The crying point is that just about every human on the planet recognizes a miscarriage as a real loss. Nobody that I know of recognizes nocturnal emissions as a real loss. Not even the most strident anti birth control Catholic takes the position you are trying to assert.

So no. There are not "plenty of other examples" to "defeat my point". And right now you haven't even really asserted a point. You tried to imply a fetus is like "cancer". Try backing that up with scientific literature as I have backed up my point about singing to babies in utero.

So since science proves that singing can benefit the fetus, then abortion should be illegal? And so since more people cry about the loss of a miscarriage than a nocturnal emission, then a fetus is an individual person with rights? Are those what you call principled and consistent points? They look way more like gigantic non-sequiturs to me.

Then you claim there are no other examples to defeat your earlier point. OK, you asked for it… People sing to their plants and pets. That does not mean plants or pets have rights. People cry over their pets, homes, and money. That does not mean pets or houses or dollar bills have rights.

[Theocrat]

I seem to recall Ron Paul pointing out the inconsistency that on one floor of a medical office building a doctor can be sued for injuring an unborn child while on another floor another doctor can be collecting fees for chopping up the unborn child and putting it in the trash.

Not only that, most states (if not all) have laws against killing pregnant women, labeling them as double homicides. Deep down inside, our legislators and judges know that a fetus has personhood, and a woman's choice to keep her unborn baby should not be the deciding factor that makes it a human being with legal rights.

[reillym]

:rolleyes: And there you have the irrationality of the pro-choice side. I respond to one pro-choice person who says "If pro lifers are really against abortion they should go try to talk women trying to have abortions into giving the baby up for adoption" by pointing out that you can't legally do that and I get this nonsense "bullcrap" attack from a different pro-choicer. I stand by what I said earlier. If you think the unborn are individuals then being pro-life is consistent with being a libertarian. If you are pro-choice then you have rejected the individuality of the unborn. That's certainly your "choice". But what is "bullcrap" is when you can't see the other side of the argument. And "most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed" IS JUST LEFT-WING LIBERAL LIES! That's NO DIFFERENT THEN NEOCONS CALLING ALL RON PAUL SUPPORTERS TERRORISTS! This movement is better than that.

This is what you said:


Pro life people actually try to do that. But the federal government has passed laws making it illegal to try to talk to women headed to an abortion clinic once they have gotten outside the "free speech zone". Yes the "right" to an abortion which is not in the constitution actually trumps the first amendment these days.

I said bullcrap to the bolded comment. It was pretty clear what I was addressing. If I am understanding your argument correctly, you think people should be able to pester people at abortion clinics. I disagree, and stated my reasons. It's rude and potentially harmful to the woman and baby. It's fine to disagree with the law of abortion, but it is another think to stand at a clinic and yell at innocent women. And yes, they are innocent, whether you agree or not, because that's what the law says. Period. My problem with this discussion is focusing on the individual women. If you want fewer abortions, there are better ways to accomplish that. Stupid ideas, like protests at clinics and trying to "ban" abortion will always fail. Chile banned abortion and look at the disaster that is. And yet a large portion of the right wants to do just that.

And abortion doctors do practice in fear. Right wing talking heads have openly called for their murder. Protests at clinics just stokes the fire.

[reillym]

Not only that, most states (if not all) have laws against killing pregnant women, labeling them as double homicides. Deep down inside, our legislators and judges know that a fetus has personhood, and a woman's choice to keep her unborn baby should not be the deciding factor for making it a human being.

So it should be the choice of bureaucrats that a woman should sacrifice her body and health for the better portion of a year? That's just big government and big spending.

Just because an existing law says killing a pregnant woman is a double homicide means nothing. The only thing that could possible mean is that our law code is inconsistent, not that our legislators agree with your point of view.

[Theocrat]

So it should be the choice of bureaucrats that a woman should sacrifice her body and health for the better portion of a year? That's just big government and big spending.

Just because an existing law says killing a pregnant woman is a double homicide means nothing. The only thing that could possible mean is that our law code is inconsistent, not that our legislators agree with your point of view.

No. It should not be the choice of bureaucrats to decide for a woman to keep her baby. It is the role of the civil government to bring to justice anyone who takes the life of an innocent human being, which the unborn fetus most certainly is.

[jmdrake]

So since science proves that singing can benefit the fetus, then abortion should be illegal? And so since more people cry about the loss of a miscarriage than a nocturnal emission, then a fetus is an individual person with rights? Are those what you call principled and consistent points? They look way more like gigantic non-sequiturs to me.

Then you claim there are no other examples to defeat your earlier point. OK, you asked for it… People sing to their plants and pets. That does not mean plants or pets have rights. People cry over their pets, homes, and money. That does not mean pets or houses or dollar bills have rights.

Science proves that a fetus isn't merely a "clump of cells" or a "glop of sperm". You get more out of singing to your plants also than from singing to cancer or singing to sperm. The gigantic "non-sequitur" is your lame attempt at comparing babies to cancer. Also there's no evidence of plants recognizing their owner's voice. Lastly, a dog will never grow up to be human. The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a few centimeters of human tissue.

[jmdrake]

This is what you said:



I said bullcrap to the bolded comment. It was pretty clear what I was addressing. If I am understanding your argument correctly, you think people should be able to pester people at abortion clinics. I disagree, and stated my reasons. It's rude and potentially harmful to the woman and baby. It's fine to disagree with the law of abortion, but it is another think to stand at a clinic and yell at innocent women. And yes, they are innocent, whether you agree or not, because that's what the law says. Period. My problem with this discussion is focusing on the individual women. If you want fewer abortions, there are better ways to accomplish that. Stupid ideas, like protests at clinics and trying to "ban" abortion will always fail. Chile banned abortion and look at the disaster that is. And yet a large portion of the right wants to do just that.

And abortion doctors do practice in fear. Right wing talking heads have openly called for their murder. Protests at clinics just stokes the fire.

The first amendment does give people the right to pester others going to the abortion clinic just like it gives people the the right to pester recruits signing up to go and kill in Afghanistan and it gives people the right to pester people headed to a funeral of someone killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no constitutional right not to be pestered. And if you believe that there is then you simply no nothing about the constitution. It also doesn't matter whether the women are innocent or not. Just because you are not guilty of a crime does NOT give you the right to take away someone else's first amendment rights! Maybe you are against all protests. Maybe you think Ron Paul supporters you all be put in jail for protesting at the RNC and the DNC. Maybe you think both sides of the healthcare debate should be put in jail for protesting. After all, all these people are bound to "pester" somebody who hasn't broken any laws. But your ideas against protests are BULLCRAP because this is America and in America you have a right to protest and yes even to PESTER someone else even if that person is "innocent"! Also its just plain stupid of you to try to claim that only the right engages in protests. There are leftwing, rightwing, eastwing, westwing, you name it wing protests all over the world all the time. But stupid people complain when it's the "other side" doing the protesting. Enlightened people seek to protect the right of all to pester and protest to their hearts content. As for the "abortion violence", a lot more women have been killed by abortion doctors than doctors have been killed by abortion protesters. And last year and anti abortion protester was murdered. Using your backward logic pro choice groups should now be banned from protesting.

If the conversation was about the right of the KKK to protest I'd take the same position even though they are my mortal enemy. That's because I actually believe in freedom. It's not just a word a throw around like a cheap platitude when it suits me.

Also if you really care about women as you claim then you should look at the other side of the story. One report in Medical Science Monitor suggests that 64 percent of women who have abortions feel pressured to do so (http://www.theunchoice.com/News/ruestudy.htm). I'm sure many of those women would love to hear the other side of the abortion debate since they really weren't making a private "choice" to kill their kid in the first place. But you want here the left talk about violence being used to pressure women into having abortions (http://www.lifenews.com/nat5443.html).

[klamath]

This is what you said:



I said bullcrap to the bolded comment. It was pretty clear what I was addressing. If I am understanding your argument correctly, you think people should be able to pester people at abortion clinics. I disagree, and stated my reasons. It's rude and potentially harmful to the woman and baby. It's fine to disagree with the law of abortion, but it is another think to stand at a clinic and yell at innocent women. And yes, they are innocent, whether you agree or not, because that's what the law says. Period. My problem with this discussion is focusing on the individual women. If you want fewer abortions, there are better ways to accomplish that. Stupid ideas, like protests at clinics and trying to "ban" abortion will always fail. Chile banned abortion and look at the disaster that is. And yet a large portion of the right wants to do just that.

And abortion doctors do practice in fear. Right wing talking heads have openly called for their murder. Protests at clinics just stokes the fire.

Is it wrong for war protesters to protest in front of troops? Same argument would apply that you should not have the right to make soldiers feel bad before they go to war. The US government said we were at war, so shut the F up. That is the law.

[charrob]

How about we give both rights that they both deserve?

If humans could be consistent across the board, I would agree. It's the inconsistency that bothers me.

[idirtify]

Science proves that a fetus isn't merely a "clump of cells" or a "glop of sperm". You get more out of singing to your plants also than from singing to cancer or singing to sperm. The gigantic "non-sequitur" is your lame attempt at comparing babies to cancer. Also there's no evidence of plants recognizing their owner's voice. Lastly, a dog will never grow up to be human. The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a few centimeters of human tissue.

So if you sing to something and you don’t get much out of it, the thing doesn’t have rights; but if you sing to something and you get more out of it, the thing DOES have rights? So if the thing recognizes your singing voice, it DOES have rights; but not if it doesn’t? It seems your determining factors are changing with each post and getting more and more bizarre.

If you want to credibly claim my comparison is a non-sequitur, why don’t you explain how?

[stone]

beyond abortion.
This topic has been the cause of soooo much wasted time and hypocrisy for conservatives it is ridiculous.
Leave it to the states and lets move onto some other important topic.

[klamath]

beyond abortion.
This topic has been the cause of soooo much wasted time and hypocrisy for conservatives it is ridiculous.
Leave it to the states and lets move onto some other important topic.
And hypocrisy from the liberals.

[idirtify]

beyond abortion.
This topic has been the cause of soooo much wasted time and hypocrisy for conservatives it is ridiculous.
Leave it to the states and lets move onto some other important topic.

How do you know this isn’t an argument for "the states”? I mean it doesn’t really matter which governments try to prohibit abortion. The argument will remain.

[tasteless]

Of course you are.

I didn't know conclusions had question marks on the end of them.


Of course they are contingent on location, when “where you happen to be” is INSIDE another.

See the point I raise further down.


“Human being”? Call it whatever you want, but “personhood” (implying “with rights”) happens when you have an individually separate body.

So do conjoined twins count as one person? What about a baby shortly after delivery, while it is still attached to the mother via the umbilical cord? Does one have rights and not the other? Can the mother dump acid on it prior to the umbilical cord being cut? Alternatively, can the doctor dump acid on the mother?


That’s your best point so far, but it only consists of hair splitting. Let me propose an example which may shed light on your answer (as I said, there’s no good analogy): If someone were to hold you down without your consent and shove their arm in your rectum, wouldn’t you agree that the arm loses all rights it previously had? IOW your rights immediately trump the arm’s rights. And if you could, you would be rightfully justified in dissolving that arm in acid while it remains inside you – but technically/maybe not any other part of the offender’s body. Would not you agree? Now that might be splitting hairs too, but it’s no worse than yours. AND your next paragraph, when you ask about an inserted penis, confirms my point. If that penis has been inserted without consent (no matter the gender of the victim), the victim certainly has the right to remove it in any way – including destruction (if it were physically possible).

The arm never had rights to begin with, it is only part of the person commiting the crime, not a person in and of itself. Even if it were the arm doing the fisting, I would not be in the wrong if I punched the dude in the face (assuming I could do so from that position), despite his face not violating me.

Furthermore, if a person were to do that, I would not be wrong even if I punched them in the face while his arm was outside of my rectum. In fact, I could still prosecute them for a time later, not just for the time they were violating my personal space. Should there be a statute of limitations on abortion? Does this mean a woman can "abort" the baby after delivering it?


huh?:confused:

You said that unique individual doesn't work in the case of twins. Genetic dissimilarity is only one way to prove uniqueness, but since the word unique is causing trouble for you, use the word discrete instead.

Two twins are discrete from each other and both have rights. A mother and her child are also discrete from each other and have rights.

[jmdrake]

So if you sing to something and you don’t get much out of it, the thing doesn’t have rights; but if you sing to something and you get more out of it, the thing DOES have rights? So if the thing recognizes your singing voice, it DOES have rights; but not if it doesn’t? It seems your determining factors are changing with each post and getting more and more bizarre.

If you want to credibly claim my comparison is a non-sequitur, why don’t you explain how?

The determining factor under the law is whether something has "rights" is simply "what the government says today". There was a time when slaves were declared "property" with "no rights". So I'm not even sure what your point is, or if you even know what your point is.

As for my point it is that science and the medical profession recognizes the fetus as an individual And for that matter so does the law. As someone else pointed out, killing a pregnant woman can get you a double homicide conviction in some states. You should only have a homicide conviction for killing a person. If you kill a man the government doesn't get to lump in billions of sperm as multiple counts.

Recognizing the human voice is a sign that we are talking about an individual and not some "appendage" or some "cancer". Human rights should be given to human individuals. Dogs, cats and other entities that might recognize the human voice are individuals, but are not human. Sperm, tumors and such may be "human" in the since that they have "human DNA", but those are not examples of individuals because they lack cognitive ability. Understand now?

[jmdrake]

If humans could be consistent across the board, I would agree. It's the inconsistency that bothers me.

Well so far I haven't seen proof from you or anyone else of the claim that whale intelligence >= human intelligence. The "they understand us but we don't understand them" argument applies to cats, dogs, horses and a lot of other animals that aren't generally classified as "intelligent". Also you were bothered by Ron Paul's non interventionist stance in the gulf because you somehow thought it was interventionist. Ron Paul isn't rushing for big government to run in and stop killings in places like Sudan and Uganda so why do you think he should go for a big government solution for the sake of the whales?

[Gray Seal]

The first amendment does give people the right to pester others going to the abortion clinic just like it gives people the the right to pester recruits signing up to go and kill in Afghanistan and it gives people the right to pester people headed to a funeral of someone killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no constitutional right not to be pestered. And if you believe that there is then you simply no nothing about the constitution. It also doesn't matter whether the women are innocent or not. Just because you are not guilty of a crime does NOT give you the right to take away someone else's first amendment rights!In Frisby v. Schultz the Supreme Court decided that it is not OK to harass. Freedom of speech is protected but the location of it is limited. Specifically, it is not OK to use speech to pester. If you have political speech to utter, it is protected but to use it as an excuse to pester is not protected.

Though the Supreme Court did not come out and define the right to privacy to include the right not to be pestered the Supreme Court by inference suggest such a standard with this decision. The decision does say local standards may be put in place to protect privacy.

[ChaosControl]

Well so far I haven't seen proof from you or anyone else of the claim that whale intelligence >= human intelligence. The "they understand us but we don't understand them" argument applies to cats, dogs, horses and a lot of other animals that aren't generally classified as "intelligent". Also you were bothered by Ron Paul's non interventionist stance in the gulf because you somehow thought it was interventionist. Ron Paul isn't rushing for big government to run in and stop killings in places like Sudan and Uganda so why do you think he should go for a big government solution for the sake of the whales?

What about "big government" stopping killing of people in America?
Maybe we cannot do much to protect people or animals around the entire globe, but we can do something to protect them here. Life is important, whether it is human or animal life. The environment as well. We should do what we can to protect it. Human, Whale, Dolphin, Cat, Dog, whatever one may be.

I think the best we can do for the world as a whole is lead by a good example.

[stone]

and lets discuss something worthwhile.


How do you know this isn’t an argument for "the states”? I mean it doesn’t really matter which governments try to prohibit abortion. The argument will remain.

[klamath]

In Frisby v. Schultz the Supreme Court decided that it is not OK to harass. Freedom of speech is protected but the location of it is limited. Specifically, it is not OK to use speech to pester. If you have political speech to utter, it is protected but to use it as an excuse to pester is not protected.

Though the Supreme Court did not come out and define the right to privacy to include the right not to be pestered the Supreme Court by inference suggest such a standard with this decision. The decision does say local standards may be put in place to protect privacy.
Wow, the SC ruled against the Bill of Rights, unheard of:rolleyes:

[Krugerrand]

In Frisby v. Schultz the Supreme Court decided that it is not OK to harass. Freedom of speech is protected but the location of it is limited. Specifically, it is not OK to use speech to pester. If you have political speech to utter, it is protected but to use it as an excuse to pester is not protected.

Though the Supreme Court did not come out and define the right to privacy to include the right not to be pestered the Supreme Court by inference suggest such a standard with this decision. The decision does say local standards may be put in place to protect privacy.

Those labor unions sure have their connections, don't they.


Facts of the Case:
Sandra Schultz and Robert Braun both strongly opposed abortion and gathered like-minded citizens together to picket in front of the home of a local doctor who performed abortions. In response, the city of Brookfield, Wisconsin passed a law against all picketing in front of residential homes except for labor disputes. Following the advice of the town attorney, the city amended the law to ban labor picketing as well. The stated purpose of the law was "the protection and preservation of the home." When enacted, Schultz and Braun stopped picketing and filed suit in federal district court, claiming that the law violated the First Amendment. The court declared it would issue a permanent injunction against the law unless it was narrowed in scope. The United States Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit affirmed that the law violated the First Amendment.

Question:
Does a city ordinance prohibiting picketing in front of residential homes violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion:
No. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the opinion for a 6-3 court. The Court held that since the street constituted a traditional public forum, the ban must satisfy strict standards in order to remain. Since the ban is "content neutral," "leaves open ample alternative channels of communication," and serves a "significant government interest," the Court ruled that it passed the strict standards and could remain. The city government had a legitimate purpose in protecting the homes of its residents, and did so without favoring one idea over another or eliminating the ability to communicate an idea.

Decisions
Decision: 6 votes for Frisby, 3 vote(s) against
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_87_168

EDIT ADD: Let's not forget that the Supreme Court is not always correct. Kelo v. City of New London says your property is yours unless the government wants you to sell it to somebody else.

[idirtify]

I didn't know conclusions had question marks on the end of them.



See the point I raise further down.



So do conjoined twins count as one person? What about a baby shortly after delivery, while it is still attached to the mother via the umbilical cord? Does one have rights and not the other? Can the mother dump acid on it prior to the umbilical cord being cut? Alternatively, can the doctor dump acid on the mother?



The arm never had rights to begin with, it is only part of the person commiting the crime, not a person in and of itself. Even if it were the arm doing the fisting, I would not be in the wrong if I punched the dude in the face (assuming I could do so from that position), despite his face not violating me.

Furthermore, if a person were to do that, I would not be wrong even if I punched them in the face while his arm was outside of my rectum. In fact, I could still prosecute them for a time later, not just for the time they were violating my personal space. Should there be a statute of limitations on abortion? Does this mean a woman can "abort" the baby after delivering it?



You said that unique individual doesn't work in the case of twins. Genetic dissimilarity is only one way to prove uniqueness, but since the word unique is causing trouble for you, use the word discrete instead.

Two twins are discrete from each other and both have rights. A mother and her child are also discrete from each other and have rights.

Just cut the cord. Commonly done / problem solved. I don’t think you’ll find any contention there.

It seems you are answering your own questions. Not only do you agree that the arm has no rights, you embellish to the degree that the person attached to it doesn’t. So you are more committed to the “no-rights” position than I am.

And regarding your confusing comments about twins, you are either answering your own questions or completely confused about the most fundamental element of a consistent position (principle).

[idirtify]

The determining factor under the law is whether something has "rights" is simply "what the government says today". snip

What a perfect double-circle! What the law currently says or does or “will get you” is not relevant to a discussion about what law SHOULD BE. No, I don’t understand why you are merely making up and picking-and-choosing definitions.

[idirtify]

and lets discuss something worthwhile.

I know you are new here, but let me inform you that you are free to exit this discussion whenever you want. You are also free to start or participate in any other discussion – of which there are many.

[Krugerrand]

I know you are new here, but let me inform you that you are free to exit this discussion whenever you want. You are also free to start or participate in any other discussion – of which there are many.

agreed. If one wants the conversation to go away, the most effective way is to more actively participate in other threads which pushes dislike threads down.

[tasteless]

Just cut the cord. Commonly done / problem solved. I don’t think you’ll find any contention there.

It seems you are answering your own questions. Not only do you agree that the arm has no rights, you embellish to the degree that the person attached to it doesn’t. So you are more committed to the “no-rights” position than I am.

And regarding your confusing comments about twins, you are either answering your own questions or completely confused about the most fundamental element of a consistent position (principle).

It seems you're sidestepping my questions and putting words in my mouth. Where do I say the person attached to the arm has no rights? Or do you believe that you can only defend yourself from whatever body part is assaulting you rather than from the person who it belongs to?

[idirtify]

It seems you're sidestepping my questions and putting words in my mouth. Where do I say the person attached to the arm has no rights?

Right here:

“Even if it were the arm doing the fisting, I would not be in the wrong if I punched the dude in the face … Furthermore, if a person were to do that, I would not be wrong even if I punched them in the face while his arm was outside of my rectum. In fact, I could still prosecute them for a time later, not just for the time they were violating my personal space.”

[jmdrake]

In Frisby v. Schultz the Supreme Court decided that it is not OK to harass. Freedom of speech is protected but the location of it is limited. Specifically, it is not OK to use speech to pester. If you have political speech to utter, it is protected but to use it as an excuse to pester is not protected.

Though the Supreme Court did not come out and define the right to privacy to include the right not to be pestered the Supreme Court by inference suggest such a standard with this decision. The decision does say local standards may be put in place to protect privacy.

Sure. I'm aware of how the Supreme Court violated the constitution in that case, just like the violated the constitution in the Dread Scott case, the Pleasey v. Ferguson case, the Wickard v. Filburn case etc. But it's total crap. Either you have a right to free speech or you don't. If the government has it's way your "free speech zone" will be limited to here.

http://www.neatorama.com/image-upload/throne-toilet.jpg

[jmdrake]

What about "big government" stopping killing of people in America?
Maybe we cannot do much to protect people or animals around the entire globe, but we can do something to protect them here. Life is important, whether it is human or animal life. The environment as well. We should do what we can to protect it. Human, Whale, Dolphin, Cat, Dog, whatever one may be.

I think the best we can do for the world as a whole is lead by a good example.

Well for one thing the U.S. government doesn't own the ocean. For another it was government environmental activism that cause the problem in the gulf in the first place. If it weren't for the federal government more oil companies would be drilling closer to shore in shallower waters where it's easier to fix problems.

[jmdrake]

What a perfect double-circle! What the law currently says or does or “will get you” is not relevant to a discussion about what law SHOULD BE. No, I don’t understand why you are merely making up and picking-and-choosing definitions.

Wrong. I gave you my answer of what IS first and then I gave you my answer of what should be! You win round one of what is. The government defines that babies 8 months into a pregnancy don't have rights unless they make in partway down the birth canal. Before that they didn't even have rights then.

What should be is that human dna + cognitive ability = individual and individual = rights. But you are "picking-and-choosing" which arguments you want to respond to.

[Elle]

Not every woman that enters a clinic is getting an abortion. It used to be that birth control pills were cheaper at the clinic than at the pharmacy. Exams were cheaper there as well. When you don't have insurance, this makes a difference. Been there.

It is extremely annoying to be going into the clinic for birth control pills and having a random person follow you quoting the bible, as they shove pictures of aborted babies in your face. I wasn't there for an abortion and I am not Christian. How can this be free speech? To me, it is harassment.

[micahnelson]

How can this be free speech? To me, it is harassment.

Harassment isn't the opposite of free speech, but its price. Its a heavy burden, I can understand that, but thats the price we pay. If you want to tell President XYZ where to go and how to get there, Joe Biblethumper is probably going to be able to tell you the same thing.

I'm against abortion on principle, but I can understand that verbal assault is not pleasant to experience. I don't think I would go that route- but some do. I am surprised we don't see protests at churches as a response.

[jmdrake]

Harassment isn't the opposite of free speech, but its price. Its a heavy burden, I can understand that, but thats the price we pay. If you want to tell President XYZ where to go and how to get there, Joe Biblethumper is probably going to be able to tell you the same thing.

I'm against abortion on principle, but I can understand that verbal assault is not pleasant to experience. I don't think I would go that route- but some do. I am surprised we don't see protests at churches as a response.

^This * 1776! I don't get people who are so ready to through the first amendment under the bus whenever it suits them. Every time we hold an "End the Fed" rally in from of one of the Fed buildings that's a type of "harassment" too.

[idirtify]

Wrong. I gave you my answer of what IS first and then I gave you my answer of what should be! You win round one of what is. The government defines that babies 8 months into a pregnancy don't have rights unless they make in partway down the birth canal. Before that they didn't even have rights then.

I seeeee. NOT!




What should be is that human dna + cognitive ability = individual and individual = rights. But you are "picking-and-choosing" which arguments you want to respond to.

Why did you stop there? Your collection of criteria granting rights includes far more than human dna and cognitive ability. It also includes:
1) the thing can benefit from singing,
2) you getting more out of singing to the thing,
3) the thing recognizes your singing voice,
4) the thing has human tissue that’s only a few centimeters difference from a baby,
5) people cry about loosing the thing.

I feel like I am omitting some. O well.

Anyway…… Dear all THINGS reading (or within line-of-sight of) this post:
If any of these 5-7 characteristics relate to you in some way, YOU JUST MIGHT BE a thing with rights.

[Elle]

^This * 1776! I don't get people who are so ready to through the first amendment under the bus whenever it suits them. Every time we hold an "End the Fed" rally in from of one of the Fed buildings that's a type of "harassment" too.

I wasn't chucking the 1st under the bus. Shoving pictures in someone's face to the point where you are slapping them in the face with said pictures is not free speech.

[jmdrake]

I seeeee. NOT!

Well that's one thing we agree on. Your problem is that you can't see.




Why did you stop there? Your collection of criteria granting rights includes far more than human dna and cognitive ability. It also includes:


Wrong. I simply gave you my criteria for what is an individual. I gave you evidence of why I think a fetus is an individual. The fact that you want to ignore such clear evidence just shows you are closed minded. But rights are determined by the laws government of the government where you live. If you live in China for example, you have no rights even as an adult human. But you should have rights because you are an individual. Anyway, you want to be a jerk and make lame attempts at tearing down my examples (while sticking to the nonsense that a fetus = cancer). Let's hear your example of what is an individual. Do you really believe that a baby that is stopped halfway down the birth canal and then killed somehow is less of an individual than the baby that is allowed to come out the last few centimeters? If no then you are actually agreeing with my point whether you are willing to admit it or not. If yes, then why should a few centimeters make such a big difference in your bizzarro world?

[tasteless]

Right here:

“Even if it were the arm doing the fisting, I would not be in the wrong if I punched the dude in the face … Furthermore, if a person were to do that, I would not be wrong even if I punched them in the face while his arm was outside of my rectum. In fact, I could still prosecute them for a time later, not just for the time they were violating my personal space.”

Having the right to defend myself from assault != the person assaulting me not having rights. If a person were to commit such an act, is it not wrong to defend yourself using whatever non-lethal means necessary? If a person were to sodomize another with their arm, do you not believe that person should rightfully go to jail? Or do you think the proper punishment would be to chop off his arm and throw his arm behind bars since only the arm was committing the violation and the person attached to it has rights?

[jmdrake]

I wasn't chucking the 1st under the bus. Shoving pictures in someone's face to the point where you are slapping them in the face with said pictures is not free speech.

If someone hits you with a picture that's assault, not speech. If they simply put it in your face (what you euphemistically call "shoving") that is speech. You simply don't have a constitutional right not to be harassed on the public sidewalk.

Free speech:

http://www.guzer.com/pictures/funny_protester_signs.jpg

Not free speech:

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news_images/20080718/p1a.jpg

Any questions?

Once the government starts passing laws based on the content of the speech (anti abortion for example) it's violating the first amendment. You don't need new laws to keep someone from making contact with you with their signs. Battery laws already cover that. But you don't have a right not to have a sign close to you or even "in your personal space".

[micahnelson]

But you don't have a right not to have a sign close to you or even "in your personal space".

Not to quibble, but i think most states have laws respecting a "Personal Bubble" and being aggressive within 2 feet or so of a person becomes assault. Assault can be verbal and is illegal, as you know.

Its a difficult line...

I shop at walmart sometimes, try to avoid it though. If people were protesting I wouldn't mind them yelling at me or whatever, as long as they did it without blocking my path or literally getting in my face. If I can see well enough to get in and out of the door safely then its all free speech in my book.

That said, there is little emotional turmoil present in the choice to go to walmart- but much in the choice to have an abortion. Any argument about the fragility of the person walking in can certainly be made about the fragility of the life, if you believe that human life begins before womb-escape.

We certainly could argue when someone has rights- and I think its a good argument to have. Unfortunately our government fails to recognize human rights during any stage of life, pre and post-mortem. Certainly there is fertile soil in the common grounds we do stand on from which to reap a harvest of liberty.

[jmdrake]

Not to quibble, but i think most states have laws respecting a "Personal Bubble" and being aggressive within 2 feet or so of a person becomes assault. Assault can be verbal and is illegal, as you know.

Its a difficult line...


I've never heard of that, but it's not surprising with different people pushing idiocy like "hate speech" laws. I guess these states don't allow baseball either.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/23/sports/23cubs.2.190.jpg

The common law definition (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault) of assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Words are only considered assault if the create a reasonable fear that a harmful or offensive contact is imminent. From the above link.

There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.

Of course states can always pass statutes that abridge the common law. But applying the common law to abortion protests, somebody who said "If you go in there and hurt that baby I'll hurt you when you come out." would qualify as assault. On the other hand someone held up some grizzly photo of an abortion and said "Think about what you are about to do" would not.



I shop at walmart sometimes, try to avoid it though. If people were protesting I wouldn't mind them yelling at me or whatever, as long as they did it without blocking my path or literally getting in my face. If I can see well enough to get in and out of the door safely then its all free speech in my book.

That said, there is little emotional turmoil present in the choice to go to walmart- but much in the choice to have an abortion. Any argument about the fragility of the person walking in can certainly be made about the fragility of the life, if you believe that human life begins before womb-escape.

We certainly could argue when someone has rights- and I think its a good argument to have. Unfortunately our government fails to recognize human rights during any stage of life, pre and post-mortem. Certainly there is fertile soil in the common grounds we do stand on from which to reap a harvest of liberty.

I think your Walmart example is very good. Applied to the abortion question, people who in the old days linked arm and arm forming a "human chain" blocking access to abortion clinics are certainly violating someone else's rights. They may feel their actions justified from a civil disobedience point of view. That's like slavery abolitionists who might link arm in arm to block the way to the slave auction house. Or running the underground railroad for that matter. But certainly the first amendment doesn't give you the right to physically block access to anything that's legal.

Something else to consider when thinking about the fragility of the women involved. As I pointed out earlier, at least one study has shown that 64 percent of them felt pressure to have an abortion. If there is an action against pro life protesters "pestering" women into not having abortions, where's the action against boyfriends, husbands, relatives etc. who pester women to have abortions?

And I agree this is a good discussion to have.

[ChaosControl]

Well for one thing the U.S. government doesn't own the ocean. For another it was government environmental activism that cause the problem in the gulf in the first place. If it weren't for the federal government more oil companies would be drilling closer to shore in shallower waters where it's easier to fix problems.

I know they don't "own" the ocean. As far as I am concerned, the government doesn't "own" anything.

Well I will agree it is partially the government's fault, but it is also BPs fault. There should never have been deep water drilling, that was just stupid to allow. I don't think it was really environmental activism though that is responsible, I think it was just stupidity. There is nothing environmentally sound about deep water drilling.

[ChaosControl]

Not every woman that enters a clinic is getting an abortion. It used to be that birth control pills were cheaper at the clinic than at the pharmacy. Exams were cheaper there as well. When you don't have insurance, this makes a difference. Been there.

It is extremely annoying to be going into the clinic for birth control pills and having a random person follow you quoting the bible, as they shove pictures of aborted babies in your face. I wasn't there for an abortion and I am not Christian. How can this be free speech? To me, it is harassment.

Well going there supports its existence, so it is saying you"re okay with it. So just because you aren't actually getting an abortion yourself, doesn't mean they don't have objection to what you're doing. Free speech includes things that you may not like, things that make you uncomfortable.

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by idirtify
Why did you stop there? Your collection of criteria granting rights includes far more than human dna and cognitive ability. It also includes:



Wrong. I simply gave you my criteria for what is an individual. I gave you evidence of why I think a fetus is an individual. The fact that you want to ignore such clear evidence just shows you are closed minded. But rights are determined by the laws government of the government where you live. If you live in China for example, you have no rights even as an adult human. But you should have rights because you are an individual. Anyway, you want to be a jerk and make lame attempts at tearing down my examples (while sticking to the nonsense that a fetus = cancer). Let's hear your example of what is an individual. Do you really believe that a baby that is stopped halfway down the birth canal and then killed somehow is less of an individual than the baby that is allowed to come out the last few centimeters? If no then you are actually agreeing with my point whether you are willing to admit it or not. If yes, then why should a few centimeters make such a big difference in your bizzarro world?

Why did you say “wrong” then reword exactly what I said? In the context of this argument, I can see no difference between “criteria granting rights” and “criteria for what is an individual” (OR “evidence of why I think a fetus is an individual”). IOW: yes, I know what you gave me and it’s the same thing as “criteria granting rights”.

Now regarding your criteria: Upon analysis, they all fall apart. Apparently, since you think my previous efforts were “lame”, I must go through your list one-by-one and point out what should be excruciatingly obvious:

1) human dna – lots of things in the body have human dna but not rights. Cancers can even have “unique/discrete dna”.
2) cognitive ability – lots of born people have no cognitive ability (sleeping, retarded, in coma, etc) yet have rights.
3) the thing can benefit from singing – other things (plants) can benefit from singing but not have rights.
4) you get more out of singing to the thing – same as above, and more.
5) the thing recognizes your singing voice – see DOGS; they don’t have rights.
6) the thing has human tissue that’s only a few centimeters difference from a baby – see #1.
7) people cry about loosing the thing – people cry about losing LOTS of things that don’t have rights.

Now regarding my idea of an individual person with rights, I have previously delineated it.

Finally, how about you stop with the attempts to lower the standard of the debate? I’ll appreciate you not continuing to call me names (like “jerk”).

[idirtify]

Having the right to defend myself from assault != the person assaulting me not having rights. If a person were to commit such an act, is it not wrong to defend yourself using whatever non-lethal means necessary? If a person were to sodomize another with their arm, do you not believe that person should rightfully go to jail? Or do you think the proper punishment would be to chop off his arm and throw his arm behind bars since only the arm was committing the violation and the person attached to it has rights?

In this context, there is no difference between the invader “not having rights” and “not have rights that supersede yours”. Since it’s obvious that abortion is a case that asks “whose rights dominate”, there is no meaningful difference between “having no rights” and “having fewer rights”.

Now let’s get to your question. NO, it’s not wrong to defend yourself; and YES, it is within your rights to attack the invader. Since that is my point regarding the fetus and you have (unwarily?) concurred, the only detail left to discuss is whether you have the right to go beyond non-lethal force; and the only relevant factor here is how long the invasion continues – if non-lethal force fails to successfully defend against the invasion, you have every right to intensify your defense efforts into the realm of lethal force (or to remain true to the analogy [admittedly a lousy one, since there are no good ones], to lop off and/or destroy the arm).

[Krugerrand]

In this context, there is no difference between the invader “not having rights” and “not have rights that supersede yours”. Since it’s obvious that abortion is a case that asks “whose rights dominate”, there is no meaningful difference between “having no rights” and “having fewer rights”.

Now let’s get to your question. NO, it’s not wrong to defend yourself; and YES, it is within your rights to attack the invader. Since that is my point regarding the fetus and you have (unwarily?) concurred, the only detail left to discuss is whether you have the right to go beyond non-lethal force; and the only relevant factor here is how long the invasion continues – if non-lethal force fails to successfully defend against the invasion, you have every right to intensify your defense efforts into the realm of lethal force (or to remain true to the analogy [admittedly a lousy one, since there are no good ones], to lop off and/or destroy the arm).

Here's an interesting "perspective builder." If we take "brain dead" as meaning a person is dead ... this child survived for almost three months inside of a "sustained" corpse.

A brain-dead US woman who was kept alive for almost three months to give her foetus time to develop has given birth to a girl, two months premature.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4740721.stm

[tasteless]

In this context, there is no difference between the invader “not having rights” and “not have rights that supersede yours”. Since it’s obvious that abortion is a case that asks “whose rights dominate”, there is no meaningful difference between “having no rights” and “having fewer rights”.

Which right of the mother is the baby infringing on by existing?

Are you suggesting that pregnancy is an infringement on a mother's rights? Then does that mean all pregnancies should be aborted in order to protect those rights?


Now let’s get to your question. NO, it’s not wrong to defend yourself; and YES, it is within your rights to attack the invader. Since that is my point regarding the fetus and you have (unwarily?) concurred, the only detail left to discuss is whether you have the right to go beyond non-lethal force; and the only relevant factor here is how long the invasion continues – if non-lethal force fails to successfully defend against the invasion, you have every right to intensify your defense efforts into the realm of lethal force (or to remain true to the analogy [admittedly a lousy one, since there are no good ones], to lop off and/or destroy the arm).

Are you still trying to say that a human arm and an unborn child are equivalent? I already stated, a human arm is not a human being. A human arm does not have rights on its own, whether inside or outside another human being. It does not have rights. The unborn child does. It has the right to life whether inside or outside its mother.

Again, I'll ask. Is a mother allowed to cut the baby in half midway through delivery, since half of the "invading" baby is inside of her? When does it become a person according to you?

On that point, how is a fetus an invader, anyway? Invaders come from outside and infringe on a perimeter. A developing child does not fit this definition.

[jmdrake]

Originally Posted by idirtify
Why did you stop there? Your collection of criteria granting rights includes far more than human dna and cognitive ability. It also includes:


I wasn't giving a "collection of criteria for granting rights". I gave evidence to support the proposition that a fetus qualifies as an individual. You keep trying to make my argument into something I never said.



Why did you say “wrong” then reword exactly what I said? In the context of this argument, I can see no difference between “criteria granting rights” and “criteria for what is an individual” (OR “evidence of why I think a fetus iso an individual”). IOW: yes, I know what you gave me and it’s the same thing as “criteria granting rights”.


You keep looking at each criteria in isolation and say at say "Just because of X doesn't mean it's got rights". Well duh! But each criteria I mentioned goes further to the proposition that we are talking about a human individual and not a mass of cells. It's like a biologist using a taxonomy to identify a species. A single characteristic is almost never by itself the defining factor.

I've explained why you are wrong several times in this thread, but you keep coming back to the same bull as if by repetition you can turn it into gold.
Now regarding your criteria: Upon analysis, they all fall apart. Apparently, since you think my previous efforts were “lame”, I must go through your list one-by-one and point out what should be excruciatingly obvious:



1) human dna – lots of things in the body have human dna but not rights. Cancers can even have “unique/discrete dna”.


Another example of your poor logic. I never said human dna was the sole criteria.



2) cognitive ability – lots of born people have no cognitive ability (sleeping, retarded, in coma, etc) yet have rights.


People who are retarded have cognitive ability. Being retarded simply means you have less cognitive ability. People who are sleeping have cognitive ability. How do you think an alarm clock wakes somebody up? And some people solve real world problems while they are asleep and wake up with the solution. Some people in comas have cognitive ability. There are many stories of people in comas later waking up and telling their friends and family that they remember them being there and they can even recall the conversations. That said people in comas have less rights! Remember the Terri Schiavo case? A big part of the debate was whether or not she had cognitive brain function. If science determines you lack that then your relatives (or the government) makes decisions for you. You can even be slowly and dehydrated to death. (As was the case with Schiavo). The only way to fully protect your rights should you slip into a coma is to spell out your wishes while you are conscious through a living will.



3) the thing can benefit from singing – other things (plants) can benefit from singing but not have rights.


Again I'm not looking at this in isolation. A tire by itself is not a car. But a car has tires. Your argument fails.



4) you get more out of singing to the thing – same as above, and more.


I'm not looking at this in isolation. Again you fail.



5) the thing recognizes your singing voice – see DOGS; they don’t have rights.


I'm not looking at this in isolation. Again you fail.



6) the thing has human tissue that’s only a few centimeters difference from a baby – see #1.


I see you still aren't even going to attempt to answer this question. So I'll ask it again. Do you think that a baby pulled halfway out the birth canal at 9 months is an individual or not? Yes or no? If no then why not?



7) people cry about loosing the thing – people cry about losing LOTS of things that don’t have rights.


Again I'm not looking at this in isolation. But further more this wasn't even my point! I pointed out that the medical profession considers the fetus a baby when it's a miscarriage! This simply shows hypocrisy on the part of the profession itself. Either it should tell mothers who just lost their baby "You just lost a tumor, get over it" or it should be honest with regards to what happens with abortions.



Now regarding my idea of an individual person with rights, I have previously delineated it.

Fine. One more time won't hurt you. It won't take any more time than it does for you to keep cutting and pasting your distortions of my position.



Finally, how about you stop with the attempts to lower the standard of the debate? I’ll appreciate you not continuing to call me names (like “jerk”).

I'll appreciate you not acting like a jerk with comments like "I seeeee. NOT!" or untrue statements like "It seems your determining factors are changing with each post and getting more and more bizarre." But I will apologize for sinking to your level.

[idirtify]

Which right of the mother is the baby infringing on by existing?

That’s ultimately up to the mother to say, but as we just demonstrated, it would likely be akin to trespassing or some other invasion violation.



Are you suggesting that pregnancy is an infringement on a mother's rights?

See above.



Then does that mean all pregnancies should be aborted in order to protect those rights?

No. See above.



Are you still trying to say that a human arm and an unborn child are equivalent?


No more “equivalent” than any other attempt at an analogy.



I already stated, a human arm is not a human being.

Yes, I know. I never claimed “human being” = “arm”.



A human arm does not have rights on its own, whether inside or outside another human being. It does not have rights. The unborn child does. It has the right to life whether inside or outside its mother.

There you go again, asserting rights without consistent basis.



Again, I'll ask. Is a mother allowed to cut the baby in half midway through delivery, since half of the "invading" baby is inside of her? When does it become a person according to you?

Don’t know. Not a part of my argument. Because what’s the issue? It’s already coming out.



On that point, how is a fetus an invader, anyway? Invaders come from outside and infringe on a perimeter. A developing child does not fit this definition.

It’s up to the woman to say. But if she says it’s as much a trespasser as any other thing that is growing inside her, who are you to claim it does not fit the definition?

[idirtify]

I wasn't giving a "collection of criteria for granting rights". snip

I wasn't giving a "collection of criteria for granting rights".

What’s the difference?

I gave evidence to support the proposition that a fetus qualifies as an individual.

I don’t think you understand principle or logical debate. You’ll claim a criterion (you are not only claiming “characteristics”, but things like singing, etc), and then I will refute it. Then you’ll come back and claim another, then I’ll refute it. Then you come and claim it’s not just one (or a few) criterion but all of them together and more; and imply that it could be millions. Again: I don’t think you understand “principle” (or “standard”, or “consistent”). IOW, no matter how many of your reasons I prove to be fallacious, you will simply reply with something to the effect: “it’s everything combined” or “I’m not looking at this in isolation” or some other cop-out.

People who are retarded have cognitive ability. snip

Not all retarded people have cognitive ability; there are many degrees, down to the severely retarded. Not all sleepers have cognitive ability; many deep sleepers can not be woken with an alarm. And you even agree that most people in comas have no cognitive ability. And since I only needed to show ONE example of a class of individual human with rights, yet with no cognitive ability, your criterion is refuted.

I see you still aren't even going to attempt to answer this question. So I'll ask it again. Do you think that a baby pulled halfway out the birth canal at 9 months is an individual or not? Yes or no? If no then why not?

See previous post. The question is about as relevant as asking if you shove someone out of a skyscraper, if you are a murderer before they hit the ground – or if you are a millionaire before you cash your winning lottery ticket.

Fine. One more time won't hurt you. It won't take any more time than it does for you to keep cutting and pasting your distortions of my position.

Once born.

I'll appreciate you not acting like a jerk with comments like "I seeeee. NOT!" or untrue statements like "It seems your determining factors are changing with each post and getting more and more bizarre." But I will apologize for sinking to your level.

Again: Stop with the personal remarks. You have no excuse, let alone that it’s my fault or that I initiated it. If you persist, you’ll at least be seen as intentionally running the thread into the dirt in order to get it locked because you can’t support your positions.

[tasteless]

That’s ultimately up to the mother to say, but as we just demonstrated, it would likely be akin to trespassing or some other invasion violation.

But if her claim is questioned, she needs to be able to demonstrate a right was violated. And if her right WAS violated, she needs to demonstrate that she was right to kill the child.

You're saying that an action can violate the rights of one woman, but the same action doesn't necessarily violate the rights of another. And you say I'm being inconsistent?


No more “equivalent” than any other attempt at an analogy.

But you claimed that human beings and arms have equivalent rights.


Yes, I know. I never claimed “human being” = “arm”.

But you claimed that human beings and arms have equivalent rights.


There you go again, asserting rights without consistent basis.

I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that discrete human life needs to be protected from murder attempts, regardless of location.



Don’t know. Not a part of my argument. Because what’s the issue? It’s already coming out.

It's not part of the argument because you're in denial about the parts where your criteria for personhood fall short.

The issue is that partial birth abortions are performed, and there was just recently a supreme court decision concerning partial birth abortions.

I guess since it doesn't fit your argument, you're going to pretend like it's no big deal.

You can't even give an answer for when personhood begins, so who are you to say whether or not the unborn child deserves protection from murder attempts?


It’s up to the woman to say. But if she says it’s as much a trespasser as any other thing that is growing inside her, who are you to claim it does not fit the definition?

Are you suggesting women have immunity from the scrutiny of the legal process? Why do women have more rights than others?

[idirtify]

But if her claim is questioned, she needs to be able to demonstrate a right was violated. And if her right WAS violated, she needs to demonstrate that she was right to kill the child.


That’s easy. “It’s inside me.”



You're saying that an action can violate the rights of one woman, but the same action doesn't necessarily violate the rights of another. And you say I'm being inconsistent?

Huh?



But you claimed that human beings and arms have equivalent rights.

Where?



But you claimed that human beings and arms have equivalent rights.

Where?



I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that discrete human life needs to be protected from murder attempts, regardless of location.


That’s your opening position. Of course it’s consistent. So what? What really needs to be consistent is your proof / evidence / criteria / principle / support / backup.



It's not part of the argument because you're in denial about the parts where your criteria for personhood fall short.

The issue is that partial birth abortions are performed, and there was just recently a supreme court decision concerning partial birth abortions.

I guess since it doesn't fit your argument, you're going to pretend like it's no big deal.

You can't even give an answer for when personhood begins, so who are you to say whether or not the unborn child deserves protection from murder attempts?


So since there is a point in the birth process/canal when the fetus is minutes or seconds from being an individual person with rights, you claim that shows that the fetus was always an individual person with rights. I don’t understand your logic. How does this in-between hair-splitting transition point show anything of the sort?



Are you suggesting women have immunity from the scrutiny of the legal process? Why do women have more rights than others?

No and no. Any man would have just as much of a right to say a thing growing inside him is a trespasser.

[tasteless]

That’s easy. “It’s inside me.”

We're going in circles... Is personhood surrendered upon entry into a human body then?



Huh?

Woman A is pregnant, claims the fetus is invading her and kills it. Woman B is pregnant, but does nothing. Is Woman B's child still committing an injustice on her?



Where?

"If someone were to hold you down without your consent and shove their arm in your rectum, wouldn’t you agree that the arm loses all rights it previously had?"

You are comparing a fetus to an arm and claiming that the arm loses its rights. Unlike a fetus, which is a discrete human being (and therefore possess rights), an arm has no rights on its own.



That’s your opening position. Of course it’s consistent. So what? What really needs to be consistent is your proof / evidence / criteria / principle / support / backup.

I asked you to justify abortion and posed certain hypothetical scenarios for you to apply your logic to in order to determine whether or not you were correct. You refused to answer some of those questions, probably because answering would demonstrate your logic was flawed.



So since there is a point in the birth process/canal when the fetus is minutes or seconds from being an individual person with rights, you claim that shows that the fetus was always an individual person with rights. I don’t understand your logic. How does this in-between hair-splitting transition point show anything of the sort?

I claim that it shows your argument doesn't pass muster. You know that answering my questions will demonstrate that your argument fails, that's why you continue to balk at them.

If you're going to say that the woman has the right to kill her child because the child is infringing upon a border, you'd better be able to define those borders. Yet you can't.


No and no. Any man would have just as much of a right to say a thing growing inside him is a trespasser.

Why can't others question whether or not her child is a trespasser or not? Especially when the fact that the mother has custody of her child by default makes her claim that the child is trespassing a dubious one.

[micahnelson]

We're going in circles... Is personhood surrendered upon entry into a human body then?

No, only when you marry the human body you entered. Bada... boom...

Yep, marriage joke in an abortion thread. Post of the week?

[idirtify]

Is personhood surrendered upon entry into a human body then?

I don’t fully understand your question. Maybe this will answer it. (All I can try to do is continue to reword the simple principle in hopes that one version will sink in.) Since the concept of your “personhood” is based on ownership of your own body, and the concept of your “body” is based on your own location in space-time, nothing that exists inside your space-time matter can have rights over you. If it were any other way, your rights would not exist.



Woman A is pregnant, claims the fetus is invading her and kills it. Woman B is pregnant, but does nothing. Is Woman B's child still committing an injustice on her?

No, of course not. Since woman B has given permission (invited), there is no violation (no trespassing, no invasion).



"If someone were to hold you down without your consent and shove their arm in your rectum, wouldn’t you agree that the arm loses all rights it previously had?"

You are comparing a fetus to an arm and claiming that the arm loses its rights. Unlike a fetus, which is a discrete human being (and therefore possess rights), an arm has no rights on its own.

You claimed I claimed that human beings and arms have equivalent rights. I don’t know what point you are trying to make, but I didn’t claim that. Just read the quote again.



I asked you to justify abortion and posed certain hypothetical scenarios for you to apply your logic to in order to determine whether or not you were correct. You refused to answer some of those questions, probably because answering would demonstrate your logic was flawed.

My logic may not be perfectly consistent, but it’s far more consistent than yours.



I claim that it shows your argument doesn't pass muster. You know that answering my questions will demonstrate that your argument fails, that's why you continue to balk at them.

If you're going to say that the woman has the right to kill her child because the child is infringing upon a border, you'd better be able to define those borders. Yet you can't.

Well then, let’s see if you can define yours. Although most events have in-between points/stages/phases which resist simple definitions and which really don’t affect the overall principles, you still think I must better “define those borders”. OK, but why shouldn’t you do the same? Assuming that you claim personhood starts at conception, tell me at what POINT during the process of conception you think personhood starts. Good luck with that; because I believe conception can take at least as long as the birth process.



Why can't others question whether or not her child is a trespasser or not?

Because rights mean that she owns her body, which would naturally include everything that goes on (and exists) within her body’s space-time.



Especially when the fact that the mother has custody of her child by default makes her claim that the child is trespassing a dubious one.

Backwards reasoning and an appeal to a false authority (the law is no authority on truth).

[jmdrake]

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7155925/2/istockphoto_7155925-talking-to-a-brick-wall-diamondlypse-seattle.jpg

You quit doing any honest debate some time ago.


I wasn't giving a "collection of criteria for granting rights".

What’s the difference?


Common sense. Which is something you apparently lack. Once again, all individuals have not always had rights in this country. Slaves for instance didn't have rights. They were individuals. I believe they should have had rights from the beginning. I believe slavery never should have been allowed. But it was. Some slave owners never tried to justify slavery. But some did by attempting to diminish their humanity the same way you are trying to diminish the individuality of a fetus.

Anyway, most of your "counter arguments" (if you've actually made any) could be applied to a newborn baby just as easily as it could a fetus. Maybe you don't think a newborn baby is an individual too. Maybe it's just a mass of cells. Or mabye it's an invidual once the umbilical cord is cut, but before that it's just a tumor. A mother who has a live birth can still legally kill it if she does so before the umbilical cord is cut. Anyway, I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty.

[idirtify]

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7155925/2/istockphoto_7155925-talking-to-a-brick-wall-diamondlypse-seattle.jpg

You quit doing any honest debate some time ago.



Common sense. Which is something you apparently lack. Once again, all individuals have not always had rights in this country. Slaves for instance didn't have rights. They were individuals. I believe they should have had rights from the beginning. I believe slavery never should have been allowed. But it was. Some slave owners never tried to justify slavery. But some did by attempting to diminish their humanity the same way you are trying to diminish the individuality of a fetus.

Anyway, most of your "counter arguments" (if you've actually made any) could be applied to a newborn baby just as easily as it could a fetus. Maybe you don't think a newborn baby is an individual too. Maybe it's just a mass of cells. Or mabye it's an invidual once the umbilical cord is cut, but before that it's just a tumor. A mother who has a live birth can still legally kill it if she does so before the umbilical cord is cut. Anyway, I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty.

I thought the “difference” you were arguing was between your claims being a “collection of criteria for granting rights” or “evidence to support the proposition that a fetus qualifies as an individual”. You claimed you were not providing the former, but were providing the latter. I asked how they were different. To me, they sound like different ways to word the same thing. And why are you trying to argue something so petty? I mean IF they are truly different, then the former is a better description of what you have been listing. The fact that an individual person might “get more out of” singing to a fetus than singing to something else is certainly not “evidence” for your position, but it could more accurately be described as your “criterion” (not a legitimate criterion, but that’s irrelevant to this argument). So now you introduce “slavery” into this side-argument in an apparent attempt to prove that individual persons have not always had rights, but I can’t tell if you intend it to support your side-argument or your main one. You claim I am trying to diminish the humanity of a fetus the same way slave owners tried to diminish the individuality of slaves to justify slavery. I can’t see how you came up with this. I am not aware that slaves were a) inside other person’s bodies, or that b) slave owners claimed they were. It appears you are using a non-sequitur: Since some people once used fallacy to try to diminish the personhood of another class of people, then anyone who tries to claim that ANYTHING does not have personhood is engaging in fallacy. Obviously that’s not a coherent deduction.

You say most of my counter arguments could be applied to a newborn baby just as easily as it could a fetus. Could you specify? My main argument is that since a fetus is inside a person’s body, it can not have rights that are equal to that person’s. How does that apply to a newborn (which is OUTSIDE the person’s body)?

You say maybe I don’t think a newborn baby is an individual; that maybe it’s just a mass of cells or a tumor as long as the umbilical cord is uncut. That’s not reasonable. No one argues against the mother’s right to destroy the cord, since it will not harm the baby’s body – that is now OUTSIDE in its own space-time.

[The Patriot]

Wrong.

You can just abandon it. No one should be forced to keep someone else alive.

That is insane. Are you saying child abandonment should be legal?
You have an absolute 100% responsibility to life which you create and go through pregnancy with. Another person's child is a different question, and you certainly don't have an obligation to them. But you imposed life on the subject, it is because of you they exist, and leaving a baby to die is murder.

[The Patriot]

. I am surprised we don't see protests at churches as a response.

Because I guess people on the other side aren't such big holier than thou jerks who have lives.