Abortion

[The Script]

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene.  He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.).  I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts.  But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

The fact he's against abortion is what bothers me. The fact he claims to be a libertarian yet doesn't understand that a woman removing a baby from her womb is her right also bothers me.

It's only her right if the baby is not a human life yet, correct?  If it's a human life she has no more right to kill the baby than she would to kill her three-year-old child outside the womb.  In pure libertarian philosophy she could simply stop feeding the baby and let someone else take care of it, but she can't kill it because that would violate the baby's right to not be murdered.  So the difficulty is defining when life begins and what life is.

[1713298808]

1713298808

[1713298808]

1713298808

[1713298808]

1713298808

[1713298808]

1713298808

[1713298808]

1713298808

[NghtRppr]

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene.  He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.).  I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts.  But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

The fact he's against abortion is what bothers me. The fact he claims to be a libertarian yet doesn't understand that a woman removing a baby from her womb is her right also bothers me.

It's only her right if the baby is not a human life yet, correct?  If it's a human life she has no more right to kill the baby than she would to kill her three-year-old child outside the womb.  In pure libertarian philosophy she could simply stop feeding the baby and let someone else take care of it, but she can't kill it because that would violate the baby's right to not be murdered.  So the difficulty is defining when life begins and what life is.

I said remove from her womb, not kill. She has the right to control her own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what she does with her body. The only exception is when what she does with her body violates someone else's rights.

[SgtSpike]

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene.  He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.).  I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts.  But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

The fact he's against abortion is what bothers me. The fact he claims to be a libertarian yet doesn't understand that a woman removing a baby from her womb is her right also bothers me.

It's only her right if the baby is not a human life yet, correct?  If it's a human life she has no more right to kill the baby than she would to kill her three-year-old child outside the womb.  In pure libertarian philosophy she could simply stop feeding the baby and let someone else take care of it, but she can't kill it because that would violate the baby's right to not be murdered.  So the difficulty is defining when life begins and what life is.

I said remove from her womb, not kill. She has the right to control her own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what she does with her body.

That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

[NghtRppr]

That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

That's not even close. If you want to make an analogy, it would be like me kicking a person out of my house even though they will freeze to death outside.

[SgtSpike]

That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

That's not even close. If you want to make an analogy, it would be like me kicking a person out of my house even though they will freeze to death outside.

Ok, we'll go with that.  It'd be like kicking a newborn baby out of your house, even though they will freeze to death outside.

Actually, it's even worse than that.  It's like locking a newborn baby in a cage outside of your house, and not allowing anyone to touch him/her, while he/she freezes to death outside.  After all, if you have an abortion, it's certain death - not death only if no one steps in to help.

[NghtRppr]

It's like locking a newborn baby in a cage outside of your house, and not allowing anyone to touch him/her, while he/she freezes to death outside.

No, it's not. No one is preventing anyone from keeping the baby alive, they just lack the technological means to do so. That won't always be the case either. It's also not something done in secret. It's not dropping the baby out in the woods where nobody that wants to do something knows about it.

[SgtSpike]

It's like locking a newborn baby in a cage outside of your house, and not allowing anyone to touch him/her, while he/she freezes to death outside.

No, it's not. No one is preventing anyone from keeping the baby alive, they just lack the technological means to do so. That won't always be the case either. It's also not something done in secret. It's not dropping the baby out in the woods where nobody that wants to do something knows about it.

That's like saying your knife-stab-to-the-chest wasn't killing the guy, it's just no one else could keep him alive after you did it.  Worst argument I've ever heard.

[The Script]

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene.  He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.).  I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts.  But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

The fact he's against abortion is what bothers me. The fact he claims to be a libertarian yet doesn't understand that a woman removing a baby from her womb is her right also bothers me.

It's only her right if the baby is not a human life yet, correct?  If it's a human life she has no more right to kill the baby than she would to kill her three-year-old child outside the womb.  In pure libertarian philosophy she could simply stop feeding the baby and let someone else take care of it, but she can't kill it because that would violate the baby's right to not be murdered.  So the difficulty is defining when life begins and what life is.

I said remove from her womb, not kill. She has the right to control her own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what she does with her body.

What's the difference?  If you abort an unborn baby it will die.  It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption.  They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc.  I'm not trying to make an emotional argument, just pointing out that abortion is certain death for a baby so I don't see the difference between that and murder, given that life does indeed begin inside the womb.  

[NghtRppr]

That's like saying your knife-stab-to-the-chest wasn't killing the guy, it's just no one else could keep him alive after you did it.

It doesn't matter if you kill the guy or not, you can't stab people.

[The Script]

It's like locking a newborn baby in a cage outside of your house, and not allowing anyone to touch him/her, while he/she freezes to death outside.

No, it's not. No one is preventing anyone from keeping the baby alive, they just lack the technological means to do so. That won't always be the case either. It's also not something done in secret. It's not dropping the baby out in the woods where nobody that wants to do something knows about it.

That's like saying your knife-stab-to-the-chest wasn't killing the guy, it's just no one else could keep him alive after you did it.  Worst argument I've ever heard.

It doesn't matter if you kill the guy or not, you can't stab people.

Why not? 

[NghtRppr]

It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption.  They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc.

That's an argument I can get behind. You shouldn't be allowed to damage the fetus, only evict it. Just like I can evict someone from my house, but not by chopping them into pieces first. However, the fact that death is certain doesn't change anything.

Why not?  

Are you asking me why you can't stab people?

[SgtSpike]

It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption.  They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc.

That's an argument I can get behind. You shouldn't be allowed to damage the fetus, only evict it. Just like I can evict someone from my house, but not by chopping them into pieces first. However, the fact that death is certain doesn't change anything.

Why not?  

Are you asking me why you can't stab people?

If any action you do causes certain death for a person, then you are responsible for killing said person.

[NghtRppr]

If any action you do causes certain death for a person, then you are responsible for killing said person.

I agree. Yet, according to libertarianism, I am still within my rights to withhold sustenance from a dying person.

[The Script]

It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption.  They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc.

That's an argument I can get behind. You shouldn't be allowed to damage the fetus, only evict it. Just like I can evict someone from my house, but not by chopping them into pieces first. However, the fact that death is certain doesn't change anything.

This makes more sense to me.  With our current technology I know of no way to evict a fetus without killing it, therefore I am against abortion in most circumstances.

Why not?  

Are you asking me why you can't stab people?
[/quote]

It seemed to me you were saying that the result didn't matter ("It doesn't matter if you kill the guy or not, you can't stab people").  So if the result doesn't matter why is stabbing a forbidden action?  You can't stab people because it infringes on their right to not be murdered, or physically damaged by you.  It does matter the consequence.  Can I poke you in the belly with my finger or would that be considered aggression?

[SgtSpike]

If any action you do causes certain death for a person, then you are responsible for killing said person.

I agree. Yet, according to libertarianism, I am still within my rights to withhold sustenance from a dying person.

Ok, it makes sense where you get your viewpoint from.  I don't agree with it (seems to be a case of following the letter of the law, not the spirit), but at least I understand where you're coming from.

[The Script]

If any action you do causes certain death for a person, then you are responsible for killing said person.

I agree. Yet, according to libertarianism, I am still within my rights to withhold sustenance from a dying person.

Right.  So if you can remove a fetus from the womb safely and put it up for adoption or give it to a voluntary charity that will put it in bionic cradle that will sustain it's life until it is ready to live outside the womb than according to libertarianism it's moral.  It's partially a technological issue.

[NghtRppr]

Can I poke you in the belly with my finger or would that be considered aggression?

You can't touch me at all.

Right.  So if you can remove a fetus from the womb safely and put it up for adoption or give it to a voluntary charity that will put it in bionic cradle that will sustain it's life until it is ready to live outside the womb than according to libertarianism it's moral.  It's partially a technological issue.

No, it doesn't matter what happens after it's out of the womb. It only matters how it's evicted. If there is a way to remove it intact then that must be done. If there is no other way, then so be it. Whether or not it dies after being removed is irrelevant.

[The Script]

Can I poke you in the belly with my finger or would that be considered aggression?

You can't touch me at all.

And if I bump into you in the street because I am talking on my cell phone and not paying attention?  Can you sue me for aggression?  Is it the intent that matters, the action or the result of the action?

Right.  So if you can remove a fetus from the womb safely and put it up for adoption or give it to a voluntary charity that will put it in bionic cradle that will sustain it's life until it is ready to live outside the womb than according to libertarianism it's moral.  It's partially a technological issue.

No, it doesn't matter what happens after it's out of the womb. It only matters how it's evicted. If there is a way to remove it intact then that must be done. If there is no other way, then so be it. Whether or not it dies after being removed is irrelevant.

Sorry, let me clarify, you're saying that if there's no way to evict it without killing it then it's immoral to do so, but if there's some way to eject the baby without damaging it than it's moral regardless of what happens afterwards, correct?

Edit:  The 'so-be-it' phrase made me think you were justifying abortion regardless of the method with which it was implemented.  I.E. whether or not the baby was killed in the process.

[NghtRppr]

And if I bump into you in the street because I am talking on my cell phone and not paying attention?  Can you sue me for aggression?  Is it the intent that matters, the action or the result of the action?

I can sue you for damages. If I have brittle bones and your bumping into me causes me a six week hospital stay then the damages would be steep. If I'm just mildly annoyed I might be able to get a few cents, which wouldn't even make it worth my time. Justice is about making the victim whole again, making it, as close to possible, as if the incident never happened.

Sorry, let me clarify, you're saying that if there's no way to evict it without killing it then it's immoral to do so, but if there's some way to eject the baby without damaging it than it's moral regardless of what happens afterwards, correct?

First of all, I'm not arguing about immorality, I'm arguing about rights. There are plenty of things that are immoral yet we still have the right to do. Also, you misunderstood me. I'm saying that killing the fetus in the process of removing it is only justifiable if that's the only way to remove it. Otherwise, it should be removed intact and anyone that can save it should be allowed to do so.

[FirstAscent]

And if I bump into you in the street because I am talking on my cell phone and not paying attention?  Can you sue me for aggression?  Is it the intent that matters, the action or the result of the action?

I can sue you for damages. If I have brittle bones and your bumping into me causes me a six week hospital stay then the damages would be steep.

Bitcoin2cash throws common sense out the window again. No surprise though.

You would have no case here as it's obvious you're the one who is aware of both your condition and the general conditions of what sidewalks are like. The world does not work the way you think it does. Sorry.