A number of people here are Conservatives first, and Libertarians second

[AuH20]

Abortion isn't a victimless act like homosexuality is. I expect more out of my fellow beings.

 

[Cabal]

Sure, I would turn simply to this. As soon as a cell has a unique and separate DNA from the host body. Simple as that.

And as a pointed out above, that is inadequate. Unique DNA =/= personhood. When life "begins," whatever that even means since all cellular activity is that of living organisms =/= personhood.

You're still failing to establish personhood. And you don't seem to understand why this is necessarily a problem, which is why your argument will continue to be weak.

 

[Gh34]

Fine, I'll bite. Explain to me the correct way of looking at the issue...and feel free to counter my arguments while you are at it. Because, at least to me, justifying the murder to the unborn is even more of a "Cruel War against Mankind" than Slavery.

So please, elaborate on how killing a human being should be acceptable.

That is an ambiguous theological question, and generally why any restrictions weren't enforced very well for that reason, because it could not be justified as murder per the bible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_abortion

 

[otherone]

When does personhood begin?

When it, or someone on it's behalf, exercises second amendment rights.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Your conclusion is missing at least one premise. You never establish personhood, you leap to it. You go from living body to someone elses body. What makes it someone's body? You never establish this, and this is the premise by which you arrive at the conclusion of murder, so your argument doesn't really follow until you do establish personhood. And this personhood must also be applicable to all stages of pregnancy from fertilization on, from single-celled zygote, to embryo, to fetus if you intend on classifying abortion at all stages to be murder of an individual, human person.

When does personhood begin? Because, quite honestly, I'd say you have your work cut out for you if you intend on claiming the above to be individual people no different in terms of individual, human personhood to those humans who have been born. And, to be clear, I do not fit into the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" crowds. I tend to find both extremes to be equally unreasonable and arbitrary.

(almost)All value statements about abortion (and everything else) are arbitrary and subjective.

 

[Fivezeroes]

And as a pointed out above, that is inadequate. Unique DNA =/= personhood. When life "begins," whatever that even means since all cellular activity is that of living organisms =/= personhood.

You're still failing to establish personhood. And you don't seem to understand why this is necessarily a problem, which is why your argument will continue to be weak.

18 days after conception there is a heartbeat, that in itself establishes person-hood. Anything before that is a mass of cells but once there is a heartbeat, that mass of cells is now a life.

 

[Cabal]

18 days after conception there is a heartbeat, that in itself establishes person-hood. Anything before that is a mass of cells but once there is a heartbeat, that mass of cells is now a life.

Why does heartbeat establish personhood? Lots of different organisms have a heartbeat.

 

[redmed]

Why does heartbeat establish personhood? Lots of different organisms have a heartbeat.

Cabal How do you define personhood?

 

[Cabal]

Cabal How do you define personhood?

The quality or condition of being an individual person. (And thus, having individual rights in the libertarian tradition)

 

[AuH20]

Aren't humans being quite presumptuous to think that they accurately ascertain when life begins? It's like watching a caveman attempt to repair a combustion engine. Common sense would dictate that you would err on the side of caution, but that's never the deterred the wannabe Icaruses on this planet. The same schemers who sold us Keynesian Economics are the same schemers who sold the abortion lie.

 

[spudea]

I don't want the past, I don't want the status quo. I want to look to the future and take steps to make life better for everyone. Libertarianism is my core beliefs but is incompatible with the current system of majority rule. Maybe I'm more of a Progressivist.

 

[tod evans]

I consider myself Libertarian, period.

I consider myself an asshole...

Nobody has ever disputed me or tried to set forth ideologies that I needed to subscribe to in order to be an asshole in their opinion...

 

[Fivezeroes]

I consider myself an asshole...

Nobody has ever disputed me or tried to set forth ideologies that I needed to subscribe to in order to be an asshole in their opinion...

+rep

 

[otherone]

Abortion isn't a victimless act like homosexuality is.

or like punching somebody in the dark.

 

[AuH20]

I don't want the past, I don't want the status quo. I want to look to the future and take steps to make life better for everyone. Libertarianism is my core beliefs but is incompatible with the current system of majority rule. Maybe I'm more of a Progressivist.

Past = future. Same fears. Same struggles. Same insecurities. Same flaws. Regardless of the time period. Maybe you could save humans if you eliminated mortality, but even that is a huge if. I guess someone could continually make the same mistakes over and over again, until they finally wised up.

 

[groverblue]

And thus the Libertarian movement fractures itself, with a number of libertarians saying they'd support Bernie, etc. over a conservative.

Ron and Rand were potentially unifying forces for Libertarianism, but trying to force people under the Libertarian umbrella which includes many Social Liberals who favor non-interventionism to vote for conservatives with neocon leanings (like Rubio/Cruz) is not going to work, hence why the movement is now fracturing. And who benefits from this fracturing? The Neocons. They succeed in destroying the Libertarian Movement in this process by breaking up the coalition, as was intended from the beginning.

Not me. Libertarian all the way.

 

[Brett85]

The ones you and your ilk obsess over, you know what they are, especially the one that drives you apoplectic, to the extent that you'd vote for the biggest warmonger possible simply because he might possible be 'slightly less bad' on the issue..despite historically for thousands of years no one really caring about it in practice.

Why is it that you have to be pro choice on abortion in order to be a libertarian or not care about the issue at all in order to be a libertarian?

 

[otherone]

Why is it that you have to be pro choice on abortion in order to be a libertarian or not care about the issue at all in order to be a libertarian?

what's a libertarian?

 

[euphemia]

It's not about morality or social issues. It's about the use of government.

 

[liveandletlive]

Cabal How do you define personhood?

for me, it is consciousness. I dont consider my sperm to be a person, but others here may disagree.