Can you be pro-choice and a libertarian?

[philipped]

I'm pro-choice and I label myself as libertarian-republican. Nothing is going to change my opinion to being pro-life. It's as simple as that.

 

[eduardo89]

I'm pro-choice and I label myself as libertarian-republican. Nothing is going to change my opinion to being pro-life. It's as simple as that.

Just wait till you're a dad. Once you see the first sonogram of your child, you'll wonder how you could have ever been in favor of allowing your wife to murder him.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I see, so every parent who can't feed their children COULD solve their problem if they were willing to let go, they just can't?

What? We're discussing a very specific group of people-those considering abortion.

There's no orphans left in this country because adopters exceed orphans?

There are a myriad of reasons that there are orphans in this country. What are you trying to get at?

What IS then?

There isn't one. (I should have said "murder" rather than killing, btw, sorry. Deaths can be caused by accidents, sickness, etc.)

 

[eduardo89]

There are a myriad of reasons that there are orphans in this country. What are you trying to get at?

Number 1 reason being government regulations.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm surprised it's even a debate, how is that not libertarian?

In this scenario, Mr X was invited onto Mr Y's boat-no aggression on either's part. Mr X initiating force by making Mr Y walk the plank is by definition un-libertarian.

 

[osan]

I completely fail to see the relevance of your metaphor, it bears no resemblance to getting pregnant. A better example would be that you saw a man about to set your house ablaze, but since you fireproofed it and you trusted the fireproofing you decided to let him try because it would be fun. And when your house burned anyway you shot your kid.

Perhaps I was too subtle.

It is a property rights metaphor and while perhaps not perfect, it is fair to middling sound.

 

[Origanalist]

Origanalist, are you arguing from a morality basis or aren't you? It sure sounded like you were, until this post. You were taking a strong moral stand. You were condemning evil and aggressive acts as evil and unacceptable and obviously worthy of being forbidden.

Now, all of that is very much in question in my mind. You've thrown it all into an uproar.

Your position, as I understood it, was: it's wrong to murder your kid. That is, it's just wrong to kill your kid (unless, I suppose, it's in self-defense -- just the same as with any other individual). More importantly from the political perspective: it's just aggression, and thus a worthy target of prescriptive force. Humans may justly use force against each other to forcible prevent each other from murdering their kids, because murdering kids is aggressive. This is a simple position, it makes sense, and it's internally consistent.

Now, you're saying: "Well, except for....." No, there is no "except for." How has the moral position of the kid vis a vis the murdering parent changed? Did the kid commit some new aggression that we must now take into consideration in the scenario that the woman was raped? No, as far as I can see his moral position is identical. He is a very small potential human being, doing the exact same things as the very small potential human being who came about after not-a-rape (that is: growing, sleeping a lot, making fists). Does he somehow have no rights? This is totally unjust. If fetuses have rights, they have rights. It makes no sense whatsoever to pick and choose certain fetuses and say that they have no rights. The basis upon which you claim that they have rights is their humanity or potential humanity, correct? Don't kill humans. That's pretty simple. That I can understand. But guess what: the baby that comes about from a rape is just as human as all the other babies.

So now that you're saying: "Well, it's OK to kill some humans, just as long as it is a very small amount," I'm sorry but you've lost me.

If a woman has been raped, then she bears no responsibility. Not to raise the child, nor to carry it to term. Good on her if she decides to and I'm in no way discouraging that but she should be held blameless if she chooses not to.

At this point it actually does become a health issue. If she is not strong enough mentally to bear that child without reliving the rape over and over then it could ruin her.

 

[Brett85]

Rape isn't an excuse to allow abortion when the Morning After Pill is available. A woman can take that pill up to three days after the rape occurred. There's no reason for abortion being legal in the case of rape as long as the Morning After Pill remains available to women.

 

[eduardo89]

Rape isn't an excuse to allow abortion when the Morning After Pill is available. A woman can take that pill up to three days after the rape occurred. There's no reason for abortion being legal in the case of rape as long as the Morning After Pill remains available to women.

There's no excuse for allowing abortion except if you believe in penal substitution. Instead of the culpable party suffering the punishment for their actions, you take it out on the innocent child.

(See how penal substitution is unjust?)

 

[PRB]

In this scenario, Mr X was invited onto Mr Y's boat-no aggression on either's part. Mr X initiating force by making Mr Y walk the plank is by definition un-libertarian.

what's the point of owning a boat if you don't get to kick people out whenever you feel like it?

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[otherone]

what's the point of owning a boat if you don't get to kick people out whenever you feel like it?

C"MON.
DUDE.
CHICKS.
DIG.
BOATS.

 

[Brett85]

There's no excuse for allowing abortion except if you believe in penal substitution. Instead of the culpable party suffering the punishment for their actions, you take it out on the innocent child.

(See how penal substitution is unjust?)

I agree.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree.

Are you serious here? Or are you just saying you agree that abortion is wrong?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Interesting way to think of this "human" thing. A comatose person or one completely dependent on life support has similar qualities to what you describe as making an organism simply "human" (as opposed to "human being"). Is it murder to withdraw whatever it is keeping these organisms alive? Or chop them into bits? Beg your pardon if this is too grotesque, but I am trying to work with the definitions and claims you have put forth. Thank you, good sir.

Oh dear...

"Human" does not imply "human being". A severed finger is human, but it is not a human being. What defines/constitutes a human being vis-à-vis merely human? It is likely that nobody knows with certainty. That means it remains an open question, which further demonstrates that no matter what position you adopt regarding "abortion", you are doing so presumptively and we now see that your presumption is perforce arbitrary and uncertain to any supportable degree as a universal.

It is intuitively clear to me that a fertilized egg, while human, is NOT a human being. It is equally clear to me that a 30 week fetus is. But I could be wrong on either or both of those "clear" understandings - and so could you and anyone else.

Therefore, the best policy is that of liberty where women are granted their EQUAL RIGHT to their beliefs, however erroneous you may find them, and to act in accord. It may be pretty fucked up in your mind and in mine for any of a number of reasons, but that's the way of liberty. Sometimes liberty fucking sucks. If you think liberty is always pretty in its result, you do not understand it. For example, if a woman is threatened with gang rape and kills the 14 men so threatening her, are we to call that pretty? Blood and gore are never that to my eyes, and yet I would defend that woman's right to the bitter end to kill that many and ten millions more if that is what she needed to do to protect the sanctity of life and limb.

We cut tumors from our bodies all the time - nobody raises an eyebrow. Tumor is human, but not a human being. We don't know when a fertilized egg becomes a human being. The anti-choice people choose to err on the side of maximal caution (not maximum, which I will not discuss here unless someone wants the explanation) by assuming the fertilized egg is a human being. If that is their choice of belief, I respect it even though I may disagree. Others believe differently and are as entitled as anyone else to those beliefs and to act upon them precisely because the truth has yet to be demonstrated in irrefutable terms. Note that "violently emotionally compelling" does not equate with "irrefutable". There were many things in eras past that were so very painfully obvious to "everyone"; things which in the intervening time have been proven beyond reproach to have been dead-wrong. The world, as it turned out, was in fact NOT flat. Burning witches did not, in the end, improve the state of the world. The list continues a rather long way yet to go, so I will stop here as I believe the point is made sufficiently.

I completely respect the "pro-life" position, save their advocacy for the application of force against women who would terminate their pregnancies. That advocacy speaks in diametric opposition to proper human freedom. To be so convinced of one's absolute knowledge in the context of one's clear and present ignorance on a given point is perhaps the most dangerous act of all. Belief <> fact beyond the fact that it is one's belief. I well understand the pro-life position and upon the day when that which makes us a human being vis-à-vis merely human is established beyond refute and it is similarly established without blemish that those qualities inher to a fertilized and completely undifferentiated egg, I will be the first to trumpet the pro-life clarion call. I am serious about this. Demonstrate to me these two basic propositions such that I am convinced and I will advocate for such force right alongside the rest.

Until then, I must maintain my very uneasy skepticism - and trust me when I tell you that it is very much so - in defense of my best take on retaining proper respect for the rights of others even when their choices disgust and/or horrify me. I understand your horror completely and though I agree with you, I cannot make that jump in the absence of sufficient proof. This instance of the ugly side of liberty I feel compelled to accept as a matter of sacred principle, and believe you me I do at times hate it.

Not quite off-topic: for later term terminations (talk about horror), given what I suppose here to be the epistemological problem at hand, would it be a rational and well reasoned compromise to eliminate the D&C for most procedures and replace it with induced labor such that the fetus is expelled "naturally" (I know... trying to be conversationally practical) and if it can survive, we decide we had a human being on our hands? I know it's a pretty shitty middle-road, but is it not still better than slice and dice, where the little guys have zero chance of life? Any prospective mother electing to do this upfront quitclaims her right to the result regardless whether it lives and those receiving are entitled to take whatever heroic measures they deem fitting pursuant to saving the life in question.

Jesus... what a horrible topic this is. It makes me ill just thinking of it... so while I support you women's right to choose, fuck you anyway.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

what's the point of owning a boat if you don't get to kick people out whenever you feel like it?

SMH... lolz

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There's no excuse for allowing abortion except if you believe in penal substitution. Instead of the culpable party suffering the punishment for their actions, you take it out on the innocent child.

(See how penal substitution is unjust?)

I see what you did there.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to eduardo89 again.

 

[PRB]

SMH... lolz

seriously though, what's the aggression in defending your property?

 

[Christian Liberty]

There's no excuse for allowing abortion except if you believe in penal substitution. Instead of the culpable party suffering the punishment for their actions, you take it out on the innocent child.

(See how penal substitution is unjust?)

No, this is silly.

First off, as Sola_Fide pointed out last time you brought up this silly argument, both parties are sinful in any real legal case. Jesus Christ is perfectly sinless. So there is no direct comparison.

Second off, the unborn child does not consent to being used as a "substitute." A better analogy would be: someone commits a heinous crime and is sentenced to 10 years in prison or a $1,000,000 fine. He can't pay, so the judge's son pays the fine for him voluntarily. Is this unjust? No.

This is just an absurd argument at so many levels. While we're at it, we might as well say that eternal punishment is unjust because we wouldn't sentence someone to life in prison for telling a white lie. Its just silly.

 

[eduardo89]

I see what you did there.

Clever, huh? I wonder when Sola and FF will quote it

Edit: FF beat me to this post.