Can you be pro-choice and a libertarian?

[Christian Liberty]

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

Edit: FF beat me to this post.

Not only was it not clever, it was an unnecessary interjection of religious debate into the topic. And I say that as someone who believes every topic is fundamentally religious.

 

[Christian Liberty]

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

Edit: FF beat me to this post.

Sola would just call you an idiot and be done with it. I don't feel like getting banned again at the moment, so I won't do that.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

You said

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

To me, this does not include the subset of humanity that chooses to trespass. It includes all of humanity. If you meant trespassers, you should have said so-I agree with you.

Your post still strikes me as odd. Why is the point of owning a boat to kick trespassers out willy-nilly? I imagined the point of a boat to be 1) to enjoy it and/or 2) to use it for labor.

 

[eduardo89]

Not only was it not clever, it was an unnecessary interjection of religious debate into the topic. And I say that as someone who believes every topic is fundamentally religious.

It was incredibly clever because it fits into the penal substitution view perfectly.

Penal Substitution: Humans sin (perpetrator), God is angry (victim), innocent Jesus pays the price (punished).
Rape Abortion: Rapist sins (perpetrator), woman is hurt (victim), innocent baby pays the price (punished).

 

[Brett85]

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

I agree with him that there's no excuse for allowing abortion.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Not only was it not clever, it was an unnecessary interjection of religious debate into the topic. And I say that as someone who believes every topic is fundamentally religious.

It was both clever and amusing!

 

[Christian Liberty]

It was incredibly clever because it fits into the penal substitution view perfectly.

Penal Substitution: Humans sin (perpetrator), God is angry (victim), innocent Jesus pays the price (punished).
Rape Abortion: Rapist sins (perpetrator), woman is hurt (victim), innocent baby pays the price (punished).

Except that it doesn't. First of all, the unborn child doesn't consent to paying for the rapist's sin, while Jesus consents to pay for his people's sins. Second of all, a sinful human being cannot pay for another sinful human being's sin.

I agree with him that there's no excuse for allowing abortion.

I agree with that to. But his point about penal substitution was really dumb.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It was both clever and amusing!

Oh, it was amusing. But I'm laughing AT him, not WITH him.

 

[eduardo89]

Oh, it was amusing. But I'm laughing AT him, not WITH him.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Perfect gif for the occasion!

 

[Origanalist]

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.

Three days. You may have just been brutally beaten, you certainly have just been psychologically ravaged and you have three days to come to this decision. Not all rapes end up with the victim physically and or mentally capable of making any kind of decision in three days. Not an excuse?

 

[eduardo89]

Three days. You may have just been brutally beaten, you certainly have just been psychologically ravaged and you have three days to come to this decision. Not all rapes end up with the victim physically and or mentally capable of making any kind of decision in three days. Not an excuse?

No, rape is not an excuse for abortion. There is no excuse at all for abortion. Either we have an inalienable right to life, or we have no rights at all. Simple as that. You don't get to make exceptions to the right to life. This isn't about who is responsible for the life, this is about the fact that there is a life and you do not have the right to end that life. When you start framing this as a personal responsibility matter, you've already lost the debate.

 

[Origanalist]

Classic paraphrasing:

Do you deny what I said? Are babies and infants equal and the same as adults?

 

[fr33]

Of course individuals have special rights and sub-classes, they are related to age, no matter what you read. Think about what you are saying, are you really saying babies don't have the right to be fed? When you are very young you have rights not afforded to those that are older but not much liberty. You are afforded protection precisely because you are unable to protect yourself. This changes as you grow, this is basic human behavior and has been or we wouldn't be here.

This whole notion that you can do what you please and not be held liable for your actions is garbage. Nobody says you can't have sex, just don't expect nothing to happen when you do. The possibility of pregnancy is there no matter what methods you use to avoid it. What you are saying is I want to have sex and I don't care who I have to kill to do it.

I agree with you like 98% of the time on that but when it comes to the mother's life facing certain threat by giving birth in certain circumstances, I choose to let the mother live instead of the fetus/baby. It's a type of decision rescuers make when saving a life or sacrificing a life.

 

[nayjevin]

Horror is part and parcel with freedom. If you do not accept the horror aspect, you do not accept freedom, but rather are a proponent of pretty slavery, thereby revealing that your position is perforce arbitrary and in which case means you have no standing above so much as even the lowest progressive scum who seeks to impose his vision of pretty slavery upon you.

In a free society those horrors would be addressed by individuals that find them horrifying. Being against abortions in this world is no different than in a stateless society. Would folks be running around calling private courts and NGO decisions impositions of slavery? The implications of choosing to engage in an act that clearly results in pregnancy and later changing one's mind does not change whether it's a government enforcing the prevailing philosophy or a stateless entity, or natural law.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Sola_Fide]

50 million and counting, nice tactic with the kids toy.

(mod note- NSFW)
http://clinicquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/u12.jpg
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/images/abortedbaby29.jpg
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608043979147444986&pid=1.7

When God destroys this nation and everyone in it, there will be no question that we deserve it, for letting this wickedness prosper.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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.

That does not change the moral situation of the fetus (if any). You are saying that the fetus has rights. If a non-rape fetus has rights, a rape-produced fetus has rights. They are absolutely in identical moral positions.

If you think not, explain to me why not. What has one fetus done that the other has not? Why would one have any different rights than the other?

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.

That is an argument from consequence, from practicalities. I thought you were taking a moral stand. It sure sounded like you were. Was I wrong? Are you not?

 

[Christian Liberty]

When God destroys this nation and everyone in it, there will be no question that we deserve it, for letting this wickedness prosper.

No doubt. Its absolutely disgusting. Just seeing those pictures make me want to throw up. How in the world could a libertarian be OK with that? I can see a pacifist or borderline pacifist not being willing to support laws, but that's about as far as it could go. Its literally an American version of the Holocaust.

I'm perfectly fine with FreedomFanatic being aborted.

Fortunately for me, my mother wasn't a murderous demon.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It is a non-issue for me. I am firmly pro-choice, not because I "like" abortion or think it no big deal - very much the opposite, I find it a horror and a rather big deal - but because either one is free or is not. It is clear to me that a woman holds the property right to choose the same way I do on my house.

If I spy a man about to set my empty home ablaze, I still hold the right to shoot the life from his carcass because he is threatening my chosen circumstance, as much my property as anything else I possess. One need not be a direct and immediate threat to my life to justify my use of deadly force against their acts or those immediately pending. A woman's circumstance is also her property and she holds the right to protect it from threats as she perceives them. This is one of the potentially ugly sides of the freedom coin that so many people reject for their ugliness alone and not for any logically valid reason.

Horror is part and parcel with freedom. If you do not accept the horror aspect, you do not accept freedom, but rather are a proponent of pretty slavery, thereby revealing that your position is perforce arbitrary and in which case means you have no standing above so much as even the lowest progressive scum who seeks to impose his vision of pretty slavery upon you. At that point, all principle and reason have winged away into the aether and the two of your are engaged in a contest wherein the decision is rendered by he who is the better pugilist... or perhaps whether it is Tuesday... or the price of wheat futures, or even the state of Bammy's hemorrhoids.

The case against choice is emotionally compelling with enormous force, and yet it is still wrong. Even Ron Paul is mistaken on this, well crafted as his argument is in formal terms.

It is not my goal here to convince anyone of my position, but only to state it. Each man must decide for himself whether he is for real freedom or for something else.

As for "understanding" life, IMO anyone claiming to is a bald-faced liar or deluded in terrible measure. Living life does not imply understanding.

OK, so what about infanticide? What about murder of adults? Is this a form of "freedom?"

This argument is missing the point, as is the rape red herring. The bottom line is this, destroying a human life is murder.

I'm with you on the "horror" aspect. Sometimes freedom includes "horror." But legalization of murder has nothing to do with freedom.