Divisive libertarian issue; where do you sit?

[kcchiefs6465]

God have mercy on the woman who bears your child as well. God have mercy on all of us.

After reading the clarification, I understand more of where you are coming from. I think we can agree that a father has rights as to what happens to his unborn. Not that laws would be able to regulate it. She could and probably would harm the baby either way [if she really wanted to] but there would be hell to pay should she decide to kill my child. Irdgaf what laws are in place.

 

[Barrex]

I still don't see why property rights wouldn't work here. If you are on my property and don't leave on your own I can use force to evict you from my property. If the fetus is just another human being with all the same rights (and that also means no additional rights), that would mean I could evict it.

Would you also argue that you can't legally keep a starving person from stealing your food, because that would mean their death? That's a slippery slope that could lead to an legitimation of welfare and all kinds of laws.

Keep in mind that I don't say there aren't any other good reasons to be morally against abortion and maybe even to outlaw it (as I said, I haven't made up my mind on that issue). It's just that abortions are not inherently unlibertarian, or that you can also make a good case for why it shouldn't be illegal from a libertarian point of view.

Not if you imprison that person and make it dependent on you. No one forced you (in 99.9999% of the cases) to imprison that person in your body.

I would like to talk with a doctor about this.

 

[seyferjm]

Not ashamed:
Christian.Prolife.Libertarian.Croatian.Meat-eater(f**k you smug vegetarians)

I really want to visit Croatia someday.

 

[Danan]

And in all this property rights argument, people tend to block out the decisions that were made to have intercourse. It's a cop out to talk about women having rights over their bodies and not holding them responsible for the decision they made to have sexual intercourse. It only serves to feed the irresponsible behavior of people (yes, men included).

Decision we make have irreversible consequences. Having sex is one of those.

Yes, decisions have consequences. But that's not a sufficient reason to dismiss the property rights argument. You would have to make the case that when a woman has sex she implicitly invites the baby to live nine months in her womb without being harmed, in case of impregnation. That's a hard sell to more rigorous philosophers though, because you can only invite, or make contracts with people, who already exist at that point in time.

To me it still seems to be the case that libertarian argumentation leads to at least eviction of the fetus being legitimate. That does not in any way mean that it's moral to do it or that it should be done, though. Whether or not it leads to the conclusion that it should therefore not be illegal is an entirely different question too. And I don't say I have an answer to all of those problems.

 

[gwax23]

Pro life. Do a poll on Intellectual property that is also a hot button issue within our community.

 

[Origanalist]

I can't see how a man's opinion in the matter, matters. Unless you are the doctor, the priest, the babies daddy, or the mothers father. If you don't have a vagina and you are one of these, than I hope you and your mate have worked this out already.

If not, you probably shouldn't be having sex. If you have, I can't see how it's any of my business whatever you decided. It's not like I can force your mate to squeeze out a baby over you or any of the other men there.

My answer to this question, where do I sit on the topic. It's simple, I have no vagina, its not really possible for my opinion on the matter to be any more well formed than that.

I believe that life should be protected and I believe that the person who must protect it first is the person whose vagina creates the life. If that person is unwilling and unable to protect that life, I am not sure if there is anything I can do about it.

There is so much fail there, I hardly know where to start.

"I can't see how a man's opinion in the matter, matters." How the hell did we get to THAT point?

"Unless you are the doctor, the priest, the babies daddy, or the mothers father. If you don't have a vagina and you are one of these, than I hope you and your mate have worked this out already."

Obviously that doesn't always happen, and sometimes the father doesn't want the baby killed.

"If not, you probably shouldn't be having sex." But they did.

"My answer to this question, where do I sit on the topic. It's simple, I have no vagina..." Well isn't that easy?

 

[Sayzak]

What is worse, harming babies or harming animals?

Our knee-jerk reaction would be to say it's worse to harm babies, right? But why? Are they not both sentient beings? Do they not both feel pain? Fear? Love? Do they not both play, sleep, dream, cry, sneeze, get sick?

Unborn babies (especially those in the first trimester) can not yet think. They have no life experience. They can not recall memories, or anticipate. Hell, their nervous systems aren't even fully developed, so the amount of pain they could possibly feel is negotiable. In that sense, an animal, like a pig, or a cow, is every bit as special and precious as an unborn baby (if not more). To deny this is dishonest.

Are you adamantly pro-life while not hesitating to eat eggs and bacon? Or steak? Drink milk? etc?

I'm only asking this question so people will question their own convictions and consider their true integrity.

I am pro-choice and I still eat meat, but I'm not rationalizing what that means to make myself feel better.

 

[Origanalist]

What is worse, harming babies or harming animals?

Our knee-jerk reaction would be to say it's worse to harm babies, right? But why? Are they not both sentient beings? Do they not both feel pain? Fear? Love? Do they not both play, sleep, dream, cry, sneeze, get sick?

Unborn babies (especially those in the first trimester) can not yet think. They have no life experience. They can not recall memories, or anticipate. Hell, their nervous systems aren't even fully developed, so the amount of pain they could possibly feel is negotiable. In that sense, an animal, like a pig, or a cow, is every bit as special and precious as an unborn baby (if not more). To deny this is dishonest.

Are you adamantly pro-life while not hesitating to eat eggs and bacon? Or steak? Drink milk? etc?

I'm only asking this question so people will question their own convictions and consider their true integrity.

I am pro-choice and I still eat meat, but I'm not rationalizing what that means to make myself feel better.

I have never equated animals with people.

 

[Sayzak]

I have never equated animals with people.

Why not? Or rather, why (if applicable) are you pro-life and why don't those same standards apply to animals?

 

[newbitech]

There is so much fail there, I hardly know where to start.

"I can't see how a man's opinion in the matter, matters." How the hell did we get to THAT point?

"Unless you are the doctor, the priest, the babies daddy, or the mothers father. If you don't have a vagina and you are one of these, than I hope you and your mate have worked this out already."

Obviously that doesn't always happen, and sometimes the father doesn't want the baby killed.

"If not, you probably shouldn't be having sex." But they did.

"My answer to this question, where do I sit on the topic. It's simple, I have no vagina..." Well isn't that easy?

Oh I didn't know I was taking a test.

Let me know if you need evidence.

 

[Origanalist]

Why not? Or rather, why (if applicable) are you pro-life and why don't those same standards apply to animals?

I grew up on farms?

 

[Origanalist]

Oh I didn't know I was taking a test.

Let me know if you need evidence.

Of what?

 

[Sayzak]

I grew up on farms?

What does that mean?

 

[Origanalist]

What does that mean?

It means we treated our animals decently (most of us), but we never put them on the same level as people.

1. We ate them

2. We sold them

3. We bred them

4. Well, you get the picture?

Oh, by the way, we didn't abort any livestock, or even puppies.......

 

[Sayzak]

It means we treated our animals decently (most of us), but we never put them on the same level as people.

1. We ate them

2. We sold them

3. We bred them

4. Well, you get the picture?

I mean this in the kindest possible way, but aren't you just making excuses? Couldn't a nazi justify his inhumane treatment toward other people by saying that he grew up around genocide?

 

[Origanalist]

I mean this in the kindest possible way, but aren't you just making excuses? Couldn't a nazi justify his inhumane treatment toward other people by saying that he grew up around genocide?

Animals aren't other people.

 

[TheTyke]

I've been thinking that being prolife is always beneficial strategically to libertarian candidates. Because for people who believe the unborn are human, very few will be alright with killing them, and it will tend to be very high on their priority list. Whereas the section that doesn't believe the unborn are babies might be fine with or support abortion, but it's not very likely to be a make-or-break issue for them. This poll responses reflect that concept overwhelmingly. I also hate these stereotypes that libertarians are pro-abortion.

Laws against murder, theft and slavery are different than prohibition, and consistent with the Declaration's state purpose for government: To protect life, liberty and happiness (property.) Either by restoring the stolen property, or making sure the offenders can't kill or enslave anyone again. Just too bad government these days is the one doing all the things it's supposed to protect us from.

 

[Origanalist]

I mean this in the kindest possible way, but aren't you just making excuses? Couldn't a nazi justify his inhumane treatment toward other people by saying that he grew up around genocide?

I'm hitting the sack, so don't think I'm just quiting the discussion...

Have a good night.

 

[Matthew5]

I've been thinking that being prolife is always beneficial strategically to libertarian candidates. Because for people who believe the unborn are human, very few will be alright with killing them, and it will tend to be very high on their priority list. Whereas the section that doesn't believe the unborn are babies might be fine with or support abortion, but it's not very likely to be a make-or-break issue for them. This poll responses reflect that concept overwhelmingly. I also hate these stereotypes that libertarians are pro-abortion.

Laws against murder, theft and slavery are different than prohibition, and consistent with the Declaration's state purpose for government: To protect life, liberty and happiness (property.) Either by restoring the stolen property, or making sure the offenders can't kill or enslave anyone again. Just too bad government these days is the one doing all the things it's supposed to protect us from.

It's much easier to take this from a life preservation angle than one of property rights. Libertarians don't have to work very hard intellectually to come to the conclusion that this is a life issue. It takes some real mental gymnastics to prop up a pro-choice argument using property rights.

I agree that this is well within government's power to protect the life of all humans. The right to life must take precedent over the right to "privacy".

 

[Sayzak]

Animals aren't other people.

Why are you so loyal to other people? What I am trying to get to the bottom of, is basically this: Why are you as loyal to a pea-sized ball of goop (that would eventually become a human being) as you are a person, but you're not as loyal to an animal that is already completely capable of feeling all the terror and pain from being slaughtered as that baby could ever be? And don't you see a conflict there?