How do you feel about the LP platform on abortion?

[Truth Warrior]

What's the LP position on the Non-Aggression Principle?

 

[Krugerrand]

I don't agree that I am only a bunch of cells. I think we are more properly minds who have bodies, and I think the emergence of brain waves is a plausible indication of the presence of a human mind.

A few cells also live for a while after death, and those cells also have a unique 46 chromosomes. Shall we have rights for corpses? Perhaps we can have life support machines for livers or other organs, the cells of which survive, and still have unique chromosomes -- is that liver therefore a person with legal rights? Is someone who has received a heart transplant really two people? Shall his heart have separate legal rights too?

I think the most reasonable definition ties person hood to self-awareness, or consciousness. We consider a liver to be just a collection of cells, and not a person, because we believe it does not have a mind, or perspective, of its own -- it is not aware.

A liver is a part of the entity. A heart is part of the entity.

Consciousness and self-awareness as a requirement for worthiness of not being killed raise problems of people that are injured in some capacity. Is any person in a coma free game to murder? What if you have consciousness but are unable to communicate that consciousness?

The human entity has clear history that traces back to the union of the sperm and egg. When that first cell splits for the first time, those two cells are profoundly different from the sperm and egg that had previously been separate. Anything else is arbitrary at best. From the moment before birth to the moment after birth, the unique human entity is the same, it simply experienced an event. From the moment before it first sucked its thumb to the moment its thumb entered its mouth, it was the same human entity. From the moment before its heart thumped its first beat to the moment after, the human entity is the same. From the moment before the first brain synapse fired to the moment after, the human entity is the same. Trace it back all the way, it is the same entity all the way back to the exact moment sperm meets egg. Anything else is arbitrary.

I have that history. You have that history.

 

[NationaliseIt]

Until a foetus can survive outside the womb it essentially has the sovereign rights of a kidney.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Until a foetus can survive outside the womb it essentially has the sovereign rights of a kidney.

And to remove and kill it, is AGGRESSION.

 

[TurtleBurger]

I was being sarcastic.
It helps to show how people have varying ideas on when life begins.
Look at catholic dogma. "every sperm is sacred".
That is why masturbation is considered a sin.

That's Monty Python, not Catholic dogma.

One course of action that would greatly reduce the abortion problem is to legalize the sale of babies. Since mothers are not allowed to be paid for producing adoptive children, that sets a price ceiling of zero and creates a severe shortage of babies - that's why there are so many prospective adoptive parents that can't be matched up with a child. If mothers giving up their babies for adoption could receive free market compensation, abortion would look a lot less attractive to them.

 

[NationaliseIt]

And to remove and kill it, is AGGRESSION.

It is their kidney to remove and destroy as they wish, and up until a foetus can support itself it is the mothers to remove and destroy as she wishes.



How many people here are religious fanatics first and libertarians second?

This debate along with the views this forum puts out on homosexual marriage/adoption makes me think that it is a sizeable portion.

 

[Krugerrand]

That's Monty Python, not Catholic dogma.

One course of action that would greatly reduce the abortion problem is to legalize the sale of babies. Since mothers are not allowed to be paid for producing adoptive children, that sets a price ceiling of zero and creates a severe shortage of babies - that's why there are so many prospective adoptive parents that can't be matched up with a child. If mothers giving up their babies for adoption could receive free market compensation, abortion would look a lot less attractive to them.

Wow ... now there's something to think about.

 

[Truth Warrior]

It is their kidney to remove and destroy as they wish, and up until a foetus can support itself it is the mothers to remove and destroy as she wishes.



How many people here are religious fanatics first and libertarians second?

This debate along with the views this forum puts out on homosexual marriage/adoption makes me think that it is a sizeable portion.

It's someone else. Mothers do NOT own anyone, but them self.<IMHO> I didn't design the system.

BTW, I am NO kind of religious fanatic, libertarian fanatic, probably.

 

[Krugerrand]

It is their kidney to remove and destroy as they wish, and up until a foetus can support itself it is the mothers to remove and destroy as she wishes.

How many people here are religious fanatics first and libertarians second?

This debate along with the views this forum puts out on homosexual marriage/adoption makes me think that it is a sizeable portion.

Welcome to the forum. Is "NationaliseIt" a call for a stronger federal government or are we to interpret sarcasm?

You'll find that topics like abortion come up only on occasion around here. I caution against assuming that people who disagree with you are religious fanatics.

 

[tremendoustie]

A liver is a part of the entity. A heart is part of the entity.

Sure, but you miss my point. Should a liver have rights, once the rest of the person has died? What about the heart? And if not, why not? If your definition of personhood only includes living cells and unique cromosomes, it seems that every couple of cells in my body would independently qualify as its own person. Kill everything else, and if my toe is still ok, it's a person.

Consciousness and self-awareness as a requirement for worthiness of not being killed raise problems of people that are injured in some capacity. Is any person in a coma free game to murder? What if you have consciousness but are unable to communicate that consciousness?

No one can communicate their consciousness, in the sense of self-awareness. A person in a coma may very well be self-aware. It is a common belief that brain activity is connected with self-awareness, and I think it is a reasonable view. Thus, someone can be in a coma, but not be brain dead.

The human entity has clear history that traces back to the union of the sperm and egg. When that first cell splits for the first time, those two cells are profoundly different from the sperm and egg that had previously been separate. Anything else is arbitrary at best. From the moment before birth to the moment after birth, the unique human entity is the same, it simply experienced an event. From the moment before it first sucked its thumb to the moment its thumb entered its mouth, it was the same human entity. From the moment before its heart thumped its first beat to the moment after, the human entity is the same. From the moment before the first brain synapse fired to the moment after, the human entity is the same. Trace it back all the way, it is the same entity all the way back to the exact moment sperm meets egg. Anything else is arbitrary.

I have that history. You have that history.

I think there is another moment of profound difference -- the moment when a person becomes self-aware. I do not think an egg and sperm are aware, but I certainly think a baby is. Although not provable, I think it is a reasonable view that awareness begins with brain activity.

 

[torchbearer]

That's Monty Python, not Catholic dogma.

One course of action that would greatly reduce the abortion problem is to legalize the sale of babies. Since mothers are not allowed to be paid for producing adoptive children, that sets a price ceiling of zero and creates a severe shortage of babies - that's why there are so many prospective adoptive parents that can't be matched up with a child. If mothers giving up their babies for adoption could receive free market compensation, abortion would look a lot less attractive to them.

"every sperm is sacred" was written because of catholic dogma. they were making fun of how absurd it is...
likewise, some people may see calling a lump of cells a human just as silly.
it is an example to help people empathize, if they have that ability.
The whole reason luther broke away from the church was his own guilt of masturbation.
It is considered a sin because in church dogma, the sperm itself is also human life.
It is the seed of humanity... and to spill it is murder.
The Catholic church today may not harp on this as much... but it is still apart of the tradition... and also why birth control is considered a sin.

 

[TurtleBurger]

"every sperm is sacred" was written because of catholic dogma.
The whole reason luther broke away from the church was his own guilt of masturbation.
It is considered a sin because in church dogma, the sperm itself is also human life.
It is the seed of humanity... and to spill it is murder.
The Catholic church today may not harp on this as much... but it is still apart of the tradition... and also why birth control is considered a sin.

Masturbation is considered a sin by the Catholic church, but it has nothing to do with considering sperm cells as human beings or as inherently sacred. The reason for it is that the proper context for the sexual act is in a marital relationship, not because of any kind of "mini-abortion" that occurs during masturbation.

 

[Krugerrand]

"every sperm is sacred" was written because of catholic dogma. they were making fun of how absurd it is...
likewise, some people may see calling a lump of cells a human just as silly.
it is an example to help people empathize, if they have that ability.
The whole reason luther broke away from the church was his own guilt of masturbation.
It is considered a sin because in church dogma, the sperm itself is also human life.
It is the seed of humanity... and to spill it is murder.
The Catholic church today may not harp on this as much... but it is still apart of the tradition... and also why birth control is considered a sin.

The people I know that are exceptionally well educated on Catholic tradition would disagree strongly with many of your statements.

 

[torchbearer]

Masturbation is considered a sin by the Catholic church, but it has nothing to do with considering sperm cells as human beings or as inherently sacred. The reason for it is that the proper context for the sexual act is in a marital relationship, not because of any kind of "mini-abortion" that occurs during masturbation.

To "pull out" even when married, is still a sin.
Try again.

 

[torchbearer]

The people I know that are exceptionally well educated on Catholic tradition would disagree strongly with many of your statements.

Yeah, and I bet 100% of them don't know why they put ashes on their forehead.
Ignorance in the congregation is a long standing catholic tradition. It helps reduce heresy if all traditions, dogma, and biblical translation is handled by clergy.

Note: I don't believe this is good. One of my earliest teachers of catholicism was a hard core old school latin speaking priest. There are many traditions still held by the catholic church which seems silly.

 

[TurtleBurger]

To "pull out" even when married, is still a sin.
Try again.

Yes, because it's a form of birth control. It still has nothing to do with considering sperm cells as human beings though. The Catholic Church considers conception to be the beginning of human life, but no point before that.

 

[torchbearer]

Yes, because it's a form of birth control. It still has nothing to do with considering sperm cells as human beings though. The Catholic Church considers conception to be the beginning of human life, but no point before that.

WHy is birth control sinful?
Its preventing human life. So is spilling seed. Get it?
Or do I need to simplify this logic even furthur.

Any interference in the creation of a human being is the same as killing that life.
That is the reasoning behind the dogma.
It isn't just a prejudice against condoms... or a lust to over-populate the world.

 

[TurtleBurger]

WHy is birth control sinful?
Its preventing human life. So is spilling seed. Get it?
Or do I need to simplify this logic even furthur.

Any interference in the creation of a human being is the same as killing that life.
That is the reasoning behind the dogma.
It isn't just a prejudice against condoms... or a lust to over-populate the world.

I see where you are coming from, but it's a misunderstanding. Birth control and abortion, while both considered gravely sinful, are almost completely unrelated in Catholic teaching. Abortion is the killing of a human being, birth control (while it may also include abortion) is the misuse of the sexual act.

 

[torchbearer]

I see where you are coming from, but it's a misunderstanding. Birth control and abortion, while both considered gravely sinful, are almost completely unrelated in Catholic teaching. Abortion is the killing of a human being, birth control (while it may also include abortion) is the misuse of the sexual act.

That is your opinion, and that is fine.
And I don't agree with the dogma I am talking about at all... but that is how it is seen in the church dogma.
The whole reason I brought it up is to show you a more extreme view of life than your own... so many of you can empathize when others don't see life as beginning when you think it begins...

I understand some people lack the ability to empathize with others... but i still try...

 

[Krugerrand]

Sure, but you miss my point. Should a liver have rights, once the rest of the person has died? What about the heart? And if not, why not? If your definition of personhood only includes living cells and unique cromosomes, it seems that every couple of cells in my body would independently qualify as its own person. Kill everything else, and if my toe is still ok, it's a person.

No one can communicate their consciousness, in the sense of self-awareness. A person in a coma may very well be self-aware. It is a common belief that brain activity is connected with self-awareness, and I think it is a reasonable view. Thus, someone can be in a coma, but not be brain dead.

I think there is another moment of profound difference -- the moment when a person becomes self-aware. I do not think an egg and sperm are aware, but I certainly think a baby is. Although not provable, I think it is a reasonable view that awareness begins with brain activity.

I did not miss your point. It's simply arbitrary and as you admit - unprovable.

At no point did I ever suggest that any random couple of cells are a human person. I'm simply distinguishing between the entity as a whole and a portion of the entity. So please, stop with the toe bit.

What's inside a fertilized chicken egg? .... a chicken. It may not have hatched. It may be in its youngest of stages ... but it's still a chicken. The contents of that egg are profoundly different than an unfertilized chicken egg.

How does a new human being start? ... as sperm meet egg.