How do you feel about the LP platform on abortion?

[tremendoustie]

Frankly, I do not care when self-awareness begins. That is was aspect of being human. Like begets like. Human begets human. It is human whether it knows it or not.

I don't think I understand what you're saying here ... "is was aspect"?

Why are you trying to make this difficult? I never said that an entity cannot suffer injury or that an entity that suffers an injury is now not human.

If you were a star-fish whose leg could regenerate a new fish, then I'd say both halves were still a starfish.

Humans can't regenerate.

You said my toe, or liver, or heart is not a person with full rights, if the rest of me dies. So, why is my upper body and head different, once I lose my torso and legs? It's also only a piece of the whole. Why is it not like the toe?

If you exclude consciousness, and focus only on cells and DNA, you have no reason to accept the upper half of me as a person if my lower half dies, but reject my lower half if my upper half dies.

 

[JS4Pat]

Would the pro-choice libertarians be okay with changing the platform top read:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in the issue of abortion. For this reason, we believe that Roe vs Wade should be overturned and this complex and sensitive issue returned to the states.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Would the pro-choice libertarians be okay with changing the platform top read:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in the issue of abortion. For this reason, we believe that Roe vs Wade should be overturned and this complex and sensitive issue returned to the states.

Works for me.

 

[TurtleBurger]

Would the pro-choice libertarians be okay with changing the platform top read:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in the issue of abortion. For this reason, we believe that Roe vs Wade should be overturned and this complex and sensitive issue returned to the states.

I like that. Regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, Roe vs Wade is completely incompatible with libertarianism.

 

[Krugerrand]

Then read the theology of the body for yourself.
I'm not going to spoon feed you.
But I am right. And you will find this to be true.

I am not saying the position held by the catholic chuch is right.
I laugh at anyone who tells me what god thinks... and i laugh even harder at people who put together a legislative body to tell us god's extended laws.

I'm not looking to argue what Catholics believe or what the Catholic Church believes. I do not need it spood-fed either.

You are simply wrong in how you present their teachings.

Torchbearer: it's considered a mortal sin. So is murder. They are the same in severity.

Source you quote:
Masturbation particularly constitutes a very serious disorder that is illicit in itself and cannot be morally justified, although "the immaturity of adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age), psychological imbalance or habit can influence behaviour, diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be serious fault"
http://www.theologyofthebody.net/in...ask=view&id=70&Itemid=50&limit=1&limitstart=6
and
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
http://www.theologyofthebody.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=50

I suggest you worry about arguing what you believe and not what you think somebody else believes.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Would the pro-choice libertarians be okay with changing the platform top read:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in the issue of abortion. For this reason, we believe that Roe vs Wade should be overturned and this complex and sensitive issue returned to the states.

Irrelevant! Aggression is aggression, no matter who, how or where.

 

[Krugerrand]

I don't think I understand what you're saying here ... "is was aspect"?



Humans can't regenerate.

You said my toe, or liver, or heart is not a person with full rights, if the rest of me dies. So, why is my upper body and head different, once I lose my torso and legs? It's also only a piece of the whole. Why is it not like the toe?

If you exclude consciousness, and focus only on cells and DNA, you have no reason to accept the upper half of me as a person if my lower half dies, but reject my lower half if my upper half dies.

that should be "That is one aspect." Thanks for catching that.

If I cut off a chicken's foot, the chicken is still a chicken- with one less foot. I don't care about consciousness of the chicken. It's a one foot chicken whether it knows it or not.

 

[Krugerrand]

Would the pro-choice libertarians be okay with changing the platform top read:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in the issue of abortion. For this reason, we believe that Roe vs Wade should be overturned and this complex and sensitive issue returned to the states.

I should point out, I care more about the Republican platform than the Libertarian. (that could change as the GOP continues to ignore the Constitution.)

The statement would be better if it included "no federal funds should ever be used for abortion or provided to organizations that provide abortions to offset their other expenses."

 

[fgd]

Again, I haven't had this answered - what should the penalty be for having an abortion?

 

[Krugerrand]

Again, I haven't had this answered - what should the penalty be for having an abortion?

I don't know enough about other penalties for other crimes to give you a good answer.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Again, I haven't had this answered - what should the penalty be for having an abortion?

I think having an abortion is it's own penalty. How about for having two or sometimes even more abortions?

 

[fgd]

I think it's fairly easy to assign a penalty for abortion. At a minimum, it's premeditated taking of life (malice aforethought), against a close relative, against someone helpless, etc. That puts it into 1st degree qualified murder due to the aggravating circumstances, which looks to be 15-25 years in prison with an option for the death penalty.

 

[tremendoustie]

that should be "That is one aspect." Thanks for catching that.

If I cut off a chicken's foot, the chicken is still a chicken- with one less foot. I don't care about consciousness of the chicken. It's a one foot chicken whether it knows it or not.

You are missing my point. Let's stick with people, since that's what we're discussing.

Say you cut a person in half, and using artifical means, keep the cells in both halves alive. Which half is a person, or are both separate persons?

If you would say the top half is a torsoless, legless person, would you call the bottom half a headless, chestless person? Would the legs and abdomen then have full rights as a human being? And if so, where do you draw the line? Is one leg a person also?

I am guessing that you would treat the top half as a person, but not the bottom half. My point is that that is unjustified based on your definition of personhood (DNA and cells, which both sides have).

 

[fgd]

You are missing my point. Let's stick with people, since that's what we're discussing.

Say you cut a person in half, and using artifical means, keep the cells in both halves alive. Which half is a person, or are both separate persons?

If you would say the top half is a torsoless, legless person, would you call the bottom half a headless, chestless person? Would the legs and abdomen then have full rights as a human being? And if so, where do you draw the line? Is one leg a person also?

I am guessing that you would treat the top half as a person, but not the bottom half. My point is that that is unjustified based on your definition of personhood (DNA and cells, which both sides have).

All of this is empty semantics. It doesn't matter where you decide life begins, what matters is what penalties apply if you terminate a fetus that meets whatever definition of life is arrived at. What should the penalty be for terminating a pregnancy where (under some definition) a live fetus is killed?

 

[Truth Warrior]

I think it's fairly easy to assign a penalty for abortion. At a minimum, it's premeditated taking of life (malice aforethought), against a close relative, against someone helpless, etc. That puts it into 1st degree qualified murder due to the aggravating circumstances, which looks to be 15-25 years in prison with an option for the death penalty.

Sex is for adults and NOT for children of ANY age.<IMHO>

Prevent unwanted pregnancies. It's the grownup thing to do.

 

[Krugerrand]

You are missing my point, I don't know if it's deliberate or not. Let's stick with people, since that's what we're discussing.

Say you cut a person in half, and using artifical means, keep both halves alive. Which half is a person, or are both separate persons?

If you would say the top half is a torsoless, legless person, would you call the bottom half a headless, chestless person? Would the legs and abdomen then have full rights as a human being? And if so, where do you draw the line? Is one leg a person also?

I am guessing that you would treat the top half as a person, but not the bottom half. My point is that that is unjustified based on your definition of personhood.

I appreciate you want to stick with people ... because it is very clear that you're wrong when we talk about other creatures.

If we want to stick with people, let's stick with you specifically. You are a bunch of cells. They make up parts that make up your body. Some of those cells dies every day and are replaced (skin, hair, etc.) You can be identified by a finger-print, facial characteristics, by DNA. If you lose a finger to a chainsaw you are still you. It was your body that popped out the birth canal. So it was you in the womb. It was your body that at some pointed gained self-awareness ... that one characteristic of humans that you like to harp on. It was your body that went from not having a beating heart to having a beating heart. It was you all the way back until you were a newly fertilized egg. Before that, you did not exist.

 

[tremendoustie]

All of this is empty semantics. It doesn't matter where you decide life begins, what matters is what penalties apply if you terminate a fetus that meets whatever definition of life is arrived at. What should the penalty be for terminating a pregnancy where (under some definition) a live fetus is killed?

I think life in prison - a person is a person. Of course, if it were an accident or a crime of passion, that could be less. I'm opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance.

I don't think it's empty semantics though, it's important to determine when life begins. I'm trying to explain why I don't think the definition of "cells and unique DNA" really makes sense.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I think life in prison - a person is a person. Of course, if it were an accident or a crime of passion, that could be less. I'm opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance.

I don't think it's empty semantics though, it's important to determine when life begins. I'm trying to explain why I don't think the definition of "cells and unique DNA" really makes sense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

 

[fgd]

I think life in prison - a person is a person. Of course, if it were an accident or a crime of passion, that could be less. I'm opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance.

I don't think it's empty semantics though, it's important to determine when life begins. I'm trying to explain why I don't think the definition of "cells and unique DNA" really makes sense.

OK, there's one. Life imprisonment for willfully having an abortion. Anyone else?

 

[tremendoustie]

I appreciate you want to stick with people ... because it is very clear that you're wrong when we talk about other creatures.

The reason I want to stick with people is that animals are totally irrelevant -- we do not believe they have a right to life at any age, and we have no way of knowing if they are self aware. It is not a useful analogy.

If we want to stick with people, let's stick with you specifically. You are a bunch of cells. They make up parts that make up your body. Some of those cells dies every day and are replaced (skin, hair, etc.) You can be identified by a finger-print, facial characteristics, by DNA. If you lose a finger to a chainsaw you are still you. It was your body that popped out the birth canal. So it was you in the womb. It was your body that at some pointed gained self-awareness ... that one characteristic of humans that you like to harp on. It was your body that went from not having a beating heart to having a beating heart. It was you all the way back until you were a newly fertilized egg. Before that, you did not exist.

I think that I am a mind, and am by nature self aware. I do not think my body gained self awareness, I think my mind gained a body. Before that point I would say that I did not exist, there was only a mass of tissue. (or, if I did exist, I had nothing to do with my body)

Can you answer the question about body parts please? I can put it another way, if it helps:

Suppose you lost your body below the abdomen. Why would you consider yourself to be the upper portion, and not the lower? Why is amputating a leg and discarding it not murder, but amputating a head and discarding it is? Isn't it because the brain, as the seat of the mind, plays a special role in defining personhood?