(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate

[klamath]

I do not think it is incoherency nor disingenuousness which troubles you. What turns you off is a different core basis for determining government function. One is based upon morality where the defense of embryos enables the state to negate all natural rights of an individual at its discretion. The other is based upon freedom and inalienable natural rights. Neither is right nor wrong on their face but the question remains as to the successful functionality of either approach.

Morality is not a good basis for governance. It is dependent upon a group belief system rather than a model of promoting the value of freedom for individuals. There will be compromising of freedom when morality is used to determine governance.

Freedom philosophy has the role of government domestic policy to be reserved to protection against fraud, pollution, and coercion. What do you see as government's legitimate role?

"Natural rights" are a joke made up by moralist humans. The ONLY natural right is the right to be stronger and anililate anything and anyone you feel necessary for your own survivial or any other reason. If you are not stronger then tough luck. Nobody owns you anything liberty, life or otherwise.

 

[Krugerrand]

You can not get around the health and life question in pregnancy. It has to be decided which life takes precedence. Is it the life of the pregnant woman or the life in the womb? Whose health takes precedence? It is not as simple as saying, "I want protection of the right to life." Whose life? Whose health? At the expense of whom?

If you think there is a natural right to be a parent, to have inalienable reproductive rights, to have inalienable health choices for yourself then there is a different conclusion than if you think natural rights do not exists but are determined by group morality which is enforced by the state.

What wonderful sounding terms. Please define for me "inalienable reproductive rights" and "inalienable health choice."

 

[reillym]

You do not believe people have a right to live.

Have you thought through the potential consequences of this position?

I want protection for the right to life. Because without the right to live, you cannot have any other rights.

Since when does healthcare involve the intentional destruction of human life? Sounds like the opposite of healthcare to me. Murder != healthcare.

Since when does punishing murder restrict reproductive rights? If the woman became pregnant voluntarily, she exercised her reproductive rights. If involuntarily, it was the rapist who infringed on her reproductive rights, she should not punish the child by killing it.

Murder is killing a human being. A clump of cells != human. Science is crazy! Why should a woman be enslaved for 8 months for the society of the future? That's the exact opposite of libertarianism. No woman should be held against her will for the PROSPECT of a life in the future.

So as I understand, you are saying the unborn child is a person, but not an individual and therefore lacks rights. The fact that they are located in the womb dictates that they have no rights, just like how a person in a jail cell lacks rights.

Then should we punish all pregnant women for infringing on their childrens' rights by holding them in the womb?

What about the right to life?

It is troubling that so many self described libertarians will marginalize a certain subset of human beings by calling them nonhuman and/or denying them their rights. It is troubling when libertarians oppose the State when it tries to protect the fundamental right to life, and in the next breath, cite State court decisions as a reason why the right to privacy overrides the right to life.

The state has no business in what happens in a bedroom or in a house. That's the essence of libertarianism. A growing fetus isn't a human until it can support itself from its mother. Forcing anybody to sacrifice her body for another is slavery.

 

[Gray Seal]

What wonderful sounding terms. Please define for me "inalienable reproductive rights" and "inalienable health choice."

Reproductive rights would be where the individual makes decisions in regard to reproduction. Inalienable means government could not interfere upon the right.

Health choice (right) would be where an individual decides for themselves all medical questions. Again, inalienable means government could not infringe upon this right.

 

[reillym]

Pro life people actually try to do that. But the federal government has passed laws making it illegal to try to talk to women headed to an abortion clinic once they have gotten outside the "free speech zone". Yes the "right" to an abortion which is not in the constitution actually trumps the first amendment these days.

bullcrap. Any woman who is getting an abortion doesn't need to be pestered by a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags. She is already making probably the hardest decision in her life. More grief is not needed and thats exactly what the crazy Christian taliban does at the clinics. If she was going to give the baby away, she wouldn't be at an abortion clinic.

And lets be honest, most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed. That's certainly pro life.

 

[Krugerrand]

Murder is killing a human being. A clump of cells != human. Science is crazy! Why should a woman be enslaved for 8 months for the society of the future? That's the exact opposite of libertarianism. No woman should be held against her will for the PROSPECT of a life in the future.

The state has no business in what happens in a bedroom or in a house. That's the essence of libertarianism. A growing fetus isn't a human until it can support itself from its mother. Forcing anybody to sacrifice her body for another is slavery.

I strongly suggest you not tell a woman who just experienced a miscarriage that it was just a clump a cells.

In many states if you kill a pregnant woman you are rightly charged with two counts of murder.

You should re-study basic biology. To the extent that the unborn child is just a clump of cells, you too are just a clump of cells. Both you and the unborn child are unique human organisms.

 

[Krugerrand]

Reproductive rights would be where the individual makes decisions in regard to reproduction. Inalienable means government could not interfere upon the right.

Health choice (right) would be where an individual decides for themselves all medical questions. Again, inalienable means government could not infringe upon this right.

As of yet, I know of no way for individuals to reproduce by themselves.

 

[Krugerrand]

bullcrap. Any woman who is getting an abortion doesn't need to be pestered by a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags. She is already making probably the hardest decision in her life. More grief is not needed and thats exactly what the crazy Christian taliban does at the clinics. If she was going to give the baby away, she wouldn't be at an abortion clinic.

And lets be honest, most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed. That's certainly pro life.

First, I had to chuckle that you would preface that "most protests end" comment with "lets be honest." There are protests happening EVERY DAY. Are doctors killed every day?

Plus, your attempt to discount those who recognize the importance of protecting unborn children as "a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags" is also flat out untrue. Please refer to the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League.

It sounds like you don't support the 1st amendment rights of those who disagree with you.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

How does an infant voluntarily enter a relationship with a parent?



Even if the decision is murder?

If a woman hates the fetus inside of her and stabs herself in the stomach, I guess you could call that murder, temporary insanity, whatever. But a woman having an abortion is not and will never be murder.

 

[reillym]

I strongly suggest you not tell a woman who just experienced a miscarriage that it was just a clump a cells.

In many states if you kill a pregnant woman you are rightly charged with two counts of murder.

You should re-study basic biology. To the extent that the unborn child is just a clump of cells, you too are just a clump of cells. Both you and the unborn child are unique human organisms.

I am a clump of cells capable of surviving on my own. A fetus is not. Murdering a pregnant woman is very different from abortion. That argument has no place here and doesn't apply.

First, I had to chuckle that you would preface that "most protests end" comment with "lets be honest." There are protests happening EVERY DAY. Are doctors killed every day?

Plus, your attempt to discount those who recognize the importance of protecting unborn children as "a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags" is also flat out untrue. Please refer to the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League.

It sounds like you don't support the 1st amendment rights of those who disagree with you.

Again, most anti-choicers base their decision on religion. To argue otherwise is silly. And 1st amendment? When did I bring that up? When did I say someone doesn't have the right to voice their opinion? I didn't. I wouldn't on a public discussion board otherwise.

And let's be honest, anti-choice protests do encourage violence and hate. Especially at clinics where the people need no more stress. Abortion is legal, protesting at abortion clinics is not protesting the law, it is protesting the WOMEN. They are innocent people, and so protesting there is hateful and rude and selfish (and self righteous)

 

[idirtify]

So as I understand, you are saying the unborn child is a person,

Call that which resides inside another’s body whatever you want; it won’t change its logistical relationship to the host’s body.

but not an individual and therefore lacks rights.

Because of its logistical situation as it relates to the host’s body, it lacks rights; that is correct.

The fact that they are located in the womb dictates that they have no rights,

Correct.

just like how a person in a jail cell lacks rights.

Not correct. Loss of rights from being in a prison is quite a separate topic; and I don’t believe there is an analogy to being inside an individual person’s body.

Then should we punish all pregnant women for infringing on their childrens' rights by holding them in the womb?

How did you arrive at such a backwards conclusion?

 

[idirtify]

That's very interesting. None of the biology courses I had taught about "rights." None of the biology books I read taught about "rights."

However, fundamental biology does teach that like produces like. Chickens produce chickens. Humans produce humans. Fundamental biology teaches that the human embryo is a unique organism from its mother just like an un-hatched chicken inside the egg is a separate organism from the hen.

Maybe I misspoke. Of course “elementary biology” isn’t a “political science” and doesn’t include political theory or teach about rights, but its scientific facts “establish” that the unborn is inside an individual person’s body. Is that clearer?

And speaking of what biology does not teach…The fact that species reproduce their own kind says nothing about this topic. Besides, your analogy of a chicken egg could not be less analogous, since the chicken’s egg is outside the chicken’s body - and for wisdom about chicken’s rights, I suppose one must consult chickens.

 

[idirtify]

In many states if you kill a pregnant woman you are rightly charged with two counts of murder.

A law does not establish rights, or support your argument..

You should re-study basic biology. To the extent that the unborn child is just a clump of cells, you too are just a clump of cells. Both you and the unborn child are unique human organisms.

Since born twins each have rights, uniqueness does not qualify as a determining criterion for assessing rights. Cancerous tumors may also be “unique”, but they certainly have no rights.

 

[charrob]

--haven't read this whole thread, but can't help but be curious:

if there was a choice between saving a healthy, thriving, intelligent (>= human intelligence) living-and-swimming-in-the-water sperm whale, dolphin, or porpoise in the gulf,

which would you save: the already living independent mammal or the human fetus?

 

[Meatwasp]

--haven't read this whole thread, but can't help but be curious:

if there was a choice between saving a healthy, thriving, intelligent (>= human intelligence) living-and-swimming-in-the-water sperm whale, dolphin, or porpoise in the gulf,

which would you save: the already living independent mammal or the human fetus?

The fetus so it could grow up and be a eco person and save the whales. Heh

 

[jmdrake]

bullcrap. Any woman who is getting an abortion doesn't need to be pestered by a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags. She is already making probably the hardest decision in her life. More grief is not needed and thats exactly what the crazy Christian taliban does at the clinics. If she was going to give the baby away, she wouldn't be at an abortion clinic.

And lets be honest, most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed. That's certainly pro life.

And there you have the irrationality of the pro-choice side. I respond to one pro-choice person who says "If pro lifers are really against abortion they should go try to talk women trying to have abortions into giving the baby up for adoption" by pointing out that you can't legally do that and I get this nonsense "bullcrap" attack from a different pro-choicer. I stand by what I said earlier. If you think the unborn are individuals then being pro-life is consistent with being a libertarian. If you are pro-choice then you have rejected the individuality of the unborn. That's certainly your "choice". But what is "bullcrap" is when you can't see the other side of the argument. And "most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed" IS JUST LEFT-WING LIBERAL LIES! That's NO DIFFERENT THEN NEOCONS CALLING ALL RON PAUL SUPPORTERS TERRORISTS! This movement is better than that.

 

[jmdrake]

--haven't read this whole thread, but can't help but be curious:

if there was a choice between saving a healthy, thriving, intelligent (>= human intelligence) living-and-swimming-in-the-water sperm whale, dolphin, or porpoise in the gulf,

which would you save: the already living independent mammal or the human fetus?

Show me a dolphin that can speak 7 languages and/or has created a symbolic language (moving shells and rocks around to form visible symbols would count) and then come back and talk to me about how dolphin intelligence >= human intelligence.

Anyway, the best way to save life in the gulf is to not to punish oil companies that haven't done anything wrong based on the mistakes of BP. It's to allow drilling more in shallower water and in places like ANWAR where they've actually been able to fully test their equipment.

 

[jmdrake]

The fetus so it could grow up and be a eco person and save the whales. Heh

Thread winner!

 

[RM918]

And there you have the irrationality of the pro-choice side. I respond to one pro-choice person who says "If pro lifers are really against abortion they should go try to talk women trying to have abortions into giving the baby up for adoption" by pointing out that you can't legally do that and I get this nonsense "bullcrap" attack from a different pro-choicer. I stand by what I said earlier. If you think the unborn are individuals then being pro-life is consistent with being a libertarian. If you are pro-choice then you have rejected the individuality of the unborn. That's certainly your "choice". But what is "bullcrap" is when you can't see the other side of the argument. And "most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed" IS JUST LEFT-WING LIBERAL LIES! That's NO DIFFERENT THEN NEOCONS CALLING ALL RON PAUL SUPPORTERS TERRORISTS! This movement is better than that.

Amen. I disagree with the pro-choice crowd, but I understand their mindset. I may believe it's wrong, but I still understand it. I don't call them genocidal loons or mass murderers or whatever. Same with progressives. I think they've come to their conclusions out of a misinformed sense of compassion, but I don't call them lazy communists. Making broad, sweeping generalizations about people just because they disagree with parts of your political philosophy makes you quite the same as anyone else who'd use that tactic.

 

[charrob]

Show me a dolphin that can speak 7 languages and/or has created a symbolic language (moving shells and rocks around to form visible symbols would count) and then come back and talk to me about how dolphin intelligence >= human intelligence.

Dolphins communicate with each other extensively for their survival: they're very social creatures. Their hearing is of primary importance because of their need to communicate: because oil exploration produces seismic booms that are some of the loudest noises on earth, this often harms and even destroys their hearing ability: when this happens, they cannot survive.

Additionally, dolphins understand human language.

Now show me a human who understands what dolphins are saying to each other? Even more, show me a fetus that understands what dolphins are saying...