Late Term Abortions (1 Viewer)

[bentley]

The point of my thread: my reason for supporting abortion rights is based upon my libertarian values. Despite Ivan's insulting comments that libertarianism and abortion rights need not be consistent, I find the opposite to be the case, and I pasted an essay in the earlier post that explains why.But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

So.....I was right in post 77 about how this is really about defining when life begins and not wherever you started.

Umm... this is the opposite of what I'm arguing here.Why don't you wait for the Commish to respond for you?

Constructing a convoluted absolutist argument that other politically like-minded folks disagree with in order to avoid the "when life begins" argument is participating in the "when life begins" argument.

 

[timschochet]

The point of my thread: my reason for supporting abortion rights is based upon my libertarian values. Despite Ivan's insulting comments that libertarianism and abortion rights need not be consistent, I find the opposite to be the case, and I pasted an essay in the earlier post that explains why.But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

Tim, you and I have both maintained that the pregnant woman who decides on a whim in the 8th month to have an abortion merely out of convenience is a myth. I've argued that the obstacles any statutes erected to prevent this decision would unnecessarily burden women who would require late-term abortions for medical reasons, and you've argued that rape and incest should also be included in reasons for late-term abortions. 1) Do you agree on the "unnecessarily burdensome" argument?2) If not, then shouldn't you be ok with a ban on late-term abortions with exceptions for medical reasons, rape, and incest?3) If you do agree on the "unnecessarily burdensome" argument, would you be opposed to attempts to minimize that burden while keeping the "whimsical abortion" illegal?

If a woman wanted to have an abortion in her 8th month for no other reason than that the baby is an inconvencience, I would strongly disapprove of that decision. If I were a doctor, I would refuse to perform such an abortion. I can't imagine what could make a woman make this choice in her 8th month without some of the reasons which we have already discussed. Personally, I would find such a person to be morally reprehensible.But- If you're asking if I think there should be a government enforced law prohibiting such an action, I have to say no. I am not willing to place this restriction on a woman's freedom. Therefore, my answer to your questions, I don't want ANY legal restriction on abortion throughout the term of a pregnancy. This solves all of the other questions you have, because we don't need to pick and choose under any circumstances.

 

[timschochet]

It's not convoluted (IMO). It IS absolutist; I admit to that. I don't think there's anything wrong with moral absolutism, BTW. One of my constant criticisms of many of those who tend to share my views both on abortion and gay marriage is that they shy away from moral certitude and give it over to the other side, whom they criticize for thinking they know what's right: in effect, their argument tends to be: "You moral conservatives, you are always trying to tell us what's right and wrong, but nothing's right and wrong, there is no absolute right, and you have no moral authority, because nobody does." My response, instead, is, "You moral conservatives are wrong. We are right; we actually have the morality on our side. A woman's right to choose is a moral position. Granting gay couples the right to marry is a moral position." I firmly believe there are absolute rights and wrongs in this world. As to your greater point, I'm still not sure I understand it. I am trying to avoid the "where life begins" argument as irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights.

This is a really, really awful argument. Of course, I'm pro-life, so if you want to adopt this view, that's fine with me. I'm sure our resident pro-choice people will appreciate your help.

 

[fsword]

The point of my thread: my reason for supporting abortion rights is based upon my libertarian values. Despite Ivan's insulting comments that libertarianism and abortion rights need not be consistent, I find the opposite to be the case, and I pasted an essay in the earlier post that explains why.But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

Will give you kudos for consistency. I won't speak for other pro-lifers, but I will note that all human life is the same; excpt that all human life was created (not born) with unalienable rights. "Viability" was a judicial punt. As someone mentioned earlier, a one year old isn't independent, and as such, isn't truly viable; same can be said for almost any stage of life, young and old. "Viability" is even subjective. Valuing one life over another is a slippery slope of subjectivity, and philosophically a concession to a despot or popular culture. Placing one human life above another validates slavery, validates abortion, and validates euthanasia. There is no real freedom, as all live men live subject to a greater power and too each other. Liberty is not the right to do whatever one wants. Liberty is ordered freedom. Man and women are equal, but they are also different. Treating men and women the same is silly, in that it denies our fundamental differences, a recipe for divisive failure.

 

[timschochet]

But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

Maybe to some people the issue isn't black and white.

I'm aware of this. The purpose of my arguments is, in part, to convince those people otherwise.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The point of my thread: my reason for supporting abortion rights is based upon my libertarian values. Despite Ivan's insulting comments that libertarianism and abortion rights need not be consistent, I find the opposite to be the case, and I pasted an essay in the earlier post that explains why.But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

So.....I was right in post 77 about how this is really about defining when life begins and not wherever you started.

Umm... this is the opposite of what I'm arguing here.

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

 

[timschochet]

The point of my thread: my reason for supporting abortion rights is based upon my libertarian values. Despite Ivan's insulting comments that libertarianism and abortion rights need not be consistent, I find the opposite to be the case, and I pasted an essay in the earlier post that explains why.But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

Will give you kudos for consistency. I won't speak for other pro-lifers, but I will note that all human life is the same; excpt that all human life was created (not born) with unalienable rights. "Viability" was a judicial punt. As someone mentioned earlier, a one year old isn't independent, and as such, isn't truly viable; same can be said for almost any stage of life, young and old. "Viability" is even subjective. Valuing one life over another is a slippery slope of subjectivity, and philosophically a concession to a despot or popular culture. Placing one human life above another validates slavery, validates abortion, and validates euthanasia. There is no real freedom, as all live men live subject to a greater power and too each other. Liberty is not the right to do whatever one wants. Liberty is ordered freedom. Man and women are equal, but they are also different. Treating men and women the same is silly, in that it denies our fundamental differences, a recipe for divisive failure.

Well, at least I agree with your essential point, and I will give you kudos for consistency as well. You and I both see eye to eye on the issue of viability. I also agree with you in your statement: "Placing one human life above another validates slavery." This is the basis for my support for abortion rights.

 

[StrikeS2k]

But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

Maybe to some people the issue isn't black and white.

I'm aware of this. The purpose of my arguments is, in part, to convince those people otherwise.

Good luck with that.

 

[timschochet]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

 

[timschochet]

But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

Maybe to some people the issue isn't black and white.

I'm aware of this. The purpose of my arguments is, in part, to convince those people otherwise.

Good luck with that.

Thanks. I appreciate the support.

 

[Zow]

I also agree with you in your statement: "Placing one human life above another validates slavery." This is the basis for my support for abortion rights.

wat

 

[Zow]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

So you're saying murder is okay with another life has a possible detrimental physical effect on another?

 

[Orange Crush]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

So you're saying murder is okay with another life has a possible detrimental physical effect on another?

That's the most horribly crafted sentence I've ever seen by a lawyer. And beyond that, "murder" isn't what Tim is arguing for, but "termination of life." It's still going to get him in trouble, though.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

So you're saying murder is okay with another life has a possible detrimental physical effect on another?

Complete, literate sentences down?

 

[Black Box]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

Would you be willing to grant that the fetus is a life (in the fullest sense of the word: rights and all) and still maintain your position?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

Does this apply to anything inside a ###### or just babies?

 

[Zow]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

So you're saying murder is okay with another life has a possible detrimental physical effect on another?

That's the most horribly crafted sentence I've ever seen by a lawyer.

whange the "with" to "when" and it's fine

 

[fsword]

The point of my thread: my reason for supporting abortion rights is based upon my libertarian values. Despite Ivan's insulting comments that libertarianism and abortion rights need not be consistent, I find the opposite to be the case, and I pasted an essay in the earlier post that explains why.But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

Will give you kudos for consistency. I won't speak for other pro-lifers, but I will note that all human life is the same; excpt that all human life was created (not born) with unalienable rights. "Viability" was a judicial punt. As someone mentioned earlier, a one year old isn't independent, and as such, isn't truly viable; same can be said for almost any stage of life, young and old. "Viability" is even subjective. Valuing one life over another is a slippery slope of subjectivity, and philosophically a concession to a despot or popular culture. Placing one human life above another validates slavery, validates abortion, and validates euthanasia. There is no real freedom, as all live men live subject to a greater power and too each other. Liberty is not the right to do whatever one wants. Liberty is ordered freedom. Man and women are equal, but they are also different. Treating men and women the same is silly, in that it denies our fundamental differences, a recipe for divisive failure.

Well, at least I agree with your essential point, and I will give you kudos for consistency as well. You and I both see eye to eye on the issue of viability. I also agree with you in your statement: "Placing one human life above another validates slavery." This is the basis for my support for abortion rights.

Congratulations, you have just undone all that the FF's hoped to accomplish in the formulation of the Republic. Your belief judges the Great Experiment a failure, as you have just removed any natural or moral argument for man's inalienable/unalienable rights. Now what?

 

[Orange Crush]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

So you're saying murder is okay with another life has a possible detrimental physical effect on another?

That's the most horribly crafted sentence I've ever seen by a lawyer.

whange the "with" to "when" and it's fine

And who is murdering whom? It appears as though you have three parties based on that sentence. There are two others apart from the "murderer"?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

So you're saying murder is okay with another life has a possible detrimental physical effect on another?

That's the most horribly crafted sentence I've ever seen by a lawyer.

whange the "with" to "when" and it's fine

How about:So you're saying that killing to avoid being physically harmed is OK?

 

[Orange Crush]

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

So you're saying murder is okay with another life has a possible detrimental physical effect on another?

That's the most horribly crafted sentence I've ever seen by a lawyer.

whange the "with" to "when" and it's fine

How about:So you're saying that killing to avoid being physically harmed is OK?

Mo, why'd you have to go save Woz like that? I was looking forward to his next rape of the English language.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

Does this apply to anything inside a ###### or just babies?

Anyone who saw the 2007 horror film, Teeth, would consider this question important.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

Does this apply to anything inside a ###### or just babies?

Anyone who saw the 2007 horror film, Teeth, would consider this question important.

Note to self: Don't see Teeth.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I found it strangely disturbing that the Carhart article talked about his performance of abortions on Sunday. I realize not everyone goes to church on Sunday so I am not evoking a morality issue here, but how often are other elective surgeries performed on Sundays? I'd venture to guess not too many.So long as they are legal, someone has to perform these procedures. However, I don't think he is too much of a hero when he is snuffing out a defenseless fetus. Scum bag. Try something else heroic, like performing genital mutilation in underdeveloped countries. Surely many more of these people would survive if only their genital mutilation was carried out in a more professional and antiseptic manner.

All my cases are elective and I have cases every weekend. They tend to be on saturday in general, but it is common practice here for docs to perform surgeries on your call weekends... since you are working anyway. You are reading way too much into it.

I thought it was a little sensational, but I was reading too much into it. I am glad you agreed that there is a need for more standardization and regulation of genital mutilation in underdeveloped countries, though. That is one of my causes.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This issue seems to me to strike at the heart of libertarianism. Should the state be allowed to restrict human freedom based upon moral virtues? I say no.

Pretty much all libertarians (as well as non-libertarians) would agree that using violent force may be appropriate to prevent aggression against a third party. Even anarchist libertarians will generally agree that it's OK even for the state to do so (since they don't argue that the state should be prohibited from doing what a private citizen may do -- but only that the state should not have special authorities to do what a private citizen may not).So even the most extreme form of libertarian would argue that, if you're about to choke your neighbor to death, the state may intervene to forcibly stop you.

Whether a fetus has the same value or the same rights as your neighbor is not a question of libertarian versus non-libertarian philosophy. It really has nothing to do with libertarianism one way or the other.

For libertarians who do think that a fetus has the same value and rights as your neighbor, prohibiting abortion may be morally justified.

Abortion isn't a libertarian versus non-libertarian issue, as far as I can tell -- except perhaps to the extent that libertarians, more than non-libertarians, may recognize the practical difficulties and likely counterproductive results associated with creating "victimless" crimes (i.e., crimes where there is no complaining witness). But that is merely a practical consideration, not a moral one -- and anyway not all libertarians are known for being practical.

 

[timschochet]

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

Gee, thanks for the clarification, Ivan! Actually, no, that is not my position. I don't argue that life doesn't begin until birth. Perhaps it does, perhaps it begins at conception. It's irrelevant to my argument. The reason that a baby has rights once independent of the mother is not because its alive or supposedly "viable", but because it is no longer inside of the mother. Simple. It has nothing to do with when life begins.

Would you be willing to grant that the fetus is a life (in the fullest sense of the word: rights and all) and still maintain your position?

A fetus may be a life, but while it is inside the womb, it has no rights the state should enforce. IMO.

 

[timschochet]

This issue seems to me to strike at the heart of libertarianism. Should the state be allowed to restrict human freedom based upon moral virtues? I say no.

Pretty much all libertarians (as well as non-libertarians) would agree that using violent force may be appropriate to prevent aggression against a third party. Even anarchist libertarians will generally agree that it's OK even for the state to do so (since they don't argue that the state should be prohibited from doing what a private citizen may do -- but only that the state should not have special authorities to do what a private citizen may not).So even the most extreme form of libertarian would argue that, if you're about to choke your neighbor to death, the state may intervene to forcibly stop you.Whether a fetus has the same value or the same rights as your neighbor is not a question of libertarian versus non-libertarian philosophy. It really has nothing to do with libertarianism one way or the other.For libertarians who do think that a fetus has the same value and rights as your neighbor, prohibiting abortion may be morally justified.Abortion isn't a libertarian versus non-libertarian issue, as far as I can tell -- except perhaps to the extent that libertarians, more than non-libertarians, may recognize the practical difficulties and likely counterproductive results associated with creating "victimless" crimes (i.e., crimes where there is no complaining witness). But that is merely a practical consideration, not a moral one -- and anyway not all libertarians are known for being practical.

I strongly disagree with you. Earlier, I posted an essay that argues why abortion rights is indeed a libertarian position- not a pratical issue but a moral one, based upon the rights of man. The issue of a fetus having value is irrelevant to the discussion.Let's suppose that I created a device that allowed me to shrink in size and teleport myself, and let's suppose I teleported myself into your stomach. What rights does the state grant me now that I am in your stomach? The answer is: none. You, on the other hand, have the right to dislodge me from your stomach in any way you choose, including killing me. If the state were to say, no, you have to undergo an operation at which point timschochet will be safely removed from your stomach, and any other action you take would be illegal, that is a violation of your natural rights. It is your stomach, not the state's. This is absolutely a libertarian position, and IMO, the ONLY position fully consistent with libertarian values.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This issue seems to me to strike at the heart of libertarianism. Should the state be allowed to restrict human freedom based upon moral virtues? I say no.

Pretty much all libertarians (as well as non-libertarians) would agree that using violent force may be appropriate to prevent aggression against a third party. Even anarchist libertarians will generally agree that it's OK even for the state to do so (since they don't argue that the state should be prohibited from doing what a private citizen may do -- but only that the state should not have special authorities to do what a private citizen may not).So even the most extreme form of libertarian would argue that, if you're about to choke your neighbor to death, the state may intervene to forcibly stop you.Whether a fetus has the same value or the same rights as your neighbor is not a question of libertarian versus non-libertarian philosophy. It really has nothing to do with libertarianism one way or the other.For libertarians who do think that a fetus has the same value and rights as your neighbor, prohibiting abortion may be morally justified.Abortion isn't a libertarian versus non-libertarian issue, as far as I can tell -- except perhaps to the extent that libertarians, more than non-libertarians, may recognize the practical difficulties and likely counterproductive results associated with creating "victimless" crimes (i.e., crimes where there is no complaining witness). But that is merely a practical consideration, not a moral one -- and anyway not all libertarians are known for being practical.

I strongly disagree with you. Earlier, I posted an essay that argues why abortion rights is indeed a libertarian position- not a pratical issue but a moral one, based upon the rights of man. The issue of a fetus having value is irrelevant to the discussion.Let's suppose that I created a device that allowed me to shrink in size and teleport myself, and let's suppose I teleported myself into your stomach. What rights does the state grant me now that I am in your stomach? The answer is: none. You, on the other hand, have the right to dislodge me from your stomach in any way you choose, including killing me. If the state were to say, no, you have to undergo an operation at which point timschochet will be safely removed from your stomach, and any other action you take would be illegal, that is a violation of your natural rights. It is your stomach, not the state's. This is absolutely a libertarian position, and IMO, the ONLY position fully consistent with libertarian values.

So Tim, do you feel the same way about someone illegally entering your house? Do you feel you have the same rights to do whatever you please to eradicate such a person from your castle?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's suppose that I created a device that allowed me to shrink in size and teleport myself, and let's suppose I teleported myself into your stomach. What rights does the state grant me now that I am in your stomach? The answer is: none. You, on the other hand, have the right to dislodge me from your stomach in any way you choose, including killing me.

No, killing you for trespassing or for continuing (non-lethal) battery is not justified.

If the state were to say, no, you have to undergo an operation at which point timschochet will be safely removed from your stomach, and any other action you take would be illegal, that is a violation of your natural rights.

What if I invited you into my stomach? What if, short of inviting you, I carelessly left my naval open and you accidentally wandered in while lost? I get to kill you?

This is absolutely a libertarian position, and IMO, the ONLY position fully consistent with libertarian values.

It's based on a philosophy of natural rights, which not all libertarians accept, and yet it's the only position consistent with libertarianism?

 

[timschochet]

So Tim, do you feel the same way about someone illegally entering your house? Do you feel you have the same rights to do whatever you please to eradicate such a person from your castle?

Great, great question. The answer is, pretty much. If an intruder enters your house, and you shoot him to death, I believe that in MOST circumstances you should have the right to do so. There may be an exception or two to this- if the state can prove beyond doubt that you could have chosen a safer way to remove this threat, and deliberately did not choose to do so, but instead deliberately killed the intruder, then you theoretically could be prosecuted for it. IMO, such a thing would be very difficult to prove, and I personally would ALWAYS be on the side of the person who's home was intruded.This exception, however, is not a contradiction on my part. I hold property rights to be of incredible importance for a civilized society, but I regard rights to control over one's body to be even more primary, and the greatest right of all.

 

[StrikeS2k]

So Tim, do you feel the same way about someone illegally entering your house? Do you feel you have the same rights to do whatever you please to eradicate such a person from your castle?

Great, great question. The answer is, pretty much. If an intruder enters your house, and you shoot him to death, I believe that in MOST circumstances you should have the right to do so. There may be an exception or two to this- if the state can prove beyond doubt that you could have chosen a safer way to remove this threat, and deliberately did not choose to do so, but instead deliberately killed the intruder, then you theoretically could be prosecuted for it. IMO, such a thing would be very difficult to prove, and I personally would ALWAYS be on the side of the person who's home was intruded.This exception, however, is not a contradiction on my part. I hold property rights to be of incredible importance for a civilized society, but I regard rights to control over one's body to be even more primary, and the greatest right of all.

So if I consider this country to be the house of it's citizens you can understand my position on illegals. People such as yourself make some distinction but I don't see it. See, I'm being absolute just like you

 

[timschochet]

Let's suppose that I created a device that allowed me to shrink in size and teleport myself, and let's suppose I teleported myself into your stomach. What rights does the state grant me now that I am in your stomach? The answer is: none. You, on the other hand, have the right to dislodge me from your stomach in any way you choose, including killing me.

No, killing you for trespassing or for continuing (non-lethal) battery is not justified.

If the state were to say, no, you have to undergo an operation at which point timschochet will be safely removed from your stomach, and any other action you take would be illegal, that is a violation of your natural rights.

What if I invited you into my stomach? What if, short of inviting you, I carelessly left my naval open and you accidentally wandered in while lost? I get to kill you?

This is absolutely a libertarian position, and IMO, the ONLY position fully consistent with libertarian values.

It's based on a philosophy of natural rights, which not all libertarians accept, and yet it's the only position consistent with libertarianism?

1. We disagree, I think it is.2. It really doesn't matter how I got there. As you know, if a woman agrees to have sex with a man, then opens her legs and allows him to enter, then in the middle of the sex decides she does not want it anymore, and the man refuses to leave and forces her to finish, that is legally rape, and the woman then has the right to defend herself against assault. 3. I did not say it was the only position consistent with libertarianism. I said it was the only position, IMO, fully consistent with libertarian values. I recognize that there are libertarians who disagree with me. I just don't believe their viewpoint to be consistent.

 

[timschochet]

So Tim, do you feel the same way about someone illegally entering your house? Do you feel you have the same rights to do whatever you please to eradicate such a person from your castle?

Great, great question. The answer is, pretty much. If an intruder enters your house, and you shoot him to death, I believe that in MOST circumstances you should have the right to do so. There may be an exception or two to this- if the state can prove beyond doubt that you could have chosen a safer way to remove this threat, and deliberately did not choose to do so, but instead deliberately killed the intruder, then you theoretically could be prosecuted for it. IMO, such a thing would be very difficult to prove, and I personally would ALWAYS be on the side of the person who's home was intruded.This exception, however, is not a contradiction on my part. I hold property rights to be of incredible importance for a civilized society, but I regard rights to control over one's body to be even more primary, and the greatest right of all.

So if I consider this country to be the house of it's citizens you can understand my position on illegals. People such as yourself make some distinction but I don't see it. See, I'm being absolute just like you

Nice try. How did you obtain this "house" to begin with? Using your logic, the only true citizens that belong here are Native Americans who can trace their ancestors to prior to 1492. The rest of us are illegal.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

2. It really doesn't matter how I got there.

So in your opinion, a homeowner is justified in killing someone who accidentally wanders onto his property?If a kidnapper ties somebody up and drops them off on my front lawn, am I justified in killing the victim? Do you still think it doesn't matter how you got in my house or in my stomach?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Nice try. How did you obtain this "house" to begin with? Using your logic, the only true citizens that belong here are Native Americans who can trace their ancestors to prior to 1492. The rest of us are illegal.

We got it by invading and stealing it. So you admit that what is happening with illegals is an invasion. Wow, we're on the same page

 

[timschochet]

2. It really doesn't matter how I got there.

So in your opinion, a homeowner is justified in killing someone who accidentally wanders onto his property?

See post #133. My answer is, it could be, but not always. But property is not the same as one's body. That' the whole point of the essay I posted earlier. In discussing natural rights, the body is primary. Property rights are of extreme importance, but secondary to one's body. Therefore, we can pass laws restricting property rights (although I would do so with reluctance) which we should never pass with regards to one's body.

 

[timschochet]

Nice try. How did you obtain this "house" to begin with? Using your logic, the only true citizens that belong here are Native Americans who can trace their ancestors to prior to 1492. The rest of us are illegal.

We got it by invading and stealing it. So you admit that what is happening with illegals is an invasion. Wow, we're on the same page

Ya got me, Strike! Where can I sign up for the Minutemen?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

2. It really doesn't matter how I got there.

So if I invite you into my stomach (or home), and you enter, I can kill you?A fetus doesn't appear in a womb on purpose. It's either invited (when the woman is trying to get pregnant), or it appears there accidentally (when the condom breaks) -- but that doesn't make it a trespasser guilty of the sort of wrongdoing for which the death penalty is appropriate.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to late-term abortions, but I wouldn't justify my position by analogizing abortion to killing an invited guest (or even an accidental wanderer) for being in my person.

 

[Christo]

Christo's doing great work in here. I proxy my opinion to him for the rest of this thread.Either Tim's position on this issue is way strange or he's on some LHUCKSian fishing trip to try and prove a point to us about the concept of when life begins. I haven't made up my mind yet.

Not a fishing trip- just for the record, I don't do that. I acknowledge that my position may not be popular, but it is genuine.

Christo will hopefully be along shortly to provide my rebuttal.

There is no rebuttal to his position. It's like asking a guy to tell you his favorite color and his response is "cheese sandwich." Not much to do at that point.I will say this though. No way in hell timmy never fishes. Just haven't made up my mind yet. There's been too many times he's made a definitive statement on a subject only to make a 180 after considering "new evidence."

 

[timschochet]

2. It really doesn't matter how I got there.

So if I invite you into my stomach (or home), and you enter, I can kill you?A fetus doesn't appear in a womb on purpose. It's either invited (when the woman is trying to get pregnant), or it appears there accidentally (when the condom breaks) -- but that doesn't make it a trespasser guilty of the sort of wrongdoing for which the death penalty is appropriate.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to late-term abortions, but I wouldn't justify my position by analogizing abortion to killing an invited guest (or even an accidental wanderer) for being in my person.

The analogy that you and others here keep making about a home or property isn't a good one, because we're discussing one's body. I hold that if I am in your stomach, (using the specific example I used, not being in your home) it doesn't matter how I got there. You could have invited me. You could be happy with me there, and then change your mind. It could have been accidental, or it could have been forced upon you. I could be alive inside your stomach, or I could be brain dead, or sick, or healthy, or whatever. None of this matters. What matters is, it's your body, and you have the right to decide what to do with your body. The state, IMO, should not have the power to take that right away. So yes, as long as I am in your body, you can kill me, if that is your wish.

 

[Christo]

The point of my thread: my reason for supporting abortion rights is based upon my libertarian values. Despite Ivan's insulting comments that libertarianism and abortion rights need not be consistent, I find the opposite to be the case, and I pasted an essay in the earlier post that explains why.

But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

So.....I was right in post 77 about how this is really about defining when life begins and not wherever you started.

Umm... this is the opposite of what I'm arguing here.Why don't you wait for the Commish to respond for you?

How about me?The bolded is completely untrue.

 

[Christo]

The point of my thread: my reason for supporting abortion rights is based upon my libertarian values. Despite Ivan's insulting comments that libertarianism and abortion rights need not be consistent, I find the opposite to be the case, and I pasted an essay in the earlier post that explains why.But the point is: if we only support abortion during the first part of a pregnancy, and refuse to support it during the later months, we are destroying any philosophical defense of a woman's right to her own freedom. We are instead substituting a recognition that a fetus may have rights at some point while still in the womb, depending upon some mystical word known as "viability"- thus we concede to the pro-lifers their main argument, and set the stage, philosophically, for the removal of all abortion rights. This is why I believe that it's important for pro-choice people to support late-term abortions.

So.....I was right in post 77 about how this is really about defining when life begins and not wherever you started.

Umm... this is the opposite of what I'm arguing here.

Not really, no. You're taking the position that a fetus has absolutely no rights whatsoever until it happens to pass through the birth canal. When a person says "Life doesn't begin until birth," that's what they're really saying. As usual, you just don't understand your own position, let alone the position held by others.

 

[timschochet]

I have to go. I will try to respond later. Enjoying the conversation!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

2. It really doesn't matter how I got there.

So if I invite you into my stomach (or home), and you enter, I can kill you?A fetus doesn't appear in a womb on purpose. It's either invited (when the woman is trying to get pregnant), or it appears there accidentally (when the condom breaks) -- but that doesn't make it a trespasser guilty of the sort of wrongdoing for which the death penalty is appropriate.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to late-term abortions, but I wouldn't justify my position by analogizing abortion to killing an invited guest (or even an accidental wanderer) for being in my person.

The analogy that you and others here keep making about a home or property isn't a good one, because we're discussing one's body.

Okay.

I hold that if I am in your stomach, (using the specific example I used, not being in your home) it doesn't matter how I got there. You could have invited me.

I'm sure FGILC meant his earlier post (#119) as a joke, but it actually carries force if you're going take this position.

 

[Harry Manback]

2. It really doesn't matter how I got there.

So if I invite you into my stomach (or home), and you enter, I can kill you?A fetus doesn't appear in a womb on purpose. It's either invited (when the woman is trying to get pregnant), or it appears there accidentally (when the condom breaks) -- but that doesn't make it a trespasser guilty of the sort of wrongdoing for which the death penalty is appropriate.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to late-term abortions, but I wouldn't justify my position by analogizing abortion to killing an invited guest (or even an accidental wanderer) for being in my person.

The analogy that you and others here keep making about a home or property isn't a good one, because we're discussing one's body.

Okay.

I hold that if I am in your stomach, (using the specific example I used, not being in your home) it doesn't matter how I got there. You could have invited me.

I'm sure FGILC meant his earlier post (#119) as a joke, but it actually carries force if you're going take this position.

Ooof, next time I'm deep inside some girl I should watch out to make sure she doesn't kill me.

 

[timschochet]

2. It really doesn't matter how I got there.

So if I invite you into my stomach (or home), and you enter, I can kill you?A fetus doesn't appear in a womb on purpose. It's either invited (when the woman is trying to get pregnant), or it appears there accidentally (when the condom breaks) -- but that doesn't make it a trespasser guilty of the sort of wrongdoing for which the death penalty is appropriate.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to late-term abortions, but I wouldn't justify my position by analogizing abortion to killing an invited guest (or even an accidental wanderer) for being in my person.

The analogy that you and others here keep making about a home or property isn't a good one, because we're discussing one's body.

Okay.

I hold that if I am in your stomach, (using the specific example I used, not being in your home) it doesn't matter how I got there. You could have invited me.

I'm sure FGILC meant his earlier post (#119) as a joke, but it actually carries force if you're going take this position.

My serious answer to his question: if it's in there, she has the rights. If you don't like that, pull out. Suppose I stuck something into your mouth you decided you didn't want, and I refused to pull it out? Should I be allowed to hold you responsible for what you might choose to do at that point?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Ooof, next time I'm deep inside some girl I should watch out to make sure she doesn't kill me.

She can't kill you by Timmy's logic. But I'd be worried about your penis. Lorena Bobbit should have consulted Timmy for her defense.

 

[Harry Manback]

Ooof, next time I'm deep inside some girl I should watch out to make sure she doesn't kill me.

She can't kill you by Timmy's logic. But I'd be worried about your penis. Lorena Bobbit should have consulted Timmy for her defense.

If she kills my penis, she may as well kill me, especially if she hopes to survive herself.