Late Term Abortions (1 Viewer)

[Jackstraw]

My wife and I are/were staunch choice advocates; we'd both done our share of marching on Washington for the cause. Actually enduring the process gave us a much more nuanced opinion about abortion.

For us, it was Trisomy 21 -- Down Syndrome. The test came after my wife awoke one night in a pool of blood screaming and thinking she'd suffered a miscarriage. After she ran to the toilet, it fell upon me to call her doctor and then scoop out the remains--that actually turned out to be huge clots--and take them to the doctor the next day. The geneticist said that because of all the bleeding and other complications there was almost no chance the fetus would make it to 20 weeks let alone full term.

My wife says one of my finest moments as her husband came when I somehow made her laugh while she awaited the abortion. My wife doesn't talk about her feelings of the abortion and the "failed" pregnancy. But we've been together for more than a decade and I know she will always be crushed by it. I know we made the right decision for us but it still hurts badly. This was the son we would never have.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Jackstraw, use the quote function.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Thanks, Jackstraw, but to avoid confusion you should post links to where you're getting the material.

 

[timschochet]

About a year ago, my cousin went into have an abdominal hernia fixed. She was born with kidney problems that required multiple abdomen surgeries, which led to scarring and fibrous growths on her uterus that resulted in three complicated pregnancies. Just hours before she was scheduled for the operating room, the surgeon realized he had not conducted a pregnancy test. Despite using birth control, my cousin had somehow gotten pregnant. Considering her history and condition, the surgeon did not believe it was wise to bring the child to term. He believed she would probably miscarry without at least six months of bed rest, and that she would risk not only her health but possibly her life. She got a second opinion from another doctor who believed that he could safely help her bring the child to term, though it would be a very complicated pregnancy.My Catholic, Republican, generally "pro-life" sister and mother related this to me at the time. My cousin had not yet decided what she would do, but my sister was certain: if she were my cousin, with three children under five years old who needed a mother to raise them (and a father who traveled often and for long periods for work), she would have terminated the pregnancy. I, on the other hand - a gay liberal pro-choice Democratic male - sensed I wouldn't have been able to go through with an abortion. I would have felt devastated thinking about having ended the possible life of my own child. It turned out my cousin felt the same way. My aunt and uncle flew from New Jersey to Seattle and took care of their three grandchildren while my cousin remained in bed. She gave birth to another beautiful girl. Having learned to temper my tendency to engage in political arguments with my Republican family, I never revisited with my sister what she said she would have done in that situation. Nevertheless, I doubt she would ever admit that despite her professed pro-life Catholicism, she actually believes in the right to an abortion.

Again, the point is that your cousin was able to make that decision for herself. Those that are arguing with me in this thread want to take that decision away from her, and give it to the state.

 

[Thorn]

Only in the last 50 years or so have women in a very very few societies been granted equal status. The right to an abortion is an integral part of this status. If you remove this right or restrict it in any way (including late term abortion), you are returning women to the chattel status they had before, no different than human slavery.

Why I did ever bother to re-open this thread?

 

[timschochet]

Well, I guess, I'm pretty naive, ain't I? I thought Jackstraw was talking about his own family.

Oh well. But his stories demonstrate what I've been saying from the beginning: do we really want to take these terrible heart wrenching decisions away from women and give them to the state? I would think that those who are opposed to certain aspects of Obama's healthcare plan would also be opposed to this for the very same reason.

 

[Harry Manback]

Jackstraw, use the quote function.

So he's not gay and married to a woman?

 

[timschochet]

Jackstraw, use the quote function.

So he's not gay and married to a woman?

I figured he was a lesbian. Makes both stories work.

 

[Worm]

But I thought the issue of life was not important and there is no such thing as an unborn child? Why do you disapprove of it (let's just talk standard case here, no rape/incest/medical issues)?

I've already stated this several times.

Can you restate it? Thanks.

 

[fsword]

So the Founding Fathers had it wrong when they stated "Nature's Creator" as the source and justification of unalienable/inalienable rights (whether or not that source is "God"?) If true, then you are building an argument for natural rights based upon nothing, (from nothing comes everything). Man's ability to reason is inherrent at his creation. Man's ability to reason well is based upon a variety of factors; and even still, two well reasoned men can reach different conclusions, often contradictory and opposing each other. It seems your argument is might makes right.

Fsword, as hopefully you very well know, many of the Founding Fathers were deists, or even atheists, and when they spoke of "Nature's Creator" it was a nebulous term, which, during the Enlightenment, was synonymous with the power of reason. There is no difference in this between their ideas and mine.

Some of the FF's were indeed Deists and Atheists, many were also Christians (of various sects) and Jews. And there is a vast foundational difference between their ideas and yours, they recognized the ability to reason originated somewhere; whether they could explain the source or not.So I will ask directly, how can subjective reason be acurrately defined as truth? If two men of equal reason fundamentally disagree and are opposed, which man has the true "natural right"? The strongest?

 

[timschochet]

So the Founding Fathers had it wrong when they stated "Nature's Creator" as the source and justification of unalienable/inalienable rights (whether or not that source is "God"?) If true, then you are building an argument for natural rights based upon nothing, (from nothing comes everything). Man's ability to reason is inherrent at his creation. Man's ability to reason well is based upon a variety of factors; and even still, two well reasoned men can reach different conclusions, often contradictory and opposing each other. It seems your argument is might makes right.

Fsword, as hopefully you very well know, many of the Founding Fathers were deists, or even atheists, and when they spoke of "Nature's Creator" it was a nebulous term, which, during the Enlightenment, was synonymous with the power of reason. There is no difference in this between their ideas and mine.

Some of the FF's were indeed Deists and Atheists, many were also Christians (of various sects) and Jews. And there is a vast foundational difference between their ideas and yours, they recognized the ability to reason originated somewhere; whether they could explain the source or not.So I will ask directly, how can subjective reason be acurrately defined as truth? If two men of equal reason fundamentally disagree and are opposed, which man has the true "natural right"? The strongest?

This will take some time, and I'm tied up at the moment. Will try to answer you later today.

 

[Jackstraw]

Jackstraw, use the quote function.

So he's not gay and married to a woman?

I figured he was a lesbian. Makes both stories work.

Sorry about the confusion. I do have an inner lesbian. Count me among the crowd that morally would do anything I can do to prevent an abortion but just don't feel like these things are choices that government should interfere with. I read a statistic that less that 2% of abortions are late term and the vast majority of those deal with significant physical complications. Using abortions as a fallback to a irresponsible lifestyle is a terrible thing, but I just can't punish ALL mothers and families for what some choose to do. I've seen a family wrestle with a horrible physical defect in a late term pregnancy and I've seen folks get one becasue they were too drunk on Friday night to worry about protection.Just like most complicated issues there are two sides to every story. I'll channel my inner conservative and trust individuals to make better decisions than government can.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

One thing I have learned from the FFA is that Ayn Rand seems to be a nutcase and that I shall never read anything written by that person. The supposed positions that the backers of Rand fight are crazy and ludicrous.

Ayn Rand is only the source of some of my arguments here. But can you be more specific? Which of my stated views do you find to be crazy and ludicrous? And why?

Is there an easy way to aggregate all of tim's stated views in this thread into one location...that should answer the why.

 

[The Commish]

Using abortions as a fallback to a irresponsible lifestyle is a terrible thing, but I just can't punish ALL mothers and families for what some choose to do. I've seen a family wrestle with a horrible physical defect in a late term pregnancy and I've seen folks get one becasue they were too drunk on Friday night to worry about protection.

Unfortunately there are those that see it as black/white, so this kind of behavior is legal. It's truly sad.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In your view, what is the difference between a baby's last day in the womb and first day out of the womb if it isn't simple passage through the birth canal.

I take it you've never given birth. From people who have, I've never heard it described as simple.

Poor choice of words....thanks for keeping me on my toes.

I had a serious point, though. The birth event is a pretty major deal. It shouldn't be downplayed.If we're going to pick a juncture and say, "Before now, I couldn't have forced anyone to go through with what loomed ahead for you. But now that we've reached this juncture, the most laborious part of the process is behind you; so if you want to bow out now, you've got to put the baby up for adoption instead of killing it." I think the conclusion of the birth event seems like a reasonable candidate for that juncture.

Getting an almost-ready-to-be born fetus out of a woman's uterus is just as difficult as getting one out that wants to come out. It's not like it just magically disappears when the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy.

That's an argument for drawing the line earlier, then.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The birth event is a pretty major deal. It shouldn't be downplayed.If we're going to pick a juncture and say, "Before now, I couldn't have forced anyone to go through with what loomed ahead for you. But now that we've reached this juncture, the most laborious part of the process is behind you; so if you want to bow out now, you've got to put the baby up for adoption instead of killing it." I think the conclusion of the birth event seems like a reasonable candidate for that juncture.

Getting an almost-ready-to-be born fetus out of a woman's uterus is just as difficult as getting one out that wants to come out. It's not like it just magically disappears when the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy.

That's an argument for drawing the line earlier, then.

Right. I'm pro-choice but anti-timschochet.

 

[The Commish]

The birth event is a pretty major deal. It shouldn't be downplayed.If we're going to pick a juncture and say, "Before now, I couldn't have forced anyone to go through with what loomed ahead for you. But now that we've reached this juncture, the most laborious part of the process is behind you; so if you want to bow out now, you've got to put the baby up for adoption instead of killing it." I think the conclusion of the birth event seems like a reasonable candidate for that juncture.

Getting an almost-ready-to-be born fetus out of a woman's uterus is just as difficult as getting one out that wants to come out. It's not like it just magically disappears when the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy.

That's an argument for drawing the line earlier, then.

Right. I'm pro-choice but anti-timschochet.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

[timschochet]If you take away my right to invite shrunken-down people into my stomach and kill them when they take me up on my offer, I become exactly identical to a slave.[/timschochet]

Sounds absurd, doesn't it? But when we're dealing with women and removing their right to an abortion, this is exactly true.

Okay. I think most people will accept this as a reductio ad absurdum, but I reserve the right to stick around and enjoy the trainwreck.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But I thought the issue of life was not important and there is no such thing as an unborn child? Why do you disapprove of it (let's just talk standard case here, no rape/incest/medical issues)?

I've already stated this several times.

Can you restate it? Thanks.

I'd like to see this as well.

 

[timschochet]

Right. I'm pro-choice but anti-timschochet.

Does this mean I don't get the choice to be timschochet?

 

[timschochet]

But I thought the issue of life was not important and there is no such thing as an unborn child? Why do you disapprove of it (let's just talk standard case here, no rape/incest/medical issues)?

I've already stated this several times.

Can you restate it? Thanks.

I'd like to see this as well.

I'm sure you would, Ivan. To answer the question: as a libertarian, I am reluctant to have the state make legal decisions. For me, government is far too intrusive in our lives. This does not mean that I am unable to make moral judgments. I am and do, but I don't want them enforced by law. For instance, I hope that people don't smoke cigarettes too much. It's very harmful, and I hate hearing about anyone die of cancer. But I don't believe in making cigarettes illegal. If that is your choice, so be it. Abortion is a very serious issue. Almost all late term abortions are performed for very good reasons, which I listed in the OP. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose there is no very good reason. Let's say that a pregnant woman abruptly decides in her 8 month to abort her healthy fetus. Personally, I would look at this situation with scorn. Why would I disapprove? Because personally I do believe that at that point there is a baby inside of that woman, and she should have made the choice much earlier. To do so now- well, in my mind, that is tantamount to murder. It is ALMOST murder. Such an act would make me sick, because I happen to think the baby is a viable being at that point.

However, I do not want the state to make laws based upon my judgment, or anyone else's judgment, other than the mother. In terms of legality, the viability of the baby should, IMO, be irrelevant. In terms of the law, IMO, there should be no such thing as an unborn child. In terms of the law, IMO, the life or non-life of the fetus is unimportant.

I hope you guys understand the difference here I am making between my own feelings in such a situation, and the law. But again, late term abortions are extremely rare, and the kind I am discussing here of the lazy mother who finally decides at month 8 to have one, is almost non-existent.

 

[timschochet]

Some of the FF's were indeed Deists and Atheists, many were also Christians (of various sects) and Jews. And there is a vast foundational difference between their ideas and yours, they recognized the ability to reason originated somewhere; whether they could explain the source or not.So I will ask directly, how can subjective reason be acurrately defined as truth? If two men of equal reason fundamentally disagree and are opposed, which man has the true "natural right"? The strongest?

I've thought long and hard about your question fsword. The problem is that to explain the origin of natural rights would take too long here. I would not do it justice in a few short paragraphs, and anyhow I don't consider the issue vital to this discussion. So let me instead make a few points, and you tell me where you disagree:1. The Founding Fathers recognized that there were universal values. Wherever these values originate from, they include: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.2. You and I both recognize these values as universal and fundamental. We probably also recognize some other universal values as well, such as that rape, theft, and murder are wrong.3. Thinking people who recognize these above listed values can be deemed "people of good will."4. Abortion is a complicated issue, and "people of good will" may come to very different conclusions regarding this issue. Though you and I start from the same basic value system, at a certain point we part company in our interpretation of those values with regard to abortion. This does not make me right and you wrong, or vice versa. Yet, I believe that I am right, and I'm sure you do too.5. My purpose in creating this thread was never to attempt to convince pro-life people such as yourself that abortion should be legal. I don't think I could if I wanted to. You have your own consistent viewpoint, and I respect that, though it is not mine. My purpose was to argue that, for pro-choice people, it was inconsistent to be pro-choice only part of the time, and not all throughout the pregnancy. (Just as, for a pro-life person, it is inconsistent IMO to be in favor of abortions in the event of rape or incest: how the pregnancy occurs should not matter: if it's murder, it's murder, period.) 6. A secondary argument on my part was started when it was suggested that libertarian thought is consistent with a pro-life approach. I don't believe it is, and I have stated my reasons why.Hope this is all clear. I enjoy your feedback, as well as everyone else (even the attacks, though only when they're well thought out or especially funny.)

 

[Worm]

But I thought the issue of life was not important and there is no such thing as an unborn child? Why do you disapprove of it (let's just talk standard case here, no rape/incest/medical issues)?

I've already stated this several times.

Can you restate it? Thanks.

I'd like to see this as well.

I'm sure you would, Ivan. To answer the question: as a libertarian, I am reluctant to have the state make legal decisions. For me, government is far too intrusive in our lives. This does not mean that I am unable to make moral judgments. I am and do, but I don't want them enforced by law. For instance, I hope that people don't smoke cigarettes too much. It's very harmful, and I hate hearing about anyone die of cancer. But I don't believe in making cigarettes illegal. If that is your choice, so be it. Abortion is a very serious issue. Almost all late term abortions are performed for very good reasons, which I listed in the OP. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose there is no very good reason. Let's say that a pregnant woman abruptly decides in her 8 month to abort her healthy fetus. Personally, I would look at this situation with scorn. Why would I disapprove? Because personally I do believe that at that point there is a baby inside of that woman, and she should have made the choice much earlier. To do so now- well, in my mind, that is tantamount to murder. It is ALMOST murder. Such an act would make me sick, because I happen to think the baby is a viable being at that point.

However, I do not want the state to make laws based upon my judgment, or anyone else's judgment, other than the mother. In terms of legality, the viability of the baby should, IMO, be irrelevant. In terms of the law, IMO, there should be no such thing as an unborn child. In terms of the law, IMO, the life or non-life of the fetus is unimportant.

I hope you guys understand the difference here I am making between my own feelings in such a situation, and the law. But again, late term abortions are extremely rare, and the kind I am discussing here of the lazy mother who finally decides at month 8 to have one, is almost non-existent.

I still fail to see how you reconcile the bolded above with the fact that you think that baby should have no legal rights. Combine that with how you think this is such an obvious black and white issue. You really don't see how people can disagree with this?"Yeah, it's murder, but the mother should have that right. It's obvious, folks!"

 

[fsword]

I'll channel my inner conservative and trust individuals to make better decisions than government can.

There is nothing "conservative" found in negating the natural rights of man. Are you trying to fool the FFA or yourself?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Let's say that a pregnant woman abruptly decides in her 8 month to abort her healthy fetus. Personally, I would look at this situation with scorn. Why would I disapprove? Because personally I do believe that at that point there is a baby inside of that woman, and she should have made the choice much earlier. To do so now- well, in my mind, that is tantamount to murder. It is ALMOST murder. Such an act would make me sick, because I happen to think the baby is a viable being at that point.

However, I do not want the state to make laws based upon my judgment, or anyone else's judgment, other than the mother. In terms of legality, the viability of the baby should, IMO, be irrelevant. In terms of the law, IMO, there should be no such thing as an unborn child. In terms of the law, IMO, the life or non-life of the fetus is unimportant.

I hope you guys understand the difference here I am making between my own feelings in such a situation, and the law. But again, late term abortions are extremely rare, and the kind I am discussing here of the lazy mother who finally decides at month 8 to have one, is almost non-existent.

I still fail to see how you reconcile the bolded above with the fact that you think that baby should have no legal rights. Combine that with how you think this is such an obvious black and white issue. You really don't see how people can disagree with this?"Yeah, it's murder, but the mother should have that right. It's obvious, folks!"

It boggles the mind that tim can simultaneously grant that an 8-month old fetus is "a baby" and that he can't understand why some want to grant that baby rights that might be enforceable against the mother. Once you concede that it's a baby, you're in a situation of competing rights that need to be balanced somehow. If you want to give all rights to thet mother in this case, fine, but it's a little off-beat to think it's inconsistent to come down the other way and say "You had your chance to abort earlier, but now it's only one more month so you'll just have to put up with the inconvenience instead of killing your baby." tim isn't just saying that he happens to draw the line differently than other pro-choicers; he's saying that pro-choicers are somehow inconsistent in granting rights to a viable fetus. As this thread has shown, that's an impossible claim to defend.

 

[fsword]

Some of the FF's were indeed Deists and Atheists, many were also Christians (of various sects) and Jews. And there is a vast foundational difference between their ideas and yours, they recognized the ability to reason originated somewhere; whether they could explain the source or not.So I will ask directly, how can subjective reason be acurrately defined as truth? If two men of equal reason fundamentally disagree and are opposed, which man has the true "natural right"? The strongest?

I've thought long and hard about your question fsword. The problem is that to explain the origin of natural rights would take too long here. I would not do it justice in a few short paragraphs, and anyhow I don't consider the issue vital to this discussion. So let me instead make a few points, and you tell me where you disagree:1. The Founding Fathers recognized that there were universal values. Wherever these values originate from, they include: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.2. You and I both recognize these values as universal and fundamental. We probably also recognize some other universal values as well, such as that rape, theft, and murder are wrong.3. Thinking people who recognize these above listed values can be deemed "people of good will."4. Abortion is a complicated issue, and "people of good will" may come to very different conclusions regarding this issue. Though you and I start from the same basic value system, at a certain point we part company in our interpretation of those values with regard to abortion. This does not make me right and you wrong, or vice versa. Yet, I believe that I am right, and I'm sure you do too.5. My purpose in creating this thread was never to attempt to convince pro-life people such as yourself that abortion should be legal. I don't think I could if I wanted to. You have your own consistent viewpoint, and I respect that, though it is not mine. My purpose was to argue that, for pro-choice people, it was inconsistent to be pro-choice only part of the time, and not all throughout the pregnancy. (Just as, for a pro-life person, it is inconsistent IMO to be in favor of abortions in the event of rape or incest: how the pregnancy occurs should not matter: if it's murder, it's murder, period.) 6. A secondary argument on my part was started when it was suggested that libertarian thought is consistent with a pro-life approach. I don't believe it is, and I have stated my reasons why.Hope this is all clear. I enjoy your feedback, as well as everyone else (even the attacks, though only when they're well thought out or especially funny.)

I have always considered you a person of goodwill. Yet you somehow deny a fundamental origin of all things, which shows we disagree on reality. I believe in Natural Law and Nature's Creator because I believe nature (something) cannot somehow evolve from nothing. One need not identify the creator to recognize the creator's existence. Insisting in denial of a creator, claiming instead natural law only stems from man's reason, asserts there is no real natural law, only the law of man, labeled natural law, as if to give it some title of legitimacy. If there is no natural law, then there are no natural rights. If there is no natural law, there is only subjective law, based upon the whimsical reason of man; and that law is enforced with might makes right. Our houses may seem similar on the outside, but they are built on very different foundations.Abortion is an amazingly simple issue in principle, its the particulars that make it so terribly agonizing.

 

[Orange Crush]

Some of the FF's were indeed Deists and Atheists, many were also Christians (of various sects) and Jews. And there is a vast foundational difference between their ideas and yours, they recognized the ability to reason originated somewhere; whether they could explain the source or not.So I will ask directly, how can subjective reason be acurrately defined as truth? If two men of equal reason fundamentally disagree and are opposed, which man has the true "natural right"? The strongest?

I've thought long and hard about your question fsword. The problem is that to explain the origin of natural rights would take too long here. I would not do it justice in a few short paragraphs, and anyhow I don't consider the issue vital to this discussion. So let me instead make a few points, and you tell me where you disagree:1. The Founding Fathers recognized that there were universal values. Wherever these values originate from, they include: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.2. You and I both recognize these values as universal and fundamental. We probably also recognize some other universal values as well, such as that rape, theft, and murder are wrong.3. Thinking people who recognize these above listed values can be deemed "people of good will."4. Abortion is a complicated issue, and "people of good will" may come to very different conclusions regarding this issue. Though you and I start from the same basic value system, at a certain point we part company in our interpretation of those values with regard to abortion. This does not make me right and you wrong, or vice versa. Yet, I believe that I am right, and I'm sure you do too.5. My purpose in creating this thread was never to attempt to convince pro-life people such as yourself that abortion should be legal. I don't think I could if I wanted to. You have your own consistent viewpoint, and I respect that, though it is not mine. My purpose was to argue that, for pro-choice people, it was inconsistent to be pro-choice only part of the time, and not all throughout the pregnancy. (Just as, for a pro-life person, it is inconsistent IMO to be in favor of abortions in the event of rape or incest: how the pregnancy occurs should not matter: if it's murder, it's murder, period.) 6. A secondary argument on my part was started when it was suggested that libertarian thought is consistent with a pro-life approach. I don't believe it is, and I have stated my reasons why.Hope this is all clear. I enjoy your feedback, as well as everyone else (even the attacks, though only when they're well thought out or especially funny.)

I have always considered you a person of goodwill. Yet you somehow deny a fundamental origin of all things, which shows we disagree on reality. I believe in Natural Law and Nature's Creator because I believe nature (something) cannot somehow evolve from nothing. One need not identify the creator to recognize the creator's existence. Insisting in denial of a creator, claiming instead natural law only stems from man's reason, asserts there is no real natural law, only the law of man, labeled natural law, as if to give it some title of legitimacy. If there is no natural law, then there are no natural rights. If there is no natural law, there is only subjective law, based upon the whimsical reason of man; and that law is enforced with might makes right. Our houses may seem similar on the outside, but they are built on very different foundations.Abortion is an amazingly simple issue in principle, its the particulars that make it so terribly agonizing.

While I'm hesitant to jump back into this debate on Timchochet's side, I am curious about your take on this fsword. Just how are we to determine "Natural Law"? At the time of our forefathers, it was "Natural" that women were subservient to men and were considered second class citizens. It was "Natural", at least in the eyes of a majority of Americans of European descent, to enslave a group of people based on the color of their skin. Today, we find those ideas repugnant. Did "Natural Law" change? Or did we come to a collective agreement through reason that both of these were unjust?

 

[phthalatemagic]

[timschochet]If you take away my right to invite shrunken-down people into my stomach and kill them when they take me up on my offer, I become exactly identical to a slave.[/timschochet]

Horrendous.

 

[tommyboy]

this entire debate disgusts me.

 

[fsword]

While I'm hesitant to jump back into this debate on Timchochet's side, I am curious about your take on this fsword. Just how are we to determine "Natural Law"? At the time of our forefathers, it was "Natural" that women were subservient to men and were considered second class citizens. It was "Natural", at least in the eyes of a majority of Americans of European descent, to enslave a group of people based on the color of their skin. Today, we find those ideas repugnant. Did "Natural Law" change? Or did we come to a collective agreement through reason that both of these were unjust?

I will be the first to admit I do not have all the answers, and am still working through some things in reconciling what I believe to be truth. This reconciliation is coming from greater reading and study. If I don't answer clearly, or to the depth to illustrate or substantiate a particular point, please don't hesitate to question or correct.I cannot instruct anyone how to determine Natural Law, only illustrate how I choose to determine Natural Law, and that is to study and contemplate Nature's order. How we choose to study and think about Nature's order is determined by our worldview. If we choose to accept nature as defined by Carl Sagan, the cosmos are all there is, all there has been, and all there will ever be, then we take a Humanist world view. If we choose to accept there is a Creator of the Cosmos, then we have either deistic (or pantheistic) worldview. Reason helps discern between options and choose one worldview over another. I reason the Cosmos were created by something, because something cannot arise from nothing. I reason a deistic worldview. Through a deistic worldview, I must reason which deity is Creator. Through reason (obviously found faulty by the Humanist) I believe in the Jewish and Christian God as Creator. To understand the Creator's order, I turn to His word to learn, I turn to science to learn, my experience, experience of others, etc.... I look for consistencies in order. Natural Rights are the rights of man as ordered by God and made known to man through a variety of sources. Knowledge increases daily, but does wisdom? Human knowledge changes daily, human nature does not. Even in a highly technological world, truth exists. Science seeks to discover truth, imo, through a better understanding of the natural world. My attempt to answer your other questions is rooted in these thoughts. Again, I am no expert in logic, reason, philosophy, etc..., so any constructive input you can offer here is very welcome.As to women, my understanding of Genesis is that man and woman were created as a functioning pair, each interdependent upon the other for union and wholeness. This suggests that neither is complete without the other, hence they are "equal". They were both made in the image of God, which set them apart from the rest of Creation, hence they were "equal". Yet they were also created differently, and they also have different charecteristics, but due to their being created in the image of God, they are equally set apart from the rest of Creation. Equality likely wasn't even a consideration, before the "fall" found in Chapter 3. Only as a consequence to the fall, specifically in v. 16 do we hit what I believe to be the heart of the problem as relates to man/woman relationship. "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you". What does it mean for a man to "rule over" his wife? "Rule over" authorized headship, or leadership. However, this doesn't negate equality. The necessities of "fallen life" outside the Garden highlights our differences, strength and weaknesses, etc..., and paved the way for 2nd rate status, imo. Being created in the image of God, imo, is what orders us to respect life and love/honor one another. There are further such commands in the OT, as well as the NT, not to mention ordered living amongst marriages, etc... Why all Christians do not live these commands, I do not know. Maybe it is a lack of knowledge of these commands, or just a sinful nature?The same can be said for slavery. It was evangelicals that fought to have the institution banned in England, and was it not the same here in the US? If the majority lives n ignorance, I can see why they would agree to such abominable practices; however that doesn't validate the practice or condemn the religion. It merely illustrates ignorance, imo; and at incredible human costs.If I didn't answer the questions, (which I think are very relevnt and important), please re-ask in a different manner, and I will try again.

 

[Christo]

I fail to see where you can derive a pro-life position from the non-agression axiom without some convoluted thinking. But I'm willing to listen.

The essence of libertarianism is not the right to do whatever we choose. Instead, it's the negative right to be free from aggression — the initiation of force or fraud.The non-aggression principle has an immediate consequence. Just as we may not initiate force, so we may not endanger the innocent without their consent. If you set fire to your field, your neighbor's field won't burn unless the fire reaches it. Yet you have set in motion a process that will initiate force against them, unless someone or something (rain, say) intervenes to stop it. Nobody has a right to endanger innocent persons without their consent, and our neighbors have no obligation to let us endanger them without their consent.

Having set the fire, you immediately incur a positive obligation to your neighbors to prevent actual harm — you must protect their property from your fire. And if their property gets burned — whether because our efforts have failed, or because of your negligence — then you have initiated force, and you owe them compensation. Failure to pay a debt is itself aggression.

In other words: if you endanger people, then you owe them protection from the harm. The protection principle is a vital point, but it is overlooked by proponents of timmy's view of libertarianism.

Non-endangerment forms the foundation of parental obligation (both before and after birth). Causing children to be is not aggression, but it does put children in harm's way, for to be helpless and dependent is to be in harm's way. Parental obligation doesn't arise because the parents have harmed their child. Rather, it arises because of the general obligation not to endanger anyone without their consent, and if we do, to ward off actual harm.

Conceiving a child and getting pregnant are generally voluntary for both parents. Although pregnancy is not voluntary for the mother in pregnancy due to rape, the mother is still bound by the non-aggression principle. However, the situation is never voluntary for the child. By the very act of conception, parents acquire a life-or-death control over their child; the child is like a captive. To be a captive is to be unable to fend for oneself and, thus, to be in need of protection from harm.

Pregnancy is automatically protective to the child. Termination of pregnancy terminates the protection and gravely endangers the child. But not wanting to be a parent doesn't excuse a mother from the obligation to protect the children she caused to exist. The right to choose doesn't exempt anyone from the non-aggression obligation.

The point of abortion is to kill the child, and most abortions dismember and/or poison the child. But some abortion advocates frame abortion as merely termination of the pregnancy; if a child dies because she can't survive being evicted into the hostile environment outside, that's tough, they say. Still, eviction is clearly gross negligence, and if it results in harm, all who participated in the eviction caused the harm and violated the non-aggression principle.

The first question in abortion is, of course, personhood. Since prenatal children are persons, we have the same obligation to them that we have to adults: not to aggress against them. Given prenatal personhood and the you-endanger-them/you-protect-them obligation, the abortion-choice case evaporates. Prenatal children have both the right not to be killed — and the right to be in the mother's womb.

http://www.l4l.org/library/frstprnc.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell30.html

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/10697.aspx

http://www.fnsa.org/v1n2/gordon.html

Ron Paul on abortion:

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I can assure my colleagues that the partial-birth abortion procedure is the most egregious legally permitted act known to man. Decaying social and moral attitudes decades ago set the stage for the accommodated Roe vs. Wade ruling that nationalizes all laws dealing with abortion. The fallacious privacy argument the Supreme Court used must some day be exposed for the fraud that it is.

Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stems from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance133.html

 

[timschochet]

All right, we now Christo's explanation, and in my opinion, it is a flawed view of libertarianism. Let me take a couple of key points which I have issue with:

The protection principle is a vital point, but it is overlooked by proponents of timmy's view of libertarianism.

Not true. Even those such as my self who do not accept the non-agression axiom as an absolute accept the protection principle in general; we simply do not accept its application with regards to the question of abortion.

Conceiving a child and getting pregnant are generally voluntary for both parents.

If this were true, one could decide to become pregnant. Of course, pregnancy is only a possible result of having sex; we can't guarantee it will happen. And Christo makes a false assumption here, because pregnancy, once it begins, is NOT voluntary (without abortion, that is.) A woman can decide to attempt to become pregnant, but she cannot decide to become pregnant, nor can she decide once she is pregnant to stay pregnant or not stay pregnant. Hence, it is not voluntary.

Although pregnancy is not voluntary for the mother in pregnancy due to rape, the mother is still bound by the non-aggression principle.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to pass over the assumption that Christo makes here, which is that the fetus inside the womb is a human being worthy of equal rights in a civilized society. That fact itself is of course debatable, but let's just assume that he is right about this. We are still talking about one human being growing inside another human being. By granting rights to the first, we must remove rights from the second. And not just any rights- we are removing the most important rights that any human being has- that to control over his or her own body. Not only that, but we as a state are demanding the mother suffer through the risks and discomforts of a pregnancy to term, with all that involves, her personal wishes to be disregarded. There can be no greater imposition on individual liberty in our current society than this one. Not only is this concept not libertarianism, it is the opposite of libertarianism: it is forced servitude.

The rest of Christo's argument basically comes down to: prenatal children are human beings. They have the right to be proteced from harm. Christo is perfectly correct to hold this point of view. It may come from the way he was raised, or his religious or cultural beliefs. It may stem from fsword's intertpretation of a Deity-given natural law. All of that is fine, and I respect most pro-life people as genuine. and as I wrote before, with good intentions. But it is a grotesque misapplication of ideas, IMO, to argue that this POV has anything at all to do with libertarianism.

Libertarianism, which is based upon classic liberalism, concerns itself not with morality, but with the interaction between the state and the individual. Unlike an anarchist, a libertarian holds the state as necessary for civilization, but wants to place severe limits on the state being able to interfere with individual rights. Pro-life advocates make a moral judgment (which Christo is making here): they judge a fetus to be alive with human rights. They call upon the law to enforce that moral judgment. Libertarians say that it is not the state's role to make moral judgments. We're not going to, as a society, legally decide whether the fetus is alive or not, is worthy of rights or not. Instead, we're going to leave such important decisions up to the woman who is carrying that fetus, along with her doctor. This is the essence of libertarianism: individual freedom, not moral judgment.

 

[Orange Crush]

While I'm hesitant to jump back into this debate on Timchochet's side, I am curious about your take on this fsword. Just how are we to determine "Natural Law"? At the time of our forefathers, it was "Natural" that women were subservient to men and were considered second class citizens. It was "Natural", at least in the eyes of a majority of Americans of European descent, to enslave a group of people based on the color of their skin. Today, we find those ideas repugnant. Did "Natural Law" change? Or did we come to a collective agreement through reason that both of these were unjust?

I will be the first to admit I do not have all the answers, and am still working through some things in reconciling what I believe to be truth. This reconciliation is coming from greater reading and study. If I don't answer clearly, or to the depth to illustrate or substantiate a particular point, please don't hesitate to question or correct.I cannot instruct anyone how to determine Natural Law, only illustrate how I choose to determine Natural Law, and that is to study and contemplate Nature's order. How we choose to study and think about Nature's order is determined by our worldview. If we choose to accept nature as defined by Carl Sagan, the cosmos are all there is, all there has been, and all there will ever be, then we take a Humanist world view. If we choose to accept there is a Creator of the Cosmos, then we have either deistic (or pantheistic) worldview. Reason helps discern between options and choose one worldview over another. I reason the Cosmos were created by something, because something cannot arise from nothing. I reason a deistic worldview. Through a deistic worldview, I must reason which deity is Creator. Through reason (obviously found faulty by the Humanist) I believe in the Jewish and Christian God as Creator. To understand the Creator's order, I turn to His word to learn, I turn to science to learn, my experience, experience of others, etc.... I look for consistencies in order. Natural Rights are the rights of man as ordered by God and made known to man through a variety of sources. Knowledge increases daily, but does wisdom? Human knowledge changes daily, human nature does not. Even in a highly technological world, truth exists. Science seeks to discover truth, imo, through a better understanding of the natural world. My attempt to answer your other questions is rooted in these thoughts. Again, I am no expert in logic, reason, philosophy, etc..., so any constructive input you can offer here is very welcome.As to women, my understanding of Genesis is that man and woman were created as a functioning pair, each interdependent upon the other for union and wholeness. This suggests that neither is complete without the other, hence they are "equal". They were both made in the image of God, which set them apart from the rest of Creation, hence they were "equal". Yet they were also created differently, and they also have different charecteristics, but due to their being created in the image of God, they are equally set apart from the rest of Creation. Equality likely wasn't even a consideration, before the "fall" found in Chapter 3. Only as a consequence to the fall, specifically in v. 16 do we hit what I believe to be the heart of the problem as relates to man/woman relationship. "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you". What does it mean for a man to "rule over" his wife? "Rule over" authorized headship, or leadership. However, this doesn't negate equality. The necessities of "fallen life" outside the Garden highlights our differences, strength and weaknesses, etc..., and paved the way for 2nd rate status, imo. Being created in the image of God, imo, is what orders us to respect life and love/honor one another. There are further such commands in the OT, as well as the NT, not to mention ordered living amongst marriages, etc... Why all Christians do not live these commands, I do not know. Maybe it is a lack of knowledge of these commands, or just a sinful nature?The same can be said for slavery. It was evangelicals that fought to have the institution banned in England, and was it not the same here in the US? If the majority lives n ignorance, I can see why they would agree to such abominable practices; however that doesn't validate the practice or condemn the religion. It merely illustrates ignorance, imo; and at incredible human costs.If I didn't answer the questions, (which I think are very relevnt and important), please re-ask in a different manner, and I will try again.

fsword, thanks for your very thoughtful response. It seems to me that your argument could be summarized as -- "natural rights" come from God and do not change, but over the years we have slowly come to realize and understand what those rights are and how they should be applied. And even today we do not have a perfect understanding, but we continually strive to more fully understand.Would you agree with that?

 

[fsword]

fsword, thanks for your very thoughtful response. It seems to me that your argument could be summarized as -- "natural rights" come from God and do not change, but over the years we have slowly come to realize and understand what those rights are and how they should be applied. And even today we do not have a perfect understanding, but we continually strive to more fully understand.Would you agree with that?

Not sure I agree with your summary, as the summary makes assumptions based upon facts I do not find quickly apparent. I would describe "natural rights" as a secular political term/ethic, used to define concepts of secular liberty and just, secular government. I am not sure man has come to a better understanding of those "natural rights" now, any more so than man has had a better understanding of God and God's character, then man has had in the past. I do however think acceptance of those ideas is greater today, on a larger geographic scale, than in times past.

 

[Orange Crush]

fsword, thanks for your very thoughtful response. It seems to me that your argument could be summarized as -- "natural rights" come from God and do not change, but over the years we have slowly come to realize and understand what those rights are and how they should be applied. And even today we do not have a perfect understanding, but we continually strive to more fully understand.Would you agree with that?

Not sure I agree with your summary, as the summary makes assumptions based upon facts I do not find quickly apparent. I would describe "natural rights" as a secular political term/ethic, used to define concepts of secular liberty and just, secular government. I am not sure man has come to a better understanding of those "natural rights" now, any more so than man has had a better understanding of God and God's character, then man has had in the past. I do however think acceptance of those ideas is greater today, on a larger geographic scale, than in times past.

I'm not sure I understand this post. I guess I was using "natural rights" as pseduo-synonymous with "nature's law" - your term from a few posts up. Or perhaps that it was logical to assume that "nature's law" was the source of "natural rights". I don't get how you say you believe natural law stems from our creator but natural rights is a secular term.

 

[Christo]

All right, we now Christo's explanation, and in my opinion, it is a flawed view of libertarianism. Let me take a couple of key points which I have issue with:

The protection principle is a vital point, but it is overlooked by proponents of timmy's view of libertarianism.

Not true. Even those such as my self who do not accept the non-agression axiom as an absolute accept the protection principle in general; we simply do not accept its application with regards to the question of abortion.

Conceiving a child and getting pregnant are generally voluntary for both parents.

If this were true, one could decide to become pregnant. Of course, pregnancy is only a possible result of having sex; we can't guarantee it will happen. And Christo makes a false assumption here, because pregnancy, once it begins, is NOT voluntary (without abortion, that is.) A woman can decide to attempt to become pregnant, but she cannot decide to become pregnant, nor can she decide once she is pregnant to stay pregnant or not stay pregnant. Hence, it is not voluntary.

Although pregnancy is not voluntary for the mother in pregnancy due to rape, the mother is still bound by the non-aggression principle.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to pass over the assumption that Christo makes here, which is that the fetus inside the womb is a human being worthy of equal rights in a civilized society. That fact itself is of course debatable, but let's just assume that he is right about this. We are still talking about one human being growing inside another human being. By granting rights to the first, we must remove rights from the second. And not just any rights- we are removing the most important rights that any human being has- that to control over his or her own body. Not only that, but we as a state are demanding the mother suffer through the risks and discomforts of a pregnancy to term, with all that involves, her personal wishes to be disregarded. There can be no greater imposition on individual liberty in our current society than this one. Not only is this concept not libertarianism, it is the opposite of libertarianism: it is forced servitude.

The rest of Christo's argument basically comes down to: prenatal children are human beings. They have the right to be proteced from harm. Christo is perfectly correct to hold this point of view. It may come from the way he was raised, or his religious or cultural beliefs. It may stem from fsword's intertpretation of a Deity-given natural law. All of that is fine, and I respect most pro-life people as genuine. and as I wrote before, with good intentions. But it is a grotesque misapplication of ideas, IMO, to argue that this POV has anything at all to do with libertarianism.

Libertarianism, which is based upon classic liberalism, concerns itself not with morality, but with the interaction between the state and the individual. Unlike an anarchist, a libertarian holds the state as necessary for civilization, but wants to place severe limits on the state being able to interfere with individual rights. Pro-life advocates make a moral judgment (which Christo is making here): they judge a fetus to be alive with human rights. They call upon the law to enforce that moral judgment. Libertarians say that it is not the state's role to make moral judgments. We're not going to, as a society, legally decide whether the fetus is alive or not, is worthy of rights or not. Instead, we're going to leave such important decisions up to the woman who is carrying that fetus, along with her doctor. This is the essence of libertarianism: individual freedom, not moral judgment.

Sorry, but you are the only one making a judgment here. You are arbitrarily judging when a person becomes a person. Everyone here is a person and we became people at conception. There was nothing magical about our births that catapulted us to personhood. So I am the true advocate of individual freedom as I advocate everyone's freedom. I don't pick and choose like you.

 

[Aerial Assault]

I'm ready to abort this thread.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, but you are the only one making a judgment here. You are arbitrarily judging when a person becomes a person. Everyone here is a person and we became people at conception. There was nothing magical about our births that catapulted us to personhood. So I am the true advocate of individual freedom as I advocate everyone's freedom. I don't pick and choose like you.

Your post is contradictory. You accuse me of arbritarily judging when a person becomes a person, and then in your very next statement, you state, "and we became people at conception." THAT is a judgment, and it is not even supported by everyone who is against abortions.I make no reference to when life begins, because it is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is directly at odds with yours in terms of who is promoting individual freedom. I don't see how a law which restricts human freedom can be said to promote it. Seems rather Orwellian to me.

 

[Jewell]

Sorry, but you are the only one making a judgment here. You are arbitrarily judging when a person becomes a person. Everyone here is a person and we became people at conception. There was nothing magical about our births that catapulted us to personhood. So I am the true advocate of individual freedom as I advocate everyone's freedom. I don't pick and choose like you.

Your post is contradictory. You accuse me of arbritarily judging when a person becomes a person, and then in your very next statement, you state, "and we became people at conception." THAT is a judgment, and it is not even supported by everyone who is against abortions.I make no reference to when life begins, because it is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is directly at odds with yours in terms of who is promoting individual freedom. I don't see how a law which restricts human freedom can be said to promote it. Seems rather Orwellian to me.

Sorry, I disagree with both of you.Christo, count me out of the "everyone" that believes we became people at the point of conception.

And, Tim, many laws that restrict human freedom are meant to promote human freedom. For example:

1. People are restricted from the freedom to murder, and it's meant to promote the freedom for another to live.

2. People are restricted from kidnapping another person, and it's meant to promote another enjoying their life as a free person.

Plenty of laws that fall into this category.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't see how a law which restricts human freedom can be said to promote it. Seems rather Orwellian to me.

Tim, many laws that restrict human freedom are meant to promote human freedom. For example:1. People are restricted from the freedom to murder, and it's meant to promote the freedom for another to live.

2. People are restricted from kidnapping another person, and it's meant to promote another enjoying their life as a free person.

Plenty of laws that fall into this category.

I think the two most obvious ways to interpret Tim's bolded statement are: (a) Tim doesn't see how a law which restricts human freedom in any way can be said to promote human freedom on net; or (b) Tim doesn't see how a law which restricts human freedom on net can be said to promote it on net.For his statement to be reasonable, I think he has to mean the second one. But then he's got to show that banning abortion restricts human freedom on net. And to do that, he may have to show that fetuses don't count as humans -- an issue he says he'd rather avoid.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, but you are the only one making a judgment here. You are arbitrarily judging when a person becomes a person. Everyone here is a person and we became people at conception. There was nothing magical about our births that catapulted us to personhood. So I am the true advocate of individual freedom as I advocate everyone's freedom. I don't pick and choose like you.

Your post is contradictory. You accuse me of arbritarily judging when a person becomes a person, and then in your very next statement, you state, "and we became people at conception." THAT is a judgment, and it is not even supported by everyone who is against abortions.I make no reference to when life begins, because it is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is directly at odds with yours in terms of who is promoting individual freedom. I don't see how a law which restricts human freedom can be said to promote it. Seems rather Orwellian to me.

Sorry, I disagree with both of you.Christo, count me out of the "everyone" that believes we became people at the point of conception.

And, Tim, many laws that restrict human freedom are meant to promote human freedom. For example:

1. People are restricted from the freedom to murder, and it's meant to promote the freedom for another to live.

2. People are restricted from kidnapping another person, and it's meant to promote another enjoying their life as a free person.

Plenty of laws that fall into this category.

Of course you're right. I did not mean the freedom to harm others. Abortion is a unique circumstance, because in this case the "other" is inside a human body. The question then becomes, should we restrict the rights of a pregnant woman to do as she might to her own body, in order to protect the freedom of the "other"? I say no, Christo says yes. While I believe I am right, I recognize that so does Christo, and each of us have commanding arguments to support our POVs. But Christo insists that not only is his POV right, it also represents the more libertarian POV. This I absolutely take issue with. Christo is entitled to his viewpoint, and I have no reason to believe he is not being genuine. But to present it as libertarian is a gross misapplication of the term.

 

[Christo]

Sorry, but you are the only one making a judgment here. You are arbitrarily judging when a person becomes a person. Everyone here is a person and we became people at conception. There was nothing magical about our births that catapulted us to personhood. So I am the true advocate of individual freedom as I advocate everyone's freedom. I don't pick and choose like you.

Your post is contradictory. You accuse me of arbritarily judging when a person becomes a person, and then in your very next statement, you state, "and we became people at conception." THAT is a judgment, and it is not even supported by everyone who is against abortions.I make no reference to when life begins, because it is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is directly at odds with yours in terms of who is promoting individual freedom. I don't see how a law which restricts human freedom can be said to promote it. Seems rather Orwellian to me.

The hell it is. There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.You may not like it. But life is relevant to your argument. You just couch it in other terms. What is an individual? What is a human? "Life" is the answer to both of those questions.

 

[Christo]

Sorry, but you are the only one making a judgment here. You are arbitrarily judging when a person becomes a person. Everyone here is a person and we became people at conception. There was nothing magical about our births that catapulted us to personhood. So I am the true advocate of individual freedom as I advocate everyone's freedom. I don't pick and choose like you.

Your post is contradictory. You accuse me of arbritarily judging when a person becomes a person, and then in your very next statement, you state, "and we became people at conception." THAT is a judgment, and it is not even supported by everyone who is against abortions.I make no reference to when life begins, because it is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is directly at odds with yours in terms of who is promoting individual freedom. I don't see how a law which restricts human freedom can be said to promote it. Seems rather Orwellian to me.

Sorry, I disagree with both of you.Christo, count me out of the "everyone" that believes we became people at the point of conception.

And, Tim, many laws that restrict human freedom are meant to promote human freedom. For example:

1. People are restricted from the freedom to murder, and it's meant to promote the freedom for another to live.

2. People are restricted from kidnapping another person, and it's meant to promote another enjoying their life as a free person.

Plenty of laws that fall into this category.

I didn't say everyone believes. If they did we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Christo]

Sorry, but you are the only one making a judgment here. You are arbitrarily judging when a person becomes a person. Everyone here is a person and we became people at conception. There was nothing magical about our births that catapulted us to personhood. So I am the true advocate of individual freedom as I advocate everyone's freedom. I don't pick and choose like you.

Your post is contradictory. You accuse me of arbritarily judging when a person becomes a person, and then in your very next statement, you state, "and we became people at conception." THAT is a judgment, and it is not even supported by everyone who is against abortions.I make no reference to when life begins, because it is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is directly at odds with yours in terms of who is promoting individual freedom. I don't see how a law which restricts human freedom can be said to promote it. Seems rather Orwellian to me.

Sorry, I disagree with both of you.Christo, count me out of the "everyone" that believes we became people at the point of conception.

And, Tim, many laws that restrict human freedom are meant to promote human freedom. For example:

1. People are restricted from the freedom to murder, and it's meant to promote the freedom for another to live.

2. People are restricted from kidnapping another person, and it's meant to promote another enjoying their life as a free person.

Plenty of laws that fall into this category.

Of course you're right. I did not mean the freedom to harm others. Abortion is a unique circumstance, because in this case the "other" is inside a human body. The question then becomes, should we restrict the rights of a pregnant woman to do as she might to her own body, in order to protect the freedom of the "other"? I say no, Christo says yes. While I believe I am right, I recognize that so does Christo, and each of us have commanding arguments to support our POVs. But Christo insists that not only is his POV right, it also represents the more libertarian POV. This I absolutely take issue with. Christo is entitled to his viewpoint, and I have no reason to believe he is not being genuine. But to present it as libertarian is a gross misapplication of the term.

No, it's not.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

 

[Christo]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

You're missing the point. Nothing occurs without fertilization. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, fertilization is not one of them.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

You're missing the point. Nothing occurs without fertilization. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, fertilization is not one of them.

So the point I'm missing is that the list of essential chemicals an ovum must absorb from its environment consists of exactly one item, namely sperm DNA?If so, the point is factually incorrect.

Or is it that, while brain development may or may not occur, fertilization always does? Because that's incorrect as well.

 

[Orange Crush]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

You're missing the point. Nothing occurs without fertilization. Birth can happen in a number of ways. And in some cases it may never occur. The brain may or may not fully develop. There are a lot of variables. But as far as humans are concerned, fertilization is not one of them.

What about implantation? Fertilization without implantation is nothing. And in the medical community, implantation is the key event. When some couples who are having trouble getting pregnant go to a fertility clinic, they will have a bunch of eggs fertilized in a petri dish and all of them will be inserted hoping for at least one to be implanted. So why do you put special emphasis on just fertilization?

 

[vnel8tn]

There's no judgment in my statement. Before conception, we do not exist. Afterwards, we do--whatever form that may be.

That's a heck of a judgment. The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after. Conception is comparable, in physical terms, to an adult human receiving a vaccine -- the ovum is injected with a bit of foreign DNA from a dead sperm representing less than a thousandth of its biomass. That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant.You might subjectively argue that conception has more ethical or metaphysical importance than, say, the birth event or, I don't know, the development of a functioning brain, but that is most certainly a judgment rather than a factual observation.

Maurile, I believe you are minimizing the impact of fertilization in a manner that does not fit your intellect. While "The ovum that turned into you was every bit as alive and real an hour before it met a sperm as an hour after"is factually correct, it is not factually complete. I believe you know about the reproductive cycle of humans, (sexual reproduction) as opposed to the other reproductive method (asexual reproduction)...if not you can read about it Here.The natural lifespan of an ovum is limited and, barring any unnatural interactions, is either going to die on its own, as nothing more than an ovum, or it will be fertilized, and no longer be an ovum. It is, in fact, the first of many stages of a complete human being.

Using your own logic: "That bit of DNA is just one of a great many essential elements the ovum must take in on the way to becoming an infant." ... That infant is just one of a great many essential stages on the way to becoming a toddler/child/adolescent/young adult/middle aged adult/old adult etc... None of these, or any other descriptors, can make any of these things less than human. However, I believe that if you choose any point other than conception (Human conception) as to when you grant the 'human', personhood, it is arbitrary.

 

[vnel8tn]

But I thought the issue of life was not important and there is no such thing as an unborn child? Why do you disapprove of it (let's just talk standard case here, no rape/incest/medical issues)?

I've already stated this several times.

Can you restate it? Thanks.

I'd like to see this as well.

I'm sure you would, Ivan. To answer the question: as a libertarian, I am reluctant to have the state make legal decisions. For me, government is far too intrusive in our lives. This does not mean that I am unable to make moral judgments. I am and do, but I don't want them enforced by law. For instance, I hope that people don't smoke cigarettes too much. It's very harmful, and I hate hearing about anyone die of cancer. But I don't believe in making cigarettes illegal. If that is your choice, so be it. Abortion is a very serious issue. Almost all late term abortions are performed for very good reasons, which I listed in the OP. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose there is no very good reason. Let's say that a pregnant woman abruptly decides in her 8 month to abort her healthy fetus. Personally, I would look at this situation with scorn. Why would I disapprove? Because personally I do believe that at that point there is a baby inside of that woman, and she should have made the choice much earlier. To do so now- well, in my mind, that is tantamount to murder. It is ALMOST murder. Such an act would make me sick, because I happen to think the baby is a viable being at that point.

However, I do not want the state to make laws based upon my judgment, or anyone else's judgment, other than the mother. In terms of legality, the viability of the baby should, IMO, be irrelevant. In terms of the law, IMO, there should be no such thing as an unborn child. In terms of the law, IMO, the life or non-life of the fetus is unimportant.

I hope you guys understand the difference here I am making between my own feelings in such a situation, and the law. But again, late term abortions are extremely rare, and the kind I am discussing here of the lazy mother who finally decides at month 8 to have one, is almost non-existent.

Tim, I appreciate the vigor with which you try to reconcile your personal feelings with what you know to be wrong. You stated in the OP and again in this post and several throughout the thread, that "Almost all late term abortions are performed for very good reasons". Several other posters have made the same statement or echos of similarity. I would like to know how you can state this infomation as factual, rather than opinion, because I have seen it said so often, I think it is taken for granted and must be correct. Also, this seems like the first post that you have weighed in with a personal opinion that sheds some light as to your inner struggle...acknowledging that late term elective abortions seems to make you wince. You get by, by removing the humanity from the other side of the issue and it allows you to go about your ways without having to ponder exactly what that might mean.

We have discussed different points on this issue many times, and it always comes back to that singular issue for me...are all humans deserving of personhood? Seen throught that light, everything seems clear. I do not mean to minimize what happened to the Jewish people during the Holocaust, nor to the peoples who have endured slavery and genocide. But again, I point out that these things only were allowed to happen because vast populations accepted and blindly followed what their leaders said as they denigrated the humanity of those whom would be assaulted.

And back to your original question...I agree with you that there is inconsistency with most of the others who accept abortion on demand...what non-arbitrary point should mean more than any other?