|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 02 2013 09:29 zlefin wrote:
I wonder to what extent it's feasible in the modern complicated world, to go back to writing legislation that's short and simple.
The only way to do that would be to increase discretion of the judges. Which would require much higher level of average competency among judges to work. But I think it can be done and would be positive change. Basically it would mean move from literal interpretations of the law to more of a spirit of the law interpretations.
Thus laws can be simpler as they do not have to cover every stupid loophole that someone can exploit. But that would be extreme change to justice systems as it would require change in every aspect of it.
|
On November 02 2013 20:37 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idiotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. To be fair actual libertarians mostly support choice side of the debate. There is noone in republican party that can be called "real" libertarian. Maybe Ron Paul, but even that would be debatable.
Which is why they are cowardly, spineless frauds. The lack the conviction of their beliefs and would rather just pander to the religious right than have any sort of principles, because that would be hard.
Cruz, Gohmert, Rubio, Ron Paul etc are not libertarians at all, it's a convenient label they've taken on because it conjures images of an anti-establishment maverick, something that works well with the more right wing voter base. They are chaucerian frauds, nothing more.
|
On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idnst iotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess.
I am not interested in taking the abortion debate here (and this thread isn't appropriate for it), but you are being thoroughly dishonest or ignorant with your argumentation. We don't allow murder either, and those opposing abortion do so because they consider it murder, and not because they are against women rights (well, there are nutcases out there). It is fine that you don't consider a sentinent fetus an entity with rights, but you project that assumption onto those who disagree with you and thus conclude hypocrisy where there really is none. They would consider you a hypocrite for being pro-abortion but (hopefully) opposed to murder.
For the record: I am pro-abortion up until week 24/25 where sentience is achieved - due to the margin of error in determining the age of a fetus I would personally set the limit somewhere around week 22.
|
On November 02 2013 21:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idnst iotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. I am not interested in taking the abortion debate here (and this thread isn't appropriate for it), but you are being thoroughly dishonest or ignorant with your argumentation. We don't allow murder either, and those opposing abortion do so because they consider it murder, and not because they are against women rights (well, there are nutcases out there). It is fine that you don't consider a sentinent fetus an entity with rights, but you project that assumption onto those who disagree with you and thus conclude hypocrisy where there really is none. They would consider you a hypocrite for being pro-abortion but (hopefully) opposed to murder. For the record: I am pro-abortion up until week 24/25 where sentience is achieved - due to the margin of error in determining the age of a fetus I would personally set the limit somewhere around week 22.
Someone being ignorant about human biology does not make them any less hypocritical about the right to choose, it just makes them both ignorant and hypocritical, even if they don't realize it. Murder being equated with abortion has nothing to do with personal opinion, it's a medical question that should be deferred to experts.
These people are either frauds or stupid, or both. It irritates me when they hijack a label I've often used for myself on more than one subject and turn it into a political tool, a hipster title to be bandied about, with not a hint of integrity or principles behind it. It is the very essence of hypocrisy, and the entire "libertarian" part of the republican party is rank with it. Opposing equal marriage rights? Not libertarian. Anti-choice? Not libertarian. For don't ask don't tell? Not libertarian. Pro corporate welfare? Not libertarian.
|
On November 02 2013 21:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idnst iotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. I am not interested in taking the abortion debate here (and this thread isn't appropriate for it), but you are being thoroughly dishonest or ignorant with your argumentation. We don't allow murder either, and those opposing abortion do so because they consider it murder, and not because they are against women rights (well, there are nutcases out there).
Nobody calls for violation of rights just for the sake of violating rights. There are always "greater" reasons, but they are almost never really justified.
Sentient or not, the organism is inside a woman's body and feeds off of her body. Pregnancy is a significant health risk and contributes countless negative side effects on the woman's mood, productivity and life in general. It can be the most developed human being all it wants, it is still inside another human being.
However, right-wing ideology has no qualms over treating the woman as a mere vessel for the duration of the pregnancy and arbitrarily placing her in a social and legal position inferior to that of the fetus she's carrying. It's one of the most brutal forms of assault on individual freedoms that's still practiced in modern societies.
|
On November 02 2013 21:16 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 21:02 Ghostcom wrote:On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idnst iotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. I am not interested in taking the abortion debate here (and this thread isn't appropriate for it), but you are being thoroughly dishonest or ignorant with your argumentation. We don't allow murder either, and those opposing abortion do so because they consider it murder, and not because they are against women rights (well, there are nutcases out there). It is fine that you don't consider a sentinent fetus an entity with rights, but you project that assumption onto those who disagree with you and thus conclude hypocrisy where there really is none. They would consider you a hypocrite for being pro-abortion but (hopefully) opposed to murder. For the record: I am pro-abortion up until week 24/25 where sentience is achieved - due to the margin of error in determining the age of a fetus I would personally set the limit somewhere around week 22. Someone being ignorant about human biology does not make them any less hypocritical about the right to choose, it just makes them both ignorant and hypocritical, even if they don't realize it. Murder being equated with abortion has nothing to do with personal opinion, it's a medical question that should be deferred to experts. These people are either frauds or stupid, or both. It irritates me when they hijack a label I've often used for myself on more than one subject and turn it into a political tool, a hipster title to be bandied about, with not a hint of integrity or principles behind it. It is the very essence of hypocrisy, and the entire "libertarian" part of the republican party is rank with it. Opposing equal marriage rights? Not libertarian. Anti-choice? Not libertarian. For don't ask don't tell? Not libertarian. Pro corporate welfare? Not libertarian.
I don't get why someone proposing a ban on abortions after 20 weeks pisses you off so much. 20 weeks isjust before the time when the foetus becomes somewhat viable to live outside the womb. Surely there must be some kind of limit, and 20 weeks seems alright to me.
|
On November 02 2013 21:16 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 21:02 Ghostcom wrote:On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idnst iotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. I am not interested in taking the abortion debate here (and this thread isn't appropriate for it), but you are being thoroughly dishonest or ignorant with your argumentation. We don't allow murder either, and those opposing abortion do so because they consider it murder, and not because they are against women rights (well, there are nutcases out there). It is fine that you don't consider a sentinent fetus an entity with rights, but you project that assumption onto those who disagree with you and thus conclude hypocrisy where there really is none. They would consider you a hypocrite for being pro-abortion but (hopefully) opposed to murder. For the record: I am pro-abortion up until week 24/25 where sentience is achieved - due to the margin of error in determining the age of a fetus I would personally set the limit somewhere around week 22. Someone being ignorant about human biology does not make them any less hypocritical about the right to choose, it just makes them both ignorant and hypocritical, even if they don't realize it. Murder being equated with abortion has nothing to do with personal opinion, it's a medical question that should be deferred to experts. These people are either frauds or stupid, or both. It irritates me when they hijack a label I've often used for myself on more than one subject and turn it into a political tool, a hipster title to be bandied about, with not a hint of integrity or principles behind it. It is the very essence of hypocrisy, and the entire "libertarian" part of the republican party is rank with it. Opposing equal marriage rights? Not libertarian. Anti-choice? Not libertarian. For don't ask don't tell? Not libertarian. Pro corporate welfare? Not libertarian.
You didnt understand what I was saying did you? You can perfectly fine be libertarian and support a law such as the one which sparked this ordeal (limit at week 20). It has nothing to do with a lack of biological knowledge, nor moral inconsistency rather the base premises of what rights or value a fetus has. I have no qualms with you calling out people who are claiming a label they don't fulfil, but only if you do so without misrepresenting them to suit your needs. Considering that is exactly what you have done all your talk about hypocrites is beginning to seem a little funny.
|
On November 02 2013 21:41 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 21:16 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 21:02 Ghostcom wrote:On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idnst iotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. I am not interested in taking the abortion debate here (and this thread isn't appropriate for it), but you are being thoroughly dishonest or ignorant with your argumentation. We don't allow murder either, and those opposing abortion do so because they consider it murder, and not because they are against women rights (well, there are nutcases out there). It is fine that you don't consider a sentinent fetus an entity with rights, but you project that assumption onto those who disagree with you and thus conclude hypocrisy where there really is none. They would consider you a hypocrite for being pro-abortion but (hopefully) opposed to murder. For the record: I am pro-abortion up until week 24/25 where sentience is achieved - due to the margin of error in determining the age of a fetus I would personally set the limit somewhere around week 22. Someone being ignorant about human biology does not make them any less hypocritical about the right to choose, it just makes them both ignorant and hypocritical, even if they don't realize it. Murder being equated with abortion has nothing to do with personal opinion, it's a medical question that should be deferred to experts. These people are either frauds or stupid, or both. It irritates me when they hijack a label I've often used for myself on more than one subject and turn it into a political tool, a hipster title to be bandied about, with not a hint of integrity or principles behind it. It is the very essence of hypocrisy, and the entire "libertarian" part of the republican party is rank with it. Opposing equal marriage rights? Not libertarian. Anti-choice? Not libertarian. For don't ask don't tell? Not libertarian. Pro corporate welfare? Not libertarian. You didnt understand what I was saying did you? You can perfectly fine be libertarian and support a law such as the one which sparked this ordeal (limit at week 20). It has nothing to do with a lack of biological knowledge, nor moral inconsistency rather the base premises of what rights or value a fetus has. I have no qualms with you calling out people who are claiming a label they don't fulfil, but only if you do so without misrepresenting them to suit your needs. Considering that is exactly what you have done all your talk about hypocrites is beginning to seem a little funny.
I understand you just fine, I just don't agree with you.
I am glad I amuse you. Whatever, I see the rights and value of a fetus as directly contingent on its state of development, which you can only understand or have any relevant opinion on if you have a certain level of expertise. These people don't know nearly enough to have a valid opinion, yet they feel qualified to offer one, and that is very much hypocritical to me. A true libertarian would say "I am not an expert, and as such I am not qualified to speak on this" and leave others well enough alone. Sticking one's nose where it does not belong is everything libertarianism is against.
Abortion is only tangentially connected to this, it's about the severe inconsistency and hypocritical nature of fake libertarians. I feel perfectly justified in calling them out because they absolutely don't fulfill the label they claim, and they are making it look bad. I think I am representing them just as they are.
I don't get why someone proposing a ban on abortions after 20 weeks pisses you off so much. 20 weeks isjust before the time when the foetus becomes somewhat viable to live outside the womb. Surely there must be some kind of limit, and 20 weeks seems alright to me.
I never said anything about a time limit on abortion, I am annoyed by fraudulent weekend-libertarians without the intestinal fortitude to actually represent what they supposedly believe.
|
|
|
On November 02 2013 21:41 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 21:16 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 21:02 Ghostcom wrote:On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idnst iotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. I am not interested in taking the abortion debate here (and this thread isn't appropriate for it), but you are being thoroughly dishonest or ignorant with your argumentation. We don't allow murder either, and those opposing abortion do so because they consider it murder, and not because they are against women rights (well, there are nutcases out there). It is fine that you don't consider a sentinent fetus an entity with rights, but you project that assumption onto those who disagree with you and thus conclude hypocrisy where there really is none. They would consider you a hypocrite for being pro-abortion but (hopefully) opposed to murder. For the record: I am pro-abortion up until week 24/25 where sentience is achieved - due to the margin of error in determining the age of a fetus I would personally set the limit somewhere around week 22. Someone being ignorant about human biology does not make them any less hypocritical about the right to choose, it just makes them both ignorant and hypocritical, even if they don't realize it. Murder being equated with abortion has nothing to do with personal opinion, it's a medical question that should be deferred to experts. These people are either frauds or stupid, or both. It irritates me when they hijack a label I've often used for myself on more than one subject and turn it into a political tool, a hipster title to be bandied about, with not a hint of integrity or principles behind it. It is the very essence of hypocrisy, and the entire "libertarian" part of the republican party is rank with it. Opposing equal marriage rights? Not libertarian. Anti-choice? Not libertarian. For don't ask don't tell? Not libertarian. Pro corporate welfare? Not libertarian. You didnt understand what I was saying did you? You can perfectly fine be libertarian and support a law such as the one which sparked this ordeal (limit at week 20). It has nothing to do with a lack of biological knowledge, nor moral inconsistency rather the base premises of what rights or value a fetus has. I have no qualms with you calling out people who are claiming a label they don't fulfil, but only if you do so without misrepresenting them to suit your needs. Considering that is exactly what you have done all your talk about hypocrites is beginning to seem a little funny.
But that's not the self-proclaimed reason for proposing this ban. We can argue about the age limit for abortion all we like on ideological grounds, but THIS law is supposedly being proposed because 20-week-old phoetuses feel pain, which is a HEAVILY disputed piece of science that requires far more research done before we arbitrarily jump on it to legislate.
The same people who jump on this kind of dodgy research are ignoring well-established research that points out that human-caused global warming is a real problem and gun control reduces lethal accidents and crime, because they claim to be "libertarian" when they are in fact nothing of the kind.
(and I didn't even mention evolution and "teach the controversy", because it is also not a libertarian viewpoint, but rather pandering to the religious right-wing)
|
On November 02 2013 21:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idnst iotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. I am not interested in taking the abortion debate here (and this thread isn't appropriate for it), but you are being thoroughly dishonest or ignorant with your argumentation. We don't allow murder either, and those opposing abortion do so because they consider it murder, and not because they are against women rights (well, there are nutcases out there). It is fine that you don't consider a sentinent fetus an entity with rights, but you project that assumption onto those who disagree with you and thus conclude hypocrisy where there really is none. They would consider you a hypocrite for being pro-abortion but (hopefully) opposed to murder. For the record: I am pro-abortion up until week 24/25 where sentience is achieved - due to the margin of error in determining the age of a fetus I would personally set the limit somewhere around week 22.
They are still hypocrites though, because they support many other policies that are contradictory to their claimed reasoning for supporting abortion bans.
|
First, his reasoning is flawed as it is easy to disagree with premise 1 AND 2 of his little exercise. Basically his whole argument is kind-of black-and-white/hasty generalization fallacy.
Second, his argument is not libertarian per se, it uses nothing specific to libertarian thought. It is general argument against abortions that even communists or whoever else can agree with. So libertarians might agree with it, but most doesn't (at least outside US, maybe in US there are more anti-abortion libertarians).
|
On November 02 2013 23:39 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 21:02 Ghostcom wrote:On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idnst iotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. I am not interested in taking the abortion debate here (and this thread isn't appropriate for it), but you are being thoroughly dishonest or ignorant with your argumentation. We don't allow murder either, and those opposing abortion do so because they consider it murder, and not because they are against women rights (well, there are nutcases out there). It is fine that you don't consider a sentinent fetus an entity with rights, but you project that assumption onto those who disagree with you and thus conclude hypocrisy where there really is none. They would consider you a hypocrite for being pro-abortion but (hopefully) opposed to murder. For the record: I am pro-abortion up until week 24/25 where sentience is achieved - due to the margin of error in determining the age of a fetus I would personally set the limit somewhere around week 22. They are still hypocrites though, because they support many other policies that are contradictory to their claimed reasoning for supporting abortion bans.
Oh without a doubt. They are politicians - hypocrite is in the job description. In fact I think it IS the job description.
On November 02 2013 23:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 21:41 Ghostcom wrote:On November 02 2013 21:16 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 21:02 Ghostcom wrote:On November 02 2013 20:33 Squat wrote:On November 02 2013 16:45 PineapplePizza wrote:
Someone should release a law that prohibits men from voting on bills that deal with woman things and lady parts.
I'm about 80% sure that's not possible, but 100% sure it would end this idnst iotic drivel about babies or fetuses once and for all. I don't know, watching elderly, conservative white men with a poor grasp of even rudimentary human anatomy twist themselves into pretzels after saying something amazingly asinine is a never-ending source of entertainment. It seems to never occur to many self-declared libertarians that one of the most invasive things a government can do is tell someone what to do with their body. As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical. You either believe in small government and personal freedom or you don't, none of this wishy-washy half-assed, self-serving bullshit. But hey, gotta pander I guess. I am not interested in taking the abortion debate here (and this thread isn't appropriate for it), but you are being thoroughly dishonest or ignorant with your argumentation. We don't allow murder either, and those opposing abortion do so because they consider it murder, and not because they are against women rights (well, there are nutcases out there). It is fine that you don't consider a sentinent fetus an entity with rights, but you project that assumption onto those who disagree with you and thus conclude hypocrisy where there really is none. They would consider you a hypocrite for being pro-abortion but (hopefully) opposed to murder. For the record: I am pro-abortion up until week 24/25 where sentience is achieved - due to the margin of error in determining the age of a fetus I would personally set the limit somewhere around week 22. Someone being ignorant about human biology does not make them any less hypocritical about the right to choose, it just makes them both ignorant and hypocritical, even if they don't realize it. Murder being equated with abortion has nothing to do with personal opinion, it's a medical question that should be deferred to experts. These people are either frauds or stupid, or both. It irritates me when they hijack a label I've often used for myself on more than one subject and turn it into a political tool, a hipster title to be bandied about, with not a hint of integrity or principles behind it. It is the very essence of hypocrisy, and the entire "libertarian" part of the republican party is rank with it. Opposing equal marriage rights? Not libertarian. Anti-choice? Not libertarian. For don't ask don't tell? Not libertarian. Pro corporate welfare? Not libertarian. You didnt understand what I was saying did you? You can perfectly fine be libertarian and support a law such as the one which sparked this ordeal (limit at week 20). It has nothing to do with a lack of biological knowledge, nor moral inconsistency rather the base premises of what rights or value a fetus has. I have no qualms with you calling out people who are claiming a label they don't fulfil, but only if you do so without misrepresenting them to suit your needs. Considering that is exactly what you have done all your talk about hypocrites is beginning to seem a little funny. But that's not the self-proclaimed reason for proposing this ban. We can argue about the age limit for abortion all we like on ideological grounds, but THIS law is supposedly being proposed because 20-week-old phoetuses feel pain, which is a HEAVILY disputed piece of science that requires far more research done before we arbitrarily jump on it to legislate. The same people who jump on this kind of dodgy research are ignoring well-established research that points out that human-caused global warming is a real problem and gun control reduces lethal accidents and crime, because they claim to be "libertarian" when they are in fact nothing of the kind. (and I didn't even mention evolution and "teach the controversy", because it is also not a libertarian viewpoint, but rather pandering to the religious right-wing)
I'll gladly discuss the argumentation for this law with you (I think 20 weeks is an odd timeframe instead of 22/23, but adopting a "do no harm" line of thought I think considering the behavioral studies which are all scientifically sound, drawing a line is completely reasonable), however that is a different discussion, and again probably not suited for this thread, than the one I had with Squat who broadly declared that:
As someone who agrees with a quite a few libertarian points, the idea that anyone but the person physically or medically involved in a pregnancy should have any say is obscene, and unbelievably hypocritical.
|
Abortion is one of the very few topics on which i actually agree with conservatives. I mean, if you don't abort a fetus (assuming it's healthy) it will be born and wander around and will become a normal human being.
I don't see the big difference.Doesn't matter if you abort before 20 weeks of pregnancy, after that or a week after the kid is born. In the end you are ending a life that would otherwise have existed. The implication is all the same.
Following that logic it would be totally acceptable to kill a narcotized patient. "Hey i can kill that guy, he isn't conscious, he doesn't even feel a thing!" "Ye sure, but he's gonna wake up in like five hours, doesn't that matter?"
|
United States43271 Posts
On November 02 2013 23:59 Nyxisto wrote:
Abortion is one of the very few topics on which i actually agree with conservatives. I mean, if you don't abort a fetus (assuming it's healthy) it will be born and wander around and will become a normal human being.
I don't see the big difference.Doesn't matter if you abort before 20 weeks of pregnancy, after that or a week after the kid is born. In the end you are ending a life that would otherwise have existed. The implication is all the same.
Following that logic it would be totally acceptable to kill a narcotized patient. "Hey i can kill that guy, he isn't conscious, he doesn't even feel a thing!" "Ye sure, but he's gonna wake up in like five hours, doesn't that matter?"
There is an assumption here that constant positive intervention by the woman's body is a given and that denying it that is the change, that abortion is a negative intervention whereas letting it hang out in your womb is a duty that you must perform.
Obviously if you do a string of positive interventions such as feeding it, providing it with oxygen, providing it with a place to grow, keeping it safe, choosing not to contaminate the host with drugs and so forth then new life can happen. But I don't know why these don't count as interventions and instead are an assumed duty while failing to do them is treated as an intervention. By this "moral imperative to save" argument you could compel people to give up the fruits of their labour to help others, call it normal and then accuse people of murder whenever they choose not to do it.
Ultimately life is pretty cheap and pretty easy to make happen. You could save a life right now by donating to a charity to buy mosquito nets because in 2013 people are still dying to mosquitos for some fucking reason. Or, with a few extra steps of positive intervention, you could get laid without a condom and create a new life. But we don't consider there to be an obligation to give money to charity and we certainly don't consider it an obligation to fuck people without condoms. Yet carrying a child to term doesn't count as a positive intervention the way unprotected sex does, the moment you become pregnant you have an obligation to place your wishes and your freedom below those of another, someone who isn't even born yet, and the passive act of refusing to do so is treated as tantamount to an active act of murder. It's a huge hypocrisy of shitty logic.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's a common line of thought, but it is also a victim of a sleigh of hand, in that counterfactual does not deal with the 'creation' of identity all that well.
notice by framing the situation in terms of "the baby and its foetal form", it takes on an identity across time. let's say we are using this line of thought on a real person, your friend Bob. Bob is in essence made to ask the question, "what if Bob was aborted, wouldn't that mean no Bob?" this question takes on urgency because we recognize, quite obviously, that Bob is a person with full rights and value of existence etc.
However, had Bob not been born. say he was aborted, or even failed to form a zygote because his mom took birth control, we would not have "Bob" the person we care about and value enough to frame this challenging scenario. the critical juncture of forming this personal identity of "Bob" is skipped by the framing of the scenario. This formation of our recognized friend Bob is time sensitive and an actual event. with how this scenario is formed, we already have that identity at the start.
causally speaking yea, it's okay to take on the position that bob and the fetus is one and the same. however, in this counterfactual way of thinking the important question of when personal identity is formed is skipped, and the person we care about, "Bob" is already in our little universe. an opponent could say, if we follow a causal identity line of thinking, there must be billions of Bobs destroyed by condoms and whatnot. you'd not weep for them, right?
so it's not a straightforward causal identity question. the deontic concepts of the sanctity of life relies on these not so tidily formed identities to function, but it should be recognzied that this is ultimately an artificial creation. should instead look at a welfare based approach
|
On November 02 2013 23:59 Nyxisto wrote:
Abortion is one of the very few topics on which i actually agree with conservatives. I mean, if you don't abort a fetus (assuming it's healthy) it will be born and wander around and will become a normal human being.
I don't see the big difference.Doesn't matter if you abort before 20 weeks of pregnancy, after that or a week after the kid is born. In the end you are ending a life that would otherwise have existed. The implication is all the same.
Following that logic it would be totally acceptable to kill a narcotized patient. "Hey i can kill that guy, he isn't conscious, he doesn't even feel a thing!" "Ye sure, but he's gonna wake up in like five hours, doesn't that matter?"
Except a narcotized patient isn't inside and physically bound to someone else's body. There is no working analogy to pregnancy (or abortion).
|
United States43271 Posts
On November 03 2013 00:30 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 23:59 Nyxisto wrote:
Abortion is one of the very few topics on which i actually agree with conservatives. I mean, if you don't abort a fetus (assuming it's healthy) it will be born and wander around and will become a normal human being.
I don't see the big difference.Doesn't matter if you abort before 20 weeks of pregnancy, after that or a week after the kid is born. In the end you are ending a life that would otherwise have existed. The implication is all the same.
Following that logic it would be totally acceptable to kill a narcotized patient. "Hey i can kill that guy, he isn't conscious, he doesn't even feel a thing!" "Ye sure, but he's gonna wake up in like five hours, doesn't that matter?" Except a narcotized patient isn't inside and physically bound to someone else's body. There is no working analogy to pregnancy (or abortion).
Disagree, you can make an analogy work.
A coma patient costs time and money to keep alive. You could pick a random guy who got drunk and had unprotected sex and tell him "good news, you now have a legal obligation to put the survival of this person before your needs". You then take half the guy's salary to pay for the expenses and move the coma patient into his home. While you're at it you poison him, just because, not enough to kill him but enough to weaken him, make his organs go nuts and so forth. If he complains then you tell him he shouldn't have had unprotected sex then. Or, if you want to go full fundie on it, you do the above to a rape victim and then tell him caring for the coma guy is God's will.
|
I've found libertarians to be pretty divided on abortion. It certainly goes with the simplistic ideology part, but it conflicts with the government intervention part.
Though, I have found libertarianism to be pretty anti-feminist in general. There's a reason why libertarians tend to be overwhelming male and white (and protestant). It's because non-privileged groups know that not all oppression is by government and that government can alleviate the issues of oppression
A fun thing to do is ask libertarians why there aren't more women in libertarianism. You'll hear lots of misogyny like women are easily brainwashed or don't like self reliance.
|
On November 03 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2013 23:59 Nyxisto wrote:
Abortion is one of the very few topics on which i actually agree with conservatives. I mean, if you don't abort a fetus (assuming it's healthy) it will be born and wander around and will become a normal human being.
I don't see the big difference.Doesn't matter if you abort before 20 weeks of pregnancy, after that or a week after the kid is born. In the end you are ending a life that would otherwise have existed. The implication is all the same.
Following that logic it would be totally acceptable to kill a narcotized patient. "Hey i can kill that guy, he isn't conscious, he doesn't even feel a thing!" "Ye sure, but he's gonna wake up in like five hours, doesn't that matter?" There is an assumption here that constant positive intervention by the woman's body is a given and that denying it that is the change, that abortion is a negative intervention whereas letting it hang out in your womb is a duty that you must perform. Obviously if you do a string of positive interventions such as feeding it, providing it with oxygen, providing it with a place to grow, keeping it safe, choosing not to contaminate the host with drugs and so forth then new life can happen. But I don't know why these don't count as interventions and instead are an assumed duty while failing to do them is treated as an intervention. By this "moral imperative to save" argument you could compel people to give up the fruits of their labour to help others, call it normal and then accuse people of murder whenever they choose not to do it. Ultimately life is pretty cheap and pretty easy to make happen. You could save a life right now by donating to a charity to buy mosquito nets because in 2013 people are still dying to mosquitos for some fucking reason. Or, with a few extra steps of positive intervention, you could get laid without a condom and create a new life. But we don't consider there to be an obligation to give money to charity and we certainly don't consider it an obligation to fuck people without condoms. Yet carrying a child to term doesn't count as a positive intervention the way unprotected sex does, the moment you become pregnant you have an obligation to place your wishes and your freedom below those of another, someone who isn't even born yet, and the passive act of refusing to do so is treated as tantamount to an active act of murder. It's a huge hypocrisy of shitty logic.
The difference between abortion and the "why don't you spend money to save some lifes" thing is: I'm not directly responsible for every suffering in the world ( at least not in any practical sense) but i am directly responsible for impregnating someone / getting pregnant. No one forces you to get a child, so in my eyes your responsibility should at least be to carry it out.
Your argument sounds a little bit like. "Hey it's really hypocritical of you to put that guy into prison, just because he robbed a bank, we're all criminals, in our own way we all get money that we didn't earn in this or that way"
Sure theoretically speaking that may be true, but practically speaking it doesn't make much sense to run a society that way.
Sure you can argue that life is pretty cheap, and just because we don't donate our money to save the children we also can shit on every other form of morality. Although i personally think that that's a really shitty attitude there's not much to argue against it.
causally speaking yea, it's okay to take on the position that bob and the fetus is one and the same. however, in this counterfactual way of thinking the important question of when personal identity is formed is skipped, and the person we care about, "Bob" is already in our little universe. an opponent could say, if we follow a causal identity line of thinking, there must be billions of Bobs destroyed by condoms and whatnot. you'd not weep for them, right?
Same thing as with KwarK's argument. Of course it doesn't make much sense to call someone a murderer because he uses a condom. The same way it doesn't make sense to accuse an actual murderer of murdering a bazillion people because of all the potential siblings he could have theoretically killed. But practically you have to draw a line somewhere. And a fetus is not just a theoretical possibility anymore. It already exists. And to assume that it will grow up is not some kind of logical implication, it is a very tangible. real thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
