The GSA teaches their girlie scouts to carry condoms with them in their purse at all times. What is so hard about that ??
1. I do not think a fetus is a potential human, I think it is a human. 2. For the love of God, don't come at me with this "what about sperm?" crap. I used to use that dumb argument myself. Are you honestly telling me you don't understand the difference between a near fully developed human being with a beating heart and working sensory functions and a single celled seed? 3. I am suggesting we make law based on the fact that a fetus has all the basic characteristics we attribute to human beings, and the only argument against this fact you people have is "There is a chance it might not be a human?". If anyone here is trying to make ridiculously immoral laws based on little to no facts it is you. 4. "Should we kill Jews (as many suggest) because - we do not know they are not sub-human ?" You aren't being serious, are you? YOU are the one suggesting we should MURDER fetuses because we aren't "sure" they are human beings. If anything this analogy is describing you. Also, stop confirming Godwin's law. 5. "Should we imprison people for crimes they are suspected of because" No, however we should if we have literally mountains of evidence that suggest they committed the crime. Just like we shouldn't kill fetuses because we have literally hundreds of reasons to believe they are human beings. 6. "Your rational for this law is "We don't know otherwise". " No, it isn't. Stop trying to strawman me so you can feel smart. It's not an argument. My rational for this law is that fetuses show many of the same characteristics as humans, because they ARE humans, and therefore we shouldn't condone killing them. If something shows the exact same signs of life as humans do(eg: a heartbeat, sensory functions, a functioning neural system), is conceived by human intercourse, and we all agree WILL be a human in a few months, I'd say we have enough reason to believe it IS human. So far your only counter argument has been "but you can't be sure it is a human", which is a ridiculous argument you can use to defend literally any ludicrous opinion. 7. Are you suggesting people who disagree with you deserve to be raped?
I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Although I think I ought to point out again that I am a libertarian and therefore oppose government agencies, including the GSA.
A fetus IS alive. It is NOT a person until it is BORN. A fetus IS alive. It is NOT a person until it is BORN. Yes, a woman can bitch and moan all she wants. Free speech and all that or did you want to take away that right for women, too? She can have all the unprotected sex she wants....and if she has an unwanted pregnancy she can get a medical procedure known as an abortion. Uh, where are the women who want the government to pay for it? The government SHOULD stay out of women's rights, it should only protect them like they do everyone else's. NO, consenting(having sex ) to sex is NOT consenting to any other thing. How asinine to say "the woman give the fetus permission to stay in her womb by having sex irresponsibly"". NO, unprotected sex does NOT give anything permission to do anything......YOU just like every other Anti-Choicer, want to PUNISH WOMEN FOR HAVING SEX...that is sick. No matter what YOU call it, it's still a fetus that is killed in abortion and since it's not a person, and abortion is legal, it isn't murder. NO, women do NOT have to devote 9 months of their lives, suffer permanent and temporary damage to their bodies, suffer financial/educational /career setbacks , suffer the pain of pregnancy and child birth just to make YOU happy and give someone else a kid..... Irrational is thinking that because one has sex and gets pregnant they HAVE to suffer the consequences with child birth which IS PUNISHING THE WOMAN FOR HAVING SEX. WHO are YOU that you think you should determine what consequences others should face!!!!! Too bad for you that some women think facing the consequences is getting an abortion I never said they were !! Their rights would be violated IF they were forced to give birth.....something you seem to LOVE..... What a naïve thing to say......your little "morals" aren't everyone's and you don't get to rule on what 'morals" need to be adhered to. There is no child involved in abortion and to insist there is would be very immature, unscientific, and in error. NOPE, not two choices...any choice a woman chooses....and abortion is one of them For the same reason it isn't a tree....or a zebra....I call things by their proper terms when discussing abortion....the overly emotional who have no facts use the wrong terms.. """"You are free to live your life however you want to, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS DOING SO""" Women having abortions have not violated the rights of anyone. IF a fetus is deemed a person it has the rights and restrictions of any other person...it can't have ONLY RIGHTS. One of those restrictions is that a person cannot use another person's body to sustain their life. YOU can't , I can't , NO one can. IF it does it is VIOLATING ANOTHER'S RIGHTS Now learn how to multi quote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...and irresponsibility causes the removal of rights? Which rights are automatically removed when one acts irresponsibly? Is this a general rule, or does it only apply to abortion? If it is the latter, why does it exclusively apply to abortion?
There you go, that wasn't so hard. Now you've explained that you hold the opinion that a woman's life, and most likely the life of the child if born, should be destroyed forever because she was raped. That saves us all the time of trying to debate this with you, because that view is so monstrously inhuman and just plain wrong, any attempt at budging it would naturally be futile.
IF a fetus is a person WHY do you want it to have MORE rights than others and NO restrictions like all other persons have ??? Why are you trying to make a fetus into some kind of untouchable god.
Abortion is allowed because women have rights to their own bodies even if you disagree. The fetus whether you like or not is NOT legally a person...if you hate law there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind. Your inhumane, callous, nasty attitude towards women who have been raped adds to your reputation as wanting women punished for having sex...you want to FORCE them to have a baby exactly the same way a rapist FORCED them to have sex...."FORCE", the rapists tool and the Anti-Choicers tool. Forcing a woman to carry a rapists kid is like raping her all over again...and again,and again....forcing her to relive everyday the trauma AND suffering permanent bodily damage because she was raped........do you believe she should be stoned for being raped?
Whether abortion is or should be considered murder, morally, socially or legally, in all contexts and circumstances and at all stages of pregnancy, is a complicated and highly debatable point. Simply asserting it as fact doesn't mean anything. Abortion will happen whether it's legal or not so it could be seen as better to maintain a legal environment where is can happen in a safer manner with appropriate support and where the alternatives can be available. There are also circumstance (however rare), where continuing with a pregnancy would almost certainly result in the death of both mother and child and so termination is the best chance to save at least one of them. I don't like abortion but I'm a realist so I'm looking for the best answer that is actually possible, not some fantasy of perfection that can never be achieved.
From the above load of horsepuckey: """A libertarian is someone who believes everyone has the right not to be harmed"" except if it's a woman..then , even though pregnancy HARMS women's bodies(can even kill them), they should be forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth according to you. Just thought I'd show how labels(Libertarian, Repub, Democrat, Christian, etc.,) mean nothing ...misogyny and sexism can rear their ugly heads anywhere.. Here's another. Read the following mish mash and someone , anyone, please tell me you see no misogyny in the "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" rant: """ A woman is exactly as much responsible as the man, yet she gets to choose whether or not she wants to keep the baby (and even abort it against the father's will), if someone tells her that she should've kept her legs closed he/she is a "slutshamer" and if she does decide to keep the baby she will get free money from the father and 12 out of 14 days of custody(if the man is lucky). So why the hell would it be a RIGHT for her to abort a potential child against the consent of the father?""
1) You were the one that brought "potential" into the equation. The question at hand relates to the zyogote (single cell at conception). Even I think the Fetus at some point should be classified as a human. Where I have a problem is in the early stages of pregnancy. If you want to claim "Zygote" is a human. Then you must support this claim. 2) I am not talking about a near fully developed fetus. You are moving the goal posts. 3) The Fetus in the later stages has most of these characteristics - agreed. You are moving the goal posts ... I was talking about the zygote which does not have all the basic characteristics. I did not invoke Godwin's law... and even if I did what difference does it make ? It was your silly argument that justified law on the basis of "we don't know otherwise" 6) "We do not know otherwise" is "YOUR" justification for law .. not mine .. Mr. Straw man. 7) It is you that was suggesting that forcing another human to pass a large object through a small orifice was justified on the basis of "We don't know otherwise". Don't blame me that you can not handle what follows from YOUR justification of law. This was not my stupid justification for law. It is you that is creating a strawman by accusing me of condoning what you condone. So back to the beginning. You claim that a zygote is a human. Have you any non fallacious justification for that claim. 2) do you still think we should make law on the basis of "experts disagree"/ "We do not know otherwise"
1) I didn't bring potential into the equation, the person I was talking to did. All I was trying to point out is that if a fetus only has a chance of actually being a human, it is still immoral to kill it. You don't do something if you think there is a 50% chance it will murder a person, because it is WRONG. 2) A morning after pill is fine, I'm not willing to risk anything beyond that. You don't get to risk killing a human being because you behaved irresponsibly. Actions have consequences, that's not an excuse to behave immorally. 3) So you agree that aborting a fetus is wrong then? 4) You did invoke Godwin's law, you literally compared me to a Nazi killing Jews. And you are misrepresenting what I said, stop doing that. I said that if YOU aren't sure if a fetus is a human being or not it is therefor immoral to kill it. It is only moral to do so when you are sure it isn't a human being. I however am sure it is a human being, so this assumption that I want to do things because "I don't know otherwise" is absolutely ridiculous. If you are going to keep misrepresenting my arguments rather than addressing them I will simply stop replying to you. 6) No, it isn't. My justification for law is that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that a fetus is a human being, again stop misrepresenting me. Your justification for law is "It is okay to kill fetuses because there is a chance that they aren't humans, despite all the evidence that suggests they are.". Do you honestly not see the irony in upholding that statement and then accusing ME of making law based on bogus reasons? 7) "It is you that was suggesting that forcing another human to pass a large object through a small orifice" Huh that's funny, you just claimed to be talking about zygotes, not fetuses. Since when do women give birth to zygotes? When did I say we should pass law because "we don't know otherwise". Quote me the sentence where I said that. "You claim that a zygote is a human." Where did I claim that? "do you still think we should make law on the basis of "experts disagree"/ "We do not know otherwise" I never did, stop trying to delegitimise my arguments by misrepresenting it. Like I said, you either reply to my arguments or I will ignore you.
Libertarians believe humans have the right not to be harmed by each other, not by the forces of nature. The child has no choice but to grow in the woman's body, and is only doing so because the female CHOSE not to use contraceptives. The Non Aggression Principle is therefore not violated. If the woman murders the child because it is in her body because of her own decisions then the Non Aggression Principle is violated. Those labels are only meaningless to you because you don't know what they mean. "misogyny and sexism" If I'm a misogynist then why do I oppose the killing of fetuses, while 50% of them are female? How is the "rant" you quoted misogynist? Do you have any actual arguments for why you think it is false or are you just here to call me names?
1. Whether abortion is considered murder or not does not change the fact that murder is wrong no matter what. 2. Pragmatic arguments have no place in a discussion about morality. Rape will happen no matter what too, doesn't mean we should legalise it. If something is wrong then it is wrong, no amount of benefits should convince you from doing it anyhow. That is what differentiates a sociopath from an emphatic person; a person capable of empathy is willing to do the morally right thing even if it is against his own interests.
1) 50% chance ? this makes no sense. Either it is a human or it isn't. "We don't know" means "We don't know". End of discussion. Quit using the term "Fetus" when I am talking about the zygote. Do you not understand the difference ? 2) Good that you are not an extremist - the problem is that most religious right anti aborts are. The legislation (not passed but proposed) states that a zygote is a Homo sapiens. Which is complete and utter nonsense. There is no "risk" of killing a human. A human is what we define as human. It either is or it isn't. While you can make a moral argument that you personally don't know so you personally do not want to take that risk (Perhaps every sperm is sacred .. who knows) There is a difference between your personal belief and forcing your personal belief on others through threat of physical violence (Law). Do you understand this distinction ? I did not misrepresent your argument - you seem to not understand that I am speaking in relation to "LAW" and not moral opinion. If you want to believe that "we do not know otherwise" is justification for your own personal belief ... that is fine ... do as you wish. This however is not good justification for law. Such justification, if allowed, can justify almost anything. Do you not understand this ? If not what part do you not understand .. how many examples of bad law would you like ? You are the one misrepresenting. That is not my argument. My argument is that "experts disagree" is a horrible justification for law. The law is about evidence ... evidence that "Proves" something is true. Proof ... not speculation "gosh it might be true" Second misrepresentation- I have never said killing fetuses was OK. I have stated many times that I am talking about the zygote. Once again .. I am talking about the zygote for now. You can not just say "Fetus" without specifying at which stage of fetal development you are talking about. When does the embryo become a fetus ? (or do you think anything after the zygote - the first mitotic division is a fetus) When you say "evidence" evidence for what ? Ebryo, Fetus at 9 weeks, Fetus at 22 weeks. The evidence is different depending on what you are talking about. LOOK - if you force a woman to carry a zygote to term - this is forcing her to pass a large object through a small orifice. Good grief. Good that you do not want to make a legal argument on the basis of "experts disagree" Experts do not have much agreement until the later stages of Pregnancy - at the point where the Fetus is considered to have significant brain function. This is when the wiring of the brain gets completed and pretty much lights up like an xmas tree. At this point I have serious trouble coming up with good arguments against the entity being human. Clearly you think you have good arguments prior to this point. Fine ... Pick a point an fire away. I already agree with you that a Fetus is a human prior to birth .. roughly 22 weeks. If you want to take it back further ... then make an argument supporting your claim.
Oh, now they believe that but not """A libertarian is someone who believes everyone has the right not to be harmed, not to be stolen from and not to be oppressed. Killing a potential human being is not a woman's "right", it is the violation of someone else's right."" which is what you posted before. "Oppression is forcing a personal belief onto others who don't hold your belief. NO, you do NOT believe everyone has the right to not be harmed, you keep saying women should be forced to give birth...which harms them. Having an abortion is infringing on NO ones' rights, there is no other person involved but the woman. YOU want the fetus to have the rights of a person but NONE of the RESTRICTIONS everyone else has.... You're finally right except that it's a fetus growing inside the woman...it has no choice....HOW would it even if it was deemed a "person"? Morse code? Choosing not to use contraceptives does NOT make you pregnant. Consent to one act is not consent to any other act especially one you have no control over...if you want that law changed then let's change it for everybody!!!! If you consent to allow your friend to enter your house then you have consented to have him trash it, smack you around and rob you blind... WHY do you want that???? Guess you also want pregnant women to lose their right to self defense...something YOU don't want to lose. Look in a mirror....read your own posts... Oh, that silly idea has played in here before....and shows you have NO idea what misogynistic means. You don't want females to be aborted but actual female people you want punished for having sex, that's a misogynist. A misogynist hates women because they want to take away their rights to their own body, think women should suffer the consequences of their actions while the misogynist himself doesn't do that. A misogynist thinks forcing women to give birth is the punishment they deserve for having sex.... See above.
Murder is a legal term which essentially means killing someone when it is illegal. Simply asserting something is murder is no different to simply asserting it’s wrong, you’ve still not established the fact. If you just want a meaningless discussion of high-minded principles sure – I don’t really see the point in that though. If you wish to apply those principles to real people in the real world (and bringing if the term murder does that), practical realities and pragmatism are unavoidable. No, but criminalising it isn’t all we do. We take all sorts of other measures to seek to prevent it happening and make efforts to prevent rapists reoffending. We don’t simply write up a list of things that are wrong and leave it at that. Are you claiming that you’ve never done anything you knew was wrong? If so, you must be some unique and magically unflawed example of humanity. Also, you completely ignore the pretty much constant disagreements, often at a very fundamental level, as to whether certain things are “wrong”, especially in extreme situations (e.g. killing a burglar).
You want to use your morals to FORCE others to do your "morally right thing" .....that is not empathetic that is a dictatorship/sociopath/I-am-god syndrome. Rape is wrong because it causes harm to other persons and chaos in society...abortion causes neither.
I am a libertarian as well, and you seem to have some things mixed up a bit. The association between a pregnant woman and the developing fetus inside her must be a voluntary association to avoid violating the NAP. The fetus is, after you strip away all the appeal to emotion, a parasitic organism. That is, it is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. The woman must voluntarily agree to maintain this relationship. To force her to do otherwise is a violation of the NAP.
From what I've seen from the Pro-Choice folks, they don't see unborn children as "persons"---as human beings with real civil rights. Some don't even think they legally transform into "persons" until after they are born the umbilical cord is cut. Others will think they cross over the threshold of personhood when they can "feel pain" or their brains are developed enough.
Only in the short term can they be imagined as "parasitic." In the long term, children usually grow to later provide care, safety and many other assets to the family group. Those that die without having children have committed genetic suicide.
Uh, not just Pro-Choice folks but the LAW also does not deem fetuses "persons" with rights AND RESTRICTIONS until birth. If fetuses had rights before they were persons (birth) their rights would conflict with women's rights....Ya, I know Anti-Choicers don't believe women should have rights but they do
I agree, however, one cannot force another to maintain a parasitic relationship against their will, no matter how brief, without violating the NAP. This is at the core of the OP's argument.
