Things would get very interesting if say people like "totally Deceived" gets pregnant of his/her daughter is raped

So Kichi, as a person with a uterus, what do you feel are your obligations to society in regards to what goes on in your body? Are you for putting that to a general vote or would you prefer to decide for yourself?

Page one post #19. Agree with Zen regarding death penalty

this is just stupid. I am sure almost if not all people are pro-life but this is not an issue of if we are killing or not, which I dont see what is a big deal with a few cells, might as well forbid masturbation and.... having period. This is an issue of women and reproductive rights. If a woman want to keep it, good for her, if she wishes to abort it, she should be able to get the medical assistance and help necessary to carry out a safe and sanitary abortion. It is just stupid that people are really trying to illegalizing this. What we will end up is unsafe high-risk illegal abortions and inhumane incarcerations and finings of people.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:26 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Meanwhile, for a guy who wants the government (allegedly) out of people's private lives you seem very ready to get them between a woman's legs.

...because babies have private lives too Min. Like I've said before, if abortion were able to remove the baby unharmed and have it live in an artificial womb until it was born, I would have *no* objections to it. My only objection to abortion is that it is a government sanctioned killing of a human life, and I don't believe anyone has a right to do that unless it is in self defence.

@passionatefool: The difference is that sperm / egg are part of you. Suicide should not be illegal, nor count as murder of yourself. It is a very different matter if that life is not yours.

Tell that to those who have successfully died

---

Life is cheap

I'm always wondering if peeps say things like this just to feel good about themselves.

A human only becomes human through years of education and socialization. Life does not begin at conception, it continues. Or not. Assholes.

Well, the law often clashes with peoples ideologies because the law is practical, not ideological. We've had this convo a few times and each time it's people on one side saying "no, this is the law, it is not murder" and people on the other side essentially arguing that it should be. Even if we completely granted the "life begins at conception" song and dance, it still isn't murder. Killing another human being is not automatically murder. So, it's a longer and more involved process than some may have imagined. I think it's pleasant that we've had the sanctity of human life drilled into all of us pretty hard. It's a wonderful mask that many of us like to wear.

...not to mention Libertarians and other right wing nasties.

---

Quote:You da man, rev. I seem to remember our favorite libertarian saying that right to food was not part of the deal. I agree with you completely, if she wants to cut the cord -from her side only- to stop the flow of nutrients out of her body, I think Tiberius will have to grant you this point or else rethink his position.

It sure seems that people with a uterus definitely have fewer rights than those without.

Its one of the reasons Tiberius fears to officially debate me. He knows I will mop the floor with him.

I originally had no problem with him turning it down, but in light of recent events my perception of him has changed

Now watch him pull the victim card.

---

(February 24, 2012 at 11:22 pm)padraic Wrote: errata,that should read 'pro CHOICE'

Pro life people tend to argue personhood exists from the moment of conception. Christians believe the soul is present from that moment.That by the way is by no means a universal view.



000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Then those christians are, as usual, cherry picking the bible. there are many verses in the bible that assume the "soul" is located in the male sperm. the bible is full of stories of god striking men down for allowing the "seed" to hit the ground, and that it would be better to put that seed in the belly of a whore than to let it touch the ground...or to make a whore pregnant

(February 25, 2012 at 4:32 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(February 24, 2012 at 8:26 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Meanwhile, for a guy who wants the government (allegedly) out of people's private lives you seem very ready to get them between a woman's legs.

...because babies have private lives too Min. Like I've said before, if abortion were able to remove the baby unharmed and have it live in an artificial womb until it was born, I would have *no* objections to it. My only objection to abortion is that it is a government sanctioned killing of a human life, and I don't believe anyone has a right to do that unless it is in self defence.

I'm not sure "government sanctioned" is the fairest description for it when a government does not prohibiit abortion. It isn't as if the government recommends abortion. As a libertarian you generally want the government out of the sanctioning business.

Elsewhere you say you are not a moral objectivist. That can't be right. You obviously feel that abortion is always morally wrong and therefore impermissible. I and many others don't agree with you. Some on my side would agree with you that it is morally wrong but still the lesser of two evils compared with forcing the woman to carry a child she doesn't want. Others will agree with me that morals are strictly a personal matter and therefore only those of the woman considering the abortion matter. I don't know what the numbers are but lets say we are evenly divided between those in favor of prohibiting abortion and those in favor of letting the woman decide. Unless you really feel abortion is absolutely morally wrong, why in the world would you -a libertarian- wish to impose that on the rest of us?

I know about your concern for the fetus. I also remember that you feel the law needs to be consistent. Of course we want the law to be enforced consistently but we want to formulate the law in a way that makes the correct distinctions. Manslaughter vs intent matters. Planned vs heat of the moment matters. Mentally competent matters. If half of us feel that the circumstances which initiated the beginning of life also matter but you don't, exactly why should we concede to your sense of consistency? This is clearly a distinction which the law needs to get right.

Your contention seems to be that once life is started the intent of those who started it is of no concern. Well that is what is at issue. We say it is. What do you have to say to the rest of us about why this distinction doesn't matter?