(February 25, 2012 at 10:44 am)whateverist Wrote: 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.But as a libertarian I do want the government in the business of protecting an upholding people's rights, with the most important right being the right to life.
Quote: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?
Morals are not objective, however they can be deduced via logical thought. Logic is not objective either, but exists in rational minds, hence morality is very much subjective, but is a product of logical thinking. I have yet to come across a logical argument that can simply argue away the right to life, other than the argument for self-defence.
As for why in the world a libertarian would wish to impose this on people, it is because the unborn child is just as much a human as anyone who has been born, and therefore is deserving of the same human rights that we logically deduce for ourselves. Therefore, abortion is unethical and immoral unless done in self-defence, because it voids the right to life of another human. I also fail to see how killing someone rather than delivering an unwanted baby is somehow the "lesser of two evils"; killing is permanent, pregnancy is not.
Quote: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.
Why? Because we shouldn't make policy decisions on "feelings", we should make them on logical (science based) grounds.
Quote: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?
It is not the baby's fault how it was conceived, or how its parents feel about it. Yet we are fine with giving it what is effectively a death sentence. That's why it doesn't matter. The most tragic thing about abortion is that arguably the person it affects the most doesn't get a say in the entire process.
@reverendjeremiah: Your assertion is comical at best, and I think you've seen recently what happens when you try to spread lies about me. That's all I have to say on the matter.
