I am a pro-life atheist

[reverendjeremiah]

...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.

Says the man who has no problem with the government enforcing racism. Or the government forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesnt want to term. I can easily see Tiberius allowing the government to come into a home of a woman who wishes to have an abortion and forcefeeding her, or putting her in an asylum to ensure her baby comes out correct. Or arresting a doctor who had to give a split second decision on aborting a baby to save the womans life...of course the government has to ensure it was a correct decision, and if the doctor was wrong, then , well...its in jail for him as a murderer. For someone who claims to be for less government, it sure looks that the only place government would be lessened would be in corporations...anyone else would have shit loads more government in their private lives if Tiberius had his ways.

@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.

And the baby isnt? The baby is part of the womb the entire time. Your lack of education on biology is laughable. Did you ever pay attention in biology class?

[passionatefool]

@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.

Are you serious? Sperms and egg cells are precisely the basic components of your so called independent life which it really isnt. The only difference is these two.components are joined in pregnancy. I am sorry but most abortiom happened quite early so it is just as immoral as killing a clumps of unconcious cells. this pregnancy is part of the women who are carrying it so it is invasive and a violation of their personal rights if you insist on thinking you can somehow make it illegal for them to choose what is best for them.

[Tiberius]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you want to make this a right to life issue rather than directly addressing abortion then we can criticize your idea of "right to life". How is this established, this "right to life"? By our say so yes? Does it go any deeper? If it doesn't, and this is a "because we say so" issue, then abortion is also permissable "because we say so"...ah, "rights". So cut and dry because they are clearly an objective thing based firmly in logic, reason, and demonstrable evidence...lol.

[Tiberius]

Are you serious? Sperms and egg cells are precisely the basic components of your so called independent life which it really isnt. The only difference is these two.components are joined in pregnancy. I am sorry but most abortiom happened quite early so it is just as immoral as killing a clumps of unconcious cells. this pregnancy is part of the women who are carrying it so it is invasive and a violation of their personal rights if you insist on thinking you can somehow make it illegal for them to choose what is best for them.

Sperm contains the DNA of the male; they are his cells, they are his life. The egg contains the DNA of the female, it is her cell, it is her life.

Our entire bodies are made up of unconscious cells, so unless you can point me to a single cell in our body that has consciousness, your argument falls apart completely. Unless you are in favour of pardoning all murderers, since all they ever did was kill a bunch of unconscious cells, and therefore did nothing morally wrong.

In the case of abortion, what is best for them, and what is best for the baby come into conflict, hence my opposition.

[The Grand Nudger]

What baby?

[reverendjeremiah]

@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.

Oh yeah, i am well aware that when I back you into a corner with damn good arguments you call it a "lie" instead of actually trying to defend your positions, then you start another thread where you turn something horrible like institutionalized racism into a "HAW HAW" joke like some self obsessed adolescent.

Yes, I am very aware of how childish you can be when you dont get your way.


Now run off and stamp your feet and hold your breath, cause you sure cant argue logically or even finalize an argument to its logical conclusion. Anyone who actually understood logic would not commit the fallacy of popularity like you just did in this post. People running to defend you =/= your argument is logical, or even correct.

---

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.

+

Philosophy: Moral & Existential Nihilism, Skepticism.

=

[Whateverist]

I do appreciate your responding to what I asked you. I won't think you a horrible person if in the end we disagree, though I may think you are more inconsistent in your positions than you probably think. However I would like to rephrase the question thus:

If half of us judge 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?


I know you feel that you must advocate for the could-be person who cannot do so for himself but I'd like to know why you think that your reasons for not allowing a distinction based on parental intent should weigh more heavily than those of us who judge otherwise.

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.

I recognize that you did address my original question more later but I don't see anything that isn't really an expression of your sentiments in the matter. And I am not swayed by those. So agree to disagree then?

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]

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

A logical argument is only as strong as the terms it uses, and until you can prove the accuracy of your terms, you have no argument.

It is an unproven assertion that a zygote = human being rather than living human cells. You assert cherry picked dictionary definitions but then ignore any definitions that contradict your position (different definitions of life, murder, human being).

Tu Quoque fallacy by declaring someone supports abortion but not the death penalty, argumentum ad nauseum (repetition of murder, life, human despite refusing to acknowledge the many definitions), argumentum ad misericoridiam (you kill a defenceless baby who cannot speak for itself), petitio principii (Human beings are made of human cells, thefore killing human cells is murder) and so on and so forth.

But keep going, I've almost won my game of logical fallacy bingo I've got going running on this thread.

In regards to the comment we should release all murderers, I'll add fallacious reductio ad absurdium which wasn't on my bingo sheet, as it ignores the fact the combination of unconscious cells give consciousness and the victim is a person. The combinations of cells in a zygote do not give consciousness and cannot be defined as a person beyond its potential to be.

Now I apologise if this appears to be ad hominem itself, I'm not trying to have a go at you, I apologise because I respect that you're representing a minority view in this thread, and I am trying to provoke some actual argument instead of unsubstantiated assertions because essentially your position is by no means indefensible, its perfectly defensible and I'm confused because you don't even seem to be trying to justify it beyond the assertions "Its Life Jim, but not as we know it". (EDIT: Dammit, now I have star trekkin' by The Firm stuck in my head and it won't go away!)

You've asserted its a moral view, but failed to define what moral standard you're using.
You've asserted life and human cells, but failed to define what gives it equivalent rights to a person.
You've asserted murder without defining the previous two items to support it

However, I would really like to hear your answer to the question posed several times.

Do you ban someone from attempting to have a baby which is unlikely to come to term because they are engaging in an activity which will probably lead to at least premeditated manslaughter.

I would also like you to defend your assertions and assumptions beyond ad nauseum and cherry picking only those that support your position.

This isn't personal, and its not fair for me to single your fallacies out instead of those in some of the pro-choice posts as well, I acknowledge this completely. There does not seem to be any anti-choice petitioners other than yourself willing to discuss the matter, and it simply wouldn't be much of a discussion if we all agree with each other.

Once again for clarity, there are several incidents of logical fallacies on both sides of the argument (I'm not excluding myself, we're all guity of it from time to time, since few of us have formal training), I'm simply asking for pro-life to provide arguments instead of assertions.