Ron Paul ignored.

[Tiberius]

I understand. You have to grasp for straws. Your view on this is sitting on shakey foundations, and therefore needs LOTS of bullshit to be thrown out, especially in the face of the consequences the world would suffer if your belief in this topic were to be legislated.

I'm not grasping at straws. In no way can you call what I said an argument from authority when (1) it wasn't an argument for my position, but rather myself commenting on how I was convinced, and (2) I never held up Hitchens as an authority. An argument from authority has the following basic structure (from Wikipedia):

1) Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
2) a says p about S.
3) Therefore, p is correct.

Yet I did not make any attempt to establish Hitchens as an authority (1), and I certainly did not say that our views are "correct" (3). Our views are our own opinions; it is the arguments behind those opinions which can be flawed. Now, Hitchens made an argument for his (and my) opinion in the video, so if you wish to discuss that, we can. However, simply pointing to an argument made in a video and referencing the person who made it is in no way an argument from authority.

..and of course you never said "this is my argument from authority". but, as always, your words have meaning and consequences. As far as your argument from authority, are you telling me that you in no way held Christopher Hitchens up as and authority on the subject by saying: "I understand your position though; I used to be like you, supporting abortion to the same degree. I was persuaded to think otherwise by a man you've probably heard of, Christopher Hitchens" .."I've probably heard of" Good god man, this entire group of sentences is just SCREAMING 'argument fro authority' to everyone who reads it.

Yes, I am honestly telling you that in no way did I hold up Christopher Hitchens as an authority on the subject. The only person whom those sentences would "scream" at would be a person who doesn't understand what an argument from authority is. Christopher Hitchens is clearly not an authority on the subject, but in the video he referenced an argument which I find to be convincing. I did not say anything to the tune of "because Christopher Hitchens said it, it must be true".

Yes, no matter how much you back peddle, no matter how much you toss hundreds of words out, the fact of the matter is that you held up Hitchens as an authority (that obviously changed your mind) and that I should take his word for it by saying "I used to be like you".

I wouldn't need to toss out hundreds of words if you would simply stop taking everything I say and melding it into a completely new meaning. Did the thought not occur to you that I said "I used to be like you" because it was TRUE?

Hitchens is NOt an expert on abortion, which makes your authority argument even weaker.

Hitchens is not an expert on abortion, but the argument he used was based on genetics, and the consensus of geneticists is that unborn children are humans (yes...THAT was an argument from authority, and a perfectly valid one).

..meanwhile the actual experts in the field tend to disagree with you and Hitchens stance on abortion, which makes your argument from authority even less convincing.

...meanwhile, the actual experts in the field of genetics (i.e. the field that Hitchens referenced in his argument) agree very much that unborn children are humans. The fact that the same geneticists do not agree on abortion isn't the point here; that isn't what the argument is about, it is about the fact that since unborn children are genetically human, they have human rights.

Now, I expect you to ramble on and on and on, but nothing you say will change the fact that you are willing to force a woman to carry to term a baby she does not want to carry to term.

Well I highly doubt we could "force" women to carry to term; before medical abortion, women used to do all sorts of horrible things to kill their unborn children. Oh, and before you suggest it, I am NOT in favour of locking up and monitoring any person who has an abortion denied.

that makes you greivously authoritarian in your socio political views compared to me. Willing to censor a womans choice because of some not so well thought out "rights of the fetus" concept

Damn dude...thats low.

The thing about you is that you can't hold up a mirror and look at yourself. You don't get it do you? There is no "anti-authoritarian" solution to abortion; in both cases, someone's rights are overruled. If we legalise abortion, then innocent children are killed; if we criminalise it, then innocent women who are raped will suffer.

The only logical solution which is rights-based is to have very specific conditions on when abortion should be allowed, and when it should not. That way, a woman who is raped does not have to suffer (as much), and an innocent baby born to a mother who got pregnant accidentally gets to live.

[reverendjeremiah]

The thing about you is that you can't hold up a mirror and look at yourself

You are absolutely correct. I cannot hold up a mirror and look at myself right now because I do not own a hand held mirror. On the other hand, I find it very easy to look at myself in my huge bathroom mirror.

You don't get it do you?

I think I do. Do you get it?

There is no "anti-authoritarian" solution to abortion; in both cases, someone's rights are overruled. If we legalise abortion, then innocent children are killed; if we criminalise it, then innocent women who are raped will suffer.

Yes there is an anti-authoritarian solution, and it is the one I suggested. Dont write legislations on the wall of someones womb.

Now, in the spirit of good argument, I will type as if your position is correct. If there is, as you say, no "anti-authoritarian" solution to abortion, then I personally would make my judgement in the idea of granting the most freedom. In other words, if I were to err, I would prefer to err in the direction of more freedom to the most amount of people as possible. that means I would STILL suggest that it is not the governments role to decide who MUST become a mother, and who has the option of terminating. I will choose the limited government solution because the government would only make matters worse in this situation.

The only logical solution which is rights-based is to have very specific conditions on when abortion should be allowed, and when it should not. That way, a woman who is raped does not have to suffer (as much), and an innocent baby born to a mother who got pregnant accidentally gets to live.

Logical? You cant even make up your mind wether rights should be voted on or not. If logic were to be thrown into this subject, then it would become even more inhumane. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual. Therefore, each and every pregnancy would be put to a popular vote regardless of the circumstances (rape, accident, willingness) surrounding the creation of the unborn baby. If the masses think we do not have enough resources to support the baby, they will vote that all pregnancies be terminated until an equilibrium is met. If the masses are in the middle of a war, then they would vote that all abortions become illegal in order to create more soldiers for the war...etc...etc..

Logic is NOT human. Logic can be so very cold and thoughtless that I would suggest logic to be the WORSE idea to use for this subject.

I have placed much thought into this topic, and although I may be wrong, I feel that my answer is the best we can do...and, to top it off, as I have said before, I am personally opposed to abortion. I find it disgusting. Yet, I still consider the best way to deal with this "problem" is to let the individual woman decide up or down, and nobody else.

[Minimalist]

I always find it amusing ( or infuriating ) when libertarian types who insist they want the government out of people's lives are completely willing to use government to criminalize behavior of which they disapprove. I'd call it hypocrisy but our whole system of government is based on hypocrisy.

[5thHorseman]

Ron Paul appears to only be libertarian economically, not a libertarian to the individual.

[reverendjeremiah]

I always find it amusing ( or infuriating ) when libertarian types who insist they want the government out of people's lives are completely willing to use government to criminalize behavior of which they disapprove. I'd call it hypocrisy but our whole system of government is based on hypocrisy.

Some right wing libertarians are like that. Not all of them.

Left wing libertarians are a different story on this subject. The farthest they would go is a law saying that the government cannot interfere with pregnancy. Personally we shouldnt have to do that. It should be a given.

...but some people wish to force pregnant woman to do anothers bidding.

I find this idea repulsive.

[Tiberius]

Yes there is an anti-authoritarian solution, and it is the one I suggested. Dont write legislations on the wall of someones womb.

...and so you've effectively legalised the murder of innocent humans. That is very much an authoritarian solution. By not legislating on abortion, the government is making a statement that in contrast to scientific facts, unborn children are not human, and thus have no human rights. I hold that the opposite is true; that since unborn children are genetically human, they must therefore have human rights.

At what point do children get their human rights in that case? At the moment of birth? If so, are you in support of abortion the day before the child was expected to be born? You speak about the "consequences" of my beliefs, but what about the consequences of yours? Where do you draw the line?

In other words, if I were to err, I would prefer to err in the direction of more freedom to the most amount of people as possible. that means I would STILL suggest that it is not the governments role to decide who MUST become a mother, and who has the option of terminating. I will choose the limited government solution because the government would only make matters worse in this situation.

I would argue that the decision that provides the most freedom to the most amount of people would be the opposite; that women (1 individual) can at minimum abort a single baby (1 individual), but have the capacity to abort several over the course of their lives (many individuals). In short, an abortion only takes one woman, but one woman can have many abortions.

Yes, the government shouldn't have to make a decision on who "must" become a mother, but the government should also uphold human rights, and I believe that the most important right humans have is the right to life.

Logical? You cant even make up your mind wether rights should be voted on or not.

Yet more proof that you still don't get the very basic difference between voting on whether rights are rights (which is absurd, since rights are rights by definition), and voting on what should happen when two rights come into conflict (as per the multiple examples I've given, but to which you've refused to respond).

You don't get to tell me that I can't make up my mind on a specific subject when I've argued it repeatedly, given you examples, and you have refused to respond to them. You haven't even made a comment, let alone a rebuttal of the whole "conflict of rights" issue, so how you can sit there and say that I "can't make up my mind" is beyond me.

In a debate, you can challenge your opponent on what they have said, and they can respond. What you can't then do is ignore their response, and continue to challenge them on the same thing. You can either (a) ignore their response and not bring up the issue again, or (b) challenge their response. I don't mind which you do, but please don't go down the line of accusing me of not being able to make up my mind, when I've already responded to that multiple times.

[reverendjeremiah]

...and so you've effectively legalised the murder of innocent humans.

If you want to look at it from that facet, then be my guest.

That is very much an authoritarian solution.

no it isnt. It is the LEAST authoritarian position out of the choices available. Big difference.

By not legislating on abortion, the government is making a statement that in contrast to scientific facts, unborn children are not human,

LMFAO, now you are pushing it, grasping for straws. Unborn children ARE human, the mother owns the womb. Its crystal clear.

and thus have no human rights.

LMFAO, try and tell your parents you dont want to go to church when they force their religion on you...come back to me later once you find those rights for children you keep dragging on about.

I hold that the opposite is true; that since unborn children are genetically human, they must therefore have human rights.

Mother owns the womb, and the nutrients, and the umbilical...and the baby!.

At what point do children get their human rights in that case? At the moment of birth? If so, are you in support of abortion the day before the child was expected to be born? You speak about the "consequences" of my beliefs, but what about the consequences of yours? Where do you draw the line?

Hmm..thats a good question. Here's another, "Do we humans actually HAVE rights to begin with?" I have lots of good questions that will never get answered.
The consequences of my beliefs on this topic are the minimal possible consequences. By allowing abortion, and (hopefully) having a good education, abortion will be few and rare. Your option has consequences as well, but the freedoms of the citizen are removed. Not to mention your option allows the foot in the door for others to come in with even more wild legislations and authoritative commands upon the womans womb.

Where do I draw the line? Your rights start when your mother decides to extend them to the unborn in her womb. That is HER allowing the unborn baby to have rights. It is HER womb, it is HER body, it is HER rights that she can extend or retract from the unborn. Once the baby becomes an INDIVIDUAL, who no longer requires life support from mommas womb, then he or she will have their own rights.

I would argue that the decision that provides the most freedom to the most amount of people would be the opposite; that women (1 individual) can at minimum abort a single baby (1 individual), but have the capacity to abort several over the course of their lives (many individuals). In short, an abortion only takes one woman, but one woman can have many abortions.

By the gods! So if a handful of women use birth control as, well, birth control, then it is a horrible crime! So naturally, we need to tell these woman "sorry, but we are taking charge of your womb. You're having this baby wether you want it or not." Last I checked it took two to tango. What will be done to the man who produces future abortion victims?

Yes, the government shouldn't have to make a decision on who "must" become a mother, but the government should also uphold human rights, and I believe that the most important right humans have is the right to life.

Well, I dont know about your country, but our country is pretty cut and dry on who has rights and who doesnt.

All personsborn or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Plain and simple in our country. You cant have rights unless you are at least born.

Yet more proof that you still don't get the very basic difference between voting on whether rights are rights (which is absurd, since rights are rights by definition), and voting on what should happen when two rights come into conflict (as per the multiple examples I've given, but to which you've refused to respond).

#1 - ALL rights are voted on. Every single right that we have in our constitution was voted upon. Maybe you are saying that rights arent voted on because some king or queen ordered them upon people, I dont know, but where I come from all rights are voted for.

#2 - Unborn children have no rights in our country, and trust me, plenty of people have tried to make amendments to give them such rights. They have failed every time.

You don't get to tell me..

Easy now R. What about all of those rights you were just arguing about? My country voted in Freedom of speech as the second most important right a human can have.

...that I can't make up my mind on a specific subject when I've argued it repeatedly, given you examples, and you have refused to respond to them. You haven't even made a comment, let alone a rebuttal of the whole "conflict of rights" issue, so how you can sit there and say that I "can't make up my mind" is beyond me.

Clearly you have not made up your mind about how rights are handled on this subject. You even go so far as saying a judge, or the voting public ( I assume) should decide who has rights in the case of abortion; the mother or the unborn baby.

The only logical solution which is rights-based is to have very specific conditions on when abortion should be allowed, and when it should not. That way, a woman who is raped does not have to suffer (as much), and an innocent baby born to a mother who got pregnant accidentally gets to live.

So if a condom busts, the rights of the mother are ignored in favor of the product of the accident. If the mother is raped (is spousal rape included? Many fundies here consider no such thing as "rape" in the marriage bed) then the babies rights are ignored in favor of the mother.

This is what is called "flip flopping". One minute you are screaming about how babies are innocent and deserve rights, the next minute you are going on about how those rights can be ignored.

What is rape? Sex that a woman doesnt want. The product of that rape is an unwanted baby. That baby has no rights in your view.

What is accidental pregnancy? Sex that a woman wants, but intends not to get pregnant from. The product of that sex is an unwanted baby. That baby has rights in your view.

Both babies are unwanted by the owner of the womb.

I do not flip flop on this case. Unborn babies have no rights until they are born. Period.

[Minimalist]

Plain and simple in our country. You cant have rights unless you are at least born.

Unless shitheads like Ron Paul and his fucking son have their way whereupon the government ( that they claim to hate ) will re-classify all women to be brood mares for the state.

Then the cocksuckers will tell us how much they value "freedom."

[reverendjeremiah]

If babies had rights, then any pregnant woman who sets foot on our soil instantly makes that unborn baby a citizen.

Slippery slope giving unborn babies rights. Not to mention it turns the government into a nanny state, something Libertarians are supposed to be opposed to.

[Tiberius]

no it isnt. It is the LEAST authoritarian position out of the choices available. Big difference.

A "least" authoritarian position is still an authoritarian position, by definition. I disagree that it is the "least" authoritarian one though, since it results in the death of humans at the hands of other humans.

LMFAO, now you are pushing it, grasping for straws. Unborn children ARE human, the mother owns the womb. Its crystal clear.

Right...so an abortion is what, some kind of eviction? Just because the mother owns the womb doesn't mean she gets to kill anything that is in it, especially if that life belongs to a human child. People have committed murder in places they own before, but it doesn't suddenly make it legal to do so.

LMFAO, try and tell your parents you dont want to go to church when they force their religion on you...come back to me later once you find those rights for children you keep dragging on about.

Not sure I understand this point. A parent is a legal guardian; we understand that children cannot always make decisions in their best interests, so adults have to make some for them. That fact doesn't suddenly make it ok for adults to murder children in their care.

Mother owns the womb, and the nutrients, and the umbilical...and the baby!.

But you've just said that unborn children are human, which means you are now endorsing slavery by saying that the mother "owns" the baby. What is clear from this conversation is that you haven't thought this through at all; you are perfectly fine with the killing of unborn humans, and the ownership of those humans, despite the fact that if it happened to anyone outside of the womb, you'd object.

The consequences of my beliefs on this topic are the minimal possible consequences. By allowing abortion, and (hopefully) having a good education, abortion will be few and rare. Your option has consequences as well, but the freedoms of the citizen are removed. Not to mention your option allows the foot in the door for others to come in with even more wild legislations and authoritative commands upon the womans womb.

By allowing abortion under certain circumstances, abortion will also be few and rare. Our outcomes are the same, but in my world, there are more humans alive because of it. I disagree that the freedoms of the citizen are removed; we are dealing with two humans here, not one. A conflict of rights. If we hold that the right to life is the most important (as I do), then the best solution is the one where the right to life is not overruled by another right. I also disagree that this in any way allows for other legislations on a woman's womb; we are talking about conflicts of rights here, nothing else.

Where do I draw the line? Your rights start when your mother decides to extend them to the unborn in her womb. That is HER allowing the unborn baby to have rights. It is HER womb, it is HER body, it is HER rights that she can extend or retract from the unborn. Once the baby becomes an INDIVIDUAL, who no longer requires life support from mommas womb, then he or she will have their own rights.

So you'd be fine with the abortion of a baby a day before it was due? Or when you say "no longer requires life support" do you mean the moment when the baby can survive outside the womb (which varies in estimates upwards from 5 months).

By the gods! So if a handful of women use birth control as, well, birth control, then it is a horrible crime! So naturally, we need to tell these woman "sorry, but we are taking charge of your womb. You're having this baby wether you want it or not." Last I checked it took two to tango. What will be done to the man who produces future abortion victims?

Birth control prevents pregnancy. It prevents the formation of a human inside the womb. Preventing life from emerging is not the same as taking life away.

Well, I dont know about your country, but our country is pretty cut and dry on who has rights and who doesnt.

All personsborn or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Plain and simple in our country. You cant have rights unless you are at least born.

Those are citizenship rights, not human rights.

#1 - ALL rights are voted on. Every single right that we have in our constitution was voted upon. Maybe you are saying that rights arent voted on because some king or queen ordered them upon people, I dont know, but where I come from all rights are voted for.

Natural rights are not voted on. We are talking about human rights here; which are natural rights.

Easy now R. What about all of those rights you were just arguing about? My country voted in Freedom of speech as the second most important right a human can have.

Having the right to say whatever you like doesn't mean it isn't rude to ignore the standards of debate.

Clearly you have not made up your mind about how rights are handled on this subject. You even go so far as saying a judge, or the voting public ( I assume) should decide who has rights in the case of abortion; the mother or the unborn baby.

I have made up my mind on the subject. You are the one who keeps insisting I haven't, even though I've been entirely consistent this entire time. Clarifying and explaining things further doesn't mean one hasn't made up their mind, but that one didn't explain well enough, or left out important details.

So if a condom busts, the rights of the mother are ignored in favor of the product of the accident. If the mother is raped (is spousal rape included? Many fundies here consider no such thing as "rape" in the marriage bed) then the babies rights are ignored in favor of the mother.

By "accident" I meant in a case where protection wasn't used. Spousal rape is rape, so yes, abortion would be fine in that case.

This is what is called "flip flopping". One minute you are screaming about how babies are innocent and deserve rights, the next minute you are going on about how those rights can be ignored.

No, flip flopping is where you back one thing, and then later back the complete opposite. I haven't done that. All I've done is clarified and explained further when it was needed. What I've said is that babies are innocent and deserve rights, but in the instance of a conflict of rights those rights can be ignored (as can the mothers, depending on the circumstances).

What is rape? Sex that a woman doesnt want. The product of that rape is an unwanted baby. That baby has no rights in your view.

No, the baby has rights in my view. The woman's rights overrule the baby's rights since the baby is a product of a violation of rights in the first place (the rape). I've been over this several times now; how you aren't getting this very simple point is beyond me.

What is accidental pregnancy? Sex that a woman wants, but intends not to get pregnant from. The product of that sex is an unwanted baby. That baby has rights in your view.

As with the first baby. Whether the mother actively tried to prevent the pregnancy, or just got lazy will affect the outcome in this case.

If babies had rights, then any pregnant woman who sets foot on our soil instantly makes that unborn baby a citizen.

How? I'm English, but if I set foot in America I don't become an American. If the pregnant woman isn't American, then (as far as I'm aware) the baby is only an American if it is born there. The baby still has human rights, just not citizenship rights.

Slippery slope giving unborn babies rights. Not to mention it turns the government into a nanny state, something Libertarians are supposed to be opposed to.

As opposed to a government which authorises the killing of innocent humans? It's the choice between a nanny state (in some circumstances) or a mass-murdering state (in some circumstances). I know which one I'd pick.