Oh, I actually misread you. I thought you were saying abortion isn't right (as in morality)
I missed the "a" before right.
In any case, rights are determined by men too.
Uh...no, but okay.
How can the government "protect our god given liberty" without doing it "by force of law"?
You just switched from "values" to "morality". You previously said that you "don't seek to impose my values on the rest of society by force of law", and you also said that liberty was one of your values. Therefore, you don't want to impose liberty by force of law. That would be fine for an anarchist, but you also said "The purpose of government is to protect our god given liberty.". This can't be done without the force of law, which you already admitted.It can't, of course, which is why we need laws.
The point is that the purpose of government is to make and enforce laws that protect our liberty, not ones that protect us from ourselves or that try to impose someone else's morality on the rest of us.
You just switched from "values" to "morality". You previously said that you "don't seek to impose my values on the rest of society by force of law", and you also said that liberty was one of your values. Therefore, you don't want to impose liberty by force of law. That would be fine for an anarchist, but you also said "The purpose of government is to protect our god given liberty.". This can't be done without the force of law, which you already admitted.
If you consider liberty to be a value, and if you want the government to protect our liberty, then you want to impose at least one of your values by force of law. This is what separates libertarians from anarchists.is there a point somewhere in all of that?
You just switched from "values" to "morality". You previously said that you "don't seek to impose my values on the rest of society by force of law", and you also said that liberty was one of your values. Therefore, you don't want to impose liberty by force of law. That would be fine for an anarchist, but you also said "The purpose of government is to protect our god given liberty.". This can't be done without the force of law, which you already admitted.
If you consider liberty to be a value, and if you want the government to protect our liberty, then you want to impose at least one of your values by force of law. This is what separates libertarians from anarchists.
If you want ANYTHING to be illegal, you're imposing your values on the rest of society. This is necessary if you want the government to protect your life and liberty. Anarchists believe that everything should be legal, and it's up to individuals/families/friends to protect their own liberty, rather than the government doing it.
There isn't anything about abortion laws that makes them unique. Some people might think that stealing food is OK if the person is starving, but it's illegal because the majority disagrees. Democracy is all about the majority imposing its will on the minority. Libertarians believe that this is rarely OK, and should only be done to protect life and liberty. Anarchists believe that it's never OK for the majority to impose its will on the minority.
which is why libertarians are appropriately named; we support the idea of the government protecting life and liberty, even if some people don't like itWhich is why anarchy is not liberty.
which is why libertarians are appropriately named; we support the idea of the government protecting life and liberty, even if some people don't like it
The last phrase in my post was the key part. Are you sure that you agree with it?Agreed.
Too short? What do you mean, too short? Take your "too short" and... Oh, it's long enough now.
My view is none so simplistic and I tend to intensely disagree with all absolutes at the extremes. For example, I do think it would be "murder" to kill a child after a live-birth - but even exceptions to that, although extraordinary ones. In history, rape to force women of another race or people has been used as a genetic weapon. If on a large scale, and only if the individual woman of each child agreed, I could see that killing babies might fall within the rules of war as those babies specifically were the weapon of attacking the other culture on a mass scale. However, that would be in extreme situation and in one in which the race of the child had huge social and political impact within both cultures, so it is more a theory statement of past cultures than actual application potential today.
Gray areas not definable in absolutes give some people problems. They don't for me. What I wrote is what I believe is the absolute further society could possibly go intruding into women's lives and control of her body.
To give it real meaning on another level, if in late term a woman wanted to abort, I could "tolerate" it if a majority had a law that said she had to an induced labor or C-Section to try to live-birth the fetus. Since you claim the fetus is viable at that stage you should have no problem with that. Most states allow a woman to abandon a child at birth if she wishes and pro-lifers generally do support birth-mothers and their husbands throwing away unwanted newborns.
So I guess your view is that if in the first couple weeks the rule was doctors had to try extract the zygote/fetus to try to keep it alive you're ok with that manner of abortion in that it wasn't being deliberately killed. Or did you not really mean what you wrote?
Your example of "crushing the head while the body is mostly delivered" is partial birth abortion and that's illegal. Also, I don't support partial birth abortion. However, you're right about the potassium chloride thing and I didn't know that that's what you meant by "burning". My mistake. Moreover, I am pro-choice, I support improving abortion procedures to eliminate any potential pain that an unborn child might feel. Even so, the amount of pain a fetus can actually feel is still a pretty contested subject.
Yeah, I think a woman's right to choose is more important than a unborn child's right to live. Would I prefer that women not get abortions, particularly so late? Sure I do. But I think women should have the choice. And as I mentioned earlier, I think women should also have the choice to induce birth rather than have an abortion so that viable children have a chance. However, it's my understanding that, currently, women can only make that choice for medical reasons not personal ones which is a problem.
You're not protecting the mother's rights by telling her what to do and I don't believe in telling women what to do with regards to abortion. Your argument is simply a pro-life argument that's telling me that my reasons for being pro-choice aren't good enough for you. But the thing is, I don't care if they are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?