A Libertarian Position Against Abortion

[BulletWounD]

Gay rights is immoral? Is that what you are saying?

Please don't derail this topic. It has nothing to do with "gay rights."

I'm sure that you would agree that most of the pro-life folks base what they say on religion. Not on any cold hard facts.

Unfortunately that seems to be the case however THIS thread is not about religious views on abortion; unless of course, you consider that natural rights are a belief and have a foundation in the belief in God. In which case, good luck having a secular debate in regard to anything regarding human rights or the law in the United States in general.

To deny someone thier rights is a form of bondage.

No. Bondage is when someone is held as property by another.

 

[bandaidwoman]

I'm stumped on the "personhood" argument as even in biological/genetic terms it can be viewed more as a spectrum rather than two distinct opposites: personhood and non-personhood.

Agree

I have never understood why both prolifers and prochoicers argue pro abortion or anti abortion based on the ethics of defining when the embyro is considered "alive and human". Unfortunately, even within the field of embryology, there is no black and white defintion of when life begins ( is it when the sperm and egg unite and form a zygote with the complete genetic blueprint for a human or when it arbitrarily goes from being an embyro to a fetus after a certain period of time? ) Those of us who studied embrylogy in medical school argued about it all the time.

I'm more pragmatic:

I am prochoice unconditionally for the following reasons:

1. From a pure public health standpoint any country that does not allow abortion is plaqued with an epidemic of deaths from illegal abortions. From a public health perpective, it is vital to allow legal abortions.

2. We as a human society have evolved from the prison of earthly calamaties by cutting down trees to build a house and a fire, from starvation by mastering beast and plow, and we have escaped the bondage of "basic survival": with new technologies so we can reach our potential as scientists, philosphers and artists. We also have sent young men and women to die to protect our civil and social liberties that have evolved with a society of independant and sovereign nations.

Abortion is a natural part of social evolution because women no longer choose to be victims of the tyranny of their own biology. This is a natural evolution of the rights of half of our society. And a society that does not allow this choice take a good hard look at the condition of half the population in that country. Societies where women are enslaved by their uterus ,their legal and educational status is subpar. Societies that define women by their reproduction does not allow them to support themsevles or educate themselves, and women and llittle girls are secondary citizens. When burdened with a family to feed and a husband that dies, these women starve or prostitute themselves and their daughters. From an anthropolgical and sociological perspective, this simple act allows half the population to be free and determine her destiny in her society.

As a Trekie I quote from Spock in The Wrath of Khan " The good of the many outweigh the good of the few." The few are the aborted fetuses, the many is the unshackelling and freedom of half the population of any society so that they can be free to use their "brains" and not their uteruses. In these societies, women who decide to give birth to their daughters know that their daughters standing in society is good and solid, and not degraded into reproductive chattles for men. The quality of life for these daughters are now more assured ( not gauranteed of course).

 

[OKgrannie]

It's not arbitrary. Conception is the point where two cells bind together and form a seperate human being. Sperm cells and eggs are just carriers of the father and mother's DNA.

A zef is not "a separate human being." While the meaning of "human being" may not have been defined, the meaning of "separate" has been.

define:separate - Google Search

Definitions of separate on the Web:

act as a barrier between; stand between; "The mountain range divides the two countries"
force, take, or pull apart; "He separated the fighting children"; "Moses parted the Red Sea"
distinguish: mark as different; "We distinguish several kinds of maple"
divide: separate into parts or portions; "divide the cake into three equal parts"; "The British carved up the Ottoman Empire after World War I"
divide into components or constituents; "Separate the wheat from the chaff"
classify: arrange or order by classes or categories; "How would you classify these pottery shards--are they prehistoric?"
make a division or separation
discontinue an association or relation; go different ways; "The business partners broke over a tax question"; "The couple separated after 25 years of marriage"; "My friend and I split up"
go one's own way; move apart; "The friends separated after the party"
break: become separated into pieces or fragments; "The figurine broke"; "The freshly baked loaf fell apart"
independent; not united or joint; "a problem consisting of two separate issues"; "they went their separate ways"; "formed a separate church"
discriminate: treat differently on the basis of sex or race
freestanding: standing apart; not attached to or supported by anything; "a freestanding bell tower"; "a house with a separate garage"
come apart; "The two pieces that we had glued separated"
offprint: a separately printed article that originally appeared in a larger publication
separated according to race, sex, class, or religion; "separate but equal"; "girls and boys in separate classes"
branch: divide into two or more branches so as to form a fork; "The road forks"
a garment that can be purchased separately and worn in combinations with other garments
disjoined: have the connection undone; having become separate
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The braindead are living human beings, and I would say, people by virtue of the fact that they are human beings. Would you say a man with a cold and slightly diminished capacity is slightly less of a person then a healthy individual? As I asked earlier, would you say that a baby, who possesses less intellectual capacity than many animals, is not a person or is on a scale of personhood less of a person then a fully grown dolphin? If so, and you believe that natural rights are unique to people, then you must accept that babies have less than or equal rights than an animal and one can freely violate them. If not, then at what point does the baby magically obtain these rights? When he's born? What about when his foot is still in the mother's birth canal? Is he now 90% of a person? There's very little difference between a baby in the womb just prior to birth and a baby that's just been born.

There's a great deal of difference between a fetus in the womb and new-born baby.

Human Metamorphosis

"First I'd like to take issue with your ( and many other people's) claim that "it is very difficult, for example, to support the argument that there's a profound physical difference between an infant 1 hour before birth and the same infant 1 hour later." Take a look at the changes that occur in one system only and it might give you a clue as to what birth really consists of and the wonder that it actually is. I've described it as a form of metamorphosis in the past and that's exactly what it is.

... The major change is from a developing entity which is a part of a woman's body to an independent organism which is self contained. Prior to birth we have a human entity, growing and developing toward organism status, which draws its nourishment, oxygen, and has it's detoxification of blood, and homeostasis maintained by the organism it is a part of. This source before birth is the only source available. A fetus is not an air breather, the born organism is.

...To change from an entity that draws its nourishment from a source that cannot be replaced to an entity that can draw its nourishment from many different sources, to change from a non-air breather to breathing air, and to be able to survive in a previously hostile environment, seems to be a change in its nature to me and the change in nature can certainly be called a form of metamorphosis. ...
If the post birth entity were the same it could live in an anaerobic environment. It can't. Claiming a fetus is the same as a neonate is like claiming a zygote is the same as a neonate and visual inspection alone is sufficient to show the falsehood of the claim in the first instance. The dynamic life forces and functions are totally different. When you attempt to pass off this mystical junk in the guise of actual scientific truth you not only do science a disservice you also show yourself for a fraud."

 

[Ethereal]

Yeah. Or a proper dictionary.

I prefer the following source...

libertarian definition | Dictionary.com

Or this one perhaps...

libertarian - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Yep, those all sound like me.

 

[Jerry]

Gay rights is immoral? Is that what you are saying?

Gay marriage is unethical, yes.

Gay have no business getting married and need to leave the issue alone.

I'm sure that you would agree that most of the pro-life folks base what they say on religion. Not on any cold hard facts.

Nope, we can't agree on that.

Most PL folks base what they say on cold hard science.

To deny someone thier rights is a form of bondage.

The only rights being denied gays are their right to life when they're aborted.

I wasn't even responding to what was in RvW.

Well you weren't responding to anything I said under my own authority, but what I said under SCOTUS.

I was trying to put some perspective out there....

By not having any perspective? /fail

If a person gets arrested for hollering fire in a theater they are not charged with a speech violation. They are charged with endangerment and disorderly conduct. The same would be done if he/she started throwing chairs around.

Exactly.

 

[Jerry]

No. Bondage is when someone is held as property by another.

Right-on right-on :2wave:

 

[Ethereal]

A zef is not "a separate human being." While the meaning of "human being" may not have been defined, the meaning of "separate" has been.

define:separate - Google Search

Definitions of separate on the Web:

act as a barrier between; stand between; "The mountain range divides the two countries"
force, take, or pull apart; "He separated the fighting children"; "Moses parted the Red Sea"
distinguish: mark as different; "We distinguish several kinds of maple"
divide: separate into parts or portions; "divide the cake into three equal parts"; "The British carved up the Ottoman Empire after World War I"
divide into components or constituents; "Separate the wheat from the chaff"
classify: arrange or order by classes or categories; "How would you classify these pottery shards--are they prehistoric?"
make a division or separation
discontinue an association or relation; go different ways; "The business partners broke over a tax question"; "The couple separated after 25 years of marriage"; "My friend and I split up"
go one's own way; move apart; "The friends separated after the party"
break: become separated into pieces or fragments; "The figurine broke"; "The freshly baked loaf fell apart"
independent; not united or joint; "a problem consisting of two separate issues"; "they went their separate ways"; "formed a separate church"
discriminate: treat differently on the basis of sex or race
freestanding: standing apart; not attached to or supported by anything; "a freestanding bell tower"; "a house with a separate garage"
come apart; "The two pieces that we had glued separated"
offprint: a separately printed article that originally appeared in a larger publication
separated according to race, sex, class, or religion; "separate but equal"; "girls and boys in separate classes"
branch: divide into two or more branches so as to form a fork; "The road forks"
a garment that can be purchased separately and worn in combinations with other garments
disjoined: have the connection undone; having become separate
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn







There's a great deal of difference between a fetus in the womb and new-born baby.

Human Metamorphosis

"First I'd like to take issue with your ( and many other people's) claim that "it is very difficult, for example, to support the argument that there's a profound physical difference between an infant 1 hour before birth and the same infant 1 hour later." Take a look at the changes that occur in one system only and it might give you a clue as to what birth really consists of and the wonder that it actually is. I've described it as a form of metamorphosis in the past and that's exactly what it is.

... The major change is from a developing entity which is a part of a woman's body to an independent organism which is self contained. Prior to birth we have a human entity, growing and developing toward organism status, which draws its nourishment, oxygen, and has it's detoxification of blood, and homeostasis maintained by the organism it is a part of. This source before birth is the only source available. A fetus is not an air breather, the born organism is.

...To change from an entity that draws its nourishment from a source that cannot be replaced to an entity that can draw its nourishment from many different sources, to change from a non-air breather to breathing air, and to be able to survive in a previously hostile environment, seems to be a change in its nature to me and the change in nature can certainly be called a form of metamorphosis. ...
If the post birth entity were the same it could live in an anaerobic environment. It can't. Claiming a fetus is the same as a neonate is like claiming a zygote is the same as a neonate and visual inspection alone is sufficient to show the falsehood of the claim in the first instance. The dynamic life forces and functions are totally different. When you attempt to pass off this mystical junk in the guise of actual scientific truth you not only do science a disservice you also show yourself for a fraud."

Here's what I need you to do. Pick up a textbook on biology and read it because you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about

It is a scientific fact that beings in utero are not "part" of their mother just as a bacterium is not "part" of its host simply by virtue of being inside it or a party to its physiological processes. If this were true then you would be a prokaryote and a eukaryote at the same time, but I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about since you obtain your perspective on biology from pro-choice literature instead of scientific texts.

 

[BulletWounD]

@GrannyOK

I know the argument you are trying to make is that the ZEF is part of the woman's body, as though it were an arm, leg, or other organ (A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions). I would say that the ZEF is an organism dependent on it's mother for nourishment and a protective environment (not much different from a born baby). I hate to draw this example, but would you consider the larva of a Tarantula Hawk part of the body of a spider?

The key difference you cited between a born baby and an unborn baby is its "inability" to breathe. This is provably false. The unborn child seconds before birth can breathe just as well as the baby who has been born. It just doesn't because the environment of the womb is not conductive to breathing. I was delivered by C-section before I would have been born naturally and there are many babies who are born much more prematurely and are dependent upon external aspiration, would you say that these babies are not persons?

 

[OKgrannie]

Here's what I need you to do. Pick up a textbook on biology and read it because you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about

It is a scientific fact that beings in utero are not "part" of their mother just as a bacterium is not "part" of its host simply by virtue of being inside it or a party to its physiological processes. If this were true then you would be a prokaryote and a eukaryote at the same time, but I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about since you obtain your perspective on biology from pro-choice literature instead of scientific texts.

In this instance, I did not say that beings in utero are part of their mother, I said they are ATTACHED. Attached is not separate. Separate is not attached. Therefore, a zef is NOT separate. However, the woman's body does view the zef as a part of her.

 

[BulletWounD]

In this instance, I did not say that beings in utero are part of their mother, I said they are ATTACHED. Attached is not separate. Separate is not attached. Therefore, a zef is NOT separate. However, the woman's body does view the zef as a part of her.

Ethereal made a good point by pointing out that the bacteria are not part of your body. Your body does not attack those bacteria either. Does that mean your body "views them as part of your body?"

 

[OKgrannie]

@GrannyOK

I know the argument you are trying to make is that the ZEF is part of the woman's body, as though it were an arm, leg, or other organ (A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions). I would say that the ZEF is an organism dependent on it's mother for nourishment and a protective environment (not much different from a born baby). I hate to draw this example, but would you consider the larva of a Tarantula Hawk part of the body of a spider?

A woman's body provides much more than nourishment and a "protective environment" for a zef. Minimizing a woman's contribution in producing a new-born, or minimizing the effect the production has upon a woman's physical, emotional, and financial well-being will not win you the argument.

The key difference you cited between a born baby and an unborn baby is its "inability" to breathe. This is provably false. The unborn child seconds before birth can breathe just as well as the baby who has been born. It just doesn't because the environment of the womb is not conductive to breathing. I was delivered by C-section before I would have been born naturally and there are many babies who are born much more prematurely and are dependent upon external aspiration, would you say that these babies are not persons?

The site states that the difference between being air breathing and not is only ONE system used as an example. Click on the link to learn more.

Fetal Changes During Birth

"So, I'd appreciate if we didn't say that the immediate newborn and term fetus are almost identical, because they just aren't. The digestive changes alone would be ten times the length of this very basic circulatory primer, and the respiratory chemistry changes at the instant of birth could fill a book. "

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Is this supposed to be an answer to the post???

Absolutley, you want to make a legal argument for a moral dilema you have.


I apologize for my shortness, but I don't spend much time with those I find barbaric human killing for convienence apologists. No offense. :2wave:


I can understand the "10 week" argument, It doesn't sit well with me, but whatever..... You on the otherhand, I have no respect for, again, no offense

 

[Kal'Stang]

Please don't derail this topic. It has nothing to do with "gay rights."

This thread is about rights. And I wasn't the one that brought up gays. I was simply responding.

Unfortunately that seems to be the case however THIS thread is not about religious views on abortion; unless of course, you consider that natural rights are a belief and have a foundation in the belief in God. In which case, good luck having a secular debate in regard to anything regarding human rights or the law in the United States in general.

I was making a point.

No. Bondage is when someone is held as property by another.

There are many forms of bondage. Slavery wasn't the only way.

 

[Jerry]

Here's what I need you to do. Pick up a textbook on biology and read it because you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about

It is a scientific fact that beings in utero are not "part" of their mother just as a bacterium is not "part" of its host simply by virtue of being inside it or a party to its physiological processes. If this were true then you would be a prokaryote and a eukaryote at the same time, but I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about since you obtain your perspective on biology from pro-choice literature instead of scientific texts.

I told you so.

She's ignoring biological fact and posting someone else's argument to counter you instead of debating you herself.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Here's what I need you to do. Pick up a textbook on biology and read it because you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about

It is a scientific fact that beings in utero are not "part" of their mother just as a bacterium is not "part" of its host simply by virtue of being inside it or a party to its physiological processes. If this were true then you would be a prokaryote and a eukaryote at the same time, but I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about since you obtain your perspective on biology from pro-choice literature instead of scientific texts.

Hmm...maybe you should pick up a biological text book yourself? Ever hear of the umbilical cord? If the fetus is not a "part" of their mother then why is it that doctors need to cut the umbilical cord? Not being a part of the mother then it shouldn't need to be cut.

 

[BulletWounD]

Hmm...maybe you should pick up a biological text book yourself? Ever hear of the umbilical cord? If the fetus is not a "part" of their mother then why is it that doctors need to cut the umbilical cord? Not being a part of the mother then it shouldn't need to be cut.

The umbilical cord does not make the fetus part of the mother anymore than a needle would make you part of the syringe in a blood transfusion. The idea that the fetus is biologically part of the mother is not scientific.

Here's one for ya OKgrannie:

United Press International
08-21-1998
How a fetus avoids maternal immune system

UPI Science News

WASHINGTON, Aug. 20, (UPI) _ Scientists say they may have found an
answer to one of life's greatest mysteries _ how a fetus avoids being
attacked by its mother's immune system.

New research, conducted in mice, suggests that the fetus actively
defends itself from its mother, using a chemical weapon that cripples
critical immune system cells.

The finding, the scientists say, could open the door to new method of
tackling medical problems that include miscarriage, rejection of
transplanted organs and diseases in which the immune system runs out of
control, like diabetes, arthritis and lupus.

HOW A FETUS AVOIDS MATERNAL IMMUNE SYSTEM | Article from United Press International | HighBeam Research

I'm trying to find the full article and related research as we speak.

 

[prometeus]

The key difference you cited between a born baby and an unborn baby is its "inability" to breathe. This is provably false. The unborn child seconds before birth can breathe just as well as the baby who has been born.

How about six months before birth?

 

[prometeus]

...using a chemical weapon that cripples critical immune system cells.

And women should willingly accept that?

 

[OKgrannie]

The umbilical cord does not make the fetus part of the mother anymore than a needle would make you part of the syringe in a blood transfusion. The idea that the fetus is biologically part of the mother is not scientific.

The umbilical cord makes the fetus CONNECTED to the pregnant woman, and therefore the fetus is not SEPARATE.

HOW A FETUS AVOIDS MATERNAL IMMUNE SYSTEM | Article from United Press International | HighBeam Research

I'm trying to find the full article and related research as we speak.

The pregnant woman's body views the fetus as a part of her, so her immune system doesn't attack it. The fetus is a semi-allogenic graft.

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/infrmdC/Paradigm_more.htm

"See also Williams Obstetrics 1997, page 20, for a further discussion of the semiallogenic fetal graft. Those who have read my posts in the past have seen my reference to the apple tree as a close analogy of the reproductive process in humans where the blossom eventually leads to the new seed bearer when the apple falls from the tree yet during the full reproductive phase the apple is a part of the tree. It could be sensibly argued that the POC is not a real graft to the body of the woman (or pregnancy unit) because there was never a time when it was not a part of her body even when the trophoblasts suppress HLA, (human leukocyte antigens) to prevent rejection. To claim it is not a part of her body is to deny biological reality."

 

[Kal'Stang]

The umbilical cord does not make the fetus part of the mother anymore than a needle would make you part of the syringe in a blood transfusion. The idea that the fetus is biologically part of the mother is not scientific.

You can take a needle out without cutting it...can you do so with the umbilical cord? I think not.

 

[BulletWounD]

The umbilical cord makes the fetus CONNECTED to the pregnant woman, and therefore the fetus is not SEPARATE.

My computer is CONNECTED to debatepolitics.com through the internet. That doesn't mean my computer is part of the server which hosts debatepolitics. My toaster is plugged in to the power grid. Without the power grid my toaster would not function. Does that mean my toaster is part of the power grid? Two connected systems, what's so hard to understand?

The pregnant woman's body views the fetus as a part of her, so her immune system doesn't attack it. The fetus is a semi-allogenic graft.

Grannie's argument in a nutshell:

The body's immune system does not attack itself.
The body's immune system does not attack the fetus.
Therefore the fetus is part of the body.

Where this argument fails is there are OTHER EXPLANATIONS for why the mother's immune system does not attack the fetus. Another good example of immunotolerance is the lack of an immune system response to beneficial bacteria. Also, in many cases the mother's body does attack the body of the fetus.

A cursory glance at the research reveals that the subject is tremendously complex, but also that Grannie's argument that "the body views the fetus as part of the body" is a vast and disingenuous oversimplification of the facts.

 

[Kal'Stang]

My computer is CONNECTED to debatepolitics.com through the internet. That doesn't mean my computer is part of the server which hosts debatepolitics. My toaster is plugged in to the power grid. Without the power grid my toaster would not function. Does that mean my toaster is part of the power grid? Two connected systems, what's so hard to understand?

The computer can be disconnnected without cutting anything. A toaster can be removed from the outlet without cutting anything. Do you cut your power cords when you turn off your computer? Your toaster?

 

[BulletWounD]

How about six months before birth?

Exactly. Keep the thought train going.

And women should willingly accept that?

Huh?

You can take a needle out without cutting it...can you do so with the umbilical cord? I think not.

I'm sorry that nature does not provide a neat little interface between the two systems (organisms in this case). I guess you could say that the fetus and the mother form a super-system or a system of systems (like how my computer and all the other connected computers make up the internet) but they're still two systems. The fetus is no more part of the mother than the processor is part of the hard drive even though they're both parts of a computer.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I'm sorry that nature does not provide a neat little interface between the two systems (organisms in this case). I guess you could say that the fetus and the mother form a super-system or a system of systems (like how my computer and all the other connected computers make up the internet) but they're still two systems. The fetus is no more part of the mother than the processor is part of the hard drive even though they're both parts of a computer.

Hey you're the one that wants to change the definition of "a part of <insert subject here>".

Would you argue that a persons appendix is not a part of a person based on your assertions here?

 

[BulletWounD]

Hey you're the one that wants to change the definition of "a part of <insert subject here>".

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not changing the definition of anything. Care to tell me?

Would you argue that a persons appendix is not a part of a person based on your assertions here?

No. But I would argue that the appendix is not part of the heart. Furthermore, the fetus is not an organ.