- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,821
- Reaction score
- 75,810
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Let's not get childish, you know what you said. Valuing the right to life over the right to comfort is not anti-libertarian. Is it not anti-libertarian to force women to take care of their born children? How dare we demand that they give their children food, water, and medical care. It's like we're making mothers 2nd class citizens and violating their right to their pursuit of happiness.
with our core beliefs, the same way that we justify everyone else's rights
WHy are you shouting? And lying? I never said anything about 'comfort.' WHy are you putting words in my mouth and making assumptions.
And when are women FORCED to take care of born children? They can give them up to the state. You are just running off the rails here. Please calm down and if you have something constructive, let me know.
Fine, I never said they couldnt...I just gave my opinion and supported it legally, morally, and philosophically (according to RabidAlpaca who seems to have gone rabid).
If you can support your beliefs the same, more power to you.
The unborn do not have legal rights (in this country), but that does not mean that they don't deserve rights or life. It's a philosophical question, not a legal one. Legality can change with the movement of a pen.
Even if someone says an adult is an individual who has rights and liberties, that's still 100% subjective.Some see the ZEF as a individual who has rights and liberties. Others, like myself, may hold that view but recognize that our view is subjective
So let me get this straight. You straight up lie saying you never said libertarians can't keep consistent with their beliefs and be pro-life, and I give you a few quotes where you did, and instead of addressing this you freak out about text sizing and my use of the word comfort? (I've used the word comfort for the past 3 posts, and I never said you did.)
You do realize that on the internet you can't determine one's emotional state, right? Whatever, let's just end this, you seem to be in misdirection dodge mode right now anyway.
Posting quotes where you lied is being rabid? You really should look up that word.
It's a joke. It points out the difference between charity and taxation.tell me how you believe jesus was libertarian
Those are valid opinions but they aren't necessarily libertarian.Yes it is. And the born are entitled to it. If you believe the unborn are as well, then when the state protects those rights, they will infringe on the born's right to life. There is no quarantee of surviving birth...or pregnancy or childbirth. The state does not have that power. That is why the individual should have the choice to assume those risks...not the state.
Not all of them, but many are right IMHO. Banning slavery fits that description.And they are right?
Even if someone says an adult is an individual who has rights and liberties, that's still 100% subjective.
Those are valid opinions but they aren't necessarily libertarian.
Are you trying to argue in favor of the pro-choice position, prove that pro-life libertarians are hypocrites, or something else?It seems there isnt agreement on that here in the thread focused on that discussion.
Are you trying to argue in favor of the pro-choice position, prove that pro-life libertarians are hypocrites, or something else?
You're confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism firmly believes in using the force of law to protect rights.
Even if someone says an adult is an individual who has rights and liberties, that's still 100% subjective.
There is no concrete or empirical evidence to show that the government should protect anyone's rights. It's impossible to prove that a 30 year old is equivalent to a 40 year old.Not confused at all. I am a strong advocate of using force of law to allow people to do as they wish and allow whom they wish onto all their private property even if it is a business. And I will be the first one there protesting said business when they do discriminate for whatever reason. Except shoplifting....they can discriminate against the shoplifter.
The whole problem with the abortion issue is determining the factor(s) that makes a human a "higher life form" and not just another animal. When are these factor obtained? Are the present even before the joining of the egg and sperm? We, in all honesty, do not know. Many of us, through our faith and religion, believe that we have an answer. Even those who are atheist run both ways on the topic. Whatever it is that makes us believe as a race that killing one another in cold blood should be a crime, and that using one another as a food source is that factor(s) that we need to determine and when it occurs. We all seem to instinctively attribute this to a newborn and continue that status throughout the lifespan of the individual. But not so much to a ZEF. This is less common.
If I don't find my evidence concrete enough and empirical enough, then I don't have that right to force my belief by law onto another. I simply can't prove that a ZEF is the equivalent of a newborn. So as such my libertarian sensibilities tell me that I can try to convince people to believe as I do and act accordingly, but I cannot remove the right of the mother to end her pregnancy. Which BTW is her only right in the matter. She doesn't actually have the right to an abortion per se'. Abortion happens to be the only safe (relatively speaking) method available to her. That's a whole other thread though.
We can go on to say that humans having any real existence outside of my highly vivid imagination is 100% subjective. How existential do you want to get? Adult hood is subjective. Not everyone achieves it at the same time. So 18 to be an adult is a legal fiction. In the end we have to start from one of two premises: society trumps individualism, or individualism trumps society. Any rights there after are dependent upon which premise you choose.
I'm not ignoring but the point is invalid as far as I'm concerned.They cannot be treated equally, so you are avoiding that point.
In the womb it makes demands on society in doctors visits, additional eating habits, etc.And of course the born baby has more 'voice' once born. It immediately makes demands on society...crying, demanding to be fed, demanding attention.
Why is it any different?THe born can individually act on society and be acted on by society. The unborn cannot.
I'm not ignoring but the point is invalid as far as I'm concerned.
In the womb it makes demands on society in doctors visits, additional eating habits, etc.
Why is it any different?
Sure they're recognized in the form of healthcare visits, bills, work and labor, all sorts of things occur and are recognized by society. Who invites who to do the work is irrelevant.Those demands are not recognized by society and not acted on society. The woman invites the doctor to do so.
Within the womb our outside of it, the rights of the individual apply. Because you do not recognize the unborn as an individual is not my concern. Equal treatment under the law therefore applies. You may not recognize those rights but I do. Therefore it is understandable why I am pro-life and a Libertarian.It is a distinguishing characteristic, that's all, however it is one that can be used to indicate how it can infringe on the rights of others and how others can infringe on it.
And why is equal treatment of the born and unborn an invalid issue?
There is no concrete or empirical evidence to show that the government should protect anyone's rights. It's impossible to prove that a 30 year old is equivalent to a 40 year old.
Sure they're recognized in the form of healthcare visits, bills, work and labor, all sorts of things occur and are recognized by society. Who invites who to do the work is irrelevant.
Within the womb our outside of it, the rights of the individual apply. Because you do not recognize the unborn as an individual is not my concern. Equal treatment under the law therefore applies. You may not recognize those rights but I do. Therefore it is understandable why I am pro-life and a Libertarian.
exactlyUltimately with all things considered it is impossible to prove that anyone is the equivalent of anyone else.
Sure they're recognized in the form of healthcare visits, bills, work and labor, all sorts of things occur and are recognized by society. Who invites who to do the work is irrelevant.
Within the womb our outside of it, the rights of the individual apply. Because you do not recognize the unborn as an individual is not my concern. Equal treatment under the law therefore applies. You may not recognize those rights but I do. Therefore it is understandable why I am pro-life and a Libertarian.
Would they make up something to make it conform to their libertarian beliefs or just recognize that they were taking a position in opposition of their beliefs? ( would respect the 2nd)
Both opinions that you listed are probably held. As I stated in my earlier post, libertarians don't support legalizing murder, so they're not 100% libertarian themselves; that would be anarcho-capitalism. If they believe in banning murder, and they also believe a fetus is a person, they could logically support banning abortion under libertarian principles. However, libertarians are not 100% libertarian themselves, if that makes sense, (not wanting to legalize murder or traditional thievery) so they could also recognize that abortion is one of the few exceptions where they want the government to intervene.
nobody, not one person, is 100% any ideology.
you're a self professed progressive... are you 100% authoritarian?
As for the unborn....they clearly have no rights....
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?