-4 votes

An Attempt at an Unbiased & Libertarian Stance on Abortion

Seeing as us all being individuals with our own beliefs... no one has the right to define "life" as it's a subjective term. Polarizing that with your religious belief or lack of religious belief doesn't change the fact that there are libertarian principles on both sides of the argument (the liberty of the mother versus child in different circumstances) and no conclusive evidence to bring us to one defined "beginning of life".

Example: Science aside, one religion might define life at conception while another might define it at birth. As a libertarian you respect another person enough to not force your subjective beliefs on someone else.

Because of this, we can only use conclusive evidence to determine an "individual". It sounds cold, and I know this because I myself am pro-life in the sense that I wouldn't take the risk of killing an unborn "person" myself if I were pregnant, but at the scientific end regarding a woman's body... until viability... the unborn child is still a part of her as it wouldn't sustain life without her... the mother being a host to the child just as necessary organs are a "mother" of an appendage. An arm or leg wouldn't survive if you inserted an active brain into it and cut it off. Again I know it's cold, but conclusive evidence shows we're possibly just meat and flesh.

As an agnostic, someone that sees only supporting evidence on both sides of the theist/atheist argument of whether or not god exists, and no conclusive evidence in sight, I can only focus on trying to be a good person. This also allows me to be less biased regarding areas of belief.

(Yes, believing there is no god is still a belief with its own faith system. You can be an atheist your entire life, die, and find out there's a heaven... meaning you could find out you were wrong. If you could have been wrong in that situation in the future... then you can be wrong right now. You have faith that there isn't a god because all of your conclusive evidence of what IS proven is in itself your only supporting evidence to that which is not existent.)

In conclusion, my stance is that the most libertarian law regarding abortion would be that it were legal up till viability, even though I myself wouldn't do it if it were me. Your personal belief may disagree with that from either side of the pro-choice/pro-life stance, but as a libertarian, you can't impose your personal subjective beliefs and definitions of a word on others.

What do you think?

(This was originally going to be at the end of another post, but it became longer than the post itself so figured it deserved it's own topic for discussion and reference: http://www.dailypaul.com/262272/which-party-is-closer-to-lib... )

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Stab at it...

The problem for me in the debate about whether abortion should be sanctioned as legal, is that we rarely debate the crux of the issue.

We get divided by definitions and therefore fail to get to the crux of the decision we face, as a nation, as states, as individuals -- depending on how our laws shift about.

Start with "life." Even the name folks against abortion have chosen for themselves degrades the argument -- pro-life.

There is no question that even the first incarnation of a fetus is life. In fact the sperm and the egg are both lives, meeting the biological definition. Goodness gracious, when I go out for a hard run, I kill muscle cells that are alive. When my monthly egg fails to get fertilized, it dies. As does a zillion of my husband's sperm cells when we use contraception or when my egg is done with it. Even when procreation does occur, a zillion minus one of my husband's living sperm cells die.

If you believe in God, he built a whole lot of death right into the process.

Most cells in our bodies are life; sex cells are no exception.

The next bit of jargon that obscures the real question is "human." There's no question that the muscle cells I kill when running or the zillion eager, doomed sperm cells are human. Human is an adjective that further defines the type of cell. These cells are "human life" as opposed to "wolverine life" or "duck life."

We should not be arguing about whether the zygote or fetus is either living or human. We've defined life and human to encompass even the liver liver cell I'm kill off by drinking too much wine this evening.

The question is when human life demands protection either through moral codes, social pressure, or government degree.

Unique in the jungle of living human cells is our sex cells, the gamates that, when combined, created a unique sort of cell, one that with luck and given time and a womb will become a separate being. This is a quite different process from a human liver cell. The one I'm killing off with boxed wine right now will be replaced with a replica of itself in short order. It has no potential outside of being a replica of the lost cell. It can't become a teenager who will talk back to me and get a girl pregnant and fail to go to college. But I digress.

My fertilized egg, on the other hand, is a living human cell, which most certainly will. And it will have its own liver cells it can someday abuse to boot.

So a fetus is living; it's human; it's unique among all the living human cells we've got.

The question is should we kill it.

If we were to actually debate this question, I think we'd at least have a fighting chance at it.

That's what I started off to say. But now that I'm this far, I'm going on. What I really want to debate is the question: Should we kill it? Should Libertarians kills it? Should pagans? Communists? Agnostics? Republicans? Democrats? A Babylonian from whatever B.C. or a future woman in 3000 A.D.?

This question precedes, I think, whether it's Libertarian or anything else to give the state license to either protect or abandon it.

Libertarian philosophy is built upon natural rights; we work from the ground up, from fundamentals up.

In the state of nature, my right to life extends as far as I can defend it. Women have been eating strawberry leaves (okay I just googled that and apparently strawberry helps you not miscarry, but there are other leaves to help you miscarry) for millennia to miscarry. Men have been clubbing each other over the head for millennia to get rid of a foe. Women have been clubbing men and men clubbing women. It's the an old story we still see played out in the everyday bullies and bullied everyday. Along the way of our advancing culture, we cried "Foul" or we cried "We can do better." We came up with moral codes (or we opened our ears to a god who'd been telling us all along). But that wasn't good enough. Because a woman could still eat strawberry leaves to kill the undefended and a man could still club his foe and his woman. We cried, "Foul" and we cried, "We can do better." So we came up with the notions of government to enforce the nascent morals we'd embraced.

In short order we became communists and socialist and Shri-law-ists, and Republicans and Democrats and Libertarians. All the subdivisions still with the same aim of improving upon the state of nature where my right to anything hinges on my ability to defend it.

Oddly, under all those systems men don't get to club weaker men without retaliation from their fellow men or the state. Under most of them, men don't get to club women without retaliation socially and/or criminally. Men don't even get to club their fetuses. But women can. We've decided, as a culture that's moved beyond the state of nature, beyond moral codes, and now beyond government, that women don't count on the nature-moral-government spectrum. We women call foul and privacy because our weapons aren't big sticks. We've only concerned with men hitting each other with the weapon du jour. Oh, and also hitting us.

The courageous women who met in Seneca Falls, NY, in 1848 to declare their own war of independence, stated in their Declaration of Sentiments a list of grievances toward men who had so recently won their own freedom, "He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity...."

The "crimes" toward which the whole thrust of human history and institutions of law and government have been concerned are those that leave the weak at the mercy of the strong.

There is no question of "life" and no question of "human" when it comes to the even that first zygote cell. There is only the question of weak and strong. And where moral codes and government force should intervene.

I am not arguing that we, as members of this culture and as citizens of the United States should not, debate the circumstances we will permit, either by shame or by government force, the strong to overcome the weak. I'm just saying that THIS IS the argument.

I would be overjoyed were we to debate this.

Should the debate content on such real terms, I'd argue for the full force of female rights. Like the women in Seneca Falls, I'd argue that women must be equally responsible for the lives they have the power of force over. Strawberry leaves and abortionists or fists and guns. The weapons are different but it comes down to might makes right. Moral codes and political philosophies are all ways we seek to move beyond that. It's time women joined the fray. We're morally culpable when we kill human life over which we have a disparity of force just as men are culpable when they do.

Oh, it may not be all "powerful" and "immediate" to stake a moral ground in our wombs. But the rubber hits the road where you have power. There's a moral shame in the XX America, which calls for zero tolerance for spousal abuse, while calling herself an "irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity."

I'm tempted to go on even more, but I've killed innumerable liver cells and the rest would just be a bunch of ideas I've had from reading feminist theorists who postulate that most of the horrors men have visited upon women are perverted so that women visit them upon women -- foot binding, genital mutilation, I forget the rest -- but somehow abortion is the anomaly.

xRegardsx, I meant to take your points one by one and discuss them, but got waylaid with a bunch of stuff I'd been trying to thing about coherently. I thank you for delivering the opportunity and kick I needed to lasso my thoughts.

So it's ok to kill the weak and defenseless?

"In the state of nature, my right to life extends as far as I can defend it."


So, it's ok to kill the weak and defenseless because they can't defend themselves?

Doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Of course...

The state of nature is defined as not under any government, libertarian or otherwise. That fact that that doesn't sit well is one of the reason mankind began to come up with governmental forms.

So what are you saying?

That government should protect life and prevent strong people from killing the weak?

On the subject of the mother being the host

Just like the baby has to survive from the mother's body, what if someone (severely handicapped for eg.) who has to rely on others to survive is neglected and is left to die? This is the process of euthanasia. You say it is the mother's body, so it's her choice what to do with the baby. In this instance, it's your individual time spent to help these people, so you should have the ability to make the choice to care for the person or neglect them to their demise. Scientist all agree the cells of the fertilized egg are living and are human just as these severely handicap people who depend on us to survive are living and human. Does everyone have the right to liberty or only the ones that can speak for themselves? I feel that if we don't stand up for the ones being attacked, we are next just as many after the Jews in WWII. If their is no value or respect for life, your liberty and right to life will be at stake. Mark my words.

As a pro-life atheist,

I generally agree with this, although I think this position is merely a compromise between pro-life and pro-choice that is unlikely to ever be possible.
The nature of our political system encourages polar opposite positions that are more convenient for sound bites than rational debate.

Why choose "Viable"?

Tell me again the defining criteria for rights?

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

you have a new problem now

One can't usefully define 'rights' when you use such a moving target.

If ending the child's life depends on viability, or in your terms, sustaining its life without the mothers aid, then we have entered a very fuzzy gray area. First of all, what do you mean? Do you mean, when the baby is able to continue having its heart beat without the blood supply of its umbilical cord? Or do you mean that they are 'viable' the moment that they can supply themselves with food, say, somewhere around five years old? Your term viable leaves such a large amount of interpretation that it really constitutes no principle at all, but rather allows people to just define what is right and wrong entirely for themselves, and to end the life another human being based on their own subjective preference.

I understand you are simply addressing abortion, but your viability concept essentially sees the baby as a parasite until such time as it can fend for itself. The unintended consequences of this could be catastrophic in their later legal implications.

One does not build law (private, natural or public) on the basis of subjective preferences for the simple fact that then law means absolutely nothing.

If you have defined life itself as a subjective belief, then you have attacked the very roots of libertarianism itself. Without a sensible definition of life, how can anyone have right to life? How then can we deduce the NAP? How can we have property rights? All of these become subjective preference themselves to be discarded at the whim of whomever has the ability, or power, to do so. No legal or political principle then exists. You could protest, prior to your execution, that the executioners have no right to end your life because you have not ended anyone else's, but using your understanding of the concept of life, they could simply say that they do not believe in life they way you do.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

Viability in the sense that

Viability in the sense that it can survive without the woman in any sense long enough to be taken care of and possibly survive.

You need to be able to live for only a moment on your own to "survive" as an individual.

I've answered this in other responses, but because of ever advancing technology we'd have to take that into account. We would have two dates... one being the earliest record of a fetus being saved into becoming a child... "viability"... and then one or two weeks before that date.

The woman would be able to have the abortion before the earlier date with no questions asked. Between those dates it would be required that they tried to save the child first before aborting. If after the second date... then the child would be considered possibly viable and in turn possibly an individual that we cannot assume isn't one.

If a child is saved before that second date, then it's recorded and the policy's dates change to reflect that while leaving a window open enough to technology to continue advancing.

"Life" in it's objective definition is what we can enforce to protect... but the BEGINNING of "life" is subjective... even scientifically... "DNA", "Brain activity", "heartbeat", all examples of scientific subjective beliefs as to when "life" begins.

I don't think "parasite" is a word to use. I think the fetus is still part of the woman's body until viability. Your logic is to call an arm or a leg a parasite until it were to become viable on its own if it could.

The egg TURNS INTO a zygote. The egg doesn't magically dissapear and the zygote appears out of nowhere. The zygote is still part of the woman's as she never voluntarily gave it away like the man does with his sperm... which is no longer his property or part of his body at that point.

You miss the difference between defining "life" and defining when "life" begins and how one is objective and the other subjective.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I didnt miss the difference

I just plain disagree. It these things are open to subjective definition (and I do think some day we will have to make an objective definition here) then we end up with no principle at all.

My logic is not to call an arm or a leg a parasite; my point was that your logic was to call a baby a parasite, though not in those terms yourself. Nobody is asking for their arm or leg to be cut off, and if they are, well its their arm or leg.

Also, what of the soul or, alternatively, the essence of life force itself? If this exists then the point that simple cell division moves on to higher functioning may turn out to be irrelevant when viewed under future technology and science. We simply don't know. Are you comfortable supporting the termination of lives on the basis of current knowledge only to perhaps find that there is a deeper story to the beginnings of life in future?

Perhaps we don't have the right to decide the fate of the unborn child, regardless of how we define stale scientific terms. Ultimately I side with Ron Paul here. I believe that we humans have achieved many a great feat in history and advanced the species. I do not believe that the development of abortion has been a positive one. I believe that a life, however defined, deserves EVERY chance we can give it. I believe that people have responsibility for life that they create and that this is a moral, not a scientific, issue.

Would I use force to prevent a woman from aborting? Never. But I would use all of my faculties to try to change her mind, or at least try to offer her a way to preserve that life.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

Your entire argument...

...is based on your personal religious/spiritual belief structure...

noun /ˈbābē/ 
A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born

It's not a baby, it's a fetus. Your belief's bias shows through your word usage/exaggeration.

I'm NOT comfortable with terminating POSSIBLE "life"... hence why I am PERSONALLY pro-life. But I can't force my subjective beliefs onto someone else and then enforce them to act as though what may POSSIBLY be true is in fact true, when it's only supporting, not conclusive evidence of a subjective definition "The beginning of 'life'".

I can in all of the logic and reasoning I've offered, express the reasons why I wouldn't get an abortion for the sake of POSSIBLY ending a 'life', and still respect a person's choice to take that risk because I COULD be wrong.

God might exist and he might not. I'm not going to act as though the supporting evidence of either side of that argument is true when there's nothing conclusive on either side. In that being that way... I'm not going to let a "what if" dictate my life.

In the same logic, but different perspective, I'm not willing to take the "what if" risk when it comes to the possible life outside of my own.

Against this extremely liberal girl I had hung out with... I used the "if you're driving in a car that cannot stop and never look back and I say to watch out for that box because there MIGHT be a child inside of it... and you hit it... and there is one... then that's your fault... but we may never find out if there was or not." Her response was "well what about a box of worms... do they have rights too? I quickly pointed out that her question didn't invalidate the point I was making and she was avoiding it. I never saw her after that lol

The difference between you and me is that you'll use every bit of supporting evidence to make your argument... while I can acknowledge that it's only supporting and that the person needs to make their own choice regarding something NONE OF US has the authority to determine or enforce.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Choose a side

There is only one response to murder, and that is to try to stop it - even the possibility of it. If you don't try to stop it, then you are not living according to *your* own beliefs, but going along with someone else's, aren't you?

Why are *you* uncomfortable with abortion? You must act according to how *you* believe, and no one else. Answer the question for yourself - is abortion murder? You aren't willing to admit to yourself definitively that abortion is murder, so perhaps you don't believe abortion is murder after all. And if not, why feel uncomfortable?

If you have not decided for yourself, perhaps you should not take a public position until you work it out and decide which stand you will take. Either admit the truth of why you are uncomfortable - that abortion *is* murder, and take a stand against it according to *your* own belief, or admit that you are totally pro-choice and stop calling yourself *personally* pro-life, because that's a cop-out. Have the courage of your convictions either way. Right now you are trying to have it both ways, and these two positions can't be held simultaneously. One position is "it's murder", and as I said, there is only one response to that belief.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

What a load. Ever consider

What a load. Ever consider the possibility that some people are just humble enough to admit they do not have all the answers?

Exactly when a combined sperm and egg become a human is an opinion. Pure and simple. Obviously a very strongly held opinion by some. From this opinion follows conclusions - if you think something is a human, then killing it is murder, if you think something is not human then disposing of it is not murder.

Some of us are willing to admit that we do not know what we do not know. While we might be inclined to hedge towards the "life" side of the debate when, where, and if the debate impacts us personally; it still stands to reason that many of us are justifiably hesitant to sanction the use of govt violence to enforce a pro-life agenda that is, ultimately, derived from opinion.


What do you mean its a matter of opinion?

What the hell else is it going to become? A donkey? A turkey? A martian?


"If you think something is is a human, then killing it is murder" - and by extension the only response to that is to try to **stop** the murder.

Scientifically speaking, unique DNA is present as soon as a human being is conceived. That is a fact, not opinion. The OP doesn't want to have that fact be the basis for protecting life. It seems the OP is trying awfully hard to not want to protect pre-born life, yet at the same time the OP is uncomfortable personally to possibly take such life. I am trying to point out this is a logically untenable position.

From whence comes this discomfort? I'm sure you've heard this before - if you're not sure it's life and it may be life, then it is best to err *on the side of life.* I posted below about the process of finding a diseased unborn child to help make the rubella vaccine. About 25 sets of parents erred on the side of death. Healthy children died as a result. What if they had erred on the side of life? Personally, I think I would rather have ended up with a diseased living child than a healthy dead one. I totally understand why they made the decision they did - fear(fed by those who wanted to make the vaccine), but my heart still aches for them having to live with the consequences of that decision.

Our willingness to protect or not protect life impacts *everyone*, *at all times.* The societal view of whether life from beginning to natural death deserves protection affects everyone in a very personal way. Try telling someone who endorses marijuana legalization that it only affects pot smokers. That's not true is it, because it's a freedom issue, isn't it? The protect life issue doesn't just affect people who might be facing unplanned pregnancy. Every time someone is given legal sanction to take an innocent life, *all* of our lives are cheapened (like the FED debasing our currency by continually printing money is how I see it)

It is interesting that you use the word "violence" only in regard to those who want to protect life. Why no mention of the violence used to take life at abortion clinics? Why no mention of the violence often used against peaceful sidewalk counselors, or those who simply want to stand a the public sidewalk outside the clinic and pray? What about the violence done to their freedom of speech by the govt. enacting buffer zones? This violence is already being done - it's not some boogeyman violence that may happen that pro-abortion people try to scare the undecided with. Tax money is already being taken by the govt. to do violence to pre-born children. Why no acknowledgment of this from you?

You do know why so many catholics (well, the church going catholics, anyway) wanted to vote against Obama was because of his health insurance mandate that tax-payer money be used to cover contraceptives? Why such opposition to contraceptives? Because they often work as abortifacients. In other words, more govt. threatened violence for not wanting tax money to fund more abortion. Don't talk to me about wanting to limit govt. violence until you are willing to limit it on both sides of the issue, and admit it's already happening.

Ron Paul does not think that the importance of protecting life first and foremost is mere opinion. Look at all the casualties that happen when we don't - not just in terms of lives lost, but the casualties of our freedoms of speech and religion. And there are still some who are intellectually dishonest saying "personally opposed, but..."

If *you* personally believe it's murder, then act like it and work to stop the murder. If you don't believe it is murder, then stop saying "personally opposed", because you're not.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

What is a "fetus"

Just some years ago, being pregnant doesn't mean carrying a thing called "fetus", it is(was) called "with child", "carrying a child", since when do we call a child in the womb "fetus"? Since the beginning of human understanding, pregnant means the woman has become a mother that carries a child. That's a simple understanding. Calling it a "fetus" dehumanized the child in the womb and gave rise to the opportunity to discuss whether it is OK to murder (planned killing) a child. We are not the ones who play with words calling a baby baby. Calling a child fetus is playing with words.

my last reply was less concerned with making

An argument, and more concerned with expressing my personal belief.

And you are wrong. I'm not religious or spiritual at all. You have no grounds to say that, and just decided that you had me pegged because of my responses. I just don't think that we can know at this point, objectively, whether there is such a thing as a soul, or not. So we take a great moral and ethical risk when we condone or support (in my opinion) flawed logical structures determining the beginnings of life based on an arbitrary determination of when life is viable. Many have noted here that this is a moral issue to many, and if we find in future that life does indeed begin at conception, or that a soul exists in that body, or that a great pain is felt by the aborted 'cells', then by arguing for.it we have condoned it and given people (again in my opinion) a warped ideological basis to carry out that moral 'crime'. These things we cannot know.

And you will also note that my personal stance is similar to your own. I would not interfere with somebody's choice to carry out an abortion, besides trying to convince her to change her mind. Part of that conversation is being carried out right here on this thread.

I believe life is precious. You can coldly ignore the opinions of those like me, and myself,religious or not, dogma or none, by using the statement that our views are coloured by our religious/spiritual beliefs, but that doesn't change the nature of this issue. I feel it is probably wrong. Until someone can show me, definitively, that life begins at 'viability', then I see no need to change my opinion. You have offered no new definition of the problem, only a rehashing of old concepts that are already somewhat in force in various legal systems of the world anyway.

Oh and I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a libertarian. Just so you know. When you use that big L, it makes me unsure about whether your referring to party faithful or philosophical types.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

I apologize... I misread...

...the part regarding "soul/life force".

Turns out we agree with each other for the most part.

We agree that we would take the risk given the fact that we don't have the knowledge to know... so we don't want to POSSIBLY take the life by assuming there isn't one.

BUT... in that same essence... we cannot force someone else to not take that risk either... as there is a very good chance that none of us will ever know in our lifetimes an objective definition as to the beginning of life.

Those that think they have an objective definition because of how hard they believe it are simply willfully ignorant to the contrary. They cannot imagine their belief POSSIBLY being wrong... because they can't handle living in a world built upon that belief structure being open to questioning.

The most irrelevant thing people have posted here is their reasoning and personal beliefs... as NONE of them matter when comes to a libertarian policy regarding abortion.

Those that say they're trying to defend "life" are using the circular logic of "I know it needs protecting because my personal belief tells me it's life and because it's life it needs protecting."... key part being that it's their subjective personal beliefs holding that together.

They take their opinion and believe it to be fact and expect others to accept it as such.

It detracts from the topic... such as most debate over abortion...

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Yeah, I know what you mean. In your religion, Jews are people,

but in mine, they are parasites leeching off the rest of humanity. In your religion, blacks are human beings, but in mine, they are higher animals very useful to do our slave labor.


C'mon, do words mean anything or not? Life is life--it's a scientific fact-a reality.

That being said, abortion can never be dealt with politically because the baby is inside of another human being--the parent. I dunno, maybe government should never intervene in parental decisions period.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Defining "life is life"

Defining "life is life" doesn't define it. Your personal belief is the subjective term "life" is defined as starting at conception... while another person can scientifically say when the heart starts beating, or another when the brain starts having activity, or when it starts to resemble a human being, or when it is capable of living on its own for the first time even if only for a minute or so, etc etc etc.

Even scientifically it is subjective.

Because "Life" can't be defined by any one person, religion, or government... you have to look at it as property of the person's body... the question being, when does the egg turned zygote, turned fetus, end up being given its own property rights over its body?

When does the woman lose the property right over it?

The fairest answer to that question regardless of religious and moral personal OPINION... is viability. Because viability is always becoming sooner and sooner with today's technology, the fairest way to answer that in policy is the official "viability" being that of the earliest delivery of a viable child recorded medically.

Just because someone doesn't like or think a policy is right or not doesn't mean it isn't fair in a world where there's no conclusive evidence on anyone's side... just supporting.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Yeah, I know. Saying "Jews are people" doesn't make it so.

Saying "Blacks are human beings" doesn't make it so. I mean really, what makes people people? No one can really define personhood.


A little baby is still a baby.--FACT

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

You're not considering the point I've made...

If you were considering what I said... you'd be able to argue against it without sarcasm that puts words or logic in my mouth I've never said or implied and then be able to give something more than a baseless claim derived of your personal beliefs of when a "baby" becomes a "baby" in the first place.

noun /ˈbābē/ 
A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born

You do not understand the difference between the objective definition of "life" and the many subjective definitions of when "life" BEGINS.

If you ACTUALLY understand the argument I've made that you think you're cleverly countering... you'd be able to put it into your own words without sarcasm.

I'm never going to hold my breath for that to happen.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

and I'm not going to waste time trying to convince someone

who really doesn't want the truth. goodbye.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

If this were for you, it would be a waste of time...

I've invalidated the things you've said and you haven't invalidated the things I've said. All you did was attempt to put words in my mouth so you could feel like you had something you were capable of being able to argue against.

Then here you try to come off like the better person taking the supposed high road... using it as your cop out to avoid considering anything i've said.

If anyone here is avoiding the "truth", it's you.

You can't back up your claims to the "truth".

I only reply to the willfully ignorant so open-minded 3rd party witnesses have a chance to see both sides of an argument... so please know that this wasn't for you.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

libertarian stance on abortion

Horseshit. Scientific fact: Life begins at conception. Should congress declare an unborn baby to be a "person", Roe v. Wade becomes null and void. Harry Blackmun said as much, writing for the majority in Roe.

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

Not really...

Who defined "life" to begin at conception?

When does the egg no longer belong to the woman? When it changes into a different type of cell?

The sperm is no longer the man's when he voluntarily gives it to someone else... and the zygote is an egg that transforms itself with new DNA is introduced via the vessel sperm (which just like through the woman's blood... aside from the DNA breaks down into nutrients and waste. That being the case... it's not "conception" that you're arguing makes "life"... it's the creation of a new DNA strand.

DNA still doesn't define the subjective term of "life".

Your "Scientific fact" is really "Scientific OPINION".

Because you can't define "life", rights need to be decided in another way that is fair to all whether they like it or not.

"Fair" doesn't mean that everyone likes something.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

With regards to viability...

Viability is a subjective term and changes over time. What is considered "viable" today is different than what it was 50 years ago, even just 10 years ago. Due due to advances in technology for premature infants the age of viability is decreasing. The youngest baby to be born and surivive, and is quite healty, was born at 21 weeks, 5 days. So a child at 22 weeks that wasn't viable 10 or 15 years ago wasn't a life deserving protection, but it is today. That's ludircous.

Differences in "viability" varies around the world. In the UK, a child born prior to 22 weeks is left to die by law, even though infants born that young and younger routinely survived in the US and Canada. The 22 week cut off is due to the drain on socialized medical resources in the UK and nothing to do with any kind of morality. Although it does relieve doctors of the moral responsibility of making a decision to let the child die.

Viability is not an accurate yard stick for "life". The liberal arguement that an fetus can't survive without the mother, therefore its her right to do with it as she wishes is ludicrous as well. A six month old infant can't survive on its own either, should infanticide be legal. Liberal Progressives, including Obama, believe so.

I don't pretend to have the "right" answer, but for me, silencing a beating heart is murder.

I've got an answer for just about everything...

...because I look for better new answers when they're available instead of fighting to hold onto the ones I already have.

The policy of viability, if used, would use the earliest medically recorded case of viability. This would change as viability becomes more advanced in the future. I answered this in another response the other day.

There could be two dates, the latest an abortion could be carried out at all and a date a week or two before that where they must FIRST try to save the fetus before aborting it.

This avoids the assumption that an aborted fetus can't be saved and allows the later date to change as our technology advances.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

That's still subjective

Viability is subject to current technology. The question, "When can a baby survive outside the womb?" and "When is a fetus considered a human life?" are not synonymous.

Using viability does not answer the question, "When does life begin?" If a baby is born full-term with a birth defect and dies shortly after severing the umbilical, was it ever alive? It's an absurd question, of course it was, but it illustrates the problem of considering "viability" a benchmark for abortion.

Viability is already the benchmark for abortion, Roe v Wade states that viability is the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"

Objective definitions...

noun /ˈbābē/ 
A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born

Until the fetus is born, it isn't a baby, child, etc etc yet. Your personal belief's bias shows through your usage of exaggerated words.

I obviously know that those two questions are not synonymous... but the problem clearly lies in the fact that NO ONE has the authority to define the moment that "life" starts. Because there is no possible way to get an objective definition, even from science that has many of its own, we have to use another deciding factor as to when the rights of an INDIVIDUAL are to be protected...

...my answer... when it becomes an individual.

That is viability.

Feel free to not exaggerate the term "individual" as well.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally