9 votes

Libertarians and their abortion problem

How selfish are we to draw a line as to when life begins or when it is appropriate to abort a life? Most abortions are done because of burden. It is a burden when the mom or dad are not ready for various reasons. It is a burden when it is not planned. It is a burden when other methods of birth control fail. And yes, it is even a burden when it is a forced insemination.

You call yourselves freedom fighters. You come here to spout all your knowledge about Liberty. Tell me something...is it not Liberty for all? Why is a life in the womb...the most defenseless of all...not entitled to Liberty?

A wise man once said "how can we protect liberty if we can't protect life?"

If libertarians won't defend all life than I want no part of it.




Comment viewing options

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

Jay, I am moderately pro-choice but I've got to say,

you are the first person I have met on ANY forum who is even moderately pro-abortion. Even the vehement pro-choice advocates I worked with in the LP thought an abortion was always a tragic thing. Can you not acknowledge that anyone's death is a tragedy? Including a fetus?

Not sure MW. I personally

Not sure MW. I personally have other concerns as it doesn't apply directly to me. I avoid focusing on other peoples bedrooms and doctor visits. They are private matter. Now a neglected CHILD is a different matter. A child can speak. And for the record I am pro choice. Your implying that I am pro abortion is not well reasoned since you have nothing to support this but your opinion. I could care less either way. PRO CHOICE... Do whatever you need to do.

Calling it pro choice doesn't

Calling it pro choice doesn't change the facts. And because one child can speak and the other cannot makes it ok?

This is an idiotic argument.

1. You're equivocating murderers on death row with fetuses, this is retarded even by commie and feminazi standards.
2. I don't support war unless it's an act of defense, just like the only defensible reason to get an abortion is medical necessity. Even if your argument is only a really bad attempt at a argumentum ad absurdum, the fact that it allows for zero nuance or qualification makes you sound like an ideological nutcase.
3. So opposing the termination of a viable pregnancy for matters of mere convenience and opposing getting a vasectomy/hysterectomy for all animals and people is the same thing? I'd suggest you take some classes on anatomy and also on basic logic.
4. Equivocating people and animals (see my point regarding #3) and also equating killing for food with killing another human being simply because you don't want to spend the money/time raising him/her up. I often make jokes about how pro-choice people who can't even fathom why a 2nd trimester abortion is savage should try eating an aborted fetus, but the difference between me and you appears to be that I was kidding when I made the suggestion.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Quite passionate Hells...

But. As you choose to hunt, kill and eat meat, you also want to conversely say killing an embryo or fetus (for whatever reason) is wrong. Do you respect privacy? Do you respect HIPPA laws? People can and will choose on their own.

My point again is that killing is killing. All forms of killing cannot be lumped by outsiders as unjustified. Just as outsiders shouldn't invade private health decisions. In that case, protest breast implants too.

You're mistaking passion for annoyance and boredom.

Hunger is not a choice Jay Man, and consuming plant matter involves a species of killing by destroying living tissue. Privacy presupposes an individual person doing something only to him or herself, abortion is a 2 or more party issue, hence it is not private. HIPPA laws fall under the same category if we're talking about a doctor terminating a human life, just as it would if a person murdered his brother and hid the remains underneath his basement. Your arguments suggest a glorification of the concept of the "prudent predator", which is ironic given that you are constantly whining about people killing animals for food.

But the thing is, killing is not killing, your argument is fallacious and inconsistent with reality. There are variables involved in each category of killing, as well as moral implications for the whole spectrum in question and brings up issues of philosophy and its application to mortality and nature. I could get into a discussion with you on that, but your posts so far suggest that anything I'd say would be well beyond your comprehension level.

And with regards to that silly little reference to "breast implants", you have a knack for arguing with yourself about things that have nothing to do with this topic. You might want to work on that, because it gets boring reading something that was written solely for the writer's amusement rather than dealing with relevant issues.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

You

You are one whining, insulting moron pushing an agenda. But you are free to choose to do so.

"Hunger is not a choice Jay Man, and consuming plant matter involves a species of killing by destroying living tissue."

I really don't give a damn what you eat or what you do with your sperm (or eggs in your case). It's YOUR business.

For those who have fought for it. Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.

Tell me again why someone has

Tell me again why someone has the "right" to kill a baby?

A "baby" can be left in a

A "baby" can be left in a car. An aborted unborn (as controversial as this is) is the business of the one in possession, which is an endogenous matter of someone else's body and health.

Why do you avoid calling it a

Why do you avoid calling it a baby or a child or life. It's as if you don't want to admit that this "thing" is human life.

Here is why...

If a hospital cannot issue it a financial number or medical record number, then it hasn't reached child (neonatal) status. Technically speaking. If there's no social security number or date of birth, there's another clue. Nonetheless it doesn't sound like any of us will ever have an abortion. But someone, somewhere might and they have that freedom to choose since it affects their body.

If the guvmit didn't give you

If the guvmit didn't give you a number you're not human????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????!

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Right? Were you as confused

Right? Were you as confused as I when reading this?

The State giveth and The

The State giveth and The State taketh away; blessed be the flag of The State. ;)

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Welcome to the fantasy world of pro-choice people.

Any person advocating for the standard "abortion on demand" position will do this as a matter of course and habit. Entertaining the idea of killing another person is naturally repugnant to any rational person, so a practice of evasion and denial is usually how an ideologue will side-step the issue. It's similar to the way soldiers are taught to dehumanize their enemies on the battlefield.

I've actually found Steven Pinker's writings on language to be very revealing about this practice of utilizing certain words in order to paint one's language in a way that bolsters a given presupposition. Granted, theoretically this could be applied to either side in a discussion, but in actuality this is something that isn't equally distributed on both sides. I will freely admit that there is a usefulness to using technical scientific terms like zygote and fetus to categorize different stages of development, it's just when these terms are used to trivialize the inherent and potential value of said entity that it becomes off-putting.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

You argue a lot of sense on

You argue a lot of logic on this subject. Thank you for your input here.

I am Against the Death Penalty

And war, unless in self defense.

The Spaying of Dogs, and not killing roaches is just stupid. There is an obvious distinction between killing other humans, and killing different species.

No man....... Killing is

No man.......
Killing is killing. Sounds like a lot of cherry picking in the neck of the woods.

Killing vs. Murder.

You've pretty much made my argument against this asinine post in another one that you put up. The problem with abortion is that it is murder, not that it is killing (murder is a concept that it independent of the depraved laws of any dysfunctional government). The problem here isn't cherry picking (unless you want to argue that logical distinction is cherry picking, which would make you insane), the problem is a matter of category.

Killing an animal can involve a moral and a legal infraction, depending on the way it is done, and what it is done for. Likewise, a situation where a person's death results from an accident (yes, those actually exist, hence there is a word for it) or in an act of self-defense, it is not logically under the same category as murder.

Despite some the hyperbole in my posts in response to you, I don't think that you are actually as stupid as your posts might suggest. But I do think that you've had your head loaded up with some really twisted ideological fallacy by some form of publicly or privately funded indoctrination that is robbing you of your logical faculties. But seriously, the leveling and equivocation going on in your arguments in favor of abortion are borderline lunacy.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Keyboard commando you are

Hells you are an insulting moron. Ironically we are discussing killing. It's good that we have distance.....

Thin-skinned you are

Insults have a clear purpose in cutting past fallacious bromides and allowing people to get real with each other. It's interesting that you equate all killing with each other as well, because you are proving to be consistent in your views that murdering someone can and should be tolerated, given that you are now contemplating killing me as easily as you would your own unborn son or daughter without cause of self-defense or protection of the lives of others. In my experience, the most rabid of pro-choicers and egalitarians also tend to be the most prone to more aggravated acts of violence, and also the most hopelessly self-centered. You've pretty well proven my point.

Just asking yourself these questions. Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason why I was insulting you? Did it ever occur to you that arguing in a manner similar to shouting "2+2=5" over and over again would inspire anything other than raillery or jeering?

I'm not going to make a complaint about you violating the terms of service on this site, but I can't say the same for anyone else who reads this.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Hey Hells...

Free speech Sister...!

Live free or die. New Hampshire has it right.....

Is this a joke? I mean

Is this a joke? I mean really?

No. You want to cherry pick

No. You want to cherry pick who you kill and who you LET LIVE.

What do you mean? All murder

What do you mean? All murder is wrong.

Murder: the killing of

Murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Killing: to deprive of life in any manner or cause the death of; slay.

Pro-lifers seem to be frustrated that these two definitions are DISTINCTLY different.

Life is protected under law.

Life is protected under law.

Lets put aside the issue of

Lets put aside the issue of "women's choice" and leaving the government out of it. Is it not murder? Or are you drawing a line to when life begins? If so...when does life begin? And where do you draw "this line"?

How is Kermit Gosnell any different than any other abortion physician?

If they found a single celled

If they found a single celled organism on Europa, they'd call it life.

SteveMT's picture

This is a non-issue for a libertarian.

If an issue can be justified with convincing moral and ethical arguments on both sides, than it is a non-issue. However, this is a polarizing subject that like religion will only be divisive and not inclusive. You cannot legislate against morality, especially with abortion where the definition of the meaning of life is open. Prohibition, birth control, gay marriage, drugs, abortion are all issues left to ones own personal decision and responsibility. There is no clear answer to be found. This subject will only foment hatred for everyone.