1. Something that doesn't have "life"... a subjective term... can't have rights. That being the case, it's a valid question to determine whether something has rights or not.
2. "Life begins at conception", regardless of how hard you believe it's true, is your subjective personal belief. I've already explained how you, as a supposed libertarian, cannot force your subjective belief on others.
3. Observation of what happens consequently in scientific terms doesn't conclusively define when life begins... as it's a subjective term.
4. You're using circular logic.
-When do rights begin? When life begins!
-When does life begin? At conception!
-What protects the fetus at conception? Its rights!
Seeing as you cannot use a subjective personal belief or consequential observation about something that hasn't happened yet to define a subjective term, because we all can have different subjective personal beliefs that attempt to define the subjective term... "At conception!" is removed from your circular logic and therefore makes it illogical.
5. You're right, it's a state issue. At the state level though, if unbiased (not including your subjective personal beliefs) logic is found and it doesn't violate libertarian principle based on (unbiased) science alone... then it becomes the responsibility to adhere to it.
6. "Constitution/State Rights" doesn't change the fact that forcing a subjective personal belief on someone else is being "libertarian". This stance is built on sound logic and reasoning, not on "it's a gray issue so let's chalk it up to compromise" as you're implying.
7. You're then backwards on the "life inside" issue. If there is something with rights inside of you... whether you put it there or not... that gives you the right to violate those rights?
This begs the question about cases of rape. A responsible person that was raped, not only should tell someone, but should also have a pregnancy test. The person feeling in such a way where they choose to not do the responsible things doesn't excuse them from the risk involved in not doing it... as not doing the responsible thing is choosing to take the risk whether knowledgeable or not. They chose to not be careful after the fact. Being naive doesn't excuse it either. Viability would work in cases of rape/incest.
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
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner