So as I stated before, Rothbard is wrong. I don’t bow down or pray to the Murray Rothbard statuette as apparently you and your partner do. None of your feable attempts to use someone else to defend your arguement answers the gaping holes in the abortion ideology. Back to the drawing board for you and your irrational partner.
Dismissed.
Now go actually read Chapter 14 in The Ethics of Liberty so that you can see just how badly you’ve lied about Rothbard.
But you and he have the same view as to when life begins. And THAT is precisely what you said no pro-choice person has ever done.
Dismissed.
I’m getting very sick of seeing it claimed that anyone commenting in this thread, let alone anyone period, is “pro-abortion” or “abortion lovers”. I already addressed this silly misnomer pages back. Noone, save a few sick individuals, is blatantly “pro-abortion”. If one cannot recognize the difference between actively and enthusiastically endorsing something and tolerating it or at least thinking that it should not be illegal, there is no hope. I happen to think that voluntary polygamy and sodomy should not be illegal, but that doesn’t mean that I actually personally prefer it. Legality and preferance aren’t necessarily connected in such a way.
This is just the standard pro-abortion cop-out. On the one hand the baby is just a lump of flesh that has no rights and its destruction is perfectly acceptable and on the other your personally not for it. What is there not to be for if you don’t think the fetus has any value? If in your mind the fetus has no value why does it bother you that people destroy it? Classic pro-abortion contradiction.
It certainly is true that legality and preference are not connected but in this case either a human is dying or nothing is happening so there is no functional difference between legality or preference. You can not be personally opposed to murder but think it legally acceptable.
But without strawmen and lies, what will MaxLiberty have left?
Not only are you putting words in my mouth, but you’re repeating straw men or misnomers that were already addressed pages back. You’re being a bad rhetoritician. Noone in this thread is “pro-abortion”, and repeating the phrase over and over again doesn’t change that.
And you can’t be personally opposed to slavery but think it’s legally and morally acceptable.
Hoist. Petard. Your own.
I read it again just to make sure i didn’t miss anything. Rothbard is still wrong and so are you. Ideas that start with a false premise usually end up with false conclusions. Your arguement at least is consistent with Rothbard in that you both place no value on children and believe abortion is acceptable until the baby is born and starvation afterward is equally acceptable. I will note your alter-ego Jon seems to advocate that in fact there are limitations to this abortion right at a certain gestational age so maybe you should have a talk with him to bring him back on the reservation.
Now if we could just get you to admit to what you are actually for, which in detail is quite horrific, then we would really be making progress. If Rothbard is your god then it is understandable your so confused on this subject.
See unlike you I am capable of defending my own arguements and reasoning, I am not dependent on someone else to articulate my views.
You’ve never read it in the first place, so please don’t lie. If you had read it, you would not have lied and wrote that no “pro-abortion” person ever says when life begins.
Hoist. Petard. Your own.
You know, you’re really making this easy for me to annihilate you. You set youself up.
If a woman goes to the doctor and has a cancerous tumor removed that is good. I in fact am pro-tumor removal and i support a woman’s right to have tumors removed and I see no negative or immoral aspect to this act. Since you see no difference between the fetus and a tumor then what is wrong with being pro-abortion in your mind?
The label is disingenous because I am not actually like “abortion is awesome!”, “I wish more people would get abortions!”, “three cheers for abortion! hip hip horray!”, “you’re pregnant? you should get an abortion!”. I don’t voluntarily fund abortions and I’m not out there actively advocating abortions. I have never encouraged anyone to get an abortion. Calling me pro-abortion is simply nonsensical. It truly is no different than calling someone “anti-poor” because they oppose state welfare or calling someone a junkie because they oppose the criminalization of drugs. It simply does not logically follow at all.
Where does Rothbard say when life begins? He implies that it begins at birth.
Of course it follows. Your arguement hinges on the belief that the fetus is just a lump of flesh so there are no negative aspects to being pro-abortion. If you advocate legalizing drugs you can still recognize the negative side effects of drug use. Having unwanted flesh removed shouldn’t create such an emotional response by you.
It’s not an implication.
But what’s really amusing is that you’re still trying.
Wow, just wow.
Not only do you continue to put words in my mouth based on an argument I never made, you then assume precisely what you try to prove. Really, do you not realize how absurd you look here? Furthermore, even if I did belief that “the fetus is just a lump of flesh”, me being “pro-abortion” still would not logically follow. There is nothing in any of my statements (or in the straw men that you have set up for that matter) in which an actual preferance for or active encouragement of abortion logically follows.
You need to learn formal logic badly.
You’ve set up a horrible false dichotomy in your head between being actively pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Apparently either someone must be virulently opposed to abortion or they must be active enthusiasts for it. Unfortunately for you, such a dichotomy does not adequately take logic or facts into account. It does not recognize any individual’s actual views.
The point is that from your perspective there is nothing to be opposed to in someone having an abortion. So being lableled pro-abortion shouldn’t be a negative.
Oh I am not trying, I have already defeated you in this debate. Your the one still trying whatever feeble excuse you can manage.
It does not logically follow from someone not being opposed to something that they are for it in any active or enthusiastic sense. I’m not opposed to gambling in principle, does that make me a gambling enthusiast? Do you not have a concept of indifference or tolerance? Must everything be either strongly opposed or enthusiastically endorsed? Or are human preferances more complex than that?
Manufacturing victory in your own mind with repeated lies and strawmen only make you look desperate.