So I take it you are suggesting that all children should be conceived by in vitro otherwise they are invaders?
Or is it that, the same rules of abortion apply to these invaders if the mother changes her mind in the 3rd trimester?
Only if you wish to create a strawman.
What’s that got to do with anything?
Look this arguement always goes nowhere because the pro-abortion will never state their definiton of when human life begins and when human rights begin. Until they do there is nothing else to discuss. The pro-life people always state their position and can defend it with logic.
The pro-abortion crowd ideology is contradictory and arbitrary and they know it which is why no pro-abortion person in this entire thread has stated exactly when human life begins and when human rights begin.
No. You refuse to read. Quit trolling the same damn thing over and over.
I’m asking for clarification. It seems to me that you are inventing positions on the fly. Why offer in vitro, when it precisely makes my case that there are acts made that either intentionally create life, or have a possible outcome of creating life, and thus the notion of an invader or parasite is fundamentaly flawed.
To imply that the initial action is separate and distinct from it’s consequences, seems incorrect to me.
I’m just wondering if you advocate the consent to create life, also includes the right to destroy life. For example, if a mother chooses to get in vitro fertilization, isn’t she intentionally seeking invader/parasites, for the purpose of procreation? And if the invader/parasites she has intentionally allowed into her body and nourished, maintained until they reach a dependent state, and approach the moment of birth (like the 3rd trimester), is it correct that you say she can go back on her decision and eliminate the fetus?
It’s not just the question of when the fetus becomes an individual, but where libertarian morality is on inviting someone into your care intentionally, and then when they cannot survive without your nourishment or support, choosing to intentionally destroy them.
I’m all for people not being bound to positive obligations, but that doesn’t mean that people can take actions and avoid responsibility for the consequences. If you harm someone else, you might be responsible for their future care. If you bring life into the world, you might be responsible for seeing it through. These are not obligations forced onto someone, they are the consequence of deliberate action whether it is pro creation by sex or in vitro.
LibertyStudent, out of curiosity : are you advocating the death penalty, just like pro-life MaxSlavery does ?
Why would you ask that? And why are you mimicking Nicky with the petty re-naming?
If your argument had any quality, you wouldn’t have to resort to those theatrics. Or are you just trying to impress us with your style and creativity?
Because I want to know if your position is as ridiculous as Max’s. Care to answer ?
You mean, like quoting this ?
So, is Max advocating the murder of women who have abortions (morning after pill included) ? Or am I misunderstanding his humanitarian benevolence ?
Why assume I knew his position? I’d love to answer, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Well, in general, you get aggressive for no particular reason. You’re a smart guy, so is Nicky, but that’s no excuse to be a jerk.
Sounds like Max is saying that murder is murder, and his definition of abortion is that it is murder. IIRC, he’s still waiting for the pro-abortion crowd to define when life starts. Do you have an answer for him yet?
Prior to Ron Paul, I guess I was pro-choice, for some of the silly reasons most people are. I assumed that the woman has a right to decide what to do with her own body. Which I still agree with.
However, when a woman engages in the practice of creating new life, she’s no longer making her decision in a vacuum. She has consciously decided to initiate chance that a new life could result, and it’s no longer her body only or (if you believe such things) her soul only that the decisions are being made for.
Some will argue that she cannot be put under a positive obligation, but I would argue that she put herself under an obligation. By her own willful act(s). Which someone will say, but she can negate any contracts she makes with herself. I agree. Unless there is another life involved. And we still have no answer on when life conclusively begins.
Now I would be all for determining precisely when life begins, but in the interim, perhaps we should err on the side of caution. As long as I am unsure, I can’t advocate abortion with a clear conscience.
If no one minds, I think that this Long article is now relevant.
Because you are posting in this thread where Max has made his position clear.
Wow. Amazingly evasive answer. Care to try again ?
But whatever Paul says is right ? You can’t be serious.
Sex’s purpose is not only to ‘create’ life. And life can be ‘started’ by medical means.
So are you saying that all women who engage in sex do so to get pregnant ? And then change their mind ? Too bad that’s not true at all.
Fine. Don’t advocate abortion then. But “not advocating abortion” has nothing to do with trying to stop women from having abortions, or worse ‘punishing’ them for doing so. This last stopping and punishing, which Max advocates, has nothing to do with libertarianism.
First, I want to say that people who remove all spacing in their posts, so when you go to quote them, you have to unravel and add your own line breaks, drive me crazy.
Right, but I already stated earlier that I had not read the entire thread. Nor do I have any desire to. Like the child sex thread, this topic never gets resolved, and it almost always devolves into flamewars.
I don’t see the need to. You’re asking me to answer for what Max believes. How about you ask him? And while you are at it, when does life begin?
Not at all. Don’t be so silly Juan! Paul offered a different perspective, one that made me think about the argument from the other side. That while the mother certainly has full rights over her body, but how do we reconcile that with the life of the unborn? I’d never considered the topic from that perspective before.
Right, but you keep playing into my position by repeating that statement.
No, I don’t think all sexual acts are committed with the intention of creating a pregnancy, but sex is definitely a time tested method for getting pregnant, short of the recent medical breakthroughs, it was the ONLY way to get pregnant. If you know that sex can lead to pregnancy, and have sex anyway, then aren’t you flirting with getting pregnant? Maybe you don’t intend to get pregnant, but then the surefire way to guarantee that, is to avoid sex!
I can’t defend someone else’s position, only my own. I can try, but you’re better off prosecuting Max directly, than by using me as a proxy.
I’d say the issue of abortion of in vitro babies is more than relevent.
No matter how many times you spew that lie, it remains a lie, Herr Goebbels.
And it’s been so clarified, hasn’t it?
That would be the result of you not reading what I’m writing.
No, it doesn’t. You forget that the act of sex does not have to end in pregnancy. Further, consent to sex is merely that: consent to sex. It is not consent to pregnancy. If you feel it is: prove it. Otherwise, you’re guilty of a non sequitur.
I’m sensing a bait-and-swtich here. Not playing.
And you, like Max, must show that abortion is avoiding responsibility. Please provide the definition of responsibility wherein abortion is not part of taking responsibility.
No. I’m asking you what kind of ‘punishment’(if any) do you think is proper for abortionists.
Embryos and fetuses can’t have rights. So, what the anti-abortion camp is proposing, is to suspend the rights of women to protect the non-existent rights of embryos and fetuses.
I don’t see how. Whether life starts at some point or not, and how that happens, has nothing to do with embryos having rights (or not).
True, but that has no bearing on the problem at hand.
I don’t think so. Usually people use contraceptives, which sometimes fail…
So, the question remains : What kind of punishment can libertarians legitimately use against abortionists ?
Sex and pregnancy are not mutually exclusive. Agree?
What bait and switch? It’s a straightforward question. If one can consent to create life, then does that same theory of consent work for the destruction of life, and vice versa? You don’t want to answer it, because it’s the pandora’s box of the libertarian argument for abortion. I don’t blame you. The answer doesn’t make any of us richer, it makes all of us poorer.
Why not?
Sex doesn’t always end in pregnancy. Agree?
Not playing, and not taking the bait. Try it on someone who doesn’t know any better and will be fooled by the fallacious argument that is merely an emotive plea: “if you create a life, sniff sniff, you can’t take it away!”.
How about this: if a woman owns herself, she cannot be made a slave just because she’s pregnant. If you feel otherwise, I suggest you prove it.
Because Juan thinks that babies magically gain rights once exiting the womb?