Abortion - page 7. | Bitcointalksearch.org

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 09:08:27 PM

Can I poke you in the belly with my finger or would that be considered aggression?

You can't touch me at all.

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 09:11:09 PM

Right. So if you can remove a fetus from the womb safely and put it up for adoption or give it to a voluntary charity that will put it in bionic cradle that will sustain it's life until it is ready to live outside the womb than according to libertarianism it's moral. It's partially a technological issue.

No, it doesn't matter what happens after it's out of the womb. It only matters how it's evicted. If there is a way to remove it intact then that must be done. If there is no other way, then so be it. Whether or not it dies after being removed is irrelevant.

The Script

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 09:07:02 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 30, 2011, 09:03:32 PM

If any action you do causes certain death for a person, then you are responsible for killing said person.

I agree. Yet, according to libertarianism, I am still within my rights to withhold sustenance from a dying person.

Right. So if you can remove a fetus from the womb safely and put it up for adoption or give it to a voluntary charity that will put it in bionic cradle that will sustain it's life until it is ready to live outside the womb than according to libertarianism it's moral. It's partially a technological issue.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 09:07:02 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 30, 2011, 09:03:32 PM

If any action you do causes certain death for a person, then you are responsible for killing said person.

I agree. Yet, according to libertarianism, I am still within my rights to withhold sustenance from a dying person.

Ok, it makes sense where you get your viewpoint from. I don't agree with it (seems to be a case of following the letter of the law, not the spirit), but at least I understand where you're coming from.

The Script

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:59:21 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 08:54:51 PM

It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption. They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc.

That's an argument I can get behind. You shouldn't be allowed to damage the fetus, only evict it. Just like I can evict someone from my house, but not by chopping them into pieces first. However, the fact that death is certain doesn't change anything.

This makes more sense to me. With our current technology I know of no way to evict a fetus without killing it, therefore I am against abortion in most circumstances.

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 08:57:57 PM

Why not?

Are you asking me why you can't stab people?
[/quote]

It seemed to me you were saying that the result didn't matter ("It doesn't matter if you kill the guy or not, you can't stab people"). So if the result doesn't matter why is stabbing a forbidden action? You can't stab people because it infringes on their right to not be murdered, or physically damaged by you. It does matter the consequence. Can I poke you in the belly with my finger or would that be considered aggression?

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 30, 2011, 09:03:32 PM

If any action you do causes certain death for a person, then you are responsible for killing said person.

I agree. Yet, according to libertarianism, I am still within my rights to withhold sustenance from a dying person.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:59:21 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 08:54:51 PM

It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption. They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc.

That's an argument I can get behind. You shouldn't be allowed to damage the fetus, only evict it. Just like I can evict someone from my house, but not by chopping them into pieces first. However, the fact that death is certain doesn't change anything.

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 08:57:57 PM

Why not?

Are you asking me why you can't stab people?

If any action you do causes certain death for a person, then you are responsible for killing said person.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 08:54:51 PM

It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption. They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc.

That's an argument I can get behind. You shouldn't be allowed to damage the fetus, only evict it. Just like I can evict someone from my house, but not by chopping them into pieces first. However, the fact that death is certain doesn't change anything.

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 08:57:57 PM

Why not?

Are you asking me why you can't stab people?

The Script

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:56:14 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 30, 2011, 08:53:01 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:50:26 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 30, 2011, 08:46:34 PM

It's like locking a newborn baby in a cage outside of your house, and not allowing anyone to touch him/her, while he/she freezes to death outside.

No, it's not. No one is preventing anyone from keeping the baby alive, they just lack the technological means to do so. That won't always be the case either. It's also not something done in secret. It's not dropping the baby out in the woods where nobody that wants to do something knows about it.

That's like saying your knife-stab-to-the-chest wasn't killing the guy, it's just no one else could keep him alive after you did it. Worst argument I've ever heard.

It doesn't matter if you kill the guy or not, you can't stab people.

Why not?

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 30, 2011, 08:53:01 PM

That's like saying your knife-stab-to-the-chest wasn't killing the guy, it's just no one else could keep him alive after you did it.

It doesn't matter if you kill the guy or not, you can't stab people.

The Script

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:35:20 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 08:28:49 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:16:31 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 07:59:15 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 07:53:42 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 24, 2011, 06:27:36 PM

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene. He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.). I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts. But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

The fact he's against abortion is what bothers me. The fact he claims to be a libertarian yet doesn't understand that a woman removing a baby from her womb is her right also bothers me.

It's only her right if the baby is not a human life yet, correct? If it's a human life she has no more right to kill the baby than she would to kill her three-year-old child outside the womb. In pure libertarian philosophy she could simply stop feeding the baby and let someone else take care of it, but she can't kill it because that would violate the baby's right to not be murdered. So the difficulty is defining when life begins and what life is.

I said remove from her womb, not kill. She has the right to control her own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what she does with her body.

What's the difference? If you abort an unborn baby it will die. It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption. They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc. I'm not trying to make an emotional argument, just pointing out that abortion is certain death for a baby so I don't see the difference between that and murder, given that life does indeed begin inside the womb.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:50:26 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 30, 2011, 08:46:34 PM

It's like locking a newborn baby in a cage outside of your house, and not allowing anyone to touch him/her, while he/she freezes to death outside.

No, it's not. No one is preventing anyone from keeping the baby alive, they just lack the technological means to do so. That won't always be the case either. It's also not something done in secret. It's not dropping the baby out in the woods where nobody that wants to do something knows about it.

That's like saying your knife-stab-to-the-chest wasn't killing the guy, it's just no one else could keep him alive after you did it. Worst argument I've ever heard.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 30, 2011, 08:46:34 PM

It's like locking a newborn baby in a cage outside of your house, and not allowing anyone to touch him/her, while he/she freezes to death outside.

No, it's not. No one is preventing anyone from keeping the baby alive, they just lack the technological means to do so. That won't always be the case either. It's also not something done in secret. It's not dropping the baby out in the woods where nobody that wants to do something knows about it.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:43:28 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 30, 2011, 08:40:31 PM

That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

That's not even close. If you want to make an analogy, it would be like me kicking a person out of my house even though they will freeze to death outside.

Ok, we'll go with that. It'd be like kicking a newborn baby out of your house, even though they will freeze to death outside.

Actually, it's even worse than that. It's like locking a newborn baby in a cage outside of your house, and not allowing anyone to touch him/her, while he/she freezes to death outside. After all, if you have an abortion, it's certain death - not death only if no one steps in to help.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: SgtSpike on September 30, 2011, 08:40:31 PM

That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

That's not even close. If you want to make an analogy, it would be like me kicking a person out of my house even though they will freeze to death outside.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:35:20 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 08:28:49 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:16:31 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 07:59:15 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 07:53:42 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 24, 2011, 06:27:36 PM

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene. He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.). I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts. But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

The fact he's against abortion is what bothers me. The fact he claims to be a libertarian yet doesn't understand that a woman removing a baby from her womb is her right also bothers me.

It's only her right if the baby is not a human life yet, correct? If it's a human life she has no more right to kill the baby than she would to kill her three-year-old child outside the womb. In pure libertarian philosophy she could simply stop feeding the baby and let someone else take care of it, but she can't kill it because that would violate the baby's right to not be murdered. So the difficulty is defining when life begins and what life is.

I said remove from her womb, not kill. She has the right to control her own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what she does with her body.

That's like saying I have a right to put a knife through someones chest, because I have a right to control my own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what I do with my body.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 08:28:49 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:16:31 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 07:59:15 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 07:53:42 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 24, 2011, 06:27:36 PM

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene. He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.). I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts. But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

The fact he's against abortion is what bothers me. The fact he claims to be a libertarian yet doesn't understand that a woman removing a baby from her womb is her right also bothers me.

It's only her right if the baby is not a human life yet, correct? If it's a human life she has no more right to kill the baby than she would to kill her three-year-old child outside the womb. In pure libertarian philosophy she could simply stop feeding the baby and let someone else take care of it, but she can't kill it because that would violate the baby's right to not be murdered. So the difficulty is defining when life begins and what life is.

I said remove from her womb, not kill. She has the right to control her own body, even if the life of someone else depends on what she does with her body. The only exception is when what she does with her body violates someone else's rights.

The Script

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 08:16:31 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 30, 2011, 07:59:15 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on September 30, 2011, 07:53:42 PM

Quote from: The Script on September 24, 2011, 06:27:36 PM

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene. He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.). I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts. But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

The fact he's against abortion is what bothers me. The fact he claims to be a libertarian yet doesn't understand that a woman removing a baby from her womb is her right also bothers me.

It's only her right if the baby is not a human life yet, correct? If it's a human life she has no more right to kill the baby than she would to kill her three-year-old child outside the womb. In pure libertarian philosophy she could simply stop feeding the baby and let someone else take care of it, but she can't kill it because that would violate the baby's right to not be murdered. So the difficulty is defining when life begins and what life is.

Topic: Abortion - page 7. (Read 8299 times)