Does the government own your vagina?

Post Reply New Topic

Neither of those statements are true. There are a number of circumstances in which taking another person's life is legitimated. If the law can authorize a peace officer to use deadly force, or a person to use deadly force in self-defence, what is to prevent the law from legitimating the taking of another person's life in other circumstances? These are exceptional rather than general laws, but you cannot discount their existence if you are trying to formulate a general position on a right to life.

Furthermore, there are situations in which a person is obligated to save another's life. Again these are exceptional rather than general, but they serve to disprove your absolute assertion.



What a fatuous, deterministic statement. Your position is loaded with a huge number of assumptions that are not borne out in reality.

Your use of the phrase, "get out of jail free cards," implies two falsehoods: first that abortion is without consequence, and second that pregnancy is the result of an improper action that merits the imposition of physical, emotional and financial consequences on one or both of the participants and, more importantly, on their potential offspring.

The phrase, "choose to imprison themselves" (tasteless metaphor, that), suggests that pregnancy is generally the result of an affirmative choice--such as a wilful decise to eschew contraception. Herein two faults lie. First, contraception is not absolute--all methods have failure rates and a couple can behave completely responsibly and still wind up conceiving. Furthermore you make no allowance for the circumstance in which the woman's participation is procured through duress (such as rape) or through fraud.

If you are unwillling to accpet the risks inherent in contraceptive failure, you are free to adopt a life of celibacy. But to expect such a decision from people living in a modern, pluralist, free society is naive to the point of stupidity.

Libertarians can be very pro-life, they are not all pro-choice, far from it.



Difference between an adult and a child in the womb, if the adult's kidney's fail they pretty much stay failed and there is such thing is organ donation, but you would not have the right to another adult's kidneys without their permission.

The child in the womb relies on the mother's kidney's for X months and then once born no longer relies on the mother's kidneys at all.




Humans and Bovine are not the same species, unless you are an advocate of Cannibalism what you are saying is a false equivalency.



From what I've read, the brain and spinal cord are some of the first things to begin to develop after conception. The heart may start being detectable as having a heartbeat before brain activity is detected, but the development of the brain starts before the heart's development.

Libertarians can be very pro-life, they are not all pro-choice, far from it.

[/quote]

Fixed your quote mistake:

Also can you stop spamming smiley faces, it's really plain annoying.

Obviously there are exceptions such as self-defense. Everyone knows that the real world isn't like public school where if you defend yourself you both get in s**t. Failing to include redundant exceptions which are pretty much common sense doesn't make my statements "wrong".

Yes I'm aware protection isn't 100%, nothing is inherently guaranteed in life. Hell I'm not even gonna wait til marriage, but if I do happen to get a chick pregnant then my say in the matter would be to not abort. And actually a lot of pregnancies happen as a result of either not using condoms properly or inconsistently using some other form of contraception:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Actually I did initially make an exception for rape but then I thought adoption would be more fitting. Even then I never even blamed rape victims. I know for a fact rapists are generally pathologically selfish in every way and not just in their sex life, so a low cut shirt isn't gonna turn a normal person into a rapist. No, the fact that the rapist is already an as*hole who disregards the wishes of others sets the precedent for that.

I didn't say abortion has no consequences. Most people aren't having one abortion after another and still f*****g like there's no tomorrow. It's a big moral dilemma for people to make that decision. But it is done to avoid a bigger hardship which is parenthood which I find unacceptable at the expense of the child.

@ Inuyasha: I'm not even sure anymore what the "official" stance on abortion among libertarian is supposed to be. I guess it's left to the individual since libertarianism mostly pertains to the idea of being allowed to do whatever you wish as long as it doesn't harm someone else.

There's no baby involved.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-Albert Einstein

It wasn't very convincing the thousandth time, why would the millionth time make any difference?

And yet you don't take your own advice when you keep on going on about babies and what not. You should turn that observation on to yourself. I'm suggesting freedom, you're suggesting more crime.

Yep, it's rhetoric when I do it, but not when you do it.

What advice have I given? All I did was point out a double standard. You don't like that I view a fetus as a human life? Tough s**t, don't cry about my arguments being inflammatory. I actually address the points brought up in arguments unlike you who takes a snippet of an entire post to insist that a baby is not a life. I was explaining why from a pro-lifer's point of view abortion is considered the business of the government. I wasn't insisting that it is a life since repeatedly insisting "IT'S A LIFE HURRR HURRR" isn't gonna go anywhere. I'm a little more creative than that.

Where's the "advice" here?

Your arguments are a lot closer to rhetoric than mine. You are arguing as if we view abortion as a victimless crime with stuff like "Because trying to make it illegal removes the choice for people who don't share your beliefs", which doesn't address anything about my stance at all.

I don't even know why I continued to debate after saying I'm done here, but you clearly aren't interesting in holding a mature debate so this is pointless. You're just gonna keep going like "ITS NOT A LIFE MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS HUURRRDEERRPP" so I'm gonna let you have fun with that since you seem to have nothing else to bring to the table.

Abortion doesn't end a life.
It ends a pregnancy, which happens to result in the death of a fetus.
There exists no "right" to remain in a parasitic relationship.


Since you started talking about a right to life based on possessing life. Antibacterial soap is out too.


Sure. Forced pregnancy and childbirth is a totally proportional "punishment" for unprotected sex.
At least you admit that you hate the idea of women having consequence-free sex- most anti-choicers try to dress up the issue.


I've really yet to see you make a case that even begins to dismantle a person's autonomical rights which they'd be exercising if she took a pill to expel a tape worm.

Because it is. It's the same thing as a miscarriage...except on purpose. It doesn't affect anything.

If a Libertarian favors state-mandated pregnancy, I really do wonder where they learned what "Libertarianism" means.



Am I missing something? If I have no right to use your kidneys beyond that which you grant, why does a fetus have a "right" to subsist off of and inside of a woman?



Again, missing something. Are cows not "life", lives of SENTIENT creatures taken for arguably far more whimsical reasons than a woman might have to end a pregnancy?



I highly doubt you've ever volunteered in an abortion clinic.
From some of your other comments, you are very susceptible to right-wing propaganda of many types,
and I'm guessing some Operation Rescue-type misinformation group got to you before you could do any actual research.

In any case. Let's say the fetus had a completely developed brain and nervous system. That has nothing to do with the autonomical issue.

Last edited by Bethie on 13 Apr 2011, 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It affects LOTS of things, abortion.
It affects the death rates of mothers and children.
It affects poverty and crime.
It affects maternal and children's health.

If there is a holistic utilitarian argument to be made,
it's UNDOUBTEDLY that abortion rights are extremely BENEFICIAL to society.

But we've already covered the issue as far as suffering, and he's admitted there is none.
The point being made is about punishing women for getting knocked up when they didn't want to be.
If he's going to try a consequentialist argument, it's necessarily from the viewpoint that suffering is desirable and should be inflicted on a great many people.

By saying it results in a death, you just admitted the child in the womb is alive. In effect you completely contradicted yourself. Furthermore, it is not a parasitic relationship, it is an act of continuing the species.





The child in the womb has more processing power at conception than bacteria. Seriously, we are talking about human life, single celled organisms that do not even classify as animals because they are single celled and do not have nucleia.



If you chose to have sex, then quite frankly you are responsible for the consequences, the same is true for the guy you had sex with. The only remotely legit argument is in the advent of rape, but the majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest, health threat to mother, etc.



I don't think sex is consequence-free for either the guy or the gal, and yes it is degrading society.





You are giving another false equivalency, you are proving my point about pro-abortion dehumanizing children.

Has anyone brought up the Idea of abortion as eviction?

if I own an apartment whose tenant will not pay his rent but will die if evicted.
Do I have A right to evict him?