Quote:No, sir. It is not willful ignorant. It's differentiating two separate facts.
Slavery was a question of property. Abortion is a question of personhood.
Your bleeding heart rhetoric regarding skin color is something I guess I should expect from someone that is not willing to discuss the law and how the law trumps your morality.
Let's focus on libertarianism within this thread, please.
You aren't as good at this as badger.
Eric, I am defining terms, based on the constitution and the supreme court.
Your definition of life or personhood does not matter. Indeed, even my definitions do not matter.
To have this conversation in a libertarian way, we must first acknowledge how the constitution defines personhood.
Based on roe v wade, personhood begins after birth. That is the law. Based on the law, abortions are legal. Whether you like them or not.
As a libertarian, you should accept that. Otherwise, you're not really a libertarian... you are morality police
Quote:You aren't as good at this as badger.
Badger isn't a libertarian. I am.
Quote:Why stop there? Instead of county judges deciding for you, while don't we let American adults make the decision for themselves? We'd have to come up with a name for that, tho. 
Yeah it's called personal responsibility.
Quote:Yeah it's called personal responsibility.
Personal responsibilities includes the rights for me to make my own choice, even if you disagree with them.
Quote:I'm sorry, but your morality views of an abortion does not give you the right to force the government to push your views onto the freedoms I'm granted.
This. I believe it is a very personal decision that does not belong in the hands of government regardless of what I think personally. I'm pro-choice for the simple fact I just stated. It's a personal decision.
Quote:Personal responsibilities includes the rights for me to make my own choice, even if you disagree with them.
Where did I say anything different? I was just pointing out there is already a name for what he was talking about.
Quote:Where did I say anything different? I was just pointing out there is already a name for what he was talking about.
Haha, no I had a feeling we were in agreement. I was just adding in top of your statement. :-)
If the baby's head pops out during labor, walla it's a person. If doctor pushes it back in, no longer person... and if you are against a woman's right to kill it then I guess you are not American
Quote:No, sir. It is not willful ignorant. It's differentiating two separate facts.
Slavery was a question of property. Abortion is a question of personhood.
Your bleeding heart rhetoric regarding skin color is something I guess I should expect from someone that is not willing to discuss the law and how the law trumps your morality.
Let's focus on libertarianism within this thread, please.
lol. Now that's funny.
The legal rationale for slavery was whether or not, in the eyes of the law, all men (and women) were equal before the law and the universality of the endowment by the creator espoused by Jefferson. The recognition that all men are created equal was an essential part of the rationale behind the 13th 14th 15th amendments to the constitution as well as the subsequent civil rights acts of both the 19th and 20th centuries respectively.
In the case of Roe v. Wade, it was argued that basic human rights are not based on biology or intrinsic to the human condition, but to certain abstract criteria to be determined by other men. That is wholly antithetical to the concepts expressed in the declaration of independence and the basic underpinnings of human rights as they were previously understood.
This was accomplished because in 1973 there was no such thing as a 3d ultrasound etc. It was argued that until very near the time of birth that a fetus was just a clump of cells like cancer or bacteria. As technology has progressed, the understanding of the complexity of all aspects of human life have been expounded upon time and time again and the concept that human beings should be cast aside just because they haven't reached an arbitrary stage of development should take its rightful place in the trash bin of history.
If you have trouble understanding, comparing, and contrasting the fundamental legal underpinnings behind segregation, slavery etc. and their relationship to the concept of person-hood as it relates to the fetus the please by all means feel free to ask as many clarifying questions as you need. This silly idea of dismissing any argument that illuminates the hypocrisy of your world view as NOT WANTING TO ENGAGE ON THE LAW is easily transparent.
Quote:Eric, I am defining terms, based on the constitution and the supreme court.
Your definition of life or personhood does not matter. Indeed, even my definitions do not matter.
To have this conversation in a libertarian way, we must first acknowledge how the constitution defines personhood.
Based on roe v wade, personhood begins after birth. That is the law. Based on the law, abortions are legal. Whether you like them or not.
As a libertarian, you should accept that. Otherwise, you're not really a libertarian... you are morality police
That's not correct. Roe gave states the option of asserting a compelling interest in the life of an unborn child in certain later stages of development. That's why a ban on late term or partial birth abortions is constitutional and some doctors have been charged with murder.
Also, there is a vast distinction between what the constitution defines or doesn't define vs. A post modern pseudo intellectual construct.
Quote:See the above post, when it comes to individual choice I'm pro choice everything, drugs, education, lifestyle, marriage equality, the line is when an innocent life is harmed. Abortion ends the life of a third party.
There would be many opinions on what constitutes life. A lima bean, a tad pole, a small bird, etc... But again, it goes back to you wanting government out of your life until it doesn't fit your belief. And that is where everything unvravels.
Quote:lol. Now that's funny.
The legal rationale for slavery was whether or not, in the eyes of the law, all men (and women) were equal before the law and the universality of the endowment by the creator espoused by Jefferson. The recognition that all men are created equal was an essential part of the rationale behind the 13th 14th 15th amendments to the constitution as well as the subsequent civil rights acts of both the 19th and 20th centuries respectively.
In the case of Roe v. Wade, it was argued that basic human rights are not based on biology or intrinsic to the human condition, but to certain abstract criteria to be determined by other men. That is wholly antithetical to the concepts expressed in the declaration of independence and the basic underpinnings of human rights as they were previously understood.
This was accomplished because in 1973 there was no such thing as a 3d ultrasound etc. It was argued that until very near the time of birth that a fetus was just a clump of cells like cancer or bacteria. As technology has progressed, the understanding of the complexity of all aspects of human life have been expounded upon time and time again and the concept that human beings should be cast aside just because they haven't reached an arbitrary stage of development should take its rightful place in the trash bin of history.
If you have trouble understanding, comparing, and contrasting the fundamental legal underpinnings behind segregation, slavery etc. and their relationship to the concept of person-hood as it relates to the fetus the please by all means feel free to ask as many clarifying questions as you need. This silly idea of dismissing any argument that illuminates the hypocrisy of your world view as NOT WANTING TO ENGAGE ON THE LAW is easily transparent.
So what is the difference between bacteria and lima bean if it is going to turn into a human being? I don't understand personally why that validates your argument. So are you saying if it was bacteria or clump cells you would be for abortion?
It was a method of emotional dehumanization. By contention is that human rights are intrinsic to all... Well humans. The only difference between a 4 year old and a 12 week fetus is stages of development. Technically speaking, were not fully developed until we are 25. Were not viable to find foodand sustain ourselves until close to puberty. Would these markers deprive us of the basic right to exist?
Quote:Eric, I am defining terms, based on the constitution and the supreme court.
Your definition of life or personhood does not matter. Indeed, even my definitions do not matter.
To have this conversation in a libertarian way, we must first acknowledge how the constitution defines personhood.
Based on roe v wade, personhood begins after birth. That is the law. Based on the law, abortions are legal. Whether you like them or not.
As a libertarian, you should accept that. Otherwise, you're not really a libertarian... you are morality police
And according to the constitution the 10th amendment defers such matters to the state not the federal branch. As I've said at this point in time where we are at now that is my main objective to revoke the federal overreach that was roe v wade and divert back to individual states being allowed to create their own laws on person-hood and abortions.
Quote:And according to the constitution the 10th amendment defers such matters to the state not the federal branch. As I've said at this point in time where we are at now that is my main objective to revoke the federal overreach that was roe v wade and divert back to individual states being allowed to create their own laws on person-hood and abortions.
Even pro choice justices have conceded this point.
Quote:There would be many opinions on what constitutes life. A lima bean, a tad pole, a small bird, etc... But again, it goes back to you wanting government out of your life until it doesn't fit your belief. And that is where everything unvravels.
Now you're just being vague for dramatic effect. Clearly we are talking about human life and how we afforded constitutional rights. A lima bean has no rights, so let's just keep the drama in check.
I'm pretty consistent on when I advocate government interference, when it comes to violating the rights of others property or life. Otherwise I'd just embrace anarchy.
Quote:Badger isn't a libertarian. I am.
Sorry Anchorman, no libertarian of any kind supports a strong central government. It defies the very purpose of the movement.
There's extremities and degrees of libertarian-ism but they all share one common concept a restricted and decentralized government.
Quote:Sorry Anchorman, no libertarian of any kind supports a strong central government. It defies the very purpose of the movement.
There's extremities and degrees of libertarian-ism but they all share one common concept a restricted and decentralized government.
Like I said, he's not as good at impersonating a Libertarian as badger is at impersonating a leftist.
Quote:Sorry Anchorman, no libertarian of any kind supports a strong central government. It defies the very purpose of the movement.
There's extremities and degrees of libertarian-ism but they all share one common concept a restricted and decentralized government.
He just meant decriminalizing marijuana....