For my Libertarian friends

That is an intriguing point. I honestly don't know.
My guy would say no? But no idea

TGM: Orb wrote: Epignosis wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Epignosis wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Life begins at conception. Not all life is equal. An unborn fetus is not a "human being." I leave it up to embryologists to decide when it can feel pain and how much that pain matters. I support abortion because it's more practical than having a bunch of unwanted, un-careable babies wandering around. Oh and the woman's rights stuff. I prefer not to give much of a sh*t about the morality of killing a fetus when we're all not getting too bent out of shape by real world human suffering and killing. So one's ability to feel pain makes it a human being?  You're telling me that the comatose man in ICU is not a human being?  As for "unwanted" babies, have you ever heard of adoption?  My in-laws have four adopted children and they foster.  And my wife, who studied to work in an adoption agency (but wound up being a teacher) tells me that there are many parents waiting for children to adopt.  Your statement "unwanted, un-careable babies wandering around" really shows you have no clue what you are talking about. Regarding women's rights...well, that's what happens when you have sex.  It's a potential consequence of sex.  Abortion is just another way the government seeks to protect people from the bad consequences of their behavior. When would we accept the taking of someone's life to solve one's social problems? As for rape... @your rape study; should any of the five women of that very small, thirty year old (and I'm guessing pretty localised) study who did choose abortions have been forced to go through nine months of pregnancy complete with all the social and personal (and possibly even health) problems that entails and then give birth to their rapist's (almost certainly unwanted) child after they were raped? Uh, abortion isn't a governmental catch against unwanted consequences, it's  a medical procedure that the government does not prohibit. Regardless of the morality you might attach to abortion, it seems rather unfair to accuse the government of actively coddling people simply because it doesn't prohibit it. --- Personally, I'm less sure what I think about abortion than about most things. I think it should stop being an exclusively female choice, on account of the fact that being a father is actually a pretty important thing (though I have no idea how you could make that work). I think that if you have unprotected sex, abortion should not be used as emergency contraception and I don't think that social inconvenience is enough of a justification to solve your own (admittedly significant) completely avoidable problems by killing whatever a fetus is. Recently read this in A Rebours: 'What Society considered a crime was the act of killing a being endowed with life; and yet, in expelling a foetus, one destroyed an animal that was less formed and living and certainly less intelligent and more ugly than a dog or a cat, although it is permissible to strangle these creatures as soon as they are born.' I have plenty of evidence to show that the US's governing bodies actively seek to protect people from the consequences of their practices.  The government bailouts are just one example.  Schools passing failing students is yet another.  Abortion is not the only piece to this trend.  Sure it's a medical procedure, but why is it done?  According to the first link about 93% (almost all) abortions are done on several as a way of making the mother's life more convenient.  And that's a shame. The link I gave about rape was not a blanket statement regarding whether a raped woman should or should not have an abortion.  It was to debunk a common assumption about rape and abortion- that is all.  Don't take it mean more than it does, and it doesn't pass judgment on those five women who did get an abortion. You're guessing the study was pretty localized, but that doesn't make sense at all given how extremely rare it is to get pregnant by rape. The government may be protecting people from the consequences of their actions, however this is not an area where they are doing so. It is an area where they are not intervening rather than an area where they are intervening. I agree that it's a damn shame that a vast majority of abortions are done for convenience. I just don't blame the government for that (and I think the blame for how many abortions are done for convenience falls to A) a culture where children and serious relationships are put off longer than ever before and B) the fact that women are more than ever now expected to hold up a conventional career). Concerning localisation: 'This was apparently all she could find' is the phrase used to explain the low number of participants. Now, even if that number represents all she could find across the entirety of the US, that's study in one particular country where taboos concerning abortion may well have resulted in a radically different response to other countries. Either way, the representation of the study here gives no indication of its reliability and the rather tactical choices of words like 'most' and 'few' makes it very hard for me to believe that the page in question is treating the study it is based on with complete openness and intellectual honesty (out of 33 people, I have no idea how many a 'few' are). The way that this particular study is represented here is to undermine the credibility of the 'pro-abortion' example of rape victims as being justified in having abortions with the strawman title 'abortion cures rape'. However, I think this representation has either completely missed the point of said example or deliberately misrepresented it, which is that not even one person should be forced to unwillingly go through a nine month pregnancy and then have their rapist's baby simply because they were raped. The point of said example is not that abortion will make the rape more bearable, nor that all women who get raped will choose an abortion. Rather the point of that example is that when you have no choice in matter of abortion, someone may be pregnant through no fault of their own and then be forced to go through nine months of pregnancy and have a baby. Does a child still lose the right to life because his mother was raped?  It is less evil to suffer injustice than to cause it. http://www.l4l.org/library/aborrape.html In an ideal world, noone would have to make that choice. However, in a situation where a parent cannot be reasonably held responsible for conceiving a child, I don't think they have any obligation to support that child, to undergo pregnancy at any cost to yourself or, in fact, to give birth. People tell me that none of these are easy. Even if it might be nobler for them to choose to do so, they should not be denied that choice. If, of course, you are of the belief that the right to life of a fetus is so important as to trump everything except another human being's right to life, then we're going nowhere with this.

Then I guess we're going nowhere.  Thanks for the warning.

Just as I expected, religion colors this issue. Robert is religious, he's anti-right-to-abortion; Shields has religious tendencies, he's anti-right-to-abortion; Llama73 has said he has doubt but tends to believe, he is also anti-right-to-abortion. I still would love to see JLocke's opinion on this (he's an atheist libertarian). MOM, I haven't figured out yet if he believes in anything (besides in the idea that the government is Satan ... Therefore he might be religious after all). 

The T wrote: Just as I expected, religion colors this issue. Robert is religious, he's anti-right-to-abortion; Shields has religious tendencies, he's anti-right-to-abortion; Llama73 has said he has doubt but tends to believe, he is also anti-right-to-abortion. I still would love to see JLocke's opinion on this (he's an atheist libertarian). MOM, I haven't figured out yet if he believes in anything (besides in the idea that the government is Satan ... Therefore he might be religious after all).  I'm not saying an unbeliever will be definitely pro-right-to-abortion but it's much more likely. Religion colors issues, there's no purity in libertarianism just as there is no purity in any of this theories. I'm glad people are not so predictable and one-dimensional.  I guessed libertarians would justify their opposition to abortion using the child's rights; I was right. That ALL depends on the argument used to establish when a person starts to be one. So as upset or outraged as anti-right-to-abortion people here might feel, their opinion is as good as any. Scientists have one view of when life begins (even that one is divided), so I would just ask anti-right-to-abortion people not to be so mighty and radical judges of moral as sometimes you are.  I personally can't understand opposition to abortion after a rape. Logic doesn't play into this. I just feel it's wrong to force a child into someone who was raped.

Um, I think the reason there's a religious dividing line on this issue is that it is fundamentally much harder for an aetheist to rationally make a stand on principle against any type of abortion. I'm myself religious and I feel that in at least some cases the option should be there as a last resort - most especially when one or both of the parents could not reasonably anticipate the possibility of a pregnancy or when the pregnancy would seriously threaten the health or life of the mother.

I think that having brought someone into the world is a huge responsibility, and I think that the fact that simply being a parent is a fundamentally very important thing even if you decide to put the child up for adoption should really tinge the debate more. At the moment, it seems to get reduced to the contrast of the unborn child's rights and the pregnant mother's rights and I think there is a lot more to it than a plain opposition between those two.

Another classic Stoney argument

"Makes point"
Someone makes their point
"Whoa dude, this is just the internet man. I was really just being a troll/dont care enough about this sh*t"

or some variation of.  

That being said....this is one of those were there really is not much of debating. Not even the whole "not gunna change opinions" but theres really no middle ground or compromising points to be made


Edited by JJLehto - August 14 2010 at 20:51

I just wanted to get a bunch of thoughts out there with no evidence, connection, or intent to argue them. They're opinions, and people can shout at them if they want.

In fact I kind of want to get more thoughts of mine out there, but the thought that someone could possibly respond to them seriously is enough to make me falter.

Let abortion go people. Let it go.

And yes, as a proponent of abortion it does feel quite cushy to tell people against it not to care. Maybe if the religious kooks get their way and it becomes illegal I'll have to star making my reasoned arguments.

Till then, let's off us some proto-babies!

No Bryan... Many anti-right-to-abortion people ("pro-life") make it seem as if being pro-choice is somewhat the same as being pro-abortion. The opposite of pro-life is pro-death, isn't it (or anti-life). On the other hand, the opposite of pro-choice is anti-choice, which I think sums it up in a much better, if not entirely PC, way.

This is an issue where I think every individual case is different and none can decide better what to do than the mother and those next to her.

if being pro-choice is equated by some as being pro-death, so be it, it's a knock I'm willing to take if it means supporting a woman's right to choose

The T wrote: Just as I expected, religion colors this issue. Robert is religious, he's anti-right-to-abortion;

Were I an atheist but a Libertarian, I would still be anti-abortion.  Note that not a single one of my arguments here on the subject derive from Christianity.

stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Life begins at conception. Not all life is equal. An unborn fetus is not a "human being." I leave it up to embryologists to decide when it can feel pain and how much that pain matters. I support abortion because it's more practical than having a bunch of unwanted, un-careable babies wandering around. Oh and the woman's rights stuff. I prefer not to give much of a sh*t about the morality of killing a fetus when we're all not getting too bent out of shape by real world human suffering and killing. So one's ability to feel pain makes it a human being?  You're telling me that the comatose man in ICU is not a human being?  As for "unwanted" babies, have you ever heard of adoption?  My in-laws have four adopted children and they foster.  And my wife, who studied to work in an adoption agency (but wound up being a teacher) tells me that there are many parents waiting for children to adopt.  Your statement "unwanted, un-careable babies wandering around" really shows you have no clue what you are talking about. Regarding women's rights...well, that's what happens when you have sex.  It's a potential consequence of sex.  Abortion is just another way the government seeks to protect people from the bad consequences of their behavior. When would we accept the taking of someone's life to solve one's social problems? As for rape... Holy sh*t I so do not care enough about this issue as you apparently do. I could defend myself, but there's really, really no point. You're notorious for dragging stuff out, and I have a feeling abortion is not an issue you're willing to change on, and it's certainly not one I care enough about to muster up the energy to change.

Abortion is an issue I am absolutely not willing to change on.  You're damn right.

Now wasting my time...is that an issue you are willing to change on?  Mr. "Holy sh*t I so do not care enough about this issue as you apparently do?"