For my Libertarian friends

Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice people have two different conceptions of a particular action. One finds that action permissible and the other does not.  There's no corresponding responsibility on people making the value judgement. The action is either right or wrong. It's two siding trying to reason what the correct opinion is. There's no responsibility. I don't even know what you're referring to. When typing the original post I feared my point would be lost. I cannot express it differently, so I guess it will remain lost.   By making this statement you are distancing yourself from the real life person whose choice is being affected by the moral, emotional, ideological, value judgments being made. This level of detachment devolves you of any responsibility so as you rightly say there is no responsibility. I say reconnect this disconnect then have an opinion. Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's an entirely different situation. Yes it is and there is no denying it. I've even made that same observation myself. I was simply responding to an out of context quote. Explain yourself then. You didn't even attempt to explain how I would possibly be responsible for somebody else's actions. I have already stated that I cannot express myself differently, so any attempt I make to explain myself further is destined to failure, but as you insist, I'll have another try.   I never said you would possibly be responsible for somebody else's actions. I am assuming here there is a difference between "being responsible" and "having a responsibility" where the former is being accountable while the other is an obligation. I'm aware that resonsibility is the state of being responsible, but in the context I used it, when refering to the obligation (née responsibility) of the people who affect the choices of another to allow for the provision of a level of post-event support as a consequence of their active stance, not their being accountable for interfering in the decision in the first place.   So if you are pro-choice or pro-life you should have an obligation to support the existence of after-care at all levels for the life-time of the mother and child if the resultant choice is not to terminate. If the pro-choice decision was to terminate then those pro-choicers should have an obligation to support the provision post-stress care.

JJLehto wrote: Speaking of all that Rob, what happened to that one guy who made an account solely to come in here and bash us "yeoman" or common folk....whatever he said, for not believing his science about global warming? Please tell me you scared him away. And I don't want to put words in Teo's mouth but the argument for the claim he made, is usually that in the case of rape it was forced upon her, so it is not fair to expect her to have the baby. Not like she was screwing around stupidly, or was an accident. It was done by force. Though one could say there is always adoption I know, just giving the rationale behind that one.

I do not know what happened to our friend.

As for abortion, I made my position very clear.  No one has challenged my premises except to say they just don't "feel" it's right.  I would even agree it doesn't feel right. 

Here it is again, in the simplest manner I can word it:

1. An innocent human life begins at conception. 
2. An innocent human life has the right to life and liberty.
Therefore, an innocent human life cannot be snuffed out, and to do so is murder.

In the case of rape, it is one thing to suffer injustice, but does that justify doing evil to an innocent human life?  I submit that it doesn't.

I don't really care which terms you use. If you want to be pro-choice, I'll be pro-life. If you want to be pro-abortion, I'll happily be anti-abortion. Whenever these discussions come up, I feel like people get sidetracked on irrelevant issues. We all agree (I hope) that it's wrong to kill an innocent person. The question is simply when a fetus becomes a person. I think it's at conception because, among other things, that is when it acquires its own unique DNA separate from both the mother and the father's.

Arguments about the circumstances of pregnancy or speculation about the quality of life the baby is likely to have if born play no part in this discussion.

EDIT: Rob just ninja'd me and said pretty much exactly this. Good job, Rob. Also, I don't think religion really plays a part in my view, but I may be wrong.


Edited by thellama73 - August 14 2010 at 22:33

Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: If you read all my other posts I'm a confused mess about it. Don't even know what that says about me...but yeah It means you're an open, honest person considering the arguments the best way you can.  No shame in that, Mr. Badass.

If anything the pic of me riding the lion is more badass

Maybe another surprise coming from mr progressive lefty but I'd say more then less, I lean towards the "pro life side" in general. But again, I'm always torn up on it.
And it actually goes with what you said Rob, if I went just on my "gut" thats the feeling I have about it.


Edited by JJLehto - August 14 2010 at 22:35

JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: If you read all my other posts I'm a confused mess about it. Don't even know what that says about me...but yeah It means you're an open, honest person considering the arguments the best way you can.  No shame in that, Mr. Badass.  If anything the pic of me riding the lion is more badass Maybe another surprise coming from mr progressive lefty but I'd say more then less, I lean towards the "pro life side" in general. But again, I'm always torn up on it.

I agree.  The lion was epic badass.

The fact that you are torn up about the issue is telling, I think.  If anything, it shows you have compassion, and I think Dean has alluded to how "thinking" without "living" can numb a person, though I'm sure Dean didn't mean that we lay aside our principles on account of that.

Pretty much. Like you said about "feel" or maybe "living" my gut feeling is against it, (pro life w/e)
When I think about it, not so sure. I honestly see realistic counter arguments for both. See saw them around and no side I'm comfortable with yet.

Though as I said, if someone made me choose,  I know what my gut says about it.

Epignosis wrote: And here's Exhale's founder.  Notice how many times she uses the phrase "I want" or a variant of it.  Also note how she views her abortion as ultimately a means of personal development.  Can a pro-choice person demonstrate that a woman's feelings (not rights, that's what we're debating here), but feelings, as expressed in this video (because she expressly mentions feelings- never rights) trump another human being's right to life?  This woman killed someone precious so she could get what she wanted.  I am disgusted and saddened.

This is, I believe, at the very core of liberal ideology. It's personal for them. Everything is about what they want, not what they believe is right. They want poor people to have more money, so they come up with welfare. They want smoking to be illegal, because it's personally distasteful to them (ditto with fat people.) They want free medical care, so they elect Obama.
People often accuse me (and libertarians in general) of holding my views because I simply "don't want to pay taxes." I don't pay very much in taxes, because I don't make much money. That's not what it's about at all, but there have been some people who are absolutely incapable of understanding that. I think that they are so caught up in their personal desires that they can't imagine advocating a policy that would not be to their perosnal advantage, simply because it is the right thing to do.

Please note that this is not directed at any of the members of this forum, who have been largely open minded and willing to think critically about the issues, even when they disagree with me (read: nearly always )

Epignosis wrote: 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.

No, they don't. But I was just saying religion colors these debates. Anyway, your first sentence is impossible to prove. It's very easy to say "if I was this"... It's just totally impossible to really know what you would think. As you have said it yourself, your faith colors EVERYTHING you do... including imagining hipothetical scenarios of you not being religious.

The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: 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. No, they don't. But I was just saying religion colors these debates. Anyway, your first sentence is impossible to prove. It's very easy to say "if I was this"... It's just totally impossible to really know what you would think. As you have said it yourself, your faith colors EVERYTHING you do... including imagining hipothetical scenarios of you not being religious.

So tell me T...when did I become a Christian?  And what did I believe before that? 

Atheism of course being technically a faith, one that would color everything you do, T.
If this were the atheism thread, 3 flames to that would now be up and I'm not even done typing the post!