• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Libertarian Position Against Abortion

Jerry said:
Oh you like definitions?

======================

"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", spicificly, a “mother”.

"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".
RvW Section 9a kicks in and bans all abortions where the mother's life is not in jeopardy. PL wins.
Click to expand...

I've shown you before how you are misinterpreting those.
 
Ethereal said:
I prefer the following source...

libertarian definition | Dictionary.com

Or this one perhaps...

libertarian - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Yep, those all sound like me.
Click to expand...

a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
Click to expand...

Not if you favor the establishment of capitalism, which is necessarily authoritarian inasmuch as it necessitates the subordination of labor under capital and extraction of surplus value through wage labor. The subordination of a laborer under an employer is necessarily a hierarchical, authoritarian act.

As to the main topic of this thread, it must again be reiterated that the issue of "human life" is largely irrelevant. Why not simply concede that a fetus is "human life," and "innocent human life," at that? The fact still remains that it possesses lower levels of awareness and capacity to feel pain than various nonhuman animals. On what grounds are those nonhuman animals therefore denied rights greater than those of the human fetus?
 
prometeus said:
Women have free will, that is why they should have the choice to abort.
You view on sexuality is ignorant of reality, quite medieval.
Click to expand...

Here's where we abandon logic and critical thought and start throwing around charged words. The fetus is a "parasite." My view that a fetus is a person and killing people is wrong is "ignorant" and "medieval." That's right! Shove your fingers in your ears. NANNERNANNERNANNER! I CANT HEAR YOU!
 
BulletWounD said:
Quit trying to jump through hoops to prove your illogical beliefs.

part: one of several or many like units into which something is divided or of which it is composed

The child is not a division of the mother. It's a separate organism. The appendix is not part of the heart and two parallel line segments will never be one line segment, even if they're connected.
Click to expand...

A fetus is composed of the resources from it's mother.

And if it was a seperate organism then it would not require the mother to survive. As many in this thread (and other threads) are fond of pointing out a bacteria is not a part of the woman. Which is why it can survive outside the person. A fetus cannot.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've shown you before how you are misinterpreting those.
Click to expand...

You mean you came up with some stupid straw man I see right through and summarily dismiss, yeah.

Every word there strictly reflects the credible medical and legal definitions therein.

You haven't so much as smudged it.


…and it’s worth noting that no part of that, at all, is religious in any way, shape or form, to any degree.
 
If anyone is abandoning reasoning it is you.
I acknowledged that a fetus is not a parasite in the strictest sense, but parasitic.
I did not address you view of killing people, just your view on sexuality.
So please take the fingers out of your ears and "read" what I write before you throw around charged accusations.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A fetus is composed of the resources from it's mother.
Click to expand...

So is a newborn.


And if it was a seperate organism then it would not require the mother to survive. As many in this thread (and other threads) are fond of pointing out a bacteria is not a part of the woman. Which is why it can survive outside the person. A fetus cannot.
Click to expand...

Some bacteria could not survive outside of a person and a fetus in many stages of development can. We've already been down this road.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A fetus is composed of the resources from it's mother.

And if it was a seperate organism then it would not require the mother to survive. As many in this thread (and other threads) are fond of pointing out a bacteria is not a part of the woman. Which is why it can survive outside the person. A fetus cannot.
Click to expand...

Here again we see the "pregnant women are hermaphrodites" argument.

Wholly disingenuous.

I care even less about "the woman's right to choose" as a result.
 
Once again, you fail to offer valid comment regarding the issue of "human life" vs. "personhood." You ignored my PM the last time I sent it, so why don't we air this out in the open? Why don't you meet me in a one-on-one debate, Jerry, if your position is so logically consistent?
 
Agnapostate said:
On what grounds are those nonhuman animals therefore denied rights greater than those of the human fetus?
Click to expand...

This is a good point and one I've wrestled with for a long time. For one thing, what would the world be like if I could be charged with negligent homicide for accidentally stepping on a bug? There are a lot of practical implications. Also keep in mind that the idea that people have natural rights is a belief at it's core; a belief founded in the idea that they're given to us by God. Max Stimer referred to them as spooks in the mind.
 
BulletWounD said:
This is a good point and one I've wrestled with for a long time. For one thing, what would the world be like if I could be charged with negligent homicide for accidentally stepping on a bug? There are a lot of practical implications. Also keep in mind that the idea that people have natural rights is a belief at it's core; a belief founded in the idea that they're given to us by God. Max Stimer referred to them as spooks in the mind.
Click to expand...

Accidentally stepping on a bug? How is a bug even relevant to this issue? A bug does not possess awareness levels or rational capacities at anywhere near the same level that relatively advanced mammals do. When making direct comparisons to the human fetus, animals with greater levels of awareness and capacity to feel pain may be along the lines of dogs, goats, pigs, and obviously, all nonhuman great apes.
 
Jerry said:
You mean you came up with some stupid straw man I see right through and summarily dismiss, yeah.

Every word there strictly reflects the credible medical and legal definitions therein.

You haven't so much as smudged it.


…and it’s worth noting that no part of that, at all, is religious in any way, shape or form, to any degree.
Click to expand...

I applied the words as they are meant to be applied. Sorry if you consider that a strawman arguement.
 
Agnapostate said:
Once again, you fail to offer valid comment regarding the issue of "human life" vs. "personhood."
Click to expand...

What are talking about?

Agnapostate said:
You ignored my PM the last time I sent it, so why don't we air this out in the open?
Click to expand...

Post your arguments, as you have, and watch them be shot down, as you have.

Agnapostate said:
Why don't you meet me in a one-on-one debate, Jerry, if your position is so logically consistent?
Click to expand...

You don't offer a debate worth taking my attention away from leveling my Palladian on WoW (ret pally ftw)

Truly, you haven't yet said anything that I haven't already heard in my few years on DP. You are not bringing any new information to the table. I see no reason to participate in **another** 1-on-1 debate about abortion.

In fact, the only reason I'm making this post is because my pally is in a 12 minut flight to Un'Goro.

DebatePolitics.com is nothing but another video game to me. When you make yourself more entertaining to me than my other games by bringing new information/arguments to the table, then, and only then will you get more of my attention.
 
Last edited:
Through out this thread I have yet to see one shred of proof that a fetus is not a part of the woman. I've seen lots of inaccurate deductions but that is about it. Personally I am tired of playing word games. Come up with the proof or you will show that your arguments are based on nothing more than your own percieved notions of what you think "should be". Not based on any actual proof.

Edit note: This post is directed at everyone that says the fetus is not a part of the woman.
 
Agnapostate said:
Once again, you fail to offer valid comment regarding the issue of "human life" vs. "personhood." You ignored my PM the last time I sent it, so why don't we air this out in the open? Why don't you meet me in a one-on-one debate, Jerry, if your position is so logically consistent?
Click to expand...

Agnapostate said:
Once again, you fail to offer valid comment regarding the issue of "human life" vs. "personhood." You ignored my PM the last time I sent it, so why don't we air this out in the open? Why don't you meet me in a one-on-one debate, Jerry, if your position is so logically consistent?
Click to expand...

I admit, I never followed your second link. However, I'm currently leaning toward all humans (homo sapiens) being people.

myself said:
I haven't come up with any answers that satisfy my intellect sufficiently. I'm beginning to believe that judging personhood on anything but physical/biological criteria is very dangerous as well as counter-intuitive. Have you ever met a person who's not a human or a human that's not a person? I know I haven't.
Click to expand...

myself said:
The braindead are living human beings, and I would say, people by virtue of the fact that they are human beings. Would you say a man with a cold and slightly diminished capacity is slightly less of a person then a healthy individual? As I asked earlier, would you say that a baby, who possesses less intellectual capacity than many animals, is not a person or is on a scale of personhood less of a person then a fully grown dolphin? If so, and you believe that natural rights are unique to people, then you must accept that babies have less than or equal rights than an animal and one can freely violate them. If not, then at what point does the baby magically obtain these rights? When he's born? What about when his foot is still in the mother's birth canal? Is he now 90% of a person? There's very little difference between a baby in the womb just prior to birth and a baby that's just been born.
Click to expand...
 
Jerry said:
What are talking about?
Click to expand...

Surely you jest.

Jerry said:
Post your arguments, as you have, and watch them be shot down, as you have.
Click to expand...

You haven't "shot" anything down. You have merely posted a baseless conclusion without providing supporting arguments. You claimed that I "lost all credibility" by comparing human fetuses to nonhuman animals at a similar level of awareness, but you provided no arguments or reasoning whatsoever to support this conclusion.

Jerry said:
You don't offer a debate worth taking my attention away from leveling my Palladian on WoW (ret pally ftw)

Truly, you haven't yet said anything that I haven't already heard in my few years on DP. You are not bringing any new information to the table. I see no reason to participate in **another** 1-on-1 debate about abortion.
Click to expand...

I read your little one-on-one "debate" on abortion. You immediately started by making several major fallacies regarding conflation of legal and ethical standards. So I may bring *new* information to the table if it consists of nothing more than informing you of the fallacies that you commit.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Through out this thread I have yet to see one shred of proof that a fetus is not a part of the woman. I've seen lots of inaccurate deductions but that is about it. Personally I am tired of playing word games. Come up with the proof or you will show that your arguments are based on nothing more than your own percieved notions of what you think "should be". Not based on any actual proof.

Edit note: This post is directed at everyone that says the fetus is not a part of the woman.
Click to expand...

I've given you a welth of credable data on the biological facts of pregnancy.

You have chosen to ignore them.

Boooorrrriiinnngg.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Through out this thread I have yet to see one shred of proof that a fetus is not a part of the woman. I've seen lots of inaccurate deductions but that is about it. Personally I am tired of playing word games. Come up with the proof or you will show that your arguments are based on nothing more than your own percieved notions of what you think "should be". Not based on any actual proof.

Edit note: This post is directed at everyone that says the fetus is not a part of the woman.
Click to expand...

I've proved it to the best of my ability. You've been shown logic, definitions, and the view of science. If you don't want to see it, fine. You obviously have an astronomical standard of what you consider proof. Get back to me when you can prove your point of view to nearly the degree that mine has been proven. You haven't responded to my PM, so I'm assuming you still think that 2+2 can be 5, that the appendix is part of the heart, and that two connected, parallel line segments are one line segment.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
You see nothing wrong with forcing someone into a parasitic relationship that can have serious detrimental effects too?
Click to expand...

There is no "forcing" them into the relationship unless you are holding us responsible for impregnating them.

Also pregnancy and childbirth are arguably beneficial as there are protective benefits of carrying a child to term including lower risk of breast cancer.
 
prometeus said:
Women have free will, that is why they should have the choice to abort.
You view on sexuality is ignorant of reality, quite medieval.
Click to expand...

Abortion is already regulated with many states putting tough restrictions on late term abortions. Infanticide is illegal in every state. If the law can stop a woman from terminating a pregnancy at 30 weeks the law can stop a woman at 10 weeks.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A fetus is composed of the resources from it's mother.

And if it was a seperate organism then it would not require the mother to survive. As many in this thread (and other threads) are fond of pointing out a bacteria is not a part of the woman. Which is why it can survive outside the person. A fetus cannot.
Click to expand...

Lots of bacteria survives in and out of the body. :roll: Both mother and father contributed to the fetus. Even born babies require the resources of another to survive.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Through out this thread I have yet to see one shred of proof that a fetus is not a part of the woman. I've seen lots of inaccurate deductions but that is about it. Personally I am tired of playing word games. Come up with the proof or you will show that your arguments are based on nothing more than your own percieved notions of what you think "should be". Not based on any actual proof.

Edit note: This post is directed at everyone that says the fetus is not a part of the woman.
Click to expand...

Why don't you go research placental mammals. Learn the purpose of the amniotic sac, read up on what the placenta does, etc. This is 8th grade material.
 
BulletWounD said:
I've proved it to the best of my ability. You've been shown logic, definitions, and the view of science. If you don't want to see it, fine. You obviously have an astronomical standard of what you consider proof. Get back to me when you can prove your point of view to nearly the degree that mine has been proven. You haven't responded to my PM, so I'm assuming you still think that 2+2 can be 5, that the appendix is part of the heart, and that two connected, parallel line segments are one line segment.
Click to expand...

I had not realized that you had sent me a PM. I have responded to it.

I've yet to see any factual logic. Lots of supposition logic though. I've provided definations also...they have been dismissed with no real reason as to why they were dismissed.

And the only proof that I require is a medical journal that has been peer reviewed and is non-biased. Thats all I require of any proof on any subject. If that is too much to ask for then perhaps my standards aren't "astronomical", perhaps your standards are too low.
 
Come on now folks! You all have made a claim and you can't even provide one peer reviewed non-biased medical journal to prove your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom