Libertarianism and Abortion

[thoughtomator]

The question this thread aims to answer:

Is Libertarianism properly in favor or against legal abortion?

This discussion aims to sort out a difference of opinion between myself and tpaine on the subject. I contend a true libertarian must be pro-life, tpaine believes libertarianism supports abortion rights.

[thoughtomator]

I think to call that the 'defining moment' of the thread is a distorted view of the thread's content. From my point of view, the 'defining moment' was when you refused to put down in plain English what you think the word 'murder' means.

If language has no meaning, then there is no point to debate, as no matter can be settled if the parties may redefine words at will. Thus defining 'murder', far from being pointless, is the very essence of the debate. Alas for the abortion argument (to my own chagrin as well, when I realized this), there is no definition of murder that does not accurately describe what happens during an abortion.

[exodus]

Exodus - Are you asking if the many State governments have the power (not a Right) to imprison a woman who might kill her baby? My answer is no. (Our law prohibits punishing people before they commit a crime.)
tpaine - Yet you want states to prohibit abortion from conception on, correct? -- How would you enforce your law?
*********************

The same way any murder is prohibited, tpaine.

By punishing those who kill their baby, after they've committed the crime.

[tpaine]

In the case of abortion, libertarian philosophy is at an utter loss in being able to provide answers to the question of when life begins or at what point does an individual have rights. Libertarianism takes from granted that these questions have answers, and hence cannot itself answer them.
To answer these questions you have to draw upon some philosiphical or religous system to which libertarianism is extraneous.
-trad-

---

Simplistic observation, essentially just libertarian bashing.

Some libertarians back the philosophy of the constitutionalists view on abortion rights, as I've been arguing..
Some here back the beliefs of the 'states rightists' moral majority view.
Some in between. -- Where do you stand?

[exodus]

Exodus - Such an act would violate the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 8th Amendment, the 9th Amendment, the 10th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment. Legally, people can't be punished for a crime they might commit.
tpaine - Ahh, - I see, ~"might"~` is your qualifyer. How would you enforce your law against a woman caught in the act of attempted abortion? Would she be released to attempt so-called 'murder' again, until she succeded?
*********************

"Attempted" murder is a crime.

A person who tried to murder another is subject to imprisonment. Since her baby is inside her, she would have to be watched, maybe even restrained, to prevent a successful murder at a later time.

[thoughtomator]

There's no evidence to establish that being permissive of abortion is constutitional. Blind faith in the USSC doesn't cut it - I agree far more with Scalia's interpretations than the interpretations of the Court as a whole. The Court, as I'm sure JohnGalt can tell you, is hardly the pious worshipper of the Consitution and law it would have you think it is. (Grutter v. Bollinger? Please.)

Here's my opinion of the USSC in general, in 1000 words:

Yes I drew it myself =)

[thoughtomator]

Just curious... what is your opinion of the constitutional relevance of the phrase "separation of church and state"?

[tpaine]

You are getting emotional over defining murder? How odd.

I posted several times [once with a link] in plain English what I think the word 'murder' means.
I did not "redefine words at will".

You appear to need rest.

[exodus]

To: tpaine; exodus
If language has no meaning, then there is no point to debate, as no matter can be settled if the parties may redefine words at will. Thus defining 'murder', far from being pointless, is the very essence of the debate. Alas for the abortion argument (to my own chagrin as well, when I realized this), there is no definition of murder that does not accurately describe what happens during an abortion.
*********************

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person. I define any person as beginning life at conception.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that a baby isn't a human unless his mother says he is. Simplistic, but that's the sense of their ruling.

[exodus]

That's a great comic!

Good job, thoughtomator.

[tpaine]

. How would you enforce your law against a woman caught in the act of attempted abortion? Would she be released to attempt so-called ´murder´ again, until she succeded?
239 tpaine

---

The same way any murder is prohibited, tpaine.
By punishing those who kill their baby, after they've committed the crime.
-exodus-

---

That's not an answer to the real question, as you know..

Maybe you need rest too??

[tpaine]

Post another thread & find out..

[tpaine]

You make my point. Thanks.

[thoughtomator]

tpaine: You are getting emotional over defining murder? How odd.

You are projecting. Did my words move you? They are nothing but the truth. (Or maybe this could be a cynical attempt to avoid addressing a glaring inconsistency in your argument? Nah, couldn't be - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)

I posted several times [once with a link] in plain English what I think the word 'murder' means.
I did not "redefine words at will".

You only avoided "redefining words at will" by refusing to state any definition whatsoever. I was referred first to the politicized Supreme Court; and then to a law library, whose definition agreed with my own, but which you denied was so.

I knew from the start of the conversation that you would have to do that in order to maintain your position. I will note that you still have refused to put in your own words what you think 'murder' means. Thus, in order to demonstrate the fatal weakness of the abortion-is-a-freedom argument, I proved that 'murder' is something an abortion advocate can never define without admitting the wrongness of his position. The record of our now seven exchanges on the subject is testimony to this truth.

You appear to need rest.

Projecting again. I know your mind must need rest after being confronted with all these new ideas... feel free to pick this up again when you're up to it.

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> If the mother can't be "forced" to care for her child, you can't force other people to do it for her. That means that up to about age ten, a child has no "right" to live at all, because he still can't survive on his own.

Thanks for the ping. Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I think the law generally prohibits abandonment.

As for the ones who are abandoned regardless, no proper society is going to leave them out in the cold, and I don't think legal compulsion is what makes a society "great".

As a payback to society, since one way or the other it is going collectively expend resouces to see to the well being of the helpless, criminal sanctions should be sought against neglectful parents. But it'll be a cat's ass whatever you do, because youll get into those areas where things like housekeeping standards or bona-fide religious beliefs don't jell with what the tyrannical majority might consider proper, that sort of thing. Stories about those situations have been discussed on FR at length, some of them get fairly heated.

But we can have some absolutes, and purposely killing a child for the sake of convenience is one of the things that ought to be at the top of the list.

I lean way more toward the libertarian than probably the average Joe, but I don't let that get in the way of my belief that abortion is murder if decent human moral standards mean anything, and that it ought to be under legal standards as well. I'm not out there crusading for a reversal of Roe V Wade, but rather preach a more reasoned wait & see approach. I believe that science will one day prove the humanity of the "fetus" in more certain terms than it does today, and that in the normal couse of events the pro-life community will reach a critical mass that will, if necessary to remedy a consequence unthinkable by the founding fathers, bring about a constitutional amendment declaring that the rights reserved by the people apply to all human beings, whether or not yet born.

It'll take a while, but I think it would come quicker absent the virtual state of war that exists today.< /$.02 >

Dave in Eugene

[tpaine]

`You are getting emotional over defining murder? How odd.

You are projecting. Did my words move you? They are nothing but the truth.

Yes of course.. Your words ~must~ be truth, and mine lies..

(Or maybe this could be a cynical attempt to avoid addressing a glaring inconsistency in your argument?

What inconsistency? Post it..

Nah, couldn't be - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)

Whatever.
******************************
I posted several times [once with a link] in plain English what I think the word 'murder' means.
I did not "redefine words at will".

You only avoided "redefining words at will" by refusing to state any definition whatsoever.

Simply not true. You're getting overwrought.

I was referred first to the politicized Supreme Court; and then to a law library, whose definition agreed with my own, but which you denied was so. I knew from the start of the conversation that you would have to do that in order to maintain your position. I will note that you still have refused to put in your own words what you think 'murder' means.

And I will continue to defy your increasingly weird demands that I ~obey~ you in this inane non-issue..

Thus, in order to demonstrate the fatal weakness of the abortion-is-a-freedom argument, I proved that 'murder' is something an abortion advocate can never define without admitting the wrongness of his position.

Dream on. You've proved nothing, and displayed some pretty bizarre behaviour.

The record of our now seven exchanges on the subject is testimony to this truth.

Now its eight. -Get a grip.
**************************
You appear to need rest.

Projecting again. I know your mind must need rest after being confronted with all these new ideas... feel free to pick this up again when you're up to it.

New idea? What new idea?

[exodus]

tpaine - How would you enforce your law against a woman caught in the act of attempted abortion? Would she be released to attempt so-called ´murder´ again, until she succeded?
exodus - The same way any murder is prohibited, tpaine. By punishing those who kill their baby, after they've committed the crime.
tpaine - That's not an answer to the real question, as you know..

Maybe you need rest too??
*********************

tpaine ... nevermind.

[thoughtomator]

New idea:

This is a human being:

This is also a human being:

Accept it, even momentarily for the sake of argument, and consider the implications.

[exodus]

exodus - Such an act would violate the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 8th Amendment, the 9th Amendment, the 10th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment. Legally, people can't be punished for a crime they might commit.
tpaine - Ahh, - I see, ~"might"~` is your qualifyer. How would you enforce your law against a woman caught in the act of attempted abortion? Would she be released to attempt so-called 'murder' again, until she succeded?
exodus - "Attempted" murder is a crime. A person who tried to murder another is subject to imprisonment. Since her baby is inside her, she would have to be watched, maybe even restrained, to prevent a successful murder at a later time.
tpaine - You make my point. Thanks.
*********************

I don't see your point, tpaine.

What are you trying to say?

[tpaine]

Good lord, -- are you one of those creeps that run around with their abortion pics on the side of the van?
What a clown..

[thoughtomator]

Nope, but these are easily available from other threads. Are you uncomfortable looking at the human beings you say have no rights?

Or have you simply abandoned any pretense to honestly desiring the answer to the original question?