- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Abortion from the Libertarian Perspective: Personhood
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:18 am to Wolfhound45
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:18 am to Wolfhound45
quote:So if you want to enslave or kill someone you can simply declare them a non-person.
quote:
The debate should be about when life begins and personhood (and its benefits) is bestowed on an individual.
This. So much this.
Gee where have we heard that before
1
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:18 am to llfshoals
I'm a cold-hearted mofo and admit to wanting on-demand abortion for societal reasons.
However, I do believe it is wrong and a fetus is a person at conception. There is really no way to argue otherwise.
Yes, it is inconvenient, but true. I wish the "women's rights" side of the abortion movement would just say "we've got shite to do, we don't want babies" rather than make some bullshite pseudo-scientific argument.
However, I do believe it is wrong and a fetus is a person at conception. There is really no way to argue otherwise.
Yes, it is inconvenient, but true. I wish the "women's rights" side of the abortion movement would just say "we've got shite to do, we don't want babies" rather than make some bullshite pseudo-scientific argument.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:18 am to mahdragonz
quote:
If personhood is a binary system - person / non-person - wouldn't stopping personhood in all scenarios be equal?
If my post conveyed nothing else, I would hope that it would convey that we currently don't treat personhood as binary. Without making a value judgment on whether it's a good or bad thing, we currently treat personhood as a massive continuum.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:19 am to Joshjrn
quote:
a more useful debate revolves around when someone gains (should gain?) legal personhood and to what degree.
This is where the legal debate resides.
And the same thought can be applied not only to the fetus but to a case like Terry Schiavo's.
The moral debate? Well that's a whole other story.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:20 am to TrueTiger
The Louisiana Civil Code is very explicit as to the rights of unborn fetuses. That would be a great starting point.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:21 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:Agreed. Just be honest what the choice is.
I'm a cold-hearted mofo and admit to wanting on-demand abortion for societal reasons.
She's killing her child.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:24 am to kingbob
And what about the legal inconsistencies when a person is charged with murder of an unborn person?
How can you murder a non-person?
There must be some voodoo magic with the intentions of the owner of the womb that can change a non-person into a person.
How can you murder a non-person?
There must be some voodoo magic with the intentions of the owner of the womb that can change a non-person into a person.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:25 am to Joshjrn
Lol at the savages downvoting a quality effortpost
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:27 am to llfshoals
"Personhood" is a made up, non relevant, means of shifting basic reality to the threadbare remnants of post modern relativistic "dialogue" . People who try and shove their moral values on others using the weak ploy should be hand waved away as the waste of time, intellectually juvenile, derps that they are. Just my opinion..others may feel differently.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 11:29 am
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:27 am to TrueTiger
Once again, under the Louisiana civil code, unborn are considered "juridical persons", much like a corporation. They are a "legal fiction", i.e. we pretend they are people for certain delineated circumstances. They have limited rights and protections, and when those rights are being enforced, they are treated like persons. However, when a right that a normal person has is denied to a juridical person that lacks that right, they have no remedy (i.e. a fetus and abortion).
Basically, the unborn are like persons on probation until they are born. They have some rights, but not the whole enchilada of rights conferred when they're pulled out of their mother.
Oh, and murder of an unborn person is feticide, a crime. It is a crime. Death of an unborn person due to negligence is a tort, granting a right of action to the surviving parent.
Basically, the unborn are like persons on probation until they are born. They have some rights, but not the whole enchilada of rights conferred when they're pulled out of their mother.
Oh, and murder of an unborn person is feticide, a crime. It is a crime. Death of an unborn person due to negligence is a tort, granting a right of action to the surviving parent.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 11:30 am
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:28 am to Iosh
Life begins at arousal!
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:36 am to kingbob
quote:
nd murder of an unborn person is feticide, a crime.
right, unless the mother wants it dead
it's all about her intent that draws the line between person or not,
that is a power that historically has only been given to kings, emperors, and dictators
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:38 am to TrueTiger
Which is why I oppose abortion for convenience. It is a very stark legal contradiction utterly unfounded in any common sense or morality outside of one supreme court decision in Roe v. Wade.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:39 am to Jcorye1
quote:don't make adoption cost $50k and take 5 years and the Foster Care system would not be under stress
I'm a libertarian, and I don't want to pay for kids the parents don't want, especially when the foster care system is the disaster it currently is.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:40 am to Joshjrn
quote:
I believe a more useful debate revolves around when someone gains (should gain?) legal personhood and to what degree.
A good libertarian would tell you "no state has the authority to grant me any legal standing"...
Or anarchist
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:42 am to narddogg81
This. Also, let's stop paying single mothers to have kids. That would really cut down on the numbers of little bastards running around everywhere.
Most of the moral quandaries for libertarians are the negative consequences of programs libertarians believe should not exist (i.e. bloated military industrial complex, entitlement programs, public employee unions, the income tax, Roe v. Wade, Wickard v. Filburn, EMTALA, federal entitlements, etc)
Most of the moral quandaries for libertarians are the negative consequences of programs libertarians believe should not exist (i.e. bloated military industrial complex, entitlement programs, public employee unions, the income tax, Roe v. Wade, Wickard v. Filburn, EMTALA, federal entitlements, etc)
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:43 am to llfshoals
quote:That is the essence of the Pro-Choice position. And that is what I disgeee with.
non-person
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:44 am to kingbob
Agreed. Get rid of a bunch of bullshite federal programs, cut some red tape and this problem would solve itself to a large degree.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:51 am to Joshjrn
Some say that life begins at conception, the Bible says that it begins at first breath, and our legal system says 20 weeks after conception.
Conception is the joining of two already-alive cells, a sperm and egg. In effect, every living thing has been continuously alive since life first evolved 4.1 billion years ago (the most extreme estimate). No new life has begun since then.
At first breath, a newborn can survive without getting oxygen from its mother's lungs via its and her blood streams. It can't survive independently without continued nourishment and care for several years, however.
For legal reasons, a developing fetus is said to be viable, meaning it can continue to develop outside the womb, at 20 weeks. At this stage the lungs can function. Abortions are allowed before this stage but not after.
There are many points of debate about abortion and I think our current parameters for allowing it are reasonable.
Conception is the joining of two already-alive cells, a sperm and egg. In effect, every living thing has been continuously alive since life first evolved 4.1 billion years ago (the most extreme estimate). No new life has begun since then.
At first breath, a newborn can survive without getting oxygen from its mother's lungs via its and her blood streams. It can't survive independently without continued nourishment and care for several years, however.
For legal reasons, a developing fetus is said to be viable, meaning it can continue to develop outside the womb, at 20 weeks. At this stage the lungs can function. Abortions are allowed before this stage but not after.
There are many points of debate about abortion and I think our current parameters for allowing it are reasonable.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:55 am to Kentucker
My issue is not with the definition of "viable", as I think that is very reasonable. My issue is with the right of a women to kill, even an unviable fetus, purely for selfish convenience, with zero consequences. Nearly every "unviable" fetus will become viable with time. It's a purely temporal inconsistency that is the opposite of prescription periods. Plus, those inviable fetuses are entitled to all of those other rights and protections. Why does viability convey extra protections?
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 12:01 pm
Page 2 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News