- 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 3:46 pm to kingbob
Posted on 12/30/17 at 3:46 pm to kingbob
Why is exposing one’s self to a possibility necessarily the same as consenting? If I go to a baseball game, I expose myself to the possibility of being hit in the head by a foul ball. If I get hit in the head, no one would say that I had consented to being struck.
And I’m not sure if stating the evolutionary purpose of sex is anymore persuasive than someone saying that the purpose of the area around a baseball field is to give foul balls a place to land. The purpose of having sex to the couple who doesn’t want a child certainly isn’t to get pregnant.
And I’m not sure if stating the evolutionary purpose of sex is anymore persuasive than someone saying that the purpose of the area around a baseball field is to give foul balls a place to land. The purpose of having sex to the couple who doesn’t want a child certainly isn’t to get pregnant.
1
Posted on 12/30/17 at 3:59 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Why is exposing one’s self to a possibility necessarily the same as consenting? If I go to a baseball game, I expose myself to the possibility of being hit in the head by a foul ball. If I get hit in the head, no one would say that I had consented to being struck.
Actually, they do. You can't sue the team for getting hit in the head by a foul ball if you are sitting in an area unprotected by a net. You are assuming the risk by sitting there, and thus they are not liable.
So actually, you are arguing my point
Having sex and getting pregnant is analogous to getting hit in the head by a baseball while sitting in an unprotected seat at a baseball game.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:07 pm to kingbob
Quite the contrary, you’re once again conflating terms. Just as exposure to risk and consent aren’t synonymous, neither is waiver of liability and consent synonymous
Well done on the gif, though
Well done on the gif, though
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:09 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
So you were ok with the Dred Scott decision?
Of course not. That's a ridiculous analogy.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:12 pm to Joshjrn
You have to consent to a waiver of liability. You cannot waive liability without consent. You are playing semantics.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:19 pm to kingbob
quote:
Consent to pregnancy is what sex is because that is what sex, biologically, is for.
That might have been true when sex was instinctual in evolving humanoids. Today, however, sex is far more a social interaction than it is a reproductive function.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:22 pm to kingbob
quote:
You have to consent to a waiver of liability. You cannot waive liability without consent. You are playing semantics.
Yes, you have to consent to a waiver of liability. No, consenting to a waiver of liability does not equate to consenting to being hit in the head with a baseball.
If I run in a marathon, I might consent to exclude from liability the sponsors of the race if I drop dead from a heart attack. That doesn't in any conceivable way mean that I've consented to dropping dead from a heart attack. In fact, if I have a heart attack, you can bet your arse that I'm going to do whatever possible not to die from said heart attack
Equating consent to sex with consent to pregnancy requires equating sex and pregnancy, and the fact that the average woman doesn't remain perpetually pregnant makes that proposition verifiably false
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:38 pm to Kentucker
quote:Its a human being. I would love to see you try to explain what species that fetus is instead
Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Abortion is the legal termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Abortion is not murder.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:38 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Of course not. That's a ridiculous analogy.
How so? You tried to justify abortion via being legal and thus making it OK.. I made a direct analogy that was a direct comparison of how that many things that are legal are not morally justifiable.
So let me ask you this...before the date abortion was legalized was abortion murder as it was not legal? So one day it was murder due to being illegal and the next it was alright because it was suddenly ruled as legal OR was it wrong then, wrong today, and wrong in perpetuity? I submit it is the latter.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:47 pm to Joshjrn
I am a libertarian, and I’d say my views on abortion are complicated. I think abortion is an abomination and evil, but it’s an evil I see as largely the lesser of two. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that 16 years after Roe V Wade that crime rates began to decline. I think the country is safer thanks to abortion.
Also I can’t help but envision my hypothetical daughter being brutally raped, impregnated, and her pleading to me to make it stop. No fricking question or qualms that I would abort that child that should have never been conceived in the first place, especially in a just world.
Now if someone has an abortion fricking around, I’d have an issue associating myself with them. If someone had two abortions, like Chelsea Handler, I’d tell them to jump off a bridge. I may be a bit hypocritical here, but as I said my views on this subject are complicated.
Also I can’t help but envision my hypothetical daughter being brutally raped, impregnated, and her pleading to me to make it stop. No fricking question or qualms that I would abort that child that should have never been conceived in the first place, especially in a just world.
Now if someone has an abortion fricking around, I’d have an issue associating myself with them. If someone had two abortions, like Chelsea Handler, I’d tell them to jump off a bridge. I may be a bit hypocritical here, but as I said my views on this subject are complicated.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 4:59 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
They grab me by the arm and yank me back outside. This person has not only violated the NAP, but they have committed a crime (battery).
Ha
You pussy
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:07 pm to Joshjrn
I think abortion is wrong and immoral and should be outlawed unless medically warranted. But, I don’t have time to worry about what everybody else does. If a woman aborts her pregnancy, that’s between her and God. I won’t respect her for it, but I’m not going to wage a war over it.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:10 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
I think reasonable people can disagree on the rights of a human in varying stages of development, from conception to when the human brain is fully formed around the age of 25.
Oh great, so human life is like an insurance policy? I understand your approach but not your logic.
As a human society, we have to protect natural law. Taking away life is inexcusable. It’s as stupid as the gender debate. You got a bunch of self-centered libtards who want to convince you out of simple biology.
Don’t go down to their level. Rise above it, and defend life at all levels.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:14 pm to 25smeckles
quote:
As a human society, we have to protect natural law.
...
Don’t go down to their level. Rise above it, and defend life at all levels.
You realize you're openly advocating for the existence of positive rights? And that's antithetical to the current conservative position?
If a zygote/embryo/fetus has the positive right to continued sustenance, and so does the six year old, and the 12 year old... why doesn't the 18 year old? The 28 year old? The 58 year old?
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:20 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
If a zygote/embryo/fetus has the positive right to continued sustenance, and so does the six year old, and the 12 year old... why doesn't the 18 year old?
Minors do under the tutorship principles. If their parents are incapable of caring for them, the state takes the children away and finds more suitable parents. If the parents die, tutors (such as grand parents or aunts/uncles) are appointed to care for the child.
Once one is 18, they have the responsibility to care for themselves. They become, essentially, their own tutor.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:20 pm to Joshjrn
they do (if by that term you mean the right to have life sustained)
who says they don’t?
i might be missing your point
who says they don’t?
i might be missing your point
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:31 pm to 25smeckles
quote:
they do (if by that term you mean the right to have life sustained)
who says they don’t?
i might be missing your point
I mean that you seem to be advocating for individuals being forced to support the basic necessities of others, even against their will.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:33 pm to kingbob
quote:
Minors do under the tutorship principles. If their parents are incapable of caring for them, the state takes the children away and finds more suitable parents. If the parents die, tutors (such as grand parents or aunts/uncles) are appointed to care for the child.
Once one is 18, they have the responsibility to care for themselves. They become, essentially, their own tutor.
Sure, but you would have to acknowledge that paradigm as being somewhat arbitrary, in that the current paradigm hasn't always existed and likely won't exist as is in perpetuity.
Why are others forced to care for someone until the age of 18, but not beyond? Why not for less time, or more?
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:59 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Why are others forced to care for someone until the age of 18, but not beyond?
Because 18 is the arbitrary age we have assigned that indicates one has matured physically to the point that they can now take care of themselves.
18 is the age at which persons gain the capacity to consent to contracts.
18 is the age at which persons must register for selective service and are allowed to vote.
Prior to turning 18, child labor laws prevent unemancipated minors from working full time. At 18, they can now seek full time work.
At 18, they should, presumably, have completed, or will soon complete their secondary education (considered the bare minimum for being a productive worker in our society).
Posted on 12/30/17 at 6:02 pm to kingbob
But if we acknowledge that this is arbitrary, what’s to stop us from lowering or eliminating this requirement?
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News