- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 10:55 pm to Ebbandflow
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:55 pm to Ebbandflow
good luck saying sources don’t matter when you right your next history paper bud.
the founding Fathers were undoubtedly christian (all identified as such) and set up our country with Judeo-Christian values in mind
the founding Fathers were undoubtedly christian (all identified as such) and set up our country with Judeo-Christian values in mind
1
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:57 pm to 25smeckles
quote:
when you right your
Riiiiiiiight. You mean "write."
There are sources in the article and this particular subject is an editorial.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:02 pm to Ebbandflow
i actually laughed, i won’t edit cus that’s honestly hilarious that i said that lol.
regardless, i will
never trust so called “examples” from the huffington post. they do everything they can to push their gay muslim anti-christian atheist loving agenda down our throats
regardless, i will
never trust so called “examples” from the huffington post. they do everything they can to push their gay muslim anti-christian atheist loving agenda down our throats
Posted on 12/30/17 at 11:17 pm to Joshjrn
Abortion is such a grey issue. Even if you're the most hardcore pro abortion person ever, you have to draw a line at some point because the end of the spectrum is killing a live baby and that is asinine. By that same token even if you're the most hardcore anti abortion person ever, you have to draw the line somewhere or you are litteraly crazy. If you believe a rape victim who gets pregnant doesn't deserve the right to have an abortion, you are one sick person. Can you imagine having a child that you literally were physically forced to conceive and then threatened to be locked in a cage for life if you didn't give birth to that forced child? That's just insane. I really do think the abortion laws we have in place now are good, unless we can actually come to a consensus on when life begins and then mandate that abortions are not allowed after that period.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:17 am to Dale51
quote:prove it
"Personhood" is a made up
quote:yeah, you're right. it doesn't matter whether there is actually a person or not. just kill the damn thing. who frickin cares about the consequences.
non relevant
quote:it's not shifting anything. it's the central idea of the issue and it seems that you're a spineless wus for trying to get around the issue. let's see you pony up and prove that personhood is made up.
means of shifting basic reality
quote:this has nothing to do with relativism. it's whether something is right or wrong. there isn't a third option
to the threadbare remnants of post modern relativistic "dialogue
quote:we shouldn't try to protect people? what if it can be shown that they are people? shouldn't we err on the side of caution?
People who try and shove their moral values on others
quote:"because i'm scared they might be right."
should be hand waved away
if i judged you from this post, i would say you suck as a human being.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:22 am to Kentucker
quote:this has nothing to do with any of that and people who say this are trying to use smuggled in authority to trump the other side. this is about right and wrong. morality exists independently of any person's worldview or existence. how clearly we discern it depends on how well we've developed our worldview which is why dale's perspective is useless and intellectually gutless
nonreligious views and values are as important as religious ones.
there is no compromise on the issue. they are either allowed for convenience or they aren't. it shouldn't be clouded by the fraction of cases when the mother's life is at risk.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:25 am to Dale51
quote:that's the 2nd time you've used the term relativism incorrectly so i'm pretty sure you don't know what it actually means and don't understand the abortion debate.
Relativistic twattle.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:31 am to Dale51
quote:this has got to be the stupidest thing i have ever heard someone say on this issue.
A 1 or 2 year old baby cannot survive on it's own outside the womb. Therefore it is not alive.
there is no personhood "gap" between parents and offspring. the building blocks or constituents for the new person's personality and existence are present when conception occurs. in this sense, there is no time when the new person "doesn't exist" and that's an absurd idea.
given the state of the person, it is wrong to discriminate against someone because of
S - size
L - level of development
E - environment
D - degree of dependency
to argue otherwise is indefensible. as soon as you do, you are opening up the wanton murder of anyone.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:36 am to Ebbandflow
quote:you're failing the SLED test
It's not a fully formed human it doesn't have any memory or awareness what's going on
quote:then the "law" is immoral and philosophically specious
buy a legal definition is not a person yet because it has not been born
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:48 am to Ebbandflow
quote:that is not what the establishment clause was originally intended to mean. The separationist clause of this letter, advocating the separation of Church and State, was merely part of a personal communique to potential political supporters. It in no way reflected any sort of official stance of the office of the President. Thus, incorporation and the conflation of the Establishment Clause with strict separationism stand on shaky ethical ground. It is unfortunate that Jefferson’s letter has been taken out of context. The Danbury Baptists “did not oppose the influence of religion on government.” They were upset that Connecticut levied a tax to support Congregationalism as the official state religion. It is unfortunate that people think this was intended to "protect govt from religion." The framers saw american govt as Christians governing Christians in a Christian manner. Contrary to what political liberals have been brainwashed to think, the framers had no intention of some political proviso protecting non-Christians.
like or not, we were founded on Judeo-Christian principles
That is not true, hence seperation of church and state
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:53 am to LSUGrrrl
quote:but it's not a metaphysical tie and to deny this is intellectually dishonest and bankrupt. there is not one reasonable person on this planet who actually believes that people are sacks of meat and water. to deny the metaphysical aspect of our existence is to affirm it. if there weren't a metaphysical manifold to our existence, we wouldn't even know of such a thing to deny it in the first place. totally self defeating and the only people who maintain that belief are either dilettantes or deluded.
Because it’s a scientific tie.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:58 am to HogFanfromHTown
quote:i'm not saying it's right but, you can't deny that the child can be given up for adoption and the mother has lost nothing, in the world's eyes. moreover, there's also no reason the mother can't love and raise the child despite the situation. it might not be easy, but it can be and has been done countless times.
Can you imagine having a child that you literally were physically forced to conceive and then threatened to be locked in a cage for life if you didn't give birth to that forced child?
quote:the issue is already decided. there is just a group of people who don't care and want the convenience no matter what. there are women who are shown the abortion procedure at the clinic and still go through with it anyway, which is debase and heinous
we can actually come to a consensus on when life begins
Posted on 12/31/17 at 3:18 am to Jcorye1
So then I assume for your own intellectual consistency you alwould be in favor of killing all children at any age that parent Les decide they no longer want?
I mean seriously why does age matter? If parents decide at say 3 years they no longer really want to be parents based on what you said they should be able to snuff that child.
A life is a life and if you think abortion is taking a life then age is irrelevant as long as the state doesn’t have to support a life the parents don’t want.
I mean seriously why does age matter? If parents decide at say 3 years they no longer really want to be parents based on what you said they should be able to snuff that child.
A life is a life and if you think abortion is taking a life then age is irrelevant as long as the state doesn’t have to support a life the parents don’t want.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 6:52 am to bfniii
quote:Post more. Those are some impressive responses to some very asinine posts.
bfniii
Posted on 12/31/17 at 8:27 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
So then I assume for your own intellectual consistency you alwould be in favor of killing all children at any age that parent Les decide they no longer want?
I'm not interested in your definition of intellectual consistency. You have presented an obviously over the top situation in an attempt to box me in, by implying I have to have a uniform opinion for all children and fetuses.
I can easily turn that shitty argument on you, asking if fetuses created through the act of rape must be brought to term, or a pregnancy that will literally kill the mother must be seen through, because by your definition ending both would be murder.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:15 am to bfniii
quote:
quote:
Can you imagine having a child that you literally were physically forced to conceive and then threatened to be locked in a cage for life if you didn't give birth to that forced child?
i'm not saying it's right but, you can't deny that the child can be given up for adoption and the mother has lost nothing, in the world's eyes. moreover, there's also no reason the mother can't love and raise the child despite the situation. it might not be easy, but it can be and has been done countless times.
bit presumptuous of you ... who are you to tell a woman what 'the situation' is?
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:20 am to bfniii
quote:
that is not what the establishment clause was originally intended to mean. The separationist clause of this letter, advocating the separation of Church and State, was merely part of a personal communique to potential political supporters. It in no way reflected any sort of official stance of the office of the President. Thus, incorporation and the conflation of the Establishment Clause with strict separationism stand on shaky ethical ground. It is unfortunate that Jefferson’s letter has been taken out of context. The Danbury Baptists “did not oppose the influence of religion on government.” They were upset that Connecticut levied a tax to support Congregationalism as the official state religion. It is unfortunate that people think this was intended to "protect govt from religion." The framers saw american govt as Christians governing Christians in a Christian manner. Contrary to what political liberals have been brainwashed to think, the framers had no intention of some political proviso protecting non-Christians.
in your opinion ... while we certainly are founded on jc values, there is plenty of evidence/logic/argument by many historians/intellectuals/conservatives/etc to support the idea/notion that the ff did, in fact, want a separation of church & state that afforded protection to nonchristians ... the usual "they disagree with me because they're libs and they've been brainwashed" is elementary, at best ...
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:24 am to bfniii
You seem very confused. What do you access my position to be on abortion..pro or con?
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:27 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
I notice that the debate since yesterday has almost exclusively pertained to the active "killing" of something, whether zygote, embryo, fetus, or birthed child. Is there not a distinction between saying "I'm not going to care for this child anymore" and shooting it in the head?
If so, can that distinction be extended to the pre-birth paradigm? Assuming everyone acknowledges that we are already (somewhat) arbitrarily deciding on levels of personhood (adults have more rights than old children who have more rights than younger children), might it not logically follow that a birthed child could have more rights than a fetus, who has more rights than an embryo, who has more rights than a zygote? And if so, could one draw a distinction between refusing to feed a two year old who is conscious and feels pain and a zygote that is neither? And could other distinctions be drawn depending on varying levels of development from zygote to embryo to fetus?
And again, I'm not necessarily advocating for what these distinctions might be. The entire purpose of this thread (other than for me to bitch
) was to get people to acknowledge that we already make personhood distinctions, so the yelling about "irrefutable" bright line rules wasn't constructive.
If so, can that distinction be extended to the pre-birth paradigm? Assuming everyone acknowledges that we are already (somewhat) arbitrarily deciding on levels of personhood (adults have more rights than old children who have more rights than younger children), might it not logically follow that a birthed child could have more rights than a fetus, who has more rights than an embryo, who has more rights than a zygote? And if so, could one draw a distinction between refusing to feed a two year old who is conscious and feels pain and a zygote that is neither? And could other distinctions be drawn depending on varying levels of development from zygote to embryo to fetus?
And again, I'm not necessarily advocating for what these distinctions might be. The entire purpose of this thread (other than for me to bitch
) was to get people to acknowledge that we already make personhood distinctions, so the yelling about "irrefutable" bright line rules wasn't constructive. 
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News