How is abortion a states rights issue?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So since cops are jackasses, I shouldn't drink and drive? I guess if they pull me over for driving in a poor neighborhood thinking I might be buying drugs, you would tell me not to drive there. Or if I go to Vegas and bring $5k cash on me, and its confiscated, I shouldn't have brought that much money to begin with?

Brilliant!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if they think you're drinking and driving, and you're not, no harm no foul.

If they think you're buying drugs, and your not, no harm no foul.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, drinking and driving is not the same as driving drunk, despite the propaganda that claims that they are exactly the same.

Second of all, there is harm and foul in arbitrary detainment, even if it is temporary.

[ QUOTE ]
If they confiscate your money, you shouldn't have committed whatever activity you did. Cops don't confiscate peoples money for having too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they do.

http://www.bigeye.com/forfeit.htm

http://www.dui.com/dui-library/legal/asset-forfeiture

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1056139927409

There are lots more. Google is your friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're unaware of difference in legal asset forfeiture and some street cop going "I'll take that.. thank you!" you're beyond any help I can provide on the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's aware of the legal difference but unaware of the difference in principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

oops nevermind, that's what I get for not reading the links

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the meaningful distinction between a fetus at 6 months gestation and 1-year-old with regard to the personhood of the fetus/baby? (Hint: Birth is definitely not one.)

[/ QUOTE ]

At 6 months, not much. At 6 weeks, it's got gills, a tail, no mechanism to detect pain and no consciousness. My take is that personhood is bestowed somewhere in between.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either a fetus is a person, or it isn't, but the fact that it's a lifeform is not indicative of personhood. Are you okay with harvesting organs from a brain dead individual on life support?


[/ QUOTE ]

Addressed earlier in thread and besides that the distinction is obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely. It might have arms and legs, but it's not an individual until there are measurable brain functions going on. Certain defects in the embryo, for instance, can result in the development of a perfect body without a head. Is it barbaric that somebody is going to have to cut its arms and legs off to get it out? Obviously not. So, what's the difference between this and a normal fetus at a gestational stage where the brain has not yet formed?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To me that's like saying no one should be prosecuted for drunk driving because their freedom to make decisions was impaired.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, but to answer you - if said drunk driver caused no bodily harm or property damage, then IMO no crime has occurred.

But that's just my libertarian --> ACist sensibility talking. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My libertarian --> ACist sensibility says you're batshit insane. Taking risks with other people's lives is most definitely an initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]


And here is the crux of why I dont understand why more libertarians arent opposed to abortion. I get the fact that there is considerable debate of the personhood of a developing fetus. I obviously happen to think the argument is stronger to support oppositiont to abortion. That said, given that there really isnt a way to determine the personhood of a developing fetus, shouldnt we err on the side of caution and say "Hey there is a fair chance that abortion is the initiation of force against an individual, lets take the conservative route (no pun intended) and not allow abortion on demand"?

As an aside, the Libertarians for Life website is excellent if anyone is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the "conservative" route is to not get involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post (like most on your side of the debate) completely and totally ignores the crux of the entire issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
At 6 weeks, it's got gills,

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally false - you show your ignorance and reveal your bias here.

Even if it was true, that would mean YOU used to have gills TOO.

[ QUOTE ]
no mechanism to detect pain and no consciousness. My take is that personhood is bestowed somewhere in between.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is a 1-year-old conscious?

Even if you are right, the distinction at any given point, at least until technology/medical knowledge is vastly improved, is arbitrary, and the distinction is pretty critical when human life is possibly on the line. We're not talking about the limit on how long an NFL player's socks can be here.

Your criteria also eliminate a lot of non-fetuses from personhood, and, to use your trademark thinly-veiled-appeal-to-majority technique, I would love to see you make this argument to caretakers of mentally retarded people on why their loved ones' organs should be harvested - I'm sure you'll win a lot of people over that way.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To me that's like saying no one should be prosecuted for drunk driving because their freedom to make decisions was impaired.

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, but to answer you - if said drunk driver caused no bodily harm or property damage, then IMO no crime has occurred.

But that's just my libertarian --> ACist sensibility talking. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

My libertarian --> ACist sensibility says you're batshit insane. Taking risks with other people's lives is most definitely an initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]


And here is the crux of why I dont understand why more libertarians arent opposed to abortion. I get the fact that there is considerable debate of the personhood of a developing fetus. I obviously happen to think the argument is stronger to support oppositiont to abortion. That said, given that there really isnt a way to determine the personhood of a developing fetus, shouldnt we err on the side of caution and say "Hey there is a fair chance that abortion is the initiation of force against an individual, lets take the conservative route (no pun intended) and not allow abortion on demand"?

As an aside, the Libertarians for Life website is excellent if anyone is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the "conservative" route is to not get involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post (like most on your side of the debate) completely and totally ignores the crux of the entire issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, you're an ACist, so you might actually be consistent here if you're only talking about government intervention. I would argue that intervention is certainly justified on the part of someone, be that private security or whoever.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Not entirely. It might have arms and legs, but it's not an individual until there are measurable brain functions going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

So says adanthar.

[ QUOTE ]
So, what's the difference between this and a normal fetus at a gestational stage where the brain has not yet formed?

[/ QUOTE ]

One is a self-directed, complete human organism and the other isn't? Addressed earlier in thread, 3 times now?

Is that really not obvious to you? I think it is and you are just trying to make me jump through the same hoops pro-aborts always make me jump through in these arguments.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Totally false - you show your ignorance and reveal your bias here.

Even if it was true, that would mean YOU used to have gills TOO.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's false, it's news to me. I just Googled and multiple websites say "gill slits develop at 4 weeks".

But okay, I had gills too. At one time, then, I was not a person. Now I am. I don't see why that should horrify me.


[ QUOTE ]
Even if you are right, the distinction at any given point, at least until technology/medical knowledge is vastly improved, is arbitrary, and the distinction is pretty critical when human life is possibly on the line. We're not talking about the limit on how long an NFL player's socks can be here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with restricting/eliminating abortions past the first trimester for most reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
Your criteria also eliminate a lot of non-fetuses from personhood, and, to use your trademark thinly-veiled-appeal-to-majority technique, I would love to see you make this argument to caretakers of mentally retarded people on why their loved ones' organs should be harvested - I'm sure you'll win a lot of people over that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. Mentally retarded people are still sentient and clearly "persons"; even a newborn (or a 6 month old fetus) feels pain, has specific, measurable brain activity and a capacity for learning. The PVS cases aren't, and that's why we can legally shut off their feeding tubes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what's the difference between this and a normal fetus at a gestational stage where the brain has not yet formed?

[/ QUOTE ]

One is a self-directed, complete human organism and the other isn't? Addressed earlier in thread, 3 times now?

Is that really not obvious to you? I think it is and you are just trying to make me jump through the same hoops pro-aborts always make me jump through in these arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it really isn't obvious to me. For one thing, a fetus without a formed brain is by no means self directed or complete. The main difference between this fetus and a headless embryo that I think you are trying to get at is the capacity to *become* such a thing. But up until it gets there - and, again, I don't have a problem with erring on the side of caution and restricting abortions that are close to that point - I simply don't accept it as a person.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Totally false - you show your ignorance and reveal your bias here.

Even if it was true, that would mean YOU used to have gills TOO.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's false, it's news to me. I just Googled and multiple websites say "gill slits develop at 4 weeks".

But okay, I had gills too. At one time, then, I was not a person. Now I am. I don't see why that should horrify me.


[ QUOTE ]
Even if you are right, the distinction at any given point, at least until technology/medical knowledge is vastly improved, is arbitrary, and the distinction is pretty critical when human life is possibly on the line. We're not talking about the limit on how long an NFL player's socks can be here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with restricting/eliminating abortions past the first trimester for most reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
Your criteria also eliminate a lot of non-fetuses from personhood, and, to use your trademark thinly-veiled-appeal-to-majority technique, I would love to see you make this argument to caretakers of mentally retarded people on why their loved ones' organs should be harvested - I'm sure you'll win a lot of people over that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. Mentally retarded people are still sentient and clearly "persons"; even a newborn (or a 6 month old fetus) feels pain, has specific, measurable brain activity and a capacity for learning. The PVS cases aren't, and that's why we can legally shut off their feeding tubes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what's the difference between this and a normal fetus at a gestational stage where the brain has not yet formed?

[/ QUOTE ]

One is a self-directed, complete human organism and the other isn't? Addressed earlier in thread, 3 times now?

Is that really not obvious to you? I think it is and you are just trying to make me jump through the same hoops pro-aborts always make me jump through in these arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it really isn't obvious to me. For one thing, a fetus without a formed brain is by no means self directed or complete. The main difference between this fetus and a headless embryo that I think you are trying to get at is the capacity to *become* such a thing. But up until it gets there - and, again, I don't have a problem with erring on the side of caution and restricting abortions that are close to that point - I simply don't accept it as a person.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what's funny? This same kind of ad-hoc treatment of abortion completely invalidates the concept of gay rights. One can similarly argue by examining the mechanism of homosexual sex that it isn't "proper", "unnatural", etc. Ron Paul's position is entirely consistent if he thinks abortion is murder, and undermining Roe vs. Wade would restore the lost "natural" rights to fetuses. Remember, no government should be able to take those from you.

Look, the point is reasonable people can disagree about the abortion issue. The line that we choose to draw before or after the first trimester is for now completely arbitrary. Alot of pro-choicers are incredibly myopic on this issue, arguing for clear demarcations between "dead" and "alive" but unwilling to apply that exact same structure towards other "pet" ideas. Liberals argue "to keep your laws off my body" for abortion, but in a far more real sense what their laws and moral views on my body when it comes to applying universal health-care (since healthcare WILL be rationed whether your like it or not). As I've mentioned before, reasonable people can disagree about ideology. At least keep the [censored] thinking consistent!

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what's funny? This same kind of ad-hoc treatment of abortion completely invalidates the concept of gay rights. One can similarly argue by examining the mechanism of homosexual sex that it isn't "proper", "unnatural", etc...Alot of pro-choicers are incredibly myopic on this issue, arguing for clear demarcations between "dead" and "alive" but unwilling to apply that exact same structure towards other "pet" ideas. Liberals argue "to keep your laws off my body" for abortion

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you're not even in the right stadium. I didn't come close to saying any of this. Where did I mention a bright line or a right to privacy in my post? In fact, I'm on the record in this forum as saying I don't think privacy is the right hook to hang abortion off of - that makes no sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul's position is entirely consistent if he thinks abortion is murder

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. If a fetus is a person, abortion is murder, end of story (including for rape and incest, BTW.) That's really the major question all abortion debates boil down to - is it a person, or isn't it? My philosophical perspective is that personhood should be determined by brain activity and the dividing line should be the presence of higher brain function, which, I think, is a totally reasonable line to take. I have no clue where you got "oh, this can invalidate gay rights" from this.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know what's funny? This same kind of ad-hoc treatment of abortion completely invalidates the concept of gay rights. One can similarly argue by examining the mechanism of homosexual sex that it isn't "proper", "unnatural", etc...Alot of pro-choicers are incredibly myopic on this issue, arguing for clear demarcations between "dead" and "alive" but unwilling to apply that exact same structure towards other "pet" ideas. Liberals argue "to keep your laws off my body" for abortion

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you're not even in the right stadium. I didn't come close to saying any of this. Where did I mention a bright line or a right to privacy in my post? In fact, I'm on the record in this forum as saying I don't think privacy is the right hook to hang abortion off of - that makes no sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul's position is entirely consistent if he thinks abortion is murder

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. If a fetus is a person, abortion is murder, end of story (including for rape and incest, BTW.) That's really the major question all abortion debates boil down to - is it a person, or isn't it? My philosophical perspective is that personhood should be determined by brain activity and the dividing line should be the presence of higher brain function, which, I think, is a totally reasonable line to take. I have no clue where you got "oh, this can invalidate gay rights" from this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even in cases of rape and incest, even if you grant the fetus personhood, there are many good arguments for legalized abortion for those reasons.

If someone sneaks a newborn baby into your house one night, are you somehow responsible for raising it to age 18?