Libertarian Troll Bingo!

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I have yet to see any objection to her thought experiment that is even remotely convincing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the other thread that you posted in?

The Violinist Analogy is a joke. TomCollins and dvaut admitted as much. It may be an interesting thought experiment, but it has nothing to do with abortion.

As far as infanticide, LOL @ her attempt to use tacit consent to avoid defending it:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, by taking the baby home from the hospital one implicitly agrees to care for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tacit consent invalid for abortion, valid for infanticide, QED. What a joke. At least folks like hmk care about being consistent.

There is a really good (and fair imo) wiki about Thomson's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have yet to see any objection to her thought experiment that is even remotely convincing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the other thread that you posted in?

The Violinist Analogy is a joke. TomCollins and dvaut admitted as much. It may be an interesting thought experiment, but it has nothing to do with abortion.

As far as infanticide, LOL @ her attempt to use tacit consent to avoid defending it:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, by taking the baby home from the hospital one implicitly agrees to care for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tacit consent invalid for abortion, valid for infanticide, QED. What a joke. At least folks like hmk care about being consistent.

There is a really good (and fair imo) wiki about Thomson's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

[/ QUOTE ]

Her argument is good for infanticide. If we didnt have widespread adoption there would be way more acceptance of infanticide IMO. But clearly it is different to take a baby home from the hospital than to wake up and find yourself pregnant.

I don't speak for TomCollins and dvaut, and they are free to base their positions on whatever they want. I'm sure I've heard your reasons for why you think its not a convincing argument, but I hope they are better than "it has nothing to do with abortion."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
He killed them softly with his song.

[/ QUOTE ]

I killed them through indifference and denial.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He killed them softly with his song.

[/ QUOTE ]

I killed them through indifference and denial.

[/ QUOTE ]

once again? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He killed them softly with his song.

[/ QUOTE ]

I killed them through indifference and denial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same thing imo.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Awesome, I guess I don't win though.
"Is an athiest, but anti-choice"
I don't really get this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Worst haiku ever.



[/ QUOTE ]

Unintentional poetry aside, is that a common libertarian viewpoint?
I mean the rest kinda fit in, twisted as some are.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Her argument is good for infanticide. If we didnt have widespread adoption there would be way more acceptance of infanticide IMO. But clearly it is different to take a baby home from the hospital than to wake up and find yourself pregnant.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, no one wakes up and "finds themselves pregnant," unless they were somehow raped in their sleep I guess.

Second, clearly it is "different" (duh), but that doesn't mean there is any special reason that tacit consent (a fuzzy thing to begin with) is any more valid for one than the other.

My objections to the analogy (although I really think even categorizing them as objections is absurd since the analogy is just *barely* related to one aspect of the abortion issue) are more or less the first two objections in the wiki - well mainly the second one really (responsibility). At the very least, they represent ENORMOUS differences between abortion and the violinist analogy, enough to render the violinist analogy virtually irrelevant to abortion.

The responses to the second objection are retarded:

[ QUOTE ]
The woman is responsible for the fetus existing, but as she could not have caused the fetus to exist without being dependent on her, she is in a relevant sense not responsible for the fetus's need to use her body.

[/ QUOTE ]

If A, then B. If B, then C. BUT, if A, NOT C. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

In addition, that is known going in - it's not like it's some huge surprise that the fetus shows up in the mother's womb instead of on the couch.

[ QUOTE ]
she points out that one cannot drive a wedge between rape and other cases simply by appealing to the fact that in other cases the woman is responsible for there being a fetus that needs assistance, since the woman is also to some extent responsible in cases of rape (e.g., she could get a hysterectomy or "never leav[e] home without a (reliable!) army"). Therefore she concludes that abortion is morally permissible in at least some cases where intercourse is voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If ANYONE on this forum EVER made the case that ANY woman was >0% responsible for pregnancy in case of rape, they would get BANNED. It is an ABSURD argument.

Edited for correctness

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
btw, yes, there probably ARE huge message board posts about whether it is ok to kill people. Obviously there are many times where it is. Self-defense, war (arguably), surely you can imagine others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Missed this earlier - I hold that AGGRESSIVELY killing another person is NEVER right, under ANY circumstances - you do see the difference between aggression and reaction (self-defense), right? This is natural rights 101. There is a thread about this near the top of the forum at this very moment. Abortion is not defensive because the fetus poses no threat to the woman (nor is it capable of an act of aggression), while being significantly different from the violinist analogy because the woman is directly responsible for the situation (excepting rape) in the first place, among other reasons.

Initiated v. Reactive Violence thread

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not anti-immunizations or anti-poor people getting a warm meal.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are an ACist, you are. DUCY?

[/statist mocking]

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[bills217]

One of my posts from an older thread:

Your argument for abortion rights is that the the mother can't be required to perform a positive action. (I don't even concede that which I will explain.) Well, obviously, caring for a born child/securing an adoption requires a positive action as well. The process can take months. You seem to think it's a trivial one, but it really doesn't matter - the point of the argument is the same.

I'd also like to note that more people would choose adoption if they were actually interested in seeing the baby live. Many would just prefer the baby were destroyed for a myriad of selfish reasons; this motive does not always disappear after birth, and sometimes it can appear even when it wasn't there before (for whatever reason).

In a vacuum, I would consider carrying a baby another month (or even just giving birth prematurely), so it could then be adopted and allowed to live, to be an action that nearly everyone would perform, too, but that's not how things are. You're basically saying, "No monster would ever fail to take the basic step of putting the child up for adoption." Well, that's exactly what I thought as a child when I first heard about abortion. What monster would kill someone else's child, much less their own? And we have 1.2 million a year in the US alone. So no - I won't concede that everyone would pursue an adoption. Far from it. People are capable of a great deal of evil, especially when it is societally acceptable.

Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, hmk, and other intellectually honest pro-aborts concede that either the pro-lifers are right, or infanticide must be legalized. If you're ok with infanticide in principle but you're ashamed to admit it, well, you should be. If you're not ok with it, but you're ok with abortion (especially late-term ones), you're inconsistent.

Then, you go on to say that the woman accepts responsibility when she takes the baby home from the hospital, which to me sounds eerily similar to BCPVP's argument that the woman accepts responsibility when she gets into bed.

I also do not believe that abortion is simply "removing a positive," in the first place. Watch an abortion. The baby is pursued with a serrated knife. Often times it pulls away. (Wouldn't you?) The baby is then cut into pieces and scraped out of the womb. Abortion is an act of aggression, plain and simple - not "removing a positive."

In fact, this "removing a positive" argument is far more applicable AFTER the baby is born! No positive act of will is required by the mother to keep the baby alive in the womb - that part pretty much takes care of itself. The only requirement is that the baby NOT be forcefully, aggressively removed from the womb. In contrast, after the baby is born, it requires many, many, daily willful commitments by the mother (or someone) to be kept alive.