Where do YOU split with the good doctor?
- Thread starter erect
- Start date
Because its a debate on where life begins. Youd probably agree that the state shouldnt allow people to murder their new-borns. Should people then be allowed to get rid of some kind of living or not so much living tissue? Depends entirely on where you believe life begins. People shouldnt forget that the guy is a doctor who probably takes his oath seriously.
So basically you want the police to be able to lock up just about anyone they want by making things that almost everyone do a crime?
You really trust your law enforcement that much? lol.
You really trust your law enforcement that much? lol.
I'm not convinced that the fertilized egg/zygote is any more alive than it's constituents.
If the criteria for "life" is based on the possibility that the cells in question are capable of developing into a human being, then pro-lifers should really be protesting masturbation.
EDIT: I've killed trillions.
Damnit you caught that. After I said this I went back up and saw my post had no question marks. But yes the middle paragraph is the topic I would like to see discussed with regards to hard core libertarian and constitutionalist philopsy:
I guess my question is: am I diverging from the libertarian path by taking issue with maximizing any type of government control (whether local, state, or federal)? And if not, then is Ron Paul? As it seem he mostly just wants to take power from the federal government and give it back to the states.
The "when does life begin?" question is the reason the abortion issue will never be resolved. Although my foresight with regard to the evolution of science and technology is very poor, I cannot imagine we'll discover anything in the (foreseeable) future that will cause everyone to say, "Yup. Life starts THERE."
Hence, no resolution.
On a related note, here's an interesting approach from Rothbard:
The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard
I won't say whether I agree or not, but some of you may enjoy the places Rothbard's thinking takes you. Fair warning: it is long and intellectually laborious. But a good read, including the footnotes.
At wayn3: you, in particular, may get a kick outta Rothbard's approach (if you haven't already read it).
Hence, no resolution.
On a related note, here's an interesting approach from Rothbard:
The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard
I won't say whether I agree or not, but some of you may enjoy the places Rothbard's thinking takes you. Fair warning: it is long and intellectually laborious. But a good read, including the footnotes.
At wayn3: you, in particular, may get a kick outta Rothbard's approach (if you haven't already read it).
Easy, when libertarians talk about INDIVIDUAL liberty they are talking about the INDIVIDUAL not both the mother and the child being killed. That is why he opposes murder, theft, rape. . . these all infringe on another persons liberty to live their own life.
Now, you not being a doctor or educated as one might say well the baby isn't a baby because a liberal told me so. Well When DOCTOR Paul was studying to be an OB/GYN He was taught that when a mother became pregnant that scientifically makes him caring for not one but two babies, and that is why abortions in his professional opinion is illegal in infringes on the babies right to live just so the mother can have state/federally funded birth control.
Logically speaking the argument that a babies isn't a baby until it's delivered is retarded. Is a baby that is born not a person because it's not an adult, is a puppy not a dog because it's also not full grown. I mean seriously has a baby ever came out as an alien? (I know it did in aliens but that was a one time thing). I have never see an ewok spring out of a womans vagina, only a baby. To argue that a an abortionist doesn't interfere with bringing a new life into this world is delusional and immoral.
If you gamble lets simplify the argument. . .
I am willing to bet a million dollars that this chick shits out a baby through her vagina any takers ?!?!?
I understand the way you feel, and can relate to a degree. For me, it's a question of degree. Generally, I think the movement to restore states rights is a positive one. I think the concept of a representative democracy plays out best on a local or state level.
It's not ideal, but restoring states rights would be a step in the right direction.
I hate stupid comments. . . .
You can have abortions up to 24 weeks this is a picture of a baby not sperm at 24 weeks.
Easy, when libertarians talk about INDIVIDUAL liberty they are talking about the INDIVIDUAL not both the mother and the child being killed. That is why he opposes murder, theft, rape. . . these all infringe on another persons liberty to live their own life.
Now, you not being a doctor or educated as one might say well the baby isn't a baby because a liberal told me so. Well When DOCTOR Paul was studying to be an OB/GYN He was taught that when a mother became pregnant that scientifically makes him caring for not one but two babies, and that is why abortions in his professional opinion is illegal in infringes on the babies right to live just so the mother can have state/federally funded birth control.
Logically speaking the argument that a babies isn't a baby until it's delivered is retarded. Is a baby that is born not a person because it's not an adult, is a puppy not a dog because it's also not full grown. I mean seriously has a baby ever came out as an alien? (I know it did in aliens but that was a one time thing). I have never see an ewok spring out of a womans vagina, only a baby. To argue that a an abortionist doesn't interfere with bringing a new life into this world is delusional and immoral.
If you gamble lets simplify the argument. . .
I am willing to bet a million dollars that this chick shits out a baby through her vagina any takers ?!?!?
It's dangerous to talk about "interfering with bringing a new life into the world", because contraception achieves the same ends.
The "when does life begin?" question is the reason the abortion issue will never be resolved. Although my foresight with regard to the evolution of science and technology is very poor, I cannot imagine we'll discover anything in the (foreseeable) future that will cause everyone to say, "Yup. Life starts THERE."
Hence, no resolution.
On a related note, here's an interesting approach from Rothbard:
The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard
I won't say whether I agree or not, but some of you may enjoy the places Rothbard's thinking takes you. Fair warning: it is long and intellectually laborious. But a good read, including the footnotes.
At wayn3: you, in particular, may get a kick outta Rothbard's approach (if you haven't already read it).
Im familiar with the way rothbard thinks, and Im deliberately not taking any kind of stance in this whole abortion issue. I dont have the kind of equipment necessary to give birth to children. If women want to cut stuff out of their bodies, then let them. I dont take offense from that. Additionally, I dont believe that a life spent in front of a tv consuming vast amounts of pizza and donuts is worth much.
There are people who think or feel about producing a child as something magical, not a coherent biological process. Interfering with that is messing with a higher power that should not even be possible. So they get emotional about would be children. I dont care.
And therein lies the problem. The libertarians way of life is non-prohibitive in nature. Hell never rule because it goes against the principles in which he believes.
I hate stupid comments. . . .
You can have abortions up to 24 weeks this is a picture of a baby not sperm at 24 weeks.
Something that looks a lot like a baby is not necessarily a baby. Print the jpg out. Is it a baby? It might have the general shape of a human being. It might have lungs and a heart and a liver and kidneys, and probably a brain, too. But can it breath on its own? Can its heart pump blood on its own? Does it not rely entirely on its host (mother) for every essential function that contributes to something being considered alive?
The "omg totally looks like a baby" argument is a sad excuse for proper reasoning.
One of these is a pig embryo, one of them is a human embryo.
OMG it totally looks like bacon.
He wants the federal government to follow the guidelines set forth by the constitution. It might not be perfect, but I would much rather contend with state government than federal because they don't seem to be as bought and paid for as the Washington guys.
When did you become against government power? I thought you were our resident left-wing pro-government, only voting for Ron Paul because he's socially liberal.
And as far as where I differ from Ron Paul morally is on the abortion issue as well. However I support the states being able to decide for themselves. I would imagine several bible belt states will out law it, but most states will not.
you are arguing two separate issue. Contraception prevents sperm to egg abortion kills a baby. two different issues