Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Ron Paul and Abortion

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2011 6:12:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm a big Ron Paul supporter, but I strongly disagree with his pro-life stance on abortion. I know there are a lot of libertarians/RP fans on this site, and that many of them are also pro-choice, so I was just wondering what others thought of his stance... Additionally, how does abortion fit in with libertarian philosophy?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2011 6:30:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/4/2011 6:12:38 PM, jat93 wrote:
I know there are a lot of libertarians/RP fans on this site, and that many of them are also pro-choice, so I was just wondering what others thought of his stance...

He's not pro-life in terms of politics. He just isn't exactly pro-choice either. It's odd, but you really shouldn't let one issue decide like a lot of people do. They have it in their heads that he's personally pro-life, so he must be politically pro-life, so they wouldn't vote for him even if he was the second coming of Jesus.

Additionally, how does abortion fit in with libertarian philosophy?

It can go either way depending on who you talk to. I personally think that the arguments on both sides are the best in the world both for and against.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2011 6:46:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/4/2011 6:30:06 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 6/4/2011 6:12:38 PM, jat93 wrote:
I know there are a lot of libertarians/RP fans on this site, and that many of them are also pro-choice, so I was just wondering what others thought of his stance...

He's not pro-life in terms of politics. He just isn't exactly pro-choice either. It's odd, but you really shouldn't let one issue decide like a lot of people do. They have it in their heads that he's personally pro-life, so he must be politically pro-life, so they wouldn't vote for him even if he was the second coming of Jesus.

He simply believes that it isn't a federal issue and Roe v. Wade should be repealed, letting the states decide. He has a similar stance on the death penalty, and just about everything else.

Additionally, how does abortion fit in with libertarian philosophy?

It can go either way depending on who you talk to. I personally think that the arguments on both sides are the best in the world both for and against.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2011 7:35:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
He takes a typical Ron Paul stance and declares it's not the Federal Government's business, thus he does not have to officially address it as President :) Which, I think, could be a workable compromise for pro-lifers or pro-choicers like.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2011 7:41:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/4/2011 6:12:38 PM, jat93 wrote:
Additionally, how does abortion fit in with libertarian philosophy?
My own opinion is that an individual is the same individual no matter the age; the only difference between an abortion and murder at, say, age 30, is that the life that's been lost in the second case is "visible", and in the first it's unseen. But to you as an individual, you lose the same life if I killed you at 30, as you do if I have you aborted.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 1:01:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/4/2011 7:41:15 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/4/2011 6:12:38 PM, jat93 wrote:
Additionally, how does abortion fit in with libertarian philosophy?
My own opinion is that an individual is the same individual no matter the age; the only difference between an abortion and murder at, say, age 30, is that the life that's been lost in the second case is "visible", and in the first it's unseen. But to you as an individual, you lose the same life if I killed you at 30, as you do if I have you aborted.

I thought you were an Objectivist.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 5:58:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 1:01:13 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 6/4/2011 7:41:15 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/4/2011 6:12:38 PM, jat93 wrote:
Additionally, how does abortion fit in with libertarian philosophy?
My own opinion is that an individual is the same individual no matter the age; the only difference between an abortion and murder at, say, age 30, is that the life that's been lost in the second case is "visible", and in the first it's unseen. But to you as an individual, you lose the same life if I killed you at 30, as you do if I have you aborted.

I thought you were an Objectivist.

Remember, rationality and reciprocity!
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 5:58:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 1:01:13 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 6/4/2011 7:41:15 PM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/4/2011 6:12:38 PM, jat93 wrote:
Additionally, how does abortion fit in with libertarian philosophy?
My own opinion is that an individual is the same individual no matter the age; the only difference between an abortion and murder at, say, age 30, is that the life that's been lost in the second case is "visible", and in the first it's unseen. But to you as an individual, you lose the same life if I killed you at 30, as you do if I have you aborted.

I thought you were an Objectivist.
Not strictly. Anyway, no one in their right mind would claim that everything Ayn Rand ever said is correct. I think abortion is one of the issues she was wrong about ;)
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:02:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
From whence come infant rights?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:03:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 6:02:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
From whence come infant rights?
From the fact that they are the same individual as they are 30 years later.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:05:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 6:03:39 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:02:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
From whence come infant rights?
From the fact that they are the same individual as they are 30 years later.

Really? That's a fact is it?

Riddle me this, from whence come adult rights?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:11:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 6:05:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:03:39 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:02:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
From whence come infant rights?
From the fact that they are the same individual as they are 30 years later.

Really? That's a fact is it?

Riddle me this, from whence come adult rights?
From their minds, their reason.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:16:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 6:11:31 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:05:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:03:39 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:02:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
From whence come infant rights?
From the fact that they are the same individual as they are 30 years later.

Really? That's a fact is it?

Riddle me this, from whence come adult rights?
From their minds, their reason.

WHELLLLLLL.

And where is the evidence that the fetus is the very same individual, reason and all? ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:27:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 6:16:05 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:11:31 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:05:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:03:39 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:02:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
From whence come infant rights?
From the fact that they are the same individual as they are 30 years later.

Really? That's a fact is it?

Riddle me this, from whence come adult rights?
From their minds, their reason.

WHELLLLLLL.

And where is the evidence that the fetus is the very same individual, reason and all? ^_^
You mean a fetus becomes a different individual? He acquires reasoning skills when he's born and after, sure. But therein lies the answer: he will acquire those skills. He is very much not a "potential", but as much an individual as he is 30 years later. The only point where a new individual is creted is conception. From then on, he is one and the same.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:30:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 6:27:27 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:16:05 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:11:31 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:05:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:03:39 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:02:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
From whence come infant rights?
From the fact that they are the same individual as they are 30 years later.

Really? That's a fact is it?

Riddle me this, from whence come adult rights?
From their minds, their reason.

WHELLLLLLL.

And where is the evidence that the fetus is the very same individual, reason and all? ^_^
You mean a fetus becomes a different individual?
Yes. The former is a human-- a rational animal-- the latter is not.

He acquires reasoning skills when he's born and after, sure. But therein lies the answer: he will acquire those skills.
Then I guess abortion can't stop it anyway so why bother banning it? ^_^.

He is very much not a "potential", but as much an individual as he is 30 years later.
A rat is an individual too. Clearly status as an individual isn't the question.

The only point where a new individual is creted is conception.
Nonsense, I just created an individual roll of tape by rolling tape.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:31:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you acquire property, and I trespass, is it a defense for me to say "I was gonna acquire it before you went and did it?"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:43:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 6:30:43 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You mean a fetus becomes a different individual?
Yes. The former is a human-- a rational animal-- the latter is not.
So by the same token, someone who is unconscious, and thus not rationally thinking, is not human? He has magically become a different individual? Or do you somehow acquire rights and personhood once and then keep them forever whether you still fulfill the actual condition or not?

He acquires reasoning skills when he's born and after, sure. But therein lies the answer: he will acquire those skills.
Then I guess abortion can't stop it anyway so why bother banning it? ^_^.
Lol. You will live on unless I kill you. Therefore, why bother banning murder? :)

He is very much not a "potential", but as much an individual as he is 30 years later.
A rat is an individual too. Clearly status as an individual isn't the question.
A rat isn't a human individual. Unless you're going to discuss animal rationality and animal rights, which would be interesting, but not the topic at hand.

The only point where a new individual is created is conception.
Nonsense, I just created an individual roll of tape by rolling tape.
And it lives, and grows into a rationally thinking roll of tape? Congratulations, you've just become a god.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 6:47:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 6:31:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you acquire property, and I trespass, is it a defense for me to say "I was gonna acquire it before you went and did it?"
No. How is this analogous?
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 9:03:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 6:47:49 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:31:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you acquire property, and I trespass, is it a defense for me to say "I was gonna acquire it before you went and did it?"
No. How is this analogous?

Poker face.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:00:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I guess my point is: if it's wrong to kill you right now, then it's wrong to kill you 20 years from now, as well as 20 years ago. Except of course in self-defense, but abortion is hardly self-defense.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:04:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/4/2011 6:12:38 PM, jat93 wrote:
I'm a big Ron Paul supporter, but I strongly disagree with his pro-life stance on abortion. I know there are a lot of libertarians/RP fans on this site, and that many of them are also pro-choice, so I was just wondering what others thought of his stance... Additionally, how does abortion fit in with libertarian philosophy?

1. Unborn fetus has a high likelihood of becoming a conscious human being
2. Those with certain potential to become human deserve the right to life
(examples coma victims, severely retarded individuals, etc all have the right to life)
3. Killing that fetus with certain potential for humanity without his approval violates his/her right to life.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 3:50:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So by the same token, someone who is unconscious, and thus not rationally thinking, is not human?
Were they thinking before? And will they after?

Or do you somehow acquire rights and personhood once and then keep them forever whether you still fulfill the actual condition or not?
You fulfill the condition in that your consciousness is continued, despite its present dormancy. It's not just a future possibility, you were awake before AND will be again.
Also, remember, not just rationality but also reciprocity is important. Fetuses have no reciprocity. Whereas sleeping people do-- if you respect someone's sleep they will respect yours.

Lol. You will live on unless I kill you. Therefore, why bother banning murder? :)
You misunderstood the question. I'm living and rational now, murder will end that. A fetus doesn't have the preconditions to rights and never has.

A rat isn't a human individual. Unless you're going to discuss animal rationality and animal rights,
A fetus isn't a human-- a rational animal. Thus, a fetus and a rat are comparable.

And it lives, and grows into a rationally thinking roll of tape?
You're shifting the goalposts. Either all individuals have rights or only rational living individuals have rights, the two are mutually exclusive.

At 6/5/2011 6:47:49 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:31:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you acquire property, and I trespass, is it a defense for me to say "I was gonna acquire it before you went and did it?"
No. How is this analogous?

"I was gonna be a rational animal and get rights but you shot me before then."

"This was gonna be my property but you took it beforehand."

It's only after you actually acquire the rights-- and the conditions they are from-- that the rights can be violated.

I guess my point is: if it's wrong to kill you right now, then it's wrong to kill you 20 years from now, as well as 20 years ago
That only follows if there was a "You" 20 years ago. Whatever a fetus was, it wasn't YOU, and you should be insulted by any suggestion that it was-- it would be calling YOU brainless.

2. Those with certain potential to become human deserve the right to life
(examples coma victims, severely retarded individuals, etc all have the right to life)
Coma victims don't just have a potential (although some don't have that), they have a a history of rationality. I don't know what the prognosis is on leaving retardation (Or, for that matter, whether it presently still meets the low end of the criteria for human). Regardless, what convinces you that potential deserves rights?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:01:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 3:04:59 PM, askbob wrote:

1. Unborn fetus has a high likelihood of becoming a conscious human being

Whether probability is high or low is entirely a subjective judgement. If I can gain $0.01 for a 1% chance of death, the probability of death is an unacceptably high and I will not take the deal. You cannot show that any judgement of probability is more rational than any other. If you're just pointing out that the probability is more than exactly 50%, you're just stating a brute fact (something is more likely than not to occur). That doesn't give me a reason that I should care about 50% more than any other number or that I should are about probability at all.

2. Those with certain potential to become human deserve the right to life
(examples coma victims, severely retarded individuals, etc all have the right to life)

They are biologically human. Coma victims and severely retarded people are members of the human species. What you meant to say was probably 'people,' 'rational beings,' 'members of the moral community,' or whatever term you use to describe beings that we consider morally distinct from rocks. Next, severely retarded people do not have the potential to become members of the moral community in the sense that fetuses do. They will not wake up one day and stop being severely retarded.

3. Killing that fetus with certain potential for humanity without his approval violates his/her right to life.

Does not follow because your premises are incoherent, and does not make sense in itself. What is the 'certain potential for humanity' at which we need approval to kill the fetus? If I think it's a 99.999999% chance of becoming a person, how can you say that your number of choice is more rational than mine? That's notwithstanding the nonsense of trying to determine the actual probability in a given real situation, notwithstanding the all the problems with positive rights, and notwithstanding the negative rights of the mother that you've conveniently chosen to ignore.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 4:52:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 4:01:28 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/5/2011 3:04:59 PM, askbob wrote:

1. Unborn fetus has a high likelihood of becoming a conscious human being

Whether probability is high or low is entirely a subjective judgement.

Not really, in fact it's entirely a statistical judgement.

2. Those with certain potential to become human deserve the right to life
(examples coma victims, severely retarded individuals, etc all have the right to life)

They are biologically human.

Biologically doesn't matter. Humans are defined by brain capacity. You wouldn't term a zombie human simply because he was biologically human would you?

Coma victims and severely retarded people are members of the human species.
By your rationale they are not.

What you meant to say was probably 'people,' 'rational beings,' 'members of the moral community,' or whatever term you use to describe beings that we consider morally distinct from rocks. Next, severely retarded people do not have the potential to become members of the moral community in the sense that fetuses do. They will not wake up one day and stop being severely retarded.

Oh? So when judging between them and fetuses you would agree that fetuses have a higher potential of becoming humans. Yet you award the severely retarded with the right to life while denying the fetus.

3. Killing that fetus with certain potential for humanity without his approval violates his/her right to life.

What is the 'certain potential for humanity' at which we need approval to kill the fetus? If I think it's a 99.999999% chance of becoming a person, how can you say that your number of choice is more rational than mine?

The fact that we have doctors who can determine 100%

That's notwithstanding the nonsense of trying to determine the actual probability in a given real situation, notwithstanding the all the problems with positive rights, and notwithstanding the negative rights of the mother that you've conveniently chosen to ignore.

Because it's really hard for doctors to determine if something is going wrong during development lol.

The right to life supersedes the right to convenience.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 5:02:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 4:52:28 PM, askbob wrote:
At 6/5/2011 4:01:28 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/5/2011 3:04:59 PM, askbob wrote:

1. Unborn fetus has a high likelihood of becoming a conscious human being

Whether probability is high or low is entirely a subjective judgement.

Not really, in fact it's entirely a statistical judgement.

I addressed that. Read more than the first sentence.


2. Those with certain potential to become human deserve the right to life
(examples coma victims, severely retarded individuals, etc all have the right to life)

They are biologically human.

Biologically doesn't matter. Humans are defined by brain capacity. You wouldn't term a zombie human simply because he was biologically human would you?


There are no such things as zombies so I don't really feel the need to account for them in my theory of biology, but if people start coming back from the dead I'll still call them biologically human.

Humans are not defined by brain capacity. Lrn2 biology. http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://en.wikipedia.org...

Coma victims and severely retarded people are members of the human species.
By your rationale they are not.


Lrn2 biology. http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://en.wikipedia.org...

What you meant to say was probably 'people,' 'rational beings,' 'members of the moral community,' or whatever term you use to describe beings that we consider morally distinct from rocks. Next, severely retarded people do not have the potential to become members of the moral community in the sense that fetuses do. They will not wake up one day and stop being severely retarded.

Oh? So when judging between them and fetuses you would agree that fetuses have a higher potential of becoming humans. Yet you award the severely retarded with the right to life while denying the fetus.

Sufficiently retarded people do not have a right to life either. I am not bound by your assumptions. In any case, I don't care about probability at all. How a being is to be treated now depends on it's rights now.


3. Killing that fetus with certain potential for humanity without his approval violates his/her right to life.

What is the 'certain potential for humanity' at which we need approval to kill the fetus? If I think it's a 99.999999% chance of becoming a person, how can you say that your number of choice is more rational than mine?

The fact that we have doctors who can determine 100%


Then the mother walks outside and gets hit by a bus. Oops, even magic doctors can't account for that.

That's notwithstanding the nonsense of trying to determine the actual probability in a given real situation, notwithstanding the all the problems with positive rights, and notwithstanding the negative rights of the mother that you've conveniently chosen to ignore.

Because it's really hard for doctors to determine if something is going wrong during development lol.

The right to life supersedes the right to convenience.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2011 5:37:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/5/2011 3:50:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So by the same token, someone who is unconscious, and thus not rationally thinking, is not human?
Were they thinking before? And will they after?
Why does this matter for an unconscious person, but not for a fetus?

Or do you somehow acquire rights and personhood once and then keep them forever whether you still fulfill the actual condition or not?
You fulfill the condition in that your consciousness is continued, despite its present dormancy. It's not just a future possibility, you were awake before AND will be again.
Just as a fetus becoming a child and then an adult is not a possibility, but natural.

Also, remember, not just rationality but also reciprocity is important. Fetuses have no reciprocity. Whereas sleeping people do-- if you respect someone's sleep they will respect yours.
Reciprocity? I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but how does a fetus "disrespect" something?

Lol. You will live on unless I kill you. Therefore, why bother banning murder? :)

A rat isn't a human individual. Unless you're going to discuss animal rationality and animal rights,
A fetus isn't a human-- a rational animal. Thus, a fetus and a rat are comparable.
A fetus most certainly is a human, and it is a rational animal. It is in its nature to live rationally. The fact that it is not doing so yet is simply a temporary disability, if you will. It will absolutely do so unless you violently interfere. I still don't see how this is different from being unconscious.

And it lives, and grows into a rationally thinking roll of tape?
You're shifting the goalposts. Either all individuals have rights or only rational living individuals have rights, the two are mutually exclusive.
Human individuals have rights. All human individuals.

At 6/5/2011 6:47:49 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 6/5/2011 6:31:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you acquire property, and I trespass, is it a defense for me to say "I was gonna acquire it before you went and did it?"
No. How is this analogous?

"I was gonna be a rational animal and get rights but you shot me before then."

"This was gonna be my property but you took it beforehand."

It's only after you actually acquire the rights-- and the conditions they are from-- that the rights can be violated.
This "after" is misleading. Why can I acquire rights, but not lose them by the same standard? The fact is that a human being is a rational animal, and a fetus is a human being.

To illustrate with a different example: if a yet unborn child inherits something, can you now steal it because the child has no property rights yet? Or does it still belong to the dead guy, who most certainly is not rationally thinking anymore, and never will?

I guess my point is: if it's wrong to kill you right now, then it's wrong to kill you 20 years from now, as well as 20 years ago
That only follows if there was a "You" 20 years ago. Whatever a fetus was, it wasn't YOU, and you should be insulted by any suggestion that it was-- it would be calling YOU brainless.
If the fetus who is now "me" had been killed, I wouldn't have lost the life I have now?
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)