ExRx.net

Why are you surprised? Actually, I am a huge Jack London fan who was a huge Nietzche fan. I never made the connection between Rand and Nietzche. The comparison is something I've never tought of - the ultra capitolist vs the uber communist both advocating the same thing.

To be honest I've never actually studied Nietzche. I've just gleaned some of his stuff through my study of London and read what I had to read to understand his influence on London..

Well again, "bodily autonomy" implies that you've again prejudged the outcome in that there's only one body with a stake in the matter. If you instead conclude that the unborn child is a distinct self with its own stake to liberty, then the libertarian thing to do is protect its rights.

This is why there is no inconsistency between libertarianism and anti-abortion or pro-abortion policies. Given that libertarians want to protect individual liberties, it comes down to a question of deciding who/what is and is not a free individual.

That's the problem with the way you think. You completely ignore the rights of the woman. You don't even consider her even though she is fully developed and aware. You also seem to think something that has not developed enough to be a person is actually a person.

I have prejudged only with science. That's much better than right wing propaganda that equates every stage of the pregnancy with a 9 month fetus.

Your statement is inconsistent with libertarianism and shows you don't know the first thing about it. All you know about is new tea-bagger pseudo-libertarians. I've been into this sort of thing for 20+ years, I know. There never even used to be any argument about it at all until the tea-baggers came along.

So yes your statement is true of tea-bagger pseudo-libertarians, but it is not true of real libertarians of any variety be they right, left, or center.

Aside from protection against the power vacuum in left libertarianism, there is no protection. That is the whole point. You are free to do what you want. Taken to it's extreme you get anarchy, as in no rules at all.

The fact that there are differences to discuss proves these people are closer to the middle. They are halfway between authoritarian Republicans and real libertarians.

Here is the political definition of libertarian.
"One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state."

Making it a moderately less than oppressive authoritarianism is NOT minimizing it.

I haven't ignored anyone's rights. I've repeatedly stated (you seem to be ignoring it) that I agree with the principles of existing Supreme Court precedent the neither the unborn or the mother have absolute right over the other, and that the rights of the unborn grow over time as it does.

I agree with that definition of libertarianism. But when you skip ahead to use that definition to say that the unborn have no rights, you've again prejudged the outcome by assuming that the unborn are not in any way individual.

You can have the debate as to whether or not the unborn are entitled to individual rights - that's a legitimate debate to have. But it is intellectually dishonest to say that someone (ie, Paul) who argues the unborn do have rights is in opposition to "maximizing individual rights."

Until they are 18, they are property.

Part 1 shows you don't understand roe v wade, which is not surprising.

As for the rest of it, you again ignore the woman, and focus on something that is not fully a person and therefore has no rights.

It's a definition, if he doesn't fit it he doesn't fit it. Again, if there was not a difference then we would not be talking about this. If he wants to limit a woman's right to choose he can't be a libertarian by definition because he is limiting rights. It's not an opinion, it's what the word means.

Let's take anarchy as an example. You can't be for criminalizing murder and still be an anarchist even though you have the victims rights to think and about and all that sort of thing.

Or maybe you just don't understand the difference between actually being something, and just sharing things in common.

dude...I don't even CARE about this argument. But you totally have this habit of putting words into other people's mouths.

How so? I don't see it. Usually he is the one trying to straw man me, or rephrasing things is in a loaded manner. Of course I think it comes from not knowing what he is talking about more than an intentional thing. So I generally take it as unintentional, as I did in the last exchange.

He didn't say that the woman had no rights or should not be considered! He said you need to think about the rights of each. But as soon as you heard that you stuff something into his mouth saying that he says the woman has no rights.

Seriously, step back a second and consider. (Not on this debate, I could care less about that, but on whether you are listening and considering others points.)

Peace, shaved tit kitty.

In this case ApolytonGP is clearly correct. I certainly did not "ignore the woman". I've repeatedly stated (Ironman STILL seems to be ignoring it) that I believe neither the unborn or the mother have absolute right over the other, and that the rights of the unborn grow over time as it does. This means I am considering both.

I agree with frogbyte. Being pro-life is only inconsistant with libertarian views IF one agrees with the idea that the unborn are not individuals and therefore not worthy of considderation.

I also agree that Vanilla Ice cream with chocolate topping is better than chocolate ice scream with sprinkles. Hands down.

Ok, well I guess we are about done then. I am saying that criminalizing is not the answer and not consistent with libertarianism. However, let me point out again that feeling that it is wrong doesn't enter into it. I'm not saying you can't be against it. I'm just saying you can't be for criminalizing it.

I'm also saying the development of the fetus doesn't really support the pro-life point of view until the last 3rd of the pregnancy. Woman don't CHOOSE to have abortions that late, so that doesn't really matter.



You're all talking out of both sides of your mouth, are you for or against criminalizing? You give pro-criminalization arguments, but say that's not your point of view if I challenge them. So which is it?

Now if you just personally don't like it and want it reduced as much as possible, but not by law, then we agree on all but the biology.

So if you do think it should be criminalized then what should the sentence be for having an abortion?

Well, my only point is that criminalization is consistent with libertarianism, if the libertarian in question believes the unborn have individual liberties.

I imagine a similar discussion between hypothetical libertarians in the North/South in 1850 or so... North: "The libertarian principles of individual freedom and self-determination demand that we free all slaves in the South." South: "Ridiculous! Slaves aren't individuals, they're soulless livestock. If you truly adhered to libertarian principles of individual freedom you wouldn't try to use the authoritarian power of the government to steal our property."

I think a proper libertarian believes that children are property. You feed them, you gave birth to them. You own them. Their life belongs to you, to do with as you choose. They need to remember this!

Also slavery. I mean, the slave was acquired by conquest long past. After that, him and all the issue of his loins belongs to you. Taking him from you by emancipation is theft. Death to John Brown and remember Dredd Scott was a Supreme Court decision. He is as rightful property as land that has been in the family for generations.

[/trolling]