ExRx.net

It's active control vs being passive. It does not matter what the merit of the law is.

There really is no use discussing it with you though. You simply ignore any facts that don't fit with what you choose to believe and spin it to fit your reality. The more facts are thrown at you, the more certain you become that you are right.

So if you believe taking full control of the lives of the people is moral, then you can do so and still be a libertarian according to your logic. So in that case everyone is a libertarian. Utterly ridiculous. If you don't like what the word means, go argue with a dictionary publisher.

Again, you've pre-determined the outcome by assuming that the unborn is not a person. The pro-life position is that you're not "taking full control" of someone's life, you're merely preventing an act of murder from taking place. Similar to preventing any other murder, it would then be a perfectly reasonable libertarian position.

Again, I'm not saying one side or the other of the abortion dilemma is correct. I'm merely acknowledging that there IS a dilemma. You're just ignoring the moral question entirely and skipping straight to the conclusion, at which point you assume the other side must be insane or stupid.

If you won't acknowledge that there is a moral dilemma, then you've got issues.

I wasn't talking about that. I understand their point of view. Like I said, the merit of the law doesn't matter. That means even if you think the law is good, it still doesn't change anything.

So again, with the logic you are using EVERYONE is a libertarian.

As for the moral dilemma, it's not quite a dilemma, but it's close. But I also addressed that, explained my position and issued an ignored challenge a couple posts back. It's also just a red herring because the merit of it has nothing to do with it.

I don't see a "challenge" anywhere. No, with my logic everyone is certainly not a libertarian. There must be a miscommunication here somewhere. Perhaps this will clear things up:

Is it possible for a logical philosopher to believe abortion is morally equivalent to murder?
Is it possible for a totalitarian to believe it?
Is it possible for an authoritarian to believe it?
Is it possible for a libertarian to believe it?
Is it possible for an anarchist to believe it?

I still don't see the problem. If a libertarian can support laws prohibiting murder, rape, child abuse, etc., then why can't the same person support a law prohibiting abortion. All of these laws are intended to protect individuals from harm, whether that individual is an adult, a child or a fetus.

Yes, and I'm hoping if Ironman answers the above questions, it will explain where the disconnect is...

The disconnect is in your mind, and there appears to be nothing that can be done about that. When one strongly holds two ideas as part of their self-image, showing them an incompatibility will likely result in cognitive dissonance and a "backfire".

So there is no point in any further attempts at discussing/explaining these things. However I will answer your questions.

1 Yes, given the right misinformation that is very possible.

Questions 2-5 I am going to answer LITERALLY. I am taking the word "believe" to mean what one believes, in this case a moral judgment. This is NOT going to be about what they would enact into law politically. So again, NO policy of any sort. This is strictly personal, internal beliefs held by the individual in question.

yes
yes (authoritarian and totalitarian are actually the same thing by the way)
yes
yes

Putting aside the snide "misinformation" thing, I think we're making progress here. Yes, that was the question - no policy implications on those. (I often hear "authoritarian" used as not exactly a synonym for totalitarian, but fine, let's ignore that too.)

So, what are the appropriate policy responses to actions that are morally equivalent to murder for each group? Totalitarian? Libertarian? Anarchist?

I had already brought up that bit about policy vs personal belief. However it was in the post you are ignoring because of the other things contained in it.

There is no "morally equivalent to murder". There are even different charges under the murder category as well as various types of homicides that are not in the murder category.

Let me repeat a question I asked. If abortion was made illegal, then what should the penalty be for having one?

You're skipping ahead to sentencing guidelines, but let's not put the cart before the horse here. One step at a time so I can figure out where the gap is.

You agree that totalitarians/libertarians/anarchists can believe abortion is morally equivalent to murder. If so, then what's the appropriate policy response? Should they each make it legal or illegal?

I think I already answered that. Totalitarians will make it illegal if they want to and it suits their purpose. Anarchists don't make anything illegal obviously as they don't have any laws. Libertarians don't interfere in matters of personal beliefs, especially when they greatly differ between different religions or lack there of. More importantly the fundamental philosophy of libertarianism is very much against solving these problems through government. How they would address these problems is going to depend on where they fall on the left/right spectrum. Your more common far right libertarians will stress improvements to existing sex education, but would not make a programs for helping to provide that, and certainly would not distribute contraception. On the left of course they would do that.

People frequently think libertarian means more conservative. However that is not the case.

You seem to have straightforwardly answered the question quite for anarchists/totalitarians, but got off-topic on libertarians. (You've not just messing with me right? )

Forget religion etc - pretend the entire planet is atheist if it helps cut out that irrelevancy. A given libertarian then believes abortion is the moral equivalent of murder - what would the appropriate policy response be?

For me at least, the question is more simple ... Does a society/government have a responsibility to protect its people? If the answer is yes, the only remaining question is when an embryo or fetus becomes a person, and that's really a matter of opinion.

All I can do is simply reiterate that is not libertarianism by definition. But you are going to continue to repeat your flawed argument, so I see no reason to continue. You decide what you want to believe based on personal preference and completely without regard for facts, unless it supports your ideology. So it's rather pointless.

Yep, that's exactly right. Now even though we are left with an opinion, we can still avoid most abortions by means of comprehensive sex ed and access to contraception. Preventative measures are usually the best.