A main factor in libertarianism is " Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt other people ". As a libertarian, I would firmly believe in the right of women being able to control what happens to there body. Where does the problem kick in? Well, the problem is there is a little human being inside the women, developing into a full human. So, the reason I do not support abortion is because it negatively affects someone else, the child. However, I think if the mothers life is in danger then it should be allowed ( My reasoning behind this is if it comes down to the life of the mother Vs the child, It negatively affects both of them thus I think its fair the mother should live at all costs, considering if the babys mother died in labor or after there is a good chance that child will have tons of issues )



Life begins at conception, period. Thus, no matter how liberals like to word it, it is always the murder of an innocent child, always. I find it utterly horrifying that people actually think that the mothers preference is more Important then the life of another person. I have great sympathy for women who were raped and become pregnant but the answer is not ruining another persons life. Its funny that the US government funds PlanParentHood yet, the agencies first purpose was to kill black babies because they were " Half breeds ". Its also odd that the US government officially recognizes abortion as a right for women yet, the justice system ranks a pregnant womens murder as a double homicide ( implying the death of two people ).


How do we fix this? adoption is a major way to fix this. Adoption is an option that is not given enough attention. A federally funded adoption agency that replaces PlanParent would be a good choice. Anyway, Discuss


EDIT: I was adopted and my original mother at one point wanted to abort me, so this is a bit personal

Edited 2/12/2016 20:01:34

Life begins at conception, period. Thus, no matter how liberals like to word it, it is always the murder of an innocent child, always. I find it utterly horrifying that people actually think that the mothers preference is more Important then the life of another person.

well this is the whole point here. This is an arbitrary position, and pro-choice people don't agree to this statement.
According to you, a fertilized egg cell IS:
- an innocent child
- a person
- a baby

If you really think that, then yeah the debate is over. But do you really think that an egg cell should have the same rights as a human being? Does anything that has the potential to become a human being should have its own rights?
Where do you scientifically draw the line? is it when the spermatozoïde meets the egg cell? Do you really think that it makes sense calling a fertilized egg cell a person

edit: just trying to understand what is your position here.
should a woman taking the day after pill be prosecuted whith murder charges in your mind?
Are you against stemcell research?
since you are a christian, do you think that fertilized egg cells that don't make it goes to heaven, or hell?

Edited 2/12/2016 20:46:33

The concept of a person itself is debatable, we all consist of lots of different cells, many not even sharing the same genes. Simply praise like as what it is: The most beautiful and horrifying thing in the universe.

when it becomes a human is the debate issue here, if you really wanted to you could say a sperm is a human and your a mass murderer every time you ejaculate

^ Chuck obviously exaggerates, but he's got a point. Why would I (puns ftw) begin at conception? Who said I do? It's an arbitrary value people have agreed on. It does not convince me and probably would not convince a lot of other people. I don't think life begins at conception, but we can't really know when life begins, as it is defined in many different ways...

It's closely linked with euthanasia though, in my opinion. If a child will have a really bad life because his parents won't love him/he'll be retarded/some other reason, why bother giving him the opportunity to live? While I would completely agree with anti-abortion if it affected only the child, as everyone deserves their chance to live... don't you think so does the child's potential mother? If a child will prevent her from living the life she wants to, I'd be inclined to let her abort at the early stage of her pregnancy. Why create a new life if it's at the expense of an old one and possibly, the new one as well?

Feel free to point out eventual flaws in my argumentation.

Whether or not a "Fetus" is a human being is really irrelevant. Something doesn't have to be human to have intrinsic rights, or even be alive at all for someone to be punished for destroying it.

You see all these animal rights people going nuts about how animals have intrinsic rights(Case in point, Cecil the f*cking Lion), and then at the same time saying that because a "fetus" is not human it has no value and no rights. This is probably the most abhorrent double standard that is commonly propogated in modern society.

You see this all the time. In fact, This double standard is even applied to trees and other "Nature" by most people. How is it in any way reasonable that Trees, lions, Dirt, etc should have more rights than a baby human?

I don't feel like the underlining issue in this debate is when does life begin. Both side get stuck up on this issue when there is nothing to discuss life begins at contraception.

The real argument being; is it alright to kill baby's (fetuses but whatever). And if it is alright why is it?

Who said I do?

Science

A nice quote I remember but can't find ffs so my memory of it might be uneloquently

When does life begin? 24 Weeks? 12 Weeks? When the brain develops? When the heart starts to beat?

Or does it start at the earliest possible moment that it can; contraception

@Imperator

grown animals and trees are actually a life form that can go on living on its own. A fetus is not.
forbidding people to kill animals and plants have nothing to do with them having "intrinsic rights". The concept of "rights" is a human made up concept.

Life does not know morality, only mortality.

there is nothing to discuss life begins at contraception

Or does it start at the earliest possible moment that it can; contraception

yeah...when i hear things like that, i'm all in favor of contraception

^ Very true, Kretoma.

Imperator, despite my best intentions, I just can't understand your line of defence.

Luna, how would you define a living being, huh? A being which is capable of thinking?

how would you define a living being, huh? A being which is capable of thinking?

In the context of abortion, it is usually defined as a being that can survive outside the womb

grown animals and trees are actually a life form that can go on living on its own. A fetus is not.

This argument doesn't hold water IMO. Newborn babies can't go on living on their own either. They are just as dependent on their mothers as they were in the womb. A newborn baby cannot "go on living on its own.". It will die very quickly if it is detached from other people.

Under this logic, it's no biggie to kill Newborn babies either then. In fact, it's also okay to kill people who are dependent on the government for their incomes, and Every animal who is living in zoos.

So let me ask you the same question about this logic: How does something being Dependent on something else diminish it's value, or warrant depriving it of it's basic rights?

Edited 2/12/2016 21:01:56

Just allow abortion... you Americans who are anti-abortion are so stupid.

It's hard to define if it about thinking than is a down or a brain dead person alive (Not really imo at least not worth keeping them 'alive')

I think it could easly be defined as 'a being that can think or will in the future be able to think'

In the context of abortion, it is usually defined as a being that can survive outside the womb

The issue I have with this is someone on life support not really alive?

Also I find it annoying that w baby can't survive on its own anyway

I mean, look at this.

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

Yet, fucking bible-bashers selectively take out parts of the bible that they want to use against their opposition, but neglect these parts. Seriously, some people are so hypocritical, inconsistent and stupid.

The people who are anti-abortion are the same people (on the most part) as people who are Christian!

So let me ask you the same question about this logic: How does something being Dependent on something else diminish it's value?

It's not about dependency. Its about the fact that a fetus is a biological system that can't survive in the outside world, biologically. However the help and medical assistance you give it, it will never grow into a human.

@Ox

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.

Can you actually quote the bible on that please?