Can someone be both pro-life AND a Libertarian?

[thaiboxerken]

I suppose, but I'm thinking more along the lines of "criteria" being part of a system and therefore not arbitrary. In any event thaiboxerken has yet to clarify why the third trimester is "arbitrary" and why it defines a human.

I don't care to call a fetus nonhuman. That's not the issue. Whether or not it's an individual is what matters to me.

And yes there is always an arbritrary line in most laws.

 

[Dancing David]

With an abortion death of the fetus is pretty much a certainty while driving while not treating diabetes carries a small risk to others.
Also the purpose of an abortion is to terminate the life of the fetus, The purpose of the latter is not to kill or harm.

So you just value the life of innocents who are not fetuses less than the life of a fetus? If life of a human has value then the same value should apply.

 

[Neally]

I don't care to call a fetus nonhuman. That's not the issue. Whether or not it's an individual is what matters to me.

And yes there is always an arbritrary line in most laws.

Again with the terminology. Call it whatever. Tell me why you think the third trimester is a valid point to allow abortions before and not after.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Again with the terminology. Call it whatever. Tell me why you think the third trimester is a valid point to allow abortions before and not after.

Tell me why it's not a valid line to draw. It is law right now, and I see no reason to change that law.

 

[Towlie]

Also the purpose of an abortion is to terminate the life of the fetus...

I don't agree with that. The purpose of an abortion is to unburden a woman with a pregnancy she doesn't want. If and when it becomes feasible to keep a fetus alive outside the womb and enable it to develop normally, I'm sure that nobody will demand that its life be terminated.

 

[Neally]

Tell me why it's not a valid line to draw. It is law right now, and I see no reason to change that law.

Evasion noted. Your the one that claimed it was valid with no justification. No one suggested the law should be changed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Evasion noted. Your the one that claimed it was valid with no justification. No one suggested the law should be changed.

I expressed that I'm comfortable with the law as it's written. Personally, I'd draw the line somewhere else. My opinion isn't very popular though.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree with that. The purpose of an abortion is to unburden a woman with a pregnancy she doesn't want. If and when it becomes feasible to keep a fetus alive outside the womb and enable it to develop normally, I'm sure that nobody will demand that its life be terminated.

Quite right, it appears that technology is starting, or has been, influencing the debate as well. I wonder how the discussion would go if someone invented an efficient way to transport the fetus into an artificial womb with little to no cost to the mother.

 

[eeyore1954]

So you just value the life of innocents who are not fetuses less than the life of a fetus? If life of a human has value then the same value should apply.

How do you get that from my comment.
It isn't that I value the lives differently it is the intent and the likelihood of the action. Of course it is possible that on a rare occasion someone dies when a person goes into a diabetic coma while driving but there was no intent or anything other than a miniscule chance of death being caused.
You cannot prevent all accidents with a low likelihood. In order to value all life the same do I also have to be against cigarettes , alcohol , kids skateboarding who might run into someone, people who drive above the legal speed limit or any thing that might cause accidental death to an innocent bystander

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Towlie
I don't agree with that. The purpose of an abortion is to unburden a woman with a pregnancy she doesn't want. If and when it becomes feasible to keep a fetus alive outside the womb and enable it to develop normally, I'm sure that nobody will demand that its life be terminated.

Unfortunately in the process of unburdening of the mother the fetus has to die.

Quite right, it appears that technology is starting, or has been, influencing the debate as well. I wonder how the discussion would go if someone invented an efficient way to transport the fetus into an artificial womb with little to no cost to the mother.

In my opinion the current state of medicine has nothing to do with when the fetus becomes a human who should be entitled to a chance to live.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In my opinion the current state of medicine has nothing to do with when the fetus becomes a human who should be entitled to a chance to live.

But there are some who do look at technology to determine this.

 

[rkzenrage]

Thank you, I am a social libertarian this week, I have always found abortion as an idea to be repugnant, but I do not feel it is my place to control other people's choices to always match mine.

Exactly.