How do liberals feel about this?

[kulade]

The unborn is not a tresspasser as he was invited during the act of sex. The only exception to this is rape, but even then it was the rapist that invaded her property rights, not the fetus. The rapist should have to compensate her for this invasion, in addition to any other punishment, but killing the innocent is unacceptable.

Sort of interesting you employ libertarian ethics for something like this. It's worth noting that most of the big names in intellectual libertarianism take precisely the opposite stance on abortion. Rothbard I know said that the fetus, even if we categorize it as a human, is a biological squatter on the woman and she has the right to expel it just as she has the right to expel a squatter from her land etc.

You saying that sex constitutes consent isn't meaningful because (1) free consent can be withdrawn in libertarian ethics (i.e. if you let a person sleep in your house for a night, that does not mean you cannot tell him to leave the next night) and (2) even if that were true, sex acts that employ contraception by definition constitute means that specifically do not imply consent to child-bearing.

I think if anything you're trying to take your already decided upon moral beliefs and trying to graft them upon an ethical system you pretend to accept axiomatically. You may think that abortion is morally bad, which I think is sensible, but because libertarian ethics, based on nearly nothing besides property rights and "natural law" etc. fail to make a coherent worldview anyway, you can't get anywhere.

As I stated above, most hardcore libertarians are pro-choice in the most extreme way and it certainly makes a lot more sense with their ethics than anything else. The problem with those ethics is, as another poster noted, there is no sense of social obligation, not in some fuzzy social democratic or public welfare sense, but in the sense of the family and other traditional institutions. In private property rights and libertarian ethics, it is entirely permissible to not only abort fetuses, but to commit infanticide, neglect, or simply abandon children or members of their family. When your ethical system is based only on your infinite rights to production without any non-economic responsibility you don't really have a complete view of morality.

 

[Old Hippy]

I never claimed that all life matters. I have always claimed that when you commit murder (I realize the problem of false convictions, but to keep it simple let's stick with philosophy) you lose your right to live

the problem seems to be that you don't actually believe that people have a right to live, you place it along side things sorta like, the right to drive a car

 

[Borachio]

Not exactly. Nothing can repay a human life. The closest equivalent is the life of the murderer.

Except that capital punishment doesn't repay anyone anything for the life the (alleged) murderer has taken, does it?

A life simply isn't a commodity that can be traded. Unless you're an advocate of slavery, I suppose. Even then it's not the life, but the labour, that's being traded.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Sort of interesting you employ libertarian ethics for something like this. It's worth noting that most of the big names in intellectual libertarianism take precisely the opposite stance on abortion. Rothbard I know said that the fetus, even if we categorize it as a human, is a biological squatter on the woman and she has the right to expel it just as she has the right to expel a squatter from her land etc.

You saying that sex constitutes consent isn't meaningful because (1) free consent can be withdrawn in libertarian ethics (i.e. if you let a person sleep in your house for a night, that does not mean you cannot tell him to leave the next night) and (2) even if that were true, sex acts that employ contraception by definition constitute means that specifically do not imply consent to child-bearing.

I think if anything you're trying to take your already decided upon moral beliefs and trying to graft them upon an ethical system you pretend to accept axiomatically. You may think that abortion is morally bad, which I think is sensible, but because libertarian ethics, based on nearly nothing besides property rights and "natural law" etc. fail to make a coherent worldview anyway, you can't get anywhere.

As I stated above, most hardcore libertarians are pro-choice in the most extreme way and it certainly makes a lot more sense with their ethics than anything else. The problem with those ethics is, as another poster noted, there is no sense of social obligation, not in some fuzzy social democratic or public welfare sense, but in the sense of the family and other traditional institutions. In private property rights and libertarian ethics, it is entirely permissible to not only abort fetuses, but to commit infanticide, neglect, or simply abandon children or members of their family. When your ethical system is based only on your infinite rights to production without any non-economic responsibility you don't really have a complete view of morality.

You are correct that most hardcore libertarians take the opposite position that I do. Most libertarians, however, admit that children are a special case when it comes to the non-aggression axiom; that it is sometimes justifiable to stop a kid from hurting himself even while it would be abhorrent to stop an adult from hurting themselves. I think you have a special obligation to your own children as well, unless you transfer this obligation in an agreed upon manner to another person.

As for duty to family, I would say you have a moral duty to everyone in your family, but should only have a legal one to your own children until they become adults.

 

[Double A]

If you take that stance, then how are you gonna stop fetuses from rolling around in their mother's womb?

 

[Goodfella]

I do want the gold standard, if not actual gold and silver as money.

So the answer is no. You know nothing at all. You don't know the first thing about politics, the constitution, science, or economics. Lemme, guess, you don't believe in calculus either? Can you please just do us all a favor and spend more time studying (so maybe you'll learn something) and less time on this website. Just go away and don't come back until you have at least a bare minimum education.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't understand calculus but that doesn't mean I don't believe in it...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No, you pretty much disbelieve calculus and you show us that everytime you support mathemagically based budgets, statics, etc. You also have gone out of your way to explain exactly how you don't believe in many science or math based things you don't understand while simultaneously trying to deflect any counteraguments by way of your ignorance in the subject.

I said I don't know about radiocarbon dating!
but it's still wrong cuz jesushorse

 

[Goodfella]

I don't understand calculus but that doesn't mean I don't believe in it...

Okay that post was a little bit harsh. Maybe I don't want you to just go away...but do you really think the world is only 6,000 years old? Seriously.

 

[GhostWriter16]

6,000? No, probably not. Somewhere in the ten thousands? Probably.

 

[Mosher]

6,000? No, probably not. Somewhere in the ten thousands? Probably.

I like to ignore science sometimes, too.

 

[azzaman333]

6,000? No, probably not. Somewhere in the ten thousands? Probably.

Under no circumstance does that make any sense whatsoever. It's completely inconsistent with every other estimate for how old the earth is. At least YEC's are consistent, it's always around 6000 years old.

 

[Goodfella]

6,000? No, probably not. Somewhere in the ten thousands? Probably.

Yeah, 6,000 years old? That's just ridiculous. Try 10,000.

Really though, the idea of Earth being just several thousand years old is depressing. Not just because people believe it's true, but because it makes everything, universe and all, a puny and brutish bubble, significant only for humanity's existence -- an existence plagued by disease, ignorance, and warfare, and thus everything amounts to nothing.

 

[Zack]

I don't understand calculus but that doesn't mean I don't believe in it...

What if someone (hypothetically) utilized calculus to definitively prove that communism is the ideal economic system? Would you still "believe" in calculus?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, 6,000 years old? That's just ridiculous. Try 10,000.

Really though, the idea of Earth being just several thousand years old is depressing. Not just because people believe it's true, but because it makes everything, universe and all, a puny and brutish bubble, significant only for humanity's existence -- an existence plagued by disease, ignorance, and warfare, and thus everything amounts to nothing.

A world in which death predates sin is even more depressing to me. That would mean death is God's fault. In the real (Young) earth, its our fault.

 

[Mosher]

A world in which death predates sin is even more depressing to me. That would mean death is God's fault. In the real (Young) earth, its our fault.

I would like you to scientifically prove to me that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that the Young Earth theory is truth.

 

[bhsup]

Why is death something to be viewed as a fault? Embrace the gift of mortality, young Numenorian!

 

[Zack]

I would like you to scientifically prove to me that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that the Young Earth theory is truth.

"God told me."

 

[schlaufuchs]

I would like you to scientifically prove to me that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that the Young Earth theory is truth.

Dude this has been tried a myriad different ways with dommy. Likewise evolution.

Dommy's going to respond something to the effect "well I can't explain it properly/I'm not versed in the facts, but classical_hero is an expert on YEC so he can give you the evidence."

It should be noted that c_h is an absolute stonewall who actively disbelieves any and all evidence provided to him. In other words, this is a futile effort and pointless derail that will result in nothing but more pc for dommy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why is death something to be viewed as a fault? Embrace the gift of mortality, young Numenorian!

You know, I have kind of devil's advocated this argument before against other YECers. Obviously plants did die before the Fall. I could work it for animals as well, although the fact that animals inevitably suffer pain before death makes it really tricky. But I absolutely can't reconcile with human evolution. There's no doubt in my mind that this process, if true, is absolutely horiffic.