Oppinions on abortion?

[Nulono]

It's better than 0%, but pro-life gives a much bigger rate. I dispute your 20% figure, considering when most abortions take place. I don't disagree with removing a fetus alive.

But why do we need those fetuses?!? This world doesn't need any more people, unless you want the human race to die out!

It's not that we "need" anyone, but those fetuses have a right not to be killed like anyone else, and that right should be respected.

[Distruzio]

Not quite. It's a transitioning philosophy that views the survival of nearly 20% of babies when evicted as opposed to aborted, as a fundamental good. And with the advancement of medical technology, more babies will be saved. Eventually, we will approach a level of technology that will assure a near 100% survival rate for evicted babies. Surely 20% alive is better than 0%?

It's better than 0%, but pro-life gives a much bigger rate. I dispute your 20% figure, considering when most abortions take place. I don't disagree with removing a fetus alive.

I would counter that your pro-life position violates the womans right to liberty (privacy) by asserting legislative coercion against her. Evictionism does not. Furthermore, evictionism protects an ever increasing number of childrens right to life. It isn't perfect, but it's a step in the direction that prevents a dangerous precedent of State coercion over the individual right to liberty while articulating the sanctity of the right to life.

[Nulono]

It's better than 0%, but pro-life gives a much bigger rate. I dispute your 20% figure, considering when most abortions take place. I don't disagree with removing a fetus alive.

I would counter that your pro-life position violates the womans right to liberty (privacy) by asserting legislative coercion against her. Evictionism does not. Furthermore, evictionism protects an ever increasing number of childrens right to life. It isn't perfect, but it's a step in the direction that prevents a dangerous precedent of State coercion over the individual right to liberty while articulating the sanctity of the right to life.

Am I to take it that you are a libertarian?

[Distruzio]

I would counter that your pro-life position violates the womans right to liberty (privacy) by asserting legislative coercion against her. Evictionism does not. Furthermore, evictionism protects an ever increasing number of childrens right to life. It isn't perfect, but it's a step in the direction that prevents a dangerous precedent of State coercion over the individual right to liberty while articulating the sanctity of the right to life.

Am I to take it that you are a libertarian?

Of a sort. I'm an Anarcho-Monarchist... or anarcho-capitalist if that's more clear.

An extreme right libertarian bordering on paleo- conservatism.

[Nulono]

Am I to take it that you are a libertarian?

Of a sort. I'm an Anarcho-Monarchist... or anarcho-capitalist if that's more clear.

An extreme right libertarian.

In that case, I assume you are familiar with the NAP?

[Distruzio]

Of a sort. I'm an Anarcho-Monarchist... or anarcho-capitalist if that's more clear.

An extreme right libertarian.

In that case, I assume you are familiar with the NAP?

I love naps. j/k.

I assume you're speaking of the non-aggression axiom? If not, then I'll need you to clarify.

[Nulono]

In that case, I assume you are familiar with the NAP?

I love naps. j/k.

I assume you're speaking of the non-aggression axiom? If not, then I'll need you to clarify.

Correct, Non-Aggression Principle.

The idea is that it is the government's main (and/or sole) duty to step in in cases of aggression, correct?

[Distruzio]

I love naps. j/k.

I assume you're speaking of the non-aggression axiom? If not, then I'll need you to clarify.

Correct, Non-Aggression Principle.

The idea is that it is the government's main (and/or sole) duty to step in in cases of aggression, correct?

Ah, well here you make a fundamental mistake with your presumption. You conflate gov't with the State. The two are not the same. Gov't is present in many ways. The family is the most basic form of gov't. AnCap thought presents arbitration firms, judicators, insurance agencies, and social and cultural norms as forms of gov't that intercede in cases of aggression or infringements of liberties.

Moreover, that is not the non-aggression axiom.

"It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another."

- Walter Block, economist and contemporary Anarcho-Capitalist.

That is the non-aggression axiom.

[Nouvelle Australis]

I don't think I could ever get an abortion but I believe it's wrong to remove the option from those that want to get one.

[Bluth Corporation]

But why do we need those fetuses?!? This world doesn't need any more people, unless you want the human race to die out!

It's not that we "need" anyone, but those fetuses have a right not to be killed like anyone else, and that right should be respected.

Your assumption, that regrettably no one has challenged yet, is that a fetus is a human being. It's not. It certainly has the potential to become one at some point within the next several months, but it's not yet an actual human being any more than the collection of metal parts on my table drying after I cleaned them this morning is an actual trombone, even though they have the potential to become one if I reassemble them in a few hours.

WHEN ARE YOU GONNA COME HOME?
WHEN ARE YOU GONNA LAND?
I SHOULD HAVE STAYED BACK ON THE FARM
I SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO MY OLD MAN
YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T KEEP ME FOREVER
I DIDN'T SIGN UP WITH YOU
I'M NOT A PRESENT FOR YOUR FRIENDS TO OPEN
THIS BOY'S TOO YOUNG TO BE SINGING
THE BLUES

[Norstal]

Why stop at birth, then? Why not kill infants or teenagers in third-world countries, so save them from the same fate?

Are you daft? I just went over this a few weeks ago. If you seriously think that allowing abortion to happen is a greenlight to kill everyone, then you need to check your "morals".

I'm pretty sure killing someone isn't leaving them alone.

None of your fucking business because it does not affect you whatsoever.

I don't think Jesus would've been cool with murder, even if he wouldn't judge the woman. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that jazz. And I'm pretty sure he'd work against a law he believed to be unjust.

How he'd feel about abortion is anyone's guess, what with his first-century understanding of embryology and such.

Jesus don't decide what murder is. The government, or whatever anarchist equivalent Distruzio has, decides it.

[Wiztopia]

I'm not sure if Christian atheists (which was my viewpoint) believe in sin, heaven, or hell. They shouldn't, but eh. With that in mind, a proper way to say it is that he supports choice. You'll be right that he'd condemn abortion, but when it's all said and done, they'd still have the choice. Free will and all that jazz. Now, as for the murder part, I think that's up to the local laws to classify abortion as murder or not.

That's a contradiction. Also no law should say abortion is murder.

[Esternial]

As long as the unborn fetus is dependant on its mother to survive (eg. nourishment, oxygen), abortion should be allowed.

That varies based on available medical technology? Why should someone's rights depend on their time period and/or location?

No it doesn't. Whether in Afrika or in America, a child cannot survive when it's ripped out of the womb before it has working lungs.
Unless it has medical technology to help it along its way, but that makes it dependant of that piece of technology.

It has nothing to do with time/location. I don't even get why you brought that up.

I feel that abortion should only be debatable once the unborn child meets that requirement. Around week 25-30.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Your assumption, that regrettably no one has challenged yet, is that a fetus is a human being. It's not. It certainly has the potential to become one at some point within the next several months, but it's not yet an actual human being any more than the collection of metal parts on my table drying after I cleaned them this morning is an actual trombone, even though they have the potential to become one if I reassemble them in a few hours.

It's actually been challenged so many times everyone's gotten sick of him ignoring that no one else is willing to accept his inclusion of fetuses as people.

[Bluth Corporation]

Christian atheists

That's a contradiction.[/quote]

On the contrary, all Christians are atheists. It's an inherent part of being a Christian.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Your assumption, that regrettably no one has challenged yet, is that a fetus is a human being. It's not. It certainly has the potential to become one at some point within the next several months, but it's not yet an actual human being any more than the collection of metal parts on my table drying after I cleaned them this morning is an actual trombone, even though they have the potential to become one if I reassemble them in a few hours.

It's actually been challenged so many times everyone's gotten sick of him ignoring that no one else is willing to accept his inclusion of fetuses as people.

I prefer to just agree with him, and add "Delicious, delicious people."

[Robert Magoo]

Christian atheists

That's a contradiction.

On the contrary, all Christians are atheists. It's an inherent part of being a Christian.

I don't mind you calling yourself a Christian, but try not to redefine the term for everyone else. Jesus said very directly, "I am the Son of God."

John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.

[Norstal]

I'm not sure if Christian atheists (which was my viewpoint) believe in sin, heaven, or hell. They shouldn't, but eh. With that in mind, a proper way to say it is that he supports choice. You'll be right that he'd condemn abortion, but when it's all said and done, they'd still have the choice. Free will and all that jazz. Now, as for the murder part, I think that's up to the local laws to classify abortion as murder or not.

That's a contradiction. Also no law should say abortion is murder.

Orly? Ask Bluth.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

My opinion on abortion is that nobody's opinion on abortion matters save for the person in the position to make that decision.

Why should only her opinion matter? Should only her opinion matter on a very late-term abortion? On infanticide? On child abuse?

Anything beyond legal constraints is irrelevant to my statement. Any actions that are illegal will, or should, result in punishment accordingly. Keep in mind that you are allowed to have your opinion, and could even rally like-minded people to go out and try to change the laws regarding abortion. Then your opinion might matter.

However, as long as you're simply sitting in a chair in front of your computer discussing opinions on abortion in a forum, it doesn't really matter at all. Unless you are pregnant and have to weigh the options.

[Bluth Corporation]

On the contrary, all Christians are atheists. It's an inherent part of being a Christian.

I don't mind you calling yourself a Christian, but try not to redefine the term for everyone else.

If someone is using the word "Christian" incorrectly, why shouldn't I correct him? I'm not "redefining" anything; in fact, I'm merely trying to ensure others do not redefine "Christ" from what the word actually means (as the theistic acolytes of the Cult of Jesus and Jehovah have been doing for centuries).

Jesus said very directly, "I am the Son of God."

No, he didn't. Every claim that he did is based either on a falsification introduced into the story of his life by those who failed to recognize the truth of the divinity of his teachings and so felt compelled to invent and propagate the myth of the divinity of his person, or is based on a misinterpretation.

[Robert Magoo]

I don't mind you calling yourself a Christian, but try not to redefine the term for everyone else.

If someone is using the word "Christian" incorrectly, why shouldn't I correct him? I'm not "redefining" anything; in fact, I'm merely trying to ensure others do not redefine "Christ" from what the word actually means (as the theistic acolytes of the Cult of Jesus and Jehovah have been doing for centuries).

Jesus said very directly, "I am the Son of God."

No, he didn't. Every claim that he did is based either on a falsification introduced into the story of his life by those who failed to recognize the truth of the divinity of his teachings and so felt compelled to invent and propagate the myth of the divinity of his person, or is based on a misinterpretation.

It's greek for savior. Meaning, the man who came to save man from sin. The only way to save him from sin was for Jesus to give up his own life. That wouldn't matter if He weren't perfect, and he wouldn't be perfect if he weren't God.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

That's a contradiction. Also no law should say abortion is murder.

Orly? Ask Bluth.

Aye, laddie. A true Scotsman Christian would ne'er believe in God.

[Wiztopia]

That's a contradiction. Also no law should say abortion is murder.

Orly? Ask Bluth.

He was being sarcastic. Christians believe that either God is God or that Jesus is God.

[Bluth Corporation]

If someone is using the word "Christian" incorrectly, why shouldn't I correct him? I'm not "redefining" anything; in fact, I'm merely trying to ensure others do not redefine "Christ" from what the word actually means (as the theistic acolytes of the Cult of Jesus and Jehovah have been doing for centuries).


No, he didn't. Every claim that he did is based either on a falsification introduced into the story of his life by those who failed to recognize the truth of the divinity of his teachings and so felt compelled to invent and propagate the myth of the divinity of his person, or is based on a misinterpretation.

It's greek for savior. Meaning, the man who came to save man from sin. The only way to save him from sin was for Jesus to give up his own life. That wouldn't matter if He weren't perfect, and he wouldn't be perfect if he weren't God.

Not at all.

See this for an explanation.

[Bluth Corporation]

Orly? Ask Bluth.

He was being sarcastic.

No, I wasn't.

Christians believe that either God is God or that Jesus is God.

No, they don't.