even murder? that's kind of a weird reason to be pro choice. "Yeah, you can kill that guy, **** happens."

doesn't bother me. unlimited rights ftw. i dont like the idea of any legislation of morality, nor the forcing of that morality on others who don't share it

oddly, arbitrary laws don't bother me as much

how does unlimited rights work? IE, I have a right to life, but you have the right to do whatever you want...


You can't force your morality on others who don't share it? So in my morality, killing is wrong. If a guy tries to kill me, I can't stop him?

you don't have a right to life. you just happen to be alive. life is granted but not guaranteed.

you can defend yourself against someone trying to kill you without killing them. dont see a conflict there

Not sure the issue is so complicated at all, but the answer to the question at the base of the issue is.

Is the thing being terminated a human person or is it not? Surely not many people would want it to be legal to be able to kill a human person because you wanted privacy, or because you wanted to stay in school more easily - like say, to kill your roommate brother to obtain your own private room, or to kill your newborn so college is more convenient.

At what point in time from conception does it become a human person? 2 seconds before the head pops out, is it not a person?, 2 minutes? 2 hours? 2 days? a week? 2 weeks? a month? ect., ect. What informs your answer? Science? Logic? Religion? Political Policy? Utility?

The unjustified killing of a human person is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Justifications for killing a human person are few.

Why is unjustified killing a human person wrong? I'm not sure, but I know I would not want to be unjustifiably killed, so I assume most others don't as well. I think that has something to do with its prohibition.

wat

ok, what 'rights' do you have, if you don't have a right to live?

down with human persons, up with alien overlords

i was saying isn't my stopping them from killing me infringing on their "unlimited rights"?

to clarify, which is necessary because this is something I've felt forever but never articulated, you do not have a guarantee of life

everything else though

them having the right to kill you doesn't mean they have the ability or means to do so

so then 'unlimited rights' is a 100% meaningless phrase.

Ok, I have a gun, so what now?

unlimited rights =/= guaranteed success at doing whatever the **** you want

plz explain how "unlimited rights" (as you've explained it) isn't a meaningless phrase.

If we all acknowledge that you have the right to kill people, but then take away your ability to do so, do you now accept "pro-life" as a reasonable position?

I'm not going to jump in right now because Ive discussed this topic numerous times before on this forum, but I just want throw out a plug for "Libertarians for Life". Just google it, lots of good essays there.

Have read some of these; def worth checking out.

no. state what you believe is a fallacy in my approach directly. don't ask me to re-explain it and hope I contradict myself or branch off somewhere and get caught up in a minor argument off my main tenets. you claim it's meaningless, back up your assertation. burden of proof is on you, not me

explain this more clearly. walk me thru it if necessary. i don't know why i care that anyone is pro-life.

We're talking about whether or not you are pro-abortion. You say you are because you have an "unlimited right" to kill people (...), therefore, we should not stop people from killing each other:



But then this makes the phrase meaningless. The state takes away the ability of people to kill each other through legislation. So, great, I have a right to kill everyone on the planet, but that's absolutely meaningless as I don't have the ability or means to do so.

In the same vein, if we remove the ability of people to get abortions through "pro-life" legislation, you shouldn't have any problem with that. They still have an "unlimited right" to get an abortion, but, we're removing their ability to do so.



I don't know what you're political positions are, so maybe you're fine with this, but it'd be akin to the government saying "sure, you have a right to free speech, but you can't speak" and a liberal going "oh, okay, that's fine then, tyvm! "

I posed this question in the Rand Paul thread, but I'll pose it again here. Can anyone who claims that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided argue with Justice Blackmun's reasoning about the 9th Amendment? (citations omitted). That is, notwithstanding the history of abortion jurisprudence (and its reference to the penumbra of the Due Process Clause), which I'll concede for the sake of argument is erroneous, why should we believe that the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy is not among the rights retained by the people? Under which power of Congress would you discover the authority to infringe such a right? If you believe that the power to regulate abortion is left to the states under the 10th Amendment, and ergo not within the scope of federal power and not retained by the people under the 9th, what constitutional limitations do you think exist on the state's power under 10th? Why should we believe this kind of regulation should fall under the states' powers in the 10th and not the people's rights in the 9th?

For reference, here is the text of the Ninth Amendment:

Re: Taso, Effen

Just a guess, but I don't think Effen'll judge the state to be the ultimate arbiter of rights. I mean, you (Taso) don't think it is either?

An alternative description of his position as I interpret it is that there are no rights. One gets what one can keep by force. The state -- and society generally -- may help or hinder that, depending on what one wants.

If we're not in hypothetical-land anymore, I'm pretty impressed that legislation has stopped all murders. Wonder why people make up news reports about it then. As a noted gun enthusiast, unless you are a budding one waiting for his first piece, I do believe that even with this super powerful legislation, you have both the ability and means. Whether or not that's practical or desirable is another discussion.

Whoosh, back in hypothetical-land. Gettin dizzy. I'd have a problem if the pro-life legislation came from pro-life politicians writing laws that conform to their moral code. If they picked it out of a large jar or fishbowl with many other proposals, I would be less upset.

As far as peoples ability to get something that's illegal, I think the drug laws have taught us that the free market will provide.

Because the decision to terminate the life of a fetus is inherently public? I imagine the person or persons making the decision might feel it to be quite private. Unless you're making a significant set of assumptions about morality (on which, as far as I can infer from our conversations, you are otherwise a relativist and a subjectivist) and what constitutes a person, I'm not sure what you mean here.

The right to privacy emerged in Griswold v. Connecticut establishing the right for married persons to use contraceptives. Because of the historical context, it is perfectly reasonable to ask a person who believes that Roe was wrongly decided whether he or she believes Griswold was wrongly decided.