*opens up a can of worms*

[Fluff and Stuff]

Without getting into the debate, I would like to bring up the point that abortions will happen one way or another. They will either happen in back alleys with black market doctors, or they will happen in legitimate, sterile medical facilities. The former stems from government regulation, the latter stems from freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Regardless of whether or not abortion is murder, I don't think it should be left to government to decide.

Yes, and crime will happen anyway too, should we just make all things legal? 

You have a good point.  Laws should be followed.  However, only things that hurt other people should be against the law.

[Gabo]

Because, regardless of there best intensions -- they still forced a being into existence that was dependent on them.

They did not force the being into existence.  Their sperm and egg did, which they have absolutely no control of.

Let's talk about AIDS for a minute.
Your T-cells (like a female's egg) are being infested by a virus (like a male's sperm) to create more AIDS.
Using the exact same logic, you are responsible to care for the AIDS inside you, since you created them and they are dependent upon you for survival.

Your argument also justifies abandening a 1 or 2 year old out in the street and refusing to take care of it if you're going to be consistant. Are you willing to do that?

If a parent really does not wish to care for a child, that child is much better off with someone else.
If a parent hates their child that much, I fear for the safety of the child if you force the parents to care for it.

It would be much better that the child go up for adoption where they are safe from unloving, hateful, and possibly abusive parents.

Complete Red Herring. The metaphore isn't anylagous at all.

Normally when one wishes to refute an argument, they give a reason why it is unfit.

Gabo's argument completely ignores responsibility for the consequences of one's own actions, which is a cornerstone of libertarianism.

One should be responsible for the consequences that they have created through their actions.
When you shoot someone, YOU are doing the shooting.  But if you leave your gun outside on the balcony with the safety on and it manages to fire on its own and kill someone, you haven't just murdered someone.

But in the case of sex, pregnancy is almost always a foreseeable risk and consequence. Intentions don't matter, but consequences do.

A forseeable risk and consequence of walking across the street is getting hit by a car.
Does this mean that you are responsible for getting hit by the car?

[KBCraig]

Gabo's argument completely ignores responsibility for the consequences of one's own actions, which is a cornerstone of libertarianism.

One should be responsible for the consequences that they have created through their actions.
When you shoot someone, YOU are doing the shooting.  But if you leave your gun outside on the balcony with the safety on and it manages to fire on its own and kill someone, you haven't just murdered someone.

If you're not having sex, but you still manage to impregnate someone, then you might have a valid comparison.

As it is, you're claiming that pregnancy is somehow the "fault" of the sperm and the egg, and that the people actively engaging in the process that brings the sperm and egg together, have no control over it, and no responsibility for the consequences. Utter nonsense!

But in the case of sex, pregnancy is almost always a foreseeable risk and consequence. Intentions don't matter, but consequences do.

A forseeable risk and consequence of walking across the street is getting hit by a car.
Does this mean that you are responsible for getting hit by the car?

If you don't look before crossing the street, and step out into the path of the car, then yes, you are responsible!

Although, to use your argument, one should be free to step into the street at any point, and not be responsible for getting hit. It would be the driver's fault. Or maybe the car's.

[tracysaboe]

Because, regardless of there best intensions -- they still forced a being into existence that was dependent on them.

They did not force the being into existence.  Their sperm and egg did, which they have absolutely no control of.

But whose the one that put all the sperm in the vagina that quite possibly had an egg in it to begin with?

Romulans?

In regards to your AIDS point. A virus is quite different from a sentient being.

Your argument also justifies abandening a 1 or 2 year old out in the street and refusing to take care of it if you're going to be consistant. Are you willing to do that?

If a parent really does not wish to care for a child, that child is much better off with someone else.
If a parent hates their child that much, I fear for the safety of the child if you force the parents to care for it.

It would be much better that the child go up for adoption where they are safe from unloving, hateful, and possibly abusive parents.

But if there's no one else that can care for the child, you're OK with the parents just leaving it out in the cold to freeze to death. No big deal. They're just evicting it and are unwilling to care for it anymore.

If that's true -- then at least I admire you for your consistancy.

When you shoot someone, YOU are doing the shooting.  But if you leave your gun outside on the balcony with the safety on and it manages to fire on its own and kill someone, you haven't just murdered someone.

Guns don't fire on their own.  And neither do penises. (Well sometimes they do have nocturnal emmisions.)

No seriously, If you have a defective gun that does fire on it's own. You're the owner of the gun. You'd still be responsible -- even if it was a completely freak accident.

But in the case of sex, pregnancy is almost always a foreseeable risk and consequence. Intentions don't matter, but consequences do.

A forseeable risk and consequence of walking across the street is getting hit by a car.
Does this mean that you are responsible for getting hit by the car?
[/quote]

Yes. Unless the driver is at fault. Somebody's at fault.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

Or maybe the car's.

In which case it would be the owner of the cars fault. Unless the car was tampered with -- in which case it'd be the tamperers fault.

It would be somebody's fault.

Tracy

[Dreepa]

If you're not having sex, but you still manage to impregnate someone, then you might have a valid comparison.

You will love this then:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/24/national/a095250S07.DTL

[KBCraig]

Or maybe the car's.

In which case it would be the owner of the cars fault.

Yes, I was being facetious, poking at Gabo's claim that pregnancy is not the fault of, and is beyond the control of, people having sex.

Heck, it might be the bed's fault!

[Gabo]

Ok, I definitely understand your point.

Personally, I'm tired of arguing over whether pregnancy is directly related to sex.
I'm not even sure if I believe it is or isn't anymore.


Suppose that abortion is considered murder.
How would restitution be applied, and what restitution?
Who would be the complaining party? since the aborted child's family obviously aren't going to be.

[tracysaboe]

Yes, I was being facetious

I know 

Regarding the issue of seperating sex from conception

"Consent, sex, and the pre-natal rapist"
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/17_3/17_3_1.pdf

The 2nd half of the paper is devoted to pick aparat the idea that concent to have sex doesn't imply consent to pregnancy.

Honestly though, I don't think it would genuinly be a huge issue if we truly had a free market.  E.g., If: Government didn't subsidize planned parenthood and other organizations (Thanks alot for not getting rid of that Bush -- I can't believe conservatives still defend that guy.), we had free markets in both medical care and Adoption services,  we didn't have government schools teaching live for the moment hedenism and materialism, society was wealthier in general so teens wouldn't feel nearly as trapped if they did have unplanned pregnancys and so more money was availible to donate to crises pregnancy centers and the like, we didn't have government social workers encouraging poor families to have abortions, we didn't have welfarism destroying the family structures, and if we didn't have an inflationary federal reserve encouraging (again) live for now instead of the future mentalities -- abortion would be very very rare -- even if it was legal.

There would be so little demand for it that the liberals wouldn't see as "percieved need" for it anymore and making it illegal would be easy. But then, if they were that rare what would be the point.

That's about all I'm going to get into on this thread. I've said about all I have to say.

Tracy

P.S. How's that for the longest run-on sentence ever.

[tracysaboe]

Ok, I definitely understand your point.

Personally, I'm tired of arguing over whether pregnancy is directly related to sex.
I'm not even sure if I believe it is or isn't anymore.


Suppose that abortion is considered murder.
How would restitution be applied, and what restitution?
Who would be the complaining party? since the aborted child's family obviously aren't going to be.

I think if the father wanted to take up a criminal charge against the Abortionist who performed it he could, Or there would probably be pro-bona legal groups vying to defend the interests of the unborn or speak for it. (Simular to how Christians have theRuthaford foundation now, and Gun owners have the NRA and liberals have the ACLU.)

I'm just making stuff up now. I'm out of here.

Tracy

[intergraph19]

Without getting into the debate, I would like to bring up the point that abortions will happen one way or another. They will either happen in back alleys with black market doctors, or they will happen in legitimate, sterile medical facilities. The former stems from government regulation, the latter stems from freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Regardless of whether or not abortion is murder, I don't think it should be left to government to decide.

Yes, and crime will happen anyway too, should we just make all things legal? 

You have a good point.  Laws should be followed.  However, only things that hurt other people should be against the law.

I consider ridding oneself of the pesky problem of a baby to be hurting other people.

[Fluff and Stuff]

Without getting into the debate, I would like to bring up the point that abortions will happen one way or another. They will either happen in back alleys with black market doctors, or they will happen in legitimate, sterile medical facilities. The former stems from government regulation, the latter stems from freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Regardless of whether or not abortion is murder, I don't think it should be left to government to decide.

Yes, and crime will happen anyway too, should we just make all things legal? 

You have a good point.  Laws should be followed.  However, only things that hurt other people should be against the law.

I consider ridding oneself of the pesky problem of a baby to be hurting other people.

Nah.  Because LL owns and has a 100% right to control everything that is inside of LL.  LL gets to decide what to do with what is inside of LL.

But anyway, it is your body, and you will not hurt your body if you don't want to.

[Caleb]

Is this true 6 seconds before birth, Keith?  Almost everyone admits that the destruction of a viable baby is murder. 

[BillyC]

Especially if that thing is a parasite that leeches off of you.

[Fluff and Stuff]

Is this true 6 seconds before birth, Keith?  Almost everyone admits that the destruction of a viable baby is murder. 

As I said before, it is killing, but I am not against killing.