Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[pohibaba]

The Constitution doesn't support a ban on abortion, though, so I don't support the appointment of Supreme Court Justices that would interpret it in some way asinine way that would ban abortions nation-wide.

[pohibaba]

how can you take a position that favors protecting undeveloped life over developed life?

I understand that you can't really be this ignorant and that you're just trolling me for the lulz, but I'll answer you anyway: Developed life can fend for itself in most cases, undeveloped life can't.

[Jefe]

I think a better question would be:"When should a new human being be thought to begin to exist?"

[Beckwin]

children can't really fend for themselves, so I'm assuming you support public education and healthcare, right?

[pohibaba]

he supports PULLING YOURSELF OUT OF POVERTY BY YOUR BOOTSTRAPS and all forms of BOOTSTRAPS

edit: pohi are you pro capital punishment, just wondering

I believe in capital punishment theoretically--people who murder someone else has no right to life, themselves--but I don't support it in practice because there's no way to make it fair. There's too large a discrepancy in death sentences for poor people in comparison to rich people for me to support it.

[Kuya]

I think that the question of when life begins is pretty stupid, honestly. It can't be answered scientifically now, or at any reasonable amount of time in the future, and so it's purely subjective. With that said, though, I think that you would have to be lying if you didn't agree that there was a logical chance at life once the egg implants itself onto the uterus. I believe that the logical chance at life should be protected as if it were life itself; that's why I'm pro-life.

Ok, first of all, you have no religious motivation for being anti abortion, i get that. Second, your argue that there is a logical chance at life once the egg implants itself; i say that it was alive anyway, cells are alive, hence i make no differentiation between a fetus and a clump of cells; the difference is essentially, to me, the worth you attribute to life. You value a human more, than a tree, both are alive, but you still value the human more, that is logical. So is valuing a fetus, or anything before that stage, and i understand that.

However, as a Libertarian, you fully understand that you are forcing your values onto others, you are the one who attributes the level of value that you do to any form of life. What we do decide whether extinguishing a life is illegal is obviously through convention, when we largely agree. But, we don't largely agree here, and in the end, you are forcing your values, your morals. Just because morals don't have religious intentions does not make it any less obnoxious or wrong for you to push them.

Furthermore, i'm sure you agree that, in cases of rape or where the mother's life is in danger, then an abortion must be done, correct? (i'm ignoring the incest argument, i figure that one as idiotic) But you see, you've just done exactly what i've detailed before, you've attributed a certain degree of value onto something, you think the fetus/infant's life in these cases is somehow less valuable because he was created through rape. What is it, that makes a child less valuable, less worth saving because he was created through rape? No doubt, we can't possibly force the mother to birth a child, she was raped, and she does not want the child, but essentially, rape is what now gives her the right to end a life. By saying abortion is ok when rape occurs, you say that the life inside her is now less valuable because of rape, when the life inside of her is not at all at fault for the way in which he is born/will be born; we've given the mother the priviledge or the right of ending the life because of circumstances, but the act is still the same, you are ending a life.

If you're ok with this contradiction; of giving a human life less valuable because of its circumstances, when essentially the situation is the same, something that may or may not have been in the woman's control has lead her to become pregnant. We only agree to her wishes of allowing an abortion because we only have sympathy on the count of her being raped. Once again, if you're ok with it, then i guess you have no problems.

[pohibaba]

children can't really fend for themselves, so I'm assuming you support public education and healthcare, right?

I do think that children deserve healthcare, yes. Do I have a logical thought-out process as to how they should get it? No. And public education does nothing to help kids, you and I both know that.

[Kuya]

Not to mention, whether we like it or not, a woman who does not desire the child, will have her abortion, regardless of how dangerous it is. We could punish her for breaking our laws, but then again, a woman who's willing to put her life at risk by undergoing clandestine abortions probably doesn't care much about the law. Is my reasoning convincing thus far, Pohi?

[aurik]

If you outlaw coathangers, only outlaws will have coathangers!

[Beckwin]

Is this where I should link the Rothbard article on abortion?

[pohibaba]

At some point, everyone enforces their morals over other people. What if I honestly didn't believe that pedophilia is wrong? Some people are honestly not sexually attracted to adults of either sex, but are very sexually attracted to children. Should we allow them to have sex with children just because we don't want to enforce our morals on them? No, that's fucking retarded. Yes, I do believe I'm enforcing my belief on other people, but when it comes to protecting a logical chance at life, I feel it's acceptable.

As far as rape and incest go, I don't believe that the "child" should be aborted in those cases as the "child" is still not at fault. I would be willing to compromise in this situation and make an exception for it, though, mainly because this is only a factor in less than 1 percent of abortion cases and because the morality of it is very difficult to argue.

I would also support abortion in the case of the mother's life being at risk as I'm certainly not going to argue that the chance at life is more important than life itself.

[pohibaba]

Is this where I should link the Rothbard article on abortion?

Go ahead, but I've read it before, but surprisingly enough I can have my own opinion on matters.

[Beckwin]

actually as long as consent can be established, sexually everything should be a go for Libertarians.

the problem with pedophilia is a lack of consent.

[Beckwin]

an atheist libertarian who doesn't support choice is just kinda faddish tbh. more about owning Penn and Teller DVDs than about owning one's own body.

[Kwijiboe]

Yea, lol, that def. is a problem.

Now how can we go about getting that consent...

[pohibaba]

Not to mention, whether we like it or not, a woman who does not desire the child, will have her abortion, regardless of how dangerous it is. We could punish her for breaking our laws, but then again, a woman who's willing to put her life at risk by undergoing clandestine abortions probably doesn't care much about the law. Is my reasoning convincing thus far, Pohi?

Be careful, the way you worded this is that in every case of abortion that's legal now, if it were illegal the mom would have an illegal abortion. I know that's not what you meant, but you make it sound as if it were.

Also, I think that along with abortion reform, there's A LOT we could do as far as adoption reform goes, as well. Honestly, a woman who would rather kill her "child" in the back alley rather than simply drop it off at a hospital doesn't pull on my heartstrings all that much. Someone like that has serious mental problems, and I think, would only be a very small fraction of the actual abortion rate right now.

[Demosthenes11]

an atheist libertarian who doesn't support choice is just kinda faddish tbh. more about owning Penn and Teller DVDs than about owning one's own body.

do you really have to be religious to have compassion for that "clump of cells?"

[pohibaba]

an atheist libertarian who doesn't support choice is just kinda faddish tbh. more about owning Penn and Teller DVDs than about owning one's own body.

Now I'm just tired of talking to you; your trolling is boring.

[Kuya]

At some point, everyone enforces their morals over other people. What if I honestly didn't believe that pedophilia is wrong? Some people are honestly not sexually attracted to adults of either sex, but are very sexually attracted to children. Should we allow them to have sex with children just because we don't want to enforce our morals on them?

I've always thought this too, not all pedophiles (are we sure they're attracted to teenagers below the age of 15? Because if so, they're technically not pedophiles) wish to engage in malicious relationships with children, but, there are too many problems in here, and people are too morally outraged to discuss the actual problems that involve pedophilia, however, the difference between that moral outrage and the one pertaining to abortion is that, much more people support abortion, you will crush and impose your beliefs on many, many more, and then we have to question, up to where does a law truly have legitimacy when such a large percentage of those under it do not agree with it at all?

Yes, I do believe I'm enforcing my belief on other people, but when it comes to protecting a logical chance at life, I feel it's acceptable.

I understand, but i did not take you for a person who would legitimize altruism. You are essentially, using your moral view, forcing a woman, who is the one that must suffer through a pregnancy, giving her time and health to it, to birth it, you are forcing her to care not about herself, but about a life she cares nothing for. You have her under your moral dominance. I thought this was not what a Libertarian would believe in.

As far as rape and incest go, I don't believe that the "child" should be aborted in those cases as the "child" is still not at fault. I would be willing to compromise in this situation and make an exception for it, though, mainly because this is only a factor in less than 1 percent of abortion cases and because the morality of it is very difficult to argue.

Well at least you admit that there's a contradiction and that you're willing to compromise instead of trying to warp logic to benefit your views.

[Beckwin]

oh so you were trolling in the other thread when you said anti-war is a fad?