WinDis Polls - 1: Abortion

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Pro-choice.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I am a libertarian. I am thus de facto pro-choice, and passionately so.

Contradiction.

The contradiction is yours. You deny the property rights of the mother.

Sorry, one human being can never own another. Hence why I oppose slavery as well as abortion.

A fetus cannot own anything, and hence is not a human being.

By your own subjective standards.  While I agree with the premise that if a fetus is not human being, then there should be no restrictions on whether a fetus may be terminated, there is no objective way of determining that a fetus is not human being.  Given a particular set of subjective standards for being human, it is possible to objectively determine if that standard is met.

Since the standard for being a human being is subjective, it follows that setting that standard is a legislative function of government (unless one is an anarchist who believes that there should not be any such thing as government).

That is my objection to Roe v. Wade and its successor decisions.  They treat a legislative (i.e., subjective)  matter as if it were judicial (i.e., objective).

     Good luck getting people to realize that their position on abortion (or any other issue, really) is not inherently & objectively the just & correct position to hold.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't know... I mean, aren't most Jews pro-life? Or is it just Christians?

Christians, although I disagree even with that generalization.  Reform Jews, at least, are decidedly liberal, economically and socially.

Plus, alot of otherwise socially liberal people in America are against abortion. Given your social score, I just thought you'd be pro-life.

     As I've found, Social PM score does a surprisingly poor job of predicting one's opinion of abortion.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

     Because everyone should be restricted from what they view as a harmless activity because some subset of the population thinks that it's horrible, eh?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

     Because everyone should be restricted from what they view as a harmless activity because some subset of the population thinks that it's horrible, eh?

A murderer may view his action as harmless, but that is not relevant to the morality and acceptability of the action.

Following your logic, all crimes should be legalized, since there will always be two competing subsets of the population, the criminals and the just.

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be. What you are suggesting is forcing your own Judeo-Christian set of values on people who don't subscribe to them. That's what we call theocracy in my neck of woods.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pro-life is still pro-choice. Creating a child is a choice in all non-rape instances so you can make that choice beforehand.

     In other words our euphemisms for policy positions are imperfect.

I don't consider pro-abortionists anything more than anti-life, really. Pro-choice is a euphemism but pro-life is a more proper term for what we do consider pro-life.

     Good for you. Just don't expect to convince anyone of the correctness of your position by telling them that the alternative is "anti-life" & that your position is really "pro-choice" as well.

But segwaystyle is 100% correct. The pro-life position is also the 'pro-choice' position.

Support for abortion-on-demand is pro-death and anti-life.

     In your final vocabulary, not mine. Quit pretending that your views can be generalized to other people, please.

This is universal truth, not just 'my' views.

     Universal truth is a theistic notion. I have no interest in such wares.

That's fine, as long as your views don't result in harm to others, as is the case, for example, with abortion.

     Because everyone should be restricted from what they view as a harmless activity because some subset of the population thinks that it's horrible, eh?

A murderer may view his action as harmless, but that is not relevant to the morality and acceptability of the action.

Following your logic, all crimes should be legalized, since there will always be two competing subsets of the population, the criminals and the just.

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be. What you are suggesting is forcing your own Judeo-Christian set of values on people who don't subscribe to them. That's what we call theocracy in my neck of woods.

No, its not besides the point. Of course a murderer would deny that his/her victim is entitled to human rights. Irrelevant.

     Yes, because most people commit murders because they think that their victims aren't human. Couldn't be factors like greed or anger.

     Nevermind that you ignored my point that the concept of a fetus being entitled to the rights of an adult human just doesn't make sense from a secular perspective, that being why the pro-life position is theocratic.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be.

Why not?  I've never understood why an atheist automatically has to be pro-choice.

     You don't automatically have to be anything. I just don't see there being any compelling reason for an atheist to be pro-life, at least from the perspective of a liberties-based world view.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be.

Why not?  I've never understood why an atheist automatically has to be pro-choice.

     You don't automatically have to be anything. There just isn't any compelling reason for an atheist to be pro-life, at least from the perspective of a liberties-based world view.

Um, it has nothing to do with religion. You either believe in basic human rights, or you don't.

     We've been over this before. I believe in "human rights" because of a specific feature that distinguishes us from animals. It makes sense to me to think of it that way, since there must be some reason that we have rights & animals do not. Now, fetuses do not possess this specific feature...see what I'm getting at?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be.

Why not?  I've never understood why an atheist automatically has to be pro-choice.

     You don't automatically have to be anything. There just isn't any compelling reason for an atheist to be pro-life, at least from the perspective of a liberties-based world view.

Um, it has nothing to do with religion. You either believe in basic human rights, or you don't.

     We've been over this before. I believe in "human rights" because of a specific feature that distinguishes us from animals. It makes sense to me to think of it that way, since there must be some reason that we have rights & animals do not. Now, fetuses do not possess this specific feature...see what I'm getting at?

Yeah, and once again, you want to believe in an arbitrary definition of humanity because it supports your personal agenda. Sorry, but you can't force your beliefs on others.

     I don't want to force my beliefs on the issue on anyone. That's why I'm pro-choice.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be.

Why not?  I've never understood why an atheist automatically has to be pro-choice.

     You don't automatically have to be anything. There just isn't any compelling reason for an atheist to be pro-life, at least from the perspective of a liberties-based world view.

Um, it has nothing to do with religion. You either believe in basic human rights, or you don't.

     We've been over this before. I believe in "human rights" because of a specific feature that distinguishes us from animals. It makes sense to me to think of it that way, since there must be some reason that we have rights & animals do not. Now, fetuses do not possess this specific feature...see what I'm getting at?

                                                              what specific feature? We are talking about a development here of a being that is already human even if there is not as much intelligence or what have you. isn't it at least only a matter of degree rather than a difference in kind?

     I'm referring to a capacity for self-reflection, critical thought, & analytical thought; to wit, complex thought processes. I am not aware of fetuses having demonstrated any of those capabilities.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Besides the point. Many people deny that the fetus should be entitled to the rights of an adult human. From the perspective of an atheist libertarian, there isn't really any sensible reason why they would be.

Why not?  I've never understood why an atheist automatically has to be pro-choice.

     You don't automatically have to be anything. There just isn't any compelling reason for an atheist to be pro-life, at least from the perspective of a liberties-based world view.

Um, it has nothing to do with religion. You either believe in basic human rights, or you don't.

     We've been over this before. I believe in "human rights" because of a specific feature that distinguishes us from animals. It makes sense to me to think of it that way, since there must be some reason that we have rights & animals do not. Now, fetuses do not possess this specific feature...see what I'm getting at?

                                                              what specific feature? We are talking about a development here of a being that is already human even if there is not as much intelligence or what have you. isn't it at least only a matter of degree rather than a difference in kind?

     I'm referring to a capacity for self-reflection, critical thought, & analytical thought; to wit, complex thought processes. I am not aware of fetuses having demonstrated any of those capabilities.

then when do you believe they arise? adolescence maybe? do mentally handicapped people not have these abilities either?

     They begin to develop in infancy (problematically, I don't think there's any way to fix the point these faculties begin to develop), & continue to develop until adulthood (notice how children are not allowed to do many things adults can, such as, say, buy or drive a car). I think mentally handicapped people, as well as anyone else who is not essentially a vegetable, have some capacity for complex thought, which therefore must be respected.