Sorry, nope. The critical point is the development of that trait which separates humans from the beasts, namely the cerebral cortex.
Sorry, but the brain does not fully develop until after birth. So by your standard, we should be able to do post-birth abortions.
Evidently, you do take that position -- rats, pigs, and boys are identical in that each "has been endowed with a separate set of genetics", that being the standard you've chosen.
A new rat life begins at conception, just like a new human life. That has nothing to do with whether the lives are equally valuable or not.
As a man, would you give up control of your body to anyone for any reason? If you say you would, then you are a liar.
If I had a new human life growing within me, of course I would.
If you say you would, then you are a liar.
Not all of us are as selfish and cruel as you are (in fact, most aren't). You seem to think that people are just robots, with no ties to the human life cycle of living, dying -- and yes -- reproducing. I've got news for you. Part of being human is reproduction. You can't just remove that part and blindly pretend that bodies are just vessels for the brain.
Well, if you can so easily kill your own child the day before it's born, then it's apparent why you have no sympathy for this issue. "Hey, don't worry about it honey, it's not like it was human or anything."
start understanding that all of your argument is moot the moment you think you can control someone else's body?
Duh -- we exercise control over people's bodies every day. For example, it is illegal for you to use your body to hit someone (it's called "assault").
A woman gives up control of her body as soon as a sovereign individual is growing within it. She has given consent for that individual to grow by having sex. If she has sex, then she is taking on the risk and responsibility (Oh no! Not that word!) of creating a child.
[...] And I feel that most other Libertarians would agree with me. I think that you don't give Libertarians enough credit, and you have some bad preconceptions about them.
While I agree that individual Libertarians can disagree on various subjects, the Libertarian web site does NOT say any of this about drugs. Basically it says that you are responsible for any harm you do to others -- after the fact. Which is my point. The "official" Libertarian policy is all negative feedback, and is not interested in any prevention.
I would have a lot more respect for Libertarian philosophy if they would come at and define exactly what limits they are in favor of. But the web site is noticeably absent on any limits on personal behavior. This is why they will never achieve power, because it's all theory, and no practicality.
I used to be Libertarian, so I think I know more about them than you give me credit for. I've even read TWO Ayn Rand books all the way through. Well, except for the part in Atlas Shrugged where the radio show is broadcast. No human can possibly read those 5-page paragraphs and survive still mentally sane.:)
You're joking, right? MacOS STILL doesn't have antialiased fonts. They're finally getting them in OS/X, only six years after Windows (assuming it still comes out next year).
Firing shots at you [even if I'm missing] most certainly infringes upon your rights.
I agree the example is absurd. But it's illustrative of the flaw in Libertarian ideals.
Let's take drugs for a second. Now, I agree that criminalization is WAY too far, but let me take another absurd example just for argument.
Let's say there existed a drug that caused a huge euphoria, but also unpredictably caused a psychopathic, murderous rage about 1 in every 1000 times its taken. The drug has gotten popular, and we've had a couple of cases where people just went crazy and took out an entire schoolhouse full of children (just to make it extra emotional).
This drug should be illegal to the full extent of the law. The reason is because taking it is the equivalent of firing random shots at someone. Just the act of taking the drug violates the rights of those around you because you have intentionally created a situation where you could lose your mind and start blowing people away.
The point I'm making is that Libertarians see drugs as "all drugs should be legal" without any thought to whether some drugs SHOULD be illegal.
Just as with weapons. I agree personal weapons are good. However, personal nukes are bad. There are lines that need to be drawn in a lot of cases, and unfortunately too often Libertarians refuse to accept that.
No, I was just taking issue with the poster's arrogant cluelessness.
But on the subject, advocating "violence only as an act of self-defense" really means nothing. Everyone believes that. The rub is in the definition of "self-defense". In the Gulf War, we were not directly attacked, but our vital national interest was attacked. In a very real way, defending the free flow of oil at market prices is defending our economy.
As soon as the Mexicans and Canadians start raising a modern military by all means we should keep ahead of them.
Let me pick on this one. Have you heard of ICBMs? How about long-range bombers? The world is a lot smaller than it was in 1776.
But let's take a specific example that I'm sure you were not in favor of: The Gulf War. Should we have just let Saddam Hussein take over the middle east and control a huge amount of the world's oil (also known as "The World Economy")?
Again, this is the flaw with Libertarian philosophy. It's all based on reacting after the fact, rather than spending 1/10th the effort in prevention. We do have vital national interests that are not within our own borders.
Surely you don't believe that the mere absence of a federal government will turn everyone into crazed, gun-shooting maniacs?
No, that's in reference to what a particular Libertarian tried to convince me of one time. He felt that anyone has a perfect right to take shots at anyone else -- until they hit them. You see, you have the right to do anything you want until it infringes on someone else's rights, and the infringement didn't start until the bullet hit.
That's the flaw in Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. It's all built on negative feedback. You can't perform any preventative measures, because to do so has to infringe on someone's right to do something.
Now, I will grant you that my example is rather absurd, and I hope the rank-and-file Libertarian believes some preventative limits on freedom is necessary. But apply the same thinking to a lot of Libertarian positions, and you see the same thread of problem.
Get this through your shit filled skull: My mother's/sister's/wife's womb is off fucking limits ! the end !
So the day before your wife is to give birth, it's her right to terminate the pregnancy, right? After all, we can't tell your wife what to do with her womb. Even over your objections, your wife should be able to make that decision to kill your child, is that what you're saying?
I'm sure there were plenty of people like you frothing at the mouth when those "bastards in the north" took away their slaves. But then, they weren't human, either, were they?
The world looks at abortion like people looked at slavery in 1750. Only a relatively small number of people thought slavery was wrong then. It's probably going to take another hundred years before society fixes this as well.
The analogies are perfect, actually (if you want to make a case why they aren't, go ahead). As for the "typo", 1) she misspelled it twice, and 2) the word "amendment" is pretty basic to law. If she is going to arrogantly imply that she knows something about law, then it takes away from her argument when she can't spell something fundamental to law.
To put it another way (another terrible analogy, I know), if someone is going to arrogantly make statements about POSIX standards, it takes away something from their argument if they spell it "UNUX" multiple times.
Hmmm. Didn't someone once say that "A Negro is not a human possessing rights". You're right -- slavery is very relevant to the question.
The woman who is pregnant but not permitted to terminate her pregnancy is experiencing a sort of slavery.
Sorry, but a human life is more valuable than your personal convenience.
If a women has voluntary sex, she has made an implied consent to give birth to the product of the union. If she doesn't want the "slavery", then she shouldn't have sex. [involuntary sex is another issue that a dealt with in another part of the thread].
For directions as to how you should read those ammendments, consult Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.
I find it hard to take seriously someone who gives legal references, but can't spell "amendment". Be that as it may, I'm sure some lawyer from the 1850s could point me to legal references about the "fact" that black people are not human. Guess what? Legal opinions are just opinions, and particularly in this area, their opinion means far less than my opinion to me.
A fetus has unique genetics, therefore, it is a unique individual.
There is no easy answer to this. The way I answer it for myself is to ask the question, "does the child from the product of a rape deserve to die?" I think when you put it that way, the answer has to be "No". A rape is a horrible thing. Does the killing of the baby make it better? For some women it probably does. To have to carry a child to term when it was created from a rape is a terrible thing to a lot of women. Still, it seems like when you look at things objectively that the baby, a sovereign individual, exists no matter how it was created. It seems to me that accepting that something good can come out of a very bad situation, rather than creating two victims instead of one, is a better way to go.
Or to put it another way, if the baby had a choice, would it choose to be born even though the father was a rapist?
But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and birth is the most reasonable place.
The most truthful place is conception. That's when it has been endowed with a separate set of genetics. At that point, it is just as unique an individual as anyone else. Any other point is totally arbitrary.
still others (like me) think that it should be allowed before the fetus develops to a be its own entity.
I got news for you... a newborn baby has not become "its own entity". The brain has not developed any personality, and operates on total instinct. So are you in favor of post-birth abortions?
They have no legitimate power to enact slavery, and they have no legitimate power to enact prohibitions against abortion.
Where in the constitution does it state that a person has the right to kill their own children. Please point me to the reference.
-----
To be honest, playing slavery against abortion (obviously both being about human rights) make me think you are a troll. In fact, your style reminds me of the "streetlawyer" character. Do me a favor -- send me an e-mail if I got it right. I won't blow your cover.
Or maybe that article is not all that interesting? I mean, that's not exactly news. I think Slashdot is looking for more insightful articles that give information about the candidates, not about the election process.
In other words, that article tells you nothing new about Nader, Gore or Bush.
lest this thread continue, i will say, you have you views, i have mine and nothing i will ever say or do will make you change your mind.
Actually, my beliefs have evolved a number of times in response to reading other's opinions. In fact, I used to be much more Libertarian, until I figured out their beliefs had fundamental flaws (as I stated in another part of the thread). Can you say the same? Is there room in your philosophy for error, or is everyone just wacko and just wants to force laws on you?
By the way, I'm not sure where you read into my views that I want to create more laws. I want to replace a lot of laws, and do away with a lot of others, but clearly the net total number of laws should be reduced.
Having lived the frustration of dealing with all the bugs of Netscape, I sympathize with the bank. I know that I finally gave up and barely tested under Netscape for Windows, much less Netscape for any other operating system.
Instead of blaming the bank (and anyone who refuses to deal with crap software), how about if the Unix world finally writes a decent browser? And that may or may not be Mozilla ("may not" seems more likely based on what I've seen so far). The browser issue is making a laughingstock of the whole OSS movement ("heck, they can't even write a decent browser").
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, nope. The critical point is the development of that trait which separates humans from the beasts, namely the cerebral cortex.
Sorry, but the brain does not fully develop until after birth. So by your standard, we should be able to do post-birth abortions.
Evidently, you do take that position -- rats, pigs, and boys are identical in that each "has been endowed with a separate set of genetics", that being the standard you've chosen.
A new rat life begins at conception, just like a new human life. That has nothing to do with whether the lives are equally valuable or not.
--
As a man, would you give up control of your body to anyone for any reason? If you say you would, then you are a liar.
If I had a new human life growing within me, of course I would.
If you say you would, then you are a liar.
Not all of us are as selfish and cruel as you are (in fact, most aren't). You seem to think that people are just robots, with no ties to the human life cycle of living, dying -- and yes -- reproducing. I've got news for you. Part of being human is reproduction. You can't just remove that part and blindly pretend that bodies are just vessels for the brain.
--
Well, if you can so easily kill your own child the day before it's born, then it's apparent why you have no sympathy for this issue. "Hey, don't worry about it honey, it's not like it was human or anything."
start understanding that all of your argument is moot the moment you think you can control someone else's body?
Duh -- we exercise control over people's bodies every day. For example, it is illegal for you to use your body to hit someone (it's called "assault").
A woman gives up control of her body as soon as a sovereign individual is growing within it. She has given consent for that individual to grow by having sex. If she has sex, then she is taking on the risk and responsibility (Oh no! Not that word!) of creating a child.
--
[...] And I feel that most other Libertarians would agree with me. I think that you don't give Libertarians enough credit, and you have some bad preconceptions about them.
While I agree that individual Libertarians can disagree on various subjects, the Libertarian web site does NOT say any of this about drugs. Basically it says that you are responsible for any harm you do to others -- after the fact. Which is my point. The "official" Libertarian policy is all negative feedback, and is not interested in any prevention.
I would have a lot more respect for Libertarian philosophy if they would come at and define exactly what limits they are in favor of. But the web site is noticeably absent on any limits on personal behavior. This is why they will never achieve power, because it's all theory, and no practicality.
I used to be Libertarian, so I think I know more about them than you give me credit for. I've even read TWO Ayn Rand books all the way through. Well, except for the part in Atlas Shrugged where the radio show is broadcast. No human can possibly read those 5-page paragraphs and survive still mentally sane. :)
--
You're joking, right? MacOS STILL doesn't have antialiased fonts. They're finally getting them in OS/X, only six years after Windows (assuming it still comes out next year).
--
Firing shots at you [even if I'm missing] most certainly infringes upon your rights.
I agree the example is absurd. But it's illustrative of the flaw in Libertarian ideals.
Let's take drugs for a second. Now, I agree that criminalization is WAY too far, but let me take another absurd example just for argument.
Let's say there existed a drug that caused a huge euphoria, but also unpredictably caused a psychopathic, murderous rage about 1 in every 1000 times its taken. The drug has gotten popular, and we've had a couple of cases where people just went crazy and took out an entire schoolhouse full of children (just to make it extra emotional).
This drug should be illegal to the full extent of the law. The reason is because taking it is the equivalent of firing random shots at someone. Just the act of taking the drug violates the rights of those around you because you have intentionally created a situation where you could lose your mind and start blowing people away.
The point I'm making is that Libertarians see drugs as "all drugs should be legal" without any thought to whether some drugs SHOULD be illegal.
Just as with weapons. I agree personal weapons are good. However, personal nukes are bad. There are lines that need to be drawn in a lot of cases, and unfortunately too often Libertarians refuse to accept that.
--
No, I was just taking issue with the poster's arrogant cluelessness.
But on the subject, advocating "violence only as an act of self-defense" really means nothing. Everyone believes that. The rub is in the definition of "self-defense". In the Gulf War, we were not directly attacked, but our vital national interest was attacked. In a very real way, defending the free flow of oil at market prices is defending our economy.
--
As soon as the Mexicans and Canadians start raising a modern military by all means we should keep ahead of them.
Let me pick on this one. Have you heard of ICBMs? How about long-range bombers? The world is a lot smaller than it was in 1776.
But let's take a specific example that I'm sure you were not in favor of: The Gulf War. Should we have just let Saddam Hussein take over the middle east and control a huge amount of the world's oil (also known as "The World Economy")?
Again, this is the flaw with Libertarian philosophy. It's all based on reacting after the fact, rather than spending 1/10th the effort in prevention. We do have vital national interests that are not within our own borders.
--
If you knew any actual facts about the Libertarian Party's position, you would know that they do not believe in any form of violence.
I think it's time to review the Libertarian Party's web site. I quote: "The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force."
I think defense qualifies as a "form of violence".
--
Surely you don't believe that the mere absence of a federal government will turn everyone into crazed, gun-shooting maniacs?
No, that's in reference to what a particular Libertarian tried to convince me of one time. He felt that anyone has a perfect right to take shots at anyone else -- until they hit them. You see, you have the right to do anything you want until it infringes on someone else's rights, and the infringement didn't start until the bullet hit.
That's the flaw in Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. It's all built on negative feedback. You can't perform any preventative measures, because to do so has to infringe on someone's right to do something.
Now, I will grant you that my example is rather absurd, and I hope the rank-and-file Libertarian believes some preventative limits on freedom is necessary. But apply the same thinking to a lot of Libertarian positions, and you see the same thread of problem.
--
Why not Libertarian?
Because my neighbor does not have the right to mount a howitzer on his house, and he does not have the right to a personal nuke.
Because you don't have the right to fire shots at me -- until you hit me.
Because the police and fire departments should not be privatized.
Because the time for a strong national defense is before it's needed.
Because the gold standard is a stupid, long dead idea.
--
The primaries are where you pick from multiple candidates. Between the two parties, there were at least 10 candidates to choose from. They lost.
How many people here who are whining about only 2 choices didn't vote in the primaries?
--
*sigh* No, neither sperm nor an egg have unique genetics. It's only when they combine do you create a new, unique individual.
--
Get this through your shit filled skull: My mother's /sister's /wife's womb is off fucking limits ! the end !
So the day before your wife is to give birth, it's her right to terminate the pregnancy, right? After all, we can't tell your wife what to do with her womb. Even over your objections, your wife should be able to make that decision to kill your child, is that what you're saying?
I'm sure there were plenty of people like you frothing at the mouth when those "bastards in the north" took away their slaves. But then, they weren't human, either, were they?
The world looks at abortion like people looked at slavery in 1750. Only a relatively small number of people thought slavery was wrong then. It's probably going to take another hundred years before society fixes this as well.
--
The analogies are perfect, actually (if you want to make a case why they aren't, go ahead). As for the "typo", 1) she misspelled it twice, and 2) the word "amendment" is pretty basic to law. If she is going to arrogantly imply that she knows something about law, then it takes away from her argument when she can't spell something fundamental to law.
To put it another way (another terrible analogy, I know), if someone is going to arrogantly make statements about POSIX standards, it takes away something from their argument if they spell it "UNUX" multiple times.
--
The fetus isn't a human possessing rights.
Hmmm. Didn't someone once say that "A Negro is not a human possessing rights". You're right -- slavery is very relevant to the question.
The woman who is pregnant but not permitted to terminate her pregnancy is experiencing a sort of slavery.
Sorry, but a human life is more valuable than your personal convenience.
If a women has voluntary sex, she has made an implied consent to give birth to the product of the union. If she doesn't want the "slavery", then she shouldn't have sex. [involuntary sex is another issue that a dealt with in another part of the thread].
For directions as to how you should read those ammendments, consult Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.
I find it hard to take seriously someone who gives legal references, but can't spell "amendment". Be that as it may, I'm sure some lawyer from the 1850s could point me to legal references about the "fact" that black people are not human. Guess what? Legal opinions are just opinions, and particularly in this area, their opinion means far less than my opinion to me.
A fetus has unique genetics, therefore, it is a unique individual.
--
What if the woman got pregnant from being raped?
There is no easy answer to this. The way I answer it for myself is to ask the question, "does the child from the product of a rape deserve to die?" I think when you put it that way, the answer has to be "No". A rape is a horrible thing. Does the killing of the baby make it better? For some women it probably does. To have to carry a child to term when it was created from a rape is a terrible thing to a lot of women. Still, it seems like when you look at things objectively that the baby, a sovereign individual, exists no matter how it was created. It seems to me that accepting that something good can come out of a very bad situation, rather than creating two victims instead of one, is a better way to go.
Or to put it another way, if the baby had a choice, would it choose to be born even though the father was a rapist?
--
But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and birth is the most reasonable place.
The most truthful place is conception. That's when it has been endowed with a separate set of genetics. At that point, it is just as unique an individual as anyone else. Any other point is totally arbitrary.
--
still others (like me) think that it should be allowed before the fetus develops to a be its own entity.
I got news for you ... a newborn baby has not become "its own entity". The brain has not developed any personality, and operates on total instinct. So are you in favor of post-birth abortions?
--
They have no legitimate power to enact slavery, and they have no legitimate power to enact prohibitions against abortion.
Where in the constitution does it state that a person has the right to kill their own children. Please point me to the reference.
-----
To be honest, playing slavery against abortion (obviously both being about human rights) make me think you are a troll. In fact, your style reminds me of the "streetlawyer" character. Do me a favor -- send me an e-mail if I got it right. I won't blow your cover.
--
Simple -- because people do not have the choice to kill human beings. It's called civil rights.
--
Or maybe that article is not all that interesting? I mean, that's not exactly news. I think Slashdot is looking for more insightful articles that give information about the candidates, not about the election process.
In other words, that article tells you nothing new about Nader, Gore or Bush.
--
Yet, in a world that is driven by greed, some concessions may have to be made.
The world is not driven by greed; it's driven by self-interest. There is a difference.
--
lest this thread continue, i will say, you have you views, i have mine and nothing i will ever say or do will make you change your mind.
Actually, my beliefs have evolved a number of times in response to reading other's opinions. In fact, I used to be much more Libertarian, until I figured out their beliefs had fundamental flaws (as I stated in another part of the thread). Can you say the same? Is there room in your philosophy for error, or is everyone just wacko and just wants to force laws on you?
By the way, I'm not sure where you read into my views that I want to create more laws. I want to replace a lot of laws, and do away with a lot of others, but clearly the net total number of laws should be reduced.
--
Having lived the frustration of dealing with all the bugs of Netscape, I sympathize with the bank. I know that I finally gave up and barely tested under Netscape for Windows, much less Netscape for any other operating system.
Instead of blaming the bank (and anyone who refuses to deal with crap software), how about if the Unix world finally writes a decent browser? And that may or may not be Mozilla ("may not" seems more likely based on what I've seen so far). The browser issue is making a laughingstock of the whole OSS movement ("heck, they can't even write a decent browser").
--