5 ms·

> He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. This is not inconsistent with libertaria

by maratd 15y ago

> He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. This is not inconsistent with libertarian thought. Protecting life from violence is a primary responsibility of government. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a life at any point between conception and birth, you would be against abortion. Simple as that. If you want to fault him for believing a fetus qualifies as a life, fine, but that belief in itself has nothing to do with politics.

dreamdu5t 15y ago
The fetus is trespassing on the women's body, and it would be self-defense to remove the invader.
- maratd 15y ago
  You invite your friend to your home for a party. Your guest walked to your home. A blizzard starts outside. Your friend does something that pisses you off. You kick him out of your home, into the blizzard. He dies as a result. Were you just asserting your property rights or did you commit murder?
  - dreamdu5t 15y ago
    When you tell your guest to leave, and they won't, or they don't have anyone to pick them up, and you wanted them gone, you would forcibly remove them from your home and place them outside.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  That's only going to work in US politics if someone can figure out a way to remove the fetus witha gun.
shasta 15y ago
You know that bacteria is "life", right? Does the government need to protect them? Obviously you intend "human life", but equally obviously that doesn't just mean living human cells (scratching -- killing skin cells -- isn't murder). The valuable thing worth protecting doesn't obviously begin at conception. On the contrary, it rather obviously doesn't.
- maratd 15y ago
  > The valuable thing worth protecting doesn't obviously begin at conception. Please let me know at which point it becomes obvious that it is a life worth protecting. It isn't so obvious to me. There is no physiological difference between a fetus that is in a mother's womb and an infant born a few minutes later.

by maratd 15y ago

dreamdu5t 15y ago

The fetus is trespassing on the women's body, and it would be self-defense to remove the invader.

maratd 15y ago
You invite your friend to your home for a party. Your guest walked to your home. A blizzard starts outside. Your friend does something that pisses you off. You kick him out of your home, into the blizzard. He dies as a result. Were you just asserting your property rights or did you commit murder?
- dreamdu5t 15y ago
  When you tell your guest to leave, and they won't, or they don't have anyone to pick them up, and you wanted them gone, you would forcibly remove them from your home and place them outside.
stcredzero 15y ago
That's only going to work in US politics if someone can figure out a way to remove the fetus witha gun.

shasta 15y ago

You know that bacteria is "life", right? Does the government need to protect them? Obviously you intend "human life", but equally obviously that doesn't just mean living human cells (scratching -- killing skin cells -- isn't murder). The valuable thing worth protecting doesn't obviously begin at conception. On the contrary, it rather obviously doesn't.

maratd 15y ago
> The valuable thing worth protecting doesn't obviously begin at conception. Please let me know at which point it becomes obvious that it is a life worth protecting. It isn't so obvious to me. There is no physiological difference between a fetus that is in a mother's womb and an infant born a few minutes later.