I was impressed with the rationale of the the "agree" side. I hadn't thought of it like that. However, I have to say that the rights of the woman who is alive in all senses of the word must take precedence over the potential rights or abilities of an unborn fetus. Restrictions on living people goes against the freedom proposed by libertarianism and so I have to disagree that libertarians should necessarily be pro-life
the basis of my argument does rest on the fact that the unborn fetus is still a living person and therefore has rights too. A mother's rights do not take precedence over the fetus's just as much as a millionaire's do not take precedence over a hobo. That is why I stuck to the argument that we need to define what a fetus was, and I personally defined it as a living human.Thanks for the response!
Whether a fetus is a human being with the rights me and you share is subjective
If you think the government should be in the business of banning safe medical procedures based on religious dogma and lies perpetrated by groups that engage in terrorist tactics then you aren't really a Libertarian at all are you? Unless you don't think Freedom should apply to people with uteruses.
A fetus isn't a child. I have science on my side. You have lies. You lie about abortion, you lie about Donald trump being Presidential, you lie about PizzaGate. You are a liar. Anyone who willingly gets into an H2H with you is either naive in thinking that you will actually respond to facts & logic, or they're a masochist.I give plenty of fucks about *actual* children. You don't. Especially if they grow up to be perved on or assaulted by Donald Trump.
Do you give a fuck about women being sexually assaulted? Trump doesn't.
Your answer is to stop what you personally feel is wrong with more statism. Your shoving morality and ultimately more government down our throats because of your personal moral code. Plenty of children become pregnant too thst aren't adults.
Why do you think this is a matter of statism? I'm following laws and precedents that already exists. It is morally right though, and constitutional. So what's the problem? Nothing. Quit perversing reality just to fit your agenda. You're KILLING people.
Because the state will be the regulator and the regulations will be payed by stealing from us with taxes as you libertarians put it. Stop pushing your moral agenda on women.
Dude why do you people think this has to do with women? If men could get pregnant I'd say the same thing.
"Quit perversing reality just to fit your agenda."You first.
This comment is the child of your comment. It is the offspring of your comment. It is the product or the result of something, which is all that being a child requires.Biologically, of course, you are correct – a fetus is not a child. A child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. A fetus is a prenatal human between the embryonic state and birth. [Thanks, Wikipedia.]However, how does the clarification of this important distinction justify the venom of your attacks?
Keep speaking truth bro. Some people are just blind to good old fashioned common sense today.
Eric Guillermo Guzman that is, keep speaking truth bro
My brother doesn't really care about the abortion issue. It is subjective, you may feel a fetus is a human being but the woman who is pregnant may feel it's a body of cells and not a human being like me and you. If you had a sister who was raped by a family member would you be against its abortion? The self defense argument is basically saying you value one life more then another. That life being the mothers.
There is no objectivity to when liberty begins. Therefore it's up to the woman as an individual to make that decision. Just because it's human tissue doesn't mean it's a human being. Its a subjective choice by the individual.
Saying your ok with the mother having an abortion when her life is in danger is placing more value on one life then the other.
I'm debating it's a woman's choice. Liberty starting in the fetus is your opinion not fact. Just saying shit happens doesn't answer the fact that someone is dying. Your placing more value on the mother. You can just as easily let the baby live. Also I can't help when somethings subjective. That s just logic.
I'm not placing more value on anyone's life, I'd be pro-choice if I did that...
Abortion will not stop no matter what the law is. If it becomes illegal there will still be abortions except they will be extremely dangerous. It's called separation of church and state.
Calling me stupid doesn't win arguments. I don't believe a fetus is a human being. Yes back alley abortions are far more dangerous then proper ones and if you disagree your a total fucking idiot.
You telling me I should believe a fetus is a human is your moral belief.
The point is that if abortion is outlawed it's not gonna fucking disappear it will result in more death of both mother and child.
1) I explicitly said I wasn't calling you stupid.2) You called me a fucking idiot so have fun with the hypocrisy of your own posts.3) Every fucking law is a moral belief, we just have to justify them with our constitution.4) Or maybe people will stop having abortions or even stop getting pregnant when they can't afford the kid.
You were downplaying my intelligence and we both know it. Look at country's where abortion is outlawed. It doesn't stop it becomes more dangerous and commonly the mother and child both fucking die.
1) downplaying your intelligence would be to stop arguing because I don't think you understand what I'm saying. But I'm still arguing because I respect you enough to think this can go somewhere.2) I literally say in the debate that there is no problem with abortion when the mother's life is in danger.
With the words, "Calling me stupid doesn't win arguments," you had me nodding my head. Then you wrote, "If you disagree your [sic] a total fucking idiot." Hmm?
I can't see where you replied lol
I basically said that's not how self defense works, you're wrong.I also told you to stop pretending I brought up anything religious. I cussed a lot too, because you're one of many people to bring that up as if that matters.
It all comes down to whether a fetus is a human right? If I say it's just a body of cells who the he'll are you to tell me otherwise?
What kind of cells
The answer I'm looking for is "it is human cells" btw. This is what I said in the debate. It's not a giraffe. It's not a rock. It has human DNA. It's human cells. You are killing something that is human. You are taking a human life away.
Human cells. A kidney is made of human cells. Is it a human?
Dude what makes a human being is up to the woman to decide there is no objective answer just opinions.
You would be fine withe prosecution for murder if your sister were to have an abortion? You'll say yes but I truly don't think you would.
The truth is outlawing abortion will lead to more unnecessary death and there's no arguing around that no matter how much you try to degrade my intelligence.
There's human cells in my sperm as well. Should we start banning Condemns. The human cell argument is fucking dumb.
Well if you leave sperm alone and leave a fetus alone, what happens? The sperm does nothing. A fetus is born. It is a human. There is no problem with the argument.
Wanting government to jump in and save us from your personal moral dilemma makes you a statist.
Libertarians are statist...
I'm not a libertarian so I'm not sure of there beliefs but enlighten me on how libertarians are statist?
They believe in a state, they believe in a government, they are not anarchists.
Don't libertarians want to rid most functions of the state?
What a broad argument. That's like saying if I believe in child labor laws I'm a socialist. Libertarians are generally against state entities because they infringe on personal liberty. A statist isn't someone who simply believes in a nation state. How silly.
Definition of statism: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
A libertarian believes that the government is meant to protect human rights, and I believe abortion is an infringement of human rights, so therefore I'm okay with government intervention here.
I don't know how you got to the socialist thing at all. Libertarians believe in government. If your definition of statism is authoritarian in nature then we aren't statist. But we believe in law, we believe in government. I can't get any more frank than that.
That definition of statism is cool but I've been called a statist a least 1 million times by anarchists. So being a statist or not, it doesn't change what libertarians believe or why libertarians should be pro life. Whatever statism means, Libertarians still do in fact believe in government.
No shit they believe in government but not government policing women and stripping them of there liberties. Your not a libertarian your just a neocon.
Women don't have the personal liberty to kill a human being. And I doubt you know what a neocon is either.
You want the state to protect the rights of a fetus with more government. The only thing we know for sure is the woman who is pregnant has rights. The fetus doesn't. Again outlawing abortion will make things worse not better for the human race.
The fetus SHOULD have rights. It is literally created at inception and only 9 months later it is born and is legally recognized. Why is "Birth" more of a qualifier for human rights than "conception"????
Most libertarians are anarchists or decentralists (who are fine with either anarchism or minarchist government as people choose in their communities.) MINARCHISTS wants a MINIMAL state of part-time nonprofessional legislatures and administrators as well as professional, police, courts and just enough military to defend from invasion. Statism is wanting a lot more govt, including one that enforces personal morality on religious and moral beliefs that are highly subjective. So Eric's kind of statism is NOT libertarian.
I have never met a libertarian minarchists who would use military force to stop individuals and communities from seceding from the union, though obviously they would deal with things like ethnic cleansing, land grabs, etc.
I never disagreed with those aspects of the state. I said statism means I prefer a state to exists. If that's not someone else's definition then that's kind of besides the point. I would simply categorize "abortion" as a homocidal act that is violent, and should be punishable. There's nothing "not-libertarian" about that concept because my reasoning for classifying abortion as an illegal measure follows every principle that makes everything else illegal under libertarian definition.
One thing that we both can agree is objective is that a pregnant woman is a human being with rights. Outlawing abortion means treading on those rights because the existence of human cells in no way proves that a fetus is a human being.
A woman does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN.
Lol well never agree because it's fucking SUBJECTIVE
Why would you ever argue if you're going to resort to "it's just your opinion man"?
Because prolife right wingers need to realize there isn't an objective answer. There doing more harm then good.
It's more then just your opinion l. It can't be proven.
All you can resort to is, it's got human cells so it's a human being. That's your whole argument.
What exactly is the problem here? Like what do you not agree with? On one hand you suggest I'm valuing one life over another. On the other hand you tell me that there is only the mom's life, invalidating the first problem. I'm asking for consistency. I can prove that conception is the first step to starting new, human life. Nothing else creates a baby except for that. So what is the problem? Why is it not a human life? Why are you okay with murdering it?
You can't dismiss subjectivity when talking about abortion.
Were never gonna agree bud. Let's just call it a night.
Have a good night then
According to isidewith.com not only did 0% of Libertarians polled call themselves 100% against abortion in all cases as my opponent argued, only 25% called them pro-life in general, and 67% agree with funding planned parenthood. Ron Paul believes Austin is the worst Libertarian candidate (well okay GJ), and I do also. After I win the tournament we have a lot to talk about. PS I tried to make a video but it says something about a soundcheck?
@julian_cennamo "all cases as my opponent argued" is false, that wasn't my argument.@camren360 If you listened to the debate and read the comments, you'd know I recognized Libertarians do believe in a government and they believe the government is only meant to protect rights. If we agree abortion is taking away a life (which it sounds like you do) then the government is justified in intervention. And the government enforcing laws against abortion does not mean private entities can't subsidize real birth (or pregnancy) control.
You said even in cases of rape and Incest, and 0% of Libertarians polled took that position. Remember the sister question, The debate is over.
yet when the mother's life is in danger? That matters as well.
You say "most, if not all" in the debate. The sited poll doesn't quantify that opinion.
And it would still be 0% agreement in the poll anyway. Saying that there's a one and only an exception doesnt need to be quantified, when the a line has been drawn. You have represent an extreme opinion Eric.
Most, if not all are homicide. You have a problem with nuance.
The debates over.
The point of the comments is to continue debate, and if I want to rebut anything then I will. Our debate is over when you choose, but the overall debate can continue any way it wants.
Say something new than. You had your chance to talk about your issue. I told you I only cared enough about this for 20 minutes to win a contest beforehand for a reason.
I was responding to an obvious misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my argument, keep doing that and I'll keep replying.
Your just repeating the oldest stuff in the book. The exception of a "mothers life" is a poor comparison when the 0% line is drawn with "yes in cases of rape and incest. You're only describing the view from other side of the fence. Its an extreme opinion to entertain and it's really boring. How's it look now BTW?
The line drawn by someone else is not my point of contention. My point was conception creates life. You can do as many mental gymnastics you want and group think as hard as you can but that is intellectually dishonest and you know it. I'd wager it looks the same way as the view from the first person to ever denounce slavery.
That doesn't even make sense. My point is that your opinion is not libertarian because 0% percent of polled libertarians take such an extreme position and only 27% share a prolife opinion in general. "Group think"?"Mental Gymnastics"? I'm no longer a fan of Ayn Rand, but when I was 17 I read the Fountainhead, here's a quote: "Don't fool yourself, my dear. You're much worse than a bitch. You're a saint. Which shows why saints are dangerous and undesirable." Baiting SJWs into a parmiter trap is easy, but youre just standing across the street Eric.It looks great over here!
The debate wasn't "what libertarians are." It was "what should they be." Based on their own principles, they should be pro life. That poll means nothing to me for a plethora of reasons but the main reason I want to address is it's just not appropriate for our debate.I'm sorry you've yet to substantiate any argument properly or counter any of mine properly. Go ahead and fine more stuff to throw at me, see how far you get before you learn something.
I don't give a shit if you want to face the reality that your opinion is non agreement with the majority of libertarianism or not. The only thing you can argue is parimeter trap and I'm a lot smarter than that . There is nothing to learn from you. Be thankful I gave you the time after you backed out because I'm going to win this tournament.
I debated you to win. I said "that's all I have" because its because I wasn't getting into it. I don't want saints either. 🎻
I said a lot after that too. I was just testing my case. This is boring. Just like I predicted.
And I love you too buddy. This was my first head to head experience, and imagine I will get a lot of flattering follow ups. But this is truly special👏
I say that I cannot and will not make this moral decision in my opening counter argument. Repeating the same circle saw argument whereby realigning the original position as a goal post failed you this time.
Remember when I said "I can't draw that line but I'm sure you will"?
@camren360 still interested? I am!
That's a fair point. Never thought to clarify, I didn't mean "should" as in "they have to." It's more of a "You would think they would be".Like if someone is in the military, they should stand up for the pledge. They don't have to, but you'd guess they would.
When I'm talking about the drug war it's because of the 55 and a half billion dollar cost difference between funding it and planned parenthood. You had no answer for how the you inforce an illegal abortion policy. Unlike the more popular prolife libertarian arguments I compared you to. You are consearvative.
The statistics show a 3/4 majority of Libertarians support prochoice. It's always been part of their platform and was Ayn Rands position as I quoted. Eric's position represented 0% of polled Libertarians. Ron Paul is the only candidate the LP had with talent, and he had to run as a Republican and be prolifeto achieve that success. But it hurt him to. Defunding planned parenthood as a campaign issue turned off voters for both Ron and Rands campaigns. It also savaged his 88 LP bid. As I mentioned.
To touch on this quick cus i have to go, parties change lime i said, i know plenty of republican viters that want demacratic ideas, and vise versa. It's just the ppl in the party they not all black n white. They lime most ideas but not all.
Don't fool yourself, my dear. You're much worse than a bitch. You're a saint. Which shows why saints are dangerous and undesirable.Ayn Rand, The FountainheadThe religious right should try the constitution party instead.
The Question Isn’t Who Is Going to Let Me, It’s Who Is Going to Stop Me.
All libertarians are pro-life. The relevant question you should ask is: Should all libertarians be abortion prohibitionists? That IS the question most people ARE answering, and they are saying NO! It is not even clear if YOU, who originated this survey, are an Abortion Prohibitionist. Please share, will you?
If you believe the government's purpose is to defend your rights, then you would be a prohibitionist of many things. Slavery and Murder come to mind. I'm a slavery and murder prohibitionist. I don't mind adding abortion prohibitionist because it infringes on the rights of the fetus.And yes, it does have rights, it's a human life. Conception creates human life.
"I don't mind adding abortion prohibitionist because it infringes on the rights of the fetus."But what about the rights of the carrier of said fetus? Granted, those are usually women and trans men, and you've demonstrated in the past to be at best dismissive of their concerns...
I feel that the libertarian party fills a very niche role in today's politicial environment. One of the things that makesbeing libertarian so appealing, especially to young adults is the freedom of choice. By taking that away and trying to make libertarians fall under the umbrella of pro life, you are slowly erasing that line between what it is to be a libertarian and what it is to be a republican.
You guys really think killing an innocent little human being is a choice of freedom. Like wow.
It's not a human being, not yet anyway, but why bring things like science and reality into it? Anti-aboriton laws are inherently misogynistic as they are the government enforcing their will on the bodies of those with uteruses. I mean, did you ever stop to think (pfft) for a second just how big a bureaucracy would need to exist to ensure every pregnancy in this country ends in YOUR desired outcome?
The size of bureaucracy requires is about the same size as needed to ensure murder and slavery don't exist, yeah I can fathom that.
This argument would only be true if all Libertarians agreed that fetuses were capable of possessing rights. As far as I know, this is not part of the Libertarian definition. Therefore, a more accurate proposition would be, "Some Libertarians should be pro-life."
Yeah, the argument hinges on someone figuring out that the fetus has rights. But he didn't want to discuss that possibility. And the Libertarian's main idea is "No one infringes on human rights." If it's has rights, which was up for debate and I put forth my best arguments that it does, then Libertarians by definition should be pro life. I don't know how anyone thinks conception is not the definitive precursor to a new human life.
Eric, I agree that conception is the definitive precursor to new human life, assuming you mean that at conception a new member of the species Homo sapiens is created. But that doesn't mean I believe that at conception a new person is created.You might disagree that this distinction exists — or that it is important, if it does — but you are aware of this perspective, right?
I guess I see that perspective, which then I would ask why would you not agree that a new person is created. Like I don't see what difference there is that justifies two separate classifications under penalty of law.
To make a chocolate cake, you combine sugar, flour, cocoa powder, baking powder, baking soda, salt, eggs, milk, vegetable oil, vanilla, and water. Yes, it's a cakey mixture as soon as you stir these ingredients together in a bowl, but it's not a cake. It's not a cake until you bake it. However, it's not automatically a cake even after baking. Did you bake it for two minutes? It's not a cake. Did you bake it for ten minutes? It's not a cake. Did you bake it for twenty minutes? It _might_ be a cake. Did you bake it for thirty-five minutes? It's probably a cake.
Libertarians can say that they think that fetuses should not be aborted because they believe in the liberties of the soon-to-be-human. But in reality, Libertarians are all about no government. Should that not include government regulations in the body of the woman? So libertarians should be pro-choice no?
Your argument is that the right of the fetus is being infringed upon. Does something that has no will, have rights? Do you give ants rights? They have more will than a fetus.