Ron Paul - Wait, what?

[mrstickball]

Rath said:

mrstickball said:

Rath said:
Ron Paul is self consistent (more than you can say for most politicians) but his political views are very different to mine and occasionally are reprehensible to me. Also I doubt he has the ability to compromise required from a president.


Also can anybody explain to me how a libertarian can be essentially in favour of banning abortions? (which he would do through allowing states to ban it) The woman's right to her own body seems like such a libertarian ideal.

It all depends on one's understanding of life.

A Libertarian believes that any intrusion against a person's body, property or possession is wrong, and government must ensure that such intrusion is not allowed by another party.

Therefore, if a libertarian believes that a fetus is a human being, living inside another human being, then it has rights as well, and that the termination of such life is as wrong as if someone terminated the mother, or a child having been born of the mother.

You can read up on the viewpoint at: http://www.l4l.org/

I find it inconsistent that a libertarian would force their personal (or religious) view of when life begins upon another person, because that is all the view of when life begins is.

 

Edit: And as much as I'd like to argue about global warming (which is certainly happening - that much is observed - and I think based on the evidence is highly likely to be anthropogenic) this thread seems to be getting very sidetracked away from the OP. Maybe a new thread is in order?

If one does not bother to maintain an idea of what is life, then one could apply such a standard to a lot of other things, or people groups, and remove liberties from them as well.

I reccomended you actually read the link: The founder of Libertarians for Life is an atheist.

Like Kasz said, there is a specific point in a fetus' life that, as far as we know via science, has developed most of the physical functions needed for life - brain stem, ears, eyes, nose, mouth, heart, ect and is fully viable outside the womb, yet some are free to terminate that life as they will. The question of life is the argument of at which point does that life deserve freedom and the opportunity to exist?

In the case of my daughter's birth, she was certainly fully viable well before my wife's delivery of her. While in the womb, she learned both of our voices, and could respond to both physical and vocal stimulation. So much so, that when she was born, my wife's first words to her were "Hi Liara, its mommy, I love you" -  a phase she uttered thousands of times before she was born. Her response at birth was to stop crying, and go to sleep on my wife, despite the doctors working on her for the next ~10 minutes. In my view, if such an entity is going to develop such cognative functions inside the womb, then I don't see why killing it isn't termination of a life, another human entity.