Being anti-abortion is so unlibertarian!

"Breaking Illusions"

Autolykos:

For me the question is, do fetuses own themselves?

Until the formation of thalamocortical spindles, a foetus is not sentient and sentience is a prerequisite for recognition of self.

Empathy is evoked through common experience. 

An inchoate foetus cannot evoke my empathy until it develops to a state at which it can experience self.

It cannot own itself, while a reference to its self does not exist.

Wheylous:

I suppose it would be like kicking out a homeless guy.

The problem being that if you can peacefully evict a fetus, why not a baby or a child? This innocent eviction does away with all of parents' obligations to their children. Now, this might be a good thing ultimately, but I have not yet come to that conclusion.

A chance at eternal life, final judgement, and soul are metaphors for continuation of one's introspection through their genetic identity, literally forever, as soles. 

You speak of obligations that parents have to their children, when the relevant obligation of parents is to themselves.

What business is it of mine if others do not wish to affirm their identity?

hashem:

I think you are wrong in saying the NAP isn't somehow intrinsic in our nature. We are social animals, and society rests on the NAP. Ineed, civilization itself (and, action per se) rests on the acceptance of the most fundamental libertarian principle: self-ownership.

Rests?  Define that please. 

He means it's based on.

But then how come the US is a civilization?

Funny how I answer everything while you sit back attacking everything with admittedly no basis for your views...

I mean without respect for property rights (the NAP)—and, implicitly (in action) the acceptance of self-ownership—a society and civilization of humans can't exist.

Wheylous, the US hasn't completely eradicated property rights.

Forgive me if I do not answer irrelevent questions.  

You answered everything?  That is funnier  I am quite comfortable that most people reading what you just wrote --  rests? exists? -- can see that you are avoiding being clear. 

hashem:

while you sit back attacking everything with admittedly no basis for your views...

It is called challenging our premises. 

hashem:

—and, implicitly (in action) the acceptance of self-ownership—

-- but not EXCLUSIVE self-ownership which makes the whole difference in libertarianism. 

The record of modern human behavior is pretty clear.  We libertarians are in the minority in believing exclusivity in self-ownership whereas the vast majority of the world population are statists.  They believe that their self-ownership is conditional and can be over-ridden by others.  Their actions demonstrate it and so do their words.   I suspect that you fail to comprehend what that means.  To put it a different way, sure, humans may act as if they believe they own themselves but they also act as if they believe they own other people too.  Furthermore, some humans act as if they are rightfully owned by the state.  Meditate upon that. 

 

hashem:

Wheylous, the US hasn't completely eradicated property rights.

There.  You just admitted it.  Americans believe that they can respect some property rights but not all property rights.  Yet, they still exist! 

Hashem, I do believe eminent takes care of that point 

Laurence Vance in this article is discussing the question whether being anti-abortion / pro-life is unlibertarian.

Quote from the article: "Killing someone is the ultimate form of aggression. Especially a helpless, defenseless fetus that is only guilty of suddenly waking up in a womb." ... "So again I ask: Why should it be considered libertarian to kill a baby in the womb or unlibertarian to oppose such killing? This has nothing to do with giving the government greater control over a woman's body; it has everything to do with preventing aggression and protecting innocent life."

so when does a fetus become a baby?

 

Furthemore, if a fetus is so innocent and valuable, then please take it and carry it yourself (to the author of the quote) and don't force the other human beings to do the job for you. If a fetus is a 100 percent human and has basic human rights, then it should be able to live without the "original mother's" support. It should be able to evict the fetus and raise it as a child.. but why is it impossible? Oh wait, I won't go into medical details.. It's all about religion.

it should be able to live without the "original mother's" support.

What about any support at all?

I think the argument that gets me right now is that the fetus doesn't have cognition up to a certain point in its development, and hence doesn't feel, so it's not a human yet.

Maiku, thanks for reminding us of the meaning of libertarianism: that nobody has a right to anything of anybody else'. The exception, obviously, are when people contract, which a fetus cannot do (not that it is a self or an owner to be contracting with anyways).

The objection that a mother "invited" the fetus into the womb is so patently absurd and dellusional I won't even bother with it unless someone think's it's that important.

Yes Charles, if you look back, you'll notice that I asked you questions before you asked me. You either ignored my questions or said it was irrelevant (Irrelevant to whom? I'm the one who asked it of you!), and then proceeded to attack my position without ever supporting yours. You may be right (you're not), so let's get it out in the open. As I've said enough times, mere opinion and refusal to participate won't do in an intellectual forum.

It is called challenging our premises.
No. It's called you being afraid to challenge your premise, which is precisely why I have my signature. Most people, even pretended "libertarians" are afraid to actually challenge their beliefs. When I asked you for a simple source on where you get your views from, that was challenging you. Your response was "it's irrelevant."

As for the rest of your post I can't make any sense of it.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy not a moral one. It says nothing about what is "gruesome" and what is not. These are moral judgements. It only gives guidelines on how should conflicts be resolved. Yet there is no conflict between a woman and a womb.