>>570
"Rather than appreciating the interaction between government, culture and individual you center on the individual in order to create a simple passage of blame and causation."
It isn't because I just want to toss the blame on something, so I happen to choose the individual - its that the individual is obviously the one responsible for his actions, so if they screw themselves up, its obviously their fault.
"I'm not saying environment can be used to defend deep character flaws or criminal activity, but I am suggesting that the best solutions to a problem lie in anthropology and that dumping a philosophical, virtue-ridden narrative on the issue is a shortcut."
Allright, and I'm saying that late-term abortion, outside of the said exceptions should be regarded as criminal activity, so what you are saying doesn't apply here, and really shouldn't have been brought up to begin with. (not saying I agree with you, but anyway, yes.)
"Well, why make women (and the men, assuming they are part of the equation which they always try to avoid) run through an absurd sieve of problems and factors before and after conception."
That isn't the issue. Whether or not abortion should be permitted or not really has nothing whatever to do with other essentially arbitrary laws.
"Having abortions in this day and age is a brave statement, and if it occurs too late, too bad."
Too bad? I think not. Thankfully we have reasonable people in government to ban late term abortions. (note: they aren't democrats)
"He can't possibly blame her for the fact that she is pregnant, when it was their decision that resulted in the pregnancy."
Yes he can. The woman is accepting an action that will have a consequence to her body, and she knows it. She has the choice to not accept said action, or to use contraceptives that will prevent the results of said action from affecting her body. Since it is affecting her body, and not his, it if it is she who doesn't wish to become pregnant, it is then she who must take the actions necessary to prevent this. Now, while the result of pregnancy might be half the man's responsibility and his problem to deal with, if the woman doesn't want to get pregnant, that's her problem to deal with. Her body, her problem.
"Becoming pregnant is their "problem"."
If the man doesn't mind helping raise the kids, it isn't a 'problem'. If, at the same time, the woman wants to *avoid* a pregnancy, whose responsibility is it to use contraceptives? The man doesn't care, he wouldn't mind the kids. But if the woman doesn't want a baby growing in her, she has to prevent it from happening to her, just like if I don't want tooth decay growing in my mouth, I have to brush my teeth.
"Well, it is their decision, really."
No, it is the woman's. See example above.
"Yet, secular, well-off countries with a degree of common sense consider it a non-issue. There is no link between many abortions and society's downfall (my link shows the opposite is true). And before you pipe up, America is currently not a secular country and it is not a secular culture."
Who the fuck cares? I'm not a utilitarian, and I'm not arguing society will get fucked up if women are allowed to abort late term babies, I'm arguing they shouldn't be allowed to abort late term babies because it is a violation of the baby's rights.
"How's about creating life despite the twists of fate and making the best out of the genes you've got? That is a human right and you are appearing more and more authorative with each post."
No, to be an authoritarian, I would have to want to force people to not have children who had diseases, which I never advocated. Your accusations are totally baseless and full of fail.
What you fail to grasp, evidently, is that the gambling being done with fate is of great risk to the child. Gambling with other people is not being brave or acting in good conscience. If the mother was assuming all the risk of the endeavor, I wouldn't have a problem with honoring it. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. In Kumori's example, the kids are at risk as well as the mother, and the mother is gambling with their lives, health, and well being. This is uncompassionate and selfish.
"Because it doesn't address the complexity of human culture."
The fact that I 'don't address the complexity of human culture' makes me 'authoritarian'? I think you need to look up authoritarian.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=authoritarian
As you can see, the position I have taken, according to the definiation, is actually a very pro-liberty position. Sorry, but you fail.
And by the way, to note: my position on the issue is that I would not force diseased women to not become pregnant if they wanted to become pregnant. My position is 100% pro-liberty. I fail to see how you find this 'authoritarian', or how what you said makes me authoritarian.
"Once again. The official equal status of women is not reflected in American society."
Which is absolutely redundant. What is morally right is that women have equal *rights*, not that they *are* equal.
"Feminism is thus largely a culturally focusing movement with worrying tendencies to look to government for help. I dislike that politically but understand it pragmatically."
Now we have some authoritarians being discussed. People disagree with them, so they decide to look to the govt to help ram their agenda down people's throats. (directed only at the feminazi branch of feminism, not the individualists who are against use of govt)
"Well, once again, some animals fulfill those criterias to a slight degree."
Yet are not genetically human. Therein lies the difference.
"Since the human brain is the most developed on earth, why not ban abortions once the fetus has developed a complexity that outranks that of the runner-up in cerebral complexity?"
Because human rights have nothing to do with brain complexity.
"Well, you can't dictate when human life starts without a 250-page document argumenting on what makes a human."
I don't know for sure, but I think its pretty safe to say abortion shouldn't be allowed when the fetus is conscious and or can feel.
"Okay. Then I redefine by stating that said brain must be more complex than the second most cerebrally advanced animal on earth."
See above.
"No, the idea that people should behave in a certain dictated manner is authoritarian."
No, what is authoritarian is forcing that manner upon them. In fact, this is fascist. Clearly, I am not either, since I don't advocate the use of force to achieve my ideals or enforce social regimentation as per the definition of fascism.
"The question of how much a culture should be sovereign to government influence is a political one."
And provided that culture doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone, no true libertarian would say the government should intervene.
"So if an American state decides that non-blacks are to be systematically discriminated in a non-illegal manner, are we to not judge or get some fresh air in there? How's about in the current western world, where women are treated as 85-95 % human in a non-illegal manner?"
We aren't talking about government deciding anything. The way things are, things are more or less left up to private individuals, which is how you don't want things to be. Apparently, the distinction between government action and private action means nothing to you. To a true libertarian, this is critical.
You wish to institute social regimentation to achieve feminist goals, a very fascist notion, and is obviously *not* a libertarian one.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=fascism
"As a moderate libertarian, I say that is snafu."
Maybe these guys are more your type.
http://www.democrats.org/
They too like to ignore consistency and the laws of liberty to achieve their goals.