Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice

[Forty Two]

Because "survivability" is a reasoned parameter. It's not arbitrary.

And survivability is not an arbitrary criterion because...?

Because survivability is considered a good, and death is considered a bad.

"Considered" Like I keep posting: We make these thing up, then backfill with reasons. They don't necessarily make sense. Right now, for instance, it could be argued that every abortion enhances the survival chances of the human race.

The tact you're taking here, Hermit, is essentially that all opinions, and all points of view, and all value judgments are arbitrary, non-objective, and essentially random/personal whim. That's o.k., but it leads to the thorny problem of one not being able to ever express a non-arbitrary opinion or value judgment about any topic, on any thread, regarding anybody, or anything - because every viewpoint is subject to the same objections that you are making here - that the bases or foundations of each judgment is, essentially, an arbitrary choice.

The objection to sex-selection or discrimination, too, is "arbitary." The value judgment against racism would be just as "arbitrary." The value judgment against "hate speech" would be for sure arbitrary. If your argument in this thread is true, then on what basis (if any) do you express any opinions, other than personal whim and random choice?

[Forty Two]

If that is "backfill", then any attempt to make a reasoned position on any issue, making use of at least some observable facts, must be regarded as arbitrary, and thus dismissed. That way lies utter nihilism, and the end of reason...

Postmodernism.

...there is no truth, and reason is just a western social construction. It's all just "lived experience," personal feeling, and a competition between factions. X becomes true if the class/faction propounding X wins the public relations battle.

Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry criticised Postmodermism for reducing the complexity of the modern world to an expression of power and for undermining truth and reason: "If the modern era begins with the European Enlightenment, the postmodern era that captivates the radical multiculturalists begins with its rejection. According to the new radicals, the Enlightenment-inspired ideas that have previously structured our world, especially the legal and academic parts of it, are a fraud perpetrated and perpetuated by white males to consolidate their own power. Those who disagree are not only blind but bigoted. The Enlightenment's goal of an objective and reasoned basis for knowledge, merit, truth, justice, and the like is an impossibility: "objectivity," in the sense of standards of judgment that transcend individual perspectives, does not exist. Reason is just another code word for the views of the privileged. The Enlightenment itself merely replaced one socially constructed view of reality with another, mistaking power for knowledge. There is naught but power." http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/farber-reason.html

[pErvinalia]

If that is "backfill", then any attempt to make a reasoned position on any issue, making use of at least some observable facts, must be regarded as arbitrary, and thus dismissed. That way lies utter nihilism, and the end of reason...

Postmodernism.

...there is no truth, and reason is just a western social construction. It's all just "lived experience," personal feeling, and a competition between factions. X becomes true if the class/faction propounding X wins the public relations battle.

Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry criticised Postmodermism for reducing the complexity of the modern world to an expression of power and for undermining truth and reason: "If the modern era begins with the European Enlightenment, the postmodern era that captivates the radical multiculturalists..

Stopped reading right there. Why do you keep reading (and reporting) such biased shit?