Ron Paul on Abortion

[Matthew Zak]

Someone please tell me...

How exactly does Ron Paul feel about this issue, and what kind of bills has he/does he support in regards to this issue? This is kind of a pivotal subject for many people and I find myself at a loss for words when trying to explain it. Help!?

Thanks.

[Mandrik]

http://www.issues2000.org/Tx/Ron_Paul.htm

Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008)
Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Report on Medicaid payments to abortion providers. (Apr 2009)

[awake]

I think he mentioned one time that he was present for an abortion.... he mentioned how the baby was discarded gasping for life.... seeing it sealed it for him.

[Matthew Zak]

It's still fuzzy for me.

Would he support any federal law prohibiting abortions? Could any of his bills be interpreted that way? Or does he simply want the federal government out of the issue, despite how he feels?

[Mandrik]

He wants it to be handled by the states. He believes it needs to be out of the hands of the federal govt.

[Mandrik]

He talks about his stance on abortion right at the start of this vid:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8)

[idiom]

He has a whole book on it. It is a very complex subject and very loaded.

[emazur]

Someone please tell me...

How exactly does Ron Paul feel about this issue, and what kind of bills has he/does he support in regards to this issue? This is kind of a pivotal subject for many people and I find myself at a loss for words when trying to explain it. Help!?

Thanks.

he wouldn't be outlawing abortion, he would leave it up to the states like it used to be. Here's an excerpt from his book "The Revolution" explaining what got him started on abortion during his medical residency at the University of Pittsburgh in the mid 1960's (pg 58-59):
"Residents were encouraged to visit various operating rooms in order to observe the procedures that were being done. One day I walked into an operating room without knowing what I was walking into, and the doctors were in the middle of performing a C-section. It was actually an abortion by hysterotomy. The woman was probably six months along in her pregnancy, and the child she was carrying weighed over two pounds. At that time doctors were not especially sophisticated, for lack of a better term, when it came to killing the baby prior to delivery, so they went ahead with delivery and put the baby in a bucket in the corner of the room. The baby tried to breathe, and tried to cry, and everyone in the room pretended the baby wasn't there. I was deeply shaken by this experience, and it hit me at that moment just how important the life issue was"

I recommend Schiff's view on abortion:
YouTube - Peter Schiff on abortion 8/7/09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDttx64zk4I)

[sevin]

He believes it should be left up to the states, but personally he is against it.

In fact, I was uncertain about the abortion issue, but I changed my mind after reading Manifesto. Whether the child is still in the womb or not, it's still murder.

[iddo]

See his book on abortion here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=66303
And several quotes that I collected here:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#On_abortion

[klamath]

he wouldn't be outlawing abortion, he would leave it up to the states like it used to be. Here's an excerpt from his book "The Revolution" explaining what got him started on abortion during his medical residency at the University of Pittsburgh in the mid 1960's (pg 58-59):
"Residents were encouraged to visit various operating rooms in order to observe the procedures that were being done. One day I walked into an operating room without knowing what I was walking into, and the doctors were in the middle of performing a C-section. It was actually an abortion by hysterotomy. The woman was probably six months along in her pregnancy, and the child she was carrying weighed over two pounds. At that time doctors were not especially sophisticated, for lack of a better term, when it came to killing the baby prior to delivery, so they went ahead with delivery and put the baby in a bucket in the corner of the room. The baby tried to breathe, and tried to cry, and everyone in the room pretended the baby wasn't there. I was deeply shaken by this experience, and it hit me at that moment just how important the life issue was"

I recommend Schiff's view on abortion:
YouTube - Peter Schiff on abortion 8/7/09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDttx64zk4I)

Thank you for this. Thank God I never donated to Schiff.

[brandon]

How could someone be a member here for 2 years and not know Ron Paul's position on abortion??


Ron Paul believes it is murder. He also believes violent crimes should be prosecuted and taken care of at the state level, not the federal level.

[TGGRV]

Human rights are conferred to someone when they acquire a personhood/soul. That doesn't happen at conception because the embryo can split and from two babies - which would mean the same person is in two bodies. And the scientific community doesn't really support this life begins at conception view anyway. There's no consensus over it and there are tons of arguments against it.

But yes, the case described by Ron Paul in the book is murder.

[TheTyke]

I really enjoyed watching that clip! He's really done his thinking on this one (of course, what issue hasn't he thought out?)

[Brian4Liberty]

How could someone be a member here for 2 years and not know Ron Paul's position on abortion??


Exactly. Red Herring?

[RM918]

How could someone be a member here for 2 years and not know Ron Paul's position on abortion??

I've actually been following Paul for about as long, and I've only heard bits and pieces and conflicts at times on the issue, mostly because he pretty much only talks about foreign or monetary policy, or answering dumbass questions about whether he's a terrorist or not.

[Brett]

Thank you for this. Thank God I never donated to Schiff.

This. My money was much better spent on Rand.

[RM918]

Thank you for this. Thank God I never donated to Schiff.

Wait, isn't his position exactly the same as Paul's except he's merely personally on the other side?

[Austin]

Both Paul and Schiff want to leave it up to the states, so who cares what their personal beliefs are?

[Elwar]

Wait a minute...for a few on here, if Ron Paul doesn't state that he is pro-life and anti-abortion then he is not a viable candidate.

That's what they say about Gary Johnson who's stance is that he's personally for choice, but voted as a Governor pro-life and supports leaving it to the states.

That baby killer Ron Paul...

[Brett]

Wait a minute...for a few on here, if Ron Paul doesn't state that he is pro-life and anti-abortion then he is not a viable candidate.

It depends. In my eyes there are three views on the abortion spectrum. Pro life, choice or abortion. Mostly Liberals are pro-abortion where Johnson's record is legitimately pro-choice.

Schiff's rather broad claim that he would simply "Keep it legal" indicates pro-abortion in my eyes. He doesn't need to reveal that. Saying "leave it in the states" would have left me blissfully unaware and pleased. The talk-show host doesn't push him to find out his true leanings. Schiff saying that fixing the economy is more important then our current problem of 4000 abortions per day is pretty radical.

[klamath]

Wait, isn't his position exactly the same as Paul's except he's merely personally on the other side?

Nope. The way the law stands now it is at a federal level and both Paul and Schiff might want to return the issue to the states like myself but as a federal congressmen in their career they will be forced to vote one way or another on the issue. Look up RP's vote for a partial birth abortion ban and his statement for it.
If Schiff is in the senate he would vote against RP on this because he personally thinks abortions are fine.
If I lived in Conn. I probably would vote for Schiff over Dodd but it would be a lesser of two evils vote. I will not however donate money to him because a candidate has to be damned close to my views before I open my wallet. I did not donate to Bachmann even when RP asked for donations for her because of her stance on the war.
A reverse case would be a congressmen saying he hated war and didn't want the the U.S. in a war but he believes it is our country's right and responsbility to install democracratic governments around the world. Now push comes to shove how do you think he is going to vote if a grand vote to push a genocidal dictator out of a country is set before him?

[Elwar]

It depends. In my eyes there are three views on the abortion spectrum. Pro life, choice or abortion. Mostly Liberals are pro-abortion where Johnson's record is legitimately pro-choice.

Schiff's rather broad claim that he would simply "Keep it legal" indicates pro-abortion in my eyes. He doesn't need to reveal that. Saying "leave it in the states" would have left me blissfully unaware and pleased. The talk-show host doesn't push him to find out his true leanings. Schiff saying that fixing the economy is more important then our current problem of 4000 abortions per day is pretty radical.

And Ron Paul's position in your sliding scale?

[nobody's_hero]

I can only think of three Federally prosecutable crimes in the Constitution:

1. Piracy
2. Treason
3. Counterfeiting (excluding the Federal Reserve's, of course :mad:)

If you want to make anything else legal, or illegal, or even eligible for consideration by the Federal Government, you must amend the Consitution.

It is a principled stance to take, even if it is rather unrewarding.

[Brett]

And Ron Paul's position in your sliding scale?

Pro-life...

[TGGRV]

Ha, if I'd go by your logic, I wouldn't spread the word about anyone because I don't agree with any politician 100%.

[Baptist]

Wait, isn't his position exactly the same as Paul's except he's merely personally on the other side?


As noted earlier, as a federal official Schiff's vote more than likely would be opposite of Rand's and Ron's. Also, Schiff stated that if he were governor of a state that he would not sign into law a bill that outlaws abortion. If Rand and Ron were a governor, they would sign into law a bill that outlaws abortion, I'm sure of it.

Remember, Ron has stated many times that as a federal representative he votes in line with the Constitution. This is why he wants drugs and prostitution decriminalized at the federal level. However, he said that if he was in local politics (city/state), that he would probably vote and/or fight to keep those things out of his local community/state.

So whereas both Schiff and the Pauls want the federal government out of abortion, only the Pauls see it as a more effective way to rid the country of the travesty that is abortion.

I was going to send money to Schiff for his money bomb. But after learning of his stance on abortion I decided not to. Since hearing of Schiff's stance on abortion, I have spent no time campaigning for him. Instead, I have devoted my time to spreading the word about Rand Paul.

The role of government is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. If a politician does not advocate protecting life, they get no money from me.

[Baptist]

Ha, if I'd go by your logic, I wouldn't spread the word about anyone because I don't agree with any politician 100%.


Yeah, but certain issues are more important to you than others. It's the same with all of us. There is a certain line that politicians can cross where you would not support them anymore. It's the same with all of us. Abortion just happens to be an issue that makes or breaks which candidate many people will support (or not support).

[Baptist]

Human rights are conferred to someone when they acquire a personhood/soul. That doesn't happen at conception because the embryo can split and from two babies - which would mean the same person is in two bodies. And the scientific community doesn't really support this life begins at conception view anyway. There's no consensus over it and there are tons of arguments against it.

But yes, the case described by Ron Paul in the book is murder.


Yeah, the same "scientific community" that supports manmade global warming? The scientific community does not support jack. Just like every other issue, scientists are divided on abortion.

You do raise an interesting point about twins.

Here is my take on the matter. Abortion is an important issue. At some point a fetus becomes "alive." Once you get rid of it after that point, it's murder. So, as a politician, if you do not believe that life begins at conception, that's fine. But at least tell me where you believe life begins, and why. That way I know that you have given serious thought to such an important matter.



Mathew Zak, google "sanctity of life act" to get an idea of how Ron would handle abortion. Also, read this article by Chuck Baldwin from the election.
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm

[nobody's_hero]

As noted earlier, as a federal official Schiff's vote more than likely would be opposite of Rand's and Ron's. Also, Schiff stated that if he were governor of a state that he would not sign into law a bill that outlaws abortion. If Rand and Ron were a governor, they would sign into law a bill that outlaws abortion, I'm sure of it.

Remember, Ron has stated many times that as a federal representative he votes in line with the Constitution. This is why he wants drugs and prostitution decriminalized at the federal level. However, he said that if he was in local politics (city/state), that he would probably vote and/or fight to keep those things out of his local community/state.

So whereas both Schiff and the Pauls want the federal government out of abortion, only the Pauls see it as a more effective way to rid the country of the travesty that is abortion.

I was going to send money to Schiff for his money bomb. But after learning of his stance on abortion I decided not to. Since hearing of Schiff's stance on abortion, I have spent no time campaigning for him. Instead, I have devoted my time to spreading the word about Rand Paul.

The role of government is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. If a politician does not advocate protecting life, they get no money from me.

How can Schiff vote opposite of Rand or Ron when no one is supposed to be voting on the issue at all at the federal level?

What is the opposite of zero?

[Baptist]

How can Schiff vote opposite of Rand or Ron when no one is supposed to be voting on the issue at all at the federal level?

What is the opposite of zero?

For instance, and as noted earlier, Ron voted for a ban on partial birth abortion. Given Schiff's statements in the video, I'm sure he would have too. However, what if Congress voted to outlaw abortion in the 3rd trimester period? What if they voted to outlaw it in the 2nd and 3rd? I'm sure Ron would vote for that ban, but Peter would not.

[teacherone]

It's a completely contradictory philosophy to be pro-liberty and pro-state enforced delivery.

To have the state force a woman to deliver her child, or imprison her for not doing so is as anti-libertarian as you can get.

[Baptist]

It's a completely contradictory philosophy to be pro-liberty and pro-state enforced delivery.

To have the state force a woman to deliver her child, or imprison her for not doing so is as anti-libertarian as you can get.

Not all of us are libertarians. I've never voted libertarian in my life.

Besides, I thought libertarians supported the government using force to prevent one person from harming another? So the issue is not birth control here, it's life. If a fetus is not alive, then Ron Paul and I are wrong (according to your libertarian standards). If a fetus is alive, then you are wrong. So it is up to everyone to decide when life begins.

[teacherone]

Not all of us are libertarians. I've never voted libertarian in my life.

Besides, I thought libertarians supported the government using force to prevent one person from harming another? So the issue is not birth control here, it's life. If a fetus is not alive, then Ron Paul and I are wrong (according to your libertarian standards). If a fetus is alive, then you are wrong. So it is up to everyone to decide when life begins.

Not exactly. Libertarians support privatized police forces and the right to defend one'self and property with force.

The issue here is both life and property. Yes, perhaps a fetus is alive. However it dwells within another's body. Our bodies are our property-- each has the right of self-ownership.

Do you claim that the state owns your body and all that dwells within it?

[Baptist]

Not exactly. Libertarians support privatized police forces and the right to defend one'self and property with force.

The issue here is both life and property. Yes, perhaps a fetus is alive. However it dwells within another's body. Our bodies are our property-- each has the right of self-ownership.

Do you claim that the state owns your body and all that dwells within it?

No. But for argument sake let us pretend that a fetus is alive. A human is dwelling inside of you. The state can't make you carry the human to term because your body is your property. But how do you justify a pregnant woman killing the human inside of her? Is it OK to kill somebody just because they can't defend themselves?

[teacherone]

No. But for argument sake let us pretend that a fetus is alive. A human is dwelling inside of you. The state can't make you carry the human to term because your body is your property. But how do you justify a pregnant woman killing the human inside of her? Is it OK to kill somebody just because they can't defend themselves?

How do you justify the state kidnapping a woman and holding her against her will until she has delivered her child?

Or will your state only imprison her afterwards? After the fetus has been aborted? Is that justified? Does it somehow benefit your society?

[Baptist]

In your state, is it OK for parents to abandon a 2-month-old in the woods? What about killing a 1-month old in their house?

[teacherone]

lol...

could we both go on for hours answering questions with questions?

[Baptist]

lol...

could we both go on for hours answering questions with questions?

Well, I am interested in knowing the libertarian rationale behind this. Is there a good book or some links you could throw out? There are plenty of links in this thread regarding Paul's position, but I would like to read up on your position if you know of any useful resources.

[nobody's_hero]

For instance, and as noted earlier, Ron voted for a ban on partial birth abortion. Given Schiff's statements in the video, I'm sure he would have too. However, what if Congress voted to outlaw abortion in the 3rd trimester period? What if they voted to outlaw it in the 2nd and 3rd? I'm sure Ron would vote for that ban, but Peter would not.

That's not the point I was getting at. You are asking federal-level politicians/candidates to take a stance on things that they do not have the Constitutional authority to change one way or the other.

I'm a constitutionalist first, a libertarian second.

If Ron wants to ban abortion, he'd better propose an amendment. If Schiff wanted to allow abortion (whether he does or not, I don't know, because he understands as well as Ron does that the states should handle the issue; so I don't think you can get a definitive answer out of him anyway), he'd better propose an amendment.

If there was even a slight chance that a U.S. Constitutional amendment to ban/legalize abortion would have a whim of coming up for a vote in the next six years, then your concerns would be justified. However, why fight on bigger battlefields than necessary? Go to your town mayor and tell him that you think your town should not tolerate abortions. Start small, grow outward. If you can't win a battle over abortion at the local level, you most certainly will not accomplish anything by going to the leviathan for help.

Anyone who has been paying attention to the issue of abortion knows that it is one of the most divisive issues never intended to be handled at the federal level (much like healthcare or education). Let the states decide. Better yet, let the localities decide. In Ron Paul's book, The Manifesto, he admits that it is utopian dreaming to expect that all evil in the world can be eradicated ('a totalitarian notion if there ever was one'); the absolute best we can hope for is to approach the problem of abortion from the bottom up, because you must first start revolutions in the minds of men before you can revolutionize the way an entire society views the unborn.

[Baptist]

Nobodyshero,

The Declaration of Independence says that the role of government is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution says life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. Can't you make the argument that the feds can stop abortion (protecting life) on these grounds?

I'm not sure what the best way to handle this stuff is. Abortion is a hard one. If you concede that abortion is murder, and should be left up to the states and/or localities to decide, that just opens another can of worms. To be consistent, you'd have to say that it's up to states and localities to decide whether or not people can just kill blacks at will, kill teenagers at will, or any other class/group at will.

[klamath]

That's not the point I was getting at. You are asking federal-level politicians/candidates to take a stance on things that they do not have the Constitutional authority to change one way or the other.

I'm a constitutionalist first, a libertarian second.

If Ron wants to ban abortion, he'd better propose an amendment. If Schiff wanted to allow abortion (whether he does or not, I don't know, because he understands as well as Ron does that the states should handle the issue; so I don't think you can get a definitive answer out of him anyway), he'd better propose an amendment.

If there was even a slight chance that a U.S. Constitutional amendment to ban/legalize abortion would have a whim of coming up for a vote in the next six years, then your concerns would be justified. However, why fight on bigger battlefields than necessary? Go to your town mayor and tell him that you think your town should not tolerate abortions. Start small, grow outward. If you can't win a battle over abortion at the local level, you most certainly will not accomplish anything by going to the leviathan for help.

Anyone who has been paying attention to the issue of abortion knows that it is one of the most divisive issues never intended to be handled at the federal level (much like healthcare or education). Let the states decide. Better yet, let the localities decide. In Ron Paul's book, The Manifesto, he admits that it is utopian dreaming to expect that all evil in the world can be eradicated ('a totalitarian notion if there ever was one'); the absolute best we can hope for is to approach the problem of abortion from the bottom up, because you must first start revolutions in the minds of men before you can revolutionize the way an entire society views the unborn.

What you say is true but you forget that the supreme court at the federal level took this away from the states and put it at federal level. Now all decisions on abortions must be decided at the federal level. Many many votes on this are forced in congress and one way or another a federal congressmen must take a stand on the issue therefore many of us are forced to consider this issue when voting for federal officers that will be making decisions on this issue.

The supreme court made this constitution right up out of thin air but if we are to amend the constitution every time the Supreme court does this the constitution will end up 10 thousand pages long and even more subject to tweeking the wording to fit someones political decision.

[Krugerrand]

Well, I am interested in knowing the libertarian rationale behind this. Is there a good book or some links you could throw out? There are plenty of links in this thread regarding Paul's position, but I would like to read up on your position if you know of any useful resources.

I'll see if anybody else can post it again first. I saw a link in these forums many month ago that was to a rather large pdf file that was a thorough libertarian breakdown on this concept. It basically concluded that life must be recognized biologically at conception. It also concluded that a woman's body, as private property, should not be forced to maintain a life that is not otherwise viable. Once the unborn child reaches a point that it could be viable out of the womb, it could not longer be killed. As medical advancements extend the possibility of premature survival, that would shrink the window of permitted abortions.

Personally, I don't buy it. I say life comes before liberty. But, it is a well put together piece. If I get a chance this week, I'll try and find it.

[Elwar]

The Constitution says life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

What part of the Constitution says this?

[Krugerrand]

Human rights are conferred to someone when they acquire a personhood/soul. That doesn't happen at conception because the embryo can split and from two babies - which would mean the same person is in two bodies. And the scientific community doesn't really support this life begins at conception view anyway. There's no consensus over it and there are tons of arguments against it.

But yes, the case described by Ron Paul in the book is murder.

Hogwash.

"soul" sounds religious to me. Let's not go there.

An amoeba can split and become two. Was it not an amoeba before it split? A star fish can be cut in half and you can get two star fishes. It was a star fish before it was cut in half. Humans in their earliest stages of development can split and become two. It was a human before the split, it's multiple humans after.

[Baptist]

What part of the Constitution says this?

14th Amendment.


nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

[teacherone]

I'll see if anybody else can post it again first. I saw a link in these forums many month ago that was to a rather large pdf file that was a thorough libertarian breakdown on this concept. It basically concluded that life must be recognized biologically at conception. It also concluded that a woman's body, as private property, should not be forced to maintain a life that is not otherwise viable. Once the unborn child reaches a point that it could be viable out of the womb, it could not longer be killed. As medical advancements extend the possibility of premature survival, that would shrink the window of permitted abortions.

Personally, I don't buy it. I say life comes before liberty. But, it is a well put together piece. If I get a chance this week, I'll try and find it.

This cannot be a libertarian position--for under a truly libertarian society there would be no state prosecutors, no district attorneys.

Who then would file the charges? The "soul" of the aborted fetus?

And what would happen if it were discovered that a woman was planning an abortion. Would she be imprisoned until delivery? Would the state care for the child?

In either instances a state with a monopoly on violence is necessary. Not compatible with the libertarian philosophy.

[nobody's_hero]

This cannot be a libertarian position--for under a truly libertarian society there would be no state prosecutors, no district attorneys.

Who then would file the charges? The "soul" of the aborted fetus?

And what would happen if it were discovered that a woman was planning an abortion. Would she be imprisoned until delivery? Would the state care for the child?

In either instances a state with a monopoly on violence is necessary. Not compatible with the libertarian philosophy.

www.l4l.org

[teacherone]

www.l4l.org

I am aware of the pro-life libertarian position and dismiss it as contradictory per my about posts.

[nobody's_hero]

I am aware of the pro-life libertarian position and dismiss it as contradictory per my about posts.

I thought you might; I just thought I'd throw it out there.

[Krugerrand]

Well, I am interested in knowing the libertarian rationale behind this. Is there a good book or some links you could throw out? There are plenty of links in this thread regarding Paul's position, but I would like to read up on your position if you know of any useful resources.

Okay, I found it:
Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf)
It's a 46 page PDF file that was published in the Appalachian Journal of Law by Walter Block and Roy Whitehead.

In my opinion, this is the best starting point for a libertarian discussion on abortion. As I mentioned above, I don't buy into all of it. (I wouldn't completely identify myself as a libertarian - but I would prefer to step into a libertarian world over our current.)

[Krugerrand]

This cannot be a libertarian position--for under a truly libertarian society there would be no state prosecutors, no district attorneys.

Who then would file the charges? The "soul" of the aborted fetus?

Who would file charges in a truly libertarian society if somebody kills you? Your "soul?"


And what would happen if it were discovered that a woman was planning an abortion. Would she be imprisoned until delivery? Would the state care for the child?

In either instances a state with a monopoly on violence is necessary. Not compatible with the libertarian philosophy.

I'm not sure how to answer this relative to your truly libertarian society. I'm not sure in this society what would happen when any crime is being planned.

[TGGRV]

teacherone, libertarian doesn't mean anarchist. :) For example, I'm a libertarian, but I'm not an anarcho-capitalist.

Baptist, life begins at conception, just like the global warming is true. And since my body is my property and the baby is alive, if I induce birth and the baby doesn't survive in the 6th month, it isn't murder since I didn't do anything actively to the baby to kill it, but to my body. Or if I jog 20 miles and I get a miscarriage.

And the Constitution doesn't apply on this issue on the grounds of protecting life because using this logic, we should support Obama's healthcare plan because it protects the life of those who don't afford health insurance, even though, the government has no business in healthcare.


Hogwash.

"soul" sounds religious to me. Let's not go there.

An amoeba can split and become two. Was it not an amoeba before it split? A star fish can be cut in half and you can get two star fishes. It was a star fish before it was cut in half. Humans in their earliest stages of development can split and become two. It was a human before the split, it's multiple humans after.
Yes, but it having a soul(I used soul just to satisfy the needs of the religious people) or personhood marks the beginning of human rights, which have their base on the capacity for consciousness. Also, death is defined as the lack of a pattern in brain waves, so then human life starts when the brain wave patterns start.

If this isn't the case any animal is entitled to the same rights as humans. What happens in the future is irrelevant, by the way, since I know this argument will be brought up. If you consider the future, jerking off, the day after pill and so on are murder, considering they have the potential to create human life. The only thing that is relevant is a life with the capacity for consciousness - your sperm is just as alive as a fertilized egg and neither are capable of being aware.

Using both the legal definition of death and the only scientific theory against which I didn't find arguments on the basis of the nature of human rights is the neurological side of developmental biology related to the beginning of human life. So, pre-24th week abortion should be legal, post-24th week it should be murder, unless it threatens the life of the mother. By the way, I don't find abortion moral, I actually dislike the notion, but nobody should legislate morality.