Building an abortion consensus

[Krugerrand]

This thought came to me yesterday evening.

I'd like to start another thread in the near future that includes a poll for what could be included in a consensus building approach to abortion. It'll be a poll that will include many options to include or exclude.

While I know discussion of the topic irritates some, avoiding the topic won't make it go away. Avoiding it won't help us win elections(imho).

What I'm requesting is for this to be a brainstorming of things to include in the poll and for LATER discussion. Please do not make this a thread of who is right and who is wrong.

Some things I've kicked around so far:

_ The unborn must be protected at the federal level, end of discussion.

_ A person's right to make decisions with their own body outweighs any consideration for the unborn, end of discussion.

_ All federal funding should be cut to any agency that performs abortions.

_ Federal laws that complicate and overburden private adoption agencies and orphanages should be eliminated.

_ Those wishing to adopt an infant should be allowed to financially compensate its mother.

Feel free to offer new ideas, phrasing suggestions or a reason why you think something should perhaps not be included in the poll. Once it's together, then we can support the good ones and tear apart the bad ones with sound logic and civil discourse. I included the absolute ends above but remember - the idea is for consensus building.

[MRoCkEd]

3, 4, 5

[John Taylor]

3,4,5--- all have absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental question of when live begins. If it begins at conception, like an oak tree begins when the acorn germinates, then life must be protected from that moment, while if it begins at a later stage, we can kill off whatever that thing is prior to it's becoming "fully human".

Government exists to defend the individual's natural right to life, liberty and property. Each distinct human being is an individual. From the moment of conception, a feteus has 100% distinct DNA and is a human being, albiet less developed than some other human beings... still, that condition does not render them less human and deserving of protection, but rather, creates an even greater impetus for extending to them the equal protections of law.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

YouTube - Evictionism: Abortion and Libertarianism (Walter Block) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM&feature=player_embedded#)!

[Krugerrand]

3,4,5--- all have absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental question of when live begins. If it begins at conception, like an oak tree begins when the acorn germinates, then life must be protected from that moment, while if it begins at a later stage, we can kill off whatever that thing is prior to it's becoming "fully human".

Government exists to defend the individual's natural right to life, liberty and property. Each distinct human being is an individual. From the moment of conception, a feteus has 100% distinct DNA and is a human being, albiet less developed than some other human beings... still, that condition does not render them less human and deserving of protection, but rather, creates an even greater impetus for extending to them the equal protections of law.

I've highlighted the line below in my OP to help keep the discussion on topic.


What I'm requesting is for this to be a brainstorming of things to include in the poll and for LATER discussion. Please do not make this a thread of who is right and who is wrong.

[charrob]

1) Rather than partial birth abortions, have interested future parents who want to adopt pay the woman to have a caeserian-- then those future parents take care of all expenses related to that caeserian and baby.

2) The old orphanages are now replaced by state funded "group homes". This is where tons of unwanted kids now live and are taken care of by minimum-wage unskilled workers who on many occasions either totally neglect or abuse these kids. Because alot of these overcrowded group homes have lots of special needs kids (those with drug dependencies, autoism, mental retardation, downs syndrome, etc.) and because the minimum wage workers have no skills in these areas, a federal tax needs to be incorporated to properly take care of these unwanted children rather than shoving them into a lifetime of misery which the states clearly cannot afford.

3) Currently 80% of foster care children are physically and/or sexually abused. Something needs to happen here if we're going to bring more of these unwanted kids into the world.

4) Currently hospitals have entire wards of "aides babies" who are known to be dying anyway and are hooked to zillions of tubes until their death is reality several months later. These babies are the many who literally never leave the hospital and who silently suffer through these months. I've read testaments of nurses who work in these wards and their stories are heartwrenching. The question is: how long do we pay to keep these infants suffering with our dollars, and when, if ever, should we 'pull the plug'?

[dannno]

I would encourage people who want abortions to use natural abortive remedies over the violent medical abortions. This is a cheap and simple solution. I don't see how this could be considered a crime, nor do I see how said crime could possibly be prosecuted. We're talking about drinking tea in the privacy of your own home. What right does the government have to even know if a mother is in her first trimester? What right is it to tell her what she can or can't put into her own body? Most late term abortions occur due to the cost of the procedure or the fact that the mother has to consider whether to go through with such a violent procedure. This allows the decision to be made earlier before the child has any sort of consciousness or is even really "alive", as fetuses do not even have blood for the first month.

It seems like that would solve the problem, for the most part..

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

1) Rather than partial birth abortions, have interested future parents who want to adopt pay the woman to have a caeserian-- then those future parents take care of all expenses related to that caeserian and baby.

2) The old orphanages are now replaced by state funded "group homes". This is where tons of unwanted kids now live and are taken care of by minimum-wage unskilled workers who on many occasions either totally neglect or abuse these kids. Because alot of these overcrowded group homes have lots of special needs kids (those with drug dependencies, autoism, mental retardation, downs syndrome, etc.) and because the minimum wage workers have no skills in these areas, a federal tax needs to be incorporated to properly take care of these unwanted children rather than shoving them into a lifetime of misery which the states clearly cannot afford.

3) Currently 80% of foster care children are physically and/or sexually abused. Something needs to happen here if we're going to bring more of these unwanted kids into the world.

Those are all the result of state or federal government regulation on adoption/abortion (mostly state regulating adpotion, kind of like how states regulate the crap out of health care). In the free market life is more profitable than death. Decriminalize baby selling.

[John Taylor]

Those are all the result of state or federal government regulation on adoption/abortion (mostly state regulating adpotion, kind of like how states regulate the crap out of health care). In the free market life is more profitable than death. Decriminalize baby selling.

Where does this fit into your NAMBLA worldview? Selling human beings... old men having sex with little children... uh, yeah. :rolleyes:

[John Taylor]

I've highlighted the line below in my OP to help keep the discussion on topic.

Perfect, don't include 3/4/5 because they have nothing to do with the issue.

[John Taylor]

1) Rather than partial birth abortions, have interested future parents who want to adopt pay the woman to have a caeserian-- then those future parents take care of all expenses related to that caeserian and baby.

2) The old orphanages are now replaced by state funded "group homes". This is where tons of unwanted kids now live and are taken care of by minimum-wage unskilled workers who on many occasions either totally neglect or abuse these kids. Because alot of these overcrowded group homes have lots of special needs kids (those with drug dependencies, autoism, mental retardation, downs syndrome, etc.) and because the minimum wage workers have no skills in these areas, a federal tax needs to be incorporated to properly take care of these unwanted children rather than shoving them into a lifetime of misery which the states clearly cannot afford.

3) Currently 80% of foster care children are physically and/or sexually abused. Something needs to happen here if we're going to bring more of these unwanted kids into the world.

4) Currently hospitals have entire wards of "aides babies" who are known to be dying anyway and are hooked to zillions of tubes until their death is reality several months later. These babies are the many who literally never leave the hospital and who silently suffer through these months. I've read testaments of nurses who work in these wards and their stories are heartwrenching. The question is: how long do we pay to keep these infants suffering with our dollars, and when, if ever, should we 'pull the plug'?

The ethical issues regarding euthenasia of infants who are "defective" are monumental.

[charrob]

one more:

5) true leftists care passionately about the environment, wildlife, and marine life. And most see out-of-control population growth to be the worst factor for the environment and the wildlife we share the earth with. Banning abortion increases human population growth. So, how about equalizing this by stopping the tax incentives (ie. deductions) for having children? (ie. perhaps the increase in life due to an abortion ban could be somewhat outweighed by ending incentives for couples in the general population to have more kids.)

[charrob]

1) Rather than partial birth abortions, have interested future parents who want to adopt pay the woman to have a caeserian-- then those future parents take care of all expenses related to that caeserian and baby.

2) The old orphanages are now replaced by state funded "group homes". This is where tons of unwanted kids now live and are taken care of by minimum-wage unskilled workers who on many occasions either totally neglect or abuse these kids. Because alot of these overcrowded group homes have lots of special needs kids (those with drug dependencies, autoism, mental retardation, downs syndrome, etc.) and because the minimum wage workers have no skills in these areas, a federal tax needs to be incorporated to properly take care of these unwanted children rather than shoving them into a lifetime of misery which the states clearly cannot afford.

3) Currently 80% of foster care children are physically and/or sexually abused. Something needs to happen here if we're going to bring more of these unwanted kids into the world.

4) Currently hospitals have entire wards of "aides babies" who are known to be dying anyway and are hooked to zillions of tubes until their death is reality several months later. These babies are the many who literally never leave the hospital and who silently suffer through these months. I've read testaments of nurses who work in these wards and their stories are heartwrenching. The question is: how long do we pay to keep these infants suffering with our dollars, and when, if ever, should we 'pull the plug'?

The ethical issues regarding euthenasia of infants who are "defective" are monumental.

The Dr. Kavorkian question is a difficult one for sure... but one has to also ask oneself, how ethical is prolonging suffering when death is imminent?

[John Taylor]

one more:

5) true leftists care passionately about the environment, wildlife, and marine life. And most see out-of-control population growth to be the worst factor for the environment and the wildlife we share the earth with. Banning abortion increases human population growth. So, how about equalizing this by stopping the tax incentives (ie. deductions) for having children? (ie. perhaps the increase in life due to an abortion ban could be somewhat outweighed by ending incentives for couples in the general population to have more kids.)

6) True leftists should euthanize themselves to rid the world of yet an additional generation of malthusian nostradami.

[John Taylor]

[QUOTE=John Taylor;2765655]

The Dr. Kavorkian question is a difficult one for sure... but one has to also ask oneself, how ethical is prolonging suffering when death is imminent?

It is a very difficult question. I believe the decision to pull the plug should always be in the hands of the guardian of the individual (if and only if incapacitated and unable to convey their wishes)... I see government as being uniquely unqualified and unsuited to such a role.

[Brian4Liberty]

This thought came to me yesterday evening.

I'd like to start another thread in the near future that includes a poll for what could be included in a consensus building approach to abortion. It'll be a poll that will include many options to include or exclude.

While I know discussion of the topic irritates some, avoiding the topic won't make it go away. Avoiding it won't help us win elections(imho).

What I'm requesting is for this to be a brainstorming of things to include in the poll and for LATER discussion. Please do not make this a thread of who is right and who is wrong.

Some things I've kicked around so far:

_ The unborn must be protected at the federal level, end of discussion.

_ A person's right to make decisions with their own body outweighs any consideration for the unborn, end of discussion.

_ All federal funding should be cut to any agency that performs abortions.

_ Federal laws that complicate and overburden private adoption agencies and orphanages should be eliminated.

_ Those wishing to adopt an infant should be allowed to financially compensate its mother.

Feel free to offer new ideas, phrasing suggestions or a reason why you think something should perhaps not be included in the poll. Once it's together, then we can support the good ones and tear apart the bad ones with sound logic and civil discourse. I included the absolute ends above but remember - the idea is for consensus building.

You might want to make it a multi-choice poll, where people can vote for each item that they would find acceptable. So the "end of discussion" wording would not be necessary.

Instead of:

"The unborn must be protected at the federal level, end of discussion."

You might try:

"The Federal government should make laws about abortion."

That way people could choose that option plus others like:

"Abortion should be illegal."
"The State governments should make laws about abortion."

Other suggestions for options:

"Abortion should be avoided."
"Abortion should be avoided and all other birth-control options should take priority."
"Unique Life begins at conception."
"Viable life begins some time later."
"The American Medical Association should have well-defined rules on abortion, which would result in revoking licenses or certifications of Doctors who violate those rules."
"Abortion should be banned after the first trimester."
"Abortion should be banned after the forth month."
"Abortion should be banned after the second trimester."
"Government at all levels should not be involved in abortion."

[ChaosControl]

I'd like to see 1, but I can compromise and keep it a state issue since other violent actions are state issues.

3,4,5 are obviously yes.

[RM918]

3) Currently 80% of foster care children are physically and/or sexually abused. Something needs to happen here if we're going to bring more of these unwanted kids into the world.


Ok, that sounds pretty outrageous. Where'd you get that?

[Krugerrand]

I would encourage people who want abortions to use natural abortive remedies over the violent medical abortions. This is a cheap and simple solution. I don't see how this could be considered a crime, nor do I see how said crime could possibly be prosecuted. We're talking about drinking tea in the privacy of your own home. What right does the government have to even know if a mother is in her first trimester? What right is it to tell her what she can or can't put into her own body? Most late term abortions occur due to the cost of the procedure or the fact that the mother has to consider whether to go through with such a violent procedure. This allows the decision to be made earlier before the child has any sort of consciousness or is even really "alive", as fetuses do not even have blood for the first month.

It seems like that would solve the problem, for the most part..

Danno, is there a way to rephrase that into an almost 'campaign platform' sort of way to include in the poll?

[Krugerrand]

1) Rather than partial birth abortions, have interested future parents who want to adopt pay the woman to have a caeserian-- then those future parents take care of all expenses related to that caeserian and baby.

I think this could fall under the option:
_ Those wishing to adopt an infant should be allowed to financially compensate its mother.

[Krugerrand]

Those are all the result of state or federal government regulation on adoption/abortion (mostly state regulating adpotion, kind of like how states regulate the crap out of health care). In the free market life is more profitable than death. Decriminalize baby selling.

again,
_ Those wishing to adopt an infant should be allowed to financially compensate its mother.
(sounds a little better than baby selling.)

[Krugerrand]

You might want to make it a multi-choice poll, where people can vote for each item that they would find acceptable. So the "end of discussion" wording would not be necessary.

Instead of:

"The unborn must be protected at the federal level, end of discussion."

You might try:

"The Federal government should make laws about abortion."

That way people could choose that option plus others like:

"Abortion should be illegal."
"The State governments should make laws about abortion."

Other suggestions for options:

"Abortion should be avoided."
"Abortion should be avoided and all other birth-control options should take priority."
"Unique Life begins at conception."
"Viable life begins some time later."
"The American Medical Association should have well-defined rules on abortion, which would result in revoking licenses or certifications of Doctors who violate those rules."
"Abortion should be banned after the first trimester."
"Abortion should be banned after the forth month."
"Abortion should be banned after the second trimester."
"Government at all levels should not be involved in abortion."

A multiple choice poll will definitely be the way to go.

My original mind frame was along the lines of a consensus in the way of what could be used as part of a campaign platform or "issues" declaration. (That's not to say it has to be that way - it's just what I had in mind.)

I probably won't be able to follow up much over the weekend ... but I'll see what I can have ready at the early side of next week. I'll post what I intend to post here before I make the poll so that I can get more feedback.

[RM918]

There also the option, if no-one brought it up, "Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, and the matter left to the states."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This thought came to me yesterday evening.

I'd like to start another thread in the near future that includes a poll for what could be included in a consensus building approach to abortion. It'll be a poll that will include many options to include or exclude.

While I know discussion of the topic irritates some, avoiding the topic won't make it go away. Avoiding it won't help us win elections(imho).

What I'm requesting is for this to be a brainstorming of things to include in the poll and for LATER discussion. Please do not make this a thread of who is right and who is wrong.

Some things I've kicked around so far:

_ The unborn must be protected at the federal level, end of discussion.

_ A person's right to make decisions with their own body outweighs any consideration for the unborn, end of discussion.

_ All federal funding should be cut to any agency that performs abortions.

_ Federal laws that complicate and overburden private adoption agencies and orphanages should be eliminated.

_ Those wishing to adopt an infant should be allowed to financially compensate its mother.

Feel free to offer new ideas, phrasing suggestions or a reason why you think something should perhaps not be included in the poll. Once it's together, then we can support the good ones and tear apart the bad ones with sound logic and civil discourse. I included the absolute ends above but remember - the idea is for consensus building.

I remember in my youth a Kung-Fu movie depicting the good guy cleaning, not destroying, the dining room of a restaurant while beating up the bad guys. As he swept the floor, he hit the bad guys with the broom, before placing the chairs upon the tables, he hit them with it. And so on. This is the kind of approach I prefer in government. No more think tanks to stink up. Tyranny cannot reprove itself by its own measures. The only solution is to get out of the way of the people by working twice as hard as they do in not legislating, not administering, and not judging.
If you don't understand what I am talking about, then you are probably not a true American, but a European in denial.

[John Taylor]

Ok, that sounds pretty outrageous. Where'd you get that?

That was charrob's statement, not mine, I was quoting her and responding to her assertions.

[Elwar]

Should the Federal government define the term "person"?

[.Tom]

this thought came to me yesterday evening.

I'd like to start another thread in the near future that includes a poll for what could be included in a consensus building approach to abortion. It'll be a poll that will include many options to include or exclude.

While i know discussion of the topic irritates some, avoiding the topic won't make it go away. Avoiding it won't help us win elections(imho).

what i'm requesting is for this to be a brainstorming of things to include in the poll and for later discussion. Please do not make this a thread of who is right and who is wrong.

some things i've kicked around so far:

_ the unborn must be protected at the federal level, end of discussion.

_ a person's right to make decisions with their own body outweighs any consideration for the unborn, end of discussion.

_ all federal funding should be cut to any agency that performs abortions.

_ federal laws that complicate and overburden private adoption agencies and orphanages should be eliminated.

_ those wishing to adopt an infant should be allowed to financially compensate its mother.

feel free to offer new ideas, phrasing suggestions or a reason why you think something should perhaps not be included in the poll. Once it's together, then we can support the good ones and tear apart the bad ones with sound logic and civil discourse. I included the absolute ends above but remember - the idea is for consensus building.

2,3,4,5.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Where does this fit into your NAMBLA worldview? Selling human beings... old men having sex with little children... uh, yeah. :rolleyes:

Where do you think up that shit? Why don't you go find someone who doesn't demonstrate a consistent liberty philosophy to pick on and argue with the person in the mirror.

It is a fact states regulate the shit out of adoption. It is a fact states regulate the shit out of abortion. It is a fact women used to be able to profit from giving birth.


again,
_ Those wishing to adopt an infant should be allowed to financially compensate its mother.
(sounds a little better than baby selling.)

No need to sugar coat it as there is nothing wrong with it. It is buying/selling/trading legal guardian interests.

The truth is on our side. In a free market life is more profitable than death. It is a simple fact. People might profit from death but unless you are famous nobody profits from dead people.

[Brian4Liberty]

It is a fact women used to be able to profit from giving birth.

They still do. Eighteen years of free money from the government...(For those who decide to use the welfare state. Just tax breaks for all others.)

[Pennsylvania]

I agree with 2, 3, 4, and 5