Are you opposed to abortion?

[Jeremy]

Vote.

And don't try to complicate the question. It's quite simple. It's not about laws or politics or anything like that.

[teacherone]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2961175776_b341ca0fc5.jpg

[muzzled dogg]

are you asking if i'm opposed to personally performing the procedure?

[Wren]

It's not an issue for me, so I could honestly care less about abortion. However, if I absolutely had to give an opinion, I support abortion only when it comes to rape/incest or other similar situations.

[Jeremy]

are you asking if i'm opposed to personally performing the procedure?

"And don't try to complicate the question. It's quite simple."

[gls]

I'm opposed to Roe v Wade from a Constitutional perspective, and I certainly would be against it if it was my child on the line, but I think a nationwide ban would be a disaster.

[Jeremy]

It's not an issue for me, so I could honestly care less about abortion. However, if I absolutely had to give an opinion, I support abortion only when it comes to rape/incest or other similar situations.

Why don't you support it in other instances? If it's not human life and you're willing to terminate it, what does it matter? Just try to be a little consistent...

[teacherone]

me... i'm for any form of murder.

i'm an eco-facist.

http://theykid.com/wp-content/thumbnails/postpic/captain-planet.jpeg

[Jeremy]

I'm opposed to Roe v Wade from a Constitutional perspective, and I certainly would be against it if it was my child on the line, but I think a nationwide ban would be a disaster.

Did you read the op? I said it's not about laws. Your post, however, has everything to do with laws and politics, and noting to do with the actual question.

[muzzled dogg]

dude i am trying to uncomplicate the question that you complicated

[Jeremy]

dude i am trying to uncomplicate the question that you complicated

If I asked, "Are you opposed to high heels?" it would mean you don't like it when people wear high heels. It has nothing to do with making high heels.

[Nic]

I don't feel that I'm qualified enough to determine when life begins, thus, I have no real opinion. I do, however, tend to believe Ron Paul to be far more qualified considering his background and lean towards his pro-life position. Really though, it's not an issue to me one way or the other.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Yes, I am opposed to abortion in all forms.

[Wren]

Why don't you support it in other instances? If it's not human life and you're willing to terminate it, what does it matter? Just try to be a little consistent...

Because it's non-consensual sex. Yes, it's terminating human life, but I don't believe a woman should be forced to have a baby if she did not consent to it in the first place.

[Jeremy]

Because it's non-consensual sex. Yes, it's terminating human life, but I don't believe a woman should be forced to have a baby if she did not consent to it in the first place.

So if she was raped and gave birth to a baby that she did not consent to (maybe she realized it after DNA tests), would you support killing the baby?

[Kotin]

opposed in all forms.

[gls]

Did you read the op? I said it's not about laws. Your post, however, has everything to do with laws and politics, and noting to do with the actual question.

By removing all practicality from it you're framing the question to get the answer that you want. No one is "pro" killing babies.

[Jeremy]

By removing all practicality from it you're framing the question to get the answer that you want. No one is "pro" killing babies.

Right. But a lot of people don't consider unborn babies to be babies or human life. If you think they are babies and you are okay with abortion... I don't think that's very consistent. Of course, being opposed to something and making a law against it is not the same thing. Maybe some people opposed want a law against it. Maybe some don't. I don't know, but that's not what the poll is about.

[pcosmar]

I'm opposed to Roe v Wade from a Constitutional perspective, and I certainly would be against it if it was my child on the line, but I think a nationwide ban would be a disaster.

No.
Legitimizing it was a disaster. Murder becoming "socially acceptable" was a disaster.

Reversing that will be difficult.

[moostraks]

By removing all practicality from it you're framing the question to get the answer that you want. No one is "pro" killing babies.

That is a controversial statement as the issue depends upon when does life begin. So for some of us any abortion is murder as we believe life begins at conception. Rape or incest is beyond the choice of the child as well and as horrible as the situation is you can't destroy the act by destroying the child even though many might chose abortion to try and destroy the reminder of the act. (I have suffered the indignity of rape/incest so spare me that I don't understand the issue) It is a sad situation for those involved. However emotion has allowed the foot in the door to give situational legitimacy to what some of us see as murder.

[JebSanderson]

Yes, I am opposed to abortion in all forms.

+1

[eduardo89]

I'm against it except when the mother's life is at risk.

[Jeremy]

I'm against it except when the mother's life is at risk.

Well vote yes in that case.

[dannno]

are you asking if i'm opposed to personally performing the procedure?

Are you opposed to the procedure being performed by anybody, is the question, and remember you can oppose something without it being illegal and without stopping it yourself.

[ivflight]

Almost everyone would/should probably answer "yes" to this question, even pro-choicer's like me. Abortion is not a pleasant thought to anyone. No one, when deciding what fun activities to do for the weekend, will consider abortion. In this way no one is for abortion and since would prefer it not happen is opposed to it.

[ClayTrainor]

That is a controversial statement as the issue depends upon when does life begin. So for some of us any abortion is murder as we believe life begins at conception. Rape or incest is beyond the choice of the child as well and as horrible as the situation is you can't destroy the act by destroying the child even though many might chose abortion to try and destroy the reminder of the act. (I have suffered the indignity of rape/incest so spare me that I don't understand the issue) It is a sad situation for those involved. However emotion has allowed the foot in the door to give situational legitimacy to what some of us see as murder.

This is a tough issue for me to come to a firm conclusion on, because of many situational circumstances like you have illustrated.

[Jeremy]

Almost everyone would/should probably answer "yes" to this question, even pro-choicer's like me. Abortion is not a pleasant thought to anyone. No one, when deciding what fun activities to do for the weekend, will consider abortion. In this way no one is for abortion and since would prefer it not happen is opposed to it.
If you don't think it's its own life, what's the big deal?

[pcosmar]

If you don't think it's its own life, what's the big deal?


"I'll have to consult with my lawyers"
Mitt Romney
:eek:

[Sola_Fide]

Almost everyone would/should probably answer "yes" to this question, even pro-choicer's like me. Abortion is not a pleasant thought to anyone. No one, when deciding what fun activities to do for the weekend, will consider abortion. In this way no one is for abortion and since would prefer it not happen is opposed to it.


Blah blah blah...

Its like saying, "Well, it is a tough decision not to extend the protections of the law to people who have not been born yet, but if another person thinks hard enough about it, it is okay to deny the right of another person to live."

The "thinking hard" argument is ridiculous.

[dannno]

I'd like to see the cheaper, more humane option of natural abortive remedies being used instead. This method stops working after a month or two, so once a child has any sort of self awareness it won't work anymore.

Most mothers can decide within a month or two whether they want to carry their child to term.. one big obstacle to doing this is the large expense of abortions.. take away this obstacle and women will be able to use this less violent method instead. Nobody will make large profits as the method is extremely cheap, so you won't have the abortion industrial complex trying to increase abortions.

The other benefit would be that there are teas similar to natural abortive remedies that are natural forms of birth control.. then you don't have to deal with the side effects and expense of birth control pills.

[VBRonPaulFan]

I think life started a long time ago and is continuous. For me, life doesn't start at conception because it took a live sperm and live ovum to make a live embryo. Stating that, I think abortion is murder and I don't believe in it. That's just my opinion though, and i'd never try to impose some type of law based on it. If a consenting woman and doctor get together to do the procedure, that's their prerogative.

[dannno]

Blah blah blah...

Its like saying, "Well, it is a tough decision not to extend the protections of the law to people who have not been born yet, but if another person thinks hard enough about it, it is okay to deny the right of another person to live."

The "thinking hard" argument is ridiculous.

Sorry, not everybody defines 1 month old fetuses as individuals.. it certainly doesn't fit the dictionary definition. If your religious beliefs teach this, then great, believe it.. but you're not going to convince everybody that a 1 month old fetus is an individual deserving full protection of the law. I live in a world where 90% of the people around me are pro-choice, trust me it ain't going to happen. Not even I think a 1 month old fetus is the same as a newborn or a 7 or 8 month old fetus. I think this issue is a lot more complicated than most pro-life and most pro-choice people make it out to be, which is why it should be decided locally.

[moostraks]

This is a tough issue for me to come to a firm conclusion on, because of many situational circumstances like you have illustrated.

I think that is why you have to remove emotion to a large extent to make the determination on a stance. Same way you have to be pragmatic when it comes to most issues to clear away the noise.

[Jeremy]

Sorry, not everybody defines 1 month old fetuses as individuals.. it certainly doesn't fit the dictionary definition. If your religious beliefs teach this, then great, believe it.. but you're not going to convince everybody that a 1 month old fetus is an individual deserving full protection of the law. I live in a world where 90% of the people around me are pro-choice, it ain't going to happen. Not even I think a 1 month old fetus is the same as a newborn or a 7 or 8 month old fetus. I think this issue is a lot more complicated than most pro-life and most pro-choice people make it out to be, which is why it should be decided locally.

Biologically speaking, once the zygote starts dividing (mitosis), it is its own individual human organism. You don't need to bring religious beliefs into it if you don't want to.

[Fredom101]

A good question is, what percentage of the population does abortion affect?

[Kludge]

Not the procedure, but it's a [I should be going right about now] flag for the person who's had it.

[muzzled dogg]

No human has the right to live parasitically off another

[moostraks]

Sorry, not everybody defines 1 month old fetuses as individuals.. it certainly doesn't fit the dictionary definition. If your religious beliefs teach this, then great, believe it.. but you're not going to convince everybody that a 1 month old fetus is an individual deserving full protection of the law. I live in a world where 90% of the people around me are pro-choice, it ain't going to happen. Not even I think a 1 month old fetus is the same as a newborn or a 7 or 8 month old fetus. I think this issue is a lot more complicated than most pro-life and most pro-choice people make it out to be, which is why it should be decided locally.

The problem is that by defining something outside of the framework of egg meets sperm you end up with a huge variance between when people are willing to agree it does become life and that is illogical and arbitrary. So when would it become life? When it has human form? How close to human form does it need to be? Should the ears be in their final position or are arm and leg buds sufficient?

[pcosmar]

A good question is, what percentage of the population does abortion affect?

It affects 100% of it's victims.

[moostraks]

No human has the right to live parasitically off another

Then I should have killed my 18 year old years ago.

[Sola_Fide]

Sorry, not everybody defines 1 month old fetuses as individuals.. it certainly doesn't fit the dictionary definition. If your religious beliefs teach this, then great, believe it.. but you're not going to convince everybody that a 1 month old fetus is an individual deserving full protection of the law. I live in a world where 90% of the people around me are pro-choice, trust me it ain't going to happen. Not even I think a 1 month old fetus is the same as a newborn or a 7 or 8 month old fetus. I think this issue is a lot more complicated than most pro-life and most pro-choice people make it out to be, which is why it should be decided locally.

I was making a legal argument, not a "religious" one.

What is the qualitative difference if you deny a person the protections of the law at 9 years, 9 months, 1 month, or 1 day?

[Kludge]

Then I should have killed my 18 year old years ago.
privilege v. right

[muzzled dogg]

Then I should have killed my 18 year old years ago.

Just because you didn't have the right to be in a fetus in your mo
doesn't mean she didn't voluntarily nurse you

[Jeremy]

No human has the right to live parasitically off another

Babies and small children depend on an adult human to survive. Are you fine with aborting born babies and small children too?

[emazur]

I'm pro-choice though abortion isn't a big issue for me - I'd vote for a Libertarian/libertarian~conservative even if he was very anti-abortion. Besides, no one who says they are opposed to abortion will be able to do anything about it, and even if it was banned it wouldn't last and people would find ways around it in the meantime (and those who couldn't afford to leave the country or turn to the underground for the procedure may go back to the days of failed wirehanger abortions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmoqc2KUt84) - which does no good for the mother or the anti-abortionist). Peter Schiff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDttx64zk4I) gives the best answer I've heard on the abortion issue. One thing I can agree (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JC9W7EL2xg) with hopefully everyone here on is that no government money should go to provide abortions b/c 1) people shouldn't be forced to participate in something through taxation that they morally oppose 2) no one is entitled to abortions or any other medical procedure at taxpayer expense - you want it, you pay for it.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Prediction for this thread: 17 pages.

[teacherone]

well OP you should be proud of yourself.

only one hour old and your tired old debate of a thread is already 5 pages long.

i'm sure by tomorrow it will be 25.

just like the other 50 on the same topic on this very board.

[dannno]

I think life started a long time ago and is continuous. For me, life doesn't start at conception because it took a live sperm and live ovum to make a live embryo. Stating that, I think abortion is murder and I don't believe in it. That's just my opinion though, and i'd never try to impose some type of law based on it. If a consenting woman and doctor get together to do the procedure, that's their prerogative.

Precisely, I don't believe life starts at conception either.. life started billions of years ago or more.. the question is when does the life belong to the individual entity and not the person who is growing it out of their own tissue? I say they need to be, at minimum, self-aware. I don't know when this happens, but it's not within the first month or two, or probably 3. Before that, the fetus is just a holding pin for a future person.

I honestly don't see a difference between destroying a fetus within the first month and wearing a condom.. either way you're taking away the future life of a person who doesn't exist yet, a person doesn't exist before they are self aware.

[Sola_Fide]

No human has the right to live parasitically off another

Yo shemm,

Ron pretty much destroys this argument in The Revolution (imo). Im on a phone now or I would pasteit for you.

[Jeremy]

well OP you should be proud of yourself.

only one hour old and your tired old debate of a thread is already 5 pages long.

i'm sure by tomorrow it will be 25.

just like the other 50 on the same topic on this very board.

I don't really care about the discussion. I was just proving the point that most people here are opposed to abortion. Apparently those other topics weren't enough to prove my point, so I created the poll.

[moostraks]

Just because you didn't have the right to be in a fetus in your mo
doesn't mean she didn't voluntarily nurse you

??? Can anyone legitimately kill the psychopaths in our society who function as parasites leaching off of those around them?

[Kludge]

Babies and small children depend on an adult human to survive. Are fine with aborting born babies and small children too?

Every parent has a "natural right" to tell their kids to leave the property and fend for themselves outside - sure.

People also have a "non-binding responsibility" to care for that kid until it is truly able to fend for itself.

[Kludge]

??? Can anyone legitimately kill the psychopaths in our society who function as parasites leaching off of those around them?

Not legally ATM, but that isn't what the OP was asking.

[muzzled dogg]

Lol dude I've heard his argument.

Rothbard destroys Ron on this

[Jeremy]

Lol dude I've heard his argument.

Rothbard destroys Ron on this

You're just using the Rothbard argument, but you don't seem to be defending it very well. How come you haven't responded to the posts in response to yours?

[dannno]

I was making a legal argument, not a "religious" one.

What is the qualitative difference if you deny a person the protections of the law at 9 years, 9 months, 1 month, or 1 day?

Most of this answered in my post above. They aren't an individual when a fetus, their mom is growing them from her own tissue..once their tissue is grown and their mom becomes a holding pen for a developed child, it's a little different. Should the law be different? Depends on the community.

Why does the kid who doesn't get to live because their parents decided to use a condom differ from the kid who is killed in the first month before they are self ware? Neither of these "hurt" the child, but both deprive them of life. Wearing condoms is depriving people of life, I don't see the difference.

[Kludge]

You're just using the Rothbard argument, but you don't seem to be defending it very well. How come you haven't responded to the posts in response to yours?

He did....



No human has the right to live parasitically off another


Then I should have killed my 18 year old years ago.


Just because you didn't have the right to be in a fetus in your mo
doesn't mean she didn't voluntarily nurse you

[Jeremy]

On the "parasite" thing:

If you made your friend hold on to you while dangling off a cliff, and you then let go of him, would it be murder?


He did....
That was one post. There were others, including one by me. He also didn't address what she or I were talking about.

[moostraks]

Not legally ATM, but that isn't what the OP was asking.

Some of us believe in a higher protection of life and that is the essence of what the op was about. Even if the person is a vulture. Criminals have higher protection than a embryo/fetus in our society.

[Brett85]

The question should be, "are you pro life or pro choice?"

[Kludge]

On the "parasite" thing:

If you made your friend hold on to you while dangling off a cliff, and you then let go of him, would it be murder?

That's another legal question... Murder is a specific legal category of killing. Abolish the gov't and there will be no murder.

[Jeremy]

The question should be, "are you pro life or pro choice?"

Some people think pro-life means you are for banning it. whoisjohngalt says he is pro-choice because, although he is opposed to abortion, he doesn't think there should be a law against it. I don't think that makes sense, but whatever...

[Wren]

So if she was raped and gave birth to a baby that she did not consent to (maybe she realized it after DNA tests), would you support killing the baby?

I see where you're getting at, but that just complicates the issue even further as we're getting an entirely different debate as to when life begins and what are personal beliefs are. I'm a spiritual not a religious guy, so I don't believe that life begins at conception but rather when the pineal gland begins to form in a developing fetus (which i think is 7 weeks post-conception, can't remember entirely). But to answer your question, obviously no.

[Jeremy]

That's another legal question... Murder is a specific legal category of killing.

Why is murder a legal thing? Can you murder in an anarchist society?

[muzzled dogg]

Lol dude I'm on a fucking iPhone at work!

And yeah I don't propose to enslave u and
coerce u to hang on

[ClayTrainor]

Lol dude I've heard his argument.

Rothbard destroys Ron on this

Got a link?

[Wren]

Man this thread has exploded..:rolleyes:

[Jeremy]

I see where you're getting at, but that just complicates the issue even further as we're getting an entirely different debate as to when life begins and what are personal beliefs are. I'm a spiritual not a religious guy, so I don't believe that life begins at conception but rather when the pineal gland begins to form in a developing fetus (which i think is 7 weeks post-conception, can't remember entirely). But to answer your question, obviously no.
But you implied life begins before they are born... you aren't being consistent. :r

[Kludge]

Why is murder a legal thing? Can you murder in an anarchist society?

No, because murder is defined by law/gov't. There's no such thing as "murder" in a free society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

[Jeremy]

Lol dude I'm on a fucking iPhone at work!

And yeah I don't propose to enslave u and
coerce u to hang on

But I was the one who put you there, hanging on to me and dangling off a cliff. Likewise, a mother, or at least her body, puts the baby (human life, since the Rothbard argument accepts it as life) in her womb.

[moostraks]

Most of this answered in my post above. They aren't an individual when a fetus, their mom is growing them from her own tissue..once their tissue is grown and their mom becomes a holding pen for a developed child, it's a little different. Should the law be different? Depends on the community.

Why does the kid who doesn't get to live because their parents decided to use a condom differ from the kid who is killed in the first month before they are self ware? Neither of these "hurt" the child, but both deprive them of life. Wearing condoms is depriving people of life, I don't see the difference.

From her own tissue? How's that? They are tapped into the blood system but they are their own material. A child strictly breast fed would then be denied their own right to life under the same premise. As for hurting the child, why do very immature fetuses flinch from being poked?

By using a condom you are not destroying a life but preventing a creation. It takes an egg and a sperm successfully implanted to be a life.

[ClayTrainor]

No, because murder is defined by law/gov't. There's no such thing as "murder" in a free society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

This is a bit confusing to me.

What would you suggest the intentional pre-meditated killing of another human be called in a free society?

[dannno]

On the "parasite" thing:

If you made your friend hold on to you while dangling off a cliff, and you then let go of him, would it be murder?


Yes, but if your friend jumped off the cliff, then you caught him, then let him go, it would not be murder.. it is where you turn your friend into the parasite by pushing him off the cliff to begin with that bungles your analogy..

You could say that having sex is the same as pushing them off the cliff, but they didn't even exist before that..

[RonPaulFanInGA]

No human has the right to live parasitically off another

Some personal responsibility to not get pregnant would be a good thing then if you want to avoid the "parasite."

What a concept. :rolleyes:

[Jeremy]

No, because murder is defined by law/gov't. There's no such thing as "murder" in a free society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
Well it's pointless to argue semantics. Just replace murder with killing so we can talk about the actual topic. The question is, are you responsible for his death?

[ClayTrainor]

Man this thread has exploded..:rolleyes:

All abortion threads do, lol.

[Kludge]

This is a bit confusing to me.

What would you suggest the intentional pre-meditated killing of another human be called in a free society?

Pre-meditated killing.

Killing with malicious intent.

Murder is a bullshit term which has come to be near-meaningless; "killing someone who didn't deserve it." Murder is a purely legal term.

[moostraks]

The question should be, "are you pro life or pro choice?"

The question is angling for a response not on what you want to legally enforce but ethical agree with I believe...

[sailingaway]

Well it's pointless to argue semantics. Just replace murder with killing so we can talk about the actual topic. The question is, are you responsible for his death?

You are changing the terms. Just stick with the original question. Not a question of whether it should be legal or illegal or state or federal, do you oppose it? Under that heading, I wrote that I do. But the entire question is WHETHER you consider it murder. If you assume it is, it removes the question.

[YumYum]

It depends on who it is.

[Jeremy]

Yes, but if your friend jumped off the cliff, then you caught him, then let him go, it would not be murder.. it is where you turn your friend into the parasite by pushing him off the cliff to begin with that bungles your analogy.

If another person placed itself inside of you, it wouldn't be "murder." But the woman's body is the one who places the baby there. And, as the Rothbard argument accepts, you are still ending another human life. It's like saying cutting off your arm is not the same as cutting off your arm. You are just getting rid of a parasite.

[Kludge]

Well it's pointless to argue semantics. Just replace murder with killing so we can talk about the actual topic. The question is, are you responsible for his death?

Sure. So what's your point?

When you abort an in-womb baby, you're also responsible for its death. - And if you don't donate all your money to those without enough food, you're responsible for the deaths which result of that. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

[Jeremy]

You are changing the terms. Just stick with the original question. Not a question of whether it should be legal or illegal or state or federal, do you oppose it? Under that heading, I wrote that I do. But the entire question is WHETHER you consider it murder. If you assume it is, it removes the question.

Are you responding to Kludge? Because I don't think that made sense to me, but you quoted my post, lol...

[sailingaway]

A baby is not a parasite.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

A baby is not a parasite.

It's really astounding that someone here has actually implied that. Good grief.

[Kludge]

A baby is not a parasite.

parasite - a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite

[dannno]

From her own tissue? How's that? They are tapped into the blood system but they are their own material.

They are tapped into the blood system which becomes their own material..without the blood system they can't grow..




A child strictly breast fed would then be denied their own right to life under the same premise.

Nah, there are alternatives to breast feeding.. Ever seen Three Men and a Baby?




As for hurting the child, why do very immature fetuses flinch from being poked?

Curious, how young? Also, why do chickens run after their heads are cut off? Could be nerves reacting.



By using a condom you are not destroying a life but preventing a creation. It takes an egg and a sperm successfully implanted to be a life.

Yes, but my whole premise is that they aren't their own life until they become self aware. Before that they are a fetus, before that they are a sperm and egg separated, the entire time are potential life without self awareness..

[Jeremy]

Sure. So what's your point?

When you abort an in-womb baby, you're also responsible for its death. - And if you don't donate all your money to those without enough food, you're responsible for the deaths which result of that. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

You aren't the reason for the existence of those people without food. But you are for the baby. You, or at least your body, purposely created the baby (human life).

Do you think it's wrong to refrain from feeding your newly born baby? Well not exactly... What if you can't afford it? However, what if you prevented your baby from obtaining food?

What if you locked a hungry person in a cage so they couldn't eat food?

[dean.engelhardt]

The ultimate troll question.

[ClayTrainor]

A baby is not a parasite.

By definition, It is when it's inside the mother, feeding on another life form to survive. It doesn't sound nice, I know, but it is true.

Parasite: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host

[RonPaulFanInGA]

parasite - a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite

Right. Well then, everyone living on the planet today was or currently is a "parasite"; including everyone on this forum. Libertarianism never existed!

[teacherone]

A baby is not a parasite.

http://www.mein-gb.com/upload/bb51a857.jpg

+rep!

[Kludge]

You aren't the reason for the existence of those people without food. But you are for the baby. You, or at least your body, created the baby (human life).

Do you think it's wrong to refrain from feeding your newly born baby?

I don't agree that creation creates a binding responsibility (something worthy of punishment), but do think we all have a non-binding responsibility to take care of EVERYONE.

I think it wouldn't be wrong to not feed your baby, but it'd indicate a pretty shitty human being. I would blame them, but I wouldn't consider it worth acting on except to take the baby. Or, put in another way, it should not be criminal to not feed a baby, whether yours or someone else's.

[Sola_Fide]

"People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted. In both cases, we try to make human life into something less than human, simply according to our will." - Ron Paul, The Revolution


Babies are not parasites. Ron Paul is right.

[dannno]

If another person placed itself inside of you, it wouldn't be "murder." But the woman's body is the one who places the baby there. And, as the Rothbard argument accepts, you are still ending another human life. It's like saying cutting off your arm is not the same as cutting off your arm. You are just getting rid of a parasite.

You're ending a life by using a condom as well.. it is potential life.. early fetus is potential life, they aren't self aware, they don't have any of the qualities that an individual has, but they are potential life.

[moostraks]

Sure. So what's your point?

When you abort an in-womb baby, you're also responsible for its death. - And if you don't donate all your money to those without enough food, you're responsible for the deaths which result of that. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

If I abort something in my body with the genetic composition of a human (not a cancer cell) I am killing an actual baby be it 1 month or 6 months in utero. If I am unable to care for all the needy that I did not bring forth from my genetic material or agree to be responsible for then I am not complicit in their destruction. Some things are beyond my control and that would fall in the category of one of those things. If however I do not care for those that depend upon me then I am neglectful and culpable for their deaths...

[Kludge]

Right. Well then, everyone living on the planet today was or currently is a "parasite"; including everyone on this forum. Libertarianism never existed!

You're suggesting everybody is useless and takes something useful from other people who don't create anything useful. That's ridiculous.

[Wren]

But you implied life begins before they are born... you aren't being consistent. :r

Yes, I did, but I think women can take the pill for up to 7 weeks post conception, no? After that, I believe it's too late. So abortion isn't a necessary procedure. The earliest I believe you can have an abortion is at 4 weeks. That's for a medical abortion where you take the abortion pill and it induces a miscarriage. At 6 weeks you can have a surgical abortion, but I'm not sure exactly how it's done. I'm against all forms of abortion after 7 weeks of conception. Again, this is just what I personally believe. The tricky part is the dna test. There is really no way to have a DNA test done until the baby is born, so it's up to the woman to assume responsibility to who she's having sex with.

[Brett85]

whoisjohngalt says he is pro-choice because, although he is opposed to abortion, he doesn't think there should be a law against it. I don't think that makes sense, but whatever...

That means nothing at all. It's like saying that you're personally opposed to murder but don't think that it should be illegal. If you believe that abortion should be legal, then you aren't opposed to abortion.

[muzzled dogg]

Lol u statist authoritarian fuckers make me not even want to go to cpac

[Kludge]

If I abort something in my body with the genetic composition of a human (not a cancer cell) I am killing an actual baby be it 1 month or 6 months in utero. If I am unable to care for all the needy that I did not bring forth from my genetic material or agree to be responsible for then I am not complicit in their destruction. Some things are beyond my control and that would fall in the category of one of those things. If however I do not care for those that depend upon me then I am neglectful and culpable for their deaths...

I think if you are capable of production for the needy and you neglect them, I'd think you are complicit in their deaths.

[moostraks]

You're ending a life by using a condom as well.. it is potential life.. early fetus is potential life, they aren't self aware, they don't have any of the qualities that an individual has, but they are potential life.

Self aware? What about autistic children?

[Kludge]

That means nothing at all. It's like saying that you're personally opposed to murder but don't think that it should be illegal. If you believe that abortion should be legal, then you aren't opposed to abortion.

Not true. I believe in punishment for people who I think deserve it, but not through government.

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.fabjob.com/images/day%20care%20baby%20smile.gif

Awwwww. What a cute little parasite^^^

[moostraks]

I think if you are capable of production for the needy and you neglect them, I'd think you are complicit in their deaths.

LOL...You are not responsible for your biological material but for society's needs. I do not want to live in your community that is for sure.

[teacherone]

Lol u statist authoritarian fuckers make me not even want to go to cpac

yay for wedge issues!

http://www.maniacworld.com/internet-bro-fist.jpg

[sailingaway]

By definition, It is when it's inside the mother, feeding on another life form to survive. It doesn't sound nice, I know, but it is true.

Only if you warp the definition. a parasite never through mere development becomes anything else. It is a categorical creature of parasitism. Every living thing has developmental parasitism which if counted as making it a parasite would erase any true meaning from the word. Are all old people, who are past their ability to care for themselves, parasites? Can you be a parasite ok to kill during part of your life?

The badness about the abortion issue on the prochoice side is the intrusiveness physically on the mother. We don't make people hook up their kidneys to strangers and alter their lifestyle to keep others healthy in any other circumstance. It IS a limitation on liberty which is why I don't take a big role in the abortion debates here. I feel terrible imposing that, particularly on someone underaged as many who have abortions are. And that is where the rape/incest bit comes in, because when the woman had no choice it is worse.

But that doesn't go to the 'life' issue or the 'parasite' issue. If a person can't take care of themselves for a while, does that give their caregiver the right to kill them? Are they a parasite?

[Jeremy]

By definition, It is when it's inside the mother, feeding on another life form to survive. It doesn't sound nice, I know, but it is true.

Parasite: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host

But if you believe humans have natural rights... well that's completely different. Most people don't believe a parasitic worm living inside of you has any rights (unless they are vegan). Also, the woman did not create the worm. She did, however, purposely create another human life. If it was rape... well her body still created it.

And don't even say something about a tumor in response to this. Tumors have no rights.

[teacherone]

who has the will power to leave this thread before more damage is done?

i'll go first.

[Kludge]

LOL...You are not responsible for your biological material but for society's needs. I do not want to live in your community that is for sure.

You ARE responsible (but shouldn't be punished if you fail to uphold your responsibility) for your own children AND the children of others. It should not be criminal to not feed your children nor should it be illegal to not feed other children, but it should be discouraged. When you see something wrong in the world, you SHOULD fix it, but it'd be silly to force people to do what they don't want as that'd be dehumanizing.

[Sola_Fide]

Self aware? What about autistic children?

Sounds like a parasite to me.

[sailingaway]

Lol u statist authoritarian fuckers make me not even want to go to cpac

Actually, the question cleverly avoids the whole issue of whether the state should be involved. It just asks for personal views.

[Brett85]

Lol u statist authoritarian fuckers make me not even want to go to cpac

If you're not a conservative then maybe you shouldn't be going to the conservative political action conference. What a concept. It's fine for pro choice libertarians to go, but to expect a conservative conference to conform to your views is just ridiculous.

[dannno]

Right. Well then, everyone living on the planet today was or currently is a "parasite"; including everyone on this forum. Libertarianism never existed!

That's not true. My mom gave birth to me because I provided her with love and fulfilled her motherly desires to produce and raise children. It is a parasite simply when the mother doesn't want it, which is when abortions occur.

[oyarde]

I am personally opposed for myself , but I will make no decision for others .

[ClayTrainor]

who has the will power to leave this thread before more damage is done?

i'll go first.

Second.

[Jeremy]

I don't agree that creation creates a binding responsibility (something worthy of punishment), but do think we all have a non-binding responsibility to take care of EVERYONE.

I think it wouldn't be wrong to not feed your baby, but it'd indicate a pretty shitty human being. I would blame them, but I wouldn't consider it worth acting on except to take the baby. Or, put in another way, it should not be criminal to not feed a baby, whether yours or someone else's.

Ok... but I said in the OP that it's not about laws or politics. In other words, you are opposed to abortion (Yes option in poll), but have no desire to do anything about it.

[Brett85]

Not true. I believe in punishment for people who I think deserve it, but not through government.

How would people get punished in an anarchist society?

[Kludge]

I am personally opposed for myself , but I will make no decision for others .
This is pretty much where I fall, and I don't understand why few people can grasp the concept.

[Jeremy]

I don't get why people are so worried about controversial discussions. If you don't like them, don't post in them. It's healthy to talk about things. No one here is using violence.

[Kludge]

How would people get punished in an anarchist society?

By other individuals or groups. For example, if someone aggressed against my family, I'd aggress against them.

[moostraks]

You ARE responsible (but shouldn't be punished if you fail to uphold your responsibility) for your own children AND the children of others. It should not be criminal to not feed your children nor should it be illegal to not feed other children, but it should be discouraged. When you see something wrong in the world, you SHOULD fix it, but it'd be silly to force people to do what they don't want as that'd be dehumanizing.

You have a bizarre way of looking at ethics...You are talking in circles by proposing culpability for one issue and yet not another and then claim no real responsiblity by the individual for anything that occurs.

[Kludge]

Ok... but I said in the OP that it's not about laws or politics. In other words, you are opposed to abortion (Yes option in poll), but have no desire to do anything about it.

Exactly.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Self aware? What about autistic children?

Oh look, a 911 call of a mother who got rid of her two unwanted autistic "parasites":


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b62eJhRs4w

[Jeremy]

This is pretty much where I fall, and I don't understand why few people can grasp the concept.

Well I left the poll open to anarchists by saying it doesn't have to do with laws or politics.

[Sola_Fide]

Threads like this highlight one of the primary reasons Ron Paul can't win a Republican primary.

Ron Paul's pro-abortion supporters are a great deteriment to him. Jus sayin.

[dannno]

Self aware? What about autistic children?

Pretty sure autistic kids are self aware, but I don't mean self-aware like a dog sees it's reflection in the mirror and thinks it is another dog or not, I mean self aware as in can sense its surroundings and is aware that they exist.

[teacherone]

By other individuals or groups. For example, if someone aggressed against my family, I'd aggress against them.

yay!

another anarchy debate!

we're making progress!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FufDbN9PSmQ/TAAmZgVB0JI/AAAAAAAAAD4/DcX0oDAtUKY/s1600/baby-steps+2.jpg

[Brett85]

This is pretty much where I fall, and I don't understand why few people can grasp the concept.

Many people here believe that there should be some laws, particularly in regards to murder. Being pro life simply means that the government should protect the lives and liberty of the unborn.

[Kludge]

You have a bizarre way of looking at ethics...You are talking in circles by proposing culpability for one issue and yet not another and then claim no real responsiblity by the individual for anything that occurs.

That's because I don't think I should be in charge of policing everyone's ethics, but I have my own and I firmly believe in them and act on them. It's when someone aggresses against someone I have attachment to that will push me to do something in retaliation.

[dannno]

Threads like this highlight one of the primary reasons Ron Paul can't win a Republican primary.

Ron Paul's pro-abortion supporters are a great deteriment to him. Jus sayin.

Actually in my experience him being pro-life is detrimental.. but the fact that he supports states rights on the issue allows me to at least convince SOME people to support him who would not otherwise.

What is detrimental is when people make the abortion issue the most important political issue in the world, on EITHER side, when it should not be a political issue.. it should be a local community issue or a personal issue.

And I'd really like to know how pro-choice people are a detriment to Ron Paul, I haven't seen ANY evidence of that ever.

[Brett85]

Threads like this highlight one of the primary reasons Ron Paul can't win a Republican primary.

Ron Paul's pro-abortion supporters are a great deteriment to him. Jus sayin.

+Rep. I'm glad that Ron's philosophy is completely different from that of the anarchists.

[YumYum]

And don't even say something about a tumor in response to this. Tumors have no rights.

The Bible says G-d created tumors. They should have G-d given rights.

[Kludge]

Threads like this highlight one of the primary reasons Ron Paul can't win a Republican primary.

Ron Paul's pro-abortion supporters are a great deteriment to him. Jus sayin.

How's that?

[Brett85]

Actually in my experience him being pro-life is detrimental.. but the fact that he supports states rights on the issue allows me to at least convince SOME people to support him who would not otherwise.

What is detrimental is when people make the abortion issue the most important political issue in the world, when it should not be a political issue.. it should be a local community issue or a personal issue.

So you're having trouble convincing all of these pro choice Republicans to vote for Ron?

[Jeremy]

Well I left the poll open to anarchists by saying it doesn't have to do with laws or politics.

Of course, some anarchists might boycott, etc.

Just wondering... if you're morally opposed to it, why not do anything about it? For example, I don't rape and I'm opposed to other people raping as well. If your neighbor is a rapist, why would you just sit around and do nothing? Why would you not even show disagreement? Even if you're an anarchist who doesn't believe in rights, there is still utilitarian grounds to be opposed to rape.

edit: This was at Kludge and others who agreed with him.

[Jeremy]

The Bible says G-d created tumors. They should have G-d given rights.

Only humans were created in God's image and have rights. Tumors have no rights.

[Kludge]

Consider I don't go around talking about abortion except in abortion threads because an anarchist posting here (like myself) would probably view this as a fun philosophical discussion.

[dannno]

Oh look, a 911 call of a mother who got rid of her two unwanted autistic "parasites":


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b62eJhRs4w

That IS murder, she already brought them to term, leave them on somebody's door step or put them up for adoption or something.. you can't do that when you are 1 month pregnant.

[Brett85]

Of course, some anarchists might boycott, etc.

Just wondering... if you're morally opposed to it, why not do anything about it? For example, I don't rape and I'm opposed to other people raping as well. If your neighbor is a rapist, why would you just sit around and do nothing? Why would you not even show disagreement? Even if you're an anarchist who doesn't believe in rights, there is still utilitarian grounds to be opposed to rape.

edit: This was at Kludge and others who agreed with him.

There's a lot of pro life activists that go to pro life rallies. Those of us who are pro life view it as being a very important issue. I'll never vote for a pro choice politician.

[Jeremy]

How's that?

Well I don't agree with AB2010 exactly... but if people like shemm who call pro-lifers "statist fucks" want to actively support Ron Paul...

I don't even no where to begin. Why does shemm support a "statist fuck" in the first place?

[Jeremy]

That IS murder, she already brought them to term, leave them on somebody's door step or put them up for adoption or something.. you can't do that when you are 1 month pregnant.

If you think a born baby has rights and an unborn baby does not, when does it get its rights?

[Slutter McGee]

Vote.

And don't try to complicate the question. It's quite simple. It's not about laws or politics or anything like that.

Bullshit. It is not simple. At all. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. It is a no win question and a no win argument, both philosophically and practically.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Kludge]

Well I don't agree with AB2010 exactly... but if people like shemm who call pro-lifers "statist fucks" want to actively support Ron Paul...

I don't even no where to begin. Why does shemm support a "statist fuck" in the first place?

Good point. I might not want to criminalize abortion, but I'd never go around attacking someone like Paul for it. Glen Bradley made it an issue on his website to be in favor of criminalizing abortion and it didn't discourage me a bit.

[Brett85]

Well I don't agree with AB2010 exactly... but if people like shemm who call pro-lifers "statist fucks" want to actively support Ron Paul...

I don't even no where to begin. Why does shemm support a "statist fuck" in the first place?

And why would he want to go to a conservative conference where almost everybody is pro life?

[Slutter McGee]

If you think a born baby has rights and an unborn baby does not, when does it get its rights?

nobody agrees on when you extend the rights of personhood to a fetus, which why it IS a complicated issue.

Slutter McGee

[YumYum]

Well I don't agree with AB2010 exactly... but if people like shemm who call pro-lifers "statist fucks" want to actively support Ron Paul...

I don't even no where to begin. Why does shemm support a "statist fuck" in the first place?

He means that the pro-lifers use the state to impose their will. Abortion should be determined by the Free Market.

[moostraks]

Pretty sure autistic kids are self aware, but I don't mean self-aware like a dog sees it's reflection in the mirror and thinks it is another dog or not, I mean self aware as in can sense its surroundings and is aware that they exist.

You are looking for a cognitive reaction to which I believe an argument for severe autistic children could be formed as not complying with. Same could be said of those with alzheimers which means that you are now basing the term life upon an issue of quality of life. You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree with you.

[Jeremy]

Bullshit. It is not simple. At all. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. It is a no win question and a no win argument, both philosophically and practically.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

That itself is an opinion. Vote for other then.

[dannno]

I am personally opposed for myself , but I will make no decision for others .

You are personally pro-life and politically pro-choice. That's one of the reasons I hate the terms so much.. so divisive.

[Jeremy]

He means that the pro-lifers use the state to impose their will. Abortion should be determined by the Free Market.

False. I said this thread isn't about laws. And most people have not been talking about government.

[Sola_Fide]

The Bible says G-d created tumors. They should have G-d given rights.

No.

God created everything. Does everything have rights? No. There is something unique about humans. God made us in His Image, and therefore we have a reflection of divinity.

[dannno]

You are looking for a cognitive reaction to which I believe an argument for severe autistic children could be formed as not complying with. Same could be said of those with alzheimers which means that you are now basing the term life upon an issue of quality of life. You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree with you.

So who should be forced to feed and care for these severely disabled individuals?

[YumYum]

Only humans were created in God's image and have rights. Tumors have no rights.

No, I'm not joking. The Bible says explicitly that G-d created tumors and gave them to man. Something He created and found to be useful shouldn't be destroyed.

[Brett85]

You are personally pro-life and politically pro-choice. That's one of the reasons I hate the terms so much.. so divisive.

The term "pro life" refers to those who support legal protections for the unborn. It has nothing to do with your own personal views.

[Kludge]

No, I'm not joking. The Bible says explicitly that G-d created tumors and gave them to man. Something He created and found to be useful shouldn't be destroyed.

I had a neighbor who refused to get his inflamed appendix removed because he insisted God put it there for a reason...

[Sola_Fide]

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law."

-Ron Paul






















Something tells me a few people here will avoid this post like the plague. Abortion is STATISM.

[Jeremy]

nobody agrees on when you extend the rights of personhood to a fetus, which why it IS a complicated issue.

Slutter McGee

True, but people here don't seem to be arguing about that. The Rothbard argument recognizes the unborn baby as life anyway.

Earlier I said once the zygote starts dividing (mitosis), it is biologically considered a separate human organism. So I'd say this is when it has natural rights. When it is its own human being, it has rights that are natural to all humans. If you don't believe in rights, then I guess you wouldn't care.

Of course... no one responded to that post...

[dannno]

Bullshit. It is not simple. At all. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. It is a no win question and a no win argument, both philosophically and practically.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I completely agree with this.. saying that a 1 week old fetus deserves protection of the law is a really bold claim. Then the question becomes, where do you draw the line? It is REALLY complicated, therefore should be handled locally. People will say that only doctors should be charged for performing abortions, and not the mother, but that is hypocritical. Either the law protects the 'life' or it doesn't, I see nothing wrong with a mother getting medical assistance from a doctor, in general, although I am not a fan of violent medical abortions and prefer natural remedies.

[Kludge]

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law."

-Ron Paul

Decriminalization is never statist. That's contradictory. Either Paul misspoke there or it's out of context, I'm convinced. Perhaps he was trying to say the precedent of some classes of humans not having rights could lead to statism, which may be valid.

-- And with that, I'm not backing out of this thread, slowly and discretely ;)

[Jeremy]

The term "pro life" refers to those who support legal protections for the unborn. It has nothing to do with your own personal views.

That's not entirely true. Webster says it means you are opposed to abortion. But I purposely refrained from using words like "pro-life" because not everyone agrees on what it means. It's a waste of time to argue what the meanings of words mean.

[moostraks]

That IS murder, she already brought them to term, leave them on somebody's door step or put them up for adoption or something.. you can't do that when you are 1 month pregnant.

You can wait 8 months. If you have a moral compass that is what you would do. Selfishness is what makes the rights of a female paramount to all others around (or in this case within) her. As a case of ethics a woman who has a child despite not wanting said child and gives it to another is leagues above one who does not want to be bothered and so has the child vacuum sucked and shredded or poisoned to death.

[YumYum]

False. I said this thread isn't about laws. And most people have not been talking about government.

If there is no laws and no government, what or who would determine whether abortion should be legal, or allowable? Without a government, how would you enforce your "law" to not have an abortion? The Free market is void of any government, thus it will determine whether there should be abortions or not. You have to consider the financial cost in these matters.

[Jeremy]

I completely agree with this.. saying that a 1 week old fetus deserves protection of the law is a really bold claim. Then the question becomes, where do you draw the line? It is REALLY complicated, therefore should be handled locally. People will say that only doctors should be charged for performing abortions, and not the mother, but that is hypocritical. Either the law protects the 'life' or it doesn't, I see nothing wrong with a mother getting medical assistance from a doctor, in general, although I am not a fan of violent medical abortions and prefer natural remedies.

Well read my post above yours and respond to it, if you will.

[dannno]

When it is its own human being, it has rights that are natural to all humans.

Not everybody is going to agree that a early stage fetus is "it's own" human being...

[Jeremy]

If there is no laws and no government, what or who would determine whether abortion should be legal, or allowable? Without a government, how would you enforce your "law" to not have an abortion? The Free market is void of any government, thus it will determine whether there should be abortions or not. You have to consider the financial cost in these matters.

Nothing. I never asked if it should be allowed by the government. I asked if you are opposed to it.

[Jeremy]

Not everybody is going to agree that a early stage fetus is "it's own" human being...

Then I guess they disagree with biology. It's considered a separate organism after mitosis. A human is an organism, correct? How can two organism be one organism?

[YumYum]

No.

God created everything. Does everything have rights? No. There is something unique about humans. God made us in His Image, and therefore we have a reflection of divinity.

G-d didn't "create" everything. He didn't "create" you, He "made" you. He "created" tumors, and there is something unique about tumors. He created tumors to fulfill His Almighty purpose. The Bible says that everything He created "He saw was good". So, since tumors are created by G-d, and they are good, who are we to destroy them?

[Jeremy]

G-d didn't "create" everything. He didn't "create" you, He "made" you. He "created" tumors, and there is something unique about tumors. He created tumors to fulfill His Almighty purpose. The Bible says that everything He created "He saw was good". So, since tumors are created by G-d, and they are good, who are we to destroy them?

The people who don't know you aren't going to know that you are trolling...

[Brian4Liberty]

Another thread on abortion. How useful.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LXxSHtFuqSo/TFe5yKgzbAI/AAAAAAAAANw/3HtNLHPCYo4/s1600/RedHerring.jpg

[Jeremy]

Another thread on abortion. How useful.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LXxSHtFuqSo/TFe5yKgzbAI/AAAAAAAAANw/3HtNLHPCYo4/s1600/RedHerring.jpg

context: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?277907-Redstate-Should-libertarians-be-banned-from-CPAC&p=3093009&viewfull=1#post3093009

[YumYum]

The people who don't know you aren't going to know that you are trolling...

HA!! And you're not with your question?!? I bet you bet someone in chat that you could get the most pages on a thread in the least amount of time. Did you win? I'm just trollin' wid da trolls, baby!! Got any more questions?

[dannno]

You can wait 8 months. If you have a moral compass that is what you would do. Selfishness is what makes the rights of a female paramount to all others around (or in this case within) her. As a case of ethics a woman who has a child despite not wanting said child and gives it to another is leagues above one who does not want to be bothered and so has the child vacuum sucked and shredded or poisoned to death.

I have a completely different scale.

Imagine a scale, -10 through +10, +10 is really great, -10 is really horrible.

A mother who has a child, brings it to term and decides to raise it is a +8 - +10, just for the effort. Very good.

A mother who carries a child to term and gives it away is a great person too, lets say a +5.

A woman who has an abortion before the child is aware they even exist, imo, is not "bad", because ending the potential life before they are aware they exist is the same as preventing it from occurring at all. It's just like using a condom. Both result in no suffering and no life. They get a score of zero.

The mother who has a late term abortion drops into the -'s, a mother who kills her live children is a -10.

[Yieu]

To answer this question the correct way, keeping in mind them fact that this question is about our personal beliefs and has nothing to do with laws or a government banning something or allowing something, and the following:

Vote. And don't try to complicate the question. It's quite simple. It's not about laws or politics or anything like that.

I am personally opposed to the concept of abortion, on entirely religious grounds. Not on political grounds. I'm not sure about whether the government should be involved one way or the other, but I am sure that I am personally opposed to it. In a lecture I heard that somewhere in the Hindu scriptures that there are direct references to abortion being sinful, so I'm not just making it up -- it is a sin, according to God, and for that reason I want nothing to do with it.

[Sola_Fide]

G-d didn't "create" everything. He didn't "create" you, He "made" you. He "created" tumors, and there is something unique about tumors. He created tumors to fulfill His Almighty purpose. The Bible says that everything He created "He saw was good". So, since tumors are created by G-d, and they are good, who are we to destroy them?

There were no tumors when God created the world. There was no death and no sin.

Tumors came as a result of our fall.

[Elwar]

I am personally opposed to abortion but believe that one of the sole roles of government is protection of human life.

It's the definition of human life that I do not know.

It's certainly not a role of the Federal government though.

[Yieu]

I have a completely different scale.

Imagine a scale, -10 through +10, +10 is really great, -10 is really horrible.

A mother who has a child, brings it to term and decides to raise it is a +8 - +10, just for the effort. Very good.

A mother who carries a child to term and gives it away is a great person too, lets say a +5.

A woman who has an abortion before the child is aware they even exist, imo, is not "bad", because ending the potential life before they are aware they exist is the same as preventing it from occurring at all. It's just like using a condom. Both result in no suffering and no life. They get a score of zero.

The mother who has a late term abortion drops into the -'s, a mother who kills her live children is a -10.

I don't mean to come off as being critical, but this scale is based on feelings, thought, an individual's opinion, and emotion. I trust what God has told me more than the subjective nature of the human mind, which is subjective and fickle (ever-changing) when compared to the objective mind of God.

[YumYum]

There were no tumors when God created the world. There was no death and no sin.

Tumors came as a result of our fall.

I've given you free Bible lessons before AB, and I'll do it again. I don't have my Bible in front of me, but I will show you where G-d created tumors and gave them to some people. They didn't just appear. On a serious note, some translations actually translate "tumors" as "cancer". The scripture says that G-d created cancer and inflicted them with it. He was satisfied with the results. His tumors served His purpose.

[dannno]

Then I guess they disagree with biology. It's considered a separate organism after mitosis. A human is an organism, correct? How can two organism be one organism?

No, they don't disagree with "biology" they disagree with the premise that an early term fetus is the same as a thinking, sensing, self-aware human being that deserves protection under the law.

[axiomata]

I'm morally opposed to abortion in all cases except, potentially the health of the mother. (But I do know a couple of people who would not be alive if their mother took her doctor's advice.)

But moral opposition is different from legal opposition. I think abortion should be a crime in my state except for the cases of rape, the mother's health, minors, and severe mental handicap. In other words abortion is legally permissible (but not necessarily moral) in self-defense, pregnancy as a result of coercion, or pregnancy of a female who, due to age or mental competency, cannot make contracts.

[Jeremy]

No, they don't disagree with "biology" they disagree with the premise that an early term fetus is the same as a thinking, sensing, self-aware human being that deserves protection under the law.

1) What is your definition of an "early term fetus"??
2) I never said anything about being self-aware. I never said a human needs to be self-aware to have rights.
3) Topic/poll has nothing to do with "protection under the law"

Seriously...

[Freedom 4 all]

I'm extremely uncomfortable with abortion. I'm also extremely uncomfortable with the government dictating what can and can not be done with one's own body. I would certainly never perform the procedure myself, or encourage a family member to do it. However, all a national ban would do is send rich women to Canada, and poor women to back alleys with coat hangers.

[Yieu]

No, they don't disagree with "biology" they disagree with the premise that an early term fetus is the same as a thinking, sensing, self-aware human being that deserves protection under the law.

At that point, it already has a soul, which is enough for me to know that it is living, because to live requires a soul, for anything that is alive.

But the previous sentence of mine does not have to do with the law, it has to do with spiritual reality, which is superior to the laws and thoughts of men.

[Sola_Fide]

I've given you free Bible lessons before AB, and I'll do it again. I don't have my Bible in front of me, but I will show you where G-d created tumors and gave them to some people. They didn't just appear. On a serious note, some translations actually translate "tumors" as "cancer". The scripture says that G-d created cancer and inflicted them with it. He was satisfied with the results. His tumors served His purpose.

Uh. So? Everything serves His purpose. He even uses the things that we think are bad to fulfill His purpose.

You said in your previous post that God created tumors in the beginning and said they were "good". That was wrong. There was no sin and no death when God created the world. Death came as a result of man's fall.

[Pericles]

I oppose it personally, but would not be in favor of the federal government determining if it is or is not permissible.

[dannno]

I don't mean to come off as being critical, but this scale is based on feelings, thought, an individual's opinion, and emotion. I trust what God has told me more than the subjective nature of the human mind, which is subjective and fickle (ever-changing) when compared to the objective mind of God.

I'm not trying to convince you that abortion is OK, you can believe what you want.. I'm trying to get the ardent pro-life people to stop blowing this red herring issue up so big and seeing that there is another side to the argument.. that this truly is a complex issue that should be decided locally, and using this issue as a deciding factor to elect politicians is kind of ridiculous. I support Rand Paul even if he wants abortion made illegal at the federal level.. but I don't use this issue to decide if I'm going to vote for a politician.. There are people here who won't support Gary Johnson on the sole issue of abortion, even though he's personally pro-choice he wants to give it to the states to decide, so technically he has the same exact position as Ron Paul.

[axiomata]

At that point, it already has a soul, which is enough for me to know that it is living, because to live requires a soul, for anything that is alive.

But the previous sentence of mine does not have to do with the law, it has to do with spiritual reality, which is superior to the laws and thoughts of men.

Does a tree have a soul then?

[Jeremy]

I'm not trying to convince you that abortion is OK, you can believe what you want.. I'm trying to get the ardent pro-life people to stop blowing this red herring issue up so big and seeing that there is another side to the argument.. that this truly is a complex issue that should be decided locally, and using this issue as a deciding factor to elect politicians is kind of ridiculous. I support Rand Paul even if he wants abortion made illegal at the federal level.. but I don't use this issue to decide if I'm going to vote for a politician.. There are people here who won't support Gary Johnson on the sole issue of abortion, even though he's personally pro-choice he wants to give it to the states to decide, so technically he has the same exact position as Ron Paul.

But you ignored my response to your post.... (so far)

[YumYum]

I'd love to stick around and see where this goes, but I can't. In answer to your question, I am totally opposed.

[Yieu]

I'm not trying to convince you that abortion is OK, you can believe what you want.. I'm trying to get the ardent pro-life people to stop blowing this red herring issue up so big and seeing that there is another side to the argument.. that this truly is a complex issue that should be decided locally, and using this issue as a deciding factor to elect politicians is kind of ridiculous. I support Rand Paul even if he wants abortion made illegal at the federal level.. but I don't use this issue to decide if I'm going to vote for a politician.. There are people here who won't support Gary Johnson on the sole issue of abortion, even though he's personally pro-choice he wants to give it to the states to decide, so technically he has the same exact position as Ron Paul.

I think the problem here is that there is a difference between your moral opinion on abortion, and your opinion of what the law should or should not be.

This thread is not about your opinion of what the law should or should not be.

This thread is about what your moral opinion is, regardless of what the law is, or what you think the law should be.

I hope that clears up some of the confusion.

It would really help if everyone responded according to the actual question in the OP, which is your moral opinion, not your opinion of what the law should or should not be.

[dannno]

1) What is your definition of an "early term fetus"??

Early term is first term, I suppose, if you want to divide it into three terms..



2) I never said anything about being self-aware. I never said a human needs to be self-aware to have rights.

I know YOU didn't, that's what I'M saying.. I'm saying before they are self aware they are missing the most key component to life, which is being self aware. Before they are self-aware, there is absolutely ZERO difference between killing them then and preventing the pregnancy in the first place. You can't say a fetus is potential life and exclude everything else that is potential life.. Potential life occurs BEFORE conception, it is when the couple is deciding whether to have sex, it is when the couple is about to have sex and decides whether to use birth control.. the ENTIRE time there is "potential life" all sitting there in the same room, and it is no different than when the cells start splitting, it is still potential life.. until the fetus is aware of itself, it is missing the ultimate #1 component of being a human.

There is zero difference between wearing a condom and killing a fetus that is unaware.




3) Topic/poll has nothing to do with "protection under the law"

Seriously...

Yes, but that's what the debate here has become about anyway.

[Yieu]

Does a tree have a soul then?

In short, Yes. To be animated by life requires a soul. Life is an effect of the soul. Where ever there is life, there is a soul. And all souls, by their substance, are the same in quantity and quality.

[Yieu]

Yes, but that's what the debate here has become about anyway.

No, that is still a derailing of the thread, regardless of where it might have went. Lets all please keep on topic. See my post here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?277912-Are-you-opposed-to-abortion&p=3093427&viewfull=1#post3093427).

[dannno]

Does a tree have a soul then?

Try a good heavy dose of magic mushrooms, preferably with a friend and go out into the woods for a few hours. Seriously. Yes. If humans have a "soul" then so do trees.

[dannno]

I think the seeds of a tree contain the soul of the tree. When the seeds roots into the ground and takes hold, it gets it's own soul. So an early term fetus simply would have it's mother's soul until it develops more and becomes self aware, then it has it's own soul.

[Yieu]

Try a good heavy dose of magic mushrooms and go out into the woods. Seriously. Yes.

Uh... it does not take that extreme of an act to understand that trees have souls. Just pick up a copy of the Bhagavad Gita and read Chapter 2, particularly the translation at asitis (dot) com.

[Sola_Fide]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_2T0Ya_U4gN8/TUxXukMYkjI/AAAAAAAAAZY/hytXkyBUREU/toady-icon-02.gif
Toady wants this thread to end

[sailingaway]

And why would he want to go to a conservative conference where almost everybody is pro life?

To support Ron, because Ron is the most consistently pro liberty, pro natural rights and pro individual Congressman who has lived since at least the 1930s when they started keeping track of votes.

this is a GOOD thing. Do not dissuade supporters from supporting Ron.

[Yieu]

I think the seeds of a tree contain the soul of the tree. When the seeds roots into the ground and takes hold, it gets it's own soul. So an early term fetus simply would have it's mother's soul until it develops more and becomes self aware, then it has it's own soul.

Again, you are trying to apply subjective (but seemingly (to yourself) rational) thought to something that can be understood from a religious perspective. To learn about the soul, one must learn from God about it.

[robert68]

..

[dannno]

I think the problem here is that there is a difference between your moral opinion on abortion, and your opinion of what the law should or should not be.

This thread is not about your opinion of what the law should or should not be.

This thread is about what your moral opinion is, regardless of what the law is, or what you think the law should be.

I hope that clears up some of the confusion.

It would really help if everyone responded according to the actual question in the OP, which is your moral opinion, not your opinion of what the law should or should not be.

Well I voted "Yes" if that's your question.. last I checked there were quite a few "No"/"Don't know" votes as well, and mine is not one of them.

I am indifferent to women using natural abortive remedies (natural teas), as they only work in the early part of the first term, and they are much less violent. Not a fan of medical abortions for any reason. I may have voted improperly, if one defines using an abortive remedy as an abortion, but they result in miscarriage, which happens all the time, apparently God causes those. A medical abortion is inherently violent.

I am against abortion laws, generally, though if a local state or community made a law against late term abortions I wouldn't be opposed to it. You might have a doctor go to jail here or there for a specific case, but there won't be witch hunts for abortion clinics because early term abortions would still be legal. So I don't think outlawing late term abortions brings about the same kind of tyranny, in fact it doesn't, because I think they are illegal in some areas.

[Slutter McGee]

I have only a few major issues with the issue of abortion.

1. Pro-lifers need to realize that people who support the right of a woman to control her body are not Anti-life.
2. Pro-choicers need to realize that people who believe life starts at conception are not anti-choice or anti-women.
3. Pro-lifers need to realize that pro-choice people don't shout with glee everytime a fetus is terminated.
4. Pro-choicers need to remember that the choice is to not carry a fetus in their body, not to terminate the fetus. Abortion of the fetus is simply the only current way to remove it from the body.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

[Yieu]

but they result in miscarriage, which happens all the time, apparently God causes those.

No, God does not. The person who tried to initiate a miscarriage performed a self-abortion. God did not do that, the individual did.

I'm not saying whether or not there should be laws for or against or whatever. I am just stating that, according to religions, it is sinful. That does not mean I want to control others into not being sinful. If someone wants to sin, that is their choice. I am no one to judge someone for actions that are sinful, that is for God to do. But it cannot be denied that it is not moral.

[moostraks]

No, they don't disagree with "biology" they disagree with the premise that an early term fetus is the same as a thinking, sensing, self-aware human being that deserves protection under the law.

And the problem with this understanding of life is that one could argue for euthanasia of granny and the mentally disabled much as the Schiavo case became such a hot bed. One has some subjective level of self awareness thus having some intrinsic value instead of merely being a matter of being a member of the human race. This mentality becoming pervasive in our society will allow them to implement their cost cutting measures for health care without much more issue than is being given to body scanning. It is incrementalism.

Check this out:"Twin pregnancies provide us with the opportunity to observe first reactions towards touch in utero, and this study illustrates the onset and development of these contacts. Forty women with twin pregnancies volunteered to take part in this study, 25 of whom (five monochorionic, 20 dichorionic pairs) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Between 8 and 12 weeks' gestation, ultrasound examinations were performed transvaginally, and from 13 weeks onwards transabdominally, at weekly intervals. Ultrasound findings were recorded on videotapes and were analyzed retrospectively. The first contacts producing reactions in the co-twin were defined as primary contacts, which could be slow or fast arm/leg/head/body contacts. Primary contacts followed an action-reaction model, and usually lasted < 3 s. These contacts were initially slow and then became fast. The first reactions of the co-twin towards touch were observed at 65 postmenstrual days. Contacts of longer duration between both bodies including extremities, or contacts initiated by sucking movements towards the co-twin were defined as complex contacts and were observed from 85 and 92 post-menstrual days, respectively. Nearly all contacts occurred significantly earlier in monochorionic compared to dichorionic twins. Female/female pairs seemed to develop complex body contacts earlier than male/male pairs, but for the onset of other contacts we have not yet found significant differences between gender combinations."http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8915085

[Jeremy]

I have only a few major issues with the issue of abortion.

1. Pro-lifers need to realize that people who support the right of a woman to control her body are not Anti-life.
2. Pro-choicers need to realize that people who believe life starts at conception are not anti-choice or anti-women.
3. Pro-lifers need to realize that pro-choice people don't shout with glee everytime a fetus is terminated.
4. Pro-choicers need to remember that the choice is to not carry a fetus in their body, not to terminate the fetus. Abortion of the fetus is simply the only current way to remove it from the body.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

"1. Pro-lifers need to realize that people who support the right of a woman to control her body are not Anti-life." - This doesn't make sense. If the unborn baby is a human life, it doesn't have to do with "controlling her body." It means she's controlling another person's body. So why would would someone who believes an unborn baby is a human life need to realize that?

[Slutter McGee]

"1. Pro-lifers need to realize that people who support the right of a woman to control her body are not Anti-life." - This doesn't make sense. If the unborn baby is a human life, it doesn't have to do with "controlling her body." It means she's controlling another person's body. So why would would someone who believes an unborn baby is a human life need to realize that?

Because there is to much fucking hatred over the whole issue. Pro-choicers dont hate fetuses. Pro-lifers dont hate women. Does that make it easier for you to understand?

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

[Brett85]

To support Ron, because Ron is the most consistently pro liberty, pro natural rights and pro individual Congressman who has lived since at least the 1930s when they started keeping track of votes.

this is a GOOD thing. Do not dissuade supporters from supporting Ron.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't support Ron, but to call anybody who's pro life a "statist f*ck" is just ridiculous. He's basically calling Ron that as well. It's fine for libertarians to go to CPAC, but they shouldn't complain about a conservative conference having a pro life platform.

[Brett85]

1. Pro-lifers need to realize that people who support the right of a woman to control her body are not Anti-life.

It's not the woman's body, it's the baby's body. It's a separate individual. Also, would you say that somebody who supports legalizing murder is pro life?

[Sola_Fide]

Because there is to much fucking hatred over the whole issue. Pro-choicers dont hate fetuses. Pro-lifers dont hate women. Does that make it easier for you to understand?

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

According to Ron Paul, you are a statist:

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I personally am opposed to it because I feel it's destroying a potential human life.

But I am not opposed to it being legal, since that life is dependent on that of it's mother, there for the mother has the ultimate decision on what happens to the child.

But I do feel if the fetus is viable outside of the womb it should be saved, not destroyed.

[moostraks]

Because there is to much fucking hatred over the whole issue. Pro-choicers dont hate fetuses. Pro-lifers dont hate women. Does that make it easier for you to understand?

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

Few of us are this ignorant but thanks for the sanctimonious tone. I know several women who have had abortions and suffered from the consequences (psychological and physical) which were NOT told to them. Doesn't mean I think they ate their babies for breakfast but that they made a really bad decision that tragically effected another life including their own. Just because people have a very strong opinion does not imply they feel hatred for their opponents personally.

[Liberty Rebellion]

I'm an atheist ancap who is opposed to abortion

[Jeremy]

Yes, but that's what the debate here has become about anyway. Almost no one was talking about that actually...

[Jeremy]

Because there is to much fucking hatred over the whole issue. Pro-choicers dont hate fetuses. Pro-lifers dont hate women. Does that make it easier for you to understand?

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

I don't think anyone here believes either of those things. I don't see any hatred either. Why can't we discuss a controversial topic?

[Vessol]

I'm not sure where I stand on abortion. Certainly I'm very much against anything past the first month or two, however in those early months I think it's still up to debate if that's life or not.

Life may begin at conception, but that could expand to life begins at ejaculation, or even life begins at the consumption of protein that produces that sperm.

I've yet to see any compelling arguments that reason that upon conception that there is life. I do however agree that after a month or two when a brain actually first develops that there is life.

If I had to label myself anything though, I guess I'd have to say I'm more in the pro-life camp than the pro-choice.

[TomtheTinker]

yes.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm an atheist ancap who is opposed to abortion

You are a consistent libertarian then:)

[oyarde]

i oppose it personally, but would not be in favor of the federal government determining if it is or is not permissible.

corrrect !

[oyarde]

context: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?277907-Redstate-Should-libertarians-be-banned-from-CPAC&p=3093009&viewfull=1#post3093009

Yeah ....

[trey4sports]

i dont really know where life begins, so it is really a difficult thing to take a stance on

[Sola_Fide]

i dont really know where life begins, so it is really a difficult thing to take a stance on

Its only difficult because you want it to be difficult, so that you can absolve your conscience by not taking a stand on it.

There is no neutral position on abortion. You are either a libertarian or a statist on the issue.

According to Ron, pro-abortionists are statists:

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

[sailingaway]

Its only difficult because you want it to be difficult, so that you can absolve your conscience by not taking a stand on it.

There is no neutral position on abortion. You are either a libertarian or a statist on the issue.

According to Ron, pro-abortionists are statists:

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

I disagree. It is ALL about where life begins. If you don't know, you don't.

[muzzled dogg]

According to Ron, pro-abortionists are statists:

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

:confused:

aqua why do you keep repeating that?

when a cavewoman had abortion there was no ultimate state tyranny to declare a goddamn thing

the state and tyranny didn't come along until some holier-than-thou came along and claimed he had legitmate authority to stop her

:confused:

[Sola_Fide]

I disagree. It is ALL about where life begins. If you don't know, you don't.

Oh, I agree that it is all about where life begins. I just don't think it is at all difficult to ascertain when life begins.

After conception, there is no question that it is only a matter of degree. People are people, no matter how "developed" some people think they are.

Life begins at conception. Ron and Rand are right. Many of their supporters are wrong on the issue. They are not consistent libertarians.

[Sola_Fide]

:confused:

aqua why do you keep repeating that?

when a cavewoman had abortion there was no ultimate state tyranny to declare a goddamn thing

the state and tyranny didn't come along until some holier-than-thou came along and claimed he had legitmate authority to stop her

:confused:

Hmmm. First, you are assuming evolution, that we started out as man-monkeys in caves, and we didn't.

Second, even in a state of things where there is no government, it is never okay to murder someone else. Governments were erected to protect our rights (i dont want to start a huge debate about this:))

Third, I keep repeating it because Ron Paul is accusing you of being a Statist. That is a heavy charge. It is something that all of Ron's pro-abortion supporters need to reconcile.

The consistent libertarian position is pro-life:)

[ClayTrainor]

Hmmm. First, you are assuming evolution, that we started out as man-monkeys in caves, and we didn't.

http://arthropoda.southernfriedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/facepalm.jpg

[robert68]

Oh, I agree that it is all about where life begins. I just don't think it is at all difficult to ascertain when life begins.

After conception, there is no question that it is only a matter of degree. People are people, no matter how "developed" some people think they are.

Life begins at conception. Ron and Rand are right. Many of their supporters are wrong on the issue. They are not consistent libertarians.

Principled libertarians believe the federal government is far too powerful already. To “libertarians” obsessed with the abortion issue, it’s not powerful (i.e. tyrannical) enough.

[Jeremy]

:confused:

aqua why do you keep repeating that?

when a cavewoman had abortion there was no ultimate state tyranny to declare a goddamn thing

the state and tyranny didn't come along until some holier-than-thou came along and claimed he had legitmate authority to stop her

:confused:

This thread isn't about government. :|

By the way, why do you support Ron Paul if all pro-lifers are "statist fucks"?

[moostraks]

:confused:

aqua why do you keep repeating that?

when a cavewoman had abortion there was no ultimate state tyranny to declare a goddamn thing

the state and tyranny didn't come along until some holier-than-thou came along and claimed he had legitmate authority to stop her

:confused:

Killing a human being should therefore never have been punished especially if the basis is a sound reasoning of inconvenience. Most especially if one is killing their own dependents.

It was/is unethical no matter what the level of government repercussion exist(ed) for the act.

[muzzled dogg]

@ aqua dude
i don't want the state (federal, state, county, local) to criminalize abortion... or anything else, even murder. in fact, i don't want the state to even exist.
i am an anarchist. please help me reconcile how that makes me a statist, especially compared to someone like ron paul who works directly for a state? lol

@ jeremy
didn't say all pro-lifers were statist fucks, just you guys :)
i support ron paul because he leans generally libertarian.
with respect to abortion he acknowledges that abortion is not a federal issue.
obviously i cannot with good conscious support his abortion related legislation that would increase the size of government.

@ moostraks
I never said that what the cavewoman did was justified or not; please do not make analogies assuming I did so. I agree that the act is unethical in almost all cases

[trey4sports]

Its only difficult because you want it to be difficult, so that you can absolve your conscience by not taking a stand on it.

There is no neutral position on abortion. You are either a libertarian or a statist on the issue.

According to Ron, pro-abortionists are statists:

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."



C'mon dude......

[Jeremy]

Well shemm, this thread isn't about making laws, and almost no one has brought that up here. So I don't know how that makes anyone a statist. An anarchist thinks making murder illegal is statism... well make another thread for that then...

[Danke]

@ aqua dude
i don't want the state (federal, state, county, local) to criminalize abortion... or anything else, even murder. in fact, i don't want the state to even exist.
i am an anarchist. please help me reconcile how that makes me a statist, especially compared to someone like ron paul who works directly for a state? lol

@ jeremy
didn't say all pro-lifers were statist fucks, just you guys :)
i support ron paul because he leans generally libertarian.
with respect to abortion he acknowledges that abortion is not a federal issue.
obviously i cannot with good conscious support his abortion related legislation that would increase the size of government.

@ moostraks
I never said that what the cavewoman did was justified or not; please do not make analogies assuming I did so. I agree that the act is unethical in almost all cases

This has to be Shem's longest post.

[moostraks]

@ moostraks
I never said that what the cavewoman did was justified or not; please do not make analogies assuming I did so. I agree that the act is unethical in almost all cases

Then why are you so angry with those of us who disagree with its implementation and being so disparaging? The question was whether you opposed it not as a matter of law but based upon an issue of ethics.

Even in regards to the emotionally charged issue of rape and abuse it does not make the pain of the initial act go away but will add more trauma of a different flavor to an already hurting individual.:(

[muzzled dogg]

jeremey i dont know if you want an apology from me or if you want me to justify talking about legislation in a general politics thread

moose i'm not angry every post where i mentioned statist fucks included an lol or a smiley

[ElCount]

I am very opposed to abortion personally but I see it as a fringe political issue not worth fretting about. There are so many political issues that are much more important, much more dire, and much more changeable. I doubt Roe V. Wade will get overturned anytime soon, and I don't see abortions being frequented less on a dramatic scale because of a change in the human conscious.

[Jeremy]

I am very opposed to abortion personally but I see it as a fringe political issue not worth fretting about. There are so many political issues that are much more important, much more dire, and much more changeable. I doubt Roe V. Wade will get overturned anytime soon, and I don't see abortions being frequented less on a dramatic scale because of a change in the human conscious.

A lot of people think stopping the "baby genocide" is dire.

[moostraks]

I am very opposed to abortion personally but I see it as a fringe political issue not worth fretting about. There are so many political issues that are much more important, much more dire, and much more changeable. I doubt Roe V. Wade will get overturned anytime soon, and I don't see abortions being frequented less on a dramatic scale because of a change in the human conscious.

As a "fringe" issue some of us see the legitimizing of a scale of worthy humans and then another class of those who are dispensable for conveniences sake as a leading causal factor for the decline of our communities. Much like war in Iraq could be considered fringe until you realize its full ramifications.

[moostraks]

jeremey i dont know if you want an apology from me or if you want me to justify talking about legislation in a general politics thread

moose i'm not angry every post where i mentioned statist fucks included an lol or a smiley

I think by compounding that by saying the protection of life some of us view in a pro-life stance as being wrought from a holier than thou stance is what makes the smilies a bit less friendly. I guess this is a dissent between anarchist and libertarian viewpoints on the issue of protection of life.

[Jeremy]

I think by compounding that by saying the protection of life some of us view in a pro-life stance as being wrought from a holier than thou stance is what makes the smilies a bit less friendly. I guess this is a dissent between anarchist and libertarian viewpoints on the issue of protection of life.

Plenty of anarchists here are opposed to abortion.

[MelissaWV]

Why don't you support it in other instances? If it's not human life and you're willing to terminate it, what does it matter? Just try to be a little consistent...

I thought he wasn't supposed to complicate it... why did you? :D (I quoted this one, but subsequent posts went on to complicate it further.)

If you really wanted to make this about the personal opinions of those who viewed the thread, you could have phrased it as such. You could even have phrased it as "Can you envision any scenario where you would consider having an abortion (pretend, if you're a guy, that you're a woman for the purpose of this question)?" and then listed things like incest, rape, malfunction of birth control, lack of birth control, change in life status (divorce, guy dumps you, etc.).

The question was deliberately vague, which is why you got such a rainbow of responses.

[dannno]

Almost no one was talking about that actually...

Any time somebody mentioned "legal protection" that is what they were talking about, and a lot of people were mentioning it.

[moostraks]

Plenty of anarchists here are opposed to abortion.

Wasn't saying they aren't but that the protection is what is in question by some there fore muddying the ability of some to respond to the poll. KWIM?

[ElCount]

A lot of people think stopping the "baby genocide" is dire.


As a "fringe" issue some of us see the legitimizing of a scale of worthy humans and then another class of those who are dispensable for conveniences sake as a leading causal factor for the decline of our communities. Much like war in Iraq could be considered fringe until you realize its full ramifications.

My characterization of it as a fringe issue is because there's rather little you can do to stop it. And unlike abortion, the Iraq War along with all U.S. war and intervention can be stopped.

It's apparent to me that we can't convince the other side that abortion is tantamount to murder. But it is clear to me that we can all agree that dropping bombs on Pakistani babies is wrong, contemptuous, and needs to stop immediately.

War is the biggest issue to me, and to me there's no greater political fight than rolling back against all state aggression. It's not a trivial issue for me, but it has become a trivial fight, and a convenient one at that, giving the Left-Right Fight carte blanche to demonize the other side into oblivion.

[2young2vote]

I'm against it. I wouldn't allow it to happen to any of my kids. That doesn't mean i am going to go out of my way to stop it, though. There have been millions of babies killed because of it, and i've not been affected in any way, just like i am not affected by genocides in other countries.

[zade]

Hmmm. First, you are assuming evolution, that we started out as man-monkeys in caves, and we didn't.

Second, even in a state of things where there is no government, it is never okay to murder someone else. Governments were erected to protect our rights (i dont want to start a huge debate about this:))

Third, I keep repeating it because Ron Paul is accusing you of being a Statist. That is a heavy charge. It is something that all of Ron's pro-abortion supporters need to reconcile.

The consistent libertarian position is pro-life:)

You lose all credibility on all scientific issues such as "when life begins" as soon as you use the anti-evolution argument. The issue isn't when "life" begins anyway, it's always there, even before conception, the issue is at what point the fetus becomes "human." Everyone knows there's a difference between a human being and a microscopic clump of a few cells, but some people choose to pretend.

Also nice use of double-think in the whole "it's statist for the state not to get involved" thing

[libertybrewcity]

I just came across this image.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1157/19lwe.jpg

[nobody's_hero]

Yes.

Purely philosophical rationales may be found by clicking the first link in my sig.

[CaliforniaMom]

Yes I'm opposed to abortion, unless the life of the mother is at risk.

[Jeremy]

I just came across this image.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1157/19lwe.jpg

http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facepalm.jpg