Not exactly sure what i'd call myself

[RPforPrez.]

So I was just curious how you guys would view me on abortion
I personally am against abortion. I wouldn't want my wife to have an abortion, if I were a woman, I wouldn't want one. I'd wait and give it up for adoption if anything.

However, I don't believe I should be telling others how to live their lives, and believe a woman should make the own choice.

I guess i'd be prochoice?

[Czolgosz]

Eff labels.

[angelatc]

I'd call you pro-death.

[RPforPrez.]

I'd call you pro-death.
Thats your personal opinion. However, I don't exactly consider it very useful.

[noneedtoaggress]

You'd probably be considered "pro-choice" by most people, because that's what you're for politically. But you're "pro-life" when it comes to your personal views.

I don't find really find abortion particularly settling either, but I find Evictionism (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf) to be a sensible look at the situation.

[Anti Federalist]

Thats your personal opinion. However, I don't exactly consider it very useful.

Ummm, you asked for our opinions.


So I was just curious how you guys would view me on abortion

[Sam I am]

So I was just curious how you guys would view me on abortion
I personally am against abortion. I wouldn't want my wife to have an abortion, if I were a woman, I wouldn't want one. I'd wait and give it up for adoption if anything.

However, I don't believe I should be telling others how to live their lives, and believe a woman should make the own choice.

I guess i'd be prochoice?


There are always 2 stake holders in an abortion. The woman is one of them. Can you guess who the other stakeholder is?

[Jingles]

You'd probably be considered "pro-choice" by most people, because that's what you're for politically. But you're "pro-life" when it comes to your personal views.

I don't find really find abortion particularly settling either, but I find Evictionism (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf) to be a sensible look at the situation.

YES! I have gone back and forth on abortion for years and have found evictionism to make the most sense. Thank you Walter Block for introducing me to this.

[RPforPrez.]

There are always 2 stake holders in an abortion. The woman is one of them. Can you guess who the other stakeholder is?

ok. Well, if both the man and woman viewed it okay, would it be okay to you? Or was this just a comment to point out an error in my op.

[angelatc]

Thats your personal opinion. However, I don't exactly consider it very useful.

You asked. Don't ask if you really don't want to know.

[Sam I am]

ok. Well, if both the man and woman viewed it okay, would it be okay to you? Or was this just a comment to point out an error in my op.

Wrong, the man is not the second stake holder

[The Free Hornet]

There are always 2 stake holders in an abortion. The woman is one of them. Can you guess who the other stakeholder is?

Not if that woman is octomom.

OP: I would call you a sensible non-interventionist, but if you think you can find common ground with those who want a government powerful enough to outlaw abortion, then I would call you naive. A lot of stuff has to go wrong for government to have the tools to outlaw abortion.

The odd thing about so-called anti-abortion laws - in general - is that the penalties punish the doctor or advocate far more harshly than the mother. The mother is treated as a victim in comparison to the abortionist. The pro-lifers have no end game that matches their rhetoric. When the laws fail to stop abortion, they will likely restrict the information, the concoctions ("war on drugs"), and possibly the travel freedom of someone with an unwanted pregnancy. Or perhaps they will be happy with the act driven underground. These people are more about rah-rah symbolism than the actual welfare of people.

What people will do to end abortion without professional assistance can cause harm to themselves and the fetus (if it survives).


Lifting of heavy weights;
Consumption of mutton marrow;
Consumption of dried henna powder;
Consumption of carrot seed soup;

There are a number of anecdotally recorded and disseminated methods of performing a self-induced abortion. Many of the following methods present significant danger (see below) to the life or health of the woman:

physical exertion designed to bring about a miscarriage
abdominal massage
receiving punches, kicks, or other blows to the abdominal area
bellyflopping onto a hard surface
attempted removal of the fetus with a coat-hanger or similar device inserted into the uterus through the cervix (the historical use of this method has led to the use of coathangers as a symbol of the abortion rights movement, which associates dangerous methods of self-induced abortion with the illegality of abortion)[citation needed]
attempted piercing of the fetus with a knitting needle or similar device inserted into the uterus through the cervix
suction through the insertion of a rubber tube into the uterus via the cervix
ingesting abortifacients, high quantities of vitamin C, Pennyroyal or other substances believed to induce miscarriage[4]
douching with substances believed to induce miscarriage (beginning in the 1960s, many women used Coca Cola for this purpose, although its utility is at best dubious)
vaginal pessaries
yoga
acupuncture
hypothermia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion

The harm to woman and children will be greater and the penalties for convicted mothers are likely to be minor (compared to murder).

The pro-government-intervention-in-medical-care movement is a fool's errand and it is sad to see people fall for it in this forum.

If you know anything about the degradation of medical care in America, you know that our woes are largely due to the AMA's goal to restrict competition and raise the cost of medical care. They have succeeded. The AMA may have been the push behind our earliest anti-abortion legislation:


The physicians had several concerns: moral doubts, scientific reasons to question the importance of quickening, the dangers of abortion for women, and the desire to rid themselves of some of the irregular competition in the medical field. Mohr believes that the physicians were a major force in the enactment of laws against abortion.

Beginning in the late 1850s, working through the American Medical Association (AMA) and other organizations, the doctors actively campaigned to get state legislatures to further restrict abortion. The physicians were supported by a number of other groups. The result was a series of over 40 laws between 1860 and 1880 that greatly restricted abortion and remained largely intact for a century.

http://mysite.verizon.net/jdehullu/abortion/abhist.htm

I find elective abortion to be abhorrent, but the AMA is evil incarnate. The same organization that determines who can train to be doctors (they control the schools) also controls who is eligible to be a doctor. So they basically set the standard AND who may train to meet that standard. Nor can you be tested against that standard without their stamp of approval. You have to be a major dumbass to be on their side.

[RPforPrez.]

Wrong, the man is not the second stake holder
Actually, I would consider the man the second stakeholder.
The baby could be the third.
But the man has just as much say as the woman.

[Noble Savage]

legalized abortion: population control measure #7