So how much longer until after-birth abortions are legal?

[AlexAmore]

Really what is the difference at this point? We’re basing personhood on the neural capacity here. Obviously if every fetus was an Einstein we might think twice, but they aren’t.

You see, Neural development continues after birth. If the neurally unformed fetus has no moral claims to life, why isn’t the same true of the neurally unformed newborn? Especially the retarded babies! They’re still not a person based on the most fundamental guideline.

What value does the newborn have? At what point did it acquire that value and why? For christ sake a chimp was just found to be smarter than average high school students. I’m willing to move the goal posts if you are!

I’m sorry I’m just not buying any of this pro-life bullshit. We should be able to have a free week long pass to abort our babies after birth.

/Sarcasm

All of the above was satire but I’m just using the same logic. There are scientists seriously talking about this subject.

[Acala]

They are already legal as long as they are ordered by the president and executed with drones.

[Todd]

They already happen. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?386431-So-is-this-murder)

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Really what is the difference at this point? We’re basing personhood on the neural capacity here. Obviously if every fetus was an Einstein we might think twice, but they aren’t.

How do we know this? Maybe they all start as Einsteins or smarter, and then progressively become less and less.

[dbill27]

I've never really been pro-life or pro-choice but the insane amount of talk from democrats at the dnc about abortion "rights" gave me the creeps. I'm not sure how someone being pro-life amounts to a war on women.

[jkr]

awalakis' kid from Colorado was 16...just say'n...

[youngbuck]

I've never really been pro-life or pro-choice but the insane amount of talk from democrats at the dnc about abortion "rights" gave me the creeps. I'm not sure how someone being pro-life amounts to a war on women.

It's not. It's instead a war on being irresponsible, and to prevent an innocent life from bearing the burden of your foolish decisions. But, evidently it's a "right" to abort a baby. It's just like you have a "right" to a physician's services, or to part of my paycheck.

People are infatuated with inventing new so-called "rights," while they ignore and couldn't give two shats about real rights, such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Oh well, this nation will eventually get what it democratically wants: financial ruin, loss of civil liberties, and a police state.

[Anti Federalist]

They are already legal as long as they are ordered by the president and executed with drones.

Didn't have to read long to find the thread winner.

All kidding aside, to the OP, not long, not long at all.

Another 20 - 30 years I figure.

[AGRP]

Become a cop and you'll get paid vacations.

[maskander]

Slippery slope Exhibit A

[Eagles' Wings]

Spend some time researching partial-birth abortion and you'll have your answer.

[jmdrake]

They already happen. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?386431-So-is-this-murder)

That.....stinks.

[Philhelm]

Life doesn't begin until the age of 90 years.

[maskander]

Become a cop and you'll get paid vacations for killing people while drunk drivingFixed that for you.

http://www.wthr.com/story/19474068/motion-hearing-in-david-bisard-case?Clienttype=generic&mobilecgbypass

[dillo]

a fetus isnt a person

[Todd]

a fetus isnt a person

:rolleyes:

No a fetus is a LIFE.

[Eagles' Wings]

a fetus isnt a personAccording to Ron Paul (NOBP)....In "Liberty Defined", "Scientifically, there's no debate over whether the fetus is alive and human - if not killed, it matures into an adult human being. It is that simple. So the time line of when we consider a fetus "human" is arbitary after conception, in my mind." Page 3.

[heavenlyboy34]

Really what is the difference at this point? We’re basing personhood on the neural capacity here. Obviously if every fetus was an Einstein we might think twice, but they aren’t.

You see, Neural development continues after birth. If the neurally unformed fetus has no moral claims to life, why isn’t the same true of the neurally unformed newborn? Especially the retarded babies! They’re still not a person based on the most fundamental guideline.

What value does the newborn have? At what point did it acquire that value and why? For christ sake a chimp was just found to be smarter than average high school students. I’m willing to move the goal posts if you are!

I’m sorry I’m just not buying any of this pro-life bullshit. We should be able to have a free week long pass to abort our babies after birth.

/Sarcasm

All of the above was satire but I’m just using the same logic. There are scientists seriously talking about this subject.
Well, the term "abortion" isn't applicable to a born person by the nature of the word. But I see what you're getting at. The State could easily call "disappearing" someone a "84th trimester abortion" or whatever. The Orwellian Newspeak dictionary expands steadily...

[susano]

If it's something debasing life you can bet it originates in the UK. Example:

Plea to let doctors kill babies with disabilities

Published on Sunday 5 November 2006 00:52

SENIOR doctors are urging health professionals to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.

The proposal, by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology, follows the increase in the number of such children surviving because of medical advances.

The college is arguing for "active euthanasia" to be considered for the overall good of parents, sparing them the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

Their submission to an ethical inquiry into increased survival rates reads: "A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome."

Geneticists and medical ethicists are supporting the proposal - as are some mothers of severely disabled children - but a prominent children's doctor described it as "social engineering".

The college's submission continues: "We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns."


cont., http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/plea-to-let-doctors-kill-babies-with-disabilities-1-1416720

[AGRP]

a fetus isnt a person


:rolleyes:

No a fetus is a LIFE.


According to Ron Paul (NOBP)....In "Liberty Defined", "Scientifically, there's no debate over whether the fetus is alive and human - if not killed, it matures into an adult human being. It is that simple. So the time line of when we consider a fetus "human" is arbitary after conception, in my mind." Page 3.

Fetus is latin for little person or offspring. Claiming that a 'fetus' is not a person is not only wrong, but its wrong in defined terms.

[dillo]

:rolleyes:

No a fetus is a LIFE.

So is a load of sperm then

[dillo]

Fetus is latin for little person or offspring. Claiming that a 'fetus' is not a person is not only wrong, but its wrong in defined terms.

This isnt Rome, so I could give a shit what the latin term means

[jmdrake]

This isnt Rome, so I could give a shit what the latin term means

Modern medicine, which coined the term in Latin, determined that a fetus is a human life. I know it may soothe your conscience to think otherwise. But makes no sense to believe that a premature baby born at 6 months is a human but a "fetus" aborted at 7 months is not.

[shane77m]

A fetus isn't a person because of its size.
Then is a baby less of a person than the average size adult?

A fetus isn't a person because it is less developed mentally.
Then is a baby less of a person than the average mentally aware adult?

A fetus isn't a person because it is dependent upon its mothers womb to live.
Is a person attached to life support less than a person who is not? Is a person dependent upon medication to live less than a person who is not?

[jmdrake]

So is a load of sperm then

Sperm are single celled organisms. They lack brain cells, a beating heart, or any of the other attributes that we consider as human.

This:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2FxOjJUW4NCi770u1e6WQinu6A_q_5 AOurdreBeM0KJSTJdBXaLqK8jqYdw

vs this:

http://latterdaycommentary.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/fetus.jpg

There's really no comparison...except to this:

http://www.colourbox.com/preview/3057749-575572-baby-boy-sucking-thumb-to-fall-asleep.jpg

[dillo]

Tell me where the line is. Is the morNing after pill killing a human?

[DamianTV]

Every time you masturbate, god kills a Kitten!

There is a pervasive way of thinking that has penetrated our entire culture. Entitlements. Just as all the Socialists seem to think that others have a right to the fruits of your labor, others think that they are Entitled to tell another person what they can do with the life that is biologically attached to them.

The question was asked, where is the line? What defines "post birth abortion"? Easiest question of all time. Cutting the Umbilical Cord.

But people dont want to think about that. They want to think about how to create new umbilical cords. Cords of dependancy. They insist that they have a right to intrude in someone elses life. They think they are entitled to be able to tell their neighbors they cant interact, even though it doesnt involve them. They think they are entitled to steal the value of the future from Generation Y and beyond. They think they are the Law, the Judges, and the Jury even if court is not in session. They think obedience to their way of thinking is the only solution.

If there is a God, God may very well consider abortion to be murder, but it is NOT a call for anyone else to make until that life is no longer biologically tied to the parent. Many things depend on our perspective. So lets change our perspective for a second, and imagine that we were all lizard people, where if we cut off a body part, it could just grow back. And lets imagine that if we cut off our finger, that finger would grow into a complete fully functional sentient being. Would cutting off ones finger then killing the finger then also constitute abortion? Yes, I am being ridiculus at this point.

There is something else that bothers me about the whimsical concept of "after birth" or "post birth" abortions. We already have the highest infant mortality rate that this country has seen in many many years. And quite frankly, if we were to allow "after birth" abortions, there are a number of individuals who I would like to nominate for the procedure. Starting with the Banksters.

[Philhelm]

:rolleyes:

No a fetus is a LIFE.

:rolleyes:

No, a corporation is a LIFE.

;)

[The Free Hornet]

So how much longer until after-birth abortions are legal?

Are you a moral entrepreneur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_entrepreneur) trying to start a moral panic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic)?

When liberty proponents threaten the slightest bit of liberty - however irrelevant - they give critics the hammer by which we are beaten down.

I understand this is a tough nut to crack. Many vow they will not vote for someone who is their quirky version of "pro choice" including those who don't want a government big enough or intrusive enough to insert themselves into private medical affairs.

Either the mother is willing and able to bring the fetus to term or - somehow - the government is able to fill this gap???

Despite miscarriage being a very common occurance, here is a non-comprehensive list of things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion) that will be suspicious when preceding a miscarriage:

Lifting of heavy weights; Consumption of mutton marrow; Consumption of dried henna powder; Consumption of carrot seed soup; 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 ingesting abortifacients, high quantities of vitamin C, Pennyroyal or other substances believed to induce miscarriage douching with substances believed to induce miscarriage vaginal pessaries yoga acupuncture hypothermia

This will be especially suspicious if a prenatal checkup finds significant health problems with a baby that could easily cost $100,000s to $1,000,000s. Yet the anti-abortion Santorum doesn't want people to have prenatal checkups (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57381041/santorum-stands-by-prenatal-screening-opposition/). He wants responsible people to have babies of uncertain health. These are easy to care for when you're a sanctimonious politician and a one percenter. It helps to be a man too.

It helps to have state-approved insurance because any unapproved medical care will land you in jail. You don't think it scares woman to take away their Obamacare, medicaid, AND the ability to have an abortion? That baby isn't born free, the parents are on the hook for whatever the hospital says it costs regardless of anything you sign. Maybe this is why the poor and uneducated are so much more likely to procreate. Damn the consequences. Many who are not rich but with modest-to-substantial savings are going to be very concerned about the suitability to this world of a new human. And if you don't care? Good for you!

Of course, many have said and will say again they want those having sex to be responsible. Why? It's not your business. It would not surprise me if half the anti-abortion sentiment is just anti-unapproved-sex sentiment. No, not the people here. You all just care about the zygotes....

[DamianTV]

Life doesn't begin until the age of 90 years.

With our way of thinking, although funny, I dont think you are that far off. It appears that our current way of thinking indicates we dont believe that life begins until a License is issued. In the future, Life wont begin until a Chip is Implanted.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Tell me where the line is. Is the morNing after pill killing a human?

Conception.

Life doesn't start with conception though. Life is continuous, it started a long time ago. It took a live sperm and a live egg to conceive. After conception, you'd be aborting the baby in my eyes.

[idiom]

You can evict your child from your care at any age. If they don't survive thats not your problem.

</an-cap>

[dillo]

Conception.

Life doesn't start with conception though. Life is continuous, it started a long time ago. It took a live sperm and a live egg to conceive. After conception, you'd be aborting the baby in my eyes.

So the morning after pill is murder then

[heavenlyboy34]

You can evict your child from your care at any age. If they don't survive thats not your problem.

</an-cap>
Has an an-cap really made that argument? Whom?

[Eagles' Wings]

So the morning after pill is murder thenFrom my understanding, the morning-after pill creates a hostile environment in the womb because of a toxic mixture of poisons. If there were a fetus present, this could and probably would end his/her life.

I've known women who have ended their child's life this way and it is devastating. Some have admitted they think they murdered their child. The good news is that these women, if they desire it, have experienced freedom and forgiveness. Even women who don't think they need it, who believe the abortion was the only choice are often silent and alone, and tell no one.

[Kylie]

Well, if they do decide that after birth abortions are gonna be the way to go, I know of several useless people who would be on my list to be "aborted".

Just kidding.....kinda.

[heavenlyboy34]

Has an an-cap really made that argument? Whom?
Plz answer my question, idiom^^. Curious minds want to know!

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJa0Ofgz_KA

[The Free Hornet]

Has an an-cap really made that argument? Whom?

In lieu of having a genuine opinion of his own, he is simply misstating some hypothetical person's opinion.

A real capitalist would realize it is cheaper to pay a mother to carry to term in exchange for a full, healthy baby. I have no reason to believe a real anarcho-capitalist would be different. Except for the flag.

[seyferjm]

Has an an-cap really made that argument? Whom?

I think Walter Block made an argument similar to that

[Murray N Rothbard]

Walter Block made the evictionism argument recently at the RP rally in Tampa.

Overall it is not a new idea to circles of hardcore Libertarians. If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will. Although it seems right that the act of consensual sex should mean an agreement to carry fetus to term, this is ultimately just a promise, and irrelevant to the matter of enforceable contracts. First, the fetus is not a contracting agent- it did not even exist at the time of this "contract" being entered into, so it is far from being a voluntary and conscious action on its part. Second, even if such a contract were created, it would be invalid because the mother's will and right of self-ownership is inalienable, ie she can't enslave herself. She can try, pretend that she is selling herself into slavery, and a slave-like situation can happen, but the fact that she always has an inherent right to break off the deal always remains. These contracts are not enforceable because their enforceablility depends upon the very same rights that they serve to violate. That is the nature of a contract, its power comes from the voluntarily exercised free will of the two contracting agents. Thus any "contract" that destroys the foundation from which its validity is derived is necessarily null and void and impossible. It's like dividing by zero.

[DamianTV]

...

If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will.

...

+Rep

Wins Thread!

[idiom]

Has an an-cap really made that argument? Whom?

Its the essence of Walter Blocks argument. He claims a moral requirement on trying to re-home the child. However if you can't re-home the child the child still can't steal from your property.

I don't think his moral requirements argument follows from Rothbards axioms very well at all though.

The NAP has no positive moral requirements as formulated by Rothbard. Its one of its features, but it also leads to odd conclusions.

These are generally address by asserting a vauge moral culture which An-capism is supposed to be nested inside, but it is not actually defined.

[dbill27]

Walter Block made the evictionism argument recently at the RP rally in Tampa.

Overall it is not a new idea to circles of hardcore Libertarians. If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will. Although it seems right that the act of consensual sex should mean an agreement to carry fetus to term, this is ultimately just a promise, and irrelevant to the matter of enforceable contracts. First, the fetus is not a contracting agent- it did not even exist at the time of this "contract" being entered into, so it is far from being a voluntary and conscious action on its part. Second, even if such a contract were created, it would be invalid because the mother's will and right of self-ownership is inalienable, ie she can't enslave herself. She can try, pretend that she is selling herself into slavery, and a slave-like situation can happen, but the fact that she always has an inherent right to break off the deal always remains. These contracts are not enforceable because their enforceablility depends upon the very same rights that they serve to violate. That is the nature of a contract, its power comes from the voluntarily exercised free will of the two contracting agents. Thus any "contract" that destroys the foundation from which its validity is derived is necessarily null and void and impossible. It's like dividing by zero.

This argument seems to give no denial that the fetus inside a mother is a human being. Does this mean that violating anyones property or rights in any way warrants the victim to use lethal self defense against the violator?

[Feeding the Abscess]

This argument seems to give no denial that the fetus inside a mother is a human being. Does this mean that violating anyones property or rights in any way warrants the victim to use lethal self defense against the violator?

The position is actually predicated on the life in the womb being a human being; the idea is that, since no human being has the right to have another person care for it, logically the fetus also possesses no such right.

Block's ideas are an expansion of Rothbard's thoughts, an attempt to fuse Rothbard's ideas with the future advancements of technology and come up with a practical outcome.

[Feeding the Abscess]

..

[Raudsarw]

Walter Block made the evictionism argument recently at the RP rally in Tampa.

Overall it is not a new idea to circles of hardcore Libertarians. If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will. Although it seems right that the act of consensual sex should mean an agreement to carry fetus to term, this is ultimately just a promise, and irrelevant to the matter of enforceable contracts. First, the fetus is not a contracting agent- it did not even exist at the time of this "contract" being entered into, so it is far from being a voluntary and conscious action on its part. Second, even if such a contract were created, it would be invalid because the mother's will and right of self-ownership is inalienable, ie she can't enslave herself. She can try, pretend that she is selling herself into slavery, and a slave-like situation can happen, but the fact that she always has an inherent right to break off the deal always remains. These contracts are not enforceable because their enforceablility depends upon the very same rights that they serve to violate. That is the nature of a contract, its power comes from the voluntarily exercised free will of the two contracting agents. Thus any "contract" that destroys the foundation from which its validity is derived is necessarily null and void and impossible. It's like dividing by zero.

Brilliantly put.

[AlexAmore]

Walter Block made the evictionism argument recently at the RP rally in Tampa.

Overall it is not a new idea to circles of hardcore Libertarians. If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will. Although it seems right that the act of consensual sex should mean an agreement to carry fetus to term, this is ultimately just a promise, and irrelevant to the matter of enforceable contracts. First, the fetus is not a contracting agent- it did not even exist at the time of this "contract" being entered into, so it is far from being a voluntary and conscious action on its part. Second, even if such a contract were created, it would be invalid because the mother's will and right of self-ownership is inalienable, ie she can't enslave herself. She can try, pretend that she is selling herself into slavery, and a slave-like situation can happen, but the fact that she always has an inherent right to break off the deal always remains. These contracts are not enforceable because their enforceablility depends upon the very same rights that they serve to violate. That is the nature of a contract, its power comes from the voluntarily exercised free will of the two contracting agents. Thus any "contract" that destroys the foundation from which its validity is derived is necessarily null and void and impossible. It's like dividing by zero.

I see what you're saying. The contract doesn't exist and so this exchange is outside the law. Now we must carefully navigate through the waters of lawlessness to come up with the right response. We can't just allow ourselves to go hog wild as soon as someone puts themselves outside the law. Whether it's voluntary or in this case involuntary and unconsciously from no action of it's own. We need parameters for OUR response....even though THEY are outside the law.

Interestingly enough Rothbard says

"Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum? What we might call the "maximalist" position goes as follows: by stealing the bubblegum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.

I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper's right to his bubblegum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man's – including the urchin's – right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another's property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one's own?

I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.[5] From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment – best summed up in the old adage: "let the punishment fit the crime.""

I also think you're setting the precedent that Mens Rea is of no use or at least a lower value. I think it's extremely important, and should be given the highest levels of respect and I think any libertarian would agree.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I see what you're saying. The contract doesn't exist and so this exchange is outside the law. Now we must carefully navigate through the waters of lawlessness to come up with the right response. We can't just allow ourselves to go hog wild as soon as someone puts themselves outside the law. Whether it's voluntary or in this case involuntary and unconsciously from no action of it's own. We need parameters for OUR response....even though THEY are outside the law.

Interestingly enough Rothbard says

"Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum? What we might call the "maximalist" position goes as follows: by stealing the bubblegum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.

I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper's right to his bubblegum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man's – including the urchin's – right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another's property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one's own?

I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.[5] From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment – best summed up in the old adage: "let the punishment fit the crime.""

I also think you're setting the precedent that Mens Rea is of no use or at least a lower value. I think it's extremely important, and should be given the highest levels of respect and I think any libertarian would agree.

Indeed, proportionality would likely negate using chemicals or instruments to kill the life in the womb, provided the life of the mother isn't in danger from the live presence of the fetus. Merely removing the fetus would be appropriate, however.

[Tankbot85]

I still don't get why people are so hung up about abortion.

We have much bigger problem facing us as a nation that we need to take care of.

Stop worrying about what others do in their private lives. It's none of your concerns.

Lets get our government back in shape the way it needs to be, then and only then can you take on your personal crusades like this.

[tod evans]

All of the arguments in this thread focus on mother and fetus...

What about the father?

[AlexAmore]

I still don't get why people are so hung up about abortion.

We have much bigger problem facing us as a nation that we need to take care of.

Stop worrying about what others do in their private lives. It's none of your concerns.

Lets get our government back in shape the way it needs to be, then and only then can you take on your personal crusades like this.

I think this has a wider range of implications. How much do people value life? Under what circumstances can a life be killed? Can someone deem another as less than human and under what circumstances (neural capacity, physical form, location...etc)?

"We're overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die." - Ron Paul

I don't think we're going to change the nation until we can change the nation's morals. We're a nation that doesn't value responsibility and accountability, the two tenets of libertarianism. The vast majority of abortions are because the mother is inconvenienced. So we're teaching our youth that this life has less value and is fine to kill because your lifestyle is more important. I think this is the mindset that got us into the messes we're dealing with.

[moostraks]

I think this has a wider range of implications. How much do people value life? Under what circumstances can a life be killed? Can someone deem another as less than human and under what circumstances (neural capacity, physical form, location...etc)?

"We're overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die." - Ron Paul

I don't think we're going to change the nation until we can change the nation's morals. We're a nation that doesn't value responsibility and accountability, the two tenets of libertarianism. The vast majority of abortions are because the mother is inconvenienced. So we're teaching our youth that this life has less value and is fine to kill because your lifestyle is more important. I think this is the mindset that got us into the messes we're dealing with.

You are absolutely right on this. Well said!

[staerker]

If a woman has inalienable ownership of her body, it is impermissible for another person to live inside her against her will.

The above argument agrees a fetus is a person, so:

A woman makes a voluntary action to put a human life inside her body, by becoming impregnated, without consent from the individual being involuntarily subjected to her body. She is justified in killing it?

Should a woman be allowed to put her born baby back inside her body, and then kill it?

In both situations, the woman puts a life inside her body, and claims it is impermissible.

[Eagles' Wings]

I think this has a wider range of implications. How much do people value life? Under what circumstances can a life be killed? Can someone deem another as less than human and under what circumstances (neural capacity, physical form, location...etc)?

"We're overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die." - Ron Paul

I don't think we're going to change the nation until we can change the nation's morals. We're a nation that doesn't value responsibility and accountability, the two tenets of libertarianism. The vast majority of abortions are because the mother is inconvenienced. So we're teaching our youth that this life has less value and is fine to kill because your lifestyle is more important. I think this is the mindset that got us into the messes we're dealing with.

+ Rep
Thread winner!

[James Madison]

So is a load of sperm then

Except sperm are genetic clones of the father (well, clones with half the genetic material of normal cells). So, they belong to the father. The law of self-ownership would dictate the father has the right to do with these cells as he pleases. And from a scientific perspective, sperm by themselves are a dead-end; they are incapable of sustaining long-term homeostasis and cannot reproduce. Their stasis as being 'alive' is questionable.

[tod evans]

In both situations, the woman puts a life inside her body,

Ya'll keep neglecting to address "The Father".....

It takes two to tango or in this instance create a fetus.

Without debating the moral implications of abortion how is it justified leaving the father out of any pre-birth decisions relevant to the fetus he contributed equally in creating?

It is well settled that after birth a father is responsible to care for his offspring but during gestation he gets no say in the matter.

I believe that by granting fathers equal responsibility for the fetus 90% or more of abortions wouldn't even be considered.

Everyone who engages in intercourse understands that pregnancy is a possibility, so granting sole decision making to the mother during gestation neglects the fathers rights to care for his progeny.

If a person doesn't want children sterilization is an option for either sex prior to intercourse so by not choosing to have themselves sterilized both parents are entering into their tryst knowing pregnancy is possible.

This of course leads to the social net provided by the taxpayers, welfare/food-stamps/free medical etc.... I'd vote to end every bit of it! If parents can't accept responsibility for their children then they'd have only two options, watch their kids starve or sign them over to somebody who could care for them.

By ending tax-payer funded breeding and granting fathers equal rights to all prenatal decisions I really don't think any of these abortion discussions would take place.

[Eagles' Wings]

Ya'll keep neglecting to address "The Father".....

It takes two to tango or in this instance create a fetus.

Without debating the moral implications of abortion how is it justified leaving the father out of any pre-birth decisions relevant to the fetus he contributed equally in creating?

It is well settled that after birth a father is responsible to care for his offspring but during gestation he gets no say in the matter.

I believe that by granting fathers equal responsibility for the fetus 90% or more of abortions wouldn't even be considered.

Everyone who engages in intercourse understands that pregnancy is a possibility, so granting sole decision making to the mother during gestation neglects the fathers rights to care for his progeny.

If a person doesn't want children sterilization is an option for either sex prior to intercourse so by not choosing to have themselves sterilized both parents are entering into their tryst knowing pregnancy is possible.

This of course leads to the social net provided by the taxpayers, welfare/food-stamps/free medical etc.... I'd vote to end every bit of it! If parents can't accept responsibility for their children then they'd have only two options, watch their kids starve or sign them over to somebody who could care for them.

By ending tax-payer funded breeding and granting fathers equal rights to all prenatal decisions I really don't think any of these abortion discussions would take place.Exceptionally good points and not often considered.

[AlexAmore]

Ya'll keep neglecting to address "The Father".....

It takes two to tango or in this instance create a fetus.

Without debating the moral implications of abortion how is it justified leaving the father out of any pre-birth decisions relevant to the fetus he contributed equally in creating?

It is well settled that after birth a father is responsible to care for his offspring but during gestation he gets no say in the matter.

I believe that by granting fathers equal responsibility for the fetus 90% or more of abortions wouldn't even be considered.

Everyone who engages in intercourse understands that pregnancy is a possibility, so granting sole decision making to the mother during gestation neglects the fathers rights to care for his progeny.

If a person doesn't want children sterilization is an option for either sex prior to intercourse so by not choosing to have themselves sterilized both parents are entering into their tryst knowing pregnancy is possible.

This of course leads to the social net provided by the taxpayers, welfare/food-stamps/free medical etc.... I'd vote to end every bit of it! If parents can't accept responsibility for their children then they'd have only two options, watch their kids starve or sign them over to somebody who could care for them.

By ending tax-payer funded breeding and granting fathers equal rights to all prenatal decisions I really don't think any of these abortion discussions would take place.

Great points. I have thought about father's side of things and think they should have a say, but I appreciate the more indepth thought process for it.

Yes if we simply brought about a free market, I'm positive abortion would be at an all time low. If we look at rich people they tend to wait and have one child, while poor people have higher rates of abortion or rush to churn out as many babies as possible. As a society we reward this behavior :confused:

[idiom]

It is well settled that after birth a father is responsible to care for his offspring but during gestation he gets no say in the matter.

An-caps would disagree with you on the well settled bit. Why should anyone have any rights over anyone else?

[idiom]

All of the arguments in this thread focus on mother and fetus...

What about the father?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

[dillo]

Except sperm are genetic clones of the father (well, clones with half the genetic material of normal cells). So, they belong to the father. The law of self-ownership would dictate the father has the right to do with these cells as he pleases. And from a scientific perspective, sperm by themselves are a dead-end; they are incapable of sustaining long-term homeostasis and cannot reproduce. Their stasis as being 'alive' is questionable.

A fetus cannot survive on its own

[ZenBowman]

It's not. It's instead a war on being irresponsible, and to prevent an innocent life from bearing the burden of your foolish decisions. But, evidently it's a "right" to abort a baby. It's just like you have a "right" to a physician's services, or to part of my paycheck.

I agree that abortion is immoral.

But, there is no way to prevent an innocent life from bearing the burden of your foolish decisions.

If pregnant women eat crap, their babies suffer.
If they are obese, their babies suffer.
If they are under stress, their babies suffer.
If they take alcohol, their babies suffer, potentially are handicapped.
If they take drugs, their babies suffer, potentially are handicapped.

All of these qualify as harming an innocent life.

How much power are you willing to give government in order to prevent innocent lives from being harmed?

I think when people call abortion a right they are going too far, it certainly is not a "right". But practically, without empowering the state beyond what I consider acceptable, it is unenforceable.

[tod evans]

An-caps would disagree with you on the well settled bit. Why should anyone have any rights over anyone else?

How in the world can several million court orders stipulating a father pay support be argued as not well settled?

Your question of rights over another can be construed many different ways...father rights over mother, mother over father, one parent or the other over fetus, both over fetus, fetus over parents....

I can't begin to guess which position you're taking?

[heavenlyboy34]

An-caps would disagree with you on the well settled bit. Why should anyone have any rights over anyone else?
responsibility for =/= rights over. An-caps generally agree that individuals act purposefully in their own rational self-interest (praxaeology) and that actions (including irrational ones) have consequences. The argument could be made that acting in such a way that results in a pregnancy puts a moral responsibility of some sort upon the parents.

[The Free Hornet]

How in the world can several million court orders stipulating a father pay support be argued as not well settled?

If it is "well settled", why is there need for court orders?

The fathers say "less", the mothers say "more", and the judge decides. However,

What if that father never wanted the baby? (us men are easily tricked into releasing sperm)
What if his support is just subsidizing the mother's crack habit?
What if the father has no rights of visitation or equal time/say in childrearing?
What if the father is not paid for the days he takes care of the children?
What if the mother has a common-law husband (and step-dad for child) but won't officially remarry/adopt due to loss of benefits?
What if the mother blew a lump sum settlement?

This is far, far, far from settled but rather a boondoggle for the legal industry.

[tod evans]

These are all relevant and on point questions that are targeted at the mothers behavior not the fathers responsibility to his progeny.

I'd love to discuss these issues in another thread where we could keep the subjects somewhat separated, I know I get confused and go off on tangents and I really believe that a father should be permitted equal legal authority for his progeny during gestation and it sounds as though you're wanting to discuss children who have been born.


[edit]

I'm the one who's derailed this thread by focusing on fathers (non-existent) rights to care for and protect his child while in the womb......

The OP queried about "after birth abortions"........Sorry!

If it is "well settled", why is there need for court orders?

The fathers say "less", the mothers say "more", and the judge decides. However,

What if that father never wanted the baby? (us men are easily tricked into releasing sperm)
What if his support is just subsidizing the mother's crack habit?
What if the father has no rights of visitation or equal time/say in childrearing?
What if the father is not paid for the days he takes care of the children?
What if the mother has a common-law husband (and step-dad for child) but won't officially remarry/adopt due to loss of benefits?
What if the mother blew a lump sum settlement?

This is far, far, far from settled but rather a boondoggle for the legal industry.

[DamianTV]

Thread isnt derailed, it was headed this direction anyway. The topic of Post Birth Abortion wasnt really intended as being legitimate in the first place.

---

You guys all forget that this is America!

You do not have ANY expecation that what you create belongs to you. You do NOT own your own body, it is property of the US Govt. You do NOT deserve to keep what you produce. You are NOT allowed to keep what you earn. You are NOT allowed to decide what goes into your body, be it Food, a Penis, or a Drug. You do NOT own that which you think you own, which is why you must pay Property Taxes on the things you are told you own. Your statements, thoughts, and expressions are the Copyrighted Property belonging to where you make such expressions. What you say on FarceBook belongs to FarceBook, not you. You do NOT own any Music or Movies that you have purchased, and are thereby NOT allowed to bequeath to your next of kin upon your death; your Music and Movies are Licensed to you, and those licenses are Non Transferrable. You are NOT allowed to Drive without permision from your State. You are NOT allowed to own a Gun without permission. You are NOT allowed to Grow a Farm. You are NOT allowed to collect Rainwater. You are NOT allowed to open, sell, and distribute Lemonade. You are NOT allowed to Peacefully Protest. You are NOT allowed to choose, worship, or express your Religion. You are NOT allowed to ride a Camel backwards next to a Highway while eating Icecream on a Sunday.

You are NOT allowed to do one single fucking thing in any of your lives without getting permission from someone else, for those things that are deemed permissible. What the hell makes anyone think that they have any say so in the matter when it comes to Pregnancy?

This is America. Good Ol' USSA. Much like the USSR prohibited private ownership of anything, what ever you think you own belongs to everyone else, thus, they all get a say so in how you wipe your ass. All accomplished by Legal Twaddlespeak, and all perpetuated by the refusal of people to mind their own fucking business.

[James Madison]

A fetus cannot survive on its own

Funny. I don't find 'ability to survive on its own' as a qualifyer for life in my textbook. I suppose tapeworms aren't alive. Neither are mosquitoes or ticks. For that matter, you couldn't survive on your own. You must consume something that is or was once living or you will die. That's not surviving on your own.

[dillo]

Funny. I don't find 'ability to survive on its own' as a qualifyer for life in my textbook. I suppose tapeworms aren't alive. Neither are mosquitoes or ticks. For that matter, you couldn't survive on your own. You must consume something that is or was once living or you will die. That's not surviving on your own.

Again you have failed to show what is and isn't living. Where is the line? If the morning after pill is murder, doesw

That make pulling out a preemptive murder? Are condoms preemptive murder? Where is the line?

[James Madison]

Again you have failed to show what is and isn't living. Where is the line? If the morning after pill is murder, doesw

That make pulling out a preemptive murder? Are condoms preemptive murder? Where is the line?

I just told you...

Sperm are the property of the father. When a lone sperm fertilizes an egg it ceases to be a sperm, by definition. I reserve the right to do whatever I wish to the cells in my body since they belong to me and because they are clones of the original cell (zygote) that spawned me.

I draw the line where science tells me to draw the line.

[dillo]

I just told you...

Sperm are the property of the father. When a lone sperm fertilizes an egg it ceases to be a sperm, by definition. I reserve the right to do whatever I wish to the cells in my body since they belong to me and because they are clones of the original cell (zygote) that spawned me.

I draw the line where science tells me to draw the line.

So yes to condoms then

[DamianTV]

Again you have failed to show what is and isn't living. Where is the line? If the morning after pill is murder, doesw

That make pulling out a preemptive murder? Are condoms preemptive murder? Where is the line?

Again, people fail to see that they have ZERO right to tell another human being what to do when people own their own bodies. Doesnt matter if its murder, abortion, alive, not alive, unless it is YOUR progeny, no one else gets a say so in the matter.

Why can people not understand this most simple concept of Liberty?

[tod evans]

In the case of a fetus, a father currently has no legal footing to protect his progeny, the survival is completely at the womans discression, abortion is her choice alone.

On the other hand if the father doesn't want his progeny to survive for whatever reason he doesn't get to make that choice either, it's left completely up to the woman.

How can right minded people accept this disparity?


Again, people fail to see that they have ZERO right to tell another human being what to do when people own their own bodies. Doesnt matter if its murder, abortion, alive, not alive, unless it is YOUR progeny, no one else gets a say so in the matter.

Why can people not understand this most simple concept of Liberty?

[James Madison]

So yes to condoms then

Yes to condoms being what? 'Preemptive murder'? Dafuq is that?!

Is it like pre-crime where I'm arrested for doing things I haven't done yet? Sounds like a Bush-ism.

[Johnny Appleseed]

I'm all 4 aba lets start with anyone that wears a suit and tie

[James Madison]

In the case of a fetus, a father currently has no legal footing to protect his progeny, the survival is completely at the womans discression, abortion is her choice alone.

On the other hand if the father doesn't want his progeny to survive for whatever reason he doesn't get to make that choice either, it's left completely up to the woman.

How can right minded people accept this disparity?

Women want to have their cake and eat it too. They have full authority of the child while in the womb, but the father is forced to accept full authority once outside the womb. And these same people always want to scream about women 'owning' their bodies and, ergo, the fetus. To that I say...fine. It's yours. I'm not paying child support. You claimed total ownership of the fetus so it's your problem now, bitch.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm all 4 aba lets start with anyone that wears a suit and tie I'd prefer to start with the Congress. ;)

[DamianTV]

In the case of a fetus, a father currently has no legal footing to protect his progeny, the survival is completely at the womans discression, abortion is her choice alone.

On the other hand if the father doesn't want his progeny to survive for whatever reason he doesn't get to make that choice either, it's left completely up to the woman.

How can right minded people accept this disparity?

What I meant was that is between those two people. But for some reason, other people that arent in any way shape or form involved with either of those two claim to have more right to the womans vagina and uterus than she does.

Fathers I feel should have equal right, provided the relationship was concentual.

[Johnny Appleseed]

I'd prefer to start with the Congress. ;)

me too use a coat hanger around their neck