Legal or Illegal, The Abortion Debate Is Moot Point

[AGRP]

I share Ron Paul's stance on the issue, but like 99% of legal issues it really does come down to morality. Not if the government outlaws it or not. Here's why: There is nothing stopping the woman from aborting the baby. She can do it herself or she can get a friend (or underground doctor) to do it. She can do it anywhere. At home or in the middle of nowhere. Even if shes late term, maybe she falls down the stairs or has another accident that no one saw?

[TheTexan]

Indeed. It's unenforceable. All comes down to morality. If you believe abortion is murder, then preach that shit until people listen... nothing else will work

[AGRP]

Indeed. It's unenforceable. All comes down to morality. If you believe abortion is murder, then preach that shit until people listen... nothing else will work

Yeah. The debate, like most of the hot topic debates appears to be nothing but a distraction and its actually a detriment. Instead of debating the morality of the topic, time and money is wasted on lobbying/etc.

[TheGrinch]

Very much a demogogue issue, even if Dr. Paul may disagree that it should be, he surely must recognize that it is used that way.

While I've long since backed off on "compromise" on other issues (I foolishly used to think that this would solve anything, back when I considered myself a moderate), but abortion is absolutely one of those issues where people are never going to agree, and compromise is needed.

We're probably not going to get a better compromise than just banning third trimester ones, when it's been proven that the child does feel pain, and when clearly the statute of limitations is up on it being about the mother's choice. You've had more than enough time to decide by then.

I mean, even among liberty-friendly folks, this seems the ideal compromise. Mother's freedom of choice up until it can be shown the baby feels pain and is developed, at which point the child then clearly has the right to not be inflicted with harm. Of course I think that right begins at conception, but as liberty-friendly folks, it shouldn't be that tough to understand the other side's reasoning of freedom of choice, and why this compromise is probably necessary to not complete divide the population over it.

[DamianTV]

Indeed. It's unenforceable. All comes down to morality. If you believe abortion is murder, then preach that shit until people listen... nothing else will work

I stopped listening to preachers a long time ago, and in fact, have such little trust in preachers that I now sincerely believe that the crap that comes out of so many of their mouths to be the exact opposite of morality by creating a false sense of morality for people to hide their own immoral acts behind.

[opal]

as far as I'm concerned.. abortion is a privacy issue. Once the doctor's office closes, it's none of the government's damn business. Pro choice or pro life.. do you reeeeeeeeally want uncle Sam's nose in your medical records?

[Brett85]

I think that passing a law closing down public abortion clinics would greatly reduce the overall number of abortions in America. Would there still be some illegal abortions in America? Of course, just like some people still commit murder even though we have laws against murder. But there's absolutely no doubt that there would be far few abortions in America if abortion clinics weren't allowed to operate.

[TheGrinch]

I think that passing a law closing down public abortion clinics would greatly reduce the overall number of abortions in America. Would there still be some illegal abortions in America? Of course, just like some people still commit murder even though we have laws against murder. But there's absolutely no doubt that there would be far few abortions in America if abortion clinics weren't allowed to operate.
I'm personally against abortions, but we all know the harm that prohibition causes. In this case, it will only make abortions more dangerous when they're forced to be done illegally (but it will not stop those who really seek to have one).

As Dr. Paul always says, you have to change the morality of the people, not the laws to force morality. That might contradict his views on abortion, but I think he may be thinking about the issue as an idealistic and humanitarian doctor rather than logically in this case.

As I said above, the comprimise we have now really is the only solution to this issue (other than perhaps states rights to choose, but that may not apply for a woman who can't afford to travel across state lines to have it done there if they so choose, and regardless, may be a worse comprimise than freedom of mother's choice the first 2 trimesters, and the baby's right to life the last one).

[VIDEODROME]

This is why I can vote for Gary Johnson. I've heard him speak of only banning late term abortions, while allowing access to early term or morning after pill pregnancy terminations.

Now IMO, it is the late term abortions I find the most disturbing. If Gary Johnson's policy ends the need for the late term abortions because the morning after pill is available that I'd consider that progress.

Also, hopefully contraception is available. Not necessarily subsidized, but not put in place bad regulation laws based on dubious moral grounds.

[juleswin]

Thanks for posting this thread. Banning abortion in this day of age will only produce craftier ways of committing abortion. Better pharmaceutical drugs will be made, quacks doctors will setup back alley clinics and its will just be business as usual in no time. I personally think the best we can do as a society is stop any funding for abortion, welfare for pregnant teenage mothers and welfare for babies. You've got to get people think really hard if they truly want to go ahead and have that unprotected sex and this way build a more responsible society

So even if they don't do it for moral reason, they still have economic reason for behaving well. I don't see how its moral forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want. I had a very hard time as a kid, I was a pre mature, I had alopecia, asthma, all sorts of allergies and stuff and I can tell that one of the reason I was able to get through all of that was the fact that my parents really loved me. Most nights were horrible for me but my Mom would sit by my bed side all nights to watch me sleep whenever I was having my episodes. I don't think I would have made it if she didn't want me in the first place.

Also there is nothing I hate more than seeing people in this movement draw a line in the sad with abortion. They do know that many of us pro choice-rs are supporting Ron Paul even though we disagree with his on this point. They draw their line on this non consequential policy knowing that it is just the type of wedge issues TPTB use to divide true opposition to their tyranny and are proud of it. You guys should know that if everyone drew that same line with every wedge issue in the book, there wouldn't me anybody left in the liberty movement

[Brett85]

I'm personally against abortions, but we all know the harm that prohibition causes. In this case, it will only make abortions more dangerous when they're forced to be done illegally (but it will not stop those who really seek to have one).

As Dr. Paul always says, you have to change the morality of the people, not the laws to force morality. That might contradict his views on abortion, but I think he may be thinking about the issue as an idealistic and humanitarian doctor rather than logically in this case.

As I said above, the comprimise we have now really is the only solution to this issue (other than perhaps states rights to choose, but that may not apply for a woman who can't afford to travel across state lines to have it done there if they so choose, and regardless, may be a worse comprimise than freedom of mother's choice the first 2 trimesters, and the baby's right to life the last one).

You're twisting Ron Paul's position on the issue. Ron Paul opposes abortion rights. He has supported adding a human life amendment to the Constitution in the past, which would ban abortion nationwide. You can't be pro life if you believe that women should have a "choice" to murder an innocent human being. Your argument regarding "prohibition" is just ridiculous, because the fact is that there are always going to be people who disobey laws. Laws against things like murder and rape are broken by certain people. Does the fact that murder and rape happen even though it is prohibited by law mean that we should just repeal all laws against murder and rape? Of course not. The government exists to defend life, liberty, and property, with the most important of those being life.

[DamianTV]

Then it kind of gets in to that Religious Freedom thing where Catholic Churches or who ever the organization is are claiming that being required to pay for their employees birth control infringes on their Rights. #1 Corporations should not be considered People, thus, do not have the same rights as any individual would. #2 The individuals personal Freedoms override those of the Corporation because of what was stated in #1. I am also intending to claim that Churches themselves dont get the same rights as People either. #3 Who says that all members of an organization that is related to some form of Religion must be the same religion? For example, if you were a Doctor and worked for a Religious Hospital. They do exist, for example, locally we have St. Mary's. Does that mean that all the Doctors must agree to practice the same religion as supports St. Marys Hospital?

I also think this is a Libertarian issue. Does a woman have the right to protect her body from EVERYONE, including her own fetus? I think that statement, regardless if I believe it to be true or not, ought to stir up some good debate in this thread...

[Peace&Freedom]

Legalized child killing is not a moot issue, a privacy issue, a prohibition issue or even a divisive issue. Regardless of whether it is misused or misconstrued in any of those ways, the fact is if we permit it, just like permitting torture, we should then not be surprised that everything else has gone to hell. When we countenance the mass slaughter of innocent life, like night follows day, we WILL get 16 trillion dollar debts, endless wars, the death of due process, and all the rest. Abortion was being effectively restricted prior to Roe, and it is only due to pro-choice brainwashing that our social memory of this has been damaged.

People who argue we have to change the morality of the people to repeal legal abortion have the history exactly backwards. The social left used the courts to force legal abortion on a then pro-life country, then the morality of the people changed, for the worse. Lethal coercion upon the unborn led to the moral slide, and it is only by reversing the social left authoritarianism can their circumstances (and the rest of ours) be reversed.

[TheGrinch]

You're twisting Ron Paul's position on the issue. Ron Paul opposes abortion rights. He has supported adding a human life amendment to the Constitution in the past, which would ban abortion nationwide. You can't be pro life if you believe that women should have a "choice" to murder an innocent human being. Your argument regarding "prohibition" is just ridiculous, because the fact is that there are always going to be people who disobey laws. Laws against things like murder and rape are broken by certain people. Does the fact that murder and rape happen even though it is prohibited by law mean that we should just repeal all laws against murder and rape? Of course not. The government exists to defend life, liberty, and property, with the most important of those being life.

No, reread my position. I'm not twisting his view. I'm disagreeing with it, using his logic on other views (i.e., prohibition)

Well sorta disagreeing, I'm not disagreeing ideologically, but as a practical matter that you cannot stop people from what doing what they're going to do, or it's going to bring unintended consequences.

[TheGrinch]

Legalized child killing is not a moot issue, a privacy issue, a prohibition issue or even a divisive issue. Regardless of whether it is misused or misconstrued in any of those ways, the fact is if we permit it, just like permitting torture, we should then not be surprised that everything else has gone to hell. When we countenance the mass slaughter of innocent life, like night follows day, we WILL get 16 trillion dollar debts, endless wars, the death of due process, and all the rest. Abortion was being effectively restricted prior to Roe, and it is only due to pro-choice brainwashing that our social memory of this has been damaged.

People who argue we have to change the morality of the people to repeal legal abortion have the history exactly backwards. The social left used the courts to force legal abortion on a then pro-life country, then the morality of the people changed, for the worse. Lethal coercion upon the unborn led to the moral slide, and it is only by reversing the social left authoritarianism can their circumstances (and the rest of ours) be reversed.

WEll, that ain't gonna happen, when folks of all stripes disagree on this issue. Compromise is the best we can hope for, or else yes, it will be a divisive and prohibition issue.

[Jamesiv1]

Indeed. It's unenforceable. All comes down to morality. If you believe abortion is murder, then preach that shit until people listen... nothing else will work

I'll bet there is nothing I can say (preach) that will make you change your beliefs. I'm quite certain the reverse is true.

You've got yours, I've got mine - so be it.

p.s. If someone asks then by all means share, but it's rude to impose your beliefs upon others.

[Pauls' Revere]

I think it's beating a dead horse and serves as a distraction and recruiting tool for both sides. With all the approches and techniques towards contraception available these days it shouldn't even be an arguement. The fact that people can't/don't or won't use contraception is really the issue. The pregnancy is a symptom of technique.

[opal]

I'm well past child bearing and I still do not want the government in my doctors office. Let em in for one thing.. next thing ya know, all your invormation is nationwide
oh wait...

[TheTexan]

I'll bet there is nothing I can say (preach) that will make you change your beliefs. I'm quite certain the reverse is true.

You've got yours, I've got mine - so be it.

Actually I respect both sides of the debate equally. I don't have any "beliefs" on this issue, as it pertains to being on this side of the debate, or that side of the debate.

While I respect human life and every life lost is a tragedy, I also recognize a woman's right to her own body, and the end result of that is both work to cancel each other out.

Want to make abortion illegal by penalty of hanging? Go for it, you can try and it's fine with me.

Want to keep a woman's right to choose? Go for it, you can try and it's fine with me.

Neither side is going to get what they want, not without either a massive enlightenment or a dictatorship. So the bottom line is...


I just really don't give a damn.

[James Madison]

I also think this is a Libertarian issue. Does a woman have the right to protect her body from EVERYONE, including her own fetus? I think that statement, regardless if I believe it to be true or not, ought to stir up some good debate in this thread...

Does a female fetus have the right to protect her body from everyone, including her own mother?

[Brett85]

WEll, that ain't gonna happen, when folks of all stripes disagree on this issue. Compromise is the best we can hope for, or else yes, it will be a divisive and prohibition issue.

Ok. I misinterpreted what you said.

[juleswin]

Does a female fetus have the right to protect her body from everyone, including her own mother?

I guess the fetus is free to protect her own body while taking resident at her own place. And one more thing, lets please not compare abortion to murder. Its not quite the same thing seeing as there are no instances where its moral to sacrifice the life of a sovereign being to save the life of another sovereign being as in the case where a pregnancy is a danger to the woman's life

[Brett85]

Its not quite the same thing seeing as there are no instances where its moral to sacrifice the life of a sovereign being to save the life of another sovereign being as in the case where a pregnancy is a danger to the woman's life

Really? What if you had a situation where a person came to the defense of another person who's life was in danger. For example, what if there was a man on the street who was holding a gun to a three year old's head, and someone came along and shot that person in order to save the kid. Would that not be a case where it would be moral to take the life of one human being in order to save the life of another human being?

[AmericasLastHope]

No it is not a moot point. Is it a moot point if someone murders someone else because the police cannot prevent it? Is it a moot point if a child rapist rapes a child because a police officer can't prevent it in advance?

No. The murderer, child rapist, and child killer should all be locked up.

[James Madison]

I guess the fetus is free to protect her own body while taking resident at her own place.

Last I checked, the fetus didn't consent to be held inside the mother's womb.


And one more thing, lets please not compare abortion to murder.

Sure it is. A life is terminated against its will.


Its not quite the same thing seeing as there are no instances where its moral to sacrifice the life of a sovereign being to save the life of another sovereign being as in the case where a pregnancy is a danger to the woman's life

Ron Paul has spoken to this point. In 4000 pregnancies he has never once had to perform an abortion to protect the mother.

[juleswin]

Really? What if you had a situation where a person came to the defense of another person who's life was in danger. For example, what if there was a man on the street who was holding a gun to a three year old's head, and someone came along and shot that person in order to save the kid. Would that not be a case where it would be moral to take the life of one human being in order to save the life of another human being?

I must not have phrased my sentence well enough to articulate what am thinking. The case you are talking about is self defense by proxy. Think of this scenario, a car is about to crash with 2 passengers in it, then imagine that 2 passengers life are at risk. Both are going to die if one person is not used as a shield to cushion the hit from the accident. Now its not moral in this world to demand that one person out of the 2 be used as a sacrificial lamb to safe the other, as it is demanded in the case of a risky pregnancy. Most people at least understand that the woman's life is more important that the fetus even if they don't support a woman's right to choose

[TheGrinch]

No it is not a moot point. Is it a moot point if someone murders someone else because the police cannot prevent it? Is it a moot point if a child rapist rapes a child because a police officer can't prevent it in advance?

No. The murderer, child rapist, and child killer should all be locked up.
I'm on your side, but this is another terrible mischaracterization of the other sides view (something both sides are guilty of simply framing it as pro-life and pro-choic, as if either side is anti-life or anti-choice).

The two sides differ on at what point life begins and to what degree if any its a mothers choice with what she's created. Further, you don't have to even condone an abortion to concede that sometimes liberty means accepting things you don't agree with, if it doesn't affect you personally.

Not saying thats my view by any means, but the way both sides seem completely unable or unwilling to see the other sides POV highlights why compromise is necessary, such as what we have today.

[juleswin]

Last I checked, the fetus didn't consent to be held inside the mother's womb.

Having unprotected (and sometimes protected)sexual intercourse is not an open invitation for fetus to come visit




Sure it is. A life is terminated against its will.

Yea, like we both agree that there is a will on the other side of the table



Ron Paul has spoken to this point. In 4000 pregnancies he has never once had to perform an abortion to protect the mother.

Ron Paul is not a God. My life experience tells its not fair especially to the child to force him/her to live their early life with a person who wished death upon them. And you know the crazy thing about this argument? it is that you can never in a million years convince me to chance my stance, the best you can do is practice what you believe in and let me be. Try and use gov force to enforce your divisive laws on me and I will turn my gun on you the first chance I get.

[James Madison]

Having unprotected (and sometimes protected)sexual intercourse is not an open invitation for fetus to come visit

Yes, it is. That's how humans reproduce.



Yea, like we both agree that there is a will on the other side of the table

So? People still get 'hits' put out on them. It doesn't mean we legalize murder.





it is that you can never in a million years convince me to chance my stance, the best you can do is practice what you believe in and let me be.

I'll take that as meaning you have no logical retort. Only arguments that are emotionally charged.


Try and use gov force to enforce your divisive laws on me and I will turn my gun on you the first chance I get.

So, you would murder me in the name of protecting an arbitrary 'right' to murder ones child? Wow.

All I'm asking for is a biologically-sound reason a newborn is different from a fetus. Unless you will argue that killing unwanted newborns and toddlers should also be legal. I would disagree, but I would respect you for your consistency on the issue.

[juleswin]

Yes, it is. That's how humans reproduce.

No, its not, if every sexual intercourse resulted in a pregnancy, 99% of the population will be in favor of abortion. Most sexual intercourse is not as an attempt to procreate. Majority is purely for pleasure


So? People still get 'hits' put out on them. It doesn't mean we legalize murder.

I think everybody understands that putting a hit on someone is wrong. Again, its the reason why murder is different from abortion. If I ever wake up in a world where the vast majority of the people in the community believe that murderous hits are moral and ok, then its time to pack up and move




I'll take that as meaning you have no logical retort. Only arguments that are emotionally charged.

Oh yea there is definitely an emotional aspect to my stance on abortion but it is all based on emotion alone.


So, you would murder me in the name of protecting an arbitrary 'right' to murder ones child? Wow.

Gun doesn't necessarily mean murder, it means that when you and your abortion police come to my house to check on why my wife had a miscarriage, I will threaten your ass with my gun and if you are stupid enough to hang around after my warning, then I might shoot you. Btw I don't think abortion is necessarily a good thing, I see it as a necessary evil like war which btw I am strongly against but you never see me calling for a ban on wars


All I'm asking for is a biologically-sound reason a newborn is different from a fetus. Unless you will argue that killing unwanted newborns and toddlers should also be legal. I would disagree, but I would respect you for your consistency on the issue.

What is the difference between a hill and a mountain? the difference between a stream and a river? pond and lake? I cannot put a finger on it but I know a mountain, a river, a lake when I see it and in this case, I know a living human when I see it.

[emazur]

love Peter Schiff's answer on abortion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDttx64zk4I&feature=plcp

what it was like when abortion was illegal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmoqc2KUt84&feature=plcp

[AGRP]

Legalized child killing is not a moot issue, a privacy issue, a prohibition issue or even a divisive issue. Regardless of whether it is misused or misconstrued in any of those ways, the fact is if we permit it, just like permitting torture, we should then not be surprised that everything else has gone to hell. When we countenance the mass slaughter of innocent life, like night follows day, we WILL get 16 trillion dollar debts, endless wars, the death of due process, and all the rest. Abortion was being effectively restricted prior to Roe, and it is only due to pro-choice brainwashing that our social memory of this has been damaged.

People who argue we have to change the morality of the people to repeal legal abortion have the history exactly backwards. The social left used the courts to force legal abortion on a then pro-life country, then the morality of the people changed, for the worse. Lethal coercion upon the unborn led to the moral slide, and it is only by reversing the social left authoritarianism can their circumstances (and the rest of ours) be reversed.

Then we are property of the public? Property of the state? I disagree 100% with publicly funding, but what do you plan on doing to enforce your laws? State police at every school to issue mandatory urine tests for all women beginning at puberty? If they test positive do you plan on incarcerating the women to make sure the baby is protected? Are you depending on courtroom confessions?

[Peace&Freedom]

Then we are property of the public? Property of the state? I disagree 100% with publicly funding, but what do you plan on doing to enforce your laws? State police at every school to issue mandatory urine tests for all women beginning at puberty? If they test positive do you plan on incarcerating the women to make sure the baby is protected? Are you depending on courtroom confessions?

None of those ideas were used in the past to stop abortion, the focus was on prosecuting the abortionist doctors. The point is that killing innocent life IS THE ACTUAL COERCION, and protecting life is a legitimate function of a truly free republic and people. Once we abandoned that basic function, we clearly have become less free, as painfully evidenced in the decades following Roe.

[juleswin]

None of those ideas were used in the past to stop abortion, the focus was on prosecuting the abortionist doctors. The point is that killing innocent life IS THE ACTUAL COERCION, and protecting life is a legitimate function of a truly free republic and people. Once we abandoned that basic function, we clearly have become less free, as painfully evidenced in the decades following Roe.

Ahh, so what if the pregnant woman does the aborting themselves? I have heard of people sticking coat hangers up their slit to force an abortion, women taking pills that will precipitate an abortion. Or lemme guess, we only prosecute the man in the picture and let the real offender(woman) go free. And this is because we all know customer who demand abortion create abortion doctors in the first place

[AGRP]

None of those ideas were used in the past to stop abortion, the focus was on prosecuting the abortionist doctors. The point is that killing innocent life IS THE ACTUAL COERCION, and protecting life is a legitimate function of a truly free republic and people. Once we abandoned that basic function, we clearly have become less free, as painfully evidenced in the decades following Roe.

An abortion can be performed without a doctor. Perhaps legal doctors and clinics could be better in that pro-life advocates know who is getting and giving the abortions. I believe their protests outside of the clinics are great. Where will the advocates go if there are no clinics or doctors when it becomes illegal? Break into homes and hang out in back allies chasing something they cant find? Create a secret service type police? Again, it comes down to morality and education.

[James Madison]

No, its not, if every sexual intercourse resulted in a pregnancy, 99% of the population will be in favor of abortion. Most sexual intercourse is not as an attempt to procreate. Majority is purely for pleasure


Let's review what you said one more time. Fertilization doesn't care what the intent behind intercourse is or is not; a child born of the desire to procreate or the desire for pleasure is identical. Unless you're willing to accept the female body can somehow tell the difference between 'legitimate' and illegitimate pregnancy.:rolleyes:


I think everybody understands that putting a hit on someone is wrong. Again, its the reason why murder is different from abortion. If I ever wake up in a world where the vast majority of the people in the community believe that murderous hits are moral and ok, then its time to pack up and move


I don't think that's the case at all. Humans love murdering, so long as the target has been successfully dehumanized. And that's exactly the case with abortion. You keep telling me that murder is different from abortion but you can't tell me why. Because you don't have a reason.


Oh yea there is definitely an emotional aspect to my stance on abortion but it is all based on emotion alone.

lol


Gun doesn't necessarily mean murder,

Yes, it does. I was taught this from an early age: never point a gun at someone you are not prepared to kill.


it means that when you and your abortion police come to my house to check on why my wife had a miscarriage, Iwill threaten your ass with my gun and if you are stupid enough to hang around after my warning, then I might shoot you.

There is no 'abortion police'. You're thinking of the regular police. ;)

A miscarriage is not an abortion.


What is the difference between a hill and a mountain? the difference between a stream and a river? pond and lake? I cannot put a finger on it but I know a mountain, a river, a lake when I see it and in this case, I know a living human when I see it.

Ah, the dark age mythology of Vitalism rears its ugly head. You can't describe it. You can't define it. And you certainly can't measure it, observe it, or test for it. But it's there. Really? There is no magic spark of life. There is no invisible ether permeating all existence, while separating life from non-life. A fetus and a newborn are the same biological organism. There is no fundamental difference between the two, simply the stage of its life cycle.

[juleswin]

Let's review what you said one more time. Fertilization doesn't care what the intent behind intercourse is or is not; a child born of the desire to procreate or the desire for pleasure is identical. Unless you're willing to accept the female body can somehow tell the difference between 'legitimate' and illegitimate pregnancy.:rolleyes:

A female body cannot tell the difference between the 2 but a female mind can. Its like opening the door to you house to let in air and as the door is open, a good friend walks in. Yea, its same method you use to welcome friends to your house but this instance, you are NOT not in the mood to entertain any guests. Just the same with an unwanted child. The mind and body are not on the same page.




I don't think that's the case at all. Humans love murdering, so long as the target has been successfully dehumanized. And that's exactly the case with abortion. You keep telling me that murder is different from abortion but you can't tell me why. Because you don't have a reason.

We raised chicken when we were growing up and after every year or so, we had to kill off all the layers because they did not produce enough eggs. I knew at that time that chicken weren't on the same level as humans but I still had a hard time killing em. My sisters, brother had the same problem too, even soldiers have problems doing the killing in middle east. They come back home mental wrecked because their conscience still knows its is wrong. I don't know what kind of depraved people you hang out with but most humans don't like killing. I condone abortion because I see it as a necessary evil, evil being the keyword.




lol
Yea and you know that I meant to say "but it is not all based on emotion alone"



Yes, it does. I was taught this from an early age: never point a gun at someone you are not prepared to kill.

This is purely an American way of thinking, where I grew up, pointing a gun at someone just means they should back the hell off. It doesn't mean you are going to shoot. Only in America is the police instructed to shoot to kill every time they use their weapon, they shoot 2 bullet at a vital organ even when the attacker is clearly outnumbered and unarmed. Nobody shots to disable in this country anymore and that is a shame. This is probably why you believe pointing a gun means you are prepared to kill




There is no 'abortion police'. You're thinking of the regular police. ;)
A miscarriage is not an abortion.

And how exactly would you know it was a miscarriage and not an abortion without a proper investigating? we investigate regular deaths, suicides etc to make sure they are not murders. So to operate in your world where abortion is illegal, you will need special police to investigate such reports of miscarriages, hence the abortion police




Ah, the dark age mythology of Vitalism rears its ugly head. You can't describe it. You can't define it. And you certainly can't measure it, observe it, or test for it. But it's there. Really? There is no magic spark of life. There is no invisible ether permeating all existence, while separating life from non-life. A fetus and a newborn are the same biological organism. There is no fundamental difference between the two, simply the stage of its life cycle.

And I will just have to disagree with you. See you cannot change my mind and I cannot change yours, so wouldn't it be safe to just agree to disagree. Live the way you think is moral and let me do this same just as long as am not harming anyone but myself and those who choose/happen to reside inside my person

[dbill27]

I'm not suret that the "people can do it anyways, so why make it illegal" argument is always applicable. We can't really stop people from murdering someone anymore than stopping someone from having an abortion. But we still catch and punish the guilty murderer afterwards and at least this threat deters some from murdering.

[juleswin]

I'm not suret that the "people can do it anyways, so why make it illegal" argument is always applicable. We can't really stop people from murdering someone anymore than stopping someone from having an abortion. But we still catch and punish the guilty murderer afterwards and at least this threat deters some from murdering.

Still a bit different from murder as we know it, in no case I know of is it moral to terminate the life of a being who did no harm to another person. But most people agree that in a situation where the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy, it is OK to abort the baby even in cases where the baby will be just fine even if the mother goes through with the pregnancy and dies

Murder is something to do to other people and abortion is something you do to ones self which result in the death of a being living inside you. There is a big difference btw the 2

[TheGrinch]

I'm not suret that the "people can do it anyways, so why make it illegal" argument is always applicable. We can't really stop people from murdering someone anymore than stopping someone from having an abortion. But we still catch and punish the guilty murderer afterwards and at least this threat deters some from murdering.
If pretty much 100% of the population agreed that abortion was cold-blood murder and not a right/choice, then that would be an apt analogy. But if you prohibit something that half of your population does not see as unjust like you do, then it will do very little to solve the issue, and only make it more dangerous for those who find themselves on the prohibition side.

Like I said at the beginning, you have to change the morality, not the law.

[The Free Hornet]

This video - and the argument behind it - deserves its own thread:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw

Summary: the people marching generally want ZERO PENALTY for "woman who get the abortions illegally".

This is about control just like state licensing of doctors, FDA/DEA, Cobra Act, Medicare/aid, Romneycare, et cetera. This is about regulating who may call themselves a medical doctor and what they can do.



In 1857 the newly organized American Medical Association launched a drive to make abortion illegal. Facing competition from "irregular" medical practitioners-particularly homeopaths and midwives-the AMA used the campaign as a way of establishing state control over the medical practice.

www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/864 (http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/864)

[alucard13mmfmj]

If you fund condoms, there might be less abortions. But people think condoms being readily available would lead to more sex and dont want to fund condoms...

*sigh*

honestly, tax payers spending 25cent to cover up someone's monkey will save the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run and probably even reduce the need for abortions. oh well.

[DamianTV]

Im not working, and not paying any taxes, so do I count as a tasx payer or not? :P

[Neil Desmond]

The Resolution for the Abortion Issue: http://neiltalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/resolution-for-abortion-issue.html

[PierzStyx]

I wasn't aware that murder and aggression against the defenseless was a "moot point." Roe v. Wade is as evil a court decision as Dred Scot.

Also, you cannot honestly say you agree with the Doctor and then say the abortion debate is moot. Go back and read Liberty Defined. Go and watch the debates. When Santorum said Paul didn't care about abortion was one of the most in your face, aggressive, pissed off Ron Paul moments I have ever seen. He does not see it as a "moot point." Far form it.

[Smart3]

I've said elsewhere that I am so firmly pro-choice that I would be willing to become an abortion doctor if I knew I could help countless women in need. I consider abortion doctors to be humanitarians.

Fortunately, I doubt I need to take up the profession anytime soon.

[Justinfrom1776]

I agree with the OP. I think the only reason it's such a common topic is because it is one of the last few differences between mainstream Republicans and Democrats. If mainstream news is talking issues, it's almost always gay marriage or abortion. Other than that, they are talking about Willard's taxes and Obama's birth certificate.

[Neil Desmond]

I've said elsewhere that I am so firmly pro-choice that I would be willing to become an abortion doctor if I knew I could help countless women in need. I consider abortion doctors to be humanitarians.

Fortunately, I doubt I need to take up the profession anytime soon.
What about the countless unborn children in need? Is it ok to kill an unborn child? Is killing unborn children humanitarian?

[Peace&Freedom]

An abortion can be performed without a doctor. Perhaps legal doctors and clinics could be better in that pro-life advocates know who is getting and giving the abortions. I believe their protests outside of the clinics are great. Where will the advocates go if there are no clinics or doctors when it becomes illegal? Break into homes and hang out in back allies chasing something they cant find? Create a secret service type police? Again, it comes down to morality and education.

Again, it comes down to not ignoring the disintegration of morality and education that legalized child killing has led to. TO REPEAT, THE TRUE INITIATION OF FORCE IS THE ONE BEING APPLIED TO THE CHILDREN, not the mothers who chose aggression to solve their problem. To repeat, abortion was prohibited and successfully restricted in our actual history, without focusing on punishing the mother, so bringing up the above scenarios are moot, and a play on emotion.

Back alley or botched abortions in the past, by Planned Parenthood's own estimates, occurred only one tenth as often as after Roe; the legalization increased the occurence of botched or medically incompetent abortions, only now the damage to women had the legitimized cover of being done in clinics. Please focus on the real world majors of actual lethal violence being performed on actual children, not the hypothetical minors.

[AGRP]

Again, it comes down to not ignoring the disintegration of morality and education that legalized child killing has led to. TO REPEAT, THE TRUE INITIATION OF FORCE IS THE ONE BEING APPLIED TO THE CHILDREN, not the mothers who chose aggression to solve their problem. To repeat, abortion was prohibited and successfully restricted in our actual history, without focusing on punishing the mother, so bringing up the above scenarios are moot, and a play on emotion.

Back alley or botched abortions in the past, by Planned Parenthood's own estimates, occurred only one tenth as often as after Roe; the legalization increased the occurence of botched or medically incompetent abortions, only now the damage to women had the legitimized cover of being done in clinics. Please focus on the real world majors of actual lethal violence being performed on actual children, not the hypothetical minors.

Id like to know how its possible to estimate just about the most secretive and personal acts one can do in life.

[Smart3]

What about the countless unborn children in need? Is it ok to kill an unborn child? Is killing unborn children humanitarian?
Who cares?
Yes
and Yes if it means there will be no unwanted children. Everyone deserves to be wanted.

[The Free Hornet]

To repeat, abortion was prohibited and successfully restricted in our actual history, without focusing on punishing the mother, so bringing up the above scenarios are moot, and a play on emotion.

A) I doubt that.

B) If "A)", then at the cost of privacy and control of our medical system:



In 1857 the newly organized American Medical Association launched a drive to make abortion illegal. Facing competition from "irregular" medical practitioners-particularly homeopaths and midwives-the AMA used the campaign as a way of establishing state control over the medical practice.

www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/864 (http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/864)


As to how the fuck you mention "without focusing on punishing the mother", is beyond me. If a wife contracts an assassin to knock off her husband, then both the assassin and the wife face felony, murder-one charges.

Yourself, and many, if not most, "pro-life" people are inherently "pro-choice" with respect to the mother.

Like most prohibitions, this is a war on those - mostly men of lower socioeconomic status - who compete against those with power, wealth, influence, established business. These wars require many ignorant, self-rightous pawns to cede power to the government.

[The Free Hornet]

The Resolution for the Abortion Issue: http://neiltalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/resolution-for-abortion-issue.html

How is science fiction technology a resolution:


Regarding the remedy to the technology feasibility problem, if at least an attempt is made to preserve the life of a fetus by either trying to transfer it to a surrogate mother or specially designed incubator - but it does not survive, then at least it could be construed as a death from natural causes rather than feticide.

-Neil Desmond (http://neiltalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/resolution-for-abortion-issue.html)

And who is this "Neil Desmond"? It seems like you have some connection to him.

Seriously, I would be all for such technology (fetus --> incubetus). I suspect it would be far cheaper and healthier to pay the mother to carry to term with full custody transferring to the financer upon full-term birth. Of course, this leads to paying people to be pregnant on a grander scale (it occurs now but with much money going to lawyers) which could cause the price to plummet and more abortions after the baby bubble bursts.

[Brian4Liberty]

The issue won't go away. It a wonderfully, smelly, red herring, and people can't resist chasing it. The establishment loves it. Politicians can be identical except for paying lip service to this issue one way or another, and people will happily vote knowing they did the "right" thing (no matter which side of the issue they are on).


This video - and the argument behind it - deserves its own thread:

Summary: the people marching generally want ZERO PENALTY for "woman who get the abortions illegally".

This is about control just like state licensing of doctors, FDA/DEA, Cobra Act, Medicare/aid, Romneycare, et cetera. This is about regulating who may call themselves a medical doctor and what they can do.

Hold on a minute, one of those women advocated for life in prison for women who have abortion. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. She is the type of woman out of all of them that will write the laws and penalties once they go into effect. She would be the enforcer. She will send SWAT teams into homes of suspected illegal abortion providers, and into homes of women suspected of having an abortion. She will fill up the jails and prisons. And the others will be saying "gee, this isn't what we wanted." And it will be too late.

[juleswin]

The issue won't go away. It a wonderfully, smelly, red herring, and people can't resist chasing it. The establishment loves it. Politicians can be identical except for paying lip service to this issue one way or another, and people will happily vote knowing they did the "right" thing (no matter which side of the issue they are on).



Hold on a minute, one of those women advocated for life in prison for women who have abortion. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. She is the type of woman out of all of them that will write the laws and penalties once they go into effect. She would be the enforcer. She will send SWAT teams into homes of suspected illegal abortion providers, and into homes of women suspected of having an abortion. She will fill up the jails and prisons. And the others will be saying "gee, this isn't what we wanted." And it will be too late.

Exactly and to the people comparing abortion to murder, why is it so hard to recommend the same punishment as 1st degree murder of a non fetus?
Murder is muder is abortion? yes or no. It is a premeditated murder that most pro life people will see punished with only a slap on the wrist

[Peace&Freedom]

A) I doubt that.

B) If "A)", then at the cost of privacy and control of our medical system:

As to how the fuck you mention "without focusing on punishing the mother", is beyond me. If a wife contracts an assassin to knock off her husband, then both the assassin and the wife face felony, murder-one charges.

Yourself, and many, if not most, "pro-life" people are inherently "pro-choice" with respect to the mother.

Like most prohibitions, this is a war on those - mostly men of lower socioeconomic status - who compete against those with power, wealth, influence, established business. These wars require many ignorant, self-rightous pawns to cede power to the government.

There were state restrictions on abortion extending back to the late 1700's, long before the AMA tried to use the issue for other bureaucratic controls. This does not change the principle that the defense of the right to life is a legitimate function of a free republic. And I did not advance or oppose a particular course of action on mothers who abort, I simply pointed out the factual reality that the mother was not the focus of how states actually restricted abortion in the past. We already have a template for how to do it, so diverting the discussion to that aspect seems to be trying to distract from dealing with ending child-killing, or otherwise fiddling while Rome burns. MY focus is on restoring legal protection to the unborn, so the mechanics of how and who gets punished is a secondary issue, compared to the primary current reality of legalized slaughter.

[ZenBowman]

Agree with OP, it is unenforceable.

Especially if you end the war on drugs. If government should not control what you ingest, it cannot stop you from swallowing an abortofacient.

[AGRP]

MY focus is on restoring legal protection to the unborn, so the mechanics of how and who gets punished is a secondary issue, compared to the primary current reality of legalized slaughter.

I guess Im still wondering how your plan will protect the unborn by creating laws. Will that make the problem go away or make it worse? How is murdering an unborn child at a clinic any different than doing it in another state, country, or the privacy of their own bathroom? You would prefer to have it done in secrecy? Do we save the lives of the unborn with an out of sight, out of mind philosophy or one that focuses on education and provides avenues for other options such as adoption? The goal is to save innocent lives; not to be a career lobbyist right?

[DamianTV]

Outlawing anything only creates a Black Market for it. Laws can not and do not replace Morality.

What makes anyone think that they have any right to interfere with what a Mother chooses to do with her unborn fetus? If her body is her own, then it is the same as claiming to have the right to tell her that she cant smoke, drink or do drugs, regardless of being pregnant or not. Eventually, that type of mentality will extend into telling every other person what they can eat, what they can drink, and what they can and can not do.

[Peace&Freedom]

I guess Im still wondering how your plan will protect the unborn by creating laws. Will that make the problem go away or make it worse? How is murdering an unborn child at a clinic any different than doing it in another state, country, or the privacy of their own bathroom? You would prefer to have it done in secrecy? Do we save the lives of the unborn with an out of sight, out of mind philosophy or one that focuses on education and provides avenues for other options such as adoption? The goal is to save innocent lives; not to be a career lobbyist right?

Don't we have laws against killing adults, without any of the problems you mention? Then we can reinstate the laws restricting killing children, born and pre-born. This is about protecting the latter from an initiation of lethal force. You cannot 'educate' against legalized killing in an environment where the double message (that such aggression is legally sanctioned) is in effect. I say again, when the abortion laws were in place, there were 90% fewer abortions, including those of the medically unsafe kind for the mother, while since legalization unsafe or botched cases have increased.

In fact, government force relating to abortion has increased since 1973 as a result of its legalization. Before Roe there were relatively few laws, rulings, regulations, policies, bureaucracies, bureaucrats, subsidies, etc relating to abortion. But the effect of forcing acceptance of this aggression on a largely pro-life country has required an explosion of such coercion since then, to support the practice. So if your problem is with the creation of laws and other force, on balance you should clearly come down on the side of restoring laws that protect life, than for the more massive government/legal structure we have seen is needed to sustain the abortion mills.

[The Free Hornet]

Don't we have laws against killing adults, without any of the problems you mention? Then we can reinstate the laws restricting killing children, born and pre-born.

You were clear regarding a total disregard as to how this is accomplished:


MY focus is on restoring legal protection to the unborn, so the mechanics of how and who gets punished is a secondary issue, compared to the primary current reality of legalized slaughter.

With regards to murder - the ONLY criminal analog that makes a lick of sense - it is not secondary as to who and how they are punished. Not only are you advocating state control, but a total lack of consideration for who the "just us" system rolls over.

If the mother isn't murder defendant number one, then you are just wasting our time.



We already have a template for how to do it, so diverting the discussion to that aspect seems to be trying to distract from dealing with ending child-killing, or otherwise fiddling while Rome burns.

a) you have given no such template - use a hyperlink and give us the specifics
b) "while Rome burns"? WTF!? This is not one of those issues. It is not currency collapse, armageddon, or Revelations.


Don't we have laws against killing adults, without any of the problems you mention?

Those adults have birth certificates, personal relationships, professional relationships, and contracts/expectations tied to people who have been paid to defend them (e.g., taxes). Also, those adults are not generally dependent on the mother for every breath.


Then we can reinstate the laws restricting killing children, born and pre-born.

This is a classic statist tactic. Throw in "born" to confuse the issue. More so, it is not "killing children", but "murder" that is prosecuted. Why use "think of the children" BS arguments? If it isn't felony murder for the mother, then you have nothing but a template for Romneycare. State control of medicine and police surveillance of everything.

[James Madison]

Can anyone please answer my question. What is the biological difference between a fetus and a newborn?

[Origanalist]

I so need a shower now, I wish to hell I had followed my instinct and stayed away from this thread.

[Peace&Freedom]

a) you have given no such template - use a hyperlink and give us the specifics
b) "while Rome burns"? WTF!? This is not one of those issues. It is not currency collapse, armageddon, or Revelations.

There are at least 50 different specific templates, from the different states who restricted abortions differently (not to mention how different countries did so or do so). The relevant point is it was DONE, it's not theoretical, and contributed to SMALLER government than the post-Roe, ObamaRomneycare pro-choice omni-state of the present---a point you are disregarding. It is legal abortion that has led to the statism, not the prior situations where the unborn's right to life was protected. A situation where 1-1.5 million innocent lives are killed each year, while people belittle it or its obvious implications as to why state coercion has exploded everywhere else, is indeed fiddling while Rome burns, and is absolutely one of those issues.

[tttppp]

I share Ron Paul's stance on the issue, but like 99% of legal issues it really does come down to morality. Not if the government outlaws it or not. Here's why: There is nothing stopping the woman from aborting the baby. She can do it herself or she can get a friend (or underground doctor) to do it. She can do it anywhere. At home or in the middle of nowhere. Even if shes late term, maybe she falls down the stairs or has another accident that no one saw?

Its basically a similar issue to drug use. Drugs may be bad for you, but even if they are illegal, people are going to do them anyways. Plus they will be more dangerous getting them from a black market.

As far as abortion is concerned, whether its immoral or not, its a better system for abortion to be legal. It will be safer for women getting abortions and we won't have to waste money trying to enforce a pointless law that people will just break anyways.

[AGRP]

Its basically a similar issue to drug use. Drugs may be bad for you, but even if they are illegal, people are going to do them anyways. Plus they will be more dangerous getting them from a black market.

As far as abortion is concerned, whether its immoral or not, its a better system for abortion to be legal. It will be safer for women getting abortions and we won't have to waste money trying to enforce a pointless law that people will just break anyways.

Not only will they be doing them anyways, but there will be more because many who protest will stop protesting and advocating life. They will believe the problem went away simply because they got laws passed and closed down clinics.

As for it being related to drugs also: Just because I dont believe it should be illegal doesnt mean I endorse the act. Just becuase I believe all drugs should be legal doesnt mean i endorse crack or heroin.

[tttppp]

I think that passing a law closing down public abortion clinics would greatly reduce the overall number of abortions in America. Would there still be some illegal abortions in America? Of course, just like some people still commit murder even though we have laws against murder. But there's absolutely no doubt that there would be far few abortions in America if abortion clinics weren't allowed to operate.

There are much better ways to reduce abortions than banning abortions. I don't have the stats, but I will bet that if people didn't have to wait until their 30s to afford to have kids, that would reduce abortions caused by the fact the mother can't afford to support a kid. Why not improve our education system so that people didn't have to spend half their life in school? Why not improve improve our economy for that matter?

[donnay]

Why should an immoral government have a say so in this matter anyway? A government that goes out indiscriminately and murders millions of people everyday?

[PierzStyx]

Outlawing anything only creates a Black Market for it. Laws can not and do not replace Morality.

What makes anyone think that they have any right to interfere with what a Mother chooses to do with her unborn fetus? If her body is her own, then it is the same as claiming to have the right to tell her that she cant smoke, drink or do drugs, regardless of being pregnant or not. Eventually, that type of mentality will extend into telling every other person what they can eat, what they can drink, and what they can and can not do.

Outright per-meditated murder is illegal, and rightfully so. And there is even a black market for it! But does that mean 1st degree murder should be legalized? NO! The same with abortion.

Because all people have the right to Life. Remember, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness?" A mother's right to privacy ends when she violates the child's right to live, just as your right to anything ends when your acting on your rights violates anyone elses.

[PierzStyx]

There are at least 50 different specific templates, from the different states who restricted abortions differently (not to mention how different countries did so or do so). The relevant point is it was DONE, it's not theoretical, and contributed to SMALLER government than the post-Roe, ObamaRomneycare pro-choice omni-state of the present---a point you are disregarding. It is legal abortion that has led to the statism, not the prior situations where the unborn's right to life was protected. A situation where 1-1.5 million innocent lives are killed each year, while people belittle it or its obvious implications as to why state coercion has exploded everywhere else, is indeed fiddling while Rome burns, and is absolutely one of those issues.

Abortion DOES lead to Statism! +rep for seeing what the pro-choicers are blind to.

[tttppp]

Outright per-meditated murder is illegal, and rightfully so. And there is even a black market for it? But does that mean 1st degree murder should be legalized? NO! The same with abortion.

Because all people have the right to Life. Remember, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness?" A mother's right to privacy ends when she commits violates the child's right to live, just as your right to anything ends when your acting on your rights violates anyone elses.

At some point you need to define when killing someone or a fetus is murder. Its not going to be perfect. Do you consider it murder when a pregnant woman of a couple weeks gets an abortion? I think it would be silly to charge someone with murder for technically killing someone with the intelligence of bacteria.

[The Free Hornet]

There are at least 50 different specific templates, from the different states who restricted abortions differently (not to mention how different countries did so or do so). The relevant point is it was DONE, it's not theoretical, and contributed to SMALLER government than the post-Roe, ObamaRomneycare pro-choice omni-state of the present---a point you are disregarding [NO - I GO BACK TO 1857 BEFORE MOST THIS BS REGULATION OF THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY - AND IF YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, EXPECT TO BE DISREGARDED AS A TROLL]. It is legal abortion that has led to the statism, not the prior situations where the unborn's right to life was protected. A situation where 1-1.5 million innocent lives are killed each year, while people belittle it or its obvious implications as to why state coercion has exploded everywhere else, is indeed fiddling while Rome burns, and is absolutely one of those issues.

You can't give a specific template that you agree with? What the hell. Keep in mind you have already stated a total disregard to who is prosecuted: guilty or innocent, doctor or mother - you just don't care.

I state openly: IF ABORTION IS TO BE ILLEGAL AND LIKENED UNTO MURDER THEN PROSECUTE IT AS SUCH OR STFU! Stop mentioning "templates" as an excuse to having no facts, no research. I gave the link above - pro-life marchers on the line are functionally pro-choice with respect to the mother.

I gave a link showing how the AMA pushed the abortion issue specifically to increase state control of medicine:


In 1857 the newly organized American Medical Association launched a drive to make abortion illegal. Facing competition from "irregular" medical practitioners-particularly homeopaths and midwives-the AMA used the campaign as a way of establishing state control over the medical practice.

www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/864 (http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/864)

You have the nerve to claim that "legal abortion that has led to the statism". You have no link, no evidence. How can I possibly think of you as anything other than worthless? Don't reply if you don't have something to add besides your opinion. I like to present evidence and craft my arguments. My opinion will be withdrawn or modified if I can be shown conclusively to be wrong. I have had to concede on some issues (e.g., with marriage, the state ought not to be licensing any marriage - of course getting to that point is difficult - and if a license does exist, I believe it should be offered indiscriminently with as little cost/oversight/regulation). With all the million of babies at risk, you could bother to bring some research and coherence to the forum.


"I don’t think we want to make it a criminal sanction but I think there should be some kind of penalty or consequence, but we don’t have a specific proposal as to what that would be."-Pawlenty

Eric Woolson, the Iowa spokesman for Pawlenty’s campaign staff, later apologized for cutting the interview short and clarified:

… “As you know, this was the last question in the press scrum and discussion got chopped off.” Woolson said. “To be clear, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue of abortion returns to the states for them to decide the issue and penalties, if any. As to the governor’s views on these matters, he believes that if abortion becomes illegal, abortion providers should be subject to a penalty possibly including a criminal penalty. However, he does not believe women should be penalized.”

prolifeaction.org/hotline/2011/whatpunishment/ (http://prolifeaction.org/hotline/2011/whatpunishment/)
[read the links and the quotes, it is about using threat of license removal and punishing the doctor]

If the mother is not CRIMINALLY punished, then all you to rely on is the continued misregulation of the medical industry: doctors who lose their license, the patent/prescription of drugs like RU486, advocates of abortion or providers of knowledge/equipment/drugs. The only tool in your so-called "templates" is statism: medical licensing, state-approved drugs, state monitoring of our health records and/or invasion of the doctor-patient relationship.

I've seen one mediocre argument for not prosecuting the mothers. It is mediocre because allowing a person to cop a plea and provide testimony in exchange for avoiding a murder conviction is disgusting in itself. Practical for the so-called pro-life statists, but disgusting:


Laws against abortion have always targeted the abortionist. The injured woman is the best source of information and evidence. If the woman faced prosecution, she would never admit to the abortion. The butcher would be free to harm others. It's like granting immunity to drug users in exchange for information on the big-time drug dealers. It doesn't excuse the woman from criminal behavior--it just recognizes that the public interest is best served by removing the abortionist from society. It is a matter of priorities. Why jail one woman if she will kill once in her lifetime if we can instead jail one abortionist who may kill tens of thousands of babies and maim and kill thousands of women?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/lte/lte26.html


To those who are capable and care about reducing the abortion rate (not the moral crusade to make it illegal at the cost of our medical freedom and privacy), you may find these links useful:

www.amptoons.com/blog/2005/09/01/abortion-and-rape/ (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2005/09/01/abortion-and-rape/)
www.amptoons.com/blog/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/ (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/)

[The Free Hornet]

Abortion DOES lead to Statism! +rep for seeing what the pro-choicers are blind to.

It has been demonstrated conclusively that the marching so-called pro-lifers are - with few exception - totally pro-choice with respect to the mother. They don't give a fuck about the mother getting jail time. They want state machinations to remove licensing and to regulate providers. They often want abortion allowed in cases of rape or incest but they don't advocate murder for toddlers that were the product of rape or incest. They want it allowed for the "health of the mother" but need to intrude on the doctor-patient relationship to determine what the hell that even means. Their demands are for regulation, and you and Peace&Freedom seem happy to oblige.

Eliminate the FDA, DEA, state-granted authority to the AMA (licensing boards, education certification), Medicare/aid, Obama/Romneycare. Eliminate all that shit and if you still give a fuck about abortion then prosecute it as MURDER ONE or STFU!

[Origanalist]

It has been demonstrated conclusively that the marching so-called pro-lifers are - with few exception - totally pro-choice with respect to the mother. They don't give a fuck about the mother getting jail time. They want state machinations to remove licensing and to regulate providers. They often want abortion allowed in cases of rape or incest but they don't advocate murder for toddlers that were the product of rape or incest. They want it allowed for the "health of the mother" but need to intrude on the doctor-patient relationship to determine what the hell that even means. Their demands are for regulation, and you and Peace&Freedom seem happy to oblige.

Eliminate the FDA, DEA, state-granted authority to the AMA (licensing boards, education certification), Medicare/aid, Obama/Romneycare. Eliminate all that shit and if you still give a fuck about abortion then prosecute it as MURDER ONE or STFU!

You are awful free with the shut the fuck ups for such a tolerant libery minded individual.

[The Free Hornet]

I share Ron Paul's stance on the issue, but like 99% of legal issues it really does come down to morality. Not if the government outlaws it or not. Here's why: There is nothing stopping the woman from aborting the baby. She can do it herself or she can get a friend (or underground doctor) to do it. She can do it anywhere. At home or in the middle of nowhere. Even if shes late term, maybe she falls down the stairs or has another accident that no one saw?

Thanks for starting this thread and thanks for presenting that reality. Keep in mind that there are more miscarriages than abortions so another thing statists would accomplish is to cast criminal aspersions on any woman who miscarries.

WTG "pro-lifers" for yet another unbelievable state power grab that means any miscarriage can be cause for arrest and pregnant woman have far fewer rights. That child belongs to the state now:

http://www.alternet.org/story/151508/15-year-old_girl_faces_life_in_prison_for_a_miscarriage_wh y_conservatives_are_criminalizing_pregnant_women
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/04/04/personhood-measures-in-disguise
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/alabama-supreme-court-personhood-meth-law_n_1392009.html?ref=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-m-paltrow/how-personhoodusa-and-the_b_176530.html
http://www.thenation.com/article/166664/protect-pregnant-women-free-bei-bei-shuai#

[The Free Hornet]

You are awful free with the shut the fuck ups for such a tolerant libery minded individual.

I do not claim to be tolerant of statists. Look at my avatar.

[Origanalist]

I do not claim to be tolerant of statists. Look at my avatar.

I don't think you are tolerant at all.

[Neil Desmond]

Who cares?
Humanitarians, necessarily. I do not see how it is possible for abortion doctors (to be specific, anyone who kills unborn children) to be considered humanitarians; can you please show me? Maybe my eyes are closed, in which case I would like to have them opened.


Yes
Alright; then there is no point in making it not ok to kill a child after it is born, either. How about we do something, such as have a Roe vs Wade 2, so children can be killed after they're born too; that way your desire to help countless women in need can be fulfilled. I would think it could be safer and more convenient for the mother to have children euthanized after they're born.


and Yes if it means there will be no unwanted children. Everyone deserves to be wanted.
Well then let's go a little bit further - let's not limit it to children after they're born or children in general. Let's include adults in this too; no reason not to.

[Neil Desmond]

How is science fiction technology a resolution
I'm uncertain about what you're trying to get at, but I will make an attempt to respond & hopefully it will answer your question: such "science fiction" technology is only fiction until it is developed; then it's technological fact - and as a result, a solution. Not all science fiction technology can be a resolution for something; I never made nor see how I implied such a claim. What I am trying to do is bring forth a proposal and suggest a direction to move in, rather than keeping the status quo.


And who is this "Neil Desmond"?
Me. :cool:


It seems like you have some connection to him.
Really? I wonder what makes you say that. :D


Seriously, I would be all for such technology (fetus --> incubetus). I suspect it would be far cheaper and healthier to pay the mother to carry to term with full custody transferring to the financer upon full-term birth.
I think it would depend on a case-by-case basis.


Of course, this leads to paying people to be pregnant on a grander scale (it occurs now but with much money going to lawyers) which could cause the price to plummet and more abortions after the baby bubble bursts.
Couldn't this happen regardless?

[tod evans]

I've gotta bring up fathers...

Why aren't fathers being given equal say in this debate?

[Neil Desmond]

I've gotta bring up fathers...

Why aren't fathers being given equal say in this debate?
Probably for the same reason that advocates for unborn children (given that they cannot speak for themselves) aren't recognized either. It also sounds like a topic of its own.

[idiom]

Yay!

http://i.imgur.com/9Jb5z.jpg

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

I share Ron Paul's stance on the issue, but like 99% of legal issues it really does come down to morality. Not if the government outlaws it or not. Here's why: There is nothing stopping the woman from aborting the baby. She can do it herself or she can get a friend (or underground doctor) to do it. She can do it anywhere. At home or in the middle of nowhere. Even if shes late term, maybe she falls down the stairs or has another accident that no one saw?

Justice Blackman traversed the boundaries of Reason,
And likely—forever muddled the debate on abortion.
I am reluctantly pro-choice—and I am not like that,
Hell—those sound like the words of a democrat...

Amendment 10 says it is a matter of state province,
But this path cannot be navigated in the darkness of force;
It must be illuminated with a Human moral code of values.
Lamentably, it’s a political, rather than a Human issue.

[Republicanguy]

Yay!

http://i.imgur.com/9Jb5z.jpg

I found this comment while searching on Bing on the views of Abortion and Mr Paul.


I recently had to consider if I could go thru with an abortion. There were signs that I may have had an ectopic pregnancy, which would have been high risk at a minimum and potentially life threatening towards the end of the pregnancy. I have said in the past that I could never personally have an abortion, but after much soul searching, realized that I would have the procedure, rather than risk my son growing up without a mother. Knowing that the majority of abortions are performed on women who already have children, I wonder if these same thoughts apply to them.

Of course, the reason for my comment is to point out that Ron Paul does not believe I am capable of making this decision myself. If his views on abortion became law, I would not be able to have an abortion because the pregnancy could threaten my life, I would have to wait until my life actually WAS in grave danger, and by then it could be too late.

My reason for deciding I would have had the abortion (I did not have to, as it was a different medical issue causing my symptoms) may not be the same as other women who decide to have an abortion, but every woman who makes the decision has her reasons. I do not believe this is a decision that any woman takes lightly, but it is a decision we should be permitted to make. Anyone who threatens to disrupt access to safe, legal abortion threatens the lives of women and the children they already have.


http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/02/06/10331008-ron-paul-and-honest-rape?lite#c62214334

Abortion is sometimes a necessary evil.

[AGRP]

Abortion is sometimes a necessary evil.

Its a privacy issue. The only way to possibly stop it is to imprison every girl who reaches puberty. The abortion debate mirrors the war on drugs debate. The problem will become worse if it is prohibited.

[Tod]

Isn't prohibition against any murder "enforceable"? For that matter, what crime CAN be effectively prohibited without a moral society?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I share Ron Paul's stance on the issue, but like 99% of legal issues it really does come down to morality. Not if the government outlaws it or not. Here's why: There is nothing stopping the woman from aborting the baby. She can do it herself or she can get a friend (or underground doctor) to do it. She can do it anywhere. At home or in the middle of nowhere. Even if shes late term, maybe she falls down the stairs or has another accident that no one saw?

When people write songs and play music, for some reason they are able understand that they are performing to make people feel special as if they don't deserve it. Why can't people be this way when they write something?
The problem lies in the political spectrum utilized when considering this issue. In every issue, as we are Americans, most of the debate should involve how we reduce down to our Founders. Some don't even reduce to the Founding Fathers. Socrates didn't even argue from a set political platform. Instead, he had faith that the minds of the people would figure it all out once he helped them remove all the deceitfulness from the topic.

[James Madison]

It's common knowledge that women are born with many (if not all) the eggs they will carry in their lifetime. Does aborting a female fetus infringe upon its own reproductive rights. After all, you are destroying the reproductive machinery inside the embryo.

[robert9712000]

I fixed it for you since were deciding anything can be a moral issue.Hey, it isn't murder now, its a moral issue!!


I share Ron Paul's stance on the issue, but like 99% of legal issues it really does come down to morality. Not if the government outlaws it or not. Here's why: There is nothing stopping the woman from murdering her 6month old baby. She can do it herself or she can get a friend (or underground doctor) to do it. She can do it anywhere. At home or in the middle of nowhere. Even if shes late term, maybe she falls down the stairs or has another accident that no one saw?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

It's common knowledge that women are born with many (if not all) the eggs they will carry in their lifetime. Does aborting a female fetus infringe upon its own reproductive rights. After all, you are destroying the reproductive machinery inside the embryo.

Women build a whole new womb for a new egg or eggs once a month. Their system is purged by being broken down and bled out. My grandmother during my fathers funeral told me she was also grieving for the two abortions she suffered some sixty years prior. The abortions lost that really disturb women for many years can be tiny in size. Just a little speck or dot. This is typically a once a month loss as you say.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

It's common knowledge that women are born with many (if not all) the eggs they will carry in their lifetime. Does aborting a female fetus infringe upon its own reproductive rights. After all, you are destroying the reproductive machinery inside the embryo.

Women build a whole new womb for a new egg or eggs once a month. Their system is purged by being broken down and bled out. My grandmother during my fathers funeral told me she was also grieving for the two abortions she suffered some sixty years prior. The abortions lost that really disturb women for many years are tiny in size. Just a little speck or dot. This is typically a once a month loss as you say.

[AGRP]

It's common knowledge that women are born with many (if not all) the eggs they will carry in their lifetime. Does aborting a female fetus infringe upon its own reproductive rights. After all, you are destroying the reproductive machinery inside the embryo.

A baby has no "rights" other than what the mother grants. The life of the baby is dependent on the morality of its mother.

[James Madison]

A baby has no "rights" other than what the mother grants. The life of the baby is dependent on the morality of its mother.

A baby is biologically alive and possesses it's own genetic code. Ergo, it is a human being under the strictist definition. This is why the Pro-Life position is actually correct from a scientific perspective. The Pro-Choice argument always devolves into an arbitrary line in the sand as to when a fetus obtains personhood. There isn't a life force, an ether, or what ever pseudoscientific nonsense you wish to call it; there is only a human being that meets ever qualification to be deemed 'alive'.

[The Free Hornet]

Thread: Legal or Illegal, The Abortion Debate Is Moot Point (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391073-Legal-or-Illegal-The-Abortion-Debate-Is-Moot-Point&p=4666217&viewfull=1#post4666217)

dumbest comment ever.If it dies as a misscariage its a accidental death just like the thousand of accidental deaths that have no criminal aspersions attached too it
1726
^^^ This is a picture! ^^^

Presently, a venn diagram of miscarriages (that's one "s" and two "r"s, Mister Dumas) and abortions will not be considered as largely overlapping. If someone miscarries, we take them at their word as there are few or no legal ramifications. A professionally administered abortion or RU486 will be preferred over a more traditional abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion#Methods). As such, we treat miscarriages as unintentional and as a medical problem (http://www.parenting.com/article/seven-most-common-miscarriage-causes?page=0,0). Bellyflops onto a floor are not on that miscarriage causes list because better alternatives exist.

You might assume that the county DA and ME will instantly know an accidental miscarriage from a self-induced miscarriage, but I have no such trust in government. Why do you?

I don't want a government big enough to cross-reference vitamin C purchases (http://www.tarunaoils.com/articles/induce-a-miscarriage.asp) with miscarriages and then prosecuting with MY tax dollars.



And I maintain my position that the so-called "pro life" movement is just the band of useful idiots big medical found (like, 200 years ago) to regulate the medical industry. The pro-lifers have no desire to punish mothers, only to regulate doctors (the AMA loves regulation that keeps out competition). If they can't treat it as murder, how the hell can I??? And they hate premarital sex for some other reasons...

[klamath]

I would vote for a flaming neocon before I would vote for one of these so called prochoice freedom lovers. I NEVER want to be called "WE" when these people are included. Me and Dick Chaney have more in common.

[AGRP]

A baby is biologically alive and possesses it's own genetic code. Ergo, it is a human being under the strictist definition. This is why the Pro-Life position is actually correct from a scientific perspective. The Pro-Choice argument always devolves into an arbitrary line in the sand as to when a fetus obtains personhood. There isn't a life force, an ether, or what ever pseudoscientific nonsense you wish to call it; there is only a human being that meets ever qualification to be deemed 'alive'.

Where did I state the baby wasn't a person?

[The Free Hornet]

I would vote for a flaming neocon before I would vote for one of these so called prochoice freedom lovers. I NEVER want to be called "WE" when these people are included. Me and Dick Chaney have more in common.

Where is the quote showing Dick Cheney wants first-degree murder charges for the mother-to-be?

Without that, you have jack shit. You're just supporting regulation of the medical industry like a typical progressive/neocon.

As to "so called prochoice freedom lovers". The "prochoice" terminology is almost as bastardized as the "pro life" terminology.

IMO, treating a fetus as a state-protected person is a mistake, but if that mistake is made, we damn well ought to do it right. This means charges of murder one for the mother and not further regulation of the medical industry as you and Dick want.

[klamath]

Where is the quote showing Dick Cheney wants first-degree murder charges for the mother-to-be?

Without that, you have jack shit. You're just supporting regulation of the medical industry like a typical progressive/neocon.

As to "so called prochoice freedom lovers". The "prochoice" terminology is almost as bastardized as the "pro life" terminology.

IMO, treating a fetus as a state-protected person is a mistake, but if that mistake is made, we damn well ought to do it right. This means charges of murder one for the mother and not further regulation of the medical industry as you and Dick want.He just likes to do his endorsed killing overseas on a lot Smaller scale than prochoice "liberty lovers". I am just picking the lesser of too evils.

[The Free Hornet]

He just likes to do his endorsed killing overseas on a lot Smaller scale than prochoice "liberty lovers". I am just picking the lesser of too evils.

Seriously? Pro-life my ass. You don't give a fuck about other people. You'll support a mass-murdering neocon in defense of a policy that

a) doesn't reduce abortions
b) doesn't punish mothers who abort
c) further regulates the medical industry

Take the issues seriously or GTFO. Stop using words you don't understand. This isn't so much about "prochoice" but about consistency and freedom.

The ability to murder fetuses is not high on my priority list. What is high is that the issue not continue to be used as the AMA has used it. A wedge to eliminate competition and enshrine doctors as America's most privileged class. Doctors used to be middle-class types, often lower-middle class. They found some useful idiots to change that.

Regarding deaths, I have no opinion as to which carnage is greater: our overseas wars or domestic abortions. One group is the greatest cause of our debt, the other is not. You can talk about lessor evils, but I can't speak intelligently as to how many abortions this is worth (if actual deaths are required, his mom and dad, brothers and sisters ought to suffice):

http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/liberated_boy.jpg (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x713321)

That you side with Dick Cheney without shame, speaks to your character.


Edit: I may be passionate about my opinion, but I wouldn't use abortion as a litmus test. This is why Ron Paul got my $2500+ without reservation. And you are a sick individual, Klamath, to use the issue as such. It's a wedge and you deserve just as much derisision as those who didn't support Ron Paul for being pro life. To openly side with Cheney and the neocon agenda....

[klamath]

Seriously? Pro-life my ass. You don't give a fuck about other people. You'll support a mass-murdering neocon in defense of a policy that

a) doesn't reduce abortions
b) doesn't punish mothers who abort
c) further regulates the medical industry

Take the issues seriously or GTFO. Stop using words you don't understand. This isn't so much about "prochoice" but about consistency and freedom.

The ability to murder fetuses is not high on my priority list. What is high is that the issue not continue to be used as the AMA has used it. A wedge to eliminate competition and enshrine doctors as America's most privileged class. Doctors uses to be middle-class types, often lower-middle class. They found some useful idiots to change that.

Regarding deaths, I have no opinion as to which carnage is greater: our overseas wars or domestic abortions. One group is the greatest cause of our debt, the other is not. You can talk about lessor evils, but I can't speak intelligently as to how many abortions this is worth (if actual deaths are required, his mom and dad, brothers and sisters ought to suffice):

http://www.artsjournal.com/herman/images/liberated_boy.jpg (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x713321)

That you side with Dick Cheney without shame, speaks to your character.


Edit: I may be passionate about my opinion, but I wouldn't use abortion as a litmus test. This is why Ron Paul got my $2500+ without reservation. And you are a sick individual, Klamath, to use the issue as such. It's a wedge and you deserve just as much derisision as those who didn't support Ron Paul for being pro life. To openly side with Cheney and the neocon agenda....
I don't care what what you use as a litmus test. I consider your Opinion just as evil and Chaneys. Sorry if you don't like it and yes you have my contempt just as much and Chaney.