Divisive libertarian issue; where do you sit?

[Sayzak]

On the issue of abortion / choice / life where do you sit?

I understand that people who are pro-choice may be pro-choice only to a certain point, but if you're pro-choice to any point then you do not align with the gop narrative and that is part of the reason for this poll.

[robert68]

Nooooooooo!!!

[A Son of Liberty]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/leaving-now-grandpa-simpsons.gif

[Sayzak]

Totally anonymous, don't feel scared to vote. :)

[kcchiefs6465]

Prolife libertarian.

Certain cases of rape and incest, an estrogen shot should be used. Ron Paul's discussion of abortion in Liberty Defined was very rational.

[TheTexan]

I believe there is only one right answer to this question and anyone who disagrees is either a murderer or a tyrant

[kcchiefs6465]

I believe there is only one right answer to this question and anyone who disagrees is either a murderer or a tyrant
Lol, I guess I missed the last thread on abortion?

[TheTexan]

Lol, I guess I missed the last thread on abortion?

More like every thread on abortion

/yawn

[Barrex]

Not ashamed:
Christian.Prolife.Libertarian.Croatian.Meat-eater(f**k you smug vegetarians)

[TheTexan]

Not ashamed:
Christian.Prolife.Libertarian.Croatian.Meat-eater(f**k you smug vegetarians)

What's a Croatia

and do they have internet there

[Anti Federalist]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/leaving-now-grandpa-simpsons.gif

You and me both.

[Anti Federalist]

More like every thread on abortion

/yawn

How to start a "Hot Thread" at RPF in Three Easy Steps:

1 - Abortion is _______.

2 - Alex Jones says _______.

3 - Homosexuals are ________.

[kcchiefs6465]

More like every thread on abortion

/yawn
There was one when I first joined that got up in pages but that's the only one I've seen. Then again, I've just started coming here again frequently a month or two ago.

Prolife libertarian.

Having seen an aborted fetus, and reading about survived abortions, there's no way in hell I'd condone it. Plan b is something else.

[Spoa]

I'm strongly pro-life. I find it ironic that so many liberals support groups like the Sierra Club that wants to protect snake eggs but support abortion at the same time.

[Barrex]

What's a Croatia

and do they have internet there

No. We communicate via telekinesis and prank calls.

[tasteless]

Final Opinion on abortion?

[NoOneButPaul]

Final Opinion on abortion?

Option #3

Expanded on that... this decision should be left up to each state. Constitutionally I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

It will never change the way I vote.

[BuddyRey]

I'm both pro-choice and pro-life; pro-choice because I believe any woman who wouldn't want to keep a baby probably wouldn't make a fit mother anyway and should probably give up her child, but pro-life because I don't think that expulsion/eviction should involve murdering the child in the process.

Unfortunately, science hasn't quite advanced to the point where a pregnancy can be "aborted" in the sense of a mother being able to give up her fetus (hopefully to more willing and responsible caretakers), but without the necessity of the fetus losing his/her life.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

The act of picking and choosing who is a human being, or an individual, is the equivalent of picking and choosing who get's to have rights.

If people have the power to declare one another of not being worthy of their innate natural rights, you cannot protect natural rights, or liberty at all.

The entire idea of natural and individual rights, is that they're inclusive to ALL.

The act of abortion, is the notion, that we have the power to pick and choose which "group" does not get rights. It's an act of exclusion, and the epitome of inequality.

[juleswin]

I think some of you guys will realize what is going on the second you find yourselves in a mob looking down at a woman and her doctor in her country home for the crime of abortion. This lady did not pay for your police services, infact she has her own police service but your group have easily routed her private police service and you are just ready to dole out your version of justice for on this woman and her doctor.

That is when some of you guys would wake up. Hate abortion all you like, but it is none of your business what a woman does with the baby growing insider her. Please think carefully about how this pro life position would be policed in a free society.

[QuickZ06]

How to start a "Hot Thread" at RPF in Three Easy Steps:

1 - Abortion is _______.

2 - Alex Jones says _______.

3 - Homosexuals are ________.


4. Glenn Beck is _________.

[Matthew5]

The act of picking and choosing who is a human being, or an individual, is the equivalent of picking and choosing who get's to have rights.

If people have the power to declare one another of not being worthy of their innate natural rights, you cannot protect natural rights, or liberty at all.

The entire idea of natural and individual rights, is that they're inclusive to ALL.

The act of abortion, is the notion, that we have the power to pick and choose which "group" does not get rights. It's an act of exclusion, and the epitome of inequality.

QFT

A pro-"choice" libertarian is an oxymoron. Libertarianism involves the preservation of human rights. The destruction of humans is counterproductive to that end.

[TheGrinch]

As libertarians, we should see that there are legitimate arguments on both sides (even though you may not agree), to where I don't think it should be such a deal-breaker... I mean, let's face it, this is probably the one issue where compromise is actually necessary, because it is just such a divisive battle to where both sides just refuse to even acknowledge each others arguments. There is little either side will ever do to sway any further than compromise, let's face it. In today's politics, it's pretty much demagoguery to even try to appeal to it.

At least late-term abortions aren't allowed, that's where I have a really hard time seeing an argument in favor of it. You had your "choice" in the first two terms, you've had more than enough time.

[TheGrinch]

QFT

A pro-"choice" libertarian is an oxymoron. Libertarianism involves the preservation of human rights. The destruction of humans is counterproductive to that end.

And the other side will then appeal to the mother's natural right over what she creates, and we get nowhere. It's a deadend street and nothing but divisive.

No one is changing any minds, especially when you have many people who are actually against abortion but support the mother''s choice. It can even make you seem hypocritical as a libertarian to acknowledge the dangerous black markets that prohibition creates, yet push for exactly that here.

(To be clear, I am staunchly pro-life, especially after it can be shown that there is even a little bit of a developed child in there, no question, but as Dr. Paul would say, I think you need to change the morality of the people, not try to stop them from what they're going to do through laws).

[Danan]

The act of picking and choosing who is a human being, or an individual, is the equivalent of picking and choosing who get's to have rights.

If people have the power to declare one another of not being worthy of their innate natural rights, you cannot protect natural rights, or liberty at all.

The entire idea of natural and individual rights, is that they're inclusive to ALL.

The act of abortion, is the notion, that we have the power to pick and choose which "group" does not get rights. It's an act of exclusion, and the epitome of inequality.

Everybody picks and chooses. Some simply pick other moments than others.

[Matthew5]

And the other side will then appeal to the mother's natural right over what she creates, and we get nowhere. It's a deadend street and nothing but divisive.

No one is changing any minds, especially when you have many people who are actually against abortion but support the mother''s choice. It can even make you seem hypocritical as a libertarian to acknowledge the dangerous black markets that prohibition creates, yet push for exactly that here.

(To be clear, I am staunchly pro-life, especially after it can be shown that there is even a little bit of a developed child in there, no question, but as Dr. Paul would say, I think you need to change the morality of the people, not try to stop them from what they're going to do through laws).

I don't accept that as a valid argument, but then I guess that proves your point. :p

I tend to disagree with Dr. Paul here. While it is true that a moral reconciliation must be made as a society, some situations are too urgent for that to occur. When your own people and its government are involved in a genocide, it's important to take action now to put a stop to it. We feel the same sense of urgency to end immoral actions of our government on other nations.

[TheGrinch]

I don't accept that as a valid argument, but then I guess that proves your point. :p

I tend to disagree with Dr. Paul here. While it is true that a moral reconciliation must be made as a society, some situations are too urgent for that to occur. When your own people and its government are involved in a genocide, it's important to take action now to put a stop to it. We feel the same sense of urgency to end immoral actions of our government on other nations.

Dr. Paul actually agrees with you (and I do for the most part), I'm just saying that according to his other teachings and our other beliefs, I could see how plenty could be opposed without wanting it to be a law, with all the baggage prohibition brings.

[Danan]

QFT

A pro-"choice" libertarian is an oxymoron. Libertarianism involves the preservation of human rights. The destruction of humans is counterproductive to that end.

It's really not that easy, be intellectually honest here. You could make good arguments about the starting point of what we consider to be humanity, the origin and nature of individual rights, etc. You could also make the case that the baby is a trespasser on (in) the woman's property and still be ideologically consistent libertarian.

I'm not saying those are my position. Personally I'm pretty much indifferent on the issue (as a political topic) and haven't made up my mind yet. Since I believe you won't be able to do very much via the law, I don't really invest too much time thinking about it. If anybody who considers to have an abortion would ask me for personal advice I would advocate not to do it and to give the baby up for adoption. Should I (heaven forbid!) accidentially make a girl pregnant, I would urge her to have the child and be there for it (even though I'm currently not in the best situation for that, but that's nothing that can't be changed).

I just find it silly to argue that there is one clearcut intellectual answer to this subject. It might be clear to people from a religous, or an emotional point of view, though. But not everybody shares those beliefs.

[kcchiefs6465]

I think some of you guys will realize what is going on the second you find yourselves in a mob looking down at a woman and her doctor in her country home for the crime of abortion. This lady did not pay for your police services, infact she has her own police service but your group have easily routed her private police service and you are just ready to dole out your version of justice for on this woman and her doctor.

That is when some of you guys would wake up. Hate abortion all you like, but it is none of your business what a woman does with the baby growing insider her. Please think carefully about how this pro life position would be policed in a free society.
It is the immorality of society. Abortions would happen whether they are legal or not. They are less dangerous to the woman now that proper medical care is available. People need to respect life. That is our biggest hurdle. The bombing of countries, the MSM sound bites of X number killed, as they switch back and forth through gossip does not help. We are conditioned to not respect anything but time. How much time to make a buck, how much time until I have to be here, etc. The people need a mass awakening. Abortion is evil. Whether they punch their stomach, or whether a man in a surgeon's gown performs it.

No amount of laws can dictate immorality. Quite simply, people are fucked up.

[thoughtomator]

I'm pro-life, but I don't think traditional pro-life strategies work, so I voted on the fence as I really don't like people demagoging either side of the issue. To solve the abortion problem we really need a massive cultural change.

[GuerrillaXXI]

My position on this is based on how long the fetus has been developing in the womb. If it's just a fertilized egg or an amorphous clump of cells, then aborting it doesn't bother me. But if the fetus has developed to the point where it has a brain and the capacity to feel pain, then I'm very much opposed to aborting it. Once a fetus has a functioning brain, I consider it to be a person who has rights.

Does the right to life of a mostly-developed fetus trump the right of the mother to ownership of her own body? I would say yes, since the mother freely chose to engage in an action that she knew could get her pregnant (this excludes rape, of course). That's not the fault of the person living inside her. Once she has allowed the fetus to become a person, I believe she has an obligation to protect that person, much as parents have an obligation to protect their children after birth.

[newbitech]

I didn't see the choice for, "I don't have a vagina".

[Matthew5]

It's really not that easy....

This was merely a summation of my position. Ultimately, I do believe it is that easy.

A: This is only a complicated issue because we've made it one. Even the Church (bare with me here) in her 2,000 year history, has not really needed to issue an opinion on life because it was never a major issue. It is only now, with the Sexual Revolution, the degradation of personal responsibility, and medical science creating an "out" that we're forced to face this issue. The truth of the matter didn't change just because we allowed these things to creep into our social make-up.

B: I also believe we can scholasticize this thing to death (no pun intended), but we're not dealing with a traditional form of property. Two human beings come together to create something unique and transfer life to another being. If given the opportunity to form, this human will enjoy the same rights that we do in the natural world.

Therefore, libertarians can't view this as a properties rights issue, but one of preservation of human rights.

[Matthew5]

And in all this property rights argument, people tend to block out the decisions that were made to have intercourse. It's a cop out to talk about women having rights over their bodies and not holding them responsible for the decision they made to have sexual intercourse. It only serves to feed the irresponsible behavior of people (yes, men included).

Decision we make have irreversible consequences. Having sex is one of those.

[Origanalist]

I didn't see the choice for, "I don't have a vagina".

So because you don't have one.....?

[kcchiefs6465]

I didn't see the choice for, "I don't have a vagina".
God have mercy on the woman who tries to abort my child.

[newbitech]

So because you don't have one.....?

I can't see how a man's opinion in the matter, matters. Unless you are the doctor, the priest, the babies daddy, or the mothers father. If you don't have a vagina and you are one of these, than I hope you and your mate have worked this out already.

If not, you probably shouldn't be having sex. If you have, I can't see how it's any of my business whatever you decided. It's not like I can force your mate to squeeze out a baby over you or any of the other men there.

My answer to this question, where do I sit on the topic. It's simple, I have no vagina, its not really possible for my opinion on the matter to be any more well formed than that.

I believe that life should be protected and I believe that the person who must protect it first is the person whose vagina creates the life. If that person is unwilling and unable to protect that life, I am not sure if there is anything I can do about it.

[newbitech]

God have mercy on the woman who tries to abort my child.

God have mercy on the woman who bears your child as well. God have mercy on all of us.

[Danan]

B: I also believe we can scholasticize this thing to death (no pun intended), but we're not dealing with a traditional form of property. Two human beings come together to create something unique and transfer life to another being. If given the opportunity to form, this human will enjoy the same rights that we do in the natural world.

Therefore, libertarians can't view this as a properties rights issue, but one of preservation of human rights.

I still don't see why property rights wouldn't work here. If you are on my property and don't leave on your own I can use force to evict you from my property. If the fetus is just another human being with all the same rights (and that also means no additional rights), that would mean I could evict it.

Would you also argue that you can't legally keep a starving person from stealing your food, because that would mean their death? That's a slippery slope that could lead to an legitimation of welfare and all kinds of laws.

Keep in mind that I don't say there aren't any other good reasons to be morally against abortion and maybe even to outlaw it (as I said, I haven't made up my mind on that issue). It's just that abortions are not inherently unlibertarian, or that you can also make a good case for why it shouldn't be illegal from a libertarian point of view.

[acptulsa]

Almost as usual, I couldn't find an option on the poll to vote for.

There's no way I force a woman through nine months if that represents a risk to her life, or if she was raped. I also dislike the idea of encouraging back alley butchery and coat hangars. That said, there's also no way I force the residents of a state to fund abortion if the majority of the residents of voting age consider it murder. I also agree with kcchiefs that the father's rights are completely ignored, and shouldn't be (barring rape, of course). Washington seems completely unwilling to factor him into their little equation.

Yes, it affects the way I vote. I vote for candidates who vote for states' rights.

[kcchiefs6465]

God have mercy on the woman who bears your child as well. God have mercy on all of us.
After reading the clarification, I understand more of where you are coming from. I think we can agree that a father has rights as to what happens to his unborn. Not that laws would be able to regulate it. She could and probably would harm the baby either way but there would be hell to pay should she decide to kill [I]my child. Irdgaf what laws are in place.

[Barrex]

I still don't see why property rights wouldn't work here. If you are on my property and don't leave on your own I can use force to evict you from my property. If the fetus is just another human being with all the same rights (and that also means no additional rights), that would mean I could evict it.

Would you also argue that you can't legally keep a starving person from stealing your food, because that would mean their death? That's a slippery slope that could lead to an legitimation of welfare and all kinds of laws.

Keep in mind that I don't say there aren't any other good reasons to be morally against abortion and maybe even to outlaw it (as I said, I haven't made up my mind on that issue). It's just that abortions are not inherently unlibertarian, or that you can also make a good case for why it shouldn't be illegal from a libertarian point of view.

Not if you imprison that person and make it dependent on you. No one forced you (in 99.9999% of the cases) to imprison that person in your body.

I would like to talk with a doctor about this.

[seyferjm]

Not ashamed:
Christian.Prolife.Libertarian.Croatian.Meat-eater(f**k you smug vegetarians)

I really want to visit Croatia someday.

[Danan]

And in all this property rights argument, people tend to block out the decisions that were made to have intercourse. It's a cop out to talk about women having rights over their bodies and not holding them responsible for the decision they made to have sexual intercourse. It only serves to feed the irresponsible behavior of people (yes, men included).

Decision we make have irreversible consequences. Having sex is one of those.

Yes, decisions have consequences. But that's not a sufficient reason to dismiss the property rights argument. You would have to make the case that when a woman has sex she implicitly invites the baby to live nine months in her womb without being harmed, in case of impregnation. That's a hard sell to more rigorous philosophers though, because you can only invite, or make contracts with people, who already exist at that point in time.

To me it still seems to be the case that libertarian argumentation leads to at least eviction of the fetus being legitimate. That does not in any way mean that it's moral to do it or that it should be done, though. Whether or not it leads to the conclusion that it should therefore not be illegal is an entirely different question too. And I don't say I have an answer to all of those problems.

[gwax23]

Pro life. Do a poll on Intellectual property that is also a hot button issue within our community.

[Origanalist]

I can't see how a man's opinion in the matter, matters. Unless you are the doctor, the priest, the babies daddy, or the mothers father. If you don't have a vagina and you are one of these, than I hope you and your mate have worked this out already.

If not, you probably shouldn't be having sex. If you have, I can't see how it's any of my business whatever you decided. It's not like I can force your mate to squeeze out a baby over you or any of the other men there.

My answer to this question, where do I sit on the topic. It's simple, I have no vagina, its not really possible for my opinion on the matter to be any more well formed than that.

I believe that life should be protected and I believe that the person who must protect it first is the person whose vagina creates the life. If that person is unwilling and unable to protect that life, I am not sure if there is anything I can do about it.

There is so much fail there, I hardly know where to start.

"I can't see how a man's opinion in the matter, matters." How the hell did we get to THAT point?

"Unless you are the doctor, the priest, the babies daddy, or the mothers father. If you don't have a vagina and you are one of these, than I hope you and your mate have worked this out already."

Obviously that doesn't always happen, and sometimes the father doesn't want the baby killed.

"If not, you probably shouldn't be having sex." But they did.

"My answer to this question, where do I sit on the topic. It's simple, I have no vagina..." Well isn't that easy?

[Sayzak]

What is worse, harming babies or harming animals?

Our knee-jerk reaction would be to say it's worse to harm babies, right? But why? Are they not both sentient beings? Do they not both feel pain? Fear? Love? Do they not both play, sleep, dream, cry, sneeze, get sick?

Unborn babies (especially those in the first trimester) can not yet think. They have no life experience. They can not recall memories, or anticipate. Hell, their nervous systems aren't even fully developed, so the amount of pain they could possibly feel is negotiable. In that sense, an animal, like a pig, or a cow, is every bit as special and precious as an unborn baby (if not more). To deny this is dishonest.

Are you adamantly pro-life while not hesitating to eat eggs and bacon? Or steak? Drink milk? etc?

I'm only asking this question so people will question their own convictions and consider their true integrity.

I am pro-choice and I still eat meat, but I'm not rationalizing what that means to make myself feel better.

[Origanalist]

What is worse, harming babies or harming animals?

Our knee-jerk reaction would be to say it's worse to harm babies, right? But why? Are they not both sentient beings? Do they not both feel pain? Fear? Love? Do they not both play, sleep, dream, cry, sneeze, get sick?

Unborn babies (especially those in the first trimester) can not yet think. They have no life experience. They can not recall memories, or anticipate. Hell, their nervous systems aren't even fully developed, so the amount of pain they could possibly feel is negotiable. In that sense, an animal, like a pig, or a cow, is every bit as special and precious as an unborn baby (if not more). To deny this is dishonest.

Are you adamantly pro-life while not hesitating to eat eggs and bacon? Or steak? Drink milk? etc?

I'm only asking this question so people will question their own convictions and consider their true integrity.

I am pro-choice and I still eat meat, but I'm not rationalizing what that means to make myself feel better.

I have never equated animals with people.

[Sayzak]

I have never equated animals with people.

Why not? Or rather, why (if applicable) are you pro-life and why don't those same standards apply to animals?

[newbitech]

There is so much fail there, I hardly know where to start.

"I can't see how a man's opinion in the matter, matters." How the hell did we get to THAT point?

"Unless you are the doctor, the priest, the babies daddy, or the mothers father. If you don't have a vagina and you are one of these, than I hope you and your mate have worked this out already."

Obviously that doesn't always happen, and sometimes the father doesn't want the baby killed.

"If not, you probably shouldn't be having sex." But they did.

"My answer to this question, where do I sit on the topic. It's simple, I have no vagina..." Well isn't that easy?

Oh I didn't know I was taking a test.

Let me know if you need evidence. :rolleyes:

[Origanalist]

Why not? Or rather, why (if applicable) are you pro-life and why don't those same standards apply to animals?

I grew up on farms?

[Origanalist]

Oh I didn't know I was taking a test.

Let me know if you need evidence. :rolleyes:

Of what?

[Sayzak]

I grew up on farms?

What does that mean?

[Origanalist]

What does that mean?

It means we treated our animals decently (most of us), but we never put them on the same level as people.

1. We ate them

2. We sold them

3. We bred them

4. Well, you get the picture?

Oh, by the way, we didn't abort any livestock, or even puppies.......:)

[Sayzak]

It means we treated our animals decently (most of us), but we never put them on the same level as people.

1. We ate them

2. We sold them

3. We bred them

4. Well, you get the picture?

I mean this in the kindest possible way, but aren't you just making excuses? Couldn't a nazi justify his inhumane treatment toward other people by saying that he grew up around genocide?

[Origanalist]

I mean this in the kindest possible way, but aren't you just making excuses? Couldn't a nazi justify his inhumane treatment toward other people by saying that he grew up around genocide?

Animals aren't other people.

[TheTyke]

I've been thinking that being prolife is always beneficial strategically to libertarian candidates. Because for people who believe the unborn are human, very few will be alright with killing them, and it will tend to be very high on their priority list. Whereas the section that doesn't believe the unborn are babies might be fine with or support abortion, but it's not very likely to be a make-or-break issue for them. This poll responses reflect that concept overwhelmingly. I also hate these stereotypes that libertarians are pro-abortion.

Laws against murder, theft and slavery are different than prohibition, and consistent with the Declaration's state purpose for government: To protect life, liberty and happiness (property.) Either by restoring the stolen property, or making sure the offenders can't kill or enslave anyone again. Just too bad government these days is the one doing all the things it's supposed to protect us from.

[Origanalist]

I mean this in the kindest possible way, but aren't you just making excuses? Couldn't a nazi justify his inhumane treatment toward other people by saying that he grew up around genocide?

I'm hitting the sack, so don't think I'm just quiting the discussion...:)

Have a good night.

[Matthew5]

I've been thinking that being prolife is always beneficial strategically to libertarian candidates. Because for people who believe the unborn are human, very few will be alright with killing them, and it will tend to be very high on their priority list. Whereas the section that doesn't believe the unborn are babies might be fine with or support abortion, but it's not very likely to be a make-or-break issue for them. This poll responses reflect that concept overwhelmingly. I also hate these stereotypes that libertarians are pro-abortion.

Laws against murder, theft and slavery are different than prohibition, and consistent with the Declaration's state purpose for government: To protect life, liberty and happiness (property.) Either by restoring the stolen property, or making sure the offenders can't kill or enslave anyone again. Just too bad government these days is the one doing all the things it's supposed to protect us from.

It's much easier to take this from a life preservation angle than one of property rights. Libertarians don't have to work very hard intellectually to come to the conclusion that this is a life issue. It takes some real mental gymnastics to prop up a pro-choice argument using property rights.

I agree that this is well within government's power to protect the life of all humans. The right to life must take precedent over the right to "privacy".

[Sayzak]

Animals aren't other people.

Why are you so loyal to other people? What I am trying to get to the bottom of, is basically this: Why are you as loyal to a pea-sized ball of goop (that would eventually become a human being) as you are a person, but you're not as loyal to an animal that is already completely capable of feeling all the terror and pain from being slaughtered as that baby could ever be? And don't you see a conflict there?

[newbitech]

Why are you so loyal to other people? What I am trying to get to the bottom of, is basically this: Why are you as loyal to a pea-sized ball of goop (that would eventually become a human being) as you are a person, but you're not as loyal to an animal that is already completely capable of feeling all the terror and pain from being slaughtered as that baby could ever be? And don't you see a conflict there?

Two different kinds of life.

[Sayzak]

Two different kinds of life.

What does that mean?

[acptulsa]

And don't you see a conflict there?

Yes, of course there's conflict in the food chain. No, I'm not interested in overthrowing it.

There's a lesson to be learned from American Indians on this. One does not kill except to eat. And one would hope that is completely inapplicable to abortion.

[newbitech]

What does that mean?


Well in the one hand, you have the human kind, the other hand you have the non human kind.

[fr33]

I chose the "on the fence" choice. Here's why. I am strictly pro-life in my beliefs and moral codes. But I also take into consideration what politics is and how acceptable abortion has become in our "society". So it's not my #1 issue that will make or break my support for a candidate. But I've only voted for 1 pro choice candidate thus far.

[Sayzak]

Yes, of course there's conflict in the food chain. No, I'm not interested in overthrowing it.

There's a lesson to be learned from American Indians on this. One does not kill except to eat. And one would hope that is completely inapplicable to abortion.

What if there's no need for a food chain? I'm no vegan, or vegetarian, but I have been humbled and totally schooled by both recently (in the same "holy shit" kind of way that Ron Paul humbled and schooled me 7 years ago).

What if I told you there's no need for meat in our diet, because we can get all the nutrients from other foods already easily accessible and affordable to us? (Killing animals isn't necessary). Would you still be as happy to bite into your strip of bacon, knowing that a pig was brutally murdered (if it happened to you that's what you would call it) in order for that bacon to land on your plate?

I didn't mean to hijack my own thread, I just wanted to challenge people to accept that there IS a grey area in their own morality, and no matter what side of the abortion issue you're on, you're not innocent.

[newbitech]

What if there's no need for a food chain? I'm no vegan, or vegetarian, but I have been humbled and totally schooled by both recently (in the same "holy shit" kind of way that Ron Paul humbled and schooled me 7 years ago).

What if I told you there's no need for meat in our diet, because we can get all the nutrients from other foods already easily accessible and affordable to us? (Killing animals isn't necessary). Would you still be as happy to bite into your strip of bacon, knowing that a pig was brutally murdered (if it happened to you that's what you would call it) in order for that bacon to land on your plate?

I didn't mean to hijack my own thread, I just wanted to challenge people to accept that there IS a grey area in their own morality, and no matter what side of the abortion issue you're on, you're not innocent.

Would you be the one to kindly tell the lioness to eat peanut butter and tofu? I am being serious, nature has taught us how to survive. One way to do that is to kill other animals instead of killing our selves.

You are speaking of evolving, and I am there with you. Where I get lost with the whole, life is this or life is that question is, if we are all one with the universe, wouldn't eating a veggie only diet still be like, self-cannibalization? Serious question.

[acptulsa]

I've never heard a pig call it that. I've never heard of a pig calling it that. And I don't know, as my friend above mentions, the lioness would call it. But I have no doubt she'd do it to me if she were hungry.

What part of I don't intend to overthrow the food chain did I leave ambiguous and unclear?

[Sayzak]

Here's another challenge I would like you to consider:

Suppose your wife/girl friend tells you that she's pregnant. But just before you can feel that flood of dread, or excitement, or whatever it is you'd feel, some god figure pauses time, descends from heaven and gives you an ultimatum; He tells you that with absolute certainty, your child can suffer one of two fates: Either they are to grow up a slave to some foreign corporation, working various machines to create specific fabrics for 14 hours a day indefinitely, or until they try to make a run for it... or they are terminated in the womb. What would you ultimately choose for your child?

[Matthew5]

No grey areas here. Animal life (or plant, or microns...) is not equal to humans. Humans are the sole possessors of body, mind, spirit, and soul.

Obviously that's supported theologically, but I also believe you'll find that concept in the secular world as well.

[kcchiefs6465]

Why are you so loyal to other people? What I am trying to get to the bottom of, is basically this: Why are you as loyal to a pea-sized ball of goop (that would eventually become a human being) as you are a person, but you're not as loyal to an animal that is already completely capable of feeling all the terror and pain from being slaughtered as that baby could ever be? And don't you see a conflict there?
The difference is, and I'm only speaking for myself, is that I know the general conditions of meat afforded to me. [Or rather sold to me] I am not going to say that it isn't sickening how some of the animals [or even most of the animals] are treated.

I'd prefer for my meat to be humanely treated, raised happily, and put down in the least amount of pain they'd see. (righteously killed) The problem is I cannot afford it. [and a lot of Americans can't afford it] I have seen the worst of the worst. (I felt obligated, seeing that the animal has sacrificed) Truly horrific shit that factory farms do.

Us mistreating animals, or eating animals, is a strawman.

I am against abortion. (birth control and Plan B don't fall into my definition of murder)

[WarAnonymous]

People in the liberty movement tend to say "In freedom a women has a right to choose what she does to her body." This argument is correct but not in the way it is presented. With freedom, comes responsibility. If you are to engage in sexual activities, you need to be willing to take responsibilties for your actions. So yes, the women has a right to engage in sexual activities (to her body). Here's the problem though... It is time to start teaching responsibilities to young men as well. We need to teach that men need to take responsibility for their actions as well. To many pro-life people sit around and blame the women, call them dirty names, and the guy justs gets off totally free because he is not the one with the baby. Abortions that don't pertain to rape, or the mothers life, should not be looked upon as freedom. That is not responsible. The typical left argument is wouldn't you rather have the baby aborted than born into a home with no responsibility or a drug family? But why should one person get to make the choice of if another person has a right to life?

I totally believe that if you make the decisions, you need to be responsible for them.

So shouldn't we make this argument also?:
Shouldn't a heroine junkie be able to get government funding so they don't die from not having heroine? We like to argue for decriminalizing drugs, so why not also advocate heroine addicts not take responsibility for their actions? Help them continue making their bad decisions. At what point do you say abortion is enough (if you are pro-choice)? Is it ok to use it as a form of birth control? I mean if you say it's ok once, is it ok 3 or 4 times?

You can say these are unrelated... but they are related. It's the concept of helping one out of their bad decisions.

[Sayzak]

Would you be the one to kindly tell the lioness to eat peanut butter and tofu? I am being serious, nature has taught us how to survive. One way to do that is to kill other animals instead of killing our selves.

You are speaking of evolving, and I am there with you. Where I get lost with the whole, life is this or life is that question is, if we are all one with the universe, wouldn't eating a veggie only diet still be like, self-cannibalization? Serious question.

Animals also eat their young sometimes. Or abandon them when they don't have the resources. Etc. In that sense, leaving a new born baby in a dumpster is more natural than either raising them on welfare or terminating them in the womb.

I don't intend on modeling my life on animal behavior -- though I am comfortable with the fact that we are all animals. I only intend on being more honest about that which separates us from other animals; our imagination, or cognition. Why are we on a soap box regarding abortion, when we're so stubborn when it comes to exploiting and murdering animals? We bear the burden of responsibility that no other animals on this planet do. We know when we're doing something questionable (or at least we have the capacity to know). Why do we pick some, but not the other? Why are vegans pro-choice, while meat-eaters are pro-life? Isn't that just as hypocritical as a pro-life, pro-war watcher of fox news?

[Sayzak]

The difference is, and I'm only speaking for myself, is that I know the general conditions of meat afforded to me. [Or rather sold to me] I am not going to say that it isn't sickening how some of the animals [or even most of the animals] are treated.

I'd prefer for my meat to be humanely treated, raised happily, and put down in the least amount of pain they'd see. (righteously killed) The problem is I cannot afford it. [and a lot of Americans can't afford it] I have seen the worst of the worst. (I felt obligated, seeing that the animal has sacrificed) Truly horrific shit that factory farms do.

Us mistreating animals, or eating animals, is a strawman.

I am against abortion. (birth control and Plan B don't fall into my definition of murder)

A diet without killing animals is attainable and affordable. Ask a vegan. Or, you know, Ron Paul is crazy, he isn't electable, he's a loony fringe racist, etc. See what I'm getting at?

[acptulsa]

Shouldn't a heroine junkie be able to get government funding so they don't die from not having heroine?

I'm not much for government programs. But it seems to me comic books would do the trick, and they're cheap enough...

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/character_bio_576_wonderwoman.jpg

[newbitech]

Animals also eat their young sometimes. Or abandon them when they don't have the resources. Etc. In that sense, leaving a new born baby in a dumpster is more natural than either raising them on welfare or terminating them in the womb.

I don't intend on modeling my life on animal behavior -- though I am comfortable with the fact that we are all animals. I only intend on being more honest about that which separates us from other animals; our imagination, or cognition. Why are we on a soap box regarding abortion, when we're so stubborn when it comes to exploiting and murdering animals? We bear the burden of responsibility that no other animals on this planet do. We know when we're doing something questionable (or at least we have the capacity to know). Why do we pick some, but not the other? Why are vegans pro-choice, while meat-eaters are pro-life? Isn't that just as hypocritical as a pro-life, pro-war watcher of fox news?

Not sure what soapbox you are talking about, but I think as humans, we leave these types of deeply personal decisions up to the people they are closest to. Actually, i think all personal decisions are deeply personal and should be left to the individuals.

I don't appreciate the fanaticism from one side or the other. I would support a movement that took that decision out of the "public" hand. Whether or not that person is acting immoral I believe is a question only they can answer in their own heart with their own counsel. Persuasion or coercion from the outside can only serve to distort that persons heart and counsel.

[Sayzak]

Not sure what soapbox you are talking about, but I think as humans, we leave these types of deeply personal decisions up to the people they are closest to. Actually, i think all personal decisions are deeply personal and should be left to the individuals.

I don't appreciate the fanaticism from one side or the other. I would support a movement that took that decision out of the "public" hand. Whether or not that person is acting immoral I believe is a question only they can answer in their own heart with their own counsel. Persuasion or coercion from the outside can only serve to distort that persons heart and counsel.

In a world where people are generally taught to think critically, be honest with themselves, and to accept responsibility for their actions this might work. But...

[bolil]

A diet without killing animals is attainable and affordable. Ask a vegan. Or, you know, Ron Paul is crazy, he isn't electable, he's a loony fringe racist, etc. See what I'm getting at?

Yes, but meat tastes good. Meat harvested from an Animal that lived a good animal life and was put down humanely tastes better. I see what your getting at.

[kcchiefs6465]

A diet without killing animals is attainable and affordable. Ask a vegan. Or, you know, Ron Paul is crazy, he isn't electable, he's a loony fringe racist, etc. See what I'm getting at?
Yes, yes I do. The thing is, I've seen the castrated pigs, the debeaked chickens, I know. I love bacon. I fry chicken or fish every Fryday. One of the best things about living on this planet is good food.

I'd protect a baby against any 'misguided' child or woman, [though in my area, it's children getting abortions] from harming what I see as truly innocent.

Someone trying to drown dog puppies would get a 'lesson' as well. And trust and believe, I've lived around some ignorant motherfuckers.

[Sayzak]

Yes, but meat tastes good. Meat harvested from an Animal that lived a good animal life and was put down humanely tastes better.

Yeah but you know that in order for every breakfast restaurant in America to serve breakfast all damn day, there's no way that even a significant portion of these animals live a good animal life nor are they put down humanely. You can lie to yourself and say they do just so your bacon continues to taste good, but that wouldn't be any better than voting for the lesser of two evils for how much of a difference it makes.

[newbitech]

In a world where people are generally taught to think critically, be honest with themselves, and to accept responsibility for their actions this might work. But...


Well, then either let them kill themselves off or let them breed themselves out of control and consume all the resources at an unsustainable level where they die off from disease and famine.

Either the way the outcome in my world is the same. buckle down for survival of the fittest, which means I am gonna be eating on the run and probably won't be able to tend my crops.

[bolil]

I wish people would be more responsible when getting freaky which would do much to settle this chaff issue. Reversible vasectomies would be ideal for the abundantly cautious as it seems like birth control pills and hormonal interference is really a Pandora's box for the lady, and mechanical methods can fail.

[bolil]

Yeah but you know that in order for every breakfast restaurant in America to serve breakfast all damn day, there's no way that even a significant portion of these animals live a good animal life nor are they put down humanely. You can lie to yourself and say they do just so your bacon continues to taste good, but that wouldn't be any better than voting for the lesser of two evils for how much of a difference it makes.

There is no way you can know that. You might think that, people once thought horses and carriages were as convenient as transportation was going to get, and then just for the rich. Now? Widespread ownership (Or rental considering insurance and registration fees) of automobiles is a fact, where not so long ago it seemed an impossible fancy.

Furthermore, there are farms that do raise their animals humanely, and kill and butcher them humanely as well. These products are expensive and maybe that is because the FRN is so damn cheap (inflated).

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah but you know that in order for every breakfast restaurant in America to serve breakfast all damn day, there's no way that even a significant portion of these animals live a good animal life nor or they put down humanely. You can lie to yourself and say they do just so your bacon continues to taste good, but that wouldn't be any better than voting for the lesser of two evils for how much of a difference it makes.
I live in sin and I am merely an animal himself. I make no other justifications aside from that I was born unto this. I will eat bacon until my heart clogs. Probably washing it down with a beer. It is the American way, or rather, my way. [which your way is the only truly American way]

You are preaching to the wrong choir.

[Nirvikalpa]

At one point or another, I was very staunchly pro-life, even attending the pro-life march in DC on a couple of occasions.

As I began to study conception and embryology, while fascinating and completely amazing, and my true passion in this world, I became aware of the fact there is no "set in stone" solution to the abortion issue. Some will argue life begins at conception - this I do not believe, as conception itself is a process (and does not take a second to occur). But where does it start? When is the soul formed?

I don't have a faintest idea. People, medical doctors even, can throw out numbers - oh, a fetal heartbeat is detected this day, brain waves can be recorded at this day - I want to know the exact millisecond an embryo goes from a bundle of cells to "alive."

I'm a pro-life pro-choicer, and will probably remain that way until I die.

[anaconda]

It's a moot issue if we're all in FEMA camps.

[anaconda]

I'm a pro-life pro-choicer

This sums it up for me as well.

[heavenlyboy34]

One day, I tell you, all the abortion threads will be merged....and the internetz will explode! :eek:

[UWDude]

This poll would show much different results if this forum was full of pro-choice women.

[Sayzak]

It seems to me that most of the Libertarians who frequent these forums are so hung up on the abortion issue that they'd rather vote for just about any conservative rather than vote for a Libertarian who is otherwise perfect. Am I wrong in that assumption? If it came down to a typical liberal, a typical conservative, and gary johnson... would this issue prevent you from voting for Gary Johnson? Honest question.

For the record, I'm pro-choice (for the first half of the pregnancy), and I still eat meat. But when I eat meat I do so with shame. Probably similar to the shame I would feel if someone I knocked up had an abortion.

[WarAnonymous]

It seems to me that most of the Libertarians who frequent these forums are so hung up on the abortion issue that they'd rather vote for just about any conservative rather than vote for a Libertarian who is otherwise perfect. Am I wrong in that assumption? If it came down to a typical liberal, a typical conservative, and gary johnson... would this issue prevent you from voting for Gary Johnson? Honest question.

For the record, I'm pro-choice (for the first half of the pregnancy), and I still eat meat. But when I eat meat I do so with shame. Probably similar to the shame I would feel if someone I knocked up had an abortion.

I disagree... Definately not my top issue either way. Not evern a top 10. Abortions and the gay argument are the blinding light of America.

[bolil]

For the record, I'm pro-choice (for the first half of the pregnancy), and I still eat meat. But when I eat meat I do so with shame. Probably similar to the shame I would feel if someone I knocked up had an abortion.

I don't always eat meat, but when I do I'm wracked with guilt.

[BSWPaulsen]

Pro-choice and pro-life. I don't believe in using force to legislate responsible behavior, even in the event of a potential life being in question, but do believe communities are best served trying to see that most every pregnancy reaches its natural conclusion.

A pregnancy, carried to term, is greatly aided by responsible behavior. Counterproductive behavior can result in a miscarriage. If they can just as well kill the fetus using indirect methods, but with the same overall intent, then the only recourse is to force pregnant women to behave in a manner best for the fetus. This is, as far as I'm concerned, tantamount to enslaving pregnant women, and not permissible behavior. The rights of others should never require even one individual to surrender their self-ownership.

By all means apply all kinds of social pressures/incentives to discourage such behavior, but that is the same means best used to discourage all sorts of stupidity. Abortion should be no different in this regard. It's a disgusting practice best wiped out, but not by legislation and the slippery slope it entails.

[Smart3]

On the issue of abortion / choice / life where do you sit?

I understand that people who are pro-choice may be pro-choice only to a certain point, but if you're pro-choice to any point then you do not align with the gop narrative and that is part of the reason for this poll.

Not in my case. I'm one of the 8 so far to stand up for all of the world's women. Feels good.


I'm strongly pro-life. I find it ironic that so many liberals support groups like the Sierra Club that wants to protect snake eggs but support abortion at the same time.
I don't see the connection.


My position on this is based on how long the fetus has been developing in the womb. If it's just a fertilized egg or an amorphous clump of cells, then aborting it doesn't bother me. But if the fetus has developed to the point where it has a brain and the capacity to feel pain, then I'm very much opposed to aborting it. Once a fetus has a functioning brain, I consider it to be a person who has rights.

Does the right to life of a mostly-developed fetus trump the right of the mother to ownership of her own body? I would say yes, since the mother freely chose to engage in an action that she knew could get her pregnant (this excludes rape, of course). That's not the fault of the person living inside her. Once she has allowed the fetus to become a person, I believe she has an obligation to protect that person, much as parents have an obligation to protect their children after birth.
You've got two very different things there - a functioning brain and the capacity to feel pain.

There is little reason to think a fetus can feel pain in the first or second trimesters. All of the most recent science shows 24-28 weeks is much more likely than the "20 weeks" (or earlier) propagated by extremists.

Also define "functional" ? It takes 21 years for the brain to fully develop in women, and 25 years in men. What exactly is functional?

[bolil]

Not in my case. I'm one of the 8 so far to stand up for all of the world's women. Feels good.


I don't see the connection.


You've got two very different things there - a functioning brain and the capacity to feel pain.

There is little reason to think a fetus can feel pain in the first or second trimesters. All of the most recent science shows 24-28 weeks is much more likely than the "20 weeks" (or earlier) propagated by extremists.

Also define "functional" ? It takes 21 years for the brain to fully develop in women, and 25 years in men. What exactly is functional?

People in comas can't communicate whether they can feel pain, neither can a baby. MRI scans can detect activity in a brain. Dr. Moriah Thomason of Wayne State University has performed MRI scans on fetuses 24 months into development. "Researchers obtained functional MRI connectivity diagrams for more than 80 regions in the fetal brain." (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130221/LIFESTYLE03/302210380/Wayne-State-University-researchers-map-fetal-brain-signal?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s). Connectivity is primary function of any brain.

Also, keep in mind that a brain is composed of many regions and the cerebral cortex is the region associated with processing of all kinds of stimulus, and since pain seems to be one your concerned with please note that is included. The Cerebral Cortex begins to develop 8-13 weeks in. It is not a stretch to say that as soon as the Cerebral Cortex begins to develop weeks, the "capacity" to feel pain is there.

Functional: Functions. Does not imply complete, or perfect, function. EG. This knife is sharp, it cuts meat - It is functional. This knife is less sharp, it cuts meat- It is also functional. Now to apply: This brain is developed, it does everything - it is functional. This brain is less developed, it does some things - it is functional. This brain is damaged, it does some things - it is functional.

You still up for giving "non-contributors" a suicide pill? The neural activity of the geriatric is diminished, sometimes to the point of total (a guy like you might say) parasitic dependence. Who decides whether or not to choose for them? Fortunately, and hopefully, they took advantage of their cognizant years and guided someone on what to do for them. Fetuses don't get that chance.


and "only ideas won by walking have any value"

[Constitutional Paulicy]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5KAYpDyLqp20PPiBD6GGU7337zY5N0 rLTtfXeY8gu-yPKmS4Pdg

[Bman]

I was a lot more pro choice then I became after I saw my daughters first ultra sound years ago. It was at 8 weeks and she was moving and very much human at that point in time. I'm not sure the answer to preventing abortion lies within the use of law but if one is to decide on an abortion they better get their ass to the clinic a.s.a.p because there has to be a cut off point. I'd say no more then about a week past your missed period. That gives the woman time to decide if she wants or if she does not. After that I'm fine if your ass rots in jail.

[WarAnonymous]

I was a lot more pro choice then I became after I saw my daughters first ultra sound years ago. It was at 8 weeks and she was moving and very much human at that point in time. I'm not sure the answer to preventing abortion lies within the use of law but if one is to decide on an abortion they better get their ass to the clinic a.s.a.p because there has to be a cut off point. I'd say no more then about a week past your missed period. That gives the woman time to decide if she wants or if she does not. After that I'm fine if your ass rots in jail.

I am not sure why they even go on so long. It just seems like an act of laziness or carelessness. Oh, I was going to go have an abortion today but then I went out with my friends instead. Then eventually they run out of time and have to go do it.

[Working Poor]

Roe v Wade did not invent abortion. While I think abortion is not good I still think it is insane for me to think I can control it. I would not doubt at all if a large percentage of the women between the ages of 18-40 who are on anti depressants have abortion related guilt.

All I can do is recommend that if you are against it don't have one and men who care against it don't have sex with a woman who does not share your values.
Heroin is illegal but it does not stop the people who want to use it from doing so and making abortion illegal will not stop a woman who wants one from getting one.

[Origanalist]

Here's another challenge I would like you to consider:

Suppose your wife/girl friend tells you that she's pregnant. But just before you can feel that flood of dread, or excitement, or whatever it is you'd feel, some god figure pauses time, descends from heaven and gives you an ultimatum; He tells you that with absolute certainty, your child can suffer one of two fates: Either they are to grow up a slave to some foreign corporation, working various machines to create specific fabrics for 14 hours a day indefinitely, or until they try to make a run for it... or they are terminated in the womb. What would you ultimately choose for your child?

Oh please.....

We are talking about the greatest welfare state in history. If you are talking about seriously poor countries, why don't we let the child decide?

[presence]

My stance on abortion: THE 10 GRAM RULE (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?396831-My-stance-on-abortion-THE-10-GRAM-RULE&highlight=ten+gram+rule)

[Matthew5]

Roe v Wade did not invent abortion. While I think abortion is not good I still think it is insane for me to think I can control it. I would not doubt at all if a large percentage of the women between the ages of 18-40 who are on anti depressants have abortion related guilt.

All I can do is recommend that if you are against it don't have one and men who care against it don't have sex with a woman who does not share your values.
Heroin is illegal but it does not stop the people who want to use it from doing so and making abortion illegal will not stop a woman who wants one from getting one.

So you're suggesting legalizing everything? Even murder?

[Working Poor]

No I am saying abortion has been around for thousands of years and no law is going to stop it. If you don't want one don't have one. I would be a fool to think I can control anyone other than myself. Murder is against the law and yet it still happens and prison does not seem to be a deterrent.

[Matthew5]

No I am saying abortion has been around for thousands of years and no law is going to stop it. If you don't want one don't have one. I would be a fool to think I can control anyone other than myself. Murder is against the law and yet it still happens and prison does not seem to be a deterrent.

So if murder happens anyway, why have laws against it?

[Barrex]

http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gifhttp://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gifhttp://i.qkme.me/3qlb6n.jpg It is ok...

[jmdrake]

I'm both pro-choice and pro-life; pro-choice because I believe any woman who wouldn't want to keep a baby probably wouldn't make a fit mother anyway and should probably give up her child, but pro-life because I don't think that expulsion/eviction should involve murdering the child in the process.

Unfortunately, science hasn't quite advanced to the point where a pregnancy can be "aborted" in the sense of a mother being able to give up her fetus (hopefully to more willing and responsible caretakers), but without the necessity of the fetus losing his/her life.

I can respect that position. It's basically the Walter Jones view. On the technology end, late term abortions could and should be totally banned (the "partial birth abortion" bill only partially ends them) since a baby can successfully be "evicted" through a C-section. The same is someone true for very early abortions as embryo transplants have been possible since the earliest days of IVF. It's the "mushy middle" that's currently the problem.

[Wesker1982]

evictionism

[jmdrake]

evictionism

I prefer the kinder/gentler term "pre-natal adoption."

[brandon]

As kooky as it sounds at first... I really do like Block's evictionism view. All in all I don't care about this issue very much either way though.

[Matthew5]

evictionism

Do most libertarians hold this view or only Ivory Tower Libertarians?

[A Son of Liberty]

The problem I've always had with "evictionism" is that it is dependent upon modern medicine.

I defer to timeless, spaceless principles, which are applicable regardless of whether man is in a technological state or a primative state.

Oops. I wasn't going to get involved in this...

[ronpaulfollower999]

Pro-life Libertarian.