Robin Koerner Trumps Anti-Abortion Dogmatists at WA Liberty Caucus

[KurtBoyer25L]

Robin Koerner, founder of the Blue Republican movement for classical liberals, spoke last weekend at the Washington (state) Republican Liberty Caucus about early-term abortions, as a motion for an anti-abortion resolution was up for debate. He defended first-month abortion rights in striking fashion, quoting from the Bible, drawing from his experience in physiology and pleading for common ground (and sense) among the Caucus members.

Notable quotes:

"I can read the same Bible, and I can relate to the same God. I was told if I did not share the (anti-abortion in all cases) position, I was unprincipled, and I would not be with God."

"75% of all fertilized embryos are ejected from a woman's body by the fourth week (of pregnancy)...my God is not so ugly that he creates these souls, and then sends three out of four of them straight into limbo. My God is much more beautiful than that."

"If you're going to be principled on this issue, and those who disagree with you are not, then put the mother who has an abortion after two weeks -- two weeks -- put her in prison for murder. That's principle."

"If you're in a laboratory, on fire, and by one door there's a crying baby, and ten one-day-old embryos by the other door...if you tell me you are principled, and I'm not, you better go pick up those ten embryos and leave that baby to die there."

The latter half of the speech also includes some noteworthy argument vs. both the Libertarian & Christian conservative orthodoxy.

The anti-abortion resolution was voted down.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seR5qBKkbC8&feature=youtu.be

[sailingaway]

The man has a way with words.

Don't know that I agree with the requirement of no souls based on God's beauty, since they'd just be with him again, and I don't think God sees temporal life quite the way we do, but the man does have a way with words. This is an area where people of sincere conviction can disagree.

[Christian Liberty]

"If you're going to be principled on this issue, and those who disagree with you are not, then put the mother who has an abortion after two weeks -- two weeks -- put her in prison for murder. That's principle."


I would....

[KurtBoyer25L]

I would....

Of course. I'm only trying to reach the reachable people here.

That said, how would you handle the 10 embryos vs. baby thought experiment? And did you listen to the speech?

[Christian Liberty]

Of course. I'm only trying to reach the reachable people here.

I'll admit that I'm really not on this particular issue. Heck, I was pro-life long before I was in the liberty movement.




That said, how would you handle the 10 embryos vs. baby thought experiment? And did you listen to the speech?

Man, that's tough.... In real life I'd save the baby without a thought, but that doesn't mean that that's intellectually the right choice.

Hmmm.... it might be fun to ask some fellow pro-lifers this one...

I'll try and listen to the speech. I have a really hard time approaching this particular topic logically.

[sailingaway]

I would....

It doesn't bring anyone back, and there ARE equities on both sides. It is the only situation where we require a person to have their body used to sustain another. We don't require people to go to hospitals and plug their kidneys up to work for those whose kidneys' don't work. The mother does have a different position than any of the other actors in it. I'm not even 100% comfortable with law here, until the baby is viable (and I don't know when that would be. Heartbeat?), but that doesn't mean I think it is 'choice', just that I have a hard time judging for others despite my own views. I recognize people who are sincere. I don't recognize the notion that a fetus is like a nail clipping, and as disposable.

[KurtBoyer25L]

I'll admit that I'm really not on this particular issue. Heck, I was pro-life long before I was in the liberty movement.

Man, that's tough.... In real life I'd save the baby without a thought, but that doesn't mean that that's intellectually the right choice.

Hmmm.... it might be fun to ask some fellow pro-lifers this one...

I'll try and listen to the speech. I have a really hard time approaching this particular topic logically.

Dear sir, I think you & I have taken our first steps toward respectful disagreement on this issue.

You need to understand that I have equally as big of a problem with dogmatic pro-choice activists. I find it foolish that so often, whichever side people take, they attempt to describe abortion as a simple issue & explain away a militant view in two sentences. It's not a simple issue. In fact, it's so complex & philosophically involved that it messes with your head.

But I posted Robin's speech to spark discussion, not to expound my own views w/ one post after another. The floor is yours.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Robin should get American citizenship and run for something. He'd be a great liberty ally from Washington state.

[erowe1]

People like that are the reason the Republican Liberty Caucus is irrelevant.

[sailingaway]

Robin should get American citizenship and run for something. He'd be a great liberty ally from Washington state.

He's working on citizenship. He's a permanent resident and putting in the necessary time.

[sailingaway]

He's working on citizenship. He's a permanent resident and putting in the necessary time.

He sure knows more about our Constitution than many citizens. He wrote the words to this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc7pRH9_lb4

[Christian Liberty]

It doesn't bring anyone back, and there ARE equities on both sides. It is the only situation where we require a person to have their body used to sustain another. We don't require people to go to hospitals and plug their kidneys up to work for those whose kidneys' don't work. The mother does have a different position than any of the other actors in it. I'm not even 100% comfortable with law here, until the baby is viable (and I don't know when that would be. Heartbeat?), but that doesn't mean I think it is 'choice', just that I have a hard time judging for others despite my own views. I recognize people who are sincere. I don't recognize the notion that a fetus is like a nail clipping, and as disposable.

Right now liability is at roughly 5 1/2 to 6 months IIRC. That is critical to the eviction argument, but I reject it for the same reasons I wouldn't allow someone to throw a five year old that stumbled onto their doorstep outside into a blizzard that they knew would immediately lead to their death.

In fact, its even worse than that because in most pregnancy cases the woman did in fact consent to it, even if indirectly. You don't actually consent to having a five year old stumble on your doorstep during a blizzard. Even then, to simply throw them out into the freezing cold to die.

Regarding the issue, I can see why its complex for libertarians (A category I include myself in.) It baffles my mind that its in any way complicated for anyone else.

[ItsTime]

Robin is awesome. He is doing wonders for the Liberty Movement. The tent keeps getting bigger.

[Christian Liberty]

I should clarify as well that I agree with Ron Paul that abortion is a state-level issue. I happen to think pretty darn strongly about it on the state level, but constitutionally murder is a state level issue. Same with abortion.

[sailingaway]

Right now liability is at roughly 5 1/2 to 6 months IIRC. That is critical to the eviction argument, but I reject it for the same reasons I wouldn't allow someone to throw a five year old that stumbled onto their doorstep outside into a blizzard that they knew would immediately lead to their death.

In fact, its even worse than that because in most pregnancy cases the woman did in fact consent to it, even if indirectly. You don't actually consent to having a five year old stumble on your doorstep during a blizzard. Even then, to simply throw them out into the freezing cold to die.

Regarding the issue, I can see why its complex for libertarians (A category I include myself in.) It baffles my mind that its in any way complicated for anyone else.

I don't think it's that late, actually. I think the 'eviction' argument is repulsive. I'm just wondering at what point, with medical intervention, we know a child could survive as more of a moral indicator. But I'm comfortable with Ron's view, you can't even tell in science if conception occurred in the first 2 weeks so an estrogen shot at that time in the event of rape or incest would be reasonable. Because you CAN'T TELL either way, I think it should not be used as one's primary means of birth control even then, though.

It is the same issue for everyone, when does life begin? Since you can't have a 'choice' to kill someone else. So it is as difficult for every thoughtful person who believes in life, not ethicists who look for excuses to kill off the less viable, of course.

[sailingaway]

I should clarify as well that I agree with Ron Paul that abortion is a state-level issue. I happen to think pretty darn strongly about it on the state level, but constitutionally murder is a state level issue. Same with abortion.

I agree with that, as well.

[WhistlinDave]

It is the same issue for everyone, when does life begin? Since you can't have a 'choice' to kill someone else. So it is as difficult for every thoughtful person who believes in life, not ethicists who look for excuses to kill off the less viable, of course.

I wonder if advances in neuroscience will ever enable us to tell for sure at what point the developing baby develops (or acquires) individual consciousness. At the point where he or she has awareness, and is able to feel pain and suffer, that's when I think it's a person. And I think that point is probably quite a bit earlier than 5 or 6 months, but certainly not as early as conception. (Others may argue it's a person from the moment of conception; I don't agree with that myself.)

[BSWPaulsen]

The lives of other individuals are not a sufficient argument to subvert one's self-ownership, and the prospect of involving a monopoly on force in matters concerning an autonomous individual's anatomy is downright terrifying. People don't even recognize the door they are opening by thinking the State should have a say in this matter, even if the cause is noble. That slippery slope can, and does, easily result in State-monitored pregnant women in the attempt to prevent them from acting recklessly (intentional negligence has the same end effect, and are you really going to jail women for manslaughter when they unintentionally do something that kills the fetus?). It gives power to the State in a matter that should be between individual and doctor.

Abortion is a disgusting practice, but your right to life ends where another individual's personal autonomy begins. That includes unborn children who have precisely zero personal autonomy, being sealed off in the womb as they are. Abortion will not cease to exist so long as it is believed that we own our persons, and that some people judge it to be in their best interest to abort. The best "cure" is to strengthen communities to the extent that carrying children to term, and putting them up for adoption is encouraged so that such a barbaric practice is limited. The best prophylactic is abstinence, but good luck fighting with cultivated human instinct over thousands of years.

Aborting after two weeks and jailing the mother is ridiculous, and should be grounds to have the jailer imprisoned for interfering with an individual's self-ownership under arbitrary grounds. Shun the mother if you like and make her life more difficult by collectivizing in protest, but prison is ridiculous.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think it's that late, actually. I think the 'eviction' argument is repulsive. I'm just wondering at what point, with medical intervention, we know a child could survive as more of a moral indicator. But I'm comfortable with Ron's view, you can't even tell in science if conception occurred in the first 2 weeks so an estrogen shot at that time in the event of rape or incest would be reasonable. Because you CAN'T TELL either way, I think it should not be used as one's primary means of birth control even then, though.

It is the same issue for everyone, when does life begin? Since you can't have a 'choice' to kill someone else. So it is as difficult for every thoughtful person who believes in life, not ethicists who look for excuses to kill off the less viable, of course.

I've heard of a couple babies just under 22 weeks (I think the lowest was like 21 weeks and five days) actually surviving. I remember reading about the NHS murdering (Well, they call it "Refusing to help" which for a state-run healthcare system is really the same thing) a baby that was born at that same age (21 weeks, five days.) I may have missed a case though.

I'm not really sure what the morning after pill is supposed to do, but if its primarily a contraceptive, with abortion being sometimes an unintentional side effect, I'd tend to agree that should be legal. I think it would be morally wrong to use a pill like that, but I don't think you can truly have rights before you actually exist (As in, are conceived) and it would be impossible to regulate anyway. If, on the other hand, the PRIMARY function is abortion, than the law should allow for treating it identically to any other murder case. Granted, I understand with early term abortions prosecutions would likely be rare, and I would rather let a thousand murdering mothers go than to lock up one innocent one, but if there is essentially absolute proof in any case, our country should absolutely be willing and able to go forward with a murder charge. As in, lock them up (Woman AND doctor) and throw away the key.

I sometimes amaze people in that I'm radically pro-life even to that extent, but (Short of a constitutional amendment that ain't happening) would never support a Federal level ban.

[sailingaway]

Abortion is a disgusting practice, but your right to life ends where another individual's personal autonomy begins.

seems to me that could as easily cut both ways.

[Christian Liberty]

The lives of other individuals are not a sufficient argument to subvert one's self-ownership, and the prospect of involving a monopoly on force in matters concerning an autonomous individual's anatomy is downright terrifying. People don't even recognize the door they are opening by thinking the State should have a say in this matter, even if the cause is noble. That slippery slope can, and does, easily result in State-monitored pregnant women in the attempt to prevent them from acting recklessly (intentional negligence has the same end effect, and are you really going to jail women for manslaughter when they unintentionally do something that kills the fetus?). It gives power to the State in a matter that should be between individual and doctor.

Abortion is a disgusting practice, but your right to life ends where another individual's personal autonomy begins. That includes unborn children who have precisely zero personal autonomy, being sealed off in the womb as they are. Abortion will not cease to exist so long as it is believed that we own our persons, and that some people judge it to be in their best interest to abort. The best "cure" is to strengthen communities to the extent that carrying children to term, and putting them up for adoption is encouraged so that such a barbaric practice is limited. The best prophylactic is abstinence, but good luck fighting with cultivated human instinct over thousands of years.

Aborting after two weeks and jailing the mother is ridiculous, and should be grounds to have the jailer imprisoned for interfering with an individual's self-ownership under arbitrary grounds. Shun the mother if you like and make her life more difficult by collectivizing in protest, but prison is ridiculous.

I'm all for punishing state actors when they are wrong (Although there's a limit to how far down I'd go, for instance, punishing every single soldier who went into Iraq seems unnecessary, punishing Bush, Cheney, and the other leaders makes way more sense) but "Self-autonomy" is no excuse to commit murder, and the jailer wouldn't be wrong in that case.

seems to me that could as easily cut both ways.

At the very least in a consensual sexual situation a mother does consent to pregnancy by having sex. Even if contraception is used, there's still a chance of failure and that fact is common knowledge.

Rape is trickier. Its late so I don't want to go too far into that, but the short answer for me is this. My line of thinking is that in rape a woman's body truly is tresspassed against, and doubly so if she has to carry a baby because of it, but the tresspasser is still the rapist, not the fetus who is currently incapable of intellectual thought (I will note that for me intelligence is completely irrelevant to personhood, as I think every libertarian ought to agree, but I'll defend this tomorrow if it is challenged). The rapist, in addition to his criminal punishment, should have to pay damages for the inconveniences caused. He should also have no parental rights whatseoever. But the innocent child still should not be killed. I'd cut the mother some slack if she primarily acted on emotion in this case, but I can't give the same courtesy to the doctor, and even if we cut the mother some slack, we're still talking about manslaughter.

I should note that by rapist I mean someone forces someone else to have sex. I don't mean an 18 year old that consensually has sex with a 15 year old which, even if uncomfortable, isn't rape.

[BSWPaulsen]

seems to me that could as easily cut both ways.

A fetus has no personal autonomy. It is a life, but the right to said life does not dictate behavioral choices to the entity it occupies. That covers the spectrum from a conscientious pregnant woman that wants to have the healthiest baby possible, to a crack addict, to someone that gets an abortion. Abortion is a societal problem endemic to a sick population that doesn't sufficiently care for their fellow man. When the State is the "cure", you know it isn't an actual solution to the problem.

Getting pregnant does not sacrifice the woman's personal autonomy, an autonomy which is already clearly defined prior to the fertilization of her egg. It is, ultimately, her choice what to do with her body, and the effects must be born by whatever occupies it. That includes a fetus.

Our job is to help our fellow man to such a degree that abortion is not viewed as a viable solution to their circumstances. Jailing these women isn't the solution.

[BSWPaulsen]

I'm all for punishing state actors when they are wrong (Although there's a limit to how far down I'd go, for instance, punishing every single soldier who went into Iraq seems unnecessary, punishing Bush, Cheney, and the other leaders makes way more sense) but "Self-autonomy" is no excuse to commit murder, and the jailer wouldn't be wrong in that case.

The jailer would be wholly wrong for jailing someone for exercising their self-ownership. Period. You don't even realize the door you are opening for State intervention by doing this, namely the door that says, "The State can tell you what you can do with your body."

Personal autonomy fully justifies the ability of the individual to do whatever they want to with what is inside their body. Full stop. Anything else is an open invitation for tyranny under the guise of noble intentions.

Part of freedom is recognizing that people are at liberty to do outrageously stupid things to themselves. That there is another occupant does not give other people the right to dictate what is proper for them. You can appeal to their reason and attempt to explain why it's a bad idea, but you do not control them. Any notion that you can control them should be rightly rejected.

[Origanalist]

A fetus has no personal autonomy. It is a life, but the right to said life does not dictate behavioral choices to the entity it occupies. That covers the spectrum from a conscientious pregnant woman that wants to have the healthiest baby possible, to a crack addict, to someone that gets an abortion. Abortion is a societal problem endemic to a sick population that doesn't sufficiently care for their fellow man. When the State is the "cure", you know it isn't an actual solution to the problem.

Getting pregnant does not sacrifice the woman's personal autonomy, an autonomy which is already clearly defined prior to the fertilization of her egg. It is, ultimately, her choice what to do with her body, and the effects must be born by whatever occupies it. That includes a fetus.

Our job is to help our fellow man to such a degree that abortion is not viewed as a viable solution to their circumstances. Jailing these women isn't the solution.

Blarg, blarg, blarg. Who are you to determine these things? You speak as lord and master of the universe. Who says "Getting pregnant does not sacrifice the woman's personal autonomy"? What gives them the authority to say so? Where does this fucked up idea even come from? By her own actions she has created a life, but now she has no responsibility for it? What a fucked up world view.

[Christian Liberty]

The jailer would be wholly wrong for jailing someone for exercising their self-ownership. Period. You don't even realize the door you are opening for State intervention by doing this, namely the door that says, "The State can tell you what you can do with your body."

Personal autonomy fully justifies the ability of the individual to do whatever they want to with what is inside their body. Full stop. Anything else is an open invitation for tyranny under the guise of noble intentions.

Part of freedom is recognizing that people are at liberty to do outrageously stupid things to themselves. That there is another occupant does not give other people the right to dictate what is proper for them. You can appeal to their reason and attempt to explain why it's a bad idea, but you do not control them. Any notion that you can control them should be rightly rejected.

I agree completely that any adult (At the risk of annoying some extreme libertarians, I do distinguish between adults and minors in this regard) has the right to do anything in order to harm himself that he wants. If you want to shoot heroin, smoke crack, hire a prostitute, or even shoot yourself in the head, you should have a legal right to do any of those things. I don't morally approve of any of them, but legally you should have a right to screw yourself over.

The same is true for a consenting party. If you want to start a death cult where you have human sacrifices, and you actually manage to get volunteers, assuming these volunteers are old enough to consent and willingly do so, again, great. I don't like it, I'd morally oppose you, but you have the right to do it in a free society.

The rules change when you throw an innocent bystander into it. I can inject heroin into my own arm, but not my neighbor's, I can shoot myself in the head, but not my friend, I can hire a prostitute but I cannot force her to have sex with me.

I don't believe you should have the right to destroy your own child either, wherever they may be physically located, unless they are threatening your life.

Admittedly, I have no respect for those "libertarians" who want to legalize child neglect, so if you're in that boat I suspect abortion would be a reasonable thing to legalize as well. If not, it doesn't make sense.

[BSWPaulsen]

Blarg, blarg, blarg. Who are you to determine these things? You speak as lord and master of the universe. Who says "Getting pregnant does not sacrifice the woman's personal autonomy"? What gives them the authority to say so? Where does this fucked up idea even come from? By her own actions she has created a life, but now she has no responsibility for it? What a fucked up world view.

I'm the same as any other man that enjoys personal autonomy, and recognizes the autonomy of other individuals. You never assume an authority that lets you subvert another individual's autonomy due to the recognition that they would be empowered to do the same to you.

The fucked up world view is the one that asserts you can legislate behavior concerning what an individual does with their own body. Statist much?

[Origanalist]

I'm the same as any other man that enjoys personal autonomy, and recognizes the autonomy of other individuals. You never assume an authority that lets you subvert another individual's autonomy due to the recognition that they would be empowered to do the same to you.

The fucked up world view is the one that asserts you can legislate behavior concerning what an individual does with their own body. Statist much?

I'm glad you're enjoying personal autonomy, I'm not finding much these days.

The fucked up world view is the one that asserts you can legislate behavior concerning what an individual does with their own body. Statist much?

That's weak, you're leaving out the fact that another life is involved, one that was directly created by the person carrying it.
"Statist much?" Really? Why don't you take a hard look at the supporters of abortion on demand and see how many statists are in that bunch.

[BSWPaulsen]

I don't believe you should have the right to destroy your own child either, wherever they may be physically located, unless they are threatening your life.

An individual has the right to do whatever they want to their body that they so desire. Having an occupant inside does not negate that. Here's the reality with abortion: they can achieve it by abusing themselves. It's not like a clinic is the only option, so let's be honest here.

A female fitness competitor gets pregnant, and she supplements her training with testosterone injections, thus increasing the likelihood of a miscarriage. She miscarries. Your solution is prison. Good God. Freedom for everyone except pregnant women.

[BSWPaulsen]

That's weak, you're leaving out the fact that another life is involved, one that was directly created by the person carrying it.
"Statist much?" Really? Why don't you take a hard look at the supporters of abortion on demand and see how many statists are in that bunch.

That life does not subvert the autonomy of the individual it occupies. That there is a child inside of them does not mean they must start behaving in a specific manner.

Only a Statist would think it acceptable to tell a group of people what they can and cannot do to their own bodies. If you haven't noticed, they come in all stripes. Democrats want to tell you what you can do with your resources, and Republicans want to tell you what you can do with your body. Statists, the lot of them.

[Origanalist]

That there is a child inside of them does not mean they must start behaving in a specific manner.


Of course it does, they are pregnant. And they are responsible for that pregnancy whether you want to think so or not. Your stating that a woman has no responsibility for the life she created doesn't make it so.


Only a Statist would think it acceptable to tell a group of people what they can and cannot do to their own bodies.

Again, we're not talking about just their bodies, we're talking about whether they can violently murder their child for convenience.

[sailingaway]

An individual has the right to do whatever they want to their body that they so desire. Having an occupant inside does not negate that. Here's the reality with abortion: they can achieve it by abusing themselves. It's not like a clinic is the only option, so let's be honest here.

A female fitness competitor gets pregnant, and she supplements her training with testosterone injections, thus increasing the likelihood of a miscarriage. She miscarries. Your solution is prison. Good God. Freedom for everyone except pregnant women.

but for you it's freedom for all but unborn babies who are subject to death at a whim.

And abortion is an act of aggression.

It ISN'T an easy issue.

[BSWPaulsen]

Of course it does, they are pregnant. And they are responsible for that pregnancy whether you want to think so or not. Your stating that a woman has no responsibility for the life she created doesn't make it so.

Again, we're not talking about just their bodies, we're talking about whether they can violently murder their child for convenience.

She is responsible for her body. If her body happens to be pregnant, then it is her responsibility to do with it what she sees fit. Her self-ownership is not subverted due to the condition of her body. Also, stop pretending the fetus can only be killed by acts of overt aggression against it alone - the woman can kill it by abusing herself, and without directly giving it a coat hangar treatment.

[Origanalist]

She is responsible for her body. If her body happens to be pregnant, then it is her responsibility to do with it what she sees fit. Her self-ownership is not subverted due to the condition of her body. Also, stop pretending the fetus can only be killed by acts of overt aggression against it alone - the woman can kill it by abusing herself, and without directly giving it a coat hangar treatment.

Of course she can, how is that any different or better?

[BSWPaulsen]

but for you it's freedom for all but unborn babies who are subject to death at a whim.

And abortion is an act of aggression.

It ISN'T an easy issue.

It's an easy issue. Does the State have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies? Unborn children are at the mercy of the woman who carries them. Smokes? Shoots testosterone? Drugs? Drinks? Bad diet? Couch potato? All of those qualify as an act of aggression against one's person. A fetus does not negate the right of a person to do stupid things others view as damaging, unless you believe you own that person. As stated previously, prison is not the solution. Tell me you think the State has a right to tell pregnant women what to do, and I will cede to the principled, if Statist, stance.

[BSWPaulsen]

Of course she can, how is that any different or better?

If the fetus can be killed without directly targeting it, then sufficient question is raised as to whether blunt-force abortion is a particularly special act of aggression. The end result is the same. Abortions are barbaric and disgusting by any means, and there is no perfect solution. Imprison women and invite tyranny through good intentions, or do your best to discourage abortions and encourage birth and healthful behavior. I opt for the second. What do you want to see happen?

[Rocco]

That's a straw man argument that completely ignores intent. Just like if my grandmother is old and needs medical treatment, I have no obligation to provide that treatment, but I also can't go in there and suffocate her to death. It's a BS argument to compare smoking and doing drugs to literally physically dismembering the child. Your pro choice argument has virtually the same problem as all pro choice arguments; you have taken the rights of one into consideration without taking the rights of the other into consideration. Am I a "statist" when it comes to murder? Yes, I believe that if an individuals rights are being violated by another individual it is the OBLIGATION of the state to stop that violation of individual freedoms from occurring. The right to life is THE freedom, there is no other freedom that can be attained without it. That idea is the foundation of our constitutional republic.

Ron Paul was 100% correct when he compared abortion to slavery. You take an entire class of people, deem they aren't people or are lesser people, and use that as a pretext to treat them as if they are subhuman. Then what you end up getting is these arguments that seem libertarian in theory, but are reminiscent of the Dredd Scott argument "blacks aren't people".


It's an easy issue. Does the State have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies? Unborn children are at the mercy of the woman who carries them. Smokes? Shoots testosterone? Drugs? Drinks? Bad diet? Couch potato? All of those qualify as an act of aggression against one's person. A fetus does not negate the right of a person to do stupid things others view as damaging, unless you believe you own that person. As stated previously, prison is not the solution. Tell me you think the State has a right to tell pregnant women what to do, and I will cede to the principled, if Statist, stance.

[Origanalist]

If the fetus can be killed without directly targeting it, then sufficient question is raised as to whether blunt-force abortion is a particularly special act of aggression. The end result is the same. Abortions are barbaric and disgusting by any means, and there is no perfect solution. Imprison women and invite tyranny through good intentions, or do your best to discourage abortions and encourage birth and healthful behavior. I opt for the second. What do you want to see happen?

There is already tyranny through "good intentions". The tyranny of so called "women's reproductive health" that really means state sanctioned infanticide.

[KurtBoyer25L]

That's a straw man argument that completely ignores intent. Just like if my grandmother is old and needs medical treatment, I have no obligation to provide that treatment, but I also can't go in there and suffocate her to death. It's a BS argument to compare smoking and doing drugs to literally physically dismembering the child. Your pro choice argument has virtually the same problem as all pro choice arguments; you have taken the rights of one into consideration without taking the rights of the other into consideration. Am I a "statist" when it comes to murder? Yes, I believe that if an individuals rights are being violated by another individual it is the OBLIGATION of the state to stop that violation of individual freedoms from occurring. The right to life is THE freedom, there is no other freedom that can be attained without it. That idea is the foundation of our constitutional republic.

Ron Paul was 100% correct when he compared abortion to slavery. You take an entire class of people, deem they aren't people or are lesser people, and use that as a pretext to treat them as if they are subhuman. Then what you end up getting is these arguments that seem libertarian in theory, but are reminiscent of the Dredd Scott argument "blacks aren't people".

Was Ron Paul also 100% correct when he said "force never works" in regard to criminalizing abortion? Or when he wrote in Liberty Defined that government policing of early-term abortion would be foolish if not impossible?

[KurtBoyer25L]

There is already tyranny through "good intentions". The tyranny of so called "women's reproductive health" that really means state sanctioned infanticide.

Round and round we go. The crucial issue is whether a 2-week-old mass of reproductive tissue is an "infant." As long as people disagree on that, the "it's killing babies!" argument is overly simple and goes nowhere.

[BSWPaulsen]

That's a straw man argument that completely ignores intent. Just like if my grandmother is old and needs medical treatment, I have no obligation to provide that treatment, but I also can't go in there and suffocate her to death. It's a BS argument to compare smoking and doing drugs to literally physically dismembering the child. Your pro choice argument has virtually the same problem as all pro choice arguments; you have taken the rights of one into consideration without taking the rights of the other into consideration. Am I a "statist" when it comes to murder? Yes, I believe that if an individuals rights are being violated by another individual it is the OBLIGATION of the state to stop that violation of individual freedoms from occurring. The right to life is THE freedom, there is no other freedom that can be attained without it. That idea is the foundation of our constitutional republic.

How would you determine intent when examining less-direct forms of abortion, ie: inducing a miscarriage? You can't. It's unenforceable, arbitrary, and an invitation to tyranny. You act like blunt-force abortions are the only way to kill a fetus, or that simply eliminating those versions will end the problem. It won't. Maybe it will make you sleep better at night, but that's about the only effectiveness such a diktat would have.

Do you want to charge women that do crack and get black-out drunk regularly during their pregnancy with assault on the fetus? Let's get down to brass tacks here - your entire position is an excuse to penalize women for anything that may be viewed as damaging to the fetus, not just death. Worse yet, you want the monopoly on force to carry it out. And yes, you are a Statist for thinking you have the right to control what pregnant women do with their body via the State. That you use a Constitutional Republic as your excuse doesn't make the end result any less tyrannical.

Rights stems from self-ownership, because you have no rights if you do not own yourself. That includes the right to life. The moment you accept that others do not own their bodies, for whatever reason, you have stripped them of their rights carte blanche.



Ron Paul was 100% correct when he compared abortion to slavery. You take an entire class of people, deem they aren't people or are lesser people, and use that as a pretext to treat them as if they are subhuman. Then what you end up getting is these arguments that seem libertarian in theory, but are reminiscent of the Dredd Scott argument "blacks aren't people".

You haven't read enough of what Ron Paul has said about abortion. Refer to KurtBoyer25L's post.

The unborn are people. Unfortunately for you, not one single living person on this Earth has the right to violate another's personal autonomy in order to live. Subversion of personal autonomy is the denial of self-ownership. In your concern for the unborn child, you are more than willing to enslave women. This is your position, just own it.

Note, by the way, that the unborn have zero personal autonomy. They are not an autonomous individual until they can be sustained outside of the womb. Recognizing this, don't try to pull the fallacy of equivocation that sentence two of the previous paragraph is likely to provoke given your position.


There is already tyranny through "good intentions". The tyranny of so called "women's reproductive health" that really means state sanctioned infanticide.

Which is precisely why the State shouldn't be involved in the matter. The fact you mentioned something State-sanctioned should have given away the tyranny.

[Christian Liberty]

Miscarriage is a different issue, its not the woman's fault. I haven't considered the issue of smoking or drugs much, but at least then, harm to the fetus is an accidental side effect of something the woman wants to do anyway, not deliberate murder.

ANd yes, I'm not an anarchist. I do think government has one role, and that is to protect people from aggression. Murder in the womb is an act of aggression.

Ron Paul has always supported the right of the states to punish murder, AS WELL HE SHOULD.

[fr33]

I bite my tongue on some of Koerner's stuff. Like this one and where he was giving in to socialized medicine. I'm definitely not a "blue republican". I think they are naive and do not understand what they give up when they concede on these things.

[GopBlackList]

but for you it's freedom for all but unborn babies who are subject to death at a whim.

And abortion is an act of aggression.

It ISN'T an easy issue.

You're right its not an easy issue. You also have to consider not everyone subscribes to the idea that life starts at conception, including myself. Some may be more inclined to believe that life begins after the first trimester.

[sailingaway]

You're right its not an easy issue. You also have to consider not everyone subscribes to the idea that life starts at conception, including myself. Some may be more inclined to believe that life begins after the first trimester.

what's the magic line for that?

I understand, and I that is what I said initially. It depends on where you think life begins. Once you think it begins, whenever that is, it isn't just one person's choice.

[GopBlackList]

what's the magic line for that?

I understand, and I that is what I said initially. It depends on where you think life begins. Once you think it begins, whenever that is, it isn't just one person's choice.

It is their personal choice which is why I lean more towards pro-choice than pro-life. Overall, the whole anti-abortion movement is futile in my opinion.

[Christian Liberty]

It is their personal choice which is why I lean more towards pro-choice than pro-life. Overall, the whole anti-abortion movement is futile in my opinion.

I agree that its probably futile. Republicans are also EXTREMELY soft on this issue. I feel so strongly about this issue that I want Scott Roeder pardoned. That would mean more to me than any stupid, half-hearted legislation somebody could make up.

Most Republicans who claim to be "Pro-life" are a joke. They want to violate the constitution and make a Federal law, but they gasp at the thought of any real punishment for the mother, even at the state level, and they wouldn't even consider pardoning anti-abortion vigilantes, who are the real heroes in this fight.

[Rocco]

I don't see how you can possibly try to sit there and tell me intent doesn't matter. "Less direct forms of abortion" is an incorrect term for miscarriage. Intent is the difference between me shooting someone and me accidentally hitting them with my car. Intent is EVERYTHING in regards to murder issues. If you can't see the difference between a 3rd party being an ACCIDENTAL byproduct of bad personal decision making and the mother making the conscious decision to take her fetus to the doctor and cutting the baby into pieces then you're irrational.

It's funny to me how you can sit there and say "not one single living person on this earth has the right to violate another's personal autonomy" in defense of taking away EVERY right of millions of people annually. The argument that because the baby depends on the mother they therefore have no rights is completely backwards, what kind of libertarian believes you need to be independent in order to have rights? Libertarians believe our rights come from our humanity, and you have already admitted the unborn are people, so don't sit there and act like the pro life side are the ones inconsistent with liberty. A baby outside of the womb, left on their own, will die without the care of another. They are by no means independent. An elderly person who has severe dementia cannot survive without the care of another. They are by no means independent. Here we have two other examples of groups that have zero personal autonomy, they cannot function as individuals, yet society affords them rights because they are human. You put the "don't even try this argument" qualifier in there because you know that this fact cripples your argument.

It is true the woman's body is being intruded upon, it is also true in 99% of cases that she decided to have sex and is therefore responsible for the consequences of that. Even in cases of rape, you still have to consider the degree of a violation of rights you are inflicting on both parties. If both parties are living people then they both deserve protections under the law, and the right to life simply trumps the right to reverse a bad decision (or even a tragic accident) that will occupy your body for 3/4ths of one year. This is another thing that we really need to consider with the pro life vs pro choice argument, the average life expectancy is 78 1/4 years, pregnancies last about 3/4ths of one year. To say an equal level of rights are being taken away is a pretty ridiculous comparison when seen in this light. When we live in a society where a parent has ZERO legal obligation to take care of their kid once they are born (if they really want to get out of it they can turn them to the state) how can we say that a 3/4th of a year commitment trumps the right to a life of 78 1/4th years? Remember, you have accepted the premise that these are humans, so when I say this is an equivalency in terms of years taken from life your position seems to indicate you would agree.


PS: Since you tried to contradict my point about Dr Paul's position, here's an actual quote from him on the subject:

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


How would you determine intent when examining less-direct forms of abortion, ie: inducing a miscarriage? You can't. It's unenforceable, arbitrary, and an invitation to tyranny. You act like blunt-force abortions are the only way to kill a fetus, or that simply eliminating those versions will end the problem. It won't. Maybe it will make you sleep better at night, but that's about the only effectiveness such a diktat would have.

Do you want to charge women that do crack and get black-out drunk regularly during their pregnancy with assault on the fetus? Let's get down to brass tacks here - your entire position is an excuse to penalize women for anything that may be viewed as damaging to the fetus, not just death. Worse yet, you want the monopoly on force to carry it out. And yes, you are a Statist for thinking you have the right to control what pregnant women do with their body via the State. That you use a Constitutional Republic as your excuse doesn't make the end result any less tyrannical.

Rights stems from self-ownership, because you have no rights if you do not own yourself. That includes the right to life. The moment you accept that others do not own their bodies, for whatever reason, you have stripped them of their rights carte blanche.



You haven't read enough of what Ron Paul has said about abortion. Refer to KurtBoyer25L's post.

The unborn are people. Unfortunately for you, not one single living person on this Earth has the right to violate another's personal autonomy in order to live. Subversion of personal autonomy is the denial of self-ownership. In your concern for the unborn child, you are more than willing to enslave women. This is your position, just own it.

Note, by the way, that the unborn have zero personal autonomy. They are not an autonomous individual until they can be sustained outside of the womb. Recognizing this, don't try to pull the fallacy of equivocation that sentence two of the previous paragraph is likely to provoke given your position.



Which is precisely why the State shouldn't be involved in the matter. The fact you mentioned something State-sanctioned should have given away the tyranny.

[Origanalist]

Round and round we go. The crucial issue is whether a 2-week-old mass of reproductive tissue is an "infant." As long as people disagree on that, the "it's killing babies!" argument is overly simple and goes nowhere.

So you would consider abortion after two weeks to be murder?

[KurtBoyer25L]

So you would consider abortion after two weeks to be murder?

No, I wouldn't. I believe that the age-old scientific method of defining things by their properties is valid. Why is it okay to kill a cockroach but not a house cat? Because of the house cat's *properties* that make it a house cat -- it is a mammal with fur, four paws, etc, and (more importantly to the discussion) a sentient self-aware mind capable of love and emotion. Whereas the cockroach is probably not self-aware at all, just a machine that is built to survive and find food.

A two-week old embryo has few of the properties that describe a human being. Most crucially, if you believe that the mind & consciousness are centered in the brain, as I do, an embryo that has no brain cannot have a consciousness. You can believe it has a "soul," and the Flying Teapot principle keeps you from ever being proven wrong, but it is a religious belief. Religious beliefs should not be coded into law in a Constitutional republic where citizens may disagree. And as Robin pointed out, there are contradictions even within the paradigm of fundamentalist Christianity when it comes to the "soul is created at conception" belief. If God exists, God may in fact be super-rational and far above human beings in reasoning; however, I personally feel that people make a mistake when they assume the super-rational would directly contradict human rationality at any point. The idea that God creates souls to inhabit physical bodies & then eliminates 75% of them almost immediately, for no apparent reason, is very problematic even within a religious paradigm. I'm not saying it could never be explained away somehow, but I am saying that the burden of proof is on the anti-abortionist to *prove* God exists and to *prove* that a fertilized egg has a soul and to *prove* that there is a defensible double standard for God and human beings when it comes to eliminating embryos. To say otherwise is to say that a cockroach *may* have a soul, and therefore, we should not kill cockroaches.

The idea that the first & foremost property of humans that makes us human (and valuable) is self-aware consciousness seems to be very unpopular. Some members of this board have had a "so what?" reaction whenever I propose it, if they don't just ignore it altogether. Since consciousness is the first fundamental property that separates mammals from plants, I find it hard to fathom why this idea isn't taken more seriously. And yes, I oppose late-term abortion for the reason that a late-term fetus has a brain and therefore enjoys some level of human consciousness. However, I'm still not sure that the State is the answer to the problem. It's a whole separate debate. Lost in all this are those of us who are firmly anti-abortion but believe in only peaceful/voluntary means of curbing them.

[Rocco]

A "soul", I love it....how about unique and independent human DNA? That's what the 2 week old fetus has. There is nothing religious about most of our opposition to abortion, in fact it is the pro choice side who we find is aligned against science when we look at the science of the issue.The first and foremost property of humanity is not consciousness, it's **** sapien DNA. If you possess that, you are entitled to rights.

[torchbearer]

A "soul", I love it....how about unique and independent human DNA? That's what the 2 week old fetus has. There is nothing religious about most of our opposition to abortion, in fact it is the pro choice side who we find is aligned against science when we look at the science of the issue.The first and foremost property of humanity is not consciousness, it's **** sapien DNA. If you possess that, you are entitled to rights.


if my thumb is removed from my body, does it them have rights of its own?
it has **** sapien DNA.

[Brett85]

He sounds like a sick man if he's trying to claim that the Bible condones abortion.

[KurtBoyer25L]

A "soul", I love it....how about unique and independent human DNA? That's what the 2 week old fetus has. There is nothing religious about most of our opposition to abortion, in fact it is the pro choice side who we find is aligned against science when we look at the science of the issue.The first and foremost property of humanity is not consciousness, it's **** sapien DNA. If you possess that, you are entitled to rights.

While you're busy getting indignant, understand that I'm not arguing against just you but offering commentary to a community. If you want to believe the authoritarian pro-life movement has nothing to do with the Christian Right, be my guest. I hear the green cheese on the Moon is pretty tasty.

[WhistlinDave]

if my thumb is removed from my body, does it them have rights of its own?
it has **** sapien DNA.

It should have the right not to be used gratuitously in magic tricks.... No?

I'm kidding of course. +rep For this answer. There's a difference between saying something is "human" and saying something is "a person." Separated thumb is a good example; it's definitely human, but that does not make it a person with rights.

I think if there's ever to be a consensus on this issue unanimously across society, first we all need to agree at what point the baby* becomes a person. And I don't know if we have the science yet to tell us definitively, at least not just yet. *(Personally I don't like the word "fetus" because even before it has individual consciousness, it's still a baby.)

[Rocco]

I get indignant because your whole "christian right" argument is based on the premise that our defense of the liberty of the fetus is based in some irrationality such as religion. By tying it to religion you're implying that there is no logical reason for being pro life if you're in the liberty movement, that it MUST be because the man in the sky told you so, and you shove this idea into every point. I base my decisions on reality, not the bible. I'm not even anti religious, I'm just saying that you can't pigeon hole the pro life argument as being based on a blind interpretation of the bible.


While you're busy getting indignant, understand that I'm not arguing against just you but offering commentary to a community. If you want to believe the authoritarian pro-life movement has nothing to do with the Christian Right, be my guest. I hear the green cheese on the Moon is pretty tasty.

[Origanalist]

No, I wouldn't. I believe that the age-old scientific method of defining things by their properties is valid. Why is it okay to kill a cockroach but not a house cat? Because of the house cat's *properties* that make it a house cat -- it is a mammal with fur, four paws, etc, and (more importantly to the discussion) a sentient self-aware mind capable of love and emotion. Whereas the cockroach is probably not self-aware at all, just a machine that is built to survive and find food.

A two-week old embryo has few of the properties that describe a human being. Most crucially, if you believe that the mind & consciousness are centered in the brain, as I do, an embryo that has no brain cannot have a consciousness. You can believe it has a "soul," and the Flying Teapot principle keeps you from ever being proven wrong, but it is a religious belief. Religious beliefs should not be coded into law in a Constitutional republic where citizens may disagree. And as Robin pointed out, there are contradictions even within the paradigm of fundamentalist Christianity when it comes to the "soul is created at conception" belief. If God exists, God may in fact be super-rational and far above human beings in reasoning; however, I personally feel that people make a mistake when they assume the super-rational would directly contradict human rationality at any point. The idea that God creates souls to inhabit physical bodies & then eliminates 75% of them almost immediately, for no apparent reason, is very problematic even within a religious paradigm. I'm not saying it could never be explained away somehow, but I am saying that the burden of proof is on the anti-abortionist to *prove* God exists and to *prove* that a fertilized egg has a soul and to *prove* that there is a defensible double standard for God and human beings when it comes to eliminating embryos. To say otherwise is to say that a cockroach *may* have a soul, and therefore, we should not kill cockroaches.

The idea that the first & foremost property of humans that makes us human (and valuable) is self-aware consciousness seems to be very unpopular. Some members of this board have had a "so what?" reaction whenever I propose it, if they don't just ignore it altogether. Since consciousness is the first fundamental property that separates mammals from plants, I find it hard to fathom why this idea isn't taken more seriously. And yes, I oppose late-term abortion for the reason that a late-term fetus has a brain and therefore enjoys some level of human consciousness. However, I'm still not sure that the State is the answer to the problem. It's a whole separate debate. Lost in all this are those of us who are firmly anti-abortion but believe in only peaceful/voluntary means of curbing them.

That's a whole lot of gymnastics to justify killing babies. As for the bolded part, if I wanted to kill you could I say the burden of proof was on you to prove you have a soul? If not, why not? Maybe I don't think you have one so why shouldn't I be able to tear you apart limb by limb? I say the burden of proof is on the person killing the baby. And I don't know why you pro-abortion people keep bringing fundamental Christianity up. I never quote scripture in these discussions, I just believe killing babies is evil and barbaric. One doesn't need the Bible to see that 50 million dead babies is a sign of a barbaric and sick society.

[KurtBoyer25L]

That's a whole lot of gymnastics to justify killing babies. As for the bolded part, if I wanted to kill you could I say the burden of proof was on you to prove you have a soul? If not, why not? Maybe I don't think you have one so why shouldn't I be able to tear you apart limb by limb? I say the burden of proof is on the person killing the baby. And I don't know why you pro-abortion people keep bringing fundamental Christianity up. I never quote scripture in these discussions, I just believe killing babies is evil and barbaric. One doesn't need the Bible to see that 50 million dead babies is a sign of a barbaric and sick society.

That's a whole lot of loaded phrases to justify a shallow response. What kind of a puppet show would it take to get the point across -- that every time you say killing babies you're making a logical leap past the issue, while incidentally demonizing those who disagree as "pro baby killing." NOT. EVERYONE. AGREES. THAT. A. BRAND. NEW. EMBRYO. IS. A. BABY!!!!!!! Some of us think it's a...wait for it...a brand new embryo.

[Origanalist]

That's a whole lot of loaded phrases to justify a shallow response. What kind of a puppet show would it take to get the point across -- that every time you say killing babies you're making a logical leap past the issue, while incidentally demonizing those who disagree as "pro baby killing." NOT. EVERYONE. AGREES. THAT. A. BRAND. NEW. EMBRYO. IS. A. BABY!!!!!!! Some of us think it's a...wait for it...a brand new embryo.

Loaded phrases, shallow response, etc. etc.. You just don't like what I said, if I say 50 million "abortions" is a sign of a sick and barbaric society will that make you "feel" better? Why do you think you have the knowledge and ability to determine when a embryo is a human being? What special powers are you endowed with?

[KurtBoyer25L]

Loaded phrases, shallow response, etc. etc.. You just don't like what I said, if I say 50 million "abortions" is a sign of a sick and barbaric society will that make you "feel" better? Why do you think you have the knowledge and ability to determine when a embryo is a human being? What special powers are you endowed with?

I feel just fine. I didn't have any problem with your opinion, just the loaded rhetoric.

It doesn't take any special power to abide by a scientific principle. I believe a 'human being' is sentient, with a brain and a heart, and its consciousness gives it value above nonsentient life & inanimate matter. And one-day-old embryos with no brain and no consciousness. You act like this is some wacko concept that only a megalomaniac could think of, but it's pretty standard in Western philosophy.

[PierzStyx]

It doesn't bring anyone back, and there ARE equities on both sides. It is the only situation where we require a person to have their body used to sustain another. We don't require people to go to hospitals and plug their kidneys up to work for those whose kidneys' don't work. The mother does have a different position than any of the other actors in it. I'm not even 100% comfortable with law here, until the baby is viable (and I don't know when that would be. Heartbeat?), but that doesn't mean I think it is 'choice', just that I have a hard time judging for others despite my own views. I recognize people who are sincere. I don't recognize the notion that a fetus is like a nail clipping, and as disposable.

If you can't determine when life/viability begins, then the only moral and sane decision would be to protect the development of life from the very beginning. Better than than commit a million murders don't you think?

As for the mother/dialysis patient comparison you made, it is faulty. I do not create the life of the dialysis patient, nor am responsible for its health. A woman who has willingly had sex that created the child in her womb has taken upon herself the responsibility that comes with creating life, to preserve it and prosper it. She has obligated herself to that child and cannot morally throw off those obligations until someone else can honorably and equally and willingly accept them. In cases of rape abortion still cannot be the moral choice because the life being born within the woman is innocent. It did not violate her. To punish it by killing it makes as much sense morally and logically as a husband ripping his wife limb from limb because his boss pissed him off at work. Every being has a right to life, even the smallest most defenseless ones.

To address the idea of saving the embryos or the baby, the question isn't hard at all. You save the baby. Embryos in a laboratory are not developing life, they only hold the potential to become such. The lab has arrested their ability to grow. If they were implanted and growing it would be a different story. A child is a growing living being.

[PierzStyx]

That's a whole lot of loaded phrases to justify a shallow response. What kind of a puppet show would it take to get the point across -- that every time you say killing babies you're making a logical leap past the issue, while incidentally demonizing those who disagree as "pro baby killing." NOT. EVERYONE. AGREES. THAT. A. BRAND. NEW. EMBRYO. IS. A. BABY!!!!!!! Some of us think it's a...wait for it...a brand new embryo.

And. They. Would. Be. Wrong. Every embryo implanted in a woman is growing human being. Whether it is a "thinking" being is irrelevant. All life is just "an amalgamation of living cells and tissue" no matter whether its an embryo or 90 year old. A human embryo is merely the youngest version of a human possible. Scientifically all of its genetic material is human from the get go. It bears all the same genetics a full grown person does. The only difference between an embryo and a human being fully formed is just age and growth. The law even recognizes this fact. To quote Doctor Ron Paul:

“As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”

As a human being, abortion is morally repugnant. As a libertarian abortion is the greatest violation of the Non-Aggression Principle against the most defenseless being possible.

[Peace&Freedom]

Looking belatedly at this thread, have to say Koerner is NOT being reasonable and is being rather deceptive in the rhetoric. The true "principled" position is the one that addresses a principle, and not one that conjures up hyper-perfectionist criteria for carrying it out. Koerner is addressing secondary matters, and treating those that don't go a long as 'dogmatists' is a mis-characterization. The principle pertains to a "what"---that innocent human life requires legal protection, or protection from aggression---NOT that the "how" of protecting it requires uniformity.

There were 50 different legal approaches to restricting abortion across the different states, not counting different systems around the world. One does NOT have to imprison mother in order to be consistent in opposing abortion, you just have to be consistent in finding abortion or legalized killing repugnant, regardless of the method of legally discouraging it. To emphasize the secondary latter issue ignores the violation of principle on the main issue, and deceptively shifts the logistical burden of the issue onto those producing the least harm, and away from those causing or supporting the most harm by accepting the initiation of coercion/force against the innocent.

[Tod]

"The word of the Lord came to me [Jeremiah], saying:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you."

Jeremiah 1:4-5

[KurtBoyer25L]

Looking belatedly at this thread, have to say Koerner is NOT being reasonable and is being rather deceptive in the rhetoric. The true "principled" position is the one that addresses a principle, and not one that conjures up hyper-perfectionist criteria for carrying it out. Koerner is addressing secondary matters, and treating those that don't go a long as 'dogmatists' is a mis-characterization. The principle pertains to a "what"---that innocent human life requires legal protection, or protection from aggression---NOT that the "how" of protecting it requires uniformity.

There were 50 different legal approaches to restricting abortion across the different states, not counting different systems around the world. One does NOT have to imprison mother in order to be consistent in opposing abortion, you just have to be consistent in finding abortion or legalized killing repugnant, regardless of the method of legally discouraging it. To emphasize the secondary latter issue ignores the violation of principle on the main issue, and deceptively shifts the logistical burden of the issue onto those producing the least harm, and away from those causing or supporting the most harm by accepting the initiation of coercion/force against the innocent.

That is one of the most intelligent criticisms of Robin's position that I have heard. Still, I think you're ignoring a few salient points. How do you address his thought experiment? A thought experiment *forces* us to make a stance on carrying out our principles. If abortion of a one-day-old embryo is *murder* then why shouldn't there be at least as much "uniformity" in punishing it as there is for murder?

I don't think anyone, Robin included, would claim that abortion is a "good" thing or that they enjoy hearing about abortions. But finding something repugnant, and making it illegal, are of course two different animals.

Finally, wouldn't we say that the failure of the Republican party over the last xyz years is related to their *addressing* principles yet not following through on them? Sure, they might say, people should have the right to keep what the earn, but...they "address" that principle (mostly in speeches) while compromising & hem-hawing in policy to the point where they don't lower actual taxes any more than Democrats do.

[jmdrake]

I don't think it's that late, actually. I think the 'eviction' argument is repulsive.

Do you find pre-natal adoption repulsive? Because all the way back to the beginning of in vitro fertilization, taking an embryo from one woman and successfully implanting it into another was a possibility. In fact it actually happened. I think Walter Block attached a terrible term to what isn't a bad idea.

[jmdrake]

"I can read the same Bible, and I can relate to the same God. I was told if I did not share the (anti-abortion in all cases) position, I was unprincipled, and I would not be with God."

"75% of all fertilized embryos are ejected from a woman's body by the fourth week (of pregnancy)...my God is not so ugly that he creates these souls, and then sends three out of four of them straight into limbo. My God is much more beautiful than that."


Regardless of what you think of his position ^that is a stupid argument. Maybe toddlers die, especially in developing countries. And? Does that mean that they are "all sent to limbo?" I do agree that the earlier you get in the pregnancy, the harder it is to justify a hard "line in the sand" on abortion as early on (the first couple of weeks), there's no heartbeat, nervous system of any kind etc. But but the end of the first month you're starting to see all of that.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-L9ngeyYTBpg/UUptASbN2BI/AAAAAAAAB5I/8dDZLapkFMs/s1600/Developmental-stages.jpg

[KurtBoyer25L]

Regardless of what you think of his position ^that is a stupid argument. Maybe toddlers die, especially in developing countries. And? Does that mean that they are "all sent to limbo?" I do agree that the earlier you get in the pregnancy, the harder it is to justify a hard "line in the sand" on abortion as early on (the first couple of weeks), there's no heartbeat, nervous system of any kind etc. But but the end of the first month you're starting to see all of that.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-L9ngeyYTBpg/UUptASbN2BI/AAAAAAAAB5I/8dDZLapkFMs/s1600/Developmental-stages.jpg

It isn't stupid, it's a simple logical deduction. If a one-week-old embryo is a human being w/ a consciousness and a soul, and God creates them only to kill 3 out of 4 of them immediately, that would mean God has double standards for His right to kill innocent human beings vs. our right to do so. Sure, if God is God then he has the right to do whatever he wants, but the corollary would be that Jesus would have gotten drunk, played poker & beat up women His entire time on Earth while telling everyone else it's wrong to do so.

[Rocco]

It has nothing to do with god, it has to do with natural processes vs deliberate termination. Nobody in history has ever deemed it illegal to die of natural causes, but it HAS been deemed illegal to intentionally terminate a life historically, so to create that parallel is absurd.


It isn't stupid, it's a simple logical deduction. If a one-week-old embryo is a human being w/ a consciousness and a soul, and God creates them only to kill 3 out of 4 of them immediately, that would mean God has double standards for His right to kill innocent human beings vs. our right to do so. Sure, if God is God then he has the right to do whatever he wants, but the corollary would be that Jesus would have gotten drunk, played poker & beat up women His entire time on Earth while telling everyone else it's wrong to do so.