PDA

View Full Version : Abortion, a slimebag’s best friend




RonPaulFanInGA
05-18-2013, 01:36 PM
http://liveactionnews.org/abortion-a-slimebags-best-friend/


26-year-old Remee Lee says she was “elated” when she discovered she was pregnant with her first child.

She and her boyfriend, John Andrew Welden, had broken up once already, but reunited in February. She knew she loved Andrew and wanted to keep the baby. But when she told him, he didn’t take the news very well—and “pleaded” with her to abort.

“I was never going to do anything but go full term with it, and he didn’t want me to,” Remee told a Tampa TV station.

When it became clear he wasn’t getting his way, Andrew took Remee to see his father, a doctor. He later called and said he had bad news—Remee had a bacterial infection and needed antibiotics.

According to the AP, “Welden forged his father’s signature on a prescription for Cytotec and relabeled a pill bottle as ‘Amoxicillin.’ Cytotec, known also as misoprostol, is a drug used to induce labor.” Remee started bleeding and went to the hospital—where she learned that Andrew had killed her child. Andrew is now facing murder charges under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Carson
05-18-2013, 01:50 PM
"Abortions allow irresponsible people to continue to live irresponsibly."

-Someone on Fark.com

Sola_Fide
05-18-2013, 01:55 PM
Wow

Antischism
05-18-2013, 01:57 PM
Wow, that's awful. Imagine if abortion were illegal everywhere? This would be happening more often, even self-induced!

jmdrake
05-18-2013, 02:19 PM
Wow, that's awful. Imagine if abortion were illegal everywhere? This would be happening more often, even self-induced!

:rolleyes: Some comments are too stupid to even respond to.

gwax23
05-18-2013, 02:21 PM
disgusting. hope the basterd rots

Christian Liberty
05-18-2013, 02:25 PM
:rolleyes: Some comments are too stupid to even respond to.

Wait, you mean to say that if murder were illegal, murder would happen? Oh, I guess we might as well legalize it since its definitely going to happen anyway:rolleyes:

I do have to say there's a huge hypocricy with charging this guy with murder, considering if the woman had consented it would have been legal to kill the baby. I still don't care though, that so many escape justice is no reason why this man should. Lock him away and never let him out.

jmdrake
05-18-2013, 02:28 PM
Wait, you mean to say that if murder were illegal, murder would happen? Oh, I guess we might as well legalize it since its definitely going to happen anyway:rolleyes:

Ummm...no. I wasn't saying that. The poster I was responding to seemed to be saying that.


I do have to say there's a huge hypocricy with charging this guy with murder, considering if the woman had consented it would have been legal to kill the baby. I still don't care though, that so many escape justice is no reason why this man should. Lock him away and never let him out.

I agree. It makes no sense that only women are allowed to have violence against a fetus.

Christian Liberty
05-18-2013, 02:37 PM
Ummm...no. I wasn't saying that. The poster I was responding to seemed to be saying that.




Sorry, I was trying to back you up, but quoted the wrong post. My apologies.

I agree. It makes no sense that only women are allowed to have violence against a fetus.If the fetus were really part of the woman's body, like the pro-choicers say, this should be assault but not murder. Calling it murder implies that a human life was ended. Which, I believe it was, but the pro-choicers will never agree.

Antischism
05-18-2013, 02:49 PM
:rolleyes: Some comments are too stupid to even respond to.

Is it not true that if abortion were illegal, it would lead to more "back room" abortions?

Sorry I don't agree with the majority of the board. I'm pro-choice, and that stance is not changing.

Christian Liberty
05-18-2013, 02:51 PM
Is it not true that if abortion were illegal, it would lead to more "back room" abortions?

Sorry I don't agree with the majority of the board. I'm pro-choice, and that stance is not changing.

Even if its true, its completely irrelevant. The idea of legalizing murder in order to prevent illegal murder from happening is just silly.

I understand you don't agree with this. You think a fetus (At least at conception) does not have rights, and therefore you think that abortion is a victimless crime. But then, you should be defending that, not using an argument that definitely isn't yours such as "But if murder is banned, illegal murder will happen more..."

I mean, DUH!

tod evans
05-18-2013, 03:03 PM
Sorry I don't agree with the majority of the board. I'm pro-choice, and that stance is not changing.

And the father exercised his choice in this particular instance..

If a mother has the "right" to abort their fetus, then it's only fair that the father has that same "right"..

jmdrake
05-18-2013, 03:03 PM
Is it not true that if abortion were illegal, it would lead to more "back room" abortions?

A) That's conjecture.

B) This wasn't a "back room" abortion. This was a medical abortion by subterfuge. There is no reason to believe that if abortion were illegal, more men would be tricking their girlfriends into getting abortions.


Sorry I don't agree with the majority of the board. I'm pro-choice, and that stance is not changing.

Oh, believe what you want. But the stupid comment was still stupid.

Miss Annie
05-18-2013, 03:07 PM
I view abortion in this context :
I am a smoker. If I developed lung cancer, it would be my fault by my own doing. If after being diagnosed with cancer, a doctor came in the room and held out a box with a button and said that I could save my own life by pushing the button, which would in turn take the life of someone else. That is murder to serve my own purposes, and not a whole lot different than abortion.

Smart3
05-18-2013, 03:12 PM
I view abortion in this context :
I am a smoker. If I developed lung cancer, it would be my fault by my own doing. If after being diagnosed with cancer, a doctor came in the room and held out a box with a button and said that I could save my own life by pushing the button, which would in turn take the life of someone else. That is murder to serve my own purposes, and not a whole lot different than abortion.
The difference there is that you'd kill a person in your cancer instance, even if someone believes a fetus is a human being that should be protected, they are not (and have never been) legally persons. So it's not similar.

Antischism
05-18-2013, 03:16 PM
Even if its true, its completely irrelevant. The idea of legalizing murder in order to prevent illegal murder from happening is just silly.

I understand you don't agree with this. You think a fetus (At least at conception) does not have rights, and therefore you think that abortion is a victimless crime. But then, you should be defending that, not using an argument that definitely isn't yours such as "But if murder is banned, illegal murder will happen more..."

I mean, DUH!

It wasn't meant to be an argument for or against (although it's a reason to be against a ban on a federal level), just a snarky comment for the most part. Since I don't believe abortion should be illegal or that it's murder, I view back room abortions as making a potentially bad situation worse. I would rather women have the option to safely abort than resort to unsafe practices out of desperation. Personal responsibility and avoiding having to even think about abortion is of course best, but if a woman truly wanted to have an abortion and it was before or around the third trimester, I don't see what the issue is because I don't yet consider it to be life, just potential. Past that, I haven't made up my mind. I don't view abortion in absolutes, though. I find Rothbard's case on evictionism to be fascinating.

Miss Annie
05-18-2013, 03:19 PM
The difference there is that you'd kill a person in your cancer instance, even if someone believes a fetus is a human being that should be protected, they are not (and have never been) legally persons. So it's not similar.

Well you are right, the difference is in beliefs.

Antischism
05-18-2013, 03:22 PM
And the father exercised his choice in this particular instance..

If a mother has the "right" to abort their fetus, then it's only fair that the father has that same "right"..

It's in the woman's body, not the man's. The woman ultimately decides, since it's her body, but in this case, she was assaulted. Pregnant or not, you don't trick people into taking medication they weren't prescribed or chose to take. You can't force a person to do something to their body by force; it's the person who decides what they do with their own body, as should be the case for all pregnant women.

Antischism
05-18-2013, 03:29 PM
A) That's conjecture.

B) This wasn't a "back room" abortion. This was a medical abortion by subterfuge. There is no reason to believe that if abortion were illegal, more men would be tricking their girlfriends into getting abortions.



Oh, believe what you want. But the stupid comment was still stupid.

Yes, that's true. But my comment wasn't strictly regarding the story, rather this notion that all abortions are murder and should be illegal, which I don't agree with. Based on my stance on the abortion issue, back room abortions would be an awful effect of making it illegal to abort something that isn't alive, thus infringing on the rights of the host to do what they please with their body.

Eagles' Wings
05-18-2013, 03:40 PM
The difference there is that you'd kill a person in your cancer instance, even if someone believes a fetus is a human being that should be protected, they are not (and have never been) legally persons. So it's not similar.I'm truly glad you were born, Smart3.

PaleoPaul
05-18-2013, 03:41 PM
:rolleyes: Some comments are too stupid to even respond to.
Do you believe that if guns were made illegal in the US, everyone would give up their guns and nobody would obtain them illegally?

tod evans
05-18-2013, 03:43 PM
It's in the woman's body, not the man's. The woman ultimately decides, since it's her body, but in this case, she was assaulted. Pregnant or not, you don't trick people into taking medication they weren't prescribed or chose to take. You can't force a person to do something to their body by force; it's the person who decides what they do with their own body, as should be the case for all pregnant women.

But you fail to address the fact that "it" is "theirs"..

You also fail to address that murder charges can't be levied against an appendage or even a "growth" so "it" is not appropriately descriptive of the life they both created.

The father of the fetus simply took it upon himself to exercise the same "right" relevant to the life they both created that mothers can exercise free from constraint.

Try really hard to avoid the "tricking to take drugs" argument and focus on why one parent of a fetus can kill the fetus at will, yet the other parent can't..

Sola_Fide
05-18-2013, 03:50 PM
Sorry I don't agree with the majority of the board. I'm pro-choice, and that stance is not changing.

It's fine that you're here and you're not a libertarian. But don't mistake the fact that libertarianism is pro-life only.

Christian Liberty
05-18-2013, 03:50 PM
Do you believe that if guns were made illegal in the US, everyone would give up their guns and nobody would obtain them illegally?

Nope. And we don't think if abortion was banned nobody would get them illegally either. Whether people will follow a law is really irrelevant to whether it should exist. Granted, the "People will still buy guns" argument is valid when a progressive makes a pragmatic argument against gun ownership (Which is usually the flavor that these sorts of arguments take). Libertarians, however, do not generally view the world in pragmatic terms. The question is whether an action is an act of aggression against other people. Granted, abortion is tricky and there are libertarians on both sides. But this sort of pragmatism shouldn't really enter into it.

Yes, people would still have abortions if abortion was illegal. Yes, people currently do commit murder even if murder is illegal. I wish it was illegal for the government to commit murder, but even if it were, people would still commit murder.

Guns are a completely different issue, there's no violation of anyone's rights through owning a gun, so owning guns should clearly be legal.


The difference there is that you'd kill a person in your cancer instance, even if someone believes a fetus is a human being that should be protected, they are not (and have never been) legally persons. So it's not similar.

Libertarians are not legal positivists.

It wasn't meant to be an argument for or against (although it's a reason to be against a ban on a federal level), just a snarky comment for the most part. Since I don't believe abortion should be illegal or that it's murder, I view back room abortions as making a potentially bad situation worse. I would rather women have the option to safely abort than resort to unsafe practices out of desperation. Personal responsibility and avoiding having to even think about abortion is of course best, but if a woman truly wanted to have an abortion and it was before or around the third trimester, I don't see what the issue is because I don't yet consider it to be life, just potential. Past that, I haven't made up my mind. I don't view abortion in absolutes, though. I find Rothbard's case on evictionism to be fascinating.

Did Rothbard ever go that far? I thought Block invented evictionism, while Rothbard was just straight up pro-choice. I'm not positive though. In any case, Block's evictionism argument is the pro-choice argument I have the most respect for, but I still reject it. I don't believe your property rights give you the right to kill an innocent human being who never chose to be in that location anyway. If it was rape, the rapist is a tresspasser and should have to pay whatever costs the court deem fair for nine months of the invasion of the mother's womb (I assume that would be a rather high price, at least IMO), while in consensual sex cases, the mother invited the fetus into her womb, so no tresspassing occurs at all. I only believe abortion can be in any way justified if the mother is likely to die from doing anything different.

Christian Liberty
05-18-2013, 03:52 PM
It's fine that you're here and you're not a libertarian. But don't mistake the fact that libertarianism is pro-life only.

As much as I'd like to agree with this... aren't most libertarian theorists pro-choice?


@Antischism- I forgot to mention, I don't support a Federal law either, but that's only because of the US constitution. I'm absolutely in favor of either the death penalty or life imprisonment for murder, which includes abortion, at the state level.

Smart3
05-18-2013, 03:53 PM
It's fine that you're here and you're not a libertarian. But don't mistake the fact that paleoconservatism is pro-life only.

Corrected.

Christian Liberty
05-18-2013, 03:59 PM
Corrected.

Paleoconservatism, if I understand, differs from standard libertarianism on more than just abortion.

Libertarianism is the view that you can do whatever you want except aggress against another human being.

The unborn is clearly another human being. The real question is how you deal with tresspassing. I'm pretty sure virtually every libertarian theorist, even the pro-choice ones, agree that life begins at conception.

Sola_Fide
05-18-2013, 04:58 PM
Corrected.

Abortion is an initiation of force. There is no way around it. This has to do with libertarianism.

Warlord
05-18-2013, 05:13 PM
Eye for an Eye..

http://www.newbernsj.com/polopoly_fs/1.128932.1366318284!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_445/0419-guilty-tag.jpg

Electricity Shall Pass Through Your Body

http://dvdmedia.ign.com/media/reviews/image/green_sparky.jpg

Carson
05-18-2013, 05:22 PM
http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/morestuff/websize/4yQFfBO.jpg

jmdrake
05-18-2013, 07:05 PM
Do you believe that if guns were made illegal in the US, everyone would give up their guns and nobody would obtain them illegally?

Another comment too stupid to reply to, but I will. Your analogy doesn't fit the retarded "point" I was replying to. If you wanted to word your analogy at least partially correct you would say "Don't you believe that if guns were made illegal there would be more guns?" That would still be stupid though. Here's why. This isn't a case of a "back alley" abortion. Do you really believe that if abortion was illegal, this slime would have been able to con his girlfriend into going into a back alley and getting an abortion with a coathanger? He was able to pull of this trick precisely because abortion was illegal. Think about it. If abortion were illegal then the abortion drug would be illegal. Oh...some people would smuggle them in. But just like other illegal drugs they would be "cut" and of lower potency and probably fake altogether. Really, I don't know what's going on in this forum, but there's been a rash of poor logic lately. Have whatever opinion you want. But please be able to intelligently articulate it.

jmdrake
05-18-2013, 07:09 PM
Corrected.

Not really. If someone believes that a fetus is an individual person, than the pro choice position is not libertarian. Evictionism, depending on how it's implemented, possibly is, though I prefer the term "pre-natal adoption". Admittedly people disagree on the personhood of the fetus.

jmdrake
05-18-2013, 07:12 PM
Yes, that's true. But my comment wasn't strictly regarding the story, rather this notion that all abortions are murder and should be illegal, which I don't agree with. Based on my stance on the abortion issue, back room abortions would be an awful effect of making it illegal to abort something that isn't alive, thus infringing on the rights of the host to do what they please with their body.

I'm not sure if you are claiming that bans on abortions would prevent the removal of a stillborn fetus or if you don't believe a fetus is "alive" until it is born, but either position is ridiculous.

jmdrake
05-18-2013, 07:18 PM
As much as I'd like to agree with this... aren't most libertarian theorists pro-choice?

I've never seen a poll on that, but that's not important anyway. Most economists may be Keynesian, but that doesn't mean much. There is a consistent libertarian argument for pro life.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/08/the-libertarian-pro-life-case-against-abortion/

RonPaulFanInGA
05-18-2013, 07:24 PM
Is it not true that if abortion were illegal, it would lead to more "back room" abortions?

Who cares? When the gun crime debate was on-going, all we were told by the media is you can't use "the law won't be obeyed" as a reason to oppose something.

People break laws all the time, for everything. If you want to use "well, people will still do it" as a reason for opposition, there wouldn't be a law against anything.

Sola_Fide
05-18-2013, 07:55 PM
The difference there is that you'd kill a person in your cancer instance, even if someone believes a fetus is a human being that should be protected, they are not (and have never been) legally persons. So it's not similar.

Fetuses have always been considered legal persons.

RonPaulFanInGA
05-18-2013, 08:10 PM
they are not (and have never been) legally persons. So it's not similar.

The law on murder says you can only be charged it for killing a living human, and nothing else (no murder charges for killing animals, businesses, already-dead bodies, etc.)

And this guy is being charged with what? Murder.

Christian Liberty
05-18-2013, 08:14 PM
I've never seen a poll on that, but that's not important anyway. Most economists may be Keynesian, but that doesn't mean much. There is a consistent libertarian argument for pro life.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/08/the-libertarian-pro-life-case-against-abortion/

I need to read that article, but you missed my point. I completely believe that its possible to be a pro-life libertarian. Heck, I AM a pro-life libertarian. Sola_Fide said that it is NOT possible to be a pro-choice libertarian, and that's what I was questioning. That would mean Rothbard wasn't a libertarian, which, considering he all but invented the ideology in the modern era, would be odd.

Regarding evictionism, the Blockean view of evictionism would allow eviction even if the eviction will lead to death. That's where I disagree with it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with evictionism that does NOT lead to death (Or at least serious injury.)


Abortion is an initiation of force. There is no way around it. This has to do with libertarianism.

I don't really want to Devil's Advocate the tresspassing argument, since I really don't agree with it, but it does exist.

Carson
05-19-2013, 07:32 AM
I suppose it really shouldn't matter to me which side of the argument your on in regards to abortion.

I do think I should have a say in how abortion effects me and mine.

I certainly don't like the government's religion on the topic hoisted on me with my own tax money. I thought we were going to have a separation of such things.



The Unacknowledged Holocaust

Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us as little children with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They said the resources would be stressed. They launched a program called, “Zero Population Growth”. They pushed Family Planning and birth control pills. I think you and I now both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.

Many of us never had a say in the future of our unborn.

I am the result of two living cells. One from each of my parents. They are the result of two living cells, one from each of their parents. I wasn't just born. I am a continuation of life. I am a living thing that reaches back into time perhaps 400 million years and the result of billions of joining of pairs of cells. It is possible that if you were to follow my cells back to my parent’s cells and beyond that my family tree touches every living thing here on earth. That is if we limit ourselves to believing life was created here on earth. If it rained down from the immensity of the universe it could reach back into that immensity of time and space, and who knows what relationships and who knows what species.

My family line succeeded, at least until I came up against the Federal Government and their plan to control the population.

I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.

The open border, United States laws only apply to some, is a serious slap in the face. No, not a slap in the face, it reaches well beyond that. Maybe back to the beginning of time and stretch to the bounds of the universe.

jmdrake
05-19-2013, 01:27 PM
I need to read that article, but you missed my point. I completely believe that its possible to be a pro-life libertarian. Heck, I AM a pro-life libertarian. Sola_Fide said that it is NOT possible to be a pro-choice libertarian, and that's what I was questioning. That would mean Rothbard wasn't a libertarian, which, considering he all but invented the ideology in the modern era, would be odd.


Ah. I get it. My bad. Yeah, you can be a libertarian and be pro-choice, but IMO only by denying the individuality of the fetus. (And then there are those that literally don't believe there should be laws against murder).



Regarding evictionism, the Blockean view of evictionism would allow eviction even if the eviction will lead to death. That's where I disagree with it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with evictionism that does NOT lead to death (Or at least serious injury.)


Well some might not like the idea of artificial wombs. In fact I know Rev9 didn't like it.



I don't really want to Devil's Advocate the tresspassing argument, since I really don't agree with it, but it does exist.

Yeah. But I don't think it fits. Tresspassers aren't invitees.

Sola_Fide
05-19-2013, 01:37 PM
I need to read that article, but you missed my point. I completely believe that its possible to be a pro-life libertarian. Heck, I AM a pro-life libertarian. Sola_Fide said that it is NOT possible to be a pro-choice libertarian, and that's what I was questioning. That would mean Rothbard wasn't a libertarian, which, considering he all but invented the ideology in the modern era, would be odd.

Regarding evictionism, the Blockean view of evictionism would allow eviction even if the eviction will lead to death. That's where I disagree with it. I don't think anyone would have a problem with evictionism that does NOT lead to death (Or at least serious injury.)



I don't really want to Devil's Advocate the tresspassing argument, since I really don't agree with it, but it does exist.

Libertarianism is pro-life only. If you are not pro-life, you cannot be a philosophical libertarian:



Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
by Congressman Ron Paul

Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.
Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. 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.

The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.

Christian Liberty
05-19-2013, 01:50 PM
I agree with Ron Paul... but a lot of libertarians don't.

matt0611
05-19-2013, 01:53 PM
Why is he being charged with murder? The "fetus" or "unborn baby" has "no rights" because they're "not persons" according to abortion supporters.

tod evans
05-19-2013, 01:59 PM
Why is he being charged with murder? The "fetus" or "unborn baby" has "no rights" because they're "not persons" according to abortion supporters.

I think it is a strategic attack on RvW implemented by federal prosecutors in Fla.

bunklocoempire
05-19-2013, 02:00 PM
Remee and John create a situation enriching themselves that the innocent has no control over and then John bails himself out at the expense of the innocent.

Goldman Sach's style -sometimes liberty lovers fall for it. :(

It's no wonder government along with the Goldman Sach's of the world want to constantly de-humanize the taxpayer.

Sola_Fide
05-19-2013, 02:16 PM
I agree with Ron Paul... but a lot of libertarians don't.

It's our job to put them on the defensive and persuade them of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty. I believe that there are several different ways to go about ending abortion legislatively, but that is not even what Ron's focus is in that piece. Ron's focus is what is philosophically consistent with liberty. You cannot be philosphically consistent with liberty and support abortion.

JCDenton0451
05-19-2013, 02:36 PM
Abortion, a slimebag’s best friend


Oohhh. It's threads like that make me worry this movement is doomed.:(

Sola_Fide
05-19-2013, 02:38 PM
Oohhh. It's threads like that make me worry this movement is doomed.:(

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

jclay2
05-19-2013, 02:40 PM
What a horrible piece of shit. This guy deserves death, but I guess life would suffice.

QuickZ06
05-19-2013, 02:50 PM
Takes two to make life, but only one to kill it.

Smart3
05-19-2013, 03:08 PM
Abortion is an initiation of force. There is no way around it. This has to do with libertarianism.

Sure. Except you still haven't provided any reason to treat fetuses as persons. When you're able to do this, and go against thousands of years of thinking, please do.


The law on murder says you can only be charged it for killing a living human, and nothing else (no murder charges for killing animals, businesses, already-dead bodies, etc.)

And this guy is being charged with what? Murder.
Our understanding of Murder must be revised anyways, to not include pulling the plug on a loved one or euthanizing a person who is inevitably going to die (say from a fatal car crash). I would also support a new word, to describe the unlawful killing of near-sapient species (Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Dolphins, etc) which would also be severely punished.

JCDenton0451
05-19-2013, 03:10 PM
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

Seriously, this is general politics subforum. What does a local crime story have to do with politics? Why is this thread five pages long? Maybe we should discuss Immigration Reform instead?

Sola_Fide
05-19-2013, 03:25 PM
Seriously, this is general politics subforum. What does a local crime story have to do with politics? Why is this thread five pages long? Maybe we should discuss Immigration Reform instead?

Every thread on the general politics board has something to do with philosophy or theology. This is the kind of movement we are in.

One of the things that angers me more than anything is the soft censorship that people like you think that they can employ against Christianity. You have a false dichotomy set up in your mind that puts theology in one quiet corner of the world and secularism in the other public part of the world. It's your thinking that's wrong. Theology is the ruling discipline and it informs every philosophy, including atheism.

Sola_Fide
05-19-2013, 03:30 PM
Sure. Except you still haven't provided any reason to treat fetuses as persons. When you're able to do this, and go against thousands of years of thinking, please do.


Our understanding of Murder must be revised anyways, to not include pulling the plug on a loved one or euthanizing a person who is inevitably going to die (say from a fatal car crash). I would also support a new word, to describe the unlawful killing of near-sapient species (Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Dolphins, etc) which would also be severely punished.

Oh man...you are all over the place. "Near-sapient" species like gorillas and dolphins deserve the protection of the law, but babies in the womb don't?

Yes, our understanding of murder is always being revised. In Germany, they revised the understanding of murder to mean that Jews were dogs and inhuman...not deserving of the protection of the law. That you would now endorse that same kind of thinking shows me how intellectually bankrupt you really are. You should be ashamed of your inconsistency.

Warrior_of_Freedom
05-19-2013, 03:31 PM
probably said this in this thread before, but tired of the woman being able to decide if a fetus is a person or not. Also the dude probably feared 18 years of child support slavery, not saying what he did was right

tod evans
05-19-2013, 04:33 PM
probably said this in this thread before, but tired of the woman being able to decide if a fetus is a person or not.

I hope this case goes as I envision, that being that the father is able to establish his right as a parent en-utero....

By filing murder charges the door is open.

ninepointfive
05-19-2013, 05:07 PM
What a horrible piece of shit. This guy deserves death, but I guess life would suffice.

sometimes people are pro birth. after that, just send them off to war or what have you.

Christian Liberty
05-19-2013, 05:15 PM
Our understanding of Murder must be revised anyways, to not include pulling the plug on a loved one or euthanizing a person who is inevitably going to die (say from a fatal car crash). I would also support a new word, to describe the unlawful killing of near-sapient species (Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Dolphins, etc) which would also be severely punished.

Animals don't have rights, killing them isn't a violation of the NAP because animals are not covered by libertarian ethics, nor should they be.


Also the dude probably feared 18 years of child support slavery, not saying what he did was right

How is that "Slavery"? Didn't he consent to create the child?



sometimes people are pro birth. after that, just send them off to war or what have you.

Yeah, we call them "Republicans".

RonPaulFanInGA
09-11-2013, 08:56 PM
The guy pleaded guilty:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/274253/158/John-Andrew-Welden-tricks-girlfriend-Remee-Lee-into-taking-abortion-pill-pleads-guilty

dillo
09-11-2013, 10:53 PM
Do pro-lifers support the womans right to abort based on self defense? One could certainly argue that any pregnancy has to potential to kill the mother, does the childs right to life trump the mothers? What about rape victims, should they be crowned murderers as well?

RonPaulFanInGA
09-11-2013, 11:10 PM
What about rape victims, should they be crowned murderers as well?

How many abortions take place as the result of forcible rape? It's like leftists arguing to ban .50-caliber rifles; the number of murders they're directly involved in is minuscule.

Christian Liberty
09-11-2013, 11:14 PM
The answer is still "yes" though. That a horrible crime happened to you is no excuse to kill an innocent person.

eduardo89
09-11-2013, 11:18 PM
Is it not true that if abortion were illegal, it would lead to more "back room" abortions?

And that justifies the murder of over 1 million unborn babies every year in the US? Just because a couple hundred might risk a "back alley" abortion?

dillo
09-11-2013, 11:50 PM
How many abortions take place as the result of forcible rape? It's like leftists arguing to ban .50-caliber rifles; the number of murders they're directly involved in is minuscule.

Im not a leftist, also you never answered the question, if the pregnancy is from a rape should a woman legally be able to abort it? More importantly if the mothers life is in danger, should she be able to abort it.

eduardo89
09-11-2013, 11:51 PM
How many abortions take place as the result of forcible rape? It's like leftists arguing to ban .50-caliber rifles; the number of murders they're directly involved in is minuscule.

There hasn't been a single recorded murder with a .50 caliber rifle in the US.

krugminator
09-12-2013, 12:02 AM
The answer is still "yes" though. That a horrible crime happened to you is no excuse to kill an innocent person.

If you had an unwelcome, uninvited person on your property you would have the right to remove them with force. Your body is private property. If a woman has an uninvited child in her, she has the right to forcibly remove it, as her property rights are being violated.

tod evans
09-12-2013, 02:04 AM
The guy pleaded guilty:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/274253/158/John-Andrew-Welden-tricks-girlfriend-Remee-Lee-into-taking-abortion-pill-pleads-guilty

The feds and their plea-bargains strike again! :mad:

This case would have been a good one to litigate but there's no way arguments for fathers "rights" can be permitted to make the register so according to "The-Newz" esoteric charges that carried a mandatory minimum of life were levied.