41 years of abortions in 5 minutes.

[CaseyJones]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylD7ajPflqo#t=252

[AuH20]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/22/obama-abortion-means-everyone-gets-to-fulfill-their-dreams/


Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

Building a mountain of bodies so you can fulfill your "dreams" isn't my idea of freedom. Sorry bub. The doublespeak don't work.

[Smart3]

"One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living." - Ayn Rand

"The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies." ~Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 22 January 1973

“No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.”
― Margaret Sanger

“Reproductive freedom is critical to a whole range of issues. If we can’t take charge of this most personal aspect of our lives, we can’t take care of anything. It should not be seen as a privilege or as a benefit, but a fundamental human right.”
― Faye Wattleton

"A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb." - Capitalism Magazine

Bolds are mine.

____

To address the video, I strongly condemn the use of children. Children who have not developed brains capable of understanding the issue, let alone making up their own minds. Many of the children used by anti-choice organizations will grow up to not only have abortions themselves but also condemn their previous remarks.

As a rule, the people in the video should be old enough to have an abortion themselves.

[liberalnurse]

[
This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb." - Capitalism Magazine

This is my issue. I can't wrap my head around late term abortions. 26 weeks in most states. That's six months. Shouldn't one know by then if they want the baby or not?


Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur (fig 1), good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks' gestation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

Good scientific article out of the UK.

[tod evans]

Many of the children used by anti-choice organizations will grow up to not only have abortions themselves but also condemn their previous remarks.


And a great many progressive males come to woe their advocacy of a "pro-choice" position when their child is aborted without their consent.

A womans body is no more sacrosanct than a mans and a fetus takes both a man and a woman to create.

Neither should have the option of abortion without the others written and informed consent.

Granting the woman unilateral authority over their fetus is wrong regardless of your position on abortion itself.

[Smart3]

[

This is my issue. I can't wrap my head around late term abortions. 26 weeks in most states. That's six months. Shouldn't one know by then if they want the baby or not?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

Good scientific article out of the UK.

I'm not concerned about late abortions, as they are done for (what I deem) good reasons - often because the fetus will not survive long after birth. You can't tell a woman to give birth to a dead fetus. It's just wrong.


Granting the woman unilateral authority over their fetus is wrong regardless of your position on abortion itself.
Once you can get pregnant, you can exercise your authority.

[green73]

I'm not concerned about late abortions, as they are done for (what I deem) good reasons - often because the fetus will not survive long after birth. You can't tell a woman to give birth to a dead fetus. It's just wrong.

Yeah, that's the only time late term murders are done, :rolleyes:

[dillo]

What is the justification for not allowing abortion if the mothers life is in danger from the pregnancy?

[tod evans]

Once you can get pregnant, you can exercise your authority.

Okay Smart-Ass once again you fail to address the issue raised and try to redirect back to your opinion that only the woman has a say-so in killing a fetus.

The issue raised is men and woman have an equal stake in the matter, in fact the mans stake is actually greater than the womans.

So how about dropping your childish and immature attempts at rhetoric and addressing the issue raised?

[moostraks]

[

This is my issue. I can't wrap my head around late term abortions. 26 weeks in most states. That's six months. Shouldn't one know by then if they want the baby or not?


Well, just going off my experience (not the abortion but the relationship disaster) and those who have been pregnant and had relationships fall apart (go to most birth boards around the 5 month time frame and a certain portion of these women will be discussing their failed relationship), my guess would be that by the time one is 6 months you have begun to show and the reality of the pregnancy sets in.(and the situation is blowing up at this point) So the significant other bails and the woman panics and feels she cannot do this all alone. By this time the woman has gone through full blown hormone changes, often chronic nausea and vomiting, swelling, and can be unpleasant to be around esp. if they expect to be pampered or have never experienced anything like this before. You cannot totally fault the s.o.s who panic and need some space as they grasp the reality of the situation. Abortion is the quick fix for what they see as the problem. When life is so easily disposable, then they will not comprehend the seriousness of the decision they are making.

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm not concerned about late abortions, as they are done for (what I deem) good reasons - often because the fetus will not survive long after birth. You can't tell a woman to give birth to a dead fetus. It's just wrong.


Once you can get pregnant, you can exercise your authority.

Without responsibility for decisions made like having sex?

[Influenza]

What is the justification for not allowing abortion if the mothers life is in danger from the pregnancy?

There really isn't one....

[ClydeCoulter]

Eat too much you might get fat, drink too much you might destroy your liver, skydive a lot and the parachute might not open, get in fights you might get your jaw broken, have sex you might get pregnant. People know these things, right?

People want consequences removed, and maybe someday you'll be able to have virtual experiences in full 3D without any consequences and then you'll be able to just dream your life away.

So, in the mean time we try to save the weak with vaccines, send young men off to die, bomb innocent people to overthrow puppets, send our children off to preschool, devalue our currency so that both parents/partners have to work, feed the masses off of assembly lines, force children to play on merry-go-rounds to pump water for irrigation, lie, cheat, steal, give our word with fingers crossed behind our backs, hold our heads up high.

[Ronin Truth]

PREVENT unwanted pregnancies (it's the grownup thing to do). No pregnancy, no abortion. DUH!

[Smart3]

Well, just going off my experience (not the abortion but the relationship disaster) and those who have been pregnant and had relationships fall apart (go to most birth boards around the 5 month time frame and a certain portion of these women will be discussing their failed relationship), my guess would be that by the time one is 6 months you have begun to show and the reality of the pregnancy sets in.(and the situation is blowing up at this point) So the significant other bails and the woman panics and feels she cannot do this all alone. By this time the woman has gone through full blown hormone changes, often chronic nausea and vomiting, swelling, and can be unpleasant to be around esp. if they expect to be pampered or have never experienced anything like this before. You cannot totally fault the s.o.s who panic and need some space as they grasp the reality of the situation. Abortion is the quick fix for what they see as the problem. When life is so easily disposable, then they will not comprehend the seriousness of the decision they are making.

and those are precisely the women who should be getting abortions at that point.


What is the justification for not allowing abortion if the mothers life is in danger from the pregnancy?
Well the most extreme people believe that the "life" of the fetus is equal to the life of the woman in question. As such, there is no inherent value to an already alive woman. Better to risk both than intentionally kill one.

[Origanalist]

and those are precisely the women who should be getting abortions at that point.


Well the most extreme people believe that the "life" of the fetus is equal to the life of the woman in question. As such, there is no inherent value to an already alive woman. Better to risk both than intentionally kill one.

Every time you post on this subject I feel like I need a shower.

[jbauer]

Ahh, pick some Ayn Rand etc quotes ...Yeah for you, you get a star today. Not all of "libertarians" are pro-(mother only)-choice. Ever think for a moment that the baby might just have something to say about whether it gets to live or die?


"One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living." - Ayn Rand

"The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies." ~Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, 22 January 1973

“No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.”
― Margaret Sanger

“Reproductive freedom is critical to a whole range of issues. If we can’t take charge of this most personal aspect of our lives, we can’t take care of anything. It should not be seen as a privilege or as a benefit, but a fundamental human right.”
― Faye Wattleton

"A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb." - Capitalism Magazine

Bolds are mine.

____

To address the video, I strongly condemn the use of children. Children who have not developed brains capable of understanding the issue, let alone making up their own minds. Many of the children used by anti-choice organizations will grow up to not only have abortions themselves but also condemn their previous remarks.

As a rule, the people in the video should be old enough to have an abortion themselves.

[tod evans]

Ahh, pick some Ayn Rand etc quotes ...Yeah for you, you get a star today. Not all of "libertarians" are pro-(mother only)-choice. Ever think for a moment that the baby might just have something to say about whether it gets to live or die?

He flat out refuses to even discuss a fathers rights so I'm pretty certain he'll do his best to ignore the baby too....

Doesn't seem to fit his world view as it's been expressed here.

[kcchiefs6465]

Ahh, pick some Ayn Rand etc quotes ...Yeah for you, you get a star today. Not all of "libertarians" are pro-(mother only)-choice. Ever think for a moment that the baby might just have something to say about whether it gets to live or die?
I think the Ayn Rand quote is telling but frankly the fact that Margaret Sanger, of all people, is quoted in an attempt to defend a position here of all places (where I'd think the majority would know who Margaret Sanger was) is incredible.

I would bet, that even aside from Roe v. Wade, Blackmun was involved in some very terrible rulings and the precedents they set. I care not enough to look through some of the popular cases to read his opinions. I will go out on a limb and ascribe him the label of "short-sighted tyrant." Much as the rest of his ilk (even the supposed "good ones") were.

Here's some Margaret Sanger quotes.

[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.-- Margaret Sanger

Give dysgenic groups [people with "bad genes"] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.-- Margaret Sanger

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.-- Margaret Sanger

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.-- Margaret Sanger

If my memory doesn't fail me, I believe Smart3 has defended this woman in the past.

[tod evans]

If my memory doesn't fail me, I believe Smart3 has defended this woman in the past.

Drive-by proselytizing seems to be the modus operandi..

[kcchiefs6465]

The woman spoke frequently at Klan rallies about exterminating the Negro population and this is the woman, so wise as to warrant a quote on a forum that advocates liberty?

I'm not sure if Smart3 can feel shame, but he should. What an embarrassment to reason at large. For those who have not yet ignored Smart3, or rather, subsequently disregarded anything he types, this is the person who defended the bulldozing of Rachel Corrie.

[EBounding]

426804421167562752

[moostraks]

and those are precisely the women who should be getting abortions at that point.


Nope. Despite the soulless beliefs of those who think differently. Ya see I've been there (we finally split up right around 5-6 months) but choose life despite everyone thinking I was wrong excepting my current spouse. We have a culture now that lacks moral integrity and this is so easily justified because of folks like you.

[Paulbot99]

If I was aborted as a fetus, would I be posting this sentence right now?

[Smart3]

The woman spoke frequently at Klan rallies about exterminating the Negro population and this is the woman, so wise as to warrant a quote on a forum that advocates liberty?

I'm not sure if Smart3 can feel shame, but he should. What an embarrassment to reason at large. For those who have not yet ignored Smart3, or rather, subsequently disregarded anything he types, this is the person who defended the bulldozing of Rachel Corrie.

I do not agree with some of the views of Sanger, though I'm not against targeting majority black areas. Even MLK Jr. supported Sanger's initiatives in those communities.

Please take the time to read the man's words in relation to Sanger:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/reverend-martin-luther-king-jr-4728.htm

____

and don't bring up Corrie in a discussion on abortion please.


If I was aborted as a fetus, would I be posting this sentence right now?
Nope. The better question is what if the sperm cell that led to your origin had lost the "race" and some other cell got the finish line? There could be hundreds of thousands of people in your shoes right now. All of which could have had the same origin.

[erowe1]

So what if you limit a woman's freedom by not letting her kill her baby? Her care is that baby's property. She has no right to withhold it from him or her. Her freedom is already gone by virtue of her being a mother, and not because of some act of a state.

[Smart3]

So what if you limit a woman's freedom by not letting her kill her baby? Her care is that baby's property. She has no right to withhold it from him or her. Her freedom is already gone by virtue of her being a mother, and not because of some act of a state.

It's not a baby until you can hold it in your hands.

[Origanalist]

It's not a baby until you can hold it in your hands.

I notice you didn't answer moostracs. A woman who disagrees with you (and there are many) completely screws up your whole narrative. You like to make it sound like you are on the side of women but you are on the side of death for convenience. You like to paint yourself as a champion of liberty and women's rights but you champion only death and deprivation. And you never fail to ignore the psychological price women pay for an abortion.

And I don't give you permission to take away my rights as a father and give them all to women. You speak only for yourself.


It's not a baby until you can hold it in your hands.

You have no authority to make that statement.

[TaftFan]

http://ryanphunter.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/gandhi-on-abortion.jpg%3Fw%3D584
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9abm7GYsg1qgu4ky.jpg

[tod evans]

And I don't give you permission to take away my rights as a father and give them all to women. You speak only for yourself.


Amen!

[kcchiefs6465]

I do not agree with some of the views of Sanger, though I'm not against targeting majority black areas. Even MLK Jr. supported Sanger's initiatives in those communities.

Please take the time to read the man's words in relation to Sanger:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/reverend-martin-luther-king-jr-4728.htm

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was unaware of this aspect of MLK's central planning views. Though no doubt his name (and words) are pimped by PP, I am nonetheless surprised. Perhaps I should have watched Frank's posted documentaries on the man. I don't think it would much matter, now, though. What would I care what MLK has to say on this matter beyond this?



Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain. --MLK Jr., PP Margaret Sanger Award acceptance speech (was given by his wife, though apparently written or at least endorsed by him)

No thank you, Mr. Central Planner. You aren't wise enough. Murder is murder. I don't give a damn who says else wise.

There is no reason to run MLK, Jr.'s name through the mud but I'd denounce his words as quickly as I denounce yours. I do wonder what he'd say at the notion that 1,250 black babies are murdered for every thousand births. Not only is it shameful, it is evil. A society that has normalized infanticide. And I'd argue the case that almost a 40/60 chance of being born or murdered (black babies) is in fact, infanticide. May God have mercy (on those who were ultimately powerless to prevent such things).



and don't bring up Corrie in a discussion on abortion please.

People should know the kind of positions you advocate for before reading anything you post if not simply because one may stumble upon this website to mistakenly think you represent the libertarian position. You are a pariah, your posts downright disturbing.

Your views and statements on various matters makes one thank the heavens you are not in any position of power. As bad as the worst are now, surely.


I do not agree with some of the views of Sanger
This is funny. Views, such as, I don't know... exterminating the blacks? How can you excuse it? How can anything that woman has done warrant an award in her honor when her primary motives were, and have led to (as evidenced by more dying than being birthed) the extermination of blacks? She'd be quite happy of the results and only work to further her cause. Her cause being, that is, to exterminate blacks, and other "undesirables." This is absurd.

Sometimes it is just so in your face you have to really just appreciate how backwards, immoral, and evil this society is. Wishing to fulfill a vision of exterminating blacks, and partially succeeding in many ways, is award warranted. You are shameful to post her garbage here.

[juvanya]

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=37903


'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born

An internationally known Princeton “bioethicist” and animal-rights activist says he’d kill disabled babies if it were in the “best interests” of the family, because he sees no distinction in the child’s life whether it is born or not, and the world already allows abortion.

The comments come from Peter Singer, a controversial bioethics professor, who responded to a series of questions in the UK Independent this week.

Earlier, WND reported Singer believes the next few decades will see a massive upheaval in the concept of life and rights, with only “a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists” still protecting life as sacrosanct.

...

[kcchiefs6465]

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=37903

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyBvzKjje-g

[The Free Hornet]

MURDER BY THE MOTHER HERSELF.

-MOTHER TERESA

Thanks, TaftFan. Thanks for introducing us to the elephant in the room:


Almost no pro-life policies make sense if they really see no difference between the abortion of a fetus and the murder of a four-year-old. However, nearly all pro-life policies make sense if they’re seeking to force women who have sex to “face the consequences.”

http://amptoons.com/blog/2011/06/27/do-they-really-believe-abortion-is-murder/

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/pro-life-belief-chart.png

The anti-liberty, so-called pro-life movement, an odd movement where those who want mothers to get away with murder are called pro life and those who don't want to further regulate the medical industry are called... pro-choice. That last part kind of makes sense.



He flat out refuses to even discuss a fathers rights so I'm pretty certain he'll do his best to ignore the baby too....

Doesn't seem to fit his world view as it's been expressed here.

Give it a rest. I'd love to give father's more freedom, but not more power (pre birth). However the suggestion that a woman needs the man's permission to give birth is not what I'd agree with. I would say outside of a marriage or suitable contract (or a rape) she ought not expect state-mandated child support. That's the more reasonable compromise.

Also, regarding young men:


The state of Colorado attempted to recover AFDC payments from a man who was just 12 when he became a father with an older woman. Contrast this with the allowances made for abortion for women who are raped (including statutory rape) even from many who are opposed to abortion in other circumstances.

Mothers are also permitted to give up their children for adoption, no questions asked, should they not want their children. In no case is a woman forced to raise or pay for a child conceived during a rape.

...

While there may be natural differences between men and women, in this day and age, it is simply wrong to place all the rights in the hands of women and all the responsibility on the shoulders of men.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/legally-obscene/

It is a double standard but not one that is resolved by pretending murder isn't real murder or by increasing the medical and drug regulatory authority or further losing medical privacy rights.

[tod evans]

Give it a rest. I'd love to give father's more freedom, but not more power (pre birth). However the suggestion that a woman needs the man's permission to give birth is not what I'd agree with. I would say outside of a marriage or suitable contract (or a rape) she ought not expect state-mandated child support. That's the more reasonable compromise.


A father is equally if not more responsible for a fetus post birth so it only makes sense that he have equal say in whether or not that fetus is carried to term.

It took both the mother and father to create life and giving one or the other the ability to end it without the others consent is morally and ethically wrong.

So unless you're able to couch a reasonable argument why only one parent should have the ability to end the life both created then you give it a rest.

[kcchiefs6465]

The anti-liberty, so-called pro-life movement, an odd movement where those who want mothers to get away with murder are called pro life and those who don't want to further regulate the medical industry are called... pro-choice. That last part kind of makes sense.

What does this mean, specifically?

I am curious why changing the morality, or lack thereof, of Man is not included as a, at the least, righteous attempt. The murdering babies is the way of the world. Why change it?, I'm told.. if in nothing else, attitude.



Give it a rest. I'd love to give father's more freedom, but not more power (pre birth). However the suggestion that a woman needs the man's permission to give birth is not what I'd agree with. I would say outside of a marriage or suitable contract (or a rape) she ought not expect state-mandated child support. That's the more reasonable compromise.

Also, regarding young men:

It is a double standard but not one that is resolved by pretending murder isn't real murder or by increasing the medical and drug regulatory authority or further losing medical privacy rights.
Your article is far off, at least with regards to me. If you wish to defend it, we can have that conversation. So far as increasing medical and drug regulatory authority, that is a cop out. As if this system of marking and documenting every person birthed here is in particular need of expansion. Your medical history is as easy for Them to access as your criminal record. While it may not be considered "public information", this growing conglomeration of data which includes the merging of all medical information, or at the least, the sharing between hospitals, doctors, bureaucrats, etc., is a crime to privacy in any imagination of the words.



In contrast, pro-choicers tend to think that the abortion criminalization movement is motivated by a desire – perhaps an unconscious desire – to punish women for having sex.

I used to reject that latter view as a pointless ad hominem attack. Nowadays, I’m not so sure.
I call this bullshit on its face (and is why I call your article, bullshit). Who is this referring to, specifically? (Even a group whose beliefs fall within said outline.) Need it be argued? I'm pro-life. I'm for women having the rights that are inherently there simply by their being (the same rights as any other individual). Murdering their child (that is, paying someone to concave a baby's skull, to vacuum out brain matter, and dispose of the body, for instance) is not one of them. I care not of inconveniences. Will abortions be stopped by any litigation? No, there is an apparent, inherent evil in Man. You attempt to justify said evil... if at least in this instance (we do agree on a lot). I attempt, or at least attempt to change, your opinion, which your opinion is perhaps the opinion of the majority of people.

And it's supposedly a wonder how life is valued so cheap.

[The Free Hornet]

A father is equally if not more responsible for a fetus post birth so it only makes sense that he have equal say in whether or not that fetus is carried to term.

It took both the mother and father to create life and giving one or the other the ability to end it without the others consent is morally and ethically wrong.

So unless you're able to couch a reasonable argument why only one parent should have the ability to end the life both created then you give it a rest.

I'm not advocating a right to murder. If it is concluded to be the same as murder, it should have a similar treatment. Granted, infanticide is sometimes treated more like manslaughter so there are some common-law reasons why a mother murdering a fetus may not and ought not be given the same treatment as a 4 year old. But total immunity?!

Anyway, I would like to resolve the conflict in parental rights by men having less responsibility - outside of marriage or similar contract or rape - to correspond with their lessened decision making.

I'm not arguing it is morally right to end a viable fetus' life for either parent. What I won't do is support the joke that is so-called pro-life movement. You know the one where the punchline is the loss of our liberties.

[Origanalist]

Anyway, I would like to resolve the conflict in parental rights by men having less responsibility

You know, I don't believe your heart is really in this.

[The Free Hornet]

What does this mean, specifically?

The pro-life movement is advocating the opposite of what it claims. It wants to excuse the mothers of murder and further subsidize and regulate the medical industry.


Murdering their child (that is, paying someone to concave a baby's skull, to vacuum out brain matter, and dispose of the body, for instance) is not one of them. I care not of inconveniences. Will abortions be stopped by any litigation? No, there is an apparent, inherent evil in Man. You attempt to justify said evil [BULL-FUCKING SHIT, LIAR]... if at least in this instance (we do agree on a lot). I attempt, or at least attempt to change, your opinion, which your opinion is perhaps the opinion of the majority of people.

No, I do not agree it is right to murder a viable, human fetus. Nor do I defend that decision. I have some minor questions with regard to legal standing and how to act on those concerns. Like it says on the Continental Congress currency: Mind Your [OWN] Business.

What opinion of mine would you possibly attempt to change?

If it is murder, develope a case and charge the murderers with murder! The so-called pro-life movement - as a whole - wants to continue to excuse/pardon/ignore the mother's role.

Note too that I'm not a politician who feels a need to vote for unconstitutional legislation due to misplaced priorities:


Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

The movement is flawed and has been for a couple centuries. It has always been about the AMA - IMO. Which reminds me,


Your article is far off, at least with regards to me. If you wish to defend it, we can have that conversation.

It is NOT MY article. It supports a couple points I repeat but it takes the theory that pro-life is more of an anti-sex thing. I see pro-life as more pro-AMA, FWIW.

I get tired of having to point the clueless to the same video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

The movement has nothing to do with prosecuting murder and everything to do with increasing the scope of government.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I think it's really inconsistent for one to be pro-abortion while being anti-war.

[The Free Hornet]

You know, I don't believe your heart is really in this.

It is not my litmus test issue. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?442497-Help-us-Win-This-Online-Poll&p=5391899#post5391899) I make no apology for that and have contempt for most anyone who would select a politician based on this - often nuanced - issue.


To support, here is a post from 11 months ago, you can see my position is similar (i.e., pro-life movement is a joke, abortion is not a good litmus test):


That said, when I see these culture war issues brought up as litmus tests... it irks me. Abortion especially is so stupid since the pro-lifers, by and large, don't want to do jack-shit about the issue beyond granting government more regulatory and oversight authority of health care. It is just like narcotic use, the users do not threaten TPTB as much as the economic actors in the black markets.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?403414-Why-didn-t-we-get-behind-Gary-Johnson&p=4856408&viewfull=1#post4856408

So heart in it or not, I'm at least trying to maintain and refine a consistent, principled position that - hopefully - doesn't sidetrack the liberty movement.

In 2013, I voted for both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson for the same position. Nominally, they are described as being opposites on this issue.

[jmdrake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyBvzKjje-g

What a pig!

[tod evans]

I'm not advocating a right to murder. If it is concluded to be the same as murder, it should have a similar treatment. Granted, infanticide is sometimes treated more like manslaughter so there are some common-law reasons why a mother murdering a fetus may not and ought not be given the same treatment as a 4 year old. But total immunity?!

Anyway, I would like to resolve the conflict in parental rights by men having less responsibility - outside of marriage or similar contract or rape - to correspond with their lessened decision making.

I'm not arguing it is morally right to end a viable fetus' life for either parent. What I won't do is support the joke that is so-called pro-life movement. You know the one where the punchline is the loss of our liberties.


I can agree with fighting against loss of liberty.

But I don't necessarily agree with men being absolved of responsibility for a pregnancy, in my opinion the man is equally responsible.

Liberty as you know isn't freedom from responsibility.

Both parents enter into a tacit agreement the moment the penis enters the vagina, so barring duress there's no reason to grant one parent sole authority over their progeny while in the womb or out.

In my opinion true liberty, freedom if you will, is accepting responsibility for your actions and since pregnancy requires both a man and a woman there is no logical reason one should be granted any more authority than the other over the fetus or the child.

[Origanalist]

It is not my litmus test issue. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?442497-Help-us-Win-This-Online-Poll&p=5391899#post5391899) I make no apology for that and have contempt for most anyone who would select a politician based on this - often nuanced - issue.


To support, here is a post from 11 months ago, you can see my position is similar (i.e., pro-life movement is a joke, abortion is not a good litmus test):



So heart in it or not, I'm at least trying to maintain and refine a consistent, principled position that - hopefully - doesn't sidetrack the liberty movement.

In 2013, I voted for both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson for the same position. Nominally, they are described as being opposites on this issue. If that is a problem, bite me.

I clearly remember our earlier conversations, and I can at least have respect for your full position, which I don't believe has been stated in this thread.

[kcchiefs6465]

The pro-life movement is advocating the opposite of what it claims. It wants to excuse the mothers of murder and further subsidize and regulate the medical industry.

"The pro-life movement" can do what it will. Prosecute the mother (and her accomplices) should she murder her fetus. Nothing of this issue will change. That is, abortions will not cease, but at the least one is responsible for their actions. And of course when provable, which may bare an issue, of sorts, but it no doubt would be better than what we have now.



No, I do not agree it is right to murder a viable, human fetus. Nor do I defend that decision. I have some minor questions with regard to legal standing and how to act on those concerns. Like it says on the Continental Congress currency: Mind Your [OWN] Business.
Mind your own business is a great mantra to an extent. If somebody commits a crime, one could be argued to have an obligation to society to seek justice. Whether or not the victim can press charges or speak for themselves is of little regard.



What opinion of mine would you possibly attempt to change?

Perhaps your opinion on abortion. I seem to recall, and perhaps I have you mistaken for another, you being callously undisturbed by this issue. I seem to recall you being "pro-choice." That is, pro the choice that if the mother wishes to murder her fetus, on her authority alone, she can murder it. I find the position to be wholly immoral and in fact, criminal.

Perhaps we agree?



If it is murder, develope a case and charge the murderers with murder! The so-called pro-life movement - as a whole - wants to continue to excuse/pardon/ignore the mother's role.
That they should. I do not associate with, nor do I even know, the "pro-life movement." (Whatever organizations you are speaking of specifically.) I am pro-life. If the evidence is strong enough, charge the mother, and any accomplices, with murder.



Note too that I'm not a politician who feels a need to vote for unconstitutional legislation due to misplaced priorities:

Note too, that the Constitution was never signed by anyone living today, is binding of no one, and is sometimes incorrect. For instance the 3/5 clause. I am sure that you know this though I felt it needed pointed out. Voting against something inherently evil, though violating of the Constitution, is hardly a sin worthy of reprieve. Ron Paul took his Oath seriously. That is admirable. A congressman being sued for violating campaign promises is legally impossible. They have taken no Oath to any given man. This is aside from the abortion issue, but frankly I could not give one damn if someone is violating of the Constitution if their vote corresponds with natural law. And I'm sure you are aware that these bills aren't cut and dry. They are intentionally muddy.



The movement is flawed and has been for a couple centuries. It has always been about the AMA - IMO. Which reminds me,

I wouldn't doubt that some of this is simply for more medical regulation. I suspect that most all are just disturbed by the notion of murdering a fetus. Both morally and consciously. It is shocking to the senses to even have to have this discussion.



It is NOT MY article. It supports a couple points I repeat but it takes the theory that pro-life is more of an anti-sex thing. I see pro-life as more pro-AMA, FWIW.

You posted it. There is no need to semantically argue whether or not it is "YOUR article." Yes. I get you didn't write it. You obviously agree with it to post it. And to be frank, saying that the pro-life position is a position founded on being anti-women is fucking dumb. It is a cop out to prevent actual discussion on the issue.

I could more easily argue the case that abortion is anti-women. After all, there are women in the pro-life camp and females are aborted at a higher rate.

I won't do that because I am not intellectually bankrupt.



I get tired of having to point the clueless to the same video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

I don't have six minutes to spare at the moment. I will watch the video later and come back an enlightened man.



The movement has nothing to do with prosecuting murder and everything to do with increasing the scope of government.
I am confused when you say "the movement" without adding in your qualifiers. I am for prosecuting murder. I am, I suppose, a part of the pro-life "movement." I also wish to shrink the government to sizes probably never before seen in human history.

With regards to this issue it would be preferable for evil to cease to be. That I am even debating the case of murdering fetuses, right v. wrong, is really rather incredible. When one steps back to actually look at the situation, it's rather discouraging, to say the least.