Would you support a pro-choice liberty candidate?

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I'm just curious to hear your opinions on this. Assuming the candidate was pro-choice but good on every other issue, like a Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. What would be your level of support?

Also the same criteria except add on non-religious background.

[AuH20]

I guess if he was great on everything else.

[Icymudpuppy]

Yes, I support Gary Johnson.

[Neil Desmond]

I do support pro-choice candidates. I'm opposed to candidates who think that government should make their choices for them.

People should be able to choose whether they want healthcare or not, how much they want to pay their employees, what school they want to send their children to, whether they want to own, carry, and conceal weapons or not, whether they want to have sex or not, whether they want to have children or not, whether they want to smoke pot or not, etc.

[Nic]

Yes. Abortion is pretty much the last issue I have any concern for.

[oyarde]

I'm just curious to hear your opinions on this. Assuming the candidate was pro-choice but good on every other issue, like a Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. What would be your level of support?

Also the same criteria except add on non-religious background.
Yes , probably , I am assuming the opponent would be bad on everything else as all national office Dems are....

[Christian Liberty]

I have seriously mixed feelings about this. I guess I should say "it depends." (note that in this thread I am using the term "pro-choice" solely to refer to an abortion. I actually rather like Neil Desmond's point, and think the terminology WRT this debate is kind of dumb, but I'm using the term in the way the OP intended it.)

Take Gary Johnson. Technically, he was pro-choice. But he didn't want to impose his view on the entire country. As rarely as he seemed to care about the 10th amendment, he did on this issue (interestingly, as much as Ron Paul does care about the 10th amendment, the only areas that I know of where he has compromised on it relate to this issue.) I believe Peter Schiff is also pro-choice, but believes it is a state-level issue.

This is different, in my mind, than the Democratic Party stance which wants to impose legalized murder on the entire country.

To some extent, it would also probably depend on whether the alternative was pro-choice or pro-life. If both candidates supported abortion rights, but one was great on everything else and the other candidate generally sucked, I'd be more likely to vote for the otherwise great candidate, whereas if one candidate sucked but was pro-life while the other was pro-choice but otherwise great, I'd be more likely to waste my vote or not vote at all.

I don't know, there's probably an extreme situation that would cause me to deviate from this, but in general, I would not support any candidate who was OK with Roe v Wade, no matter what else they supported. However, if the candidate at least recognized the 10th amendment with regards to this issue, I'd start looking at everything else.

[MichaelDavis]

I do support pro-choice candidates. I'm opposed to candidates who think that government should make their choices for them.

You mean Ron Paul?

[Christian Liberty]

You mean Ron Paul?

I don't think Neil is taking a position on abortion. I think Neil is mocking the fact that the term "pro-choice" is thrown around as if someone who is "pro-choice" actually supports liberty. When in reality most of the time they support the government making almost every choice for us, except whether or not to murder our children in the womb.

[eduardo89]

No. I would never support any candidate who would vote to continue or expand government-sanctioned murder of the unborn.

When it comes to voting I could only vote for a pro-'choice' candidate if the alternative were much worse on every other issue and abortion was not one of the major issues for the 'better' pro-'choice' candidate.

[cajuncocoa]

No. If you don't support the right to life, it's my opinion that you're not really a liberty candidate.

[DamianTV]

This ought to be a poll instead of post reply. Potential for conflict as not everyone here is either pro life or pro choice. That and I dont think anyone here is fond of being told what their opinions should be.

[TheTyke]

No. There's no such thing. Without life, there can be no liberty.

[Neil Desmond]

You mean Ron Paul?
Yep, but he isn't a non-religious background (former) candidate.

[lib3rtarian]

I'm just curious to hear your opinions on this. Assuming the candidate was pro-choice but good on every other issue, like a Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. What would be your level of support?

Absolutely, with the following caveats:

1) No tax-payer funding of abortions. (You abort your kid with your own money.)
2) Roe v. Wade must still be overturned and abortion legislated at the state level.


Also the same criteria except add on non-religious background.

Absolutely, I am non-religious myself.

[Valli6]

I would support.

[Neil Desmond]

I don't think Neil is taking a position on abortion. I think Neil is mocking the fact that the term "pro-choice" is thrown around as if someone who is "pro-choice" actually supports liberty. When in reality most of the time they support the government making almost every choice for us, except whether or not to murder our children in the womb.
Yeah, basically something like this. I never saw any mention or use of the word abortion, up to that point. If the context of abortion is specified, then I'm aware that "pro-choice" is associated with so-called "abortion rights" and "pro-life" is associated with making abortion illegal or abortion alternatives, etc.

[Christian Liberty]

The religious background thing is of minimal relevance to me. Most Republicans (and Democrats, to a slightly lesser extent) use religious belief as a manipulative tool to trick gullible Christians. I was bummed to find out, as I read Ron Paul's response to Rothbard's death, that Ron's Christian theology seems like its pretty awful (Ron seems to think that Rothbard was "God's own", despite Rothbard being an atheist.) I already knew that Ron was really wishy washy on homosexuality as a moral issue. He's still the best congress has ever had, and the relative weakness of his theology on non-political matters was mostly irrelevant.

Now, given a choice between a liberty candidate who was a Christian, and one who was not, I'd side with the Christian if both of them were identical on issues. But that would be a dream scenario anyway. Even getting one candidate with a shot at winning who supports liberty is a miracle most times.

[Origanalist]

Absolutely, with the following caveats:

1) No tax-payer funding of abortions. (You abort your kid with your own money.)
2) Roe v. Wade must still be overturned and abortion legislated at the state level.



Absolutely, I am non-religious myself.

I am solidly pro life. However I must agree with this. Also, I would never live in a pro abortion state if I had a choice.

edit; Also, if Roe v Wade were overturned, the number of States allowing abortion would be small in my opinion.

[Christian Liberty]

I am solidly pro life. However I must agree with this. Also, I would never live in a pro abortion state if I had a choice.

Yeah, I agree with that to. I basically said the same thing, only in a more-long winded way.

I didn't even address the tax-payer funding because I thought that was a given. Much as I don't like it, I understand some libertarians seem to think the NAP doesn't apply until birth. But there's absolutely ZERO room for debate on the funding issue.

[eduardo89]

edit; Also, if Roe v Wade were overturned, the number of States allowing abortion would be small in my opinion.

In number, maybe. But in terms of population it still would be huge.

California - 38 million
New York - 20 million
Illinois - 13 million
New Jersey - 9 million
Washington - 7 million
Massachusetts - 6.5 million
Maryland - 6 million
Minnesota - 5.5 million
Colorado - 5 million
Oregon - 4 million
Connecticut - 3.5 million
Iowa - 3 million
New Mexico - 2 million
Hawaii - 1.5 million
+ smaller 'blue' states such as Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.

That's about 120 million in population!

It would probably also remain legal in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio which have a combined population of about 55 million.

So I'd say that states that make up about 180 million people would still have legal abortion were it decided on a state level. That's a majority of where Americans live.

[cajuncocoa]

Why is it so hard to legally (scientifically) prove that life begins at conception? And once that's proven, that such life deserves the same protection as those of us who have already been born?

[eduardo89]

Why is it so hard to legally (scientifically) prove that life begins at conception? And once that's proven, that such life deserves the same protection as those of us who have already been born?

It's not hard, it could (and should) have been done in the 6 years the GOP controlled the Presidency, Senate, and House. All it takes is a bill saying that we are persons from the moment of conception and Roe v Wade would have been nullified. In Roe v Wade the majority of the court said that when personhood begins is a matter for Congress to decide and if they decide it begins at conception then abortion could be banned.

[Christian Liberty]

SCOTUS was wrong. There is no sense in which this should be Congress' decision.

Morally, God already decided. Legally, its a state issue. In neither case should congress be involved.

[Origanalist]

In number, maybe. But in terms of population it still would be huge.

California - 38 million
New York - 20 million
Illinois - 13 million
New Jersey - 9 million
Washington - 7 million
Massachusetts - 6.5 million
Maryland - 6 million
Minnesota - 5.5 million
Colorado - 5 million
Oregon - 4 million
Connecticut - 3.5 million
Iowa - 3 million
New Mexico - 2 million
Hawaii - 1.5 million
+ smaller 'blue' states such as Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.

That's about 120 million in population!

It would probably also remain legal in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio which have a combined population of about 55 million.

So I'd say that states that make up about 180 million people would still have legal abortion were it decided on a state level. That's a majority of where Americans live.

I'm going to disagree with that. I think once federal enforcement was no longer in play many States would be more pro life than you think. The pendulum is swinging back toward life and the whores in office would have to stand on their own.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Illinois - 13 million


Apparently there is a law in Illinois passed during a time when Republicans controlled the legislature that would make abortion automatically illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned. But in that situation it likely won't last long.

[cajuncocoa]

It's not hard, it could (and should) have been done in the 6 years the GOP controlled the Presidency, Senate, and House. All it takes is a bill saying that we are persons from the moment of conception and Roe v Wade would have been nullified. In Roe v Wade the majority of the court said that when personhood begins is a matter for Congress to decide and if they decide it begins at conception then abortion could be banned.
And don't forget, the SCOTUS too. I agree with you there, and it's a point I always bring up with my neocon in-laws....Bush was more interested in starting wars (killing) than in doing anything about the abortion issue. To be honest, I was more pro-choice in those days (despite being Catholic)... Ron Paul helped me to see the light on this issue.

[eduardo89]

I'm going to disagree with that. I think once federal enforcement was no longer in play many States would be more pro life than you think. The pendulum is swinging back toward life and the whores in office would have to stand on their own.

I sure hope so. The one thing I could see happening is that once Roe v Wade is overturned/nullified by Congressional action (LOL at the latter), that the pro-life politicians at state level will be forced to actually take a stand and pass meaningful pro-life legislation, instead of pretending to be pro-life and using Roe v Wade as an excuse for their inaction.

[Brett85]

Only if the candidate was at least in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing the states to ban abortion, like Peter Schiff. But the most I would do is simply vote for him, not donate money to him. I would never vote for a candidate who supports upholding Roe v. Wade.

[Origanalist]

SCOTUS was wrong. There is no sense in which this should be Congress' decision.

Morally, God already decided. Legally, its a state issue. In neither case should congress be involved.

SCOTUS was completely wrong. And no one with a ounce of honesty can say otherwise.

[eduardo89]

And don't forget, the SCOTUS too.

Don't even get me started on "Catholic" Anthony Kennedy.

[Keith and stuff]

I'm just curious to hear your opinions on this. Assuming the candidate was pro-choice but good on every other issue, like a Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. What would be your level of support?

Also the same criteria except add on non-religious background.

In NH 95% or so of people are pro-choice. Maybe it is only 85% nationwide. But yeah, of course I would. I look at the candidate as whole. 1 or 2 issues never gets in the way. And when it comes to voting, I just vote for the least bad. So I vote for anti-liberty candidates sometimes :(

[Origanalist]

I sure hope so. The one thing I could see happening is that once Roe v Wade is overturned/nullified by Congressional action (LOL at the latter), that the pro-life politicians at state level will be forced to actually take a stand and pass meaningful pro-life legislation, instead of pretending to be pro-life and using Roe v Wade as an excuse for their inaction.

Absolutely, none of them would be able to hide behind a grotesquely twisted court decision anymore. On either side.

[eduardo89]

SCOTUS was wrong. There is no sense in which this should be Congress' decision.

Morally, God already decided. Legally, its a state issue. In neither case should congress be involved.

I disagree, it certainly is within Congress' powers to determine that citizenship, and therefore personhood, begins at conception which would therefore make abortion illegal. The Supreme Court recognized the power of personhood and that legal abortion would be impossible if personhood was applied to the unborn.

[Christian Liberty]

@Keith and Stuff- Are pro-lifers banned from the FSP?:p

[Christian Liberty]

I disagree, it certainly is within Congress' powers to determine that citizenship, and therefore personhood, begins at conception which would therefore make abortion illegal. The Supreme Court recognized the power of personhood and that legal abortion would be impossible if personhood was applied to the unborn.

No, the 14th amendment (ignoring for the moment that the 14th amendnment is crap and should be destroyed) only refers to "persons born or naturalized in the United States." While I will wholeheartedly agree with you that unborn children are indeed persons, they haven't been born or naturalized in the United States. Thus, the 14th amendment does not apply to them.

I've had this argument before on another forum, as well as here at one point. I still do not get the argument that the 14th amendment applies to the unborn.

I also, frankly, don't want to see Washington DC involved in this, they'd likely use it as an excuse to trick gullible Republicans into supporting even more police statism.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes. Abortion is pretty much the last issue I have any concern for.

It's an emotionally charged red herring, that continues the false left/right paradigm.

There are many ethical questions in the medical profession, this is but one of them.

[Neil Desmond]

No, the 14th amendment (ignoring for the moment that the 14th amendnment is crap and should be destroyed) only refers to "persons born or naturalized in the United States." While I will wholeheartedly agree with you that unborn children are indeed persons, they haven't been born or naturalized in the United States. Thus, the 14th amendment does not apply to them.

I've had this argument before on another forum, as well as here at one point. I still do not get the argument that the 14th amendment applies to the unborn.

I also, frankly, don't want to see Washington DC involved in this, they'd likely use it as an excuse to trick gullible Republicans into supporting even more police statism.
Naturalized excluded conceived? Has this been proven?

[Christian Liberty]

Naturalized excluded conceived? Has this been proven?

Huh?

I'm pretty sure "naturalized" means being born outside the United States but being made a citizen anyway. Which would, once again, preclude the unborn.

[Origanalist]

In NH 95% or so of people are pro-choice. Maybe it is only 85% nationwide. But yeah, of course I would. I look at the candidate as whole. 1 or 2 issues never gets in the way. And when it comes to voting, I just vote for the least bad. So I vote for anti-liberty candidates sometimes :(

Please back those numbers up.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Is it possible that SCOTUS could eventually find that the fourteenth amendment establishes a right to life and overturn any state law legalizing abortion?

[eduardo89]

Huh?

I'm pretty sure "naturalized" means being born outside the United States but being made a citizen anyway. Which would, once again, preclude the unborn.

No it doesn't, it simply means to become a citizen by a means other than by birthright. Congress could well say that all persons conceived in the United States are thereby naturalised citizens and at the moment of their birth they become natural born citizens if born in the US.

Also, Congress has the power to determine personhood with regards to federal crimes. If you explicitly say that murder of a person is illegal and define person as any member of the species **** sapiens from the moment of conception, you have automatically made the unborn persons with 14th amendment rights. This is essentially what the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does and should in effect void Roe v Wade's legalisation of abortion.

[eduardo89]

Is it possible that SCOTUS could eventually find that the fourteenth amendment establishes a right to life and overturn any state law legalizing abortion?

Yes, if personhood is legally defined as beginning at conception. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Roe v Wade made this clear.

[Origanalist]

Is it possible that SCOTUS could eventually find that the fourteenth amendment establishes a right to life and overturn any state law legalizing abortion?

Possible, anything is. Is it going to happen? No.

[eduardo89]

Please back those numbers up.

He thinks that anyone who supports abortion in cases where the mother's life is at great risk but thinks abortion should be illegal in all other cases to be pro-'choice'.

[Origanalist]

Yes, if personhood is legally defined as beginning at conception. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Roe v Wade made this clear.

I missed the word "eventually". It sure isn't going to happen now.

[eduardo89]

I missed the word "eventually". It sure isn't going to happen now.

Definitely not as long as traitor-to-his-faith Anthony Kennedy is on the bench.

[kcchiefs6465]

Probably not. No doubt their language would annoy me to no end. And even if they somehow presented the issue legitimately, being pro-the choice for women to murder their fetus is not something I take lightly. For someone not to take issue with this issue, or worse, to endorse it, I would find very troublesome.

I also understand that people are not going to quit murdering their fetuses whether the law says one thing or not. As sad as that is to say.

This is one of those issues that leaves me pessimistic. The hell is wrong with people?

[MichaelDavis]

It's not hard, it could (and should) have been done in the 6 years the GOP controlled the Presidency, Senate, and House. All it takes is a bill saying that we are persons from the moment of conception and Roe v Wade would have been nullified. In Roe v Wade the majority of the court said that when personhood begins is a matter for Congress to decide and if they decide it begins at conception then abortion could be banned.

It wouldn't have been that simple. The Republicans only heald 55 senate seats. If the Pro-Lifers had less than 60 votes, the liberals would filibuster the bill. I doubt five Democrats would vote for cloture.

[eduardo89]

It wouldn't have been that simple. The Republicans only heald 55 senate seats. If the Pro-Lifers had less than 60 votes, the liberals would filibuster the bill. I doubt five Democrats would vote for cloture.

Nuclear option.

If the GOP actually cared about the unborn, they'd have gotten this done years ago.

[Neil Desmond]

Huh?

I'm pretty sure "naturalized" means being born outside the United States but being made a citizen anyway. Which would, once again, preclude the unborn.

Well, maybe; but I wonder if that's specifically what "naturalized" meant at the time the 14th amendment was written. The problem is that the thinking back then probably played a role in the way things were worded and what the meaning of words were. Would they have used the word "conceived" instead of "born" had they considered the notion that one day people would be terminating the lives of unborn children? Today we can easily travel very long distances by car, train, plane, etc. for very cheap, but back then the endeavor of traveling so far one ended up in a different country or came from a different country was probably something almost unthinkable because of the risk and expense.

My point is that it seems like the purpose of making "abortion" legal is to compromise the sanctity or respect for life of a human being to make it easier and more acceptable to kill (born as well as unborn) people, and it may involve distorting the wording and intent of things like what's written in the US Constitution. One of the traits that "pro-choicers" tend to have is that they're opposed to the death penalty (on "moral" grounds), as though by being opposed to the death penalty balances out their position on "abortion". It also seems like only "pro-choicers" are opposed to eating meat (on "moral" grounds) for similar reasons.

To me it's unacceptable to kill any innocent human being, whether born or unborn.

[Christian Liberty]

Is it possible that SCOTUS could eventually find that the fourteenth amendment establishes a right to life and overturn any state law legalizing abortion?

They could, but I think it would be wrong for the same reasons Roe v Wade is wrong (Solely going by constitutional arguments here, not the immorality of abortion.

No it doesn't, it simply means to become a citizen by a means other than by birthright. Congress could well say that all persons conceived in the United States are thereby naturalised citizens and at the moment of their birth they become natural born citizens if born in the US.

Also, Congress has the power to determine personhood with regards to federal crimes. If you explicitly say that murder of a person is illegal and define person as any member of the species **** sapiens from the moment of conception, you have automatically made the unborn persons with 14th amendment rights. This is essentially what the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does and should in effect void Roe v Wade's legalisation of abortion.

Where in the constitution is congress given the right to define personhood?
If congress has this power, why couldn't they just declare personhood to begin at birth, and then declare any anti-abortion laws invalid on those grounds?


He thinks that anyone who supports abortion in cases where the mother's life is at great risk but thinks abortion should be illegal in all other cases to be pro-'choice'.

Wow, that's bizarre. I'm assuming that by "supporting abortion" you mean "thinks abortion should be legal?" I guess by that definition even I'm pro-choice, as I do believe it should not be illegal for the mother to choose her own life over that of the infant if it comes to that.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, maybe; but I wonder if that's specifically what "naturalized" meant at the time the 14th amendment was written. The problem is that the thinking back then probably played a role in the way things were worded and what the meaning of words were. Would they have used the word "conceived" instead of "born" had they considered the notion that one day people would be terminating the lives of unborn children? Today we can easily travel very long distances by car, train, plane, etc. for very cheap, but back then the endeavor of traveling so far one ended up in a different country or came from a different country was probably something almost unthinkable because of the risk and expense.

My point is that it seems like the purpose of making "abortion" legal is to compromise the sanctity or respect for life of a human being to make it easier and more acceptable to kill (born as well as unborn) people, and it may involve distorting the wording and intent of things like what's written in the US Constitution. One of the traits that "pro-choicers" tend to have is that they're opposed to the death penalty (on "moral" grounds), as though by being opposed to the death penalty balances out their position on "abortion". It also seems like only "pro-choicers" are opposed to eating meat (on "moral" grounds) for similar reasons.

To me it's unacceptable to kill any innocent human being, whether born or unborn.

I totally agree with this. In the above, I was arguing against Federal involvement, not for abortion rights.

[eduardo89]

Where in the constitution is congress given the right to define personhood?
If congress has this power, why couldn't they just declare personhood to begin at birth, and then declare any anti-abortion laws invalid on those grounds?

The federal government has the power to define personhood for many things, such as the crimes which they have authority to prosecute as well as for federal benefits, as well as for citizenship.

As to the second point, that is exactly the argument that was used by the Court in Roe v Wade. The fact that legal personhood is currently established as beginning as birth gives women the 'right' to murder her unborn child because he does not qualify as a legal person.

[Keith and stuff]

In number, maybe. But in terms of population it still would be huge.

California - 38 million
New York - 20 million
Illinois - 13 million
New Jersey - 9 million
Washington - 7 million
Massachusetts - 6.5 million
Maryland - 6 million
Minnesota - 5.5 million
Colorado - 5 million
Oregon - 4 million
Connecticut - 3.5 million
Iowa - 3 million
New Mexico - 2 million
Hawaii - 1.5 million
+ smaller 'blue' states such as Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.

That's about 120 million in population!

It would probably also remain legal in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio which have a combined population of about 55 million.

So I'd say that states that make up about 180 million people would still have legal abortion were it decided on a state level. That's a majority of where Americans live.

NH isn't a blue state. But yeah, 95% support legalize abortion which is way more than the average state of like 85%. I don't know if the majority of voters in any state is against all abortions. I know MS, the most religious state, recently voted in support of allowing abortions.

[Keith and stuff]

In number, maybe. But in terms of population it still would be huge.

California - 38 million
New York - 20 million
Illinois - 13 million
New Jersey - 9 million
Washington - 7 million
Massachusetts - 6.5 million
Maryland - 6 million
Minnesota - 5.5 million
Colorado - 5 million
Oregon - 4 million
Connecticut - 3.5 million
Iowa - 3 million
New Mexico - 2 million
Hawaii - 1.5 million
+ smaller 'blue' states such as Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.

That's about 120 million in population!

It would probably also remain legal in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio which have a combined population of about 55 million.

So I'd say that states that make up about 180 million people would still have legal abortion were it decided on a state level. That's a majority of where Americans live.

Add to that every single other state. You equal the entire population of the US. 85% or so support legalizing abortions. Where I live, it is like 95%.

[Neil Desmond]

I totally agree with this. In the above, I was arguing against Federal involvement, not for abortion rights.

Ah, I see. Personally, I think Federal involvement is ok in the sense that at that level we have things like presumption of being innocent until proven otherwise, the right to remain silent, no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, etc.

[Origanalist]

Add to that every single other state. You equal the entire population of the US. 85% or so support legalizing abortions. Where I live, it is like 95%.
You either missed this post or chose to ignore it.

Please back those numbers up.

[eduardo89]

NH isn't a blue state.

Yes it is. You have a Democrat controlled House (which recently passed gun registration in a committee), a Democrat governor, both your Representatives are Democrats, one Senator is a Democrat and the other might as well be, and voted for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and 2012.

[Christian Liberty]

The federal government has the power to define personhood for many things, such as the crimes which they have authority to prosecute as well as for federal benefits, as well as for citizenship.

As to the second point, that is exactly the argument that was used by the Court in Roe v Wade. The fact that legal personhood is currently established as beginning as birth gives women the 'right' to murder her unborn child because he does not qualify as a legal person.

I think you understand why Federal involvement here is dangerous. You can't expect centralized tyrants to ever do the right thing with power.


Ah, I see. Personally, I think Federal involvement is ok in the sense that at that level we have things like presumption of being innocent until proven otherwise, the right to remain silent, no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, etc.

In theory I wouldn't disagree, but in practice I do because the Federal government is a far greater threat to our liberties than state governments, its easier to move from state to state than country to country, and its impossible to guarantee that the Feds won't use those same powers AGAINST liberty. In fact, not only is it not guaranteed that they won't, its practically guaranteed that they will.

I'm not really 100% settled on this, but if I had to come down one way or another, that's where I'd come down. Of course, competing police, defense, and court systems even within a geographical area would be far superior to even standard decentralization, but I see decentralization as a step in that direction, and centralization as a step away from it.

I also do not object to forcing a state to secede from the Union if it refuses to recognize constitutional rights. With a constitutional amendment, this could apply to abortion as well, and I would support that.

[MichaelDavis]

Yes it is. You have a Democrat controlled House (which recently passed gun registration in a committee), a Democrat governor, both your Representatives are Democrats, one Senator is a Democrat and the other might as well be, and voted for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and 2012.

This. The Free State Project is a miserable failure. It's been over ten years since New Hampshire was chosen and nothing has been accomplished.

In b4: "But... but the move!"

[Keith and stuff]

Yes it is. You have a Democrat controlled House (which recently passed gun registration in a committee), a Democrat governor, both your Representatives are Democrats, one Senator is a Democrat and the other might as well be, and voted for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Kerry was a way better vote in 2004 than Bush. Surely we can all agree? LOL. Of course I voted Libertarian. Obama also seemed more interesting in 2008 than McCain. But it is cool if you are a McCain fan ;) New Hampshire is a purples or gold if will state, as we all know. War is bad. Taxes are bad. It is conflicting for voters in NH.

[invisible]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Barry Goldwater. Often mentioned as an iconic conservative and Constitutionalist, he was both for "abortion rights" and he strongly disliked religious conservatism. He was quite arguably the best Senator we had for a LONG time until Rand came along. Of course, when he retired, his seat went to mccain.

[klamath]

Yes. If I figured that the overall out come of voting for them would be in a positive direction. Never for President though. Too much of a bully pulpit. It is why I might vote for someone that was less than a noninterventionist , like Cruz or Palin or any other number of good but interventionist republicans.

[compromise]

Maybe it is only 85% nationwide.

Nope. (http://rare.us/story/on-roe-anniversary-polls-show-most-americans-pro-life/)

I would only support a pro-choice liberty candidate if they were polling far ahead of all other potential Tea Party or liberty candidates or were in a solid blue state or district. I would vote for Gary Johnson or Richard Tisei. I'd much rather have a pro-lifer, though.

[compromise]

NH isn't a blue state. But yeah, 95% support legalize abortion which is way more than the average state of like 85%. I don't know if the majority of voters in any state is against all abortions. I know MS, the most religious state, recently voted in support of allowing abortions.

MS Initiative 26 would have passed if it included an exception for rape, incest and threat to the mother's life. The last part in particular is why it failed. Most Mississippians don't support the current relaxed abortion laws.

[FriedChicken]

If a candidate supports forcing states to keep abortion legal than I would never support them.
I'd prefer their personal opinion to be that the unborn child was a life with individual rights that shouldn't be legally violated (namely life).

However, if the candidate had a "pro-choice" opinion on the matter but wanted to leave it to the states to decide I could vote for them. That is the only practical way to combat the issue in our day.
I wouldn't be opposed to abortion being banned federally since I consider it murder in the same way I'm not apposed to [non-voluntary. Specified to keep the conversation on course] slavery being banned federally.

However that is not a winnable fight right now and having a "federal ban or nothing" attitude will only result in "nothing" being the result. Shifting the debate to the state level will result in a very healthy amount of education on the topic and people will finally have the freedom to live in states that don't allow, what is in their view (and mine), to be murder.



... back door abortions?
Yeah. Those will still be around. But bear in mind that there will always be "back door" murders as well. Just because something immoral and right violating exists and is unable to be completely eliminated doesn't mean we should legalize it.

It boils down to whether or not the unborn is an individual or not.
The "libertarian" arguments that try to justify it because their life requires the mother's body don't hold water in my opinion.

If it is an innocent individual than killing it is murder - that is my bottom line on the debate.

[69360]

I voted for Gary Johnson. But he wasn't going to win so it didn't really matter.

I'm not sure if I could vote for a baby killer who actually would effect policy.

[Keith and stuff]

MS Initiative 26 would have passed if it included an exception for rape, incest and threat to the mother's life. The last part in particular is why it failed. Most Mississippians don't support the current relaxed abortion laws.

So if it wasn't a pro-life bill it would have passed? ;) Sorry, perhaps we just define the terms differently.

[gwax23]

If hes Pro Choice for the unborn then yes (edit* and if he supported states rights on the matter instead of federal mandate)

[Origanalist]

So if it wasn't a pro-life bill it would have passed? ;) Sorry, perhaps we just define the terms differently.

I think many people do.

[PierzStyx]

I'm just curious to hear your opinions on this. Assuming the candidate was pro-choice but good on every other issue, like a Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. What would be your level of support?

Also the same criteria except add on non-religious background.

None. You can't be for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you allow for the wanton murdering of children. You can't be a liberty candidate if you don't support the liberty of all human life.

[MelissaWV]

I saw several posts that I'd agree with, but most of those seemed to stop at the state level. Abortion is unique in that, without all of the Government assistance (both explicit and implicit), your city, county, or other group, could make it harder for abortionists to have a place to practice.

I will use this as an example:


As of August 2006, at least 21 states and over 400 local governments had adopted sex offender residency restriction laws and ordinances, respectively, according to the California Research Bureau in an August 2006 report entitled The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review. These laws are modeled after nuisance codes, creating sex offender-free zones like drug-free zones. They typically prohibit sex offenders from living, and sometimes working or loitering, within a specified distance of designated places where children congregate.

...

Danbury is the only city in this state known to have an ordinance restricting sex offenders' residency. The ordinance prohibits sex offenders from entering a public park, playground, recreation center, bathing beach, swimming pool, sports field, or sports facility.

(No, I am not derailing this thread to talk about sex offender registries.)

Localities already have zoning restrictions and the like. I would think that, if there were one business I really would not want near a school, it'd be an abortion clinic. I'd rather have kids walking past a strip club or a bar on the way to work any day. Obviously, churches are not likely to want abortion clinics near them. Abortion clinics overlooking a playground? Absurd. Of course, if you make it so you can't have an abortion clinic within a few thousand feet of any of these places, you will get a de facto ban on the clinics altogether. This would be at the community level. I'd have no problem with this at all. It's already been done in the past for other types of businesses (the aforementioned strip clubs, for instance).

* * *

As for the "at conception" idea, and it being a national thing, I disagree with it. I could see that leading to a ban on certain birth control methods that carry a slim chance of dislodging a fertilized egg, overzealous investigations of women having a natural miscarriage, and charges of manslaughter if you were drinking or smoking and had a miscarriage (even if you had no idea you were pregnant yet; I guess women of childbearing age should not indulge in any activity that might contribute to miscarriage or birth defects, just in case), and lastly mandates of fertile women having to constantly take the appropriate Government-approved prenatal vitamins lest they harm their potential children. It just opens too many doors, one of them in the most private of areas.

[pcosmar]

Personally or Politically?

I could tolerate someones personal opinion.. but not a political position.

I have no delusion of the Abortion Issue ever being more that a political football. But I would not vote for someone that was openly for killing the unborn.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If addressed from an anti-government perspective, yes.

[Brett85]

So if it wasn't a pro-life bill it would have passed? ;) Sorry, perhaps we just define the terms differently.

The personhood bills are problematic, because they don't include any exception for the life of the mother and could possibly ban common forms of birth control. These bills need to be amended to contain an exception for the life of the mother and make it clear that no forms of birth control would be impacted by the bill. The personhood bill in Mississippi would've passed if these changes had been made.

[Christian Liberty]

This. The Free State Project is a miserable failure. It's been over ten years since New Hampshire was chosen and nothing has been accomplished.

In b4: "But... but the move!"

Honestly, I like the idea of the FSP even if it doesn't "work", solely because I'd honestly rather live around people that respect our rights as human beings and the NAP as compared to people that don't. I'd like to live in a place where even a significant minority of the population will look down on you if you decide to betray your country and become a soldier or cop. I'd like to live in a place where I could regularly talk face to face with ideological libertarians. I'd like to live in a place where ,if the government tried to take our guns, the resistance might at least annoy them. And so on.


The personhood bills are problematic, because they don't include any exception for the life of the mother and could possibly ban common forms of birth control. These bills need to be amended to contain an exception for the life of the mother and make it clear that no forms of birth control would be impacted by the bill. The personhood bill in Mississippi would've passed if these changes had been made.

Shouldn't IUDs that rip the implanted eggs from the uterus count as abortions?

[Keith and stuff]

The Free State Project is a miserable failure.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1901203_678146528895263_1878024200_n.jpg
According to this blog post, this might be the best Anti-NDAA bill ever written!
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/new-hampshire-house-committee-unanimously-approves-anti-ndaa-bill/#.Uvf5d7SmM3x


A Free State Project early mover is someone that joins the Free State Project and moves to New Hampshire before the FSP has 20,000 participants. The idea of the FSP is for 20,000 liberty activists to sign the FSP statement of intent. Once that happens, a trigger is reached and all 20,000 participants have 5 years to move to New Hampshire. Some people don't want to wait until the FSP has 20,000 participants and move early. The sponsor of this bill is 1 of those people.

[MelissaWV]

Shouldn't IUDs that rip the implanted eggs from the uterus count as abortions?

I don't really think that's what the previous poster was referring to, although ... nvm I'm going to just pass that by.

The most common issue with the "at conception" argument and birth control is that many kinds of birth control can dislodge a fertilized egg in the process. The woman would not know she was doing that, just of the potential. Since this has a potential to be an abortion under that definition, one would assume it would be federally outlawed. That's going to be a problem for a variety of reasons.

[I<3Liberty]

Yes, I support Gary Johnson.

Gary and Jim Gray actually supported a federal ban on post quickening abortions.




Shouldn't IUDs that rip the implanted eggs from the uterus count as abortions?

They don't. The pro-lifers that write this typically have no understanding of science because 1) they're afraid of it and 2) they got some liberal arts/religious studies degree with no science requirements beyond watered down basket weaving 101 biology.

About 50% of all fertilized eggs never implant. This can be due to everything from the mother's hormones being off from stress, being very under or overweight, dietary reasons (fats are precursors to certain hormones), genetic abnormalities in the zygote, various immunologic issues (http://inciid.org/printpage.php?cat=immunology&id=374) and other reasons unknown. Contraceptives like the pill make ovulation very, very unlikely and the IUD makes fertilization extremely rare. In the unlikely event ovulation and fertilization does occur sure the zygote probably isn't going to implant, but this happens 50% of the time without contraceptives. If people were truly concerned about zygotes not implanting, they'd actually be for contraceptive use since it makes it extremely rare whereas without contraceptives, it happens on a regular basis. Of course, these people (mostly extremist Catholics and Mormons) are inconsistent which shows they are actually anti-contraceptive rather than concerned about zygotes. Another way you can tell this is by asking them "If you don't like the current methods, why don't you write a check to a lab working on other forms of contraception that work to prevent fertilization 100% of the time?" Chances are, they'll refuse.



The personhood bills are problematic, because they don't include any exception for the life of the mother and could possibly ban common forms of birth control. These bills need to be amended to contain an exception for the life of the mother and make it clear that no forms of birth control would be impacted by the bill. The personhood bill in Mississippi would've passed if these changes had been made.

Yes, yes, yes! I'm a very mild person, but that bill made my blood boil. If those two amendments were made, the bill would have been legitimately pro-life (not just some misogynist pro-unborn crap), people on both sides would have supported it, and it would have passed. The nutty pro-lifers are their own worst enemies.

---

I don't like the pro-choice and pro-life labels because there are so many pro-lifers that really aren't (i.e. they still support war or they support and get campaign funds from big corporations like DOW and Monsanto that are aren't helping the war against cancer and genetic defects.) They also tend to want gov intervention that isn't going to be effective. I like to recommend this for further reading http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/10/30/how-i-lost-faith-in-%E2%80%9Cpro-life%E2%80%9D-movement-1/ and provide a blatant example of how pro-life legislation failed during the Bush administration. They thought banning further work one siting stem cell lines would protect all the precious embryos, but labs just took their work outside of the US where there was more freedom. Prohibition doesn't work. What helped lessen the use of embryonic stem cells was the advent of the iPS method to make adult stem cells less differentiated. I wholeheartedly believe innovation got you there so innovation is the only way out; you must find a moral alternative for an immoral technology.

I don't like the leftists pro-choicers that push for gov funding of Planned Parenthood and more legislation to protect abortion clinics because they too are too reactive instead of proactive. Why aren't they pushing for 100% effective contraception funding and helping educate teens about proper contraceptive use?

[eduardo89]

The personhood bills are problematic, because they don't include any exception for the life of the mother and could possibly ban common forms of birth control. These bills need to be amended to contain an exception for the life of the mother and make it clear that no forms of birth control would be impacted by the bill. The personhood bill in Mississippi would've passed if these changes had been made.

This is exactly why Roe v Wade legalised abortion. In Texas abortion was illegal, except for cases in which the mother's life was risk. That is exactly where the entire anti-abortion argument presented to the Supreme Court collapsed. If the unborn are indeed persons, and do indeed have an unconditional right to life, then there can be no exceptions.

[eduardo89]

I don't like the pro-choice and pro-life labels because there are so many pro-lifers that really aren't (i.e. they still support war or they support and get campaign funds from big corporations like DOW and Monsanto that are aren't helping the war against cancer and genetic defects.)

No, they don't. Corporations cannot donate to candidates. It is (shamefully, in violation of the First Amendment) illegal.

[dillo]

yes I would support them and I am more pro choice than pro life.

[Brett85]

Shouldn't IUDs that rip the implanted eggs from the uterus count as abortions?

Yeah, but that's not what I'm talking about. That would be a form of abortion, not contraception. Something like the morning after pill simply prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus to begin with, which I don't consider to be a form of abortion.

[Brett85]

If the unborn are indeed persons, and do indeed have an unconditional right to life, then there can be no exceptions.

What about an ectopic pregnancy where the baby never makes it to the uterus and doesn't have any chance to survive?

[juleswin]

I think what we need is for every pro choice person who came into the movement with the bigger picture in mind stick to their guns and go back to their old partisan support wedge issue ways and only vote for pro choice liberty candidates. That way, we can splice up this small group into even smaller voting black and see where that gets us.

That will sure be a winning strategy if you asked me.

[juleswin]

What about an ectopic pregnancy where the baby never makes it to the uterus and doesn't have any chance to survive?

The question is, does the fetus have a chance of surviving? if yes then any abortion is to be considered as murder and prosecuted to the fullest extent by the law.

[eduardo89]

What about an ectopic pregnancy where the baby never makes it to the uterus and doesn't have any chance to survive?

I think the Catholic position on this is the only truly pro-life position when it comes to sad cases such as ectopic pregnancies:


Whenever an embryo implants in the wrong place, whether in the fallopian tube or in another place like the abdomen, such a pregnancy is called "ectopic" (meaning "out of place"). Ninety-seven percent of all ectopic pregnancies occur within the fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancy is one of the leading causes of maternal sickness and death in the United States, and presents a formidable challenge to the physician who is trying to help both mother and child.

Of the three commonly performed procedures for addressing ectopic pregnancies, two raise significant moral concerns while the third is morally acceptable.

The first procedure involves a drug called methotrexate, which targets the most rapidly growing cells of the embryo, especially the placenta-like cells which attach the early embryo to the wall of the tube. Some have suggested that methotrexate might preferentially target these placenta-like cells, distinct from the rest of the embryo, so that it could be seen as "indirectly" ending the life of the embryo. Others, however, have noted that these placenta-like cells are in fact a part of the embryo itself (being produced by the embryo, not by the mother), so that the use of methotrexate actually targets a vital organ of the embryo, resulting in his or her death. A significant number of Catholic moralists hold that the use of methotrexate is not morally permissible, because it constitutes a direct attack on the growing child in the tube, and involves a form of direct abortion.

Another morally problematic technique involves cutting along the length of the fallopian tube where the child is embedded and "scooping out" the living body of the child, who dies shortly thereafter. The tube can then be sutured back up. This approach, like the use of methotrexate, leaves the fallopian tube largely intact for possible future pregnancies, but also raises obvious moral objections because it likewise directly causes the death of the child.

Interestingly, both procedures are normally presented to patients exclusive of any moral considerations. They are framed strictly as the means to assure the least damage possible to the mother's reproductive system. Many doctors will admit, however, that these techniques usually leave the fallopian tube scarred, increasing the chances of yet another tubal pregnancy by setting up the conditions for the occurrence to happen again.

About half of the cases of tubal pregnancy will resolve on their own, with the embryo being naturally lost without the need for any intervention. When an ectopic pregnancy does not resolve by itself, a morally acceptable approach would involve removal of the whole section of the tube on the side of the woman’s body where the unborn child is lodged. Although this results in reduced fertility for the woman, the section of tube around the growing child has clearly become pathological, and constitutes a mounting threat with time. This threat is addressed by removal of the tube, with the secondary, and unintended, effect that the child within will then die.

In this situation, the intention of the surgeon is directed towards the good effect (removing the damaged tissue to save the mother's life) while only tolerating the bad effect (death of the ectopic child). Importantly, the surgeon is choosing to act on the tube (a part of the mother's body) rather than directly on the child. Additionally, the child's death is not the means via which the cure occurs. If a large tumor, instead of a baby, were present in the tube, the same curative procedure would be employed. It is tubal removal, not the subsequent death of the baby, that is curative for the mother's condition.

Some say that cutting out a section of the tube with a baby inside is no different than using methotrexate because, in either case, the baby ends up dying. Yet the difference in how the baby dies is, in fact, critical. There is always a difference between killing someone directly and allowing someone to die of indirect causes. We may never directly take the life of an innocent human being, though we may sometimes tolerate the indirect and unintended loss of life that comes with trying to properly address a life-threatening medical situation.

http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940

[Brett85]

The question is, does the fetus have a chance of surviving? if yes then any abortion is to be considered as murder and prosecuted to the fullest extent by the law.

I just see it as an example of killing in self defense. In regards to the murder laws that we have on the books, we make an exception for self defense. Someone doesn't get prosecuted for killing someone if it was done to save their own life. If someone threatens your life, you have the legal right to kill that person. But of course we don't say that the person who got killed "isn't a person." We acknowledge that the person who was killed is still a person, but we allow people to kill in order to save their own lives. So I think that the laws that we have against abortion should be applied in the same way, which means that the only exception to a ban on abortion should be if the mother would likely die if she didn't get an abortion.

[I<3Liberty]

I just see it as an example of killing in self defense. In regards to the murder laws that we have on the books, we make an exception for self defense. Someone doesn't get prosecuted for killing someone if it was done to save their own life. If someone threatens your life, you have the legal right to kill that person. But of course we don't say that the person who got killed "isn't a person." We acknowledge that the person who was killed is still a person, but we allow people to kill in order to save their own lives. So I think that the laws that we have against abortion should be applied in the same way, which means that the only exception to a ban on abortion should be if the mother would likely die if she didn't get an abortion.

Yes. Or you could also just give her the treatment (e.g. chemotherapy) with the intent of saving her life. The fetus might not survive, but the intent was to save the mother's life, not kill the fetus. Treating the mother also protects the fetus' life because if the mother's life wasn't taken care of, both would die. Around 24 weeks, the fetus can survive outside the womb with artificial lung surfactants, so it could be removed. In the future, the advent of ectogenesis will end the whole dang debate.

[Nirvikalpa]

What about an ectopic pregnancy where the baby never makes it to the uterus and doesn't have any chance to survive?

And not only that, but is a medical emergency for the mother.

-----

To answer the question: absolutely I would.

[juleswin]

I just see it as an example of killing in self defense. In regards to the murder laws that we have on the books, we make an exception for self defense. Someone doesn't get prosecuted for killing someone if it was done to save their own life. If someone threatens your life, you have the legal right to kill that person. But of course we don't say that the person who got killed "isn't a person." We acknowledge that the person who was killed is still a person, but we allow people to kill in order to save their own lives. So I think that the laws that we have against abortion should be applied in the same way, which means that the only exception to a ban on abortion should be if the mother would likely die if she didn't get an abortion.

That is a very twisted interpretation of the self defense law, does this mean I can use another human to shield myself from a bullet to defend myself and get away with calling it self defense. Also with you definition, every pregnant woman can say that they are aborting their baby to prevent facing a higher risk of death during pregnancy. The baby shouldn't be punished just because your life is in danger cos his/her life is just as precious and important as yours.

That is the argument a pro life person will make and still be correct.

[MelissaWV]

That is a very twisted interpretation of the self defense law, does this mean I can use another human to shield myself from a bullet to defend myself and get away with calling it self defense. Also with you definition, every pregnant woman can say that they are aborting their baby to prevent facing a higher risk of death during pregnancy. The baby shouldn't be punished just because your life is in danger cos his/her life is just as precious and important as yours.

That is the argument a pro life person will make and still be correct.

And when the mother dies, the baby is going to... what?

[Christian Liberty]

I think the Catholic position on this is the only truly pro-life position when it comes to sad cases such as ectopic pregnancies:

I think I morally agree with the Catholic Church on this, but I don't think a mother should be legally prevented from doing whatever she has to do to protect herself even if it might be wrong.

[Brett85]

That is a very twisted interpretation of the self defense law, does this mean I can use another human to shield myself from a bullet to defend myself and get away with calling it self defense. Also with you definition, every pregnant woman can say that they are aborting their baby to prevent facing a higher risk of death during pregnancy. The baby shouldn't be punished just because your life is in danger cos his/her life is just as precious and important as yours.

That is the argument a pro life person will make and still be correct.

Almost all of the pro life people I know support an exception for the life of the mother. That's not some kind of pro choice view. As pro lifers, we care about the life of both the mother and the baby. You can't just ignore the life of the mother if you claim to be pro life. About 10% of the American people support a complete ban on abortion in all circumstances, then a certain percentage of us support an exception for the life of the mother, and others support exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. If you add all of those groups together, you get about 50%, which is the entire pro life coalition. If the no exceptions pro lifers are going to insist that they are the only ones who can call themselves pro life, then their goal seems to be to make the pro life movement as small as possible.

In the scenario that I'm presenting, the woman would have to get a written note from a doctor with his signature and perhaps the signature of another doctor, stating that it's medically necessary for her to get an abortion to save her own life. I think abortion should be legal in that situation and that situation only. But it's just extremely rare, so it's really not a huge issue. Over 99% of abortions are performed for reasons that don't involve the life of the mother.

[Brett85]

And when the mother dies, the baby is going to... what?

Yeah, that's another good point.

[eduardo89]

Almost all of the pro life people I know support an exception for the life of the mother. That's not some kind of pro choice view. As pro lifers, we care about the life of both the mother and the baby. You can't just ignore the life of the mother if you claim to be pro life. About 10% of the American people support a complete ban on abortion in all circumstances, then a certain percentage of us support an exception for the life of the mother, and others support exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. If you add all of those groups together, you get about 50%, which is the entire pro life coalition. If the no exceptions pro lifers are going to insist that they are the only ones who can call themselves pro life, then their goal seems to be to make the pro life movement as small as possible.

I agree. I'm in the 10% that think all abortions, regardless of the circumstances, should be illegal camp. That said, I don't think that a mother who has her child killed should be punished legally, but the doctor who performs the abortion to save her life should be investigated to make sure it truly was the last available option to save her life.

That said, I wouldn't discard those who support the life of the mother exception as not being pro-life. Those who support exceptions for rape and incest I see on the borderline as being pro-life, although I do think the 100% pro-life camp should work with them. If we can eliminate 90+% of abortions (those which do not involve rape, incest, life of mother) that is a great start and something that needs to be worked towards.

[Christian Liberty]

Almost all of the pro life people I know support an exception for the life of the mother. That's not some kind of pro choice view. As pro lifers, we care about the life of both the mother and the baby. You can't just ignore the life of the mother if you claim to be pro life. About 10% of the American people support a complete ban on abortion in all circumstances, then a certain percentage of us support an exception for the life of the mother, and others support exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. If you add all of those groups together, you get about 50%, which is the entire pro life coalition. If the no exceptions pro lifers are going to insist that they are the only ones who can call themselves pro life, then their goal seems to be to make the pro life movement as small as possible.

In the scenario that I'm presenting, the woman would have to get a written note from a doctor with his signature and perhaps the signature of another doctor, stating that it's medically necessary for her to get an abortion to save her own life. I think abortion should be legal in that situation and that situation only. But it's just extremely rare, so it's really not a huge issue. Over 99% of abortions are performed for reasons that don't involve the life of the mother.

I can understand the rape argument from certain hardcore libertarian starting points, but when anyone else supports that exception I kind of just dismiss them as an emotionalistic idiot. It really doesn't make any sense when it comes down to it. I don't really consider those people to be pro-life by any meaningful definition. Just Republican compromisers. And this is also why I don't care as much about this issue as you'd probably say I should. Most of the Republicans who claim to be "pro-life" don't really mean it and aren't going to be consistent about it. Scott Roeder did more for the pro-life cause than almost every Republican legislator ever.

[eduardo89]

Scott Roeder did more for the pro-life cause than almost every Republican legislator ever.

There you go, yet again, praising a murderer.

Comments like this do not help the pro-life movement, regardless of how you might feel about the morality of Roeder's actions.

If you want to win people over, just keep references to things like that out of your arguments and commentary. Yes, Roeder probably saved countless lives of unborn near-term babies, but just don't bring him up.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, that's another good point.

I'm not really sure how its a good point (and I agree wth the life of the mother exception based on self-defense). Why couldn't some childless couple just adopt the baby?

I agree. I'm in the 10% that think all abortions, regardless of the circumstances, should be illegal camp. That said, I don't think that a mother who has her child killed should be punished legally, but the doctor who performs the abortion to save her life should be investigated to make sure it truly was the last available option to save her life.


I'm fine with this but for all intents and purposes you're just quibbling here because you know in your heart the Catholic position is silly, so you're making up a technicality that would allow you to pretty much keep abortion to save the mother's life legal yet not technically violate the Catholic dogma that keeping it legal cannot be supported. In practice, I'm not really sure how your position differs from mine or TC's, except for the fact that ideally I want to entirely abolish the State, which has only an indirect effect on this.

That said, I wouldn't discard those who support the life of the mother exception as not being pro-life. Those who support exceptions for rape and incest I see on the borderline as being pro-life, although I do think the 100% pro-life camp should work with them. If we can eliminate 90+% of abortions (those which do not involve rape, incest, life of mother) that is a great start and something that needs to be worked towards.

I'd argue that the rape/incest people are on the borderline of being pro-choice.

[DamianTV]

Good news worldwide, and hopefully regardless of which position you support, abortions have been systematically declining worldwide for the last couple of years. Id have to find the article to provide the numbers, even though the numbers may not be entirely accurate.

I do support 4th Trimester abortions. Those to be aborted need a really really valid cause to be aborted so not applicable to 99.999% of cases.

[Christian Liberty]

There you go, yet again, praising a murderer.

Comments like this do not help the pro-life movement, regardless of how you might feel about the morality of Roeder's actions.


I don't really think it was moral, but part of me wonders at what point, if ever, vigilante justice DOES become moral. If you don't want to discuss this in public, PM me, because I get your point about publicly discussing it but I still want to know what your thoughts are.

I would, however, absolutely have voted to acquit Roeder on the grounds that George Tiller was a massive NAP violator and whatever church he was in was sheltering a murderer.



If you want to win people over, just keep references to things like that out of your arguments and commentary.

Well, yeah, I agree. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here. If I were trying to convince a pro-choice person to be pro-lif handle it differently. That said, I think a lot of the half-hearted pro-life activism is just that. If abortion really is murder, as I believe it is, than George Tiller is morally no better than someone who ran a Nazi gas chamber. Otherwise, if abortion is not murder, it should be completely legal and unregulated. But the middle ground positions just strike me as dumb, honestly.

[Christian Liberty]

And, in line with the above, if abortion really is murder, than we should see Scott Roeder's actions in a similar light that we would see someone who tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler or who killed a concentration camp guard. I can't sit here and tell you whether that would be right or not, but I hestiate to say its absolutely wrong.

[Christian Liberty]

Good news worldwide, and hopefully regardless of which position you support, abortions have been systematically declining worldwide for the last couple of years. Id have to find the article to provide the numbers, even though the numbers may not be entirely accurate.

I do support 4th Trimester abortions. Those to be aborted need a really really valid cause to be aborted so not applicable to 99.999% of cases.

I don't see why someone who is pro-choice would even care that abortion numbers are going down. That's more of that half-hearted positioning that I'm talking about. Most pro-choicers know in their hearts that they are supporting evil, and most pro-lifers have no idea just how evil that which they oppose is.

[DamianTV]

I don't see why someone who is pro-choice would even care that abortion numbers are going down. That's more of that half-hearted positioning that I'm talking about. Most pro-choicers know in their hearts that they are supporting evil, and most pro-lifers have no idea just how evil that which they oppose is.

More of a hope instead of a stat. I would really hope that people are more responsible about getting pregnant to begin with instead of turning to the next step solution of abortion. Lots of abortions result from unwanted pregnancies, but the other side is that that wanted pregnancies may put both the mothers life at risk and no chance of survival for the baby.

Perhaps it is a bit naive of me to try to find hope where none exists, but maybe it really does exist. I'd at least like to think so.

[eduardo89]

I'm fine with this but for all intents and purposes you're just quibbling here because you know in your heart the Catholic position is silly, so you're making up a technicality that would allow you to pretty much keep abortion to save the mother's life legal yet not technically violate the Catholic dogma that keeping it legal cannot be supported. In practice, I'm not really sure how your position differs from mine or TC's, except for the fact that ideally I want to entirely abolish the State, which has only an indirect effect on this.

How is the Catholic position that all life is sacred and must be protected "silly?"

I don't think it is ever right to kill innocent life, but there are cases, such as when there truly is a medical emergency and the only option is to abort the child in order to save the mother's life, that although morally wrong, punishing the mother with jail time is not the moral punishment. I think we should be compassionate in those awful, and extremely rare, cases. In Abortion and Liberty Ron Paul talks about how in his entire life he has never known a case where abortion is truly the only recourse to a medical emergency. Even the pro-abortion crowd acknowledges this fact.

That said, if a case that like should present itself, I think it should be treated in the same light as other homicides in self defence and that it should be investigated to make sure that the doctor acted solely as a last resort to saving the mother's life, just as all cases of homicide in self defence are investigated. (I have to add, though, that I do not believe that killing an unborn child really does qualify as self-defence)


Edit: I should add that this is what I believe when it comes to abortion in the case of a mother's life truly being a serious risk:


he very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother's life including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.

It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the unborn baby's life.

The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her unborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.

In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

The principle of the "double effect" also applies to sexual sterilization. If a woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act. However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM

[Brett85]

I'm not really sure how its a good point (and I agree wth the life of the mother exception based on self-defense). Why couldn't some childless couple just adopt the baby?

She was saying that if a woman was faced with a life threatening pregnancy and ended up dying because she wasn't allowed to get an abortion, then both the woman and the baby would die, and I agreed with her on that point.

[MelissaWV]

I'm not really sure how its a good point (and I agree wth the life of the mother exception based on self-defense). Why couldn't some childless couple just adopt the baby?

...

I don't think you understand ectopic pregnancies very well.
The mother stands a chance of dying BEFORE the birth. I'm not sure how you can adopt a partially-formed baby wedged in some dead lady's fallopian tube.

There are, I think, only a handful of pregnancies where a baby survived outside of the womb within the mother's body. If you would like to risk every woman's life based purely on the fact that it has happened before, then that's kind of strange to me.

Moreover, the reason he's saying "good point" is that if the mother dies before the baby is brought to term, then the baby will die as well. What does that solve, exactly?

[DamianTV]

Solution: Test Tubes required for all pregnancies. Children all seem to belong to the State and not the Parents anyway...

/s

[eduardo89]

She was saying that if a woman was faced with a life threatening pregnancy and ended up dying because she wasn't allowed to get an abortion, then both the woman and the baby would die, and I agreed with her on that point.

I think we should listen to Ron Paul when it comes to that:


Abortion is frequently justified as a method for the mother to end or avoid various diseases. This argument is grossly exaggerated and was only a subterfuge used by the promoters of abortion to remove the legal restraints against performing abortions. In delivering nearly 4,000 babies, I personally never came across a need even to entertain the thought of therapeutic abortion for the health of the mother, nor can I imagine the story book case of the doctor being forced into a crisis and making a decision of whose life to spare—mother or baby. Such distorted medical views have come from poorly researched movies on the subject. The state of pregnancy is natural; it’s not a disease; and it is complimentary to both fetus and mother. Most of the time it’s a delightful period for the mother and she feels better than at any other time in her life.

http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf

[MelissaWV]

I think we should listen to Ron Paul when it comes to that:

He is talking about outright abortions, though. I'm pretty sure he is aware of ectopic pregnancies and the deaths that occur from complications.

[MelissaWV]

Though I'm very strong pro-life and the worst thing I can conceive of is manufacturing babies to be used for research, but as an obstetrician I've had on quite a few occasions to do a surgery on a woman with a pregnancy in the Fallopian tube. And, the fetus is small, and alive, and the heart is beating, but if you don't operate on him, the fetus dies and the patient dies, because a hemorrhage is a very very critical time for ectopic pregnancy. I don't see any reason why you can't use that fetal tissue for research.

^ Ron Paul

[eduardo89]

He is talking about outright abortions, though. I'm pretty sure he is aware of ectopic pregnancies and the deaths that occur from complications.

I realise that, and I would not include surgeries removing the tube where the ectopic pregnancy is accruing to be an abortion, as long as the goal of the surgery is to remove the tissue, not kill the child. Unfortunately, due to where we are in modern medicine, the child cannot be saved once removed from the woman's body and will die, but the point of the medical procedure was not to kill the child. Hopefully one day with the advancements in the medical field, that won't be the case.

That is the Catholic and pro-life position.

[scrosnoe]

If you don't understand the issue of life it all it's simplicity, then, you cannot understand possibly understand liberty. That is why (I believe) that Ron Paul signs things For life and liberty -- something I use often now too!

[I<3Liberty]

Solution: Test Tubes required for all pregnancies. Children all seem to belong to the State and not the Parents anyway...

/s

Or as Vermin Supreme once said at an abortion protest "STERILIZE ALL AMERICANS!" :D

How is the Catholic position that all life is sacred and must be protected "silly?"
:

It's silly because it goes toward the other extreme which is being more concerned about the unborn life than the life and liberty of the mother. It also makes little sense (see below.)


I realise that, and I would not include surgeries removing the tube where the ectopic pregnancy is accruing to be an abortion, as long as the goal of the surgery is to remove the tissue, not kill the child. Unfortunately, due to where we are in modern medicine, the child cannot be saved once removed from the woman's body and will die, but the point of the medical procedure was not to kill the child. Hopefully one day with the advancements in the medical field, that won't be the case.

That is the Catholic and pro-life position.

Either way the fetus (which at that point is less than an inch long and far from surviving on its' own) is not going to survive. It doesn't matter whether you cut out the tissue it's bound to or remove it through whatever means, it's not going to live and the intent in both cases is to save the life of the mother. There is no exact Catholic or "pro-life' position on how to do the surgery and it doesn't matter because either method has the same intentions and consequences; the methodology changes neither of these.

[eduardo89]

It's silly because it goes toward the other extreme which is being more concerned about the unborn life than the life and liberty of the mother. It also makes little sense (see below.)

That is absurd. The Catholic position is that the life of the mother and of the unborn child both have equal value. All human life has equal value and is deserving of the same respect. Your position values more the 'liberty' (whatever you mean by that) over the life of the child.


Either way the fetus (which at that point is less than an inch long and far from surviving on its' own) is not going to survive. It doesn't matter whether you cut out the tissue it's bound to or remove it through whatever means, it's not going to live and the intent in both cases is to save the life of the mother.

See, the difference between your way of looking at is you thing that you view deliberately killing the unborn child as the same as the unintended consequence of removing the tissue where the child is growing being the death of the child.

When modern medicine develops enough to be able to sustain the child and bring it to term outside the womb the Catholic way of doing things will not end up with a dead child. Your preferred method of directly killing the child in order to end the ectopic pregnancy will always lead to the death of the unborn child.


There is no exact Catholic or "pro-life' position on how to do the surgery and it doesn't matter because either method has the same intentions and consequences; the methodology changes neither of these.

The methodology does matter. In your view as long as the end results are the same the way you get there doesn't matter. That is not true. The path you take, regardless of whether it achieves the same results in the end, certainly matters.

And yes, there is an exact way to treat an ectopic pregnancy which is the Catholic way to do it. The other way, which is directly killing the unborn child, is fundamentally in contraction with the Catholic faith.

[RandallFan]

The abortion issue has outed many RINOs. Reagan made a mistake in appointing Sandra Day O'Connor.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor

[Brett85]

See, the difference between your way of looking at is you thing that you view deliberately killing the unborn child as the same as the unintended consequence of removing the tissue where the child is growing being the death of the child.

Is there any difference between a parent who intentionally allows his child to starve and a parent who shoots and kills his child?

[eduardo89]

Is there any difference between a parent who intentionally allows his child to starve and a parent who shoots and kills his child?

Both are deliberate acts of murder.

[Brett85]

Both are deliberate acts of murder.

Then what's the difference between a parent who intentionally allows his child to starve on the one hand, and removing the tissue where a child is growing on the other hand? You know for an absolute fact that removing the tissue where the child is growing is going to cause the child to die.

[MelissaWV]

Then what's the difference between a parent who intentionally allows his child to starve on the one hand, and removing the tissue where a child is growing on the other hand? You know for an absolute fact that removing the tissue where the child is growing is going to cause the child to die.

And not removing it, and having the mother upon whom the child is dependent die, does what for that child?

[Brett85]

And not removing it, and having the mother upon whom the child is dependent die, does what for that child?

Yeah, exactly. I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that there's no difference between the procedures that Eduardo is talking about. Either procedure would cause the death of the child.

[eduardo89]

Then what's the difference between a parent who intentionally allows his child to starve on the one hand, and removing the tissue where a child is growing on the other hand? You know for an absolute fact that removing the tissue where the child is growing is going to cause the child to die.

Because in the case of an ectopic pregnancy the removal of the tissue with the unborn child inside is not intentionally letting the child starve to death, it is the sad result of a moral action, which is treating the woman who could die from complications of that having that tissue remain inside of her.

Whereas directly killing the child is simply that, deliberately and directly killing him.

[Brett85]

Because in the case of an ectopic pregnancy the removal of the tissue with the unborn child inside is not intentionally letting the child starve to death, it is the sad result of a moral action, which is treating the woman who could die from complications of that having that tissue remain inside of her.

It would still be intentionally doing something that would with absolute certainty cause the child to die.

[eduardo89]

It would still be intentionally doing something that would with absolute certainty cause the child to die.

Yes, it will lead to the unintentional consequence of the child dying, but the direct action is a moral one whereas in the other options the direct action is killing the child.

[asurfaholic]

Not reading the thread , it will depress me.

One word answer.

No

[Nirvikalpa]

I don't see why someone who is pro-choice would even care that abortion numbers are going down. That's more of that half-hearted positioning that I'm talking about. Most pro-choicers know in their hearts that they are supporting evil, and most pro-lifers have no idea just how evil that which they oppose is.

I'm pro-choice in a sense I think it's incredibly foolish to leave such a personal and ethical decision for the fools in our government to decide, when not even science can prove when "life" begins. From a scientific standpoint I do not believe 'life,' as complex as it is, begins at conception.

What the numbers declining mean to me: more women (and men, for that matter) have access to proper birth control, or are educated in natural family planning, and that to me is always a good thing.

Do you honestly believe pro-choicers go around celebrating each and every aborted fetus? That's asinine. My "pro-choice" hope is one day having enough education and outreach that eventually no child dies, and health care reaches a point no woman dies during gestation, labor, and birth either.

[Neil Desmond]

...not even science can prove when "life" begins. From a scientific standpoint I do not believe 'life,' as complex as it is, begins at conception.
Life either began either millions of years ago, or maybe there never was a beginning to life and it has always existed, so yeah in that sense, science cannot prove when life begins.

When it comes to a new organism or new being, as in that which is created or "spawns" from the DNA of its parents, then I think it's more like semantics or splitting hairs. I don't think it's as though there's somehow a starting (or stopping points) for life. The gene "fragments" that came from the parents were "alive" all along, and when they merge it's not like there's something dead there for a while - otherwise how can cell division take place from something that's dead?

[Christian Liberty]

I'm pro-choice in a sense I think it's incredibly foolish to leave such a personal and ethical decision for the fools in our government to decide, when not even science can prove when "life" begins. From a scientific standpoint I do not believe 'life,' as complex as it is, begins at conception.

What the numbers declining mean to me: more women (and men, for that matter) have access to proper birth control, or are educated in natural family planning, and that to me is always a good thing.

Do you honestly believe pro-choicers go around celebrating each and every aborted fetus? That's asinine. My "pro-choice" hope is one day having enough education and outreach that eventually no child dies, and health care reaches a point no woman dies during gestation, labor, and birth either.

No, I don't think that. But, I don't think most pro-choicers have logical consistency. Because, if they really believed that the life in the womb was "just a tissue" as they argue, they would not care how many abortions take place. Now, there are pro-choice theories, such as Block's eviction theory (which I do consider to be pro-choice, at least in 2014) that can avoid this problem, but they are a distinct minority of pro-choicers.

[Brett85]

Do you honestly believe pro-choicers go around celebrating each and every aborted fetus? That's asinine. My "pro-choice" hope is one day having enough education and outreach that eventually no child dies, and health care reaches a point no woman dies during gestation, labor, and birth either.

But I don't really understand why you refer to it as a "child" and say that you don't want it to "die" if you don't believe that life begins at conception. If life doesn't begin at conception, then it's just a clump of cells, and making it cease to exist doesn't make any difference.

[opal]

yes.. and this thread needs a poll ;)

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Looks like this thread created a little trend. Good to see such lively debate between everyone, that's really all I wanted and it is also why I did not include a poll because I noticed with polls people usually just check the box and then leave the thread.

[Ender]

Life either began either millions of years ago, or maybe there never was a beginning to life and it has always existed, so yeah in that sense, science cannot prove when life begins.

When it comes to a new organism or new being, as in that which is created or "spawns" from the DNA of its parents, then I think it's more like semantics or splitting hairs. I don't think it's as though there's somehow a starting (or stopping points) for life. The gene "fragments" that came from the parents were "alive" all along, and when they merge it's not like there's something dead there for a while - otherwise how can cell division take place from something that's dead?

I was just about to log on with a similar reply.

My particular POV is that cells are all living beings. The body is a universe to the cell and each organism is important to life. To say that Life doesn't exist at conception is to not understand what we are truly made of.

[MelissaWV]

I was just about to log on with a similar reply.

My particular POV is that cells are all living beings. The body is a universe to the cell and each organism is important to life. To say that Life doesn't exist at conception is to not understand what we are truly made of.

You know what comes next.


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

[FriedChicken]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm under the impression that sperm has the same DNA as the man who produced it- so it is regarded as his body's property so to speak.
And the same goes for a woman and her eggs. If her eggs are harvested or passed unfertilized then they are coded in her DNA.

However when the sperm fertilizes the egg it produces a new unique DNA strand. To me that is the end of the "what about sperm??" argument.

[fr33]

Yes. Abortion is pretty much the last issue I have any concern for.

This. I'm anti-abortion but for the most part I don't see anti-abortion politicians doing anything about it. It's always a topic that's brought up to win votes but is almost never something that is acted upon once elected.

[jkob]

Probably if that was the only issue and they respect state's rights

[philipped]

Yes, I'm waiting for one tbh.

[Nirvikalpa]

But I don't really understand why you refer to it as a "child" and say that you don't want it to "die" if you don't believe that life begins at conception. If life doesn't begin at conception, then it's just a clump of cells, and making it cease to exist doesn't make any difference.

Yes, at conception that's exactly what I believe. I don't understand what you're failing to grasp here? There is more to embryology and human development beyond conception. It's "life at conception" or nothing? Conception itself is a process, and isn't as instantaneous as most tend to believe, and can take 24 full hours for full fertilization to occur. It's complicated and fascinating. So I tend to ask people - do they believe life starts the second the sperm gets fused to the plasma membrane of the ovum, or not until the egg is "activated," and the sperm has penetrated it fully? Or is it hour 1 or hour 24?

[Brett85]

Yes, at conception that's exactly what I believe. I don't understand what you're failing to grasp here? There is more to embryology and human development beyond conception. It's "life at conception" or nothing? Conception itself is a process, and isn't as instantaneous as most tend to believe, and can take 24 full hours for full fertilization to occur. It's complicated and fascinating. So I tend to ask people - do they believe life starts the second the sperm gets fused to the plasma membrane of the oocyte, or not until the egg is "activated," and the sperm has penetrated it fully? Or is it hour 1 or hour 24?

It isn't real clear when exactly conception occurs, but for legal purposes I think it should be defined as occurring when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. That way it would be clear that no forms of contraception would be banned. I thought you were just saying that you don't consider a baby in the womb to be a human being, so maybe I misunderstood you.

[Nirvikalpa]

It isn't real clear when exactly conception occurs, but for legal purposes I think it should be defined as occurring when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. That way it would be clear that no forms of contraception would be banned. I thought you were just saying that you don't consider a baby in the womb to be a human being, so maybe I misunderstood you.

How would we know when a fertilized egg is implanted into the uterus, since it can happen on different days and within different times for different women? Day 3 of a fertilized egg in one woman can already be implanted, whereas in another woman it is still within the fallopian tube.

I'm not trying to pick on you (or anyone in this thread) specifically; just pointing out how complicated of a matter defining "conception" really is. I don't think it will ever be really clear.

[Brett85]

How would we know when a fertilized egg is implanted into the uterus, since it can happen on different days and within different times for different women? Day 3 of a fertilized egg in one woman can already be implanted, whereas in another woman it is still within the fallopian tube.

I'm not trying to pick on you (or anyone in this thread) specifically; just pointing out how complicated of a matter defining "conception" really is. I don't think it will ever be really clear.

By the time a woman discovers that she's pregnant and goes to get an abortion, conception has definitely occurred. The baby usually has a beating heart and is breathing by that time.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[klamath]

It doesn't matter if "I" would support such a candidate; it matters whether the majority of the voters would. Realistically, the voting public is neither pro-life nor pro-choice (the way the terms are bantered about on this message board - they're polar terms here: if a fertilized egg is a child at conception then abortion becomes child killing).

The vast majority of the voting public believe in granting an exception in the case of the mother's health - so they've already elevated the life of the mother over that of the unborn human organism. Almost as many are willing to grant an exception in the case of incest or rape. A candidate who doesn't support those exceptions has a high probability of losing any election except in the most socially-conservative of electoral districts.

Outside of the "green light go to abortion" cases listed above; the voting public begins to consider restrictions on abortion. In some cases the voter's decision is based on the unborn human organism too closely resembling a born baby. In some cases it's about the viability of the unborn human organism. In others it's about the mother having a "reasonable" amount of time to make a decision after she "should" have known she's pregnant. None of those restrictions are based upon "when life begins". The debate to them is about how far along the termination The majority of the voting public has no problem with terminating the life of an unborn human organism.may occur.

Candidates who support restrictions on abortion early in pregnancy are unlikely to get elected. There are exceptions to that rule. But as the portion of a legislative body becomes large enough to make abortion restrictions possible - the likelihood of additional like-minded candidates continuing to be elected diminishes (because, then, abortion becomes a real issue). The GOP loves to keep "legislating abortion away" in its platform,because it energizes a voting block that the GOP thinks it needs. If the liberty movement was smart it would back candidates willing to:
- Tell the voting public that he/she is personally opposed to abortion; but that, ultimately, it's a difficult decision to be made by the mother
- Tell the ardent anti-abortion voting block the pragmatic truth (that abortion is never going to be legislated out of existence)
- Begin a discussion on why so many abortions occur in a world in which so many options exist for preventing pregnancy in the first place
- Propose voluntary actions that can be taken by groups to reduce the number of abortions (early education, making birth control available, etc).In this you are right. The American people DON'T have a problem with killing at all. Give them a small reason and they will support it hardily be it droning children of terrorists in the middle east to getting rid of the child that is going to cramp their sex life. Just maybe, that IS the reason that liberty never exists. If killing can be done so casually depriving people of every single liberty in the books then don't you think restricting Pot use is not a big problem for them.
liberty always comes second to life for without life there IS no liberty.
The "Liberty movement will FOREVER fail if it doesn't get a grip on the largest most important anti liberty position. No respect for life.
If the liberty movement can force me into not caring about Abortion I sure as hell would not have a problem with locking up every pot user and even hanging them.

[osan]

I'm just curious to hear your opinions on this. Assuming the candidate was pro-choice but good on every other issue, like a Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. What would be your level of support?

Also the same criteria except add on non-religious background.

Begin 1,037,201,953,673,158,306,734,769,503rd time-wasting abortion hamster-wheel thread in 5... 4... 3...

[klamath]

Begin 1,037,201,953,673,158,306,734,769,503rd time-wasting abortion, ban the FED, truther, drone attack, war crime, pot use, NSA, police shooting dog, hamster-wheel threads in 5... 4... 3... I know you were tired of typing so I helped you finish..

[VoluntaryAmerican]

It doesn't matter if "I" would support such a candidate; it matters whether the majority of the voters would. Realistically, the voting public is neither pro-life nor pro-choice (the way the terms are bantered about on this message board - they're polar terms here: if a fertilized egg is a child at conception then abortion becomes child killing).

It does matter if we ever got to the point where "Liberty candidates" were running in races as Democrats. We can already see from this thread that a good portion of our grassroots base would not support a "liberty candidate" who was pro-choice. I can understand why people wouldn't do this (just like I won't support a hawkish "liberty candidate" as some here believe Ted Cruz is) but some of these wedges issues like abortion are a big deal if we want to grow our movement because in some places being pro-choice is a non-starter for getting elected.

[Slutter McGee]

If you don't understand the issue of life it all it's simplicity, then, you cannot understand possibly understand liberty. That is why (I believe) that Ron Paul signs things For life and liberty -- something I use often now too!

If you don't understand the issue is incredibly fucking complex and both people have good arguments then you don't understand philosophy. Its cool to choose your side and argue for it. But to dismiss other beliefs as inconsistent with liberty means you have a shallow knowledge of the subject.

And yes, I fucking used the word fuck again.

Feel free to neg rep me again,

Slutter McGee

[DamianTV]

Its a step in the right direction, however, changes wont happen overnight. They wouldnt have happened overnight either even if Ron Paul had been elected. The complexity of an issue and the number of people involved in that issue usually determine how quickly it can be resolved. "Have you seen my car keys?", then a reply "Kitchen sink under the newspaper". Problem solved, quickly. "Hey, the Economy crashed!", then a reply "So how do we fix it?" Thats gonna be a topic that carries on for a very long time.

The time it takes, even for Scientific advancements takes Years. Big Bang theory was preceeded that the "Universe had always been here". It took years for the Big Bang Theory to be communicated, then challenged, then tweaked, then accepted. Flat Earth, same thing. Earth moves around the sun, also, same thing.

Both Liberty and Tyranny are measured in Generations.

[twomp]

If abortion were illegal, how would the government enforce it? Randomly check every woman's medical record? Have people rat on their neighbors? IF you see something, say something? Women were having abortions long before it was legal. I don't see how those of you here trying to make it illegal would enforce it without growing the government.

[klamath]

If abortion were illegal, how would the government enforce it? Randomly check every woman's medical record? Have people rat on their neighbors? IF you see something, say something? Women were having abortions long before it was legal. I don't see how those of you here trying to make it illegal would enforce it without growing the government.How about prosecuting the persons actually doing the killing. The doctors. Yes some women will always manage to kill their offspring and then again there will always be murder rape and war. But I don't fall into the all or nothing camp. If you can't stop all wars then give up and let the wars continue at the same rate. If you can't save everybody don't try to save ANY.
The abortion rate would fall tremendously just by the fact that US society wasn't telling young girls that all they are doing in evicting an unviable tissue mass.

[Brett85]

If abortion were illegal, how would the government enforce it? Randomly check every woman's medical record? Have people rat on their neighbors? IF you see something, say something? Women were having abortions long before it was legal. I don't see how those of you here trying to make it illegal would enforce it without growing the government.

The main thing would simply be to close down public abortion clinics and prosecute doctors who perform abortions. That wouldn't stop every single abortion, but it would make an enormous dent in the number of abortions.

[eduardo89]

The main thing would simply be to close down public abortion clinics and prosecute doctors who perform abortions. That wouldn't stop every single abortion, but it would make an enormous dent in the number of abortions.

But millions of women would just die in back alley abortions!!

[Christian Liberty]

But millions of women would just die in back alley abortions!!

My standard response to this is that I don't really care if someone dies while trying to commit murder, and that if it happens they get what they deserve. That's too harsh for most people though.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[fr33]

But millions of women would just die in back alley abortions!!

Honestly I think the back alley is where it belongs but I doubt there would be as many deaths of pregnant women per capita from it today as in the past. Especially since it's been legal for so long and so much research and training has gone into the practice.

[Neil Desmond]

Honestly I think the back alley is where it belongs but I doubt there would be as many deaths of pregnant women per capita from it today as in the past. Especially since it's been legal for so long and so much research and training has gone into the practice.
What does "back alley" really mean, anyways? I understand the sentiment it's supposed to convey; but when has anyone ever really literally gone to some back alley to get an abortion? Is this reference to going through some so-called back alley to get to an entrance to a black market abortion mill, or what?

[fr33]

What does "back alley" really mean, anyways? I understand the sentiment it's supposed to convey; but when has anyone ever really literally gone to some back alley to get an abortion? Is this reference to going through some so-called back alley to get to an entrance to a black market abortion mill, or what?

It's an argument pro-abortion folks use. Back before it was legal, some women would use the black market to get abortions. It was not really a safe practice. Progressives like to bring up the "back alley" abortions and "wire coat hangers" used to perform the task.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[klamath]

Why is it that the pregnant women seeking abortions always seem to be excluded from prosecution in these scenarios? Isn't it their decisions and actions that form the precipitating event in all of this. The logically consistent pro-life position, based upon the "baby killing" rhetoric, would be be to advocate manslaughter (if not outright murder) prosecutions for women who had aborted their "unborn babies". Due to the premeditated nature of the act, it would logically be be murder rather than manslaughter - but seldom do I see even manslaughter being advocated.Because in my case I want to see the moral acceptance changed. Just like I don't support prosecuting every soldier that killed in a unjust war because OUR society has made it acceptable and they believe they are doing right. I do not believe war and abortion will ever be eradicated but I think it can be vastly reduced just by making it not legal, acceptable and a easy cash cow for abortion doctors.
I don't talk about prosecuting the women because it is going to take decades upon decades to change the moral belief that it is an unviable tissue mass. If the people that believe it is killing lose this moral struggle on who is a viable tissue mass then the world will also see eugenics make a mighty comeback and every person better hope they and their family is considered productive by those in power.
So no I won't play into the proabortion camps hands and allow them to create those "War on women" campaign slogans.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Christian Liberty]

Why is it that the pregnant women seeking abortions always seem to be excluded from prosecution in these scenarios? Isn't it their decisions and actions that form the precipitating event in all of this. The logically consistent pro-life position, based upon the "baby killing" rhetoric, would be be to advocate manslaughter (if not outright murder) prosecutions for women who had aborted their "unborn babies". Due to the premeditated nature of the act, it would logically be murder rather than manslaughter - but seldom do I even see prosecution for manslaughter being advocated.

Ultimately, I'm with you on this. It seems like Laurence Vance is too:


If Roe v. Wade (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18) were overturned and abortion laws were once again made the provision of the states, there would be nothing unlibertarian about supporting state laws making abortion a crime just as laws against murder, manslaughter, and wrongful death are considered legitimate actions of the states.



https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/01/laurence-m-vance/is-ron-paul-wrong-on-abortion/

Not sure which one he supports applying and in which cases, but he very clearly addresses it and takes the pro-life libertarian POV to its logical conclusion.

Of course, we'd have to see a massive shift in culture before we got to that point, and ideally I'd like to see the free market replace the State, but ideally abortion would be treated no differently than murder.