Would you support a proabortion candidate if the were for partial birth abortion, etc?

[klamath]

Would you support a candidate that was good on every other issue but supported abortions all the way up to hours before term. Believed the world was over populated and used his office to encourage more abortions at all levels? Also believed that adult child sex was between them and people should stay the fuck out of their business including the parents. You know kind of like a lot of libertarian candidates believe.

[AuH20]

No. You have to be a real sicko to push for partial abortion procedures.

[Christian Liberty]

You know, the only person I've ever heard advocate for legalization of children having sex was Mary Ruwart. I hope she never gains traction if for no other reason than to avoid the whole "Libertarians support child abuse" tirade that would inevitably be launched by the MSM. There might be someone who agrees with Ruwart, but I think that's a minority.

[Christian Liberty]

No. You have to be a real sicko to push for partial abortion procedures.

What if someone voted against the Federal ban on constitutional grounds? Would you immediately assume they were "For" PBA or would you check their reasoning?

For what its worth, I'm not really sure why PBA is any more murderous than any other kind of abortion. It just looks worse, but its really the same.

[enhanced_deficit]

Depends.. are they pro or anti aborting of fully born children with drone mobile clinics.

[compromise]

Virtually all of the current people thought as "liberty candidates" (with the exception of a handful of a few minor fringe LP guys) oppose partial birth abortion. Even Gary Johnson and Richard Tisei opposed partial birth abortion.

[klamath]

Depends.. are they pro or anti aborting of fully born children with drone mobile clinics. No drone mobile clinics just full deliberate with malice aforethought torture by severe burning of the bodies with caustic agents then slow meticulous dismemberment of the most helpless and innocent in numbers that dwarf all the killing of war. That kind.

[jonhowe]

As someone who was until recently completely pro choice (this board changed my mind on the issue. Things do change!), I probably would if the candidate agreed with the preponderance of my other views. I can understand the logic they are using, and I know that having that view does not make you bad by default. There are bigger issues at stake than just abortion.

[rpfocus]

Would you support a candidate that was good on every other issue but supported abortions all the way up to hours before term. Believed the world was over populated and used his office to encourage more abortions at all levels? Also believed that adult child sex was between them and people should stay the fuck out of their business including the parents. You know kind of like a lot of libertarian candidates believe.

Oh please. Please name "a lot of" the libertarian candidates that believe 'the world is over populated and encourage more abortions at all levels.' What percentage of abortions during the 3rd trimester and "hours before term" are people waltzing in because they were too lazy to get one earlier. We know the problem GOP Conservatives have isn't late term abortion, it's abortion period. A law already exists regarding PBA - The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Unsurprisingly, it hasn't stopped Republicans from going for broke trying every trick in the book to remove access to abortion clinics.

[Brett85]

You know, the only person I've ever heard advocate for legalization of children having sex was Mary Ruwart.

A lot of members here have said they support doing away with age of consent laws for sex.

[klamath]

Oh please. Please name "a lot of" the libertarian candidates that believe 'the world is over populated and encourage more abortions at all levels.' What percentage of abortions during the 3rd trimester and "hours before term" are people waltzing in because they were too lazy to get one earlier. We know the problem GOP Conservatives have isn't late term abortion, it's abortion period. A law already exists regarding PBA - The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Unsurprisingly, it hasn't stopped Republicans from going for broke trying every trick in the book to remove access to abortion clinics.
You are right I do. This thread has something to do with two other threads recently started that were intentionally worded to modify the outcome of the responses. Then again maybe the results to the questions about war and abortion were correctly polling the members of the libertarian community and reinforces my belief that prochoice libertarians are actually more evil the Neocons.

[jbauer]

I would not, but I don't consider myself to be a big "L" libertarian either.

Murder is murder and nonviolence is and should be non-violent.

[rpfocus]

You are right I do. This thread has something to do with two other threads recently started that were intentionally worded to modify the outcome of the responses. Then again maybe the results to the questions about war and abortion were correctly polling the members of the libertarian community and reinforces my belief that prochoice libertarians are actually more evil the Neocons.

I don't know about the two other threads, I don't believe I participated in them, so I have no idea what you're talking about regarding modifying the responses. Perhaps you should have included that background in your initial post. But now that you've admitted the your problem isn't late term abortion, but abortion in general perhaps you should amend the thread topic. It seems you were the one attempting to modify the outcome of the responses. I'm still waiting for you to name all the libertarian candidates that believe 'the world is over populated and encourage more abortions at all levels.'

Also, please remember how evil we are before you come knocking on our door next election begging us to vote for your crap candidate, and when we don't, blaming us for your loss.

[klamath]

I don't know about the two other threads, I don't believe I participated in them, so I have no idea what you're talking about regarding modifying the responses. Perhaps you should have included that background in your initial post. But now that you've admitted the your problem isn't late term abortion, but abortion in general perhaps you should amend the thread topic. It seems you were the one attempting to modify the outcome of the responses. I'm still waiting for you to name all the libertarian candidates that believe 'the world is over populated and encourage more abortions at all levels.'

Also, please remember how evil we are before you come knocking on our door next election begging us to vote for your crap candidate, and when we don't, blaming us for your loss. I will never try and get someone like you to vote for my candidate but don't expect me to stand by while you attack them. Yeaw trying to modify the response is exactly what I was trying to do, to prove a point.

[Christian Liberty]

A lot of members here have said they support doing away with age of consent laws for sex. I think that most of them meant that you shouldn't have a one size fits all solution, not that its OK to sleep with a 5 year old.

[Christian Liberty]

You are right I do. This thread has something to do with two other threads recently started that were intentionally worded to modify the outcome of the responses. Then again maybe the results to the questions about war and abortion were correctly polling the members of the libertarian community and reinforces my belief that prochoice libertarians are actually more evil the Neocons.

I disagree with the last bit, but agree with the rest. The problem is that pro-choice libertarians are pro-choice out of a flawed understanding of freedom, whereas neocons don't want anyone to be free, ever.

[jonhowe]

You are right I do. This thread has something to do with two other threads recently started that were intentionally worded to modify the outcome of the responses. Then again maybe the results to the questions about war and abortion were correctly polling the members of the libertarian community and reinforces my belief that prochoice libertarians are actually more evil the Neocons.

99% percent of people who support abortion are not evil. They simply have framed the problem wrong in their heads. They see it as a women's rights issue. This is why most debates on the topic go nowhere; the two sides are having completely different discussions.

What got me to really reconsider was someone who asked if it would be ok to kill a baby born 4 months premature. At first I thought, "sure, that'd be silly. But there is a limit to how premature a baby can be born and still survive, so THAT should be the cutoff for abortion". Then I realized that with advances in science and medicine, that cutoff point would be continuously pushed back. That realization showed me that my logic was flawed. I'm still not 100% "pro life"; I think the safety of the mother should be taken into consideration (though this is quite rare these days. It happens, but it's rare), and I also think 1st trimester abortions should be legal, simply to avoid the black marketization of the procedure.

I also know that when I mentioned this change of heart to my female friends (in NYC, mind you) they were quite unhappy with me.

[Christian Liberty]

99% percent of people who support abortion are not evil. They simply have framed the problem wrong in their heads. They see it as a women's rights issue. This is why most debates on the topic go nowhere; the two sides are having completely different discussions.

What got me to really reconsider was someone who asked if it would be ok to kill a baby born 4 months premature. At first I thought, "sure, that'd be silly. But there is a limit to how premature a baby can be born and still survive, so THAT should be the cutoff for abortion". Then I realized that with advances in science and medicine, that cutoff point would be continuously pushed back. That realization showed me that my logic was flawed. I'm still not 100% "pro life"; I think the safety of the mother should be taken into consideration (though this is quite rare these days. It happens, but it's rare), and I also think 1st trimester abortions should be legal, simply to avoid the black marketization of the procedure.

I also know that when I mentioned this change of heart to my female friends (in NYC, mind you) they were quite unhappy with me.
Your position sounds like Blockean Evictionism, at least in practice.

[Ender]

Would you support a candidate that was good on every other issue but supported abortions all the way up to hours before term. Believed the world was over populated and used his office to encourage more abortions at all levels? Also believed that adult child sex was between them and people should stay the fuck out of their business including the parents. You know kind of like a lot of libertarian candidates believe.

What "candidate" are we talking about? Presidential?

I'd support a presidential candidate who got the federal government out of abortion and left it to the states.

[jonhowe]

Your position sounds like Blockean Evictionism, at least in practice.

Translation?

[Christian Liberty]

Translation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

[LibertyEagle]

As someone who was until recently completely pro choice (this board changed my mind on the issue. Things do change!), I probably would if the candidate agreed with the preponderance of my other views. I can understand the logic they are using, and I know that having that view does not make you bad by default. There are bigger issues at stake than just abortion.

There is? Partial-birth abortion is murdering a viable baby. How could there be a more important issue?

[jonhowe]

Your position sounds like Blockean Evictionism, at least in practice.

Now that a translation has been provided, I guess it does, but only in passing. I'm not saying it's a woman's right to evict the unborn baby. I'm saying if a woman wants to do so, she most likely will find a way, so we need to keep a legal and safe option open. Plus, we need to remove the negative feelings around adoption. The "I'm too poor to have a baby and raise it to adulthood" excuse loses a lot of its power when it is, instead, "I'm too poor to be really uncomfortable and moody for 9 months, give birth, and that's it".

[jonhowe]

There is? Partial-birth abortion is murdering a viable baby. How could there be a more important issue?

Because there is already a law against it. The president can't unilaterally change a law. At least not one I'd vote for.

[klamath]

99% percent of people who support abortion are not evil. They simply have framed the problem wrong in their heads. They see it as a women's rights issue. This is why most debates on the topic go nowhere; the two sides are having completely different discussions.

What got me to really reconsider was someone who asked if it would be ok to kill a baby born 4 months premature. At first I thought, "sure, that'd be silly. But there is a limit to how premature a baby can be born and still survive, so THAT should be the cutoff for abortion". Then I realized that with advances in science and medicine, that cutoff point would be continuously pushed back. That realization showed me that my logic was flawed. I'm still not 100% "pro life"; I think the safety of the mother should be taken into consideration (though this is quite rare these days. It happens, but it's rare), and I also think 1st trimester abortions should be legal, simply to avoid the black marketization of the procedure.

I also know that when I mentioned this change of heart to my female friends (in NYC, mind you) they were quite unhappy with me. This is true hower the exact same argument can be applied to what people call pro war. The believe THEY are for fighting EVIL people that are trying to take their freedom and lives.

[rpfocus]

Because there is already a law against it. The president can't unilaterally change a law. At least not one I'd vote for.

Exactly, the problem is that only law GOP Conservatives are interesting in, is one completely banning abortion. The original post is flawed in that:

1) He has already admitted the issue isn't partial-birth abortion, but abortion in general.
2) Attributed claims to "a lot of libertarian candidates" yet is unable to actually name any to support his claims.

Here is the actual Libertarian stance on abortion, which I agree with:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

[klamath]

Exactly, the problem is that only law GOP Conservatives are interesting in, is one completely banning abortion. The original post is flawed in that:

1) He has already admitted the issue isn't partial-birth abortion, but abortion in general.
2) Attributed claims to "a lot of libertarian candidates" yet is unable to actually name any to support his claims.
Learn to read. The OP wasn't limited to Partial birth

[Christian Liberty]

There is? Partial-birth abortion is murdering a viable baby. How could there be a more important issue?

I really, really don't see the difference between partial birth abortion and regular old abortion. One looks more gruesome but they're both murder. Saying PBA is worse than regular abortion is kind of like saying cutting up someone with a knife is worse than shooting them in the head.

[rpfocus]

Learn to read. The OP wasn't limited to Partial birth

That's what you referred to in the thread topic. Still waiting for you to tell us about all those many libertarian candidates that believe the garbage you attributed to them in your original post.

[LibertyEagle]

I really, really don't see the difference between partial birth abortion and regular old abortion. One looks more gruesome but they're both murder. Saying PBA is worse than regular abortion is kind of like saying cutting up someone with a knife is worse than shooting them in the head.

Partial birth abortion is done later in the pregnancy is my understanding.

[LibertyEagle]

Because there is already a law against it. The president can't unilaterally change a law. At least not one I'd vote for.

True, but we now have a precedent where the President writes an Executive Order to do about anything he wants to.

[Ender]

I really, really don't see the difference between partial birth abortion and regular old abortion. One looks more gruesome but they're both murder. Saying PBA is worse than regular abortion is kind of like saying cutting up someone with a knife is worse than shooting them in the head.

Wha?

Any rational being would take a shot in the head, rather than being cut up, piece by piece.

[Christian Liberty]

Partial birth abortion is done later in the pregnancy is my understanding.

I know. So what?

[Christian Liberty]

Wha?

Any rational being would take a shot in the head, rather than being cut up, piece by piece.

Yes, but my point is that both are still murder. One might be more gruesome, but they're both still murder.

[Ender]

Yes, but my point is that both are still murder. One might be more gruesome, but they're both still murder.

One is murder, outright- the other is slow excruciating torture, resulting in death and murder.

[jonhowe]

This is true hower the exact same argument can be applied to what people call pro war. The believe THEY are for fighting EVIL people that are trying to take their freedom and lives.

Which is why we need to keep cooler heads and explain how/why they are wrong in a civil manner.


(Note: While I try to, I do not always practice what I preach above).

[Feeding the Abscess]

True, but we now have a precedent where the President writes an Executive Order to do about anything he wants to.

'now'? Obama has written fewer EOs than most recent presidents. FDR set the precedent 80 years ago, not something I'd refer to as 'now'.

[klamath]

Exactly, the problem is that only law GOP Conservatives are interesting in, is one completely banning abortion. The original post is flawed in that:

1) He has already admitted the issue isn't partial-birth abortion, but abortion in general.
2) Attributed claims to "a lot of libertarian candidates" yet is unable to actually name any to support his claims.

Here is the actual Libertarian stance on abortion, which I agree with:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.Which translates into I can kill if I feel like it.

[klamath]

That's what you referred to in the thread topic. Still waiting for you to tell us about all those many libertarian candidates that believe the garbage you attributed to them in your original post. Do you know what "Etc." means?
Your presidential candidate believed in the right to have sex with children but it had already been pointed out. But again that wasn't even the point of the thread as stated out earlier.

[69360]

Would you support a candidate that was good on every other issue but supported abortions all the way up to hours before term. Believed the world was over populated and used his office to encourage more abortions at all levels? Also believed that adult child sex was between them and people should stay the fuck out of their business including the parents. You know kind of like a lot of libertarian candidates believe.

No it would be a cold day in hell before I would.

[lib3rtarian]

Would you support a candidate that was good on every other issue but supported abortions all the way up to hours before term. Believed the world was over populated and used his office to encourage more abortions at all levels? Also believed that adult child sex was between them and people should stay the fuck out of their business including the parents. You know kind of like a lot of libertarian candidates believe.

Yes, although I have to say that the idea of "encouraging" abortions is kinda disgusting. I would prefer a "non-interventionist" in this case. But I would still support him if he is good on everything else.

[Christian Liberty]

Which translates into I can kill if I feel like it.

Yeah, pretty much. Its a subtle way of writing pro-choice into the platform.

[Ender]

'now'? Obama has written fewer EOs than most recent presidents. FDR set the precedent 80 years ago, not something I'd refer to as 'now'.

Yep.

At this point, O has written about 1/2 the number of EOs as Reagan.

[Smart3]

You know, the only person I've ever heard advocate for legalization of children having sex was Mary Ruwart. I hope she never gains traction if for no other reason than to avoid the whole "Libertarians support child abuse" tirade that would inevitably be launched by the MSM. There might be someone who agrees with Ruwart, but I think that's a minority.




Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will. - Mary Ruwart

I agree 100%

[Christian Liberty]

OK, comparing CHILDREN having sex with ADULTS smoking or drinking to excess is just stupid. I like Mary Ruwart, but I hope she never runs for office because its going to lead to people being like "OMG libertarians want to legalize child porn" and then that's going to destroy the movement.

[rpfocus]

..

[klamath]

"(My) presidential candidate believed in the right to have sex with children"

Idiocy. Meanwhile, you're still unable to list any of the many libertarian candidates that you profess believe the garbage you wrote in your original post.It is in the OP.


Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will. - Mary Ruwart libertarian presidential candidate.

[klamath]

.. ah weren't quite fast enough were ya.

[Smart3]

OK, comparing CHILDREN having sex with ADULTS smoking or drinking to excess is just stupid. I like Mary Ruwart, but I hope she never runs for office because its going to lead to people being like "OMG libertarians want to legalize child porn" and then that's going to destroy the movement.
I'm pretty sure we're already being accused of that.

and I do want to legalize child porn so it's a fair accusation. I don't think a 16 year old who sends a naked picture is doing anything wrong.

Now having sex with a child who can't give informed consent is a completely different manner.

[rpfocus]

ah weren't quite fast enough were ya.

Yeah, you obviously believe Mary Ruwart advocates having sex with kids, so why waste my time. Then you've extrapolated that into stating that "a lot of libertarian candidates" believe that. Who has time for that stupidity? Good luck.

[DamianTV]

There are a few ultra specific cases where I would fully offer support for a Post Birth Abortion. Boehner and Holder are on that list.

[BSWPaulsen]

A woman intent on destroying the fetus is going to achieve precisely that end, methodology be damned. The application of law to what can just as easily be achieved through more indirect means is befitting only to sadistic Authoritarians that think forcefully manipulating the behavior of pregnant women via the threat of punishment is a good idea. Good luck telling intentional destruction of a fetus from unintentional when necessity becomes the mother of invention and the market finds another cunning way to kill off a fetus. Are you Statists ready to file manslaughter charges for miscarriages that may be intentional just so you can rest easy at night? The best solution to abortion already exists - the market. Those that think the State should be involved here are tyrants with noble intentions. Nothing more, nothing less.

[eduardo89]

No, I would not vote for Barack Obama.