Nevada GOP drops Pro-Life Platform

[Tywysog Cymru]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/nevada-gop-drops-platforms-against-abortions-gay-marriage-endorses-sandoval

They also dropped opposition to gay marriage and endorsed Sandoval.


Amid raucous debate, Nevada Republican Party conventioneers on Saturday stripped opposition to gay marriage and abortion from the party platform and endorsed Gov. Brian Sandoval for governor in the June 10 primary despite misgivings by conservatives, his criticism of the process and his absence from the meeting...

By a show of hands, convention-goers adopted the platform as proposed by a separate committee without the two planks on marriage and abortion, following the Clark County GOP’s lead in removing hot-button social issues from the party’s statement of its principles. Some 520 delegates attended the convention, but less than half were present when the platform was adopted at about 7:30 p.m. Little debate preceded the vote, a far contrast to earlier in day.
State party Chairman Michael McDonald said it was a successful convention at the end of the day.
“I think it was about inclusion, not exclusion,” McDonald said, referring to the platform. “This is where the party is going.”
Republicans who sat on the platform committee said they decided not to deal with social issues this year because the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have weighed in and it doesn’t make sense for the party of “personal freedom” to have the government or the political party get involved in people’s personal lives...

Of course, they talk about personal liberties while doing this. It seems like personal liberties only apply to abortion in today's political atmosphere.

[lib3rtarian]

This is the Ron Paul guys, right? If so, I agree, esp. on the gay marriage thing. Fiscal issues and civil liberties should come first. Social issues are a boondoggle. We continually lose elections because of it.

[TheTyke]

I hope it wasn't the Paul people... you can't have any rights if you're not alive first. :\

[kahless]

I hope it wasn't the Paul people... you can't have any rights if you're not alive first. :\

I do not think they could still be considered "Paul people" if they are pro-death since Ron/Rand are pro-life.

[asurfaholic]

oh well. i don't like it, but its not my state and its not my gop party.

[lib3rtarian]

I do not think they could still be considered "Paul people" if they are pro-death since Ron/Rand are pro-life.

Well, there are a LOT of us who are Paul people, but who don't share the doctrinaire "ban all abortions" position. The reason why we started fighting over this immediately is exactly why this should not be part of any platform, and folks can just believe what they want.

[Origanalist]

Well, there are a LOT of us who are Paul people, but who don't share the doctrinaire "ban all abortions" position. The reason why we started fighting over this immediately is exactly why this should not be part of any platform, and folks can just believe what they want.

l
Life and death are not "beliefs".

[IndianaPolitico]

Don't we have better things to do then weaken our stance on protecting life? For crying out loud, Ron Paul left his church over them not defending life!

[puppetmaster]

Don't we have better things to do then weaken our stance on protecting life? For crying out loud, Ron Paul left his church over them not defending life!

+1

[Origanalist]

+1

+2

[jclay2]

And the moral decline continues.

[fr33]

I don't care. I personally do care but politically the GOP's stance seems unwinnable and a turnoff to many that could agree with them on many other things. I say this as someone who has had heated debates about abortion with the few liberal friends that I have. That topic seems to be the go-to debate if the demopublican vs repulicrat issue comes up. The things we can agree on are many but that abortion topic seems to not win very many over.

[CPUd]

This takes away some of the stuff the medias like to talk about during election season. It makes it harder to put D and R in neat little columns, and encourages the voters to engage the candidates more.

[Bman]

Don't we have better things to do then weaken our stance on protecting life? For crying out loud, Ron Paul left his church over them not defending life!

Don't we have better things to do then spending time trying to support legislation that puts more people in jail? Hey I'm all for stopping abortion but I am not at all about doing it by legislation.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I don't care. I personally do care but politically the GOP's stance seems unwinnable and a turnoff to many that could agree with them on many other things. I say this as someone who has had heated debates about abortion with the few liberal friends that I have. That topic seems to be the go-to debate if the demopublican vs repulicrat issue comes up. The things we can agree on are many but that abortion topic seems to not win very many over.

The Liberty movement has a lot of unpopular stances that are unlikely to win people over. And protecting life is one of the most important civil rights issues of the 21st century, we shouldn't abandon it.

[lib3rtarian]

And protecting life is one of the most important civil rights issues of the 21st century, we shouldn't abandon it.

No, it's not. That's utter BS. You do understand why some libertarians don't want to give the power to the State (a State which they don't trust) to come in and tell families what they can do with the pregnancies, right? Each pregnancy is different, and there are some real reasons on why abortions are sometimes necessary. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but don't be a Statist about it and tell me what to do.

If you want to stop abortions by public awareness campaigns, please knock yourself out. Don't make laws which ruin people's lives. There's nothing libertarian about putting a mother to death for having an abortion to save her life.

[Paulbot99]

No, it's not. That's utter BS. You do understand why some libertarians don't want to give the power to the State (a State which they don't trust) to come in and tell families what they can do with the pregnancies, right? Each pregnancy is different, and there are some real reasons on why abortions are sometimes necessary. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but don't be a Statist about it and tell me what to do.

If you want to stop abortions by public awareness campaigns, please knock yourself out. Don't make laws which ruin people's lives. There's nothing libertarian about putting a mother to death for having an abortion to save her life.

So, let's legalize murder. There'd be less people in prisons.

Less than 1 per cent of abortions are to save the woman's life. As technology advances, that number will decrease. And most pro-lifers make an exception for that case anyway.

Most Libertarians oppose Roe v Wade as an overreach by the federal government. Even pro-choice Libertarians want the states to decide so people can vote with their feet.

[kahless]

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
by Congressman Ron Paul
Libertarians for Life,1981


Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.

Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[juleswin]

So, let's legalize murder. There'd be less people in prisons.

Less than 1 per cent of abortions are to save the woman's life. As technology advances, that number will decrease. And most pro-lifers make an exception for that case anyway.

Most Libertarians oppose Roe v Wade as an overreach by the federal government. Even pro-choice Libertarians want the states to decide so people can vote with their feet.

If you really believe abortion is murder, then why is it ok to murder an innocent child because it threatens the health of the mother? if you truly believe what you say, then the mother and fetus has equal right to life and both should be let to stick it out and let the fittest survive. The problem with this issue is that it cannot be policed like regular murder. A pregnant woman can take a pill she is not supposed to take by "accident" or fall by "accident" or maybe use a coat hanger to do the job.

We just have to say no at abortion police and try and use the power of persuasion to win people over. I think this is a good move by the Nevada GOP, no longer will the dems use the wedge issue to divide us while they steal our money and run our lives for us

[lib3rtarian]

So, let's legalize murder. There'd be less people in prisons.

Less than 1 per cent of abortions are to save the woman's life. As technology advances, that number will decrease. And most pro-lifers make an exception for that case anyway.

Most Libertarians oppose Roe v Wade as an overreach by the federal government. Even pro-choice Libertarians want the states to decide so people can vote with their feet.

I do agree that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, because it's an overreach.

[jbauer]

When was the last time an "average voter" gave two $hits about what was in or not in a party platform?

[Slutter McGee]

I do not think they could still be considered "Paul people" if they are pro-death since Ron/Rand are pro-life.

They are not pro-death. They are just pro-choice. Just like you are not anti-women or anti-choice. You are pro-life.

Both sides have good arguments. Stop insulting the opposition with stupid statements.

Slutter McGee

[jbauer]

No, it's not. That's utter BS. You do understand why some libertarians don't want to give the power to the State (a State which they don't trust) to come in and tell families what they can do with the pregnancies, right? Each pregnancy is different, and there are some real reasons on why abortions are sometimes necessary. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but don't be a Statist about it and tell me what to do.

If you want to stop abortions by public awareness campaigns, please knock yourself out. Don't make laws which ruin people's lives. There's nothing libertarian about putting a mother to death for having an abortion to save her life.

So could you please tell us when a "person" crosses the imaginary and subjective boarder when their own individual liberty and rights kick in?

[jbauer]

They are not pro-death. They are just pro-choice. Just like you are not anti-women or anti-choice. You are pro-life.

Both sides have good arguments. Stop insulting the opposition with stupid statements.

Slutter McGee

So by calling the KILLING of a child a "choice" you are able to sleep at night?

[Philhelm]

I'm not gay and I'm not a fetus, and I'm certainly not a gay fetus. However, on this day, I am a victim of armed theft on a massive, massive scale.

[kahless]

They are not pro-death. They are just pro-choice. Just like you are not anti-women or anti-choice. You are pro-life.

Both sides have good arguments. Stop insulting the opposition with stupid statements.

Slutter McGee

So I should spin the death option as choice instead of the ugly fact that it still death. Talk about being brainwashed.

I think Ron says it best:



Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves.




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

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


More
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?449685-Nevada-GOP-drops-Pro-Life-Platform&p=5493213&viewfull=1#post5493213

[kahless]

I'm not gay and I'm not a fetus, and I'm certainly not a gay fetus. However, on this day, I am a victim of armed theft on a massive, massive scale.

It is only a matter of time before women start having abortions based on discovering the fetus has the gay gene. By then a large segment of the Republican party will probably transform themselves to being pro-choice since they are a party of spineless cowards with a history of transforming themselves to emulate the Democratic party. They will therefore lose again on this issue if the Democrat party transforms themselves to be pro-life to stop gay abortions.

Just like the Dems in matter of a few years went from anti-war to savage pro-war advocates.

[lib3rtarian]

So could you please tell us when a "person" crosses the imaginary and subjective boarder when their own individual liberty and rights kick in?

When the fetus is viable. i.e. able to survive on its own outside the womb. Till then it's an parasite (should the mother wishes to think that way) living off the host (mother). The mother has full control till then. If a parasite invades a host, the host has full authority to evict the parasite.

[dannno]

Some of us don't like the idea of the state investigating a woman's uterus, as in, it may be wrong or it may be ok to abort a fetus, but either way it is a private matter for the mother that doesn't concern the state.

[Origanalist]

Shake my head. "Parasite". "able to survive on its own outside the womb". That covers years after the baby is born. What disgusting terms to use for human beings.

And it didn't "invade". It was put there.

[Peace&Freedom]

It is only a matter of time before women start having abortions based on discovering the fetus has the gay gene. By then a large segment of the Republican party will probably transform themselves to being pro-choice since they are a party of spineless cowards with a history of transforming themselves to emulate the Democratic party. They will therefore lose again on this issue if the Democrat party transforms themselves to be pro-life to stop gay abortions.

Just like the Dems in matter of a few years went from anti-war to savage pro-war advocates.

No gay gene will ever be discovered, because there is none. Homosexual behavior is not genetic or in-born, that's secular social liberal dogma. And to flip it around, we might as well declare someday a homophobic or gay-bashing gene will be found, and many Democrats will probably transform themselves into being defenders of gay bashing because, hey, it's genetic.

As for abortion, it's one thing to de-emphasize it or other issues for situational campaign purposes, and another to drop a platform position altogether, and make your abandonment of principle visible for all to see. Democrats will not abandon use of it as a wedge issue, they will simply indicate Republicans, once elected, will vote the way most Republicans do nationally on the subject. Certain Nevadans need to understand it's a culture war because two sides are fighting it, and that the war will not end when they unilaterally disarm.

[Peace&Freedom]

Some of us don't like the idea of the state investigating a woman's uterus, as in, it may be wrong or it may be ok to abort a fetus, but either way it is a private matter for the mother that doesn't concern the state.

With respect, some of us don't like the idea of the state not protecting innocent human life. "It's a private matter for the mother" presumes the child is not human, the very point at issue. Innocent human life requires legal protection, which makes it a legitimate function of the state to so provide.

[muzzled dogg]

You can be pro life without endorsing the government's responsibly to do anything

[IndianaPolitico]

Don't we have better things to do then spending time trying to support legislation that puts more people in jail? Hey I'm all for stopping abortion but I am not at all about doing it by legislation.

If the platform supported legalizing murder, you would be ok with that too?

[dannno]

With respect, some of us don't like the idea of the state not protecting innocent human life. "It's a private matter for the mother" presumes the child is not human, the very point at issue. Innocent human life requires legal protection, which makes it a legitimate function of the state to so provide.

I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides, but I think you are net worse off with it being illegal. People will still find ways around it and sneakier women won't get caught and women who have a legitimate miscarriage and try to abide by the law will end up having their uterus' investigated by authorities.

[otherone]

So could you please tell us when a "person" crosses the imaginary and subjective boarder when their own individual liberty and rights kick in?

When one can handle one of these:

http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/Smith%20&%20Wesson%20M&%20P%20Pistol_2_Large.jpg

[euphemia]

Unfortunately when states give up a position on something, the federal government takes it as an opportunity to take it over. While this is simply a party platform, it does seem to acknowledge the right of the people of a state to make an informed decision abut it.

[Quark]

If we are to assume the GOP is only welcoming to conservatives, then this is a bad thing. If were are trying to return the (classical) liberalism the GOP once had to it, then it is a good policy, as libertarians and classical liberals are split on this matter. It depends on too many premises which all cannot agree on. The first: when does life become human? The second: are rights obtained through sentience? There are many other questions as well. I am pro-life because I believe life begins at conception, and don't believe sentience is the only factor to which rights are derived. However, I would never want the state to be responsible for preventing abortions. A. They're inefficient, and B. It asks for overreach that is greater than this issue.

[jkr]

planet murder wins again...lemme guess, they still support zero dark raids, killing animals mental handicap & quadriplegics, and the imprisonment & torment of the poor?

we are all democrats now...


or

how bout everyone kiss my fucking ass

LEAVE
ME
ALONE

[Smart3]

Shake my head. "Parasite". "able to survive on its own outside the womb". That covers years after the baby is born. What disgusting terms to use for human beings.

And it didn't "invade". It was put there.
Not by choice.


No gay gene will ever be discovered, because there is none. Homosexual behavior is not genetic or in-born, that's secular social liberal dogma. And to flip it around, we might as well declare someday a homophobic or gay-bashing gene will be found, and many Democrats will probably transform themselves into being defenders of gay bashing because, hey, it's genetic.

As for abortion, it's one thing to de-emphasize it or other issues for situational campaign purposes, and another to drop a platform position altogether, and make your abandonment of principle visible for all to see. Democrats will not abandon use of it as a wedge issue, they will simply indicate Republicans, once elected, will vote the way most Republicans do nationally on the subject. Certain Nevadans need to understand it's a culture war because two sides are fighting it, and that the war will not end when they unilaterally disarm.
Anyone who defends the notion of a gay gene is either an idiot or a homophobe - or both. Homosexuality is biological in origin - an immutable characteristic. And like all immutable characteristics - protected under the Constitution/BoR.


You can be pro life without endorsing the government's responsibly to do anything
People allow their emotions/religion to corrupt their libertarianism when it comes to abortion.

[kahless]

No gay gene will ever be discovered, because there is none. Homosexual behavior is not genetic or in-born, that's secular social liberal dogma. And to flip it around, we might as well declare someday a homophobic or gay-bashing gene will be found, and many Democrats will probably transform themselves into being defenders of gay bashing because, hey, it's genetic.

As for abortion, it's one thing to de-emphasize it or other issues for situational campaign purposes, and another to drop a platform position altogether, and make your abandonment of principle visible for all to see. Democrats will not abandon use of it as a wedge issue, they will simply indicate Republicans, once elected, will vote the way most Republicans do nationally on the subject. Certain Nevadans need to understand it's a culture war because two sides are fighting it, and that the war will not end when they unilaterally disarm.

You are probably right but the Progressives largely believe that there is and will be discovered, so something like this would make one stop and think about their belief.

[Tywysog Cymru]

No, it's not. That's utter BS. You do understand why some libertarians don't want to give the power to the State (a State which they don't trust) to come in and tell families what they can do with the pregnancies, right? Each pregnancy is different, and there are some real reasons on why abortions are sometimes necessary. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but don't be a Statist about it and tell me what to do.

If you want to stop abortions by public awareness campaigns, please knock yourself out. Don't make laws which ruin people's lives. There's nothing libertarian about putting a mother to death for having an abortion to save her life.

Abortion would be legal in the case of the mother's life being in danger, but those cases are very rare. Ron Paul said that he had never encountered a situation where abortion was necessary.


women who have a legitimate miscarriage and try to abide by the law will end up having their uterus' investigated by authorities.

Because that happens all the time in Poland, Ireland, Chile, or the other countries that outlaw abortion.

[FindLiberty]

Maybe the Nevada Republican Party is just switching sides for their planned, "big win" surprise instead of just standing their ground like they always do.

Gotta' grind up a few babies here and there in order to make enough political hay to bring home all that bacon!

So good.

Then, when they get enough gubermintal power stuffed up their trunks, surely they'll tell us exactly what we can and cannot do.

[The Rebel Poet]

They are not pro-death. They are just pro-choice.

When death is a choice, pro-choice is pro-death.

[The Rebel Poet]

When the fetus is viable. i.e. able to survive on its own outside the womb. Till then it's an parasite (should the mother wishes to think that way) living off the host (mother). The mother has full control till then. If a parasite invades a host, the host has full authority to evict the parasite.

So no one is fully human or has rights until they are 10 years old? That's harsh, bro.

[dillo]

Just curious what part of the constitution gives the federal government the authority to deal with this? Isn't murder a state law?

[The Rebel Poet]

The problem with this issue is that it cannot be policed like regular murder. A pregnant woman can take a pill she is not supposed to take by "accident" or fall by "accident" or maybe use a coat hanger to do the job.

If you happen to be an anarchist, there are other underlying issues over how laws would(n't) work; so you can disregard this. If you're not an anarchist: It's already moral and legal that people cannot be convicted unless a crime is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. So how is having a law that some people can get away with worse than no law at all? Some people get away with "regular murder."

[The Rebel Poet]

I'm not gay and I'm not a fetus, and I'm certainly not a gay fetus. However, on this day, I am a victim of armed theft on a massive, massive scale.

What?


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Bman]

If the platform supported legalizing murder, you would be ok with that too?

I'll answer that if you tell me how people who participate in abortions should be punished.

[T.hill]

If you happen to be an anarchist, there are other underlying issues over how laws would(n't) work; so you can disregard this. If you're not an anarchist: It's already moral and legal that people cannot be convicted unless a crime is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. So how is having a law that some people can get away with worse than no law at all? Some people get away with "regular murder."

Do you mean how is it better than no law at all? Or are you framing your question to imply that having a law is better than none at all?

[puppetmaster]

Shake my head. "Parasite". "able to survive on its own outside the womb". That covers years after the baby is born. What disgusting terms to use for human beings.

And it didn't "invade". It was put there.

I agree it is so sad to see that comment here.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Origanalist]

Wendy McElroy just does the same flapping around all the rest of the death culture does trying to justify the slaughter of babies.

The fact that babies are in a woman's body until born and is completely dependent on the woman to sustain life is news to no one. It's a ridiculous argument.


Perhaps rather than ripping the fetus to shreds the approach to abortion ought to be that the umbilical is cut within the womb. Would that be a violation of rights (does the fetus have a right to draw nutrition and oxygen from the woman's body and dump waste products to it). Of course, minutes later the life of the fetus comes to a slow end. How soon after that can the dead remains be broken up and suctioned out?


Perhaps we should quit considering babies as such evil entities that doing such things to them is somehow justifiable. After all, we all were babies once were we not?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Origanalist]

But would severing the umbilical be a violation of the rights of the fetus (an unborn human organism, as opposed to "baby" a born human organism).

This is exactly my point. The terminology used to describe unborn babies by people trying to justify ending their life, "unborn human organism". As opposed to what? A "born human organism"?

It's all designed to make the unborn less than human. Speaking as a former "unborn human organism" yes, I feel that if my mother had cut my umbilical cord she would have been violating my rights. And if you ask her she would give you the same answer.

[Paulbot99]

This is exactly my point. The terminology used to describe unborn babies by people trying to justify ending their life, "unborn human organism". As opposed to what? A "born human organism"?

It's all designed to make the unborn less than human. Speaking as a former "unborn human organism" yes, I feel that if my mother had cut my umbilical cord she would have been violating my rights. And if you ask her she would give you the same answer.

Everyone who is debating abortion has the advantage of already being born.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Origanalist]

That is, after all, what the definition of "baby" is - a recently born human organism; which makes it an autonomous human lifeform as opposed to a fetus which is neither recently born nor autonomous. It cannot be a baby until it is born.


Not at all. It's designed to use the terminology correctly. It's simply that, by definition, the pre-birth organism is not a post-birth organism. If any rejiggering of word usage is going on it's by the crowd that to imply fetal autonomy where no autonomy exists.


I doubt that you're implying that your mother gave birth to you despite not wanting you (which is what I understood in my initial reading of the statement)?

But no one has the right to demand sacrifice from another to sustain their life - it's a choice of the pregnant woman as to whether to proceed with the transformations in her body, the discomfort and ultimately the pain of birth necessary to produce an autonomous baby. If she doesn't want to endure any of that then she's completely within her rights to cut the cord or take whatever other measures she deems necessary to have her pre-pregnancy condition restored as best as it can be and on the time table she chooses. She is not obligated to remain a biological slave to someone else's needs for one second longer than she wants to. And it's not up to anyone other than her to determine whether her enslavement she has to endure is reasonable compared to the life of the fetus.

How in the hell did we get to the point where being pregnant is considered enslavement?


That is, after all, what the definition of "baby" is - a recently born human organism; which makes it an autonomous human lifeform as opposed to a fetus which is neither recently born nor autonomous. It cannot be a baby until it is born.

But it's not autonomous. While the baby is no longer inside it's mother, it can hardly be considered autonomous for quite some time.

I just don't get the "babies are evil" mentality. And what about prematurely born babies? Are they still not to be considered "babies" because just like a 7/8 month "fetus" they aren't considered fully developed? They need assistance still to stay alive, are they not human?


Not at all. It's designed to use the terminology correctly. It's simply that, by definition, the pre-birth organism is not a post-birth organism. If any rejiggering of word usage is going on it's by the crowd that to imply fetal autonomy where no autonomy exists.

Nobody is implying fetal autonomy. Again, it's not exactly news that unborn babies are completely supported by the mother during pregnancy.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[The Rebel Poet]

But no one has the right to demand sacrifice from another to sustain their life

Remind me, when is the last time you heard a fetus/baby demand anything? They are quite passive.


it's a choice of the pregnant woman as to whether to proceed with the transformations in her body, the discomfort and ultimately the pain of birth necessary to produce an autonomous baby. If she doesn't want to endure any of that then she's completely within her rights to cut the cord or take whatever other measures she deems necessary to have her pre-pregnancy condition restored as best as it can be and on the time table she chooses.

Unless she was raped, the pregnant woman made her choice to transform her body when she had sex. She put that baby in her body; it wasn't the baby's choice. You can't drag someone into your house and then shoot them for trespassing. I'm going to say that again: You can't drag someone into your house and then shoot them for trespassing. Regretting ones past choices or fretting physical pain doesn't somehow make murdering an innocent bystander OK.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Origanalist]

Many people confuse non-autonomy with dependence. A child is biologically autonomous yet still dependent. A fetus is neither.

I fail to see the relevance of this point.

[The Rebel Poet]

Many people confuse non-autonomy with dependence. A child is biologically autonomous yet still dependent. A fetus is neither.

What does "biologically autonomous" mean?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[The Rebel Poet]

women who have a legitimate miscarriage and try to abide by the law will end up having their uterus' investigated by authorities.
Where are the authorities going to get an warrant for that?

[The Rebel Poet]

But you can shut off the water and lock up the frig and pantry and stop feeding them.
And I'll say it again, you can shut off the water and lock up the frig and pantry and stop feeding them.
And if they hook an umbilical into your blood supply then your completely with your rights to sever it, because an invitation to your house doesn't imply any privileges beyond that.

Now you're just being facetiosly pedantic. When you put a fetus into your body, it is normal for it it attach an umbilical cord. So an invitation being forced into your uterus does mean something beyond that.

So, let's say you drag a person into your house, without their consent, and attach them to your body, without their consent, in a way that means they will die if you detach them; do you really think killing them under the guise of "trespassing" is OK?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[56ktarget]

More like they dropped the anti-liberty platform.

[Jingles]

The Pro-life position doesn't address that women own their bodies. The "pro-choice" position doesn't address the life of the child. It is okay to evict, but not to kill someone who didn't even choose to be their in the first place. So you can remove the child so long as they live. Technology is getting to this point where this is possible to do earlier and earlier. Also as we advance in technology abortion will be less of an issue.

It would be like you wake up one day and suddenly there is some guy handcuffed to your porch. You ask him, "What happened". "I don't know, man. I just woke up and found myself here. I didn't even choose to do this or even mean to violate your property rights". So you help the guy. You don't shoot him in the face.

I really like Walter Block's "Evictionism". It is the only abortion position that ever made absolute sense to me.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Origanalist]

Are you proposing an exception in the case of rape then?
If so then this whole issue is not a matter of the life of the "innocent" fetus.
If not then your whole discussion is rather moot - for consent doesn't enter into your equation.
I don't see other options - but perhaps there's something I missed.


But you can shut off the water and lock up the frig and pantry and stop feeding them.
And I'll say it again, you can shut off the water and lock up the frig and pantry and stop feeding them.
And if they hook an umbilical into your blood supply then your completely with your rights to sever it, because an invitation to your house doesn't imply any privileges beyond that.

I would be embarrassed if I posted that. Your argument has devolved into the realm of moronic trying to justify your position.

[Ecolibertarian]

Some of us don't like the idea of the state investigating a woman's uterus, as in, it may be wrong or it may be ok to abort a fetus, but either way it is a private matter for the mother that doesn't concern the state.

Agreed.

[Antischism]

Good.

[puppetmaster]

Remind me, when is the last time you heard a fetus/baby demand anything? They are quite passive.



Unless she was raped, the pregnant woman made her choice to transform her body when she had sex. She put that baby in her body; it wasn't the baby's choice. You can't drag someone into your house and then shoot them for trespassing. I'm going to say that again: You can't drag someone into your house and then shoot them for trespassing. Regretting ones past choices or fretting physical pain doesn't somehow make murdering an innocent bystander OK.
I am not even an overly religious person and I see the wrong in killing an innocent human child .

[The Rebel Poet]

It wasn't my analogy, it was yours. When I bring someone into my house I'm entirely within my rights to stop providing them with food and water ... just as I am with a fetus.

If it wasn't your analogy, then why did you feel the need to change it? You could have addressed my analogy, or you could have explained why you think it is apples to oranges, but instead, you addressed a slightly modified analogy as if it were mine. Where I come from, that's a straw man.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

It wasn't my analogy, it was yours. When I bring someone into my house I'm entirely within my rights to stop providing them with food and water ... just as I am with a fetus.

Wow I really hope you are NOT a parent.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Bad analogy again. I didn't drag them into the womb. I didn't attach them.
I think you're posting on the wrong forums. Here you go http://www.straightdope.com/

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[The Rebel Poet]

Bad analogy again. I didn't drag them into the womb. I didn't attach them.
How'd they get there?

[The Rebel Poet]

You told me what I couldn't do under that situation. I replied by explaining what was within my rights in the same situation.
No. Because "drag" and "invite" are two different words with different meanings. You explained what was within your rights in a different situation.

[The Rebel Poet]

Just so I'm clear; are you implying that abortion in the case of rape is an exception to the pro-life rule you have?
Not at all. I was attempting to only address one issue at a time by saying the simplest thing I could that was still accurate. It would have been very inaccurate to say blanketly that pregnant women made a choice because it implies all pregnant women made a choice. Obviously not.

[Origanalist]

Figure you must be a troll due to the neg reps you spam out on any post you dont agree with.

I am not even an overly religious person and I see the wrong in killing an innocent human child .

I think he just doesn't have any rep power yet.

[The Rebel Poet]

Figure you must be a troll due to the neg reps you spam out on any post you dont agree with.

I think he just doesn't have any rep power yet.

Obviously there are things I don't understand about this forum; maybe you two can help me out here:

1) How would I know if my reps have power?
2) Since there is nothing about reps in the official guidelines, what are reps primarily for, and how does one use them without being thought a troll?

Thank you.

[Origanalist]

Obviously there are things I don't understand about this forum; maybe you two can help me out here:

1) How would I know if my reps have power?
2) Since there is nothing about reps in the official guidelines, what are reps primarily for, and how does one use them without being thought a troll?

Thank you.

I don't think your reps have any "power" until 100 posts. Thus you are shooting blanks and the reps look different and many people think you are neg repping them. However, in order to give a negative rep, you must leave a comment. No comment means a plus rep and if it has a negative comment you should figure it's a -rep.

[The Rebel Poet]

I don't think your reps have any "power" until 100 posts. Thus you are shooting blanks and the reps look different and many people think you are neg repping them. However, in order to give a negative rep, you must leave a comment. No comment means a plus rep and if it has a negative comment you should figure it's a -rep.

Under my reps section it does say "Reputation Power: 0", but why would I be able to "pretend" rep if it doesn't do anything?

[The Rebel Poet]

Figure you must be a troll due to the neg reps you spam out on any post you dont agree with.
For the record, I agreed with the things you said, so if I did -rep you, it was an accident.

[The Rebel Poet]

I don't think your reps have any "power" until 100 posts. Thus you are shooting blanks and the reps look different and many people think you are neg repping them. However, in order to give a negative rep, you must leave a comment. No comment means a plus rep and if it has a negative comment you should figure it's a -rep.
Ah, that pulls everything together and makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

[The Rebel Poet]

+1
+2+3

[The Rebel Poet]

I don't think your reps have any "power" until 100 posts. Thus you are shooting blanks and the reps look different and many people think you are neg repping them. However, in order to give a negative rep, you must leave a comment. No comment means a plus rep and if it has a negative comment you should figure it's a -rep.
So, when I get to magic 100, do my previous reps suddenly turn on, or will it only affect any future ones?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[FloralScent]

This is the Ron Paul guys, right? If so, I agree, esp. on the gay marriage thing. Fiscal issues and civil liberties should come first. Social issues are a boondoggle. We continually lose elections because of it.

Social issues certainly are a distraction; by design.

[Keith and stuff]

And now it's Oklahoma GOP vs Nevada GOP (http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/gop-leader-attacks-nevada-republicans-over-gay-abortion-approaches)
Federalism by other means
How annoying. It isn't enough that she tries to make the whole state of OK do what she want. Now the Republican National Committeewoman for Oklahoma is trying to rewrite the NVGOP Platform. It seems no amount of power is enough for this statist. If she tries to touch my state platform, she is gonna have a bad time.

My platform was written by liberty Republicans in such a way so to not upset the Carolyn McLarty's of the world. Let the activists in NV write their platform the way they want.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynxPshq8ERo

[DamianTV]

Remember, this is the same GOP that as soon as Ron Paul won 25 of 28 delegates, they just acted like it never happened and tried to create a replacment Nevada GOP that all supported Romney. That was the 2012 election, in 2008, Ron Paul started winning, they turned out the lights and went home in order to, and I quote: "bring the Nevada Republican Party together".

Doesnt matter which side of the Abortion topic anyone stands on, a Corrupt GOP will not represent anyone. "Wait, profit? For me? Then I fully support / oppose the abortion issue!" Pick which ever is more profitable.

[GunnyFreedom]

Whereas in NC, they gutted our platform so as not to offend our US Senate nominee. I plan to raise hell over this at the State Convention in Cherokee May 5-8. They gutted the platform without a vote of any convention, to align with a guy who had simply been ignoring the platform to this point. Clearly that is obscene.

[GunnyFreedom]

Some of the platform-gutting in NC is simply to hide hypocrisy. There has been an anti-gambling plank in the platform for decades. I couldn't really care less myself, I don't think government belongs being involved in such a matter. HOWEVER, the NCGOP removed the anti-gambling plank for the first time ahead of the 2014 State convention, because the 2014 State convention is being held in a casino.

Of all the reasons for pulling that plank out of the platform, that HAS to be the worst and most hypocritical reason ever conceived.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[cornell]

When was the last time an "average voter" gave two $hits about what was in or not in a party platform?

THIS! This is just a distraction to divide people, no one really cares what is in the party "platform"

Based on this forum I reckon the division has succeeded?

[DamianTV]

Wasn't Diana Orrock, RNC Committeewoman for Nevada (and woman quoted defending the platform change (http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/gop-leader-attacks-nevada-republicans-over-gay-abortion-approaches)) a Ron Paul supporter?

She might have been. Honestly, the name doesnt sound too familiar so I dont really know. They went thru the committeeperson positions rather quickly.

[GunnyFreedom]

THIS! This is just a distraction to divide people, no one really cares what is in the party "platform"

Based on this forum I reckon the division has succeeded?

I have seen legislators levered around by the platform and forced to abandon bills they wanted or support bills they do not. Platforms do not much impact voters, they can, however, affect elected persons so long as there is another elected person at their elbow willing to use it as leverage.

[Keith and stuff]

Some of the platform-gutting in NC is simply to hide hypocrisy. There has been an anti-gambling plank in the platform for decades. I couldn't really care less myself, I don't think government belongs being involved in such a matter. HOWEVER, the NCGOP removed the anti-gambling plank for the first time ahead of the 2014 State convention, because the 2014 State convention is being held in a casino.

Of all the reasons for pulling that plank out of the platform, that HAS to be the worst and most hypocritical reason ever conceived.
It is still great progress and a victory for freedom :toady:

[Keith and stuff]

THIS! This is just a distraction to divide people, no one really cares what is in the party "platform"

Based on this forum I reckon the division has succeeded?

In New Hampshire, the House Republican Alliance, the most influential group in the NH House Republican Caucus, cares. It recommends votes based on the NHGOP Platform, the NH Constitution and the US Constitution. For example, people had been trying to make NH the only state with a decent jury nullification law in the nation for a decade. Thankfully, it got written into the NH platform. That's one of the reasons it became law, and now NH has the only decent jury nullification law in the nation.

[GunnyFreedom]

It is still great progress and a victory for freedom :toady:

Sadly, not really. It will not actually affect policy, it will probably end up back in the platform come 2015, and the only purpose of the change is to hide the leadership's hypocrisy. We'd gain more to openly demonstrate to hypocrisy and maybe fix the platform forever than to simply have it missing from the platform for only a single year get a pass on the hypocrisy.

[The Rebel Poet]

Some of the platform-gutting in NC is simply to hide hypocrisy. There has been an anti-gambling plank in the platform for decades. I couldn't really care less myself, I don't think government belongs being involved in such a matter. HOWEVER, the NCGOP removed the anti-gambling plank for the first time ahead of the 2014 State convention, because the 2014 State convention is being held in a casino.

Of all the reasons for pulling that plank out of the platform, that HAS to be the worst and most hypocritical reason ever conceived.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMIyDf3gBoY

[Keith and stuff]

Sadly, not really. It will not actually affect policy, it will probably end up back in the platform come 2015, and the only purpose of the change is to hide the leadership's hypocrisy. We'd gain more to openly demonstrate to hypocrisy and maybe fix the platform forever than to simply have it missing from the platform for only a single year get a pass on the hypocrisy.

Baby steps ;) Where I live, Republicans are more in favor of allowing big dollar gambling them Democrats, yet token opposition to big dollar gambling is still in the state platform.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[GunnyFreedom]

I can't say about Rand, but the Ron Paul position is that protection for human life begins at implantation, not at conception - so it's not truly a pro-life position even though it's far from a pro-choice position.

If that's true, then biblically, Ron is a more accurate pro-lifer than Rand. The Bible sets forth the idea that "the life is in the blood," so to me, taking the scriptures literally, I believe that life begins when the first blood cells are manufactured by the child's body. Unless I am mistaken, taking conception as "Day 0," implantation is "Day 7 - Day 9" and the production of blood is "Day 12 - Day 14."

"Life begins at conception" is not a biblical idea, it is a political idea. It seems to be preferred because it's simply easier to vet than the actual biblical implantation/blood position. It does, however, lead to a secular politician having the ability to claim "holier than thou" over an actual believer, should that believer hold to what the scriptures actually reveal.

Given that Ron's definition more closely matches objective reality, I'm going to have to side with Ron on this and state that he has the stronger and more accurate "Pro-Life" position, as revealed by the objective truth of the Word, and not by political correctness of the day.

[specsaregood]

I can't say about Rand, but the Ron Paul position is that protection for human life begins at implantation, not at conception - so it's not truly a pro-life position even though it's far from a pro-choice position.

I don't think that is quite accurate. Ron's argument is both scientific and legal. He has said many times that he believes life begins at conception; BUT that it would be impossible to prove life prior to any implantation. If you can't prove that conception occurred, then you can't prove that you ended a life with any birth control.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[John F Kennedy III]

The Pro-life position doesn't address that women own their bodies. The "pro-choice" position doesn't address the life of the child. It is okay to evict, but not to kill someone who didn't even choose to be their in the first place. So you can remove the child so long as they live. Technology is getting to this point where this is possible to do earlier and earlier. Also as we advance in technology abortion will be less of an issue.

It would be like you wake up one day and suddenly there is some guy handcuffed to your porch. You ask him, "What happened". "I don't know, man. I just woke up and found myself here. I didn't even choose to do this or even mean to violate your property rights". So you help the guy. You don't shoot him in the face.

I really like Walter Block's "Evictionism". It is the only abortion position that ever made absolute sense to me.

This ^

[Christian Liberty]

This is the Ron Paul guys, right? If so, I agree, esp. on the gay marriage thing. Fiscal issues and civil liberties should come first. Social issues are a boondoggle. We continually lose elections because of it.
I'm mostly indifferent to gay marriage As a political issue, at any rate. Conservatives should never have supported getting the government involved in marriage to begin with. I don't support government changing the legal definition of marriage, but its also a non-issue for me. The only way it would become an issue is if someone were running a thick type "If you aren't pro-gay marriage than you're just like the bigots who owned slaves" types of arguments. I probably couldn't support somebody who went too far in that direction. Gary Johnson was annoying with regards to it, but not terrible.

Abortion, on the other hand, well, that's an important issue to me. I'm all for decentralizing it, but at some level you're going to have to deal with it. I'd rather see traditional government eliminated entirely and for free market governments to deal with this issue, but until then, the most you can do is decentralize. The whole "pro-choice on everything" mantra doesn't really work because we could say the same for traditional murder. That said, I don't support Federal level involvement, in either abortion or murder (I realize this is redundant.) Both are state level issues under the constitution.

I do not think they could still be considered "Paul people" if they are pro-death since Ron/Rand are pro-life.

I agree, except that I wouldn't call Rand a "Paul person" despite his last name...


Well, there are a LOT of us who are Paul people, but who don't share the doctrinaire "ban all abortions" position. The reason why we started fighting over this immediately is exactly why this should not be part of any platform, and folks can just believe what they want.

I could live with this if the platform actually was neutral (or silent.) However, the LP platform's attempt at staying neutral is kind of pathetic. Any "neutral" stance that defends a "pro-choice" position, even if it does not defend abortion, is problematic.


l
Life and death are not "beliefs".

Exactly.


Don't we have better things to do then weaken our stance on protecting life? For crying out loud, Ron Paul left his church over them not defending life!
He did? I've never heard this before. Link?

Don't we have better things to do then spending time trying to support legislation that puts more people in jail? Hey I'm all for stopping abortion but I am not at all about doing it by legislation.

Should we legalize murder then?

The Liberty movement has a lot of unpopular stances that are unlikely to win people over. And protecting life is one of the most important civil rights issues of the 21st century, we shouldn't abandon it.


No, it's not. That's utter BS. You do understand why some libertarians don't want to give the power to the State (a State which they don't trust) to come in and tell families what they can do with the pregnancies, right? Each pregnancy is different, and there are some real reasons on why abortions are sometimes necessary. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but don't be a Statist about it and tell me what to do.

If you want to stop abortions by public awareness campaigns, please knock yourself out. Don't make laws which ruin people's lives. There's nothing libertarian about putting a mother to death for having an abortion to save her life.


I do agree that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, because it's an overreach.


I'm not gay and I'm not a fetus, and I'm certainly not a gay fetus. However, on this day, I am a victim of armed theft on a massive, massive scale.