Nevada GOP drops Pro-Life Platform

[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:

[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 $#@!ing 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.