# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand Paul Cosponsors "Life at Conception Act"

## Matt Collins

> *WASHINGTON, D.C. * This week, Senator Rand Paul will  join Senator Roger Wicker as an  original sponsor of the Life at  Conception Act. This legislation  declares that the unborn are persons,  as prescribed in the 14th  Amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> 
>  This  legislation does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but  simply  relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes  Congress to  enforce its provisions.
> 
> 
> From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
>  No  State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the  privileges  or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall  any State  deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due  process of  law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the  equal  protection of the laws.
> 
> ...


SOURCE:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/01/...onception-act/

----------


## sailingaway

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...hat-she-wanted

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Will this open a can of worms (unintended consequences)? Medical and/or Police investigations into every miscarriage? Death taxes? Government death certificates required?

----------


## TheDriver

Did someone get a comment from that crazy abortion lady who worships the 14th Amendment?

----------


## olehounddog

Here in Wilkes every death is already investigated. Law and coroner do a report.

----------


## Brett85

> Will this open a can of worms (unintended consequences)? Medical and/or Police investigations into every miscarriage? Death taxes? Government death certificates required?


No.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Could Rand be even better than I thought he would be???

----------


## PermanentSleep

> Could Rand be even better than I thought he would be???


Never underestimate the Prophet sent by Aqua Buddah. muahaha.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Very disappointed.

How is this shrinking government? A women has the *right* to choose regardless of what you, I, Rand Paul, or the state believe is the right choice.

I hope this fails. I hope Ron Paul will not follow suit on this in the House or I'm voting someone else.

----------


## MRoCkEd

Maybe he's trying to win some kudos at home or something...

I would rather he focus on the economy, rather than scare off any potential liberal allies by pushing a futile attempt to criminalize abortion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Very disappointed.
> 
> YHow is this shrinking government? A women has the *right* to choose regardless of what you, I, Rand Paul, or the state believe is the right choice.
> 
> I hope this fails. I hope Ron Paul will not follow suit on this in the House or I'm voting someone else.


Nope.

Abortion is statism.  Read my sig and wake up from the statist brainwashing.

----------


## hazek

Very disappointed.

Of all the pressing issues he's going to divide his attention and spend time and energy on something like this when it's the time and energy that we don't have???

----------


## MRoCkEd

I think Rand knows this isn't going anywhere. It's just a symbolic move for Pro-Life week. It doesn't waste his time to simply cosponsor this, but just shows he's against abortion.

----------


## TheDriver

> Very disappointed.
> 
> Of all the pressing issues he's going to divide his attention and spend time and energy on something like this when it's the time and energy that we don't have???


It took what 5 seconds to co-sponsor a bill? 

He campaigned on this, so I have no idea why this is a shocker for anyone.

----------


## muzzled dogg

> Nope.
> 
> Abortion is statism.  Read my sig and wake up from the statist brainwashing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...


ron paul's position declares that a certain class of human beings has the right to live as coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

----------


## Brett85

> Very disappointed.
> 
> How is this shrinking government? A women has the *right* to choose regardless of what you, I, Rand Paul, or the state believe is the right choice.
> 
> I hope this fails. I hope Ron Paul will not follow suit on this in the House or I'm voting someone else.


Don't let the door hit you on the way out.  Both Ron and Rand believe in liberty for the unborn.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Very disappointed.
> 
> Of all the pressing issues he's going to divide his attention and spend time and energy on something like this when it's the time and energy that we don't have???


An entire class of people being denied the protection of the law is not a "pressing issue"?


Abortion is statism.  You are not yet awake to liberty.  I hope you will be one day

----------


## Brett85

> Very disappointed.
> 
> Of all the pressing issues he's going to divide his attention and spend time and energy on something like this when it's the time and energy that we don't have???


There's nothing more important than this.  If you can't protect life then you can't protect liberty.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I think Rand knows this isn't going anywhere. It's just a symbolic move for Pro-Life week. It doesn't waste his time to simply cosponsor this, but just shows he's against abortion.


Pretty much.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ron paul's position declares that a certain class of human beings has the right to live as coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host
> 
> http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp


Ron Paul easily defeats this argument in The Revolution.

Ron Paul is right.  Statism is wrong.

----------


## jmdrake

> ron paul's position declares that a certain class of human beings has the right to live as coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host
> 
> http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp


Ron Paul's position is that if one class of human beings forces another class to live within the prisons of their bodies they cannot execute said humans as opposed to evicting them live.  

Please see:

----------


## dannno

> Maybe he's trying to win some kudos at home or something...
> 
> I would rather he focus on the economy, rather than scare off any potential liberal allies by pushing a futile attempt to criminalize abortion.





> I think Rand knows this isn't going anywhere. It's just a symbolic move for Pro-Life week. It doesn't waste his time to simply cosponsor this, but just shows he's against abortion.



He's on fire!!

----------


## StilesBC

I'd prefer Libertarians avoided this issue completely.  At the least simply say that it is up to the individual states to determine and for private clinics to offer.  This way, those who are completely violated by the thought of banning abortion can simply be told to travel to another state.  And those that do not want to support it through tax dollars don't have to.  

But seriously, abortion is like #238 on my list of sociopolitical priorities.  It will NEVER effect me, even if it were banned.  I would simply choose to travel with my significant other to another country to have the procedure done.  Therefore, any energy spent thinking about the issue is a complete waste of time and an insult to the importance of my other 237 issues.

----------


## dannno

I see the potential for a lot more tyranny if this became law on a national level.

Think of a UCPS (Unborn Child Protective Services) which ensures that mothers are doing all that they can to protect the life inside them..

----------


## dannno

> *I'd prefer Libertarians avoided this issue completely. At the least simply say that it is up to the individual states*  to determine and for private clinics to offer.  This way, those who are completely violated by the thought of banning abortion can simply be told to travel to another state.  And those that do not want to support it through tax dollars don't have to.  
> 
> But seriously, abortion is like #238 on my list of sociopolitical priorities.  It will NEVER effect me, even if it were banned.  I would simply choose to travel with my significant other to another country to have the procedure done.  Therefore, any energy spent thinking about the issue is a complete waste of time and an insult to the importance of my other 237 issues.


Another +rep

----------


## dannno

Will black cohosh and pennyroyal become illegal on a national level?

----------


## Brett85

> But seriously, abortion is like #238 on my list of sociopolitical priorities.  It will NEVER effect me, even if it were banned.


So do you not have a problem with slavery since it doesn't affect you?

----------


## specsaregood

> I hope Ron Paul will not follow suit on this in the House or I'm voting someone else.


If I read this correctly, it would return abortion law to states, which is Ron's position.
It sounds similar/same as a bill his father has submitted in the past.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

You best go vote for somebody else -- let me know how well that works out for ya.

----------


## TheDriver

> At the least simply say that it is up to the individual states to determine and for private clinics to offer.


Many believe the 14th Amendment changed that. 

If Sen. Paul would have tried that position, he would have had a tougher time winning the primary (and general), and he wouldn't have picked up those pro-life endorsements, which helped tremendously with social conservatives in Kentucky. 

To me abortion is murder and I would never kill my own children, and I damn sure wouldn't let my significant other kill them.  

But I agree it's a decisive issue that won't help to build coalitions with the left (I doubt much, if anything, will), however it might help with the right, and last I checked we needed all the help we can get.

One important point: we're not Rand Paul, so apparently this was important to him. He often said, during the election, his first political-type speech was at his church over the abortion issue.

----------


## Brett85

Why would we want to "build coalitions with the left?"  Are we planning on pushing for a single payer health care program?

----------


## TheDriver

> Why would we want to "build coalitions with the left?"


Repeal the PATRIOT Act? Audit the Fed? End government contractors ability to lobby for more projects (if under contract)? I would say end some wars, but the left abandoned that position after Bush left office.

Actually some on the left are pro-life, so I guess a coalition could pass this abortion bill, too.

----------


## StilesBC

> So do you not have a problem with slavery since it doesn't affect you?


Straw man.  Don't be dishonest.  




> Why would we want to "build coalitions with the left?" Are we planning on pushing for a single payer health care program?


Simple. Because Libertarianism and Austrian Economics has more in common with many civil rights activists and anti-corporatists on the so-called "left" than they do with Neoconservatives.

----------


## Distinguished Gentleman

I'm skeptical of 'liberaltarian' alliances on the grounds that the left always seems to fold on the issues we agree upon, but could only be dragged kicking and screaming into compromise on issues like health care.

~I sometimes think Rand purposely infuriates the left just so he can bring the right together around him.

----------


## sailingaway

> Repeal the PATRIOT Act? Audit the Fed? End government contractors ability to lobby for more projects (if under contract)? I would say end some wars, but the left abandoned that position after Bush left office.
> 
> Actually some on the left are pro-life, so I guess a coalition could pass this abortion bill, too.


This, but 'alliance' is the wrong word.  It is issue specific coalitions.  We have too many differences on the size of the state issue to be 'allied'.  However, we don't have to compromise with them on civil liberties, they ARE us on those points.  Then suddenly the size of the state intrudes and you realize you aren't speaking to one of us, after all.  But the mushy center has bipartisan coalitions selling out civil liberties, so we need principled coalitions FOR them, on the wings.

----------


## SilentBull

This is awful. Make half the libertarians angry and piss off even more liberals, at a time when we are supposed to be focusing on the economy. Just an awful decision.

----------


## anaconda

> I'd prefer Libertarians avoided this issue completely.  At the least simply say that it is up to the individual states to determine and for private clinics to offer.  This way, those who are completely violated by the thought of banning abortion can simply be told to travel to another state.  And those that do not want to support it through tax dollars don't have to.  
> 
> But seriously, abortion is like #238 on my list of sociopolitical priorities.  It will NEVER effect me, even if it were banned.  I would simply choose to travel with my significant other to another country to have the procedure done.  Therefore, any energy spent thinking about the issue is a complete waste of time and an insult to the importance of my other 237 issues.


I realize abortion is a compelling ethical issue and a very worthwhile debate. However, I think that there may be little connection between the abortion issue and a society otherwise free of government tyranny. In some ways the idea of abortion police seems to open another door for the nanny state.

----------


## HazyHusky420

What about life in Afghanistan or Iraq? Better yet Palestine? Those cost us alot more money than abortion and are far more brutal.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> What about life in Afghanistan or Iraq? Better yet Palestine? Those cost us alot more money than abortion and are far more brutal.


Actually, a hit in the population # hurts the economy big time. Social Security is going bankrupt because we have so very few young people.

----------


## low preference guy

> Actually, a hit in the population # hurts the economy big time. *Social Security is going bankrupt* because we have so very few young people.


you say it like it's a bad thing.

also, social security won't go bankrupt because there are fewer young people. it will go bankrupt because it's a ponzi scheme.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Actually, a hit in the population # hurts the economy big time. Social Security is going bankrupt because we have so very few young people.


OMG. That's just as bad as saying there are too many people.

Saying there are either too many or too few people are nothing but arguments for the state. Those who think there are too many want to tell people how many kids they have and those who say there are too few want the government to discriminate against those who don't have kids or not enough kids.

----------


## sailingaway

> Actually, a hit in the population # hurts the economy big time. Social Security is going bankrupt because we have so very few young people.


No, because we have so few young people who will pay into the system more than they will take out.  Population is going up.  Economics of that population is going down.

----------


## axiomata

> What about life in Afghanistan or Iraq? Better yet Palestine? Those cost us alot more money than abortion and are far more brutal.


Not very libertarian of you to not recognize the positive effects of a form of immigration. You sound like a nationalist. 

It is impossible to quantify what might have been but how do you know the next Bill Gates wasn't aborted?  I mean I of course agree with you regarding war, but I think you are discounting the unseen effects of a million or so abortions a year.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'd prefer Libertarians avoided this issue completely.  At the least simply say that it is up to the individual states to determine and for private clinics to offer.  This way, those who are completely violated by the thought of banning abortion can simply be told to travel to another state.  And those that do not want to support it through tax dollars don't have to.


You are confusing libertarianism with Constitutionalism. The Constitutional solution is to get it back to the State governments where it belongs. The libertarian issue is to ban it everywhere (at least before there is heart beat and brain waves) because it clearly infringes upon the rights of the individual being murdered. Some people who call themselves libertarians attempt to justify murder but they are confused and illogical.

----------


## low preference guy

> You are confusing libertarianism with Constitutionalism. The Constitutional solution is to get it back to the State governments where it belongs. The libertarian issue is to ban it everywhere (at least before there is heart beat and brain waves) because it clearly infringes upon the rights of the individual being murdered. Some people who call themselves libertarians attempt to justify murder but they are confused and illogical.


not true. that's like saying that theft should be banned everywhere by the federal government, but it's the states who make theft illegal.

according to your argument, the libertarian position is to ban abortion worldwide. but that's not true.

----------


## muzzled dogg

> The Constitutional solution is to get it back to the State governments where it belongs


states or the people.  ideally the state constitution infringes minimally on an individual's rights.

ie, a woman's right to her own person

let her decide what to do with her own body

----------


## specsaregood

> This is awful. Make half the libertarians angry and piss off even more liberals, at a time when we are supposed to be focusing on the economy. Just an awful decision.


Its a timely decision and a good one.  The people it will piss off are people that wouldn't support Rand anyways, no real loss.

----------


## specsaregood

> states or the people.  ideally the state constitution infringes minimally on an individual's rights.
> ie, a woman's right to her own person
> let her decide what to do with her own body


I don't believe it is her body that people are concerned about.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Not very libertarian of you to not recognize the positive effects of a form of immigration. You sound like a nationalist. 
> 
> It is impossible to quantify what might have been but how do you know the next Bill Gates wasn't aborted?  I mean I of course agree with you regarding war, but I think you are discounting the unseen effects of a million or so abortions a year.


Uhhh everyone here knows i'm a free-trader and an internationalist anarchist so I don't know what your point is with immigration o_O

Anyways, I didn't say I was pro or anti abortion. Abortion is something I simply do now care about. As a young person trying to help his family the economy is extremely important to me, and being a gay male I see even less of a reason to worry about abortion because I know I will never have to deal with it. 

My point was that Rand should be more worried about cutting government spending and government sponsored violence and what we're funding in those countries makes an abortion look like a bbq. But no Rand is suppose to be a pro-military conservative so to tell hell with what's important because he better make economically blind social conservatives happy.

----------


## muzzled dogg

dude i want some bbq

----------


## axiomata

I'm sorry for assuming you held a pro-abortion view.

Since I agree with you on free trade and liberal immigration policy I was making a utilitarian case for abortion that you might not have seen before.

----------


## dannno

> I don't believe it is her body that people are concerned about.


Of course it is her body they are concerned about, if they weren't, they wouldn't know there was another body in there. 

I don't like medical abortions because they are violent, I favor natural abortive remedies. I certainly don't think drinking an herbal tea should cause a woman to be charged with murder. 

Making abortion illegal could make it illegal for a woman to drink certain teas, ingest certain substances, etc, when she is pregnant. 

Ending the funding for abortion would help people find more inexpensive alternatives, such as the natural abortive teas. It would take away funding from the abortion industrial complex.

----------


## dannno

> dude i want some bbq


Like this?

----------


## muzzled dogg

danno u goin to cpac

----------


## dannno

I'd love to.. but it's a looooonngg ways away.. and coming up pretty soon, dunno if I'd be able to pull it off at this point..

----------


## muzzled dogg

word ill get u next time

----------


## axiomata

> Of course it is her body they are concerned about, if they weren't, they wouldn't know there was another body in there. 
> 
> I don't like medical abortions because they are violent, I favor natural abortive remedies. I certainly don't think drinking an herbal tea should cause a woman to be charged with murder. 
> 
> Making abortion illegal could make it illegal for a woman to drink certain teas, ingest certain substances, etc, when she is pregnant. 
> 
> Ending the funding for abortion would help people find more inexpensive alternatives, such as the natural abortive teas.


Making abortion illegal shouldn't make drinking a certain tea illegal.  After all, making murder illegal doesn't make shooting guns illegal.  The tool doesn't matter; it is the effect of the tool and the intent of the user.

----------


## Matt Collins

> according to your argument, the libertarian position is to ban abortion worldwide. but that's not true.


 Substitute the word "murder" for "abortion" in your sentence and that might make you think differently.

----------


## Matt Collins

> ie, a woman's right to her own person
> 
> let her decide what to do with her own body


I completely agree, so long as she doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, such as her unborn kids.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Making abortion illegal shouldn't make drinking a certain tea illegal.  Making murder illegal doesn't make shooting guns illegal.  The tool doesn't matter, it is the effect of the tool and the intent of the user.


So she should be arrested for drinking a tea?

----------


## muzzled dogg

> I completely agree, so long as she doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, such as her unborn kids.



and as long as the fetus doesnt infringe against the mother's rights, which it inherently has to for survival

----------


## axiomata

> So she should be arrested for drinking a tea?


No, should Loughner be arrested for shooting a gun?

----------


## HazyHusky420

Why is it that pro-choice libertarians never distract from the economy and the pro-life ones do? Because the pro-choice ones are much more quiet.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Do I get to claim a dependent on my taxes if my fiancee had a miscarriage?

So many unintended consequences to something like this..... all of which increase and grow government

----------


## HazyHusky420

> No, should Loughner be arrested for shooting a gun?


Okay so you think she should be arrested. You know if i'm living with several roommates and one of them is pregnant and drinks a fetus killing tea and the authorities raid MY space I gonna kick some pro-life ass.

----------


## muzzled dogg

> Why is it that pro-choice libertarians never distract from the economy and the pro-life ones do? Because the pro-choice ones are much more quiet.


i never understood how pro lifers could go to work everyday "knowing" all this killing was going on everyday

you think they'd be more outraged

----------


## specsaregood

> Of course it is her body they are concerned about, if they weren't, they wouldn't know there was another body in there. 
> I don't like medical abortions because they are violent, I favor natural abortive remedies. I certainly don't think drinking an herbal tea should cause a woman to be charged with murder.  Making abortion illegal could make it illegal for a woman to drink certain teas, ingest certain substances, etc, when she is pregnant.


No, it isn't her body people are worried about.

----------


## axiomata

> Why is it that pro-choice libertarians never distract from the economy and the pro-life ones do? Because the pro-choice ones are much more quiet.


The killing a potential laborers, capitalists, inventors, and entrepreneurs has much to do with the economy, as I pointed out in my first post in this thread.

----------


## dannno

> No, should Loughner be arrested for shooting a gun?


She should be arrested for drinking a tea if it leads to miscarriage?

That seems like such an invasion of privacy.. I mean, it's one thing if someone has a kid, you KNOW they have a kid. Their belly gets gigantor, then suddenly it's crying all the time. Sure, protect the baby's life, that's fine.. I'm not even that much against protecting the baby's life when the mother's belly is gigantor, cause at that stage the baby probably could survive without the mother anyway..

It just seems like arresting a woman who you don't even know is pregnant and peering into their private life, what's happening in their bathroom.. It would be like if they made jacking off illegal, how tyrannical that would become.. You'd have all these dudes in court arguing that it was a nocturnal emission, next thing you know judges would stop buying that argument.. then next thing you know a dude has a nocturnal emission and ends up in jail.

----------


## dannno

> No, it isn't her body people are worried about.


Yes it is, as I explained, you HAVE to worry about her body in order to even have the knowledge that she was pregnant, drinking a certain tea, etc..

----------


## HazyHusky420

> The killing a potential laborers, capitalists, inventors, and entrepreneurs has much to do with the economy, as I pointed out in my first post in this thread.


What about the killing of a pontential Keynes?

----------


## axiomata

> What about the killing of a pontential Keynes?


The fetal Keynes did nothing wrong.  Now the post General Theory Keynes...

----------


## low preference guy

> What about the killing of a pontential Keynes?


true. let's kill everybody to make sure. the best course of action is to nuke the entire planet.

----------


## axiomata

> Yes it is, as I explained, you HAVE to worry about her body in order to even have the knowledge that she was pregnant, drinking a certain tea, etc..


I don't believe the state has the right to keep track of every living person nonetheless every living fetus.  If there is evidence that a crime has been committed then yes, it should be prosecuted.  If a woman drinks this tea 4 weeks in and tells nobody then there's no case.

----------


## sailingaway

> Of course it is her body they are concerned about, if they weren't, they wouldn't know there was another body in there. 
> 
> I don't like medical abortions because they are violent, I favor natural abortive remedies. I certainly don't think drinking an herbal tea should cause a woman to be charged with murder. 
> 
> Making abortion illegal could make it illegal for a woman to drink certain teas, ingest certain substances, etc, when she is pregnant. 
> 
> Ending the funding for abortion would help people find more inexpensive alternatives, such as the natural abortive teas. It would take away funding from the abortion industrial complex.


This is all true.  You know KY's proposed smoking ban for if kids are in the car?  Mentally apply all such to pregnant women.  No liberty.  MOre, we don't anywhere else require someone to, say, be linked up to someone with tubes for months so the dying person can share their kidney, they just die or get dialysis somehow.  

But on the other side, if life begins at conception, life begins at conception, and you are saying the woman has the right to murder someone.

I stay out of this topic because I am all too aware of the hard parts on both sides, and am not certain enough to want to force a policy on this one, either way.  I _feel_ prolife, but I have a hard time with the other side of that, as well. It ISN'T simple, and I think people should at least admit that.

As for this, I am going to examine it strictly on Constitutional grounds.  The harder the question is, the more it should be decided as locally as practical, in this case, by the states, I would think.  I just scanned Rand's plan and am not sure it puts the question there, but I have to look at it more carefully.  But I honestly think Roe v Wade was incredibly bad law, and unConstitutional.

----------


## specsaregood

> Yes it is, as I explained, you HAVE to worry about her body in order to even have the knowledge that she was pregnant, drinking a certain tea, etc..


You can keep saying it; but that doesn't make it true.  The issue is not her body.  If it was about HER body, we would be talking about baning tat stuff for everybody, regardless of pregnancy status.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> true. let's kill everybody to make sure. the best course of action is to nuke the world.


My point was that if killing a potential Linus Torvalds or Nikola Tesla is an argument for outlawing abortion then killing a potential Hitler is an argument for keeping it legal. It goes both ways.

Like I said i'm neutral on abortion. Both sides make me want to punch them when they approach me.

----------


## jmdrake

> and as long as the fetus doesnt infringe against the mother's rights, which it inherently has to for survival


That's not necessarily true.  Or did you miss all of the media hoopla about the abortion doctor that was killing fetuses *after* they were outside the mother?  (And yeah, this argument does depend on how far along the pregnancy is).  And besides, the fetus didn't choose to be there.  A more apt analogy than the "parasite" analogy you used earlier is the "kidnap victim" analogy.  (The fetus being the kidnap victim).

----------


## CaliforniaMom

I'm glad he's standing up for the unborn children. They go through horrible pain in late term abortions.

----------


## muzzled dogg

> Or did you miss all of the media hoopla about the abortion doctor that was killing fetuses *after* they were outside the mother?


yeah thats murder

----------


## HazyHusky420

Here something that concerns me as someone who doesn't care about abortion.

If abortion is outlawed and a pregnant woman I know tells me she's going to one of those underground "butchers" and I do nothing and she gets caught should I get arrested for not caring? If so then congratulations on being an ass because all I did was play Doom and all of a sudden pigs knock down MY door!

----------


## Brett85

> Repeal the PATRIOT Act? Audit the Fed? End government contractors ability to lobby for more projects (if under contract)? I would say end some wars, but the left abandoned that position after Bush left office.
> 
> Actually some on the left are pro-life, so I guess a coalition could pass this abortion bill, too.


The left doesn't have a problem with the Patriot Act now that Obama is President.  The same goes for the wars.  Almost all of the Democrats oppose auditing the Fed.  That's something that mostly Republicans support.   The anti lobbying bill would be the only bill the left would actually go along with.

----------


## muzzled dogg

hazy man lemme smoke that ish cause that post made no sense to me

----------


## jmdrake

> Here something that concerns me as someone who doesn't care about abortion.
> 
> If abortion is outlawed and a pregnant woman I know tells me she's going to one of those underground "butchers" and I do nothing and she gets caught should I get arrested for not caring? If so then congratulations on being an ass because all I did was play Doom and all of a sudden pigs knock down MY door!


You are under no general duty to stop *any* crime.  Remember that Jimmy Hendrix song "Hey Joe" where he's signing about this man named Joe that tells him he's about to go shoot his old lady?  If that really happened to you, you couldn't be charged with anything unless you somehow offered "Joe" some sort of assistance and/or encouragement.  There is no law against apathy.

----------


## Brett85

> This is awful. Make half the libertarians angry and piss off even more liberals, at a time when we are supposed to be focusing on the economy. Just an awful decision.


I hope Rand does everything possible to piss off the liberals.  He is a frickin Republican after all.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> The left doesn't have a problem with the Patriot Act now that Obama is President.  The same goes for the wars.  Almost all of the Democrats oppose auditing the Fed.  That's something that mostly Republicans support.   The anti lobbying bill would be the only bill the left would actually go along with.


There you go saying "left" and "right" again. You know there's only liberty and tyranny right? Left and right are meant to describe your limbs not divide people.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> I hope Rand does everything possible to piss off the liberals.  He is a frickin Republican after all.


and piss off libertarians as well?

----------


## Brett85

> states or the people.  ideally the state constitution infringes minimally on an individual's rights.
> 
> ie, a woman's right to her own person
> 
> let her decide what to do with her own body


If it was just her own body it wouldn't be a problem.  Unfortunately for your argument there's another living human being inside.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> You are under no general duty to stop *any* crime.  Remember that Jimmy Hendrix song "Hey Joe" where he's signing about this man named Joe that tells him he's about to go shoot his old lady?  If that really happened to you, you couldn't be charged with anything unless you somehow offered "Joe" some sort of assistance and/or encouragement.  There is no law against apathy.


Good. But sadly most people don't feel that way. Not even alot of libertarians.

----------


## Matt Collins

> and as long as the fetus doesnt infringe against the mother's rights, which it inherently has to for survival


Well that was the mother's choice when she got pregnant, to accept that infringement on her rights by bearing a child. There are consequences to individual action, and in a free society everyone must be held to the consequences of their actions by way of personal responsibility. For every right there is a responsibility. The right to carry a gun means you don't misuse that gun. The right to free speech means that you don't yell fire in a crowded theater. The right to procreate means that you bear the burdens of your decision to engage in activities that cause procreation.

----------


## Brett85

> and piss off libertarians as well?


Real libertarians support liberty and freedom for the unborn.  You can't support liberty if you want to deny it to a certain group of people.

----------


## muzzled dogg

> You can't support liberty if you want to deny it to a certain group of people.


agreeed

----------


## Brett85

> i never understood how pro lifers could go to work everyday "knowing" all this killing was going on everyday
> 
> you think they'd be more outraged


We are, and that's why we're happy that Rand is doing this.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Real libertarians support liberty and freedom for the unborn.  You can't support liberty if you want to deny it to a certain group of people.


Can a real libertarian not care?

----------


## Brett85

> yeah thats murder


How is that any different from an abortion?  The baby is dead either way.

----------


## Brett85

> There you go saying "left" and "right" again. You know there's only liberty and tyranny right? Left and right are meant to describe your limbs not divide people.


Ron Paul is a conservative leaning libertarian.  Rand is probably a libertarian leaning conservative.  Neither one of them are down the line libertarians, and they certainly don't share your views.

----------


## low preference guy

> Substitute the word "murder" for "abortion" in your sentence and that might make you think differently.


it doesn't change anything. even if murder is wrong, that doesn't mean there should be a global authority banning it. similarly, the states are autonomous entities, so they have and should have the authority to ban it.

----------


## HazyHusky420

What do you pro-lifers have to say about Rothbard's stance on abortion?




Note to newcomers: I'm neutral on abortion so don't accuse me of being on either side.

----------


## muzzled dogg

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Ron Paul is a conservative leaning libertarian.  Rand is probably a libertarian leaning conservative.  Neither one of them are down the line libertarians, and they certainly don't share your views.


The existence of left and right have nothing to do with Ron and Rand. Please quit trolling me for being an anarchist. You Know Ron hangs around anarchists. You're only making yourself look bad.

----------


## low preference guy

> What do you pro-lifers have to say about Rothbard's stance on abortion?


i think it's ridiculous. he says fetuses are "invaders". that's enough to not take anything he said about it seriously.

----------


## dannno

> i think it's ridiculous. he says fetuses are "invaders". that's enough to not take anything he said about it seriously.


What if a woman was never taught that sex leads to pregnancy? 

What if a woman is raped?

----------


## dannno

Sex isn't a contract, it's rubbing a burning part of your groin onto the burning part of another person's groin to make it feel better.

----------


## Brett85

> The existence of left and right have nothing to do with Ron and Rand. Please quit trolling me for being an anarchist. You Know Ron hangs around anarchists. You're only making yourself look bad.


I'm not trolling you by simply pointing out that Ron and Rand are basically Constitutionalist Republicans.  There is such a thing as left and right obviously.  There's also liberty vs. statism.  Both political spectrums can apply.

----------


## Brett85

> Sex isn't a contract, it's rubbing a burning part of your groin onto the burning part of another person's groin to make it feel better.


If it feels good do it.  Consequences be damned.

----------


## specsaregood

> Sex isn't a contract, it's rubbing a burning part of your groin onto the burning part of another person's groin to make it feel better.


If you are getting a burning sensation you might want to see a doctor and screen your partners better in the future.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

I think abortion shouldn't be banned or legalized at the federal and each state should decide.  I'd support an abortion ban in my state too; but not nationally.

What works for New York may not work for Wyoming.  Why is that hard to understand?  That's one of the best things about this country is you can usually find a state to move to if you just have to live in a state where something is banned/legal.  Medical marijuana, smoking bans and gay marriage immediately come to mind.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> I'm not trolling you by simply pointing out that Ron and Rand are basically Constitutionalist Republicans.  There is such a thing as left and right obviously.  There's also liberty vs. statism.  Both political spectrums can apply.


But Ron does hang around anarchists (ever heard of Lew Rockwell?) so your constant "you're an anarchist" is irrelevant.

Please describe to me what is left and what is right because i'm certainly on neither side and neither is a libertarian regardless if they're minarchist or anarchist. I dislike any political spectrum but the Nolan Chart is the best I can think of.

----------


## specsaregood

> I think abortion shouldn't be banned or legalized at the federal and each state should decide.  I'd support an abortion ban in my state too; but not nationally.
> 
> What works for New York may not work for Wyoming.  Why is that hard to understand?  That's one of the best things about this country is you can usually find a state to move to if you just have to live in a state where something is banned/legal.  Medical marijuana, smoking bans and gay marriage immediately come to mind.


I think that is all this bill would do, return it to the states.

----------


## Brett85

> I think abortion shouldn't be banned or legalized at the federal and each state should decide.  I'd support an abortion ban in my state too; but not nationally.
> 
> What works for New York may not work for Wyoming.  Why is that hard to understand?  That's one of the best things about this country is you can usually find a state to move to if you just have to live in a state where something is banned/legal.  Medical marijuana, smoking bans and gay marriage immediately come to mind. 
> 
> An example for me personally is that most fireworks are illegal in Georgia, but they're fully legal in the states that border Georgia: Alabama, Tennessee, Florida and South Carolina.  So it's easy enough to cross state lines and load up for New Year's or July 4th.


You're probably right, but Rand can't take that position in a state like Kentucky.  If Rand voted against federal abortion restrictions he would face a GOP primary challenger in 2016 and most likely lose.

----------


## Brett85

> But Ron does hang around anarchists (ever heard of Lew Rockwell?) so your constant "you're an anarchist" is irrelevant.
> 
> Please describe to me what is left and what is right because i'm certainly on neither side and neither is a libertarian regardless if they're minarchist or anarchist. I dislike any political spectrum but the Nolan Chart is the best I can think of.


I know that you're not on either side.  You're on the top of the "left-right" spectrum.  Ron is on the top but leaning slightly right.  I'm on the upper right.  I'm somewhere in between a conservative and a libertarian.

http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm

----------


## HazyHusky420

> You're probably right, but Rand can't take that position in a state like Kentucky.  If Rand voted against federal abortion restrictions he would face a GOP primary challenger in 2016 and most likely lose.


And if he voted for him them he would lose all credibility among supporters of the tenth amendment (and so you can't use my being anarchist against me I will point out that anarchists believe in the decentralization of power that amendment represents). Ron on the other hand has always voted against federal restrictions and therefor keeps his credibility.

----------


## Brett85

> And if he voted for him them he would lose all credibility among supporters of the tenth amendment (and so you can't use my being anarchist against me I will point out that anarchists believe in the decentralization of power that amendment represents). Ron on the other hand has always voted against federal restrictions and therefor keeps his credibility.


Believing that the 5th and 14th amendments give the federal government the authority to regulate abortion is a legitimate position.  People have different interpretations of the Constitution.

Also, Ron voted for the federal ban on Partial Birth Abortion, and that wasn't justified by using the commerce clause.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> So do you not have a problem with slavery since it doesn't affect you?


But you're the one saying abortion should be illegal. You do realize when people do not control their bodies they are slaves? I mean, you may pretend to be for liberty for everyone, until a women becomes pregnant. Then, oh you want control of your body? Too bad. Potential life is more important than your liberty. Because like someone else (danno?) said, if it were to be made illegal, a whole new group of statist bureaucracies would have to monitor women when they become pregnant to make sure the life isn't endangered/ended/aborted. What needs to happen if you want to discourage abortion is for you to give women reasons to have safe sex and planned pregnancies. At the end of the day, it's a woman's body and only her and her partner and doctor should be involved in the decision of what to do when she becomes pregnant.

----------


## Brett85

> But you're the one saying abortion should be illegal. You do realize when people do not control their bodies they are slaves? I mean, you may pretend to be for liberty for everyone, until a women becomes pregnant. Then, oh you want control of your body? Too bad. Potential life is more important than your liberty. Because like someone else (danno?) said, if it were to be made illegal, a whole new group of statist bureaucracies would have to monitor women when they become pregnant to make sure the life isn't endangered/ended/aborted. What needs to happen if you want to discourage abortion is for you to give women reasons to have safe sex and planned pregnancies. At the end of the day, it's a woman's body and only her and her partner and doctor should be involved in the decision of what to do when she becomes pregnant.


It's a good thing both Ron and Rand disagree with you.  It's the babies inside the mother who are the slaves to those who wish to do them harm.  They actually have less protections than the slaves did.  Pretty much every liberty candidate ever supported by this forum has been pro life as well.

----------


## low preference guy

> And if he voted for him them he would lose all credibility among supporters of the tenth amendment (and so you can't use my being anarchist against me I will point out that anarchists believe in the decentralization of power that amendment represents).* Ron on the other hand has always voted against federal restrictions and therefor keeps his credibility*.


actually, no.

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




> Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.


I think the translation is: I really can't vote against this bill, even if it does more harm than good, because it will end my political career, and wouldn't jeopardize his election chances because of the abortion issue.

Nevertheless, he voted for it. I think because he did it because Ron didn't enter politics due to the issue of abortion.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Believing that the 5th and 14th amendments give the federal government the authority to regulate abortion is a legitimate position.  People have different interpretations of the Constitution.
> 
> Also, Ron voted for the federal ban on Partial Birth Abortion, and that wasn't justified by using the commerce clause.


The fourteenth amendment? are you serious? That amendment totally goes against the tenth amendment. That was created by Lincoln and anything from him is bad bad bad.

The constitution only applies to the FEDERAL government. The constitution says absolutely nothing about murder. That is a state issue.

----------


## AlexMerced

This bill will not pass or become law, let's get back to issue we all agree on like Foreign and Monetary Policy, unite not divide

----------


## HazyHusky420

> actually, no.
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html


Good thing I didn't read that when I was a constitutionalist. I would have dropped all support him. But i'm an anarchist who doesn't care about abortion (unless another pro-lifer touches my car) so I can't complain.

----------


## Matt Collins

> it doesn't change anything. even if murder is wrong, that doesn't mean there should be a global authority banning it. similarly, the states are autonomous entities, so they have and should have the authority to ban it.


I never said there should be a global authority. I essentially said that it should be universally banned.

----------


## Matt Collins

> What if a woman is raped?


The guy should be found guilty and castrated in the middle of the town square for all to see.

But a woman cannot take the life of another uninvolved human being just because an atrocity was committed against her.

----------


## low preference guy

> I never said there should be a global authority. I essentially said that it should be universally banned.


ok. then someone who proposes that the issue is handled by the states and not by the federal government isn't necessarily a non-libertarian.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Sex isn't a contract, it's rubbing a burning part of your groin onto the burning part of another person's groin to make it feel better.


Driving recklessly isn't a contract but if you damage someone else's property in the process, you're still responsible for it whether or not you "consented" to being responsible for it. By engaging in that specific activity you are liable for the consequences of your actions by default.

----------


## Brett85

> The fourteenth amendment? are you serious? That amendment totally goes against the tenth amendment. That was created by Lincoln and anything from him is bad bad bad.
> 
> The constitution only applies to the FEDERAL government. The constitution says absolutely nothing about murder. That is a state issue.


The fact that you don't like the 14th amendment doesn't mean that the amendment itself is somehow unconstitutional.  A constitutional amendment by definition can't be unconstitutional.

----------


## Matt Collins

> ok. then someone who proposes that the issue is handled by the states and not by the federal government isn't necessarily a non-libertarian.


Constitutionalism and libertarianism have nothing to do with one another.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The fact that you don't like the 14th amendment doesn't mean that the amendment itself is somehow unconstitutional.  A constitutional amendment by definition can't be unconstitutional.


 The 14th Amendment wasn't lawfully ratified and thus is illegitimate, null, and void.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> This bill will not pass or become law, let's get back to issue we all agree on like Foreign and Monetary Policy, unite not divide


some are too thickheaded

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> It's a good thing both Ron and Rand disagree with you.  It's the babies inside the mother who are the slaves to those who wish to do them harm.  They actually have less protections than the slaves did.  Pretty much every liberty candidate ever supported by this forum has been pro life as well.


Ron and Rand aren't perfect. I don't agree with either one of them on 100% of the issues. But at least be real. You think of a woman as nothing more than an incubator once she's pregnant. Forget trying to prevent her becoming pregnant, you're just concerned with something after the fact that you shouldn't worry about. Besides, most women get abortions before they start to "show" so do you really want to open up that can of worms? I agree with Murray Rothbard on this issue.

But forget rape. What if the mother's life is endangered? Then she's worth something?

----------


## HazyHusky420

> The fact that you don't like the 14th amendment doesn't mean that the amendment itself is somehow unconstitutional.  A constitutional amendment by definition can't be unconstitutional.


How about a constitutional amendment to repeal the first, second, fourth and tenth amendments? By your logic that would be constitutional.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> The fact that you don't like the 14th amendment doesn't mean that the amendment itself is somehow unconstitutional.  A constitutional amendment by definition can't be unconstitutional.


And the 16th amendment.....?

----------


## low preference guy

> Constitutionalism and libertarianism have nothing to do with one another.


It sounded like you were implying that StilesBC was justifying murder and therefore not being a libertarian by saying that the issue should be handled by the states. I assume that was a misunderstanding?




> You are confusing libertarianism with Constitutionalism. The Constitutional solution is to get it back to the State governments where it belongs. The libertarian issue is to ban it everywhere (at least before there is heart beat and brain waves) because it clearly infringes upon the rights of the individual being murdered. *Some people who call themselves libertarians attempt to justify murder but they are confused and illogical*.

----------


## Brett85

> Ron and Rand aren't perfect. I don't agree with either one of them on 100% of the issues. But at least be real. You think of a woman as nothing more than an incubator once she's pregnant. Forget trying to prevent her becoming pregnant, you're just concerned with something after the fact that you shouldn't worry about. Besides, most women get abortions before they start to "show" so do you really want to open up that can of worms? I agree with Murray Rothbard on this issue.
> 
> But forget rape. What if the mother's life is endangered? Then she's worth something?


I support an exception for the life of the mother, although I would say that even in that situation there is usually a way to save the woman's life without killing the baby.

----------


## Brett85

> How about a constitutional amendment to repeal the first, second, fourth and tenth amendments? By your logic that would be constitutional.


I wouldn't support that, but of course it would be constitutional.  2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states can pass any constitutional amendment they want to pass.

----------


## Brett85

> And the 16th amendment.....?


Every amendment is constitutional, but I'd like to repeal that one.

----------


## axiomata

> The guy should be found guilty and castrated in the middle of the town square for all to see.
> 
> But a woman cannot take the life of another uninvolved human being just because an atrocity was committed against her.


I disagree. If intercourse a type of natural contract, then it has to be voluntary. That's not to say abortion in the case of rape isn't immoral, it just shouldn't be illegal.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> I wouldn't support that, but of course it would be constitutional.  2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states can pass any constitutional amendment they want to pass.


Are you that woman who said opposing Obamacare is unconstitutional?

----------


## Brett85

> Are you that woman who said opposing Obamacare is unconstitutional?


Um, no.  But how can you argue that constitutional amendments themselves are unconstitutional?  The constitutional amendment process is authorized in the original constitution.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Um, no.  But how can you argue that constitutional amendments themselves are unconstitutional?  The constitutional amendment process is authorized in the original constitution.


But why have an amendment that contradicts another? Banning abortion on a national level completely goes against the tenth amendment.

----------


## Brett85

> The 14th Amendment wasn't lawfully ratified and thus is illegitimate, null, and void.


Well even if that's the case the 5th amendment still states this:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of *life*, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I think it's at least a legitimate argument to say that the 5th amendment can be used to protect the unborn.

----------


## Brett85

> But why have an amendment that contradicts another? Banning abortion on a national level completely goes against the tenth amendment.


A constitutional amendment banning abortion wouldn't repeal the 10th amendment.  Everything else that isn't in the Constitution would still be reserved to the states.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> A constitutional amendment banning abortion wouldn't repeal the 10th amendment.  Everything else that isn't in the Constitution would still be reserved to the states.


As much as the founders made today's social cons look like libertines they did not put murder anywhere in the constitution. Why not make all bad things a crime at the national level? Pro-lifers violate the property rights of car owners by putting pamphlets on them without the owner's permission, why not outlaw that on a national level?

----------


## Brett85

> As much as the founders made today's social cons look like libertines they did not put murder anywhere in the constitution. Why not make all bad things a crime at the national level? Pro-lifers violate the property rights of car owners by putting pamphlets on them without the owner's permission, why not outlaw that on a national level?


You could have a constitutional amendment banning abortion but still have it be enforced locally.  You're right that we don't have federal laws against murder, but if a state ever tried to legalize murder the federal government would prevent it from doing so.  There's certain rights that people have under the constitution.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> You could have a constitutional amendment banning abortion but still have it be enforced locally.  You're right that we don't have federal laws against murder, but if a state ever tried to legalize murder the federal government would prevent it from doing so.  There's certain rights that people have under the constitution.


As crazy as it would be for a state to outright legalize killing people (by people I don't mean fetuses) there is nothing in the constitution that would permit the feds to do anything. ANYTHING. That's like when some self-professed constitutionalists (like some Birchers) say that giving money to and defending racist socialist Israel is constitutional when it clearly is not.

----------


## low preference guy

> You could have a constitutional amendment banning abortion but still have it be enforced locally.  You're right that we don't have federal laws against murder, but if* a state ever tried to legalize murder the federal government would prevent it from doing so*.  There's certain rights that people have under the constitution.


but would it be legal? if so, which part of article one section eight allows the federal government to intervene?

----------


## Brett85

> but would it be legal? if so, which part of article one section eight allows the federal government to intervene?


I believe the 5th amendment does.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of *life*, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I see the potential for a lot more tyranny if this became law on a national level.
> 
> Think of a UCPS (Unborn Child Protective Services) which ensures that mothers are doing all that they can to protect the life inside them..


That would be a likely side effect.





> In some ways the idea of abortion police seems to open another door for the nanny state.


That is the trade off. Inviting the government in is always a risky proposition.




> I think that is all this bill would do, return it to the states.


Declaring that life begins at conception would legally make all abortion murder. At least that's my take on it. No State vs. Fed issues really.

---

We all agree that human life should be protected. We all agree that abortion should be avoided. We all probably agree that mid to late-term abortion should never be performed.

The root issue is when does it become a life. A secondary issue is what government laws should be applicable at what point. Rand is addressing both of those issues, and by doing that, he is drawing an extreme line in the sand, and forcing sides to be taken.

IMHO, it's a red herring. An issue embraced and nurtured by the establishment to distract from other issues. "Vote for candidate A or candidate B  (who are identical establishment pawns except for a pretend stand on abortion)".

----------


## HazyHusky420

> I believe the 5th amendment does.
> 
> "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of *life*, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


again, federal government.

----------


## Brett85

> again, federal government.


Right, since it applies to the federal government it means that the federal government has the right to protect life.

----------


## low preference guy

> I believe the 5th amendment does.


you just turned the constitution upside down.

the purpose of the document was to restrain the federal government, limiting its functions mainly to national defense, and have the states be "laboratories of democracy". the bill of rights was not meant to apply against the states but against the federal government. even with the incorporation doctrine bull$#@! the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't allowed the grand jury indictment clause of the Fifth Amendment to be applied against the states.

your name "Traditional Conservative" is a misnomer. a traditional conservative wants to keep the original intent of the constitution, not have an all powerful central government, which leaves little autonomy to the states. that's what you're advocating. please don't complain when the federal government is so powerful and our nation so centralized that the idiots in DC are able to impose on you whatever moronic law they come up with, like universal healthcare.

i'd advise you to join the Daily Kos. you'll find great new pals to talk about the desirability of having a living constitution.

----------


## Brett85

> you just turned the constitution upside down.
> 
> the purpose of the document was to restrain the federal government, limiting its functions mainly to national defense, and have the states be "experiments of democracy". the bill of rights was not meant to apply against the states but against the federal government. even with the incorporation doctrine bull$#@! the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't allowed the grand jury indictment clause of the Fifth Amendment to be applied against the states.
> 
> your name "Traditional Conservative" is a misnomer. a traditional conservative wants to keep the original intent of the constitution, not have an all powerful central government, which leaves little autonomy to the states. that's what you're advocating. please don't complain when the federal government is so powerful and our nation so centralized that the idiots in DC are able to impose on you whatever moronic law they come up with, like universal healthcare.
> 
> i'd advice you to join the Daily Kos. you'll have a great time talking about the desirability of having a living constitution.


Now I realize why I put you on my ignore list.  I should've chose not to read your post.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> a traditional conservative wants to keep the original intent of the constitution, not have an all powerful central government, which leaves little autonomy to the states.


That depends. Some people are conservatives for cultural reasons with nothing to do with the constitution. In most countries a conservative is a nationalist and they can be either capitalist or socialist. That's the type of conservative Pat Buchanan is. He doesn't give a damn about states rights. He wants everything to be centralized.

----------


## Brett85

> That depends. Some people are conservatives for cultural reasons with nothing to do with the constitution. In most countries a conservative is a nationalist and they can be either capitalist or socialist. That's the type of conservative Pat Buchanan is. He doesn't give a damn about states rights, he wants everything to be centralized. Maybe that's what Traditional Conservative is.


I support abolishing about 80% of the federal government, so I'm not exactly an authoritarian.  I also support legalizing drugs and prostitution, so I'm not a down the line social conservative.  I just think that the government exists to protect our lives, our liberty, and our private property rights.

----------


## low preference guy

> Now I realize why I put you on my ignore list.  I should've chose not to read your post.


whatever. i guess you are ashamed of advocating for a living constitution and prefer not to be reminded. but denying reality won't do you any good.




> I just think that the government exists to protect our lives, our liberty, and our private property rights.


having the kind of interventionist central government you advocate for won't protect your life, liberty, or private property rights.

----------


## Brett85

> whatever. i guess you are ashamed of advocating for a living constitution and prefer not to be reminded. but denying reality won't do you any good.
> 
> 
> 
> having the kind of interventionist central government you advocate for won't protect your life, liberty, or private property rights.


Your position that the states actually have the right to legalize murder is an insanely ridiculous position.  You should realize that we all have God given rights that can't even be taken away by the states.  A state government does not have the right to legalize murder.  Apparently you're a statist who believes that state governments should have the right to take all of our rights away from us.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> I support abolishing about 80% of the federal government, so I'm not exactly an authoritarian.  I also support legalizing drugs and prostitution, so I'm not a down the line social conservative.  I just think that the government exists to protect our lives, our liberty, and our private property rights.


I wasn't necessarily calling you authoritarian. LPG said a traditional conservative was one that followed the constitution, and I pointed out that most of the time a conservative is nothing more than a social/cultural conservative with economic views varying from socialism to capitalism. I think Stormfront is a good example. The posters there are either hardline paleoconservatives or national socialists. They have differing economic views but are otherwise uniformally conservative. This is why even as a constitutionalist/minarchist I didn't call myself a conservative. Sure I believed in the constitution but I was still an outright cultural liberal, and if I tried to call myself conservative I would either get lectured on social issues or have to explain myself so I wouldn't be viewed as a social con or anything else i'm not.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Your position that the states actually have the right to legalize murder is an insanely ridiculous position.  You should realize that we all have God given rights that *can't even be taken away by the states*.  *A state government does not have the right to legalize murder*.  Apparently you're a statist who believes that state governments should have the right to take all of our rights away from us.


You sound just like a culturally conservative anarchist XD

Are you sure you're not an anarchist? Don't worry, our views on cultural issues vary as much anyone else, so you're welcome =D

----------


## Brett85

> I wasn't necessarily calling you authoritarian. LPG said a traditional conservative was one that followed the constitution, and I pointed out that most of the time a conservative is nothing more than a social/cultural conservative with economic views varying from socialism to capitalism. I think Stormfront is a good example. The posters there are either hardline paleoconservatives or national socialists. They have differing economic views but are otherwise uniformally conservative. This is why even as a constitutionalist/minarchist I didn't call myself a conservative. Sure I believed in the constitution but I was still an outright cultural liberal, and if I tried to call myself conservative I would either get lectured on social issues or have to explain myself so I wouldn't be viewed as a social con or anything else i'm not.


I call myself a conservative here, because compared to the average poster here I am a conservative or even a statist.  But compared to the average American I'm probably a hardcore libertarian.  My parents think that I'm a hardcore libertarian because I don't think that the government should be involved in drug use, prostitution, gambling, pornography, etc.  My liberal uncle believes that I'm a hardcore libertarian because I want to basically abolish the entire federal government other than the Department of Defense and a few other things.

----------


## low preference guy

> Your position that the states actually have the right to legalize murder is an insanely ridiculous position.  You should realize that we all have God given rights that can't even be taken away by the states.  A state government does not have the right to legalize murder.  Apparently you're a statist who believes that state governments should have the right to take all of our rights away from us.


Do you think the Federal Government should intervene in the Civil War in Darfur? No? Your position that Darfur has the right to legalize murder is an insanely ridiculous position!

---

the whole point of having autonomous states is that in the long run they'll have the best policies. but they should be autonomous in principle, otherwise the system doesn't work.

if a state legalizes killing, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to get away with it. you can take your guns and rebel, or even people from other states can help. but *it's stupid to try to solve one problem by destroying the system that guarantees the best possible result in the long run*.

i wish you a lot of luck in having an interventionist central government that will guarantee your life, liberty, and property.

i'm just kidding about wishing you luck, because even with infinite luck, the only thing that an interventionist central government can guarantee is usurpations to your liberties and property.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I disagree. If intercourse a type of natural contract, then it has to be voluntary. That's not to say abortion in the case of rape isn't immoral, it just shouldn't be illegal.


When is the killing of an innocent human being ever legal?

----------


## Legend1104

I still haven't figured out why some have thought Rand was wasting his time. I support the idea that a person is honest enough to stand for what he believes. I really liked Grayson for his overwhelming support against the Fed, the wars, and other issues. I can even respect the fact that he supported health care. I obviously think he was wrong but at least he has been honest enough to say what he believes in those cases. I don't want someone that ignores issues that he supports because he thinks they are unpopular and may lose him support. If Rand thinks the issue is wrong, then he should say something. I am against abortion, and I will gladly voice my opinion, but I do not expect/care if people stop liking me on these forums because of that. Going back to Grayson, I like him because of the Fed and war issue, but I do not get turned off from him because of his liberal stance on other issues. Coalitions join people on like minded issues and ignore the differences on other issues. We can still get support from liberals on economic issues even when we disagree on others, but to say that a person should be silent if it may offend someone is dishonest.

----------


## specsaregood

> Declaring that life begins at conception would legally make all abortion murder. At least that's my take on it. No State vs. Fed issues really.


And where are such crimes dealt with?  Murder, manslaughter, etc are all legislated/prosecuted at the state level.  The states have different punishments and definitions of those crimes.  I don't see why this would be any different.  This would just return abortion back to the state level where it belongs.

----------


## axiomata

> When is the killing of an innocent human being ever legal?


 If I'm driving my Geo Metro and a semi blows a tire and swerves into my lane, and then I swerve onto the curb killing a pedestrian.

If a terrorist takes a hostage and starts shooting at you and you return fire and hit the hostage.

I can go on.

Not all tragedies are illegal and not all illegalities are tragic.

----------


## TheDriver

> When is the killing of an innocent human being ever legal?


Duels were legal in Kentucky up until the Civil War, and generally someone died, see Andrew Jackson/ Charles Dickinson duel. Although I guess an argument could be made that someone signing up for a duel isn't necessarily innocent, but they're damn sure belligerent. 

But you guys are way off topic.

----------


## Brett85

> You sound just like a culturally conservative anarchist XD
> 
> Are you sure you're not an anarchist? Don't worry, our views on cultural issues vary as much anyone else, so you're welcome =D


Lol.  I'm more of an anarchist then I used to be.  I used to be a neocon before I became a Ron Paul supporter.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Duels were legal in Kentucky up until the Civil War, and generally someone died, see Andrew Jackson/ Charles Dickinson duel. Although I guess an argument could be made that someone signing up for a duel isn't necessarily innocent, but they're damn sure belligerent. 
> 
> But you guys are way off topic.


Throwing the issue of abortion into a crowd of libertarians is like throwing a steak into a crowd of hungry cats. They will all fight over it.

----------


## Brett85

> Throwing the issue of abortion into a crowd of libertarians is like throwing a steak into a crowd of hungry cats. They will all fight over it.


Yep.  165 posts on Rand's forum which not very many people usually visit.

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Lol.  I'm more of an anarchist then I used to be.


Aren't we all?

----------


## axiomata

> Lol.  I'm more of an anarchist then I used to be.  I used to be a neocon before I became a Ron Paul supporter.


Saying you are a little anarchist is like saying you are a little pregnant.  There are shades of minarchism but once you take the red pill of anarchy is all about flavors (anarcho-capital, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.)

----------


## Legend1104

> Aren't we all?


Not all.

----------


## TheTyke

Rand is introducing legislation to define life as beginning at conception like Ron did. It should be no big whoop, other than he is principled like his Dad. Abortion is killing even more than our wars are, so it's a serious issue, and to be consistently against unjust taking of life, you need to be against both. This topic has been argued infinitely, so I won't get into it again, save a quote from Ron:

"I have heard the arguments in favor of abortion many times, and they have always disturbed me deeply. A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the child in the womb as a "parasite" that the woman has the right to expel from her body. But the same argument justifies outright infanticide, since it applies just as well to the infant outside the womb: newborns require even more attention and care, and in that sense are even more 'parasitic.'

"If we can be so callous as to refer to a growing child in a mother's womb as a parasite, I fear for our country's future all the more. Whether it is war or abortion, we conceal the reality of violent acts through linguistic contrivances meant to devalue human lives we find inconvenient. Dead civilians become 'collateral damage,' are ignored altogether, or are rationalized away on the Leninist grounds that to make an omelet you have to break some eggs. (The apostle Paul, on the other hand, condemned the idea that we should do evil that good may come." People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted. In both cases, we try to make human life into something less than human, simply according to our will." - Ron Paul, The Revolution

----------


## angelatc

> I'd prefer Libertarians avoided this issue completely.  .


Rand Paul is a Republican.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> And where are such crimes dealt with?  Murder, manslaughter, etc are all legislated/prosecuted at the state level.  The states have different punishments and definitions of those crimes.  I don't see why this would be any different.  This would just return abortion back to the state level where it belongs.


Of course. But don't all States have laws against killing people? If life is defined to begin at conception, all of a sudden the State laws against murder would apply. States could attempt to modify those laws to allow abortion, but those laws might then be declared unconstitutional based on "depriving life". I haven't looked at this in depth, so this could be wrong, but I assumed that was the point of declaring "life begins at conception".

----------


## HazyHusky420

> Rand is introducing legislation to define life as beginning at conception like Ron did. It should be no big whoop, other than he is principled like his Dad. Abortion is killing even more than our wars are


Which has cost more money? I'm neutral on abortion so therefor i'm worried about far more important things like the economy.

----------


## TheTyke

> Which has cost more money? I'm neutral on abortion so therefor i'm worried about far more important things like the economy.


How much is a single life worth?

Now multiply that by 53,000,000.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Duels were legal in Kentucky up until the Civil War, and generally someone died, see Andrew Jackson/ Charles Dickinson duel. Although I guess an argument could be made that someone signing up for a duel isn't necessarily innocent, but they're damn sure belligerent.


They were also voluntarily participating in this event which could end their life. The unborn child is unable to make that decision for themselves.




> If I'm driving my Geo Metro and a semi blows a  tire and swerves into my lane, and then I swerve onto the curb killing a  pedestrian.
> 
> If a terrorist takes a hostage and starts shooting at you and you return fire and hit the hostage.
> 
> I can go on.
> 
> Not all tragedies are illegal and not all illegalities are tragic.


 I should've put the word "intentionally" in my statement.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I know that you're not on either side.  You're on the top of the "left-right" spectrum.  Ron is on the top but leaning slightly right.  I'm on the upper right.  I'm somewhere in between a conservative and a libertarian.
> 
> http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm


The On the Issues graph is wrong. It has Ron as NOT trying to reduce the tax burden or make it lower and/or flatter. An economic score of 68%, when jackoff Republicans regularly get 90% and 95%? Laugh. Ron would be a tick from the top to the right if properly calculated, and it's only because of his views on abortion. Dude's libertarian.

----------


## dannno

> i'd advise you to join the Daily Kos. you'll find great new pals


lol, that's a bit extreme

----------


## dannno

> How much is a single life worth?
> 
> Now multiply that by 53,000,000.


So, your solution is to imprison the creators of that life? What if they wanted to create more life later, and by putting them in prison for murder you prevented that from happening? Doesn't that make you the person taking away life?

----------


## jmdrake

> i never understood how pro lifers could go to work everyday "knowing" all this killing was going on everyday
> 
> you think they'd be more outraged


Well you and I go to work everyday knowing that killing is going on around the world in the name of the U.S.  And we now know thanks to WikiLeaks that taxpayer dollars were diverted to support child rape in Afghanistan.  Does that mean you and I should quit work?  Quit and do what exactly?

----------


## specsaregood

> Of course. But don't all States have laws against killing people? If life is defined to begin at conception, all of a sudden the State laws against murder would apply. States could attempt to modify those laws to allow abortion, but those laws might then be declared unconstitutional based on "depriving life". I haven't looked at this in depth, so this could be wrong, but I assumed that was the point of declaring "life begins at conception".


The federal government allows the states to execute people all the time.   The states could handle abortion how they see fit.

----------


## Brett85

> So, your solution is to imprison the creators of that life? What if they wanted to create more life later, and by putting them in prison for murder you prevented that from happening? Doesn't that make you the person taking away life?


My solution is to imprison abortion doctors.

----------


## jmdrake

> yeah thats murder


Great.  I'm glad you agree.  But now say if the evil doctor had managed to snip the spinal cords *before* the baby came out of the womb?  Would that have made it something other than murder?  Why exactly?  I was listening to one commentator talk about this and he said that killing the babies outside the woman was actually safer for the mothers somehow.  If that's true, and if it's ok to kill a fetus 7 months into a pregnancy, then why prosecute the doctor at all?  He ended up with the same result (dead baby) and with a safer result for his patients.

Something else to consider.  I've see the "stowaway" analogy used to "explain" abortion rights.  (I don't know if you posted it or not).  Basically the analogy is that imagine the fetus as a stowaway on a ship.  Supposedly you'd have the right to throw a stowaway off your ship.  Well late term abortion is like shooting a stowaway and throwing him off your ship instead of just letting him get off (normal delivery) or throwing him off *alive* onto land (Caesarian birth).  Abortions earlier in the pregnancy are like throwing a stowaway off in the middle of the ocean in shark infested waters where there is a 100% chance that he will die.  Of course what those who use this analogy leave out is that *you have no legal right to do that to a real stowaway.  If you did you'd be prosecuted for murder.*  Your only legal option is to keep him on the boat until you get to shore and then charge him for the trip.  And consider how the stowaway got there.  Babies don't "sneak" inside their mothers.  They are put their by some adult, usually with the consent of the mother.  Maybe she didn't want to get pregnant, but typically she wanted to do the act that risked the pregnancy.  Back to the stowaway example, that would be like a ship owner throwing a wild party, someone getting drunk and passing out, and the ship owner discovering this person still on his boat when he's out in the middle of the ocean.  The ship owner could have avoided the problem by being more careful to check and make sure everyone got safely off the ship.  But even if you blame the stowaway, that again does not give the ship owner license to throw the stowaway overboard into shark invested waters.

That said, as a society we do have to be careful when looking at repealing Roe v. Wade.  We want to avoid negative unintended consequences.  The rule of law and rights like the right against unreasonable search must be upheld no matter what laws there are.  But the argument that abortion is some kind of "natural right" does not look at the full picture.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> Very disappointed.
> 
> How is this shrinking government? A women has the *right* to choose regardless of what you, I, Rand Paul, or the state believe is the right choice.
> 
> I hope this fails. I hope Ron Paul will not follow suit on this in the House or I'm voting someone else.


Don't be ridiculous. I am pro-choice also, but who cares. It is completely reasonable for someone who believes the rights of personhood are extended to the fetus at conception, to want to protect that life. 

Slutter McGee

----------


## muzzled dogg

Ugh @ this thread still going

----------


## jmdrake

> Will black cohosh and pennyroyal become illegal on a national level?


No more than it is already.  The FDA doesn't approve those methods for abortion, so any doctor prescribing them for that method would under the current rules likely get into trouble just like you can get into trouble for other natural remedies.  On the other hand, if abortion became illegal more people would probably turn to such remedies.

----------


## specsaregood

> They are put their by some adult, usually with the consent of the mother. Maybe she didn't want to get pregnant, but typically she wanted to do the act that risked the pregnancy.


You would think more people here would understand the _moral hazard_ created by our current abortion on demand system.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You would think more people here would understand the _moral hazard_ created by our current abortion on demand system.


That's exactly right.

Instead of abortion advocates thinking that they are doing the "responsible" thing, they don't realize the moral hazard:

Abortion PROMOTES irresponsibility, in the same way that the FED promotes irresponsibility in the market.

----------


## Brett85

If anybody really wonders why Rand is doing this, just read this article.

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/t...osts=6&start=1

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in America, Roe v. Wade, it was disputed by no one that 'if' the fetus is a 'person', it is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.* Again, 'if' the fetus is a 'person', no state would be able to enact laws allowing abortion.* On both the left and the right, there is agreement on that.* No state may pass legislation allowing the murder of a specific group of 'persons'.* Period. 
> 
> The Court did not recognize that the fetus is a 'person'.* Had it done so, abortion would have been outlawed across America because of the Fourteenth Amendment.* No state law allowing abortion could be upheld if the fetus is legally defined as a ' person'.


I see what Rand is doing here.

----------


## Brett85

> I see what Rand is doing here.


Yeah.  He took this position during the GOP primary, so I don't know why anybody is surprised.  All of these people who want to flame away at him will never hold any kind of political office.  People think that purity is more important than winning elections.

----------


## georgiaboy

> I see what Rand is doing here.


What's Rand doing?  I'm not sure I'm seeing what you may be seeing.

----------


## angelatc

> and piss off libertarians as well?


If nothing else, it's a numbers game.  The number of libertarians vs the number of Republicans.  The libertarians are small in number, and have no ability to compromise on any issues.  If they're not mad about abortion, they'll get mad about something else.  They're not a stable voting bloc, and trying to pander to them is an exercise in futility.

Rand is not pandering, and I'm not saying he is - this is exactly the platform he ran on.  I am assuming that perhaps the pro-death libertarians were hoping that he was pandering on this issue, but that's not his fault.

----------


## angelatc

> No more than it is already.  The FDA doesn't approve those methods for abortion, so any doctor prescribing them for that method would under the current rules likely get into trouble just like you can get into trouble for other natural remedies.  On the other hand, if abortion became illegal more people would probably turn to such remedies.


I don't necessarily agree.  The FDA is on the verge of banning bath salts.  Not to mention the pharmaceutical lobby has a lot of money to be made from the Plan-B pills.  The pro-life movement is just that: pro-life.  I can't think of a good reason to assume that those herbal "final solutions" won't go on the list of banned substances.

----------


## specsaregood

> I don't necessarily agree.  The FDA is on the verge of banning bath salts.  Not to mention the pharmaceutical lobby has a lot of money to be made from the Plan-B pills.  The pro-life movement is just that: pro-life.  I can't think of a good reason to assume that those herbal "final solutions" won't go on the list of banned substances.


But, as Dr. Paul has pointed out in the past, the morning after pills, other methods used within the first days/weeks would be dificult to ban for pro-life purposes because you can't prove that conception has occurred.

----------


## Working Poor

I think this will hurt him

----------


## Brett85

> I think this will hurt him


Right.  I forgot that Kentucky is such a pro abortion state.

----------


## Brett85

> What's Rand doing?  I'm not sure I'm seeing what you may be seeing.


He's justifying federal involvement in abortion by using the 14th amendment rather than using the commerce clause.  You would obviously have to have a very liberal view of the commerce clause in order to justify federal abortion laws, and Rand doesn't want to do that.  He's instead saying that personhood extends to the unborn, and the unborn should have rights under the 14th amendment.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The federal government allows the states to execute people all the time.   The states could handle abortion how they see fit.


Capital punishment is extremely limited, and has been banned before (for a time) by the Supremer Court. It takes a very specific and drawn out due process. In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that no one under the age of 18 will receive capital punishment.




> If anybody really wonders why Rand is doing this, just read this article.
> 
> http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/t...osts=6&start=1


Yeah, that is my understanding of the whole point of this:




> In the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in America, Roe v. Wade, it was disputed by no one that 'if' the fetus is a 'person', it is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Again, 'if' the fetus is a 'person', no state would be able to enact laws allowing abortion.  On both the left and the right, there is agreement on that.  No state may pass legislation allowing the murder of a specific group of 'persons'.  Period. 
> 
> The Court did not recognize that the fetus is a 'person'.  Had it done so, abortion would have been outlawed across America because of the Fourteenth Amendment.  No state law allowing abortion could be upheld if the fetus is legally defined as a 'person'.





> He's justifying federal involvement in abortion by using the 14th amendment rather than using the commerce clause.  You would obviously have to have a very liberal view of the commerce clause in order to justify federal abortion laws, and Rand doesn't want to do that.  He's instead saying that personhood extends to the unborn, and the unborn should have rights under the 14th amendment.

----------


## KAYA

> Very disappointed.
> 
> How is this shrinking government? A women has the *right* to choose regardless of what you, I, Rand Paul, or the state believe is the right choice.
> 
> I hope this fails. I hope Ron Paul will not follow suit on this in the House or I'm voting someone else.


An innocent human life has the *right* to live.

----------


## georgiaboy

> An innocent human life has the *right* to live.


+rep.

----------


## KAYA

> states or the people.  ideally the state constitution infringes minimally on an individual's rights.
> 
> ie, a woman's right to her own person
> 
> let her decide what to do with her own body


The the problem with your argument is that the body in question, the one being destroyed is NOT her body.  Its the body of another human being, an innocent life that deserves the right to live.

----------


## specsaregood

> Capital punishment is extremely limited, and has been banned before (for a time) by the Supremer Court. It takes a very specific and drawn out due process. In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that no one under the age of 18 will receive capital punishment.


And what could stop a state from making performing an abortion a misdemeanor or making a state law that prevented prosecution?

----------


## georgiaboy

> He's justifying federal involvement in abortion by using the 14th amendment rather than using the commerce clause.  You would obviously have to have a very liberal view of the commerce clause in order to justify federal abortion laws, and Rand doesn't want to do that.  He's instead saying that personhood extends to the unborn, and the unborn should have rights under the 14th amendment.


//



> *
> You must spread some Reputation
> around before giving it to 
> Traditional Conservative again.*

----------


## dannno

> I can't think of a good reason to assume that those herbal "final solutions" won't go on the list of banned substances.


You really want to ban herbs?? Really?

You don't think they have any other uses?

----------


## dannno

> But, as Dr. Paul has pointed out in the past, the morning after pills, other methods used within the first days/weeks would be dificult to ban for pro-life purposes because you can't prove that conception has occurred.


Yes, precisely because they are taken BEFORE conception occurs.. 

But banning herbs is also ridiculous. I've never in my life understood how you can ban a plant that exists in nature and think you are doing something good for humanity. Sounds more like people are trying to correct nature's or God's 'mistakes', it wreaks of arrogance.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He's justifying federal involvement in abortion by using the 14th amendment rather than using the commerce clause.  You would obviously have to have a very liberal view of the commerce clause in order to justify federal abortion laws, and Rand doesn't want to do that.  He's instead saying that personhood extends to the unborn, and the unborn should have rights under the 14th amendment.


Yes^^^

Rand is just an awesome statesman, and I think he was trying to clarify his position to some of the pro-life folks who thought this:




> Rand Paul's lack of support for the Fourteenth Amendment has gotten him into all sorts of problems, and abortion is just one among them.


Rand has impressed me beyond what I thought he could do...

----------


## Romulus

This sort of sucks, but its one of those issues that divides liberty minded people.... I wish he would focus on ending the spending/Fed/warfare/welfare problem instead...

----------


## georgiaboy

> This sort of sucks, but its one of those issues that divides liberty minded people.... I wish he would focus on ending the spending/Fed/warfare/welfare problem instead...


I like to think he's firing on all cylinders.

----------


## Romulus

> I like to think he's firing on all cylinders.


 I'm not sure it's priority I guess.. But yes, he's wasting no time and covering alot of bases.. props to him.

----------


## Brett85

> This sort of sucks, but its one of those issues that divides liberty minded people.... I wish he would focus on ending the spending/Fed/warfare/welfare problem instead...


I don't really think that he's "focusing" on this issue.  He just cosponsored a bill, which isn't that big of a deal.  It's a bill that probably won't even make it to the Senate floor.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't necessarily agree.  The FDA is on the verge of banning bath salts.  Not to mention the pharmaceutical lobby has a lot of money to be made from the Plan-B pills.  The pro-life movement is just that: pro-life.  I can't think of a good reason to assume that those herbal "final solutions" won't go on the list of banned substances.


I guess I didn't word that well.  I'm operating under the assumption that these herbal remedies are already "banned" for the sake of being used as "medicine".  Now if the federal government was going to make mere [i]possession[/b] of these herbal "treatments" banned, I would think they would go through the DEA as opposed to the FDA.  I could be wrong though.

----------


## RM918

I care about the abortion issue and I'm against the infringement of a private individual's right to life even though the situation is - a vast majority of the time - the result of the actions of the one wanting said individual purged and no fault at all of theirs.

However, legislatively there are so, so, so many more things that need to be worried about first. I'll never discount a candidate because they're pro-choice, the only issues that on their own would sway me away from them were if they were not against destroying the empire or getting rid of the income tax.

----------


## newbitech

so if this becomes a law, does this mean Doctors cannot assist someone with a medical abortion at any stage?  So what we'll end up with is botched attempts and drive abortion underground.  We'll also end up with more abandoned newborns won't we?  I just don't see how applying more government to the issue of abortion will help protect life, liberty, and property.  

Also, wouldn't this allow some people to retire 9 months earlier, drive 9 months earlier, drink and smoke 9 months earlier, become president or a congress person 9 months earlier, wouldn't we need to change our driver license to reflect our true age?  I just can't understand what has all of a sudden changed in society that says people come in to existence prior to being born.  Is it technology that is forcing laws and fundamental ideals to be changed?  

Surely the founders had no knowledge of DNA.  Had they this knowledge, would they have put the life of the dependent being above the life of the independent being?  That is the true question IMO.

Surely there must be a differentiation in the discussion of human life.  For instance, are the people who go on a shooting rampage, human?  Or are they animals that lack that part of the brain that would restrain 99.99% of people from going ballistic?  It's easy to say mechanically that what makes human life is the DNA signature of the organism.  But can we really say that this alleged unborn human life has any of the other characteristics that separate humans from any other form of life?  

In the case of the mass murder does he not maintain all the characteristics of a human being?  Yet, we have no problem in punishing him and putting him to death.  Of course, this is the consequence of his actions, but do we really know if he was acting in full control?  Maybe he was driven mad at an early age by parents who raped and abused him, effectively stripping him of his humanity.  Should we also hold his parents accountable for bringing forth (birthing) this killer? 

At what point do we remove the responsibility from the parents and call this alleged human being an individual?  It would seem to me that we are removing that responsibility at conception by passing this law.  

I do not feel the responsibility to protect life while it resides inside of another human beings skin.  In fact, there is no possible way I can protect that life without destroying another.  The best I can do is throw stones at this woman after the fact, and seriously, how is that promoting any kind of personal liberty and personal responsibility?  

Yes, I'd love to stand up and fight for the rights of those who cannot do so for themselves.  In the case of the unborn human, there is no possible way to do so with out violating that which I seek to protect.  Pro-Lifers I believe should focus their efforts on developing an artificial womb and the methods for extracting that life before the afterglow of unprotected sex wears off and continuing on until such time as they deem these humans capable of supporting themselves.  Otherwise, I see this as unwelcome meddling in the affairs of an individual who is not asking for the government to take care of them from "CRADLE to GRAVE".  Cradle of course being the mothers womb.

Unnecessary expansion of limited federal government powers, and an end run on the constitution.  I expect to see some pretty nasty ugly things in a free society, but I also expect the people and communities around the woman having the abortion to self-govern.  That will never happen as long as people think we can legislate what is and what isn't human life.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ugh @ this thread still going


I hate to say this, but this is one of the more important threads at RPF.  Assuming that Ron Paul actually runs for president, this movement will have to deal his *his* position on abortion as opposed to the "libertarian" position, whatever that is.  Do you realize that Ron Paul introduced back in 2005 and 2007 the sanctity of life act and the we the people act that would essentially do everything Rand has proposed here?  It's *quite likely* that Ron will introduce the house version of Rand's bill.  (He and Rand might have drafted this bill around the breakfast table).  You don't have to agree with Ron and/or Rand on everything, but you need to be able to come to terms with it at least somewhat.

It's time people start seriously thinking about the 2012 election.  We have to play *whatever hand we're dealt* and play it as effectively as possible.  Matt Collins recently posted about how he passed out CFL fliers at a local pro life rally.  I did that back in 2007.  Some of the people theo re were unsure if Ron Paul was pro life or not.  I handed out RP pro life "slim jims" showing that he was.  One lady said she couldn't vote for Ron Paul because he supported gay marriage.  I told her that was *not true* and that Ron supported the states making the decision and in Tennessee there's absolutely no chance of that passing.  (I know some people here want to claim Ron supports gay marriage despite the fact that he has defended DOMA on the house floor.  I think that just causes confusion and does nothing to help our cause).

I remember another time when we were marching through downtown Nashville about 200 strong.  We were passing out slim jims.  One was "Ron Paul the conservative".  One young "goth" lady was at first cheering us on.  But then she saw the slim jim and she started yelling "Ron Paul's not a conservative.  He's a libertarian".  At the time I had little idea what a "libertarian" was.  (I had heard the label.  I was very unfamiliar with the terminology).  All I could say then, and all I can say now, is that this was official literature from campaign headquarters.  

Maybe Ron won't run.  Maybe it will be Gary Johnson.  If so, those who stay on board will have to decide how to defend his position of being _personally_ against abortion while signing "anti abortion" legislation as governor.  Was that legislation really not all that significant?  Or does his "personal pro choice" position just not mean much?  Or maybe he wants abortion to remain somewhat legal but is ok with "reasonable restrictions" on it?  I'm not sure.  I haven't thought much about his position and how to sell it.  But if I have to, I will.

----------


## dannno

> We'll also end up with more abandoned newborns won't we?


Yup, and they probably won't end up like Moses.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Maybe Ron won't run.  Maybe it will be Gary Johnson.  If so, those who stay on board will have to decide how to defend his position of being _personally_ against abortion while signing "anti abortion" legislation as governor.  Was that legislation really not all that significant?  Or does his "personal pro choice" position just not mean much?  Or maybe he wants abortion to remain somewhat legal but is ok with "reasonable restrictions" on it?  I'm not sure.  I haven't thought much about his position and how to sell it.  But if I have to, I will.


I support Rand, Ron and GJ. At risk of repeating myself, I think the abortion issue is a red herring created by and for the establishment. Therefore, I don't use it as part of determining whether to support a given candidate.

----------


## jmdrake

> so if this becomes a law, does this mean Doctors cannot assist someone with a medical abortion at any stage?  So what we'll end up with is botched attempts and drive abortion underground.  We'll also end up with more abandoned newborns won't we?  I just don't see how applying more government to the issue of abortion will help protect life, liberty, and property.


Ummm....no.  We won't end up with more abandoned newborns.  We'll end up with more adoptions, and probably less abandoned newborns because women won't put of dealing with their pregnancy until the last possible second because in the back of their mind they think they have a "choice" of aborting.  Seriously, doom and gloom were predicted when the partial birth abortion ban went into effect.  I haven't seen any of the doom or the gloom.




> Also, wouldn't this allow some people to retire 9 months earlier, drive 9 months earlier, drink and smoke 9 months earlier, become president or a congress person 9 months earlier, wouldn't we need to change our driver license to reflect our true age?  I just can't understand what has all of a sudden changed in society that says people come in to existence prior to being born.  Is it technology that is forcing laws and fundamental ideals to be changed?


Before Roe v. Wade became law, did states which barred abortion grant drivers licenses 9 months earlier?  If yes then you have a point.  If not......




> Surely the founders had no knowledge of DNA.  Had they this knowledge, would they have put the life of the dependent being above the life of the independent being?  That is the true question IMO.


Umm....what on *earth* does DNA have to do with the point you are trying to make?  Because I don't see it.  If this were a surrogate mother attempting to have an abortion would that really change the calculus (assuming that she wasn't violating her contract)?  DNA is irrelevant to the discussion.




> Surely there must be a differentiation in the discussion of human life.  For instance, are the people who go on a shooting rampage, human?  Or are they animals that lack that part of the brain that would restrain 99.99% of people from going ballistic?  It's easy to say mechanically that what makes human life is the DNA signature of the organism.  But can we really say that this alleged unborn human life has any of the other characteristics that separate humans from any other form of life?


Is the essence of your argument regarding DNA that the pro life crowd is depending on it to make their case?  If so, that's simply not true.




> In the case of the mass murder does he not maintain all the characteristics of a human being?  Yet, we have no problem in punishing him and putting him to death.  Of course, this is the consequence of his actions, but do we really know if he was acting in full control?  Maybe he was driven mad at an early age by parents who raped and abused him, effectively stripping him of his humanity.  Should we also hold his parents accountable for bringing forth (birthing) this killer?


I'm not following your point.  If someone is judged legally insane we don't convict him of murder.  But the threshold for being legally insane is higher than for being clinically insane.  Still this really has no tie in to abortion.




> At what point do we remove the responsibility from the parents and call this alleged human being an individual?  It would seem to me that we are removing that responsibility at conception by passing this law.


So someone isn't human until he is morally responsible?  Really?  Recently someone posted a video of a toddler in some foreign country who's father handed him a pistol after shooting it in a wedding ceremony, and the toddler, imitating what he saw, shot and accidentally killed the father.  No reasonable jury on the planet would find this toddler guilty of anything.  But most people would find him "human" and find that he had a "right to life".




> I do not feel the responsibility to protect life while it resides inside of another human beings skin.  In fact, there is no possible way I can protect that life without destroying another.  The best I can do is throw stones at this woman after the fact, and seriously, how is that promoting any kind of personal liberty and personal responsibility?


So if a woman is unable to have an abortion she is "destroyed"?  That's a bit of a stretch don't you think?




> Yes, I'd love to stand up and fight for the rights of those who cannot do so for themselves.  In the case of the unborn human, there is no possible way to do so with out violating that which I seek to protect.  Pro-Lifers I believe should focus their efforts on developing an artificial womb and the methods for extracting that life before the afterglow of unprotected sex wears off and continuing on until such time as they deem these humans capable of supporting themselves.  Otherwise, I see this as unwelcome meddling in the affairs of an individual who is not asking for the government to take care of them from "CRADLE to GRAVE".  Cradle of course being the mothers womb.


For the record, Rand is on record supporting the "morning after" pill.  (Medically "conception" doesn't happen until the zygote is implanted on the uterine walls).  That said, abortions of viable fetuses happen all of the time.  No "artificial womb" is needed in those cases.




> Unnecessary expansion of limited federal government powers, and an end run on the constitution.  I expect to see some pretty nasty ugly things in a free society, but I also expect the people and communities around the woman having the abortion to self-govern.  That will never happen as long as people think we can legislate what is and what isn't human life.


The supreme court already legislated (even though that is not their job) what "is" or "is not" human life.  So changing that definition doesn't amount to an "end run on the constitution".

----------


## jmdrake

> I support Rand, Ron and GJ. At risk of repeating myself, I think the abortion issue is a red herring created by and for the establishment. Therefore, I don't use it as part of determining whether to support a given candidate.


Great.  Wonderful.  But that's a different question on how you *sell* the candidate you already support.  If Gary Johnson is the nominee I will not waste my time going to pro life rallies stumping for him.  That's what I mean by "play the hand you are dealt".  Further I wouldn't expect pro choice Ron Paul supporters to go to pro life rallies stumping for him.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yup, and they probably won't end up like Moses.


There is no evidence whatsoever that there would be more abandoned newborns.  And if current funding for groups like "Planned Parenthood" was instead shifted to "pregnancy crisis centers" you'd probably see *fewer* abandoned newborns.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I hate to say this, but this is one of the more important threads at RPF.  Assuming that Ron Paul actually runs for president, this omovement will have to deal his *his* position on abortion as opposed to the "libertarian" position, whatever that is.  Do you realize that Ron Paul introduced back in 2005 and 2007 the sanctity of life act and the we the people act that would essentially do everything Rand has proposed here?  It's *quite likely* that Ron will introduce the house version of Rand's bill.  (He and Rand might have drafted this bill around the breakfast table).  You don't have to agree with Ron and/or Rand on everything, but you need to be able to come to terms with it at least somewhat.
> 
> It's time people start seriously thinking about the 2012 election.  We have to play *whatever hand we're dealt* and play it as effectively as possible.  Matt Collins recently posted about how he passed out CFL fliers at a local pro life rally.  I did that back in 2007.  Some of the people theo re were unsure if Ron Paul was pro life or not.  I handed out RP pro life "slim jims" showing that he was.  One lady said she couldn't vote for Ron Paul because he supported gay marriage.  I told her that was *not true* and that Ron supported the states making the decision and in Tennessee there's absolutely no chance of that passing.  (I know some people here want to claim Ron supports gay marriage despite the fact that he has defended DOMA on the house floor.  I think that just causes confusion and does nothing to help our cause).
> 
> I remember another time when we were marching through downtown Nashville about 200 strong.  We were passing out slim jims.  One was "Ron Paul the conservative".  One young "goth" lady was at first cheering us on.  But then she saw the slim jim and she started yelling "Ron Paul's not a conservative.  He's a libertarian".  At the time I had little idea what a "libertarian" was.  (I had heard the label.  I was very unfamiliar with the terminology).  All I could say then, and all I can say now, is that this was official literature from campaign headquarters.  
> 
> Maybe Ron won't run.  Maybe it will be Gary Johnson.  If so, those who stay on board will have to decide how to defend his position of being _personally_ against abortion while signing "anti abortion" legislation as governor.  Was that legislation really not all that significant?  Or does his "personal pro choice" position just not mean much?  Or maybe he wants abortion to remain somewhat legal but is ok with "reasonable restrictions" on it?  I'm not sure.  I haven't thought much about his position and how to sell it.  But if I have Oto, I will.


Great post.

There is a strange disconnect between Ron Paul and his supporters.  This HAS to contribute to his mislabeling by conservatives.  People should heed your words in the next two years or we are certainly doomed in the primaries.

----------


## Brett85

> Also, wouldn't this allow some people to retire 9 months earlier, drive 9 months earlier, drink and smoke 9 months earlier, become president or a congress person 9 months earlier, wouldn't we need to change our driver license to reflect our true age?  I just can't understand what has all of a sudden changed in society that says people come in to existence prior to being born.  Is it technology that is forcing laws and fundamental ideals to be changed?


No.  You seem to forget that abortion was mostly illegal before 1973, and none of these things happened.  People like to make up straw men to scare people into supporting abortion, but the truth is that we did not have a police state prior to 1973 when abortion was illegal.  (Or at least not more of a police state than we have now.)

----------


## Brett85

> Great post.
> 
> There is a strange disconnect between Ron Paul and his supporters.  This HAS to contribute to his mislabeling by conservatives.  People should heed your words in the next two years or we are certainly doomed in the primaries.


There certainly is.  I wouldn't ever consider voting for at least half of the people who post here.  Many people here don't share Ron's views on the core issues.

----------


## dannno

> No.  You seem to forget that abortion was mostly illegal before 1973, and none of these things happened.  People like to make up straw men to scare people into supporting abortion, but the truth is that we did not have a police state prior to 1973 when abortion was illegal.  (Or at least not more of a police state than we have now.)


I'd be curious to know what would have happened instead had abortion became outlawed at the Federal level and they treated it like the war on drugs, and the police state grew as the war on drugs grew during that time.

All the more reason to leave it to local communities and the states to decide.

----------


## dannno

I still don't understand how prosecuting the creators of life for not creating life when they may create life in the future is fostering the creation of life. Maybe somebody answered that post I made earlier and I missed it.. but essentially if a woman decides to have an abortion, and you put her in jail for murder when she would have ended up having a baby a few years later after she could support herself, why isn't that like the state aborting the child who the mom actually wanted?

----------


## Brett85

> I'd be curious to know what would have happened instead had abortion became outlawed at the Federal level and they treated it like the war on drugs, and the police state grew as the war on drugs grew during that time.
> 
> All the more reason to leave it to local communities and the states to decide.


I think that you could have a federal ban on abortion and still have it be enforced locally.  The federal government could just create a constitutional amendment that says that local law enforcement must shut down abortion clinics.

----------


## dannno

In other words, it seems pretty counter productive to criminalize the behavior (referring to my post 2 up^)

----------


## Brett85

> I still don't understand how prosecuting the creators of life for not creating life when they may create life in the future is fostering the creation of life. Maybe somebody answered that post I made earlier and I missed it.. but essentially if a woman decides to have an abortion, and you put her in jail for murder when she would have ended up having a baby a few years later after she could support herself, why isn't that like the state aborting the child who the mom actually wanted?


I answered that earlier.  Most pro lifers support prosecuting the person who actually kills the baby, which would be the abortion doctor in most cases.

----------


## dannno

> I think that you could have a federal ban on abortion and still have it be enforced locally.  The federal government could just create a constitutional amendment that says that local law enforcement must shut down abortion clinics.


But you're going to have local communities voting to NOT enforce those laws, and they are going to clash with the Fed's mandate.. then what?

----------


## angelatc

> But, as Dr. Paul has pointed out in the past, the morning after pills, other methods used within the first days/weeks would be dificult to ban for pro-life purposes because you can't prove that conception has occurred.


Yes, but the remedies that Danno was suggesting can apparently be used later in the pregnancy, and without supervision of a medical professional.  

I'm not saying they should be banned. I am pointing out that we don't have a good reason to assume that the government won't ban them. Look at ephedra  - a natural substance that is safer than the pharmaceutical alternatives? Poof! Illegal!

----------


## dannno

> I answered that earlier.  Most pro lifers support prosecuting the person who actually kills the baby, which would be the abortion doctor in most cases.


So how do you prosecute a woman who grows her own pennyroyal and black cohosh and procures and drinks an abortive tea? Apparently you can't, which means abortions could still effectively be legal, the less violent kind which I prefer to the violent kind.

----------


## Brett85

> But you're going to have local communities voting to NOT enforce those laws, and they are going to clash with the Fed's mandate.. then what?


People have certain God given rights that even the states can't take away.  Chief among these is the right to life.  I agree with Rand that the unborn should have protections under the 14th amendment.  If a state ever tried to legalize murder, the feds would stop them from doing that.  The government can't take away our God given rights.

----------


## angelatc

> There certainly is.  I wouldn't ever consider voting for at least half of the people who post here.  Many people here don't share Ron's views on the core issues.


And that's why Rand can't pander to them and win even if he wanted to.  The Republicans will vote pro-life, no problem.  He's good on economics, too.  He might be weak  in the eyes of the social conservatives, but most of them will hold their nose and vote for him in the general.  Libertarians don't play that with their own candidates. No way are they going to give a Republican any slack.

----------


## dannno

> I'm not saying they should be banned. I am pointing out that we don't have a good reason to assume that the government won't ban them. Look at ephedra  - a natural substance that is safer than the pharmaceutical alternatives? Poof! Illegal!


But pennyroyal and black cohosh are only dangerous to fetuses and have many other uses for people who aren't pregnant.. which means they would have to ban the sales to pregnant women, but that's impossible to know unless they do a pregnancy test on everybody who buys it.. even then, it's just a tea, these herbs are very easy to grow yourself.

----------


## Brett85

> So how do you prosecute a woman who grows her own pennyroyal and black cohosh and procures and drinks an abortive tea? Apparently you can't, which means abortions could still effectively be legal, the less violent kind which I prefer to the violent kind.


Obviously the government can't enforce everything.  But I still think that the abortion rate would go way down if the government closed down abortion clinics and prosecuted abortionists.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There certainly is.  I wouldn't ever consider voting for at least half of the people who post here.  Many people here don't share Ron's views on the core issues.


Exactly right.  Ron and Rand are pro-life Christians...and I know that just makes some people's blood boil here.

I love it

----------


## Brett85

> And that's why Rand can't pander to them and win even if he wanted to.  The Republicans will vote pro-life, no problem.  He's good on economics, too.  He might be weak  in the eyes of the social conservatives, but most of them will hold their nose and vote for him in the general.  Libertarians don't play that with their own candidates. No way are they going to give a Republican any slack.


Yep.  Rand has to vote pro life so that Republicans in Kentucky will at least put up with his opposition to the federal drug war and an interventionist foreign policy.  If Rand voted against pro life legislation he would get primaried in 2016 and most likely lose.

----------


## georgiaboy

> Great post.
> 
> There is a strange disconnect between Ron Paul and his supporters.  This HAS to contribute to his mislabeling by conservatives.  People should heed your words in the next two years or we are certainly doomed in the primaries.


And Ron Paul needs to play up these strengths as well.  Rand's the master here.

----------


## newbitech

Originally Posted by newbitech  
so if this becomes a law, does this mean Doctors cannot assist someone with a medical abortion at any stage? So what we'll end up with is botched attempts and drive abortion underground. We'll also end up with more abandoned newborns won't we? I just don't see how applying more government to the issue of abortion will help protect life, liberty, and property.




> Ummm....no. We won't end up with more abandoned newborns. We'll end up with more adoptions, and probably less abandoned newborns because women won't put of dealing with their pregnancy until the last possible second because in the back of their mind they think they have a "choice" of aborting. Seriously, doom and gloom were predicted when the partial birth abortion ban went into effect. I haven't seen any of the doom or the gloom.


I think we would end up with more abandoned newborns simply because adoption is already not keeping up with the number of kids put up for adoption or in foster care.  Also, you do not have evidence that women put off dealing with their pregnancy until the last possible minute.  This is just untrue as evidence by the CDC statistics on abortion.  They do have the choice of abortion and the large majority 88% make this decision less than 13 weeks in to the pregnancy (66% less than 8 weeks).  It's not doom and gloom.  The CDC reports 848k+ legal abortions in 2003.  In 2001, there were 107k+ "domestic" adoptions.  In Sept 2006, the dept of HHS reported 500k+ children in foster care.  

http://adoptionstatistics.us/articles1.html

----------


## georgiaboy

> Yep.  Rand has to vote pro life so that Republicans in Kentucky will at least put up with his opposition to the federal drug war and an interventionist foreign policy.  If Rand voted against pro life legislation he would get primaried in 2016 and most likely lose.


In addition to voting pro-life, Rand also happens to be pro-life in principle.  which is nice.

----------


## newbitech

> No. You seem to forget that abortion was mostly illegal before 1973, and none of these things happened. People like to make up straw men to scare people into supporting abortion, but the truth is that we did not have a police state prior to 1973 when abortion was illegal. (Or at least not more of a police state than we have now.)


None of what things happened?  We didn't say our kids were 9 months old at birth then, and we don't say they are 9 months old now.  Why is that?  Why do we use the born on date as the demarcation point for the the aging/life process instead of the supposed actual "creation" date?

Also, I think if you go back and research a little more about abortion, you might find that prior to 1973 abortions were in point of fact mostly NOT illegal.  The legality of abortion is as old as civilization itself.  I think the horrors of abortion are only magnified by government interference.  The first laws banning abortion in the United States began to appear in the early 1800's when technology and medical science became advanced enough to understand what was actually going on inside the womb.  The laws banned abortion after "the quickening" or about 4 months in when the baby started moving around.  

Of course, this was pushed by doctors and midwives who began to have feelings for this little human trapped inside the womb.  Thinking that they could legislate that morality, laws were passed.  Of course this led to dirty aborts and the horrors that followed.  And of course the class that was hurt the most were the poor and uneducated who didn't know that all they needed was to drink some tea to end the pregnancy cheap and natural.  These laws continued to expand for 150 years to varying degrees and levels of punishment, until finally, in 1973, people began to realize that banning the abortions had more negative consequences than positive results.  It's like the war on drugs or prohibition.  These women were driven underground.  

What really needs to happen is education.  Consider this opinion written in 1869 by anonymous.  
"In her newspaper, The Revolution, a letter writer who signed "A"[6] wrote in 1869 about the subject of abortion, arguing that "We want prevention, not merely punishment" and asserting that focusing solely on passing an anti-abortion law would "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains."[7] This piece in The Revolution continued:
“	Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States

Many early feminists including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton argued against abortion for a variety of reasons. They also believed that a woman should be allowed to refuse sex with her husband. An American woman had no legal recourse at that time against rape by her husband, except possibly divorce,[4] an option that (especially before the American Civil War) was usually available only for well-connected women of means who had sufficient resources not just to end the marriage but to also survive without a husband.[5]

----------


## dannno

I'm still not convinced that a fetus is an individual.


Individual -  existing as a *distinct entity* . separate 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individual


That doesn't make abortion "right" or "moral" or "Christian", but it does give jurisdiction to the mother, I think, rather than the state.

Of course, this does allow the argument that if the fetus is able to survive outside the body, but is simply being held captive by the mother, then it should not be killed.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think we would end up with more abandoned newborns simply because adoption is already not keeping up with the number of kids put up for adoption or in foster care.  Also, you do not have evidence that women put off dealing with their pregnancy until the last possible minute.  This is just untrue as evidence by the CDC statistics on abortion.  They do have the choice of abortion and the large majority 88% make this decision less than 13 weeks in to the pregnancy (66% less than 8 weeks).  It's not doom and gloom.  The CDC reports 848k+ legal abortions in 2003.  In 2001, there were 107k+ "domestic" adoptions.  In Sept 2006, the dept of HHS reported 500k+ children in foster care.  
> 
> http://adoptionstatistics.us/articles1.html


Total nonsense.  Your stats include older children, not just newborns.  There is a waiting list for newborn adoptions that is so severe that people try to adopt newborns from Eastern Europe, China and even Africa.  Also just because most women don't wait until the last minute doesn't mean they all don't.  The fact that recently an abortion doctor was charged will killing viable fetuses who had already been born shows that some women do wait until the last minute.  Those who chose early enough will still be able to get abortions even if Roe v. Wade is overturned.  After all it won't be overturned everywhere.  Women will just go across state lines to buy day after pills.  And the "doom and gloom" part is your unsubstantiated claim that there would be more abandoned babies.  The burden on is on you to prove that and frankly you haven't.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm still not convinced that a fetus is an individual.
> 
> 
> Individual -  existing as a *distinct entity* . separate 
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individual
> 
> 
> That doesn't make abortion "right" or "moral" or "Christian", but it does give jurisdiction to the mother, I think, rather than the state.
> ...


According to that definition Siamese twins shouldn't be considered individuals.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm still not convinced that a fetus is an individual.
> 
> 
> Individual -  existing as a *distinct entity* . separate 
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individual
> 
> 
> That doesn't make abortion "right" or "moral" or "Christian", but it does give jurisdiction to the mother, I think, rather than the state.
> ...


Well just because you aren't convinced doesn't make you right.  Co-joined twins are not "separate individuals" in the sense you are talking about.  But they both have rights.

----------


## dannno

> According to that definition Siamese twins shouldn't be considered individuals.


Yes, they would be considered an individual rather than two individuals under this definition. This would give one of the twins the right to commit suicide without being charged with murder of the other twin.. which while painful to think about is difficult to argue with.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, they would be considered an individual rather than two individuals under this definition. This would give one of the twins the right to commit suicide without being charged with murder of the other twin.. which while painful to think about is difficult to argue with.


But I think under the law they are treated as two separate individuals.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, they would be considered an individual rather than two individuals under this definition. This would give one of the twins the right to commit suicide without being charged with murder of the other twin.. which while painful to think about is difficult to argue with.


Well technically speaking, someone who successfully commits a murder / suicide can't be charged with anything because you can't charge a dead person.

Ok, that technicality out of the way, let's bring this back to reality.  Say if a co joined twin named Bill went to a doctor and said "Doc.  I'm tired of this.  I know you can't separate us without killing one of us.  So I'm asking you to kill Bob and cut him off me."  I'm pretty certain that Bill could be charged with murder and I'm 100% certain that the doc could be charged with murder.  Now may a case as to why I'm wrong.

----------


## dannno

> Co-joined twins are not "separate individuals" in the sense you are talking about.  But they both have rights.


A mother and child would be considered "an individual" under this definition, and if a doctor or someone killed the child, they could still be held liable while the mother would still have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

----------


## jmdrake

> A mother and child would be considered "an individual" under this definition, and if a doctor or someone killed the child, they could still be held liable while the mother would still have the right to terminate the pregnancy.


For the record most pro life advocates who support criminalization only advocate charging the doctor anyway for strategic reasons.

----------


## dannno

> But I think under the law they are treated as two separate individuals.


Meh, if I was born to a conjoined twin out in nature, and my survival in nature was dependent on killing my twin and separating them from me with the off-chance that I might die in the process, that might be a better option than simply dying with my twin joined to me while trying to get away from a predator or something. In fact, in nature, the conjoined twins would likely be killed off at birth.

Today conjoined twins are kept safe by their family, they don't have to worry about predators and they can form a relationship with the other.. but when it comes down to it, ultimately, I think one twin could be justified in killing the other without violating the other's right to life. It's the whole parasite argument Rothbard used, they are doing it for their survival, just as many women have abortions for their own survival because they don't have the means to take care of themselves and another person.

----------


## dannno

> For the record most pro life advocates who support criminalization only advocate charging the doctor anyway for strategic reasons.


Well ya, I meant the mother would have the right to terminate the pregnancy how she sees fit.. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, but I think it's her right, especially early on in the pregnancy before the baby would be able to survive on it's own.

----------


## robert68

> ... Women will just go across state lines to buy day after pills...


How would states trying to prohibit abortion, prohibit access to those pills within their state?

----------


## dannno

I'm not even trying to convince the pro-lifers that they should be pro-choice, more that pro-choice is a valid position for others to hold and that local communities should decide rather than the Federal Govt. 

If you're going to say the Constitution protects individuals, you can't assume that a fetus in an individual when they do not meet the definition of being their own distinct separate being. If you want to protect fetuses, make laws to protect them in your state or locally.. just try and not be too tyrannical about it..

----------


## specsaregood

> It's the whole parasite argument Rothbard used, they are doing it for their survival, just as many women have abortions for their own survival because they don't have the means to take care of themselves and another person.


Except it isn't a parasite and it doesn't fit the definition of a parasitic relationship; it is more inline with a mutualistic relationship since there are a number of health benefits women receive from going through pregnancy.

----------


## dannno

> Except it isn't a parasite and it doesn't fit the definition of a parasitic relationship; it is more inline with a mutualistic relationship since there are a number of health benefits women receive from going through pregnancy.


No, the mother needs to ingest a lot more nutrients by being pregnant. What if she is in nature and there isn't enough resources and protection for her? She also might have to run from predators. She could die, or she can have an abortion, wait until there are more resources and protection, THEN go for having the kid.

----------


## specsaregood

> No, the mother needs to ingest a lot more nutrients by being pregnant. What if she is in nature and there isn't enough resources and protection for her? She also might have to run from predators. She could die, or she can have an abortion, wait until there are more resources and protection, THEN go for having the kid.


It still doesn't meet the definition of a parasitic relationship -- from what I remember from BIO 101 over a decade ago.  As there are a number of health benefits that the mother gets in exchange.

----------


## sailingaway

> It still doesn't meet the definition of a parasitic relationship -- from what I remember from BIO 101 over a decade ago.  As there are a number of health benefits that the mother gets in exchange.


Parasite is a ridiculous term for a baby.  The issue isn't that the baby is a parasite, it is that we don't require people to hook themselves up to others who need kidneys etc to save their lives because that would be an affront to liberty, and horribly intrusive.  Yet in a sense a ban on abortions would require this with babies.  In both cases, without using your body to live, the person could die.

I see the baby as different, but it ISN'T an 'easy' situation. It is a very difficult situation.  I just still come down on the side of the baby. When the mother is little more than a baby herself, though, it can be a particularly hard situation.  I recognize that.  That is why most laws have dealt with how far the pregnancy is along.  It isn't a principled compromise, it just tries to weigh the discomfort with the idea.

----------


## dannno

> It still doesn't meet the definition of a parasitic relationship -- from what I remember from BIO 101 over a decade ago.  As there are a number of health benefits that the mother gets in exchange.


A parasite in your intestines can provide a number of health benefits, such as losing weight and avoiding a heart attack.

----------


## osan

> SOURCE:
> http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/01/...onception-act/


So much for being a liberty candidate.

$#@!.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> So much for being a liberty candidate.
> 
> $#@!.


Guess Ron's an $#@! as well.

----------


## osan

> Maybe he's trying to win some kudos at home or something...


By attempting to take a $#@! on the entire nation and all of human rights?  What a $#@!ty thing.




> I would rather he focus on the economy, rather than scare off any potential liberal allies by pushing a futile attempt to criminalize abortion.


what you would rather apparently does not count.

So here we have our first betrayal, and just a few days into the "new era".

I will be expecting more of this sort of thing from him and others we put into office.

This nation is $#@!ed beyond imagination.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not even trying to convince the pro-lifers that they should be pro-choice, more that pro-choice is a valid position for others to hold and that local communities should decide rather than the Federal Govt. 
> 
> If you're going to say the Constitution protects individuals, you can't assume that a fetus in an individual when they do not meet the definition of being their own distinct separate being. If you want to protect fetuses, make laws to protect them in your state or locally.. just try and not be too tyrannical about it..


Hello Dannno.  I'm glad you made that clear.  Because I'm not trying to convince pro-choicers that they should be pro-life.  More that pro-life is a valid position for others to hold and that, except for late term abortions, should be decided by local communities by overturning Roe v. Wade.  For me I think some of the more radical "libertarian" arguments preclude the possibility of pro-life being a valid position.  All of this "You're a statist that wants to imprison women and force them to be beholden to parasites" nonsense.  (Frankly I think there are a lot of problems with the libertarian "Let's define everything by property rights" position, but that's another thread).

Here's the way forward IMO.  We should know enough to be willing to say "I don't know".  I know for certain that past the point of viability, the fetus is a person.  To suggest that the abortion doctor who's up for murder now should not have been charged if he managed to kill these same fetuses a few hours earlier is, IMO insane.  But what about 6 months earlier?  That's getting into territory that I don't know about.  I'm more than willing to let the "laboratory of democracy" sort that out.

----------


## jmdrake

> By attempting to take a $#@! on the entire nation and all of human rights?  What a $#@!ty thing.
> 
> 
> 
> what you would rather apparently does not count.
> 
> So here we have our first betrayal, and just a few days into the "new era".
> 
> I will be expecting more of this sort of thing from him and others we put into office.
> ...


Well if that's the way you feel I hope you leave the Ron Paul movement before it finally dawns on you that Rand's position = Ron's position on abortion.  Ron's "sanctity of life" act plus his "we the people act" essentially do the same thing.

----------


## HazyHusky420

Oh Jesus Christ *facepalm*

I thought this thread died?

----------


## HazyHusky420

nevermind. Apparently this thread was active a few hours ago.

Still, I don't see how the abortion issue is going to keep the guy down the street from losing his savings. Only hard commodities can do that. Besides the next time a pro-lifer puts a pamphlet on my car i'm dropping my indifference and becoming pro-choice.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> nevermind. Apparently this thread was active a few hours ago.
> 
> Still, I don't see how the abortion issue is going to keep the guy down the street from losing his savings. Only hard commodities can do that. Besides the next time a pro-lifer puts a pamphlet on my car i'm dropping my indifference and becoming pro-choice.


Sounds kind of close-minded and ignorant...maybe you didn't mean it to come out that way...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> By attempting to take a $#@! on the entire nation and all of human rights?  What a $#@!ty thing.
> 
> 
> 
> what you would rather apparently does not count.
> 
> So here we have our first betrayal, and just a few days into the "new era".
> 
> I will be expecting more of this sort of thing from him and others we put into office.
> ...



There is nothing in this proposal that doesn't attempt to protect ALL human's rights.  There is no such right as a right to murder someone or neglect someone under your care to the point of death.

If a mother has a child and then in a couple of years decides that she doesn't want her child, she can't take him to the doctor to be murdered.  The same principle applies to people who haven't passed through a birth canal yet.  People don't become "more human" if they travel a few inches through a birth canal.


Thank God that there are the lions of liberty like Ron and Rand who fight for the liberty of ALL people.

----------


## specsaregood

On a somewhat related topic.  A recent poll on a mommy web forum site:




> Results:
> pro-circumcision and pro-life       
> 33%       
> pro-circumcision and pro-choice       
> 16%       
> anti-circumcision and pro-life       
> 20%       
> anti-circumcision and pro-choice       
> 30%


I find it interesting that the people that seemingly are strongest in supporting the rights of the unborn, have no problem mutilating a newborn baby.  And the people that are fine with killing the unborn, are stronger in protecting the rights of the newborn.

It is an upside down world we live in.

----------


## angelatc

> I see the baby as different, but it ISN'T an 'easy' situation. It is a very difficult situation.  I just still come down on the side of the baby. When the mother is little more than a baby herself, though, it can be a particularly hard situation.  I recognize that.  That is why most laws have dealt with how far the pregnancy is along.  It isn't a principled compromise, it just tries to weigh the discomfort with the idea.


It's only as hard as people make it. My cousin got pregnant at 13, had a baby at 14.  I was 10, and it was a huge deal in the family, but 37 years later....it doesn't matter.  SHe died 10 years ago, and her son now has kids.  

I don't understand why people think babies are such a curse.

----------


## libertybrewcity

This is how Republicans lose the support of the people. They start talking about social issues like abortion and gay marriage, and then start proposing amendments and legislation. It goes down hill from there. Social issues in government=bad idea/loses. Rand should stick to the economy. Props on the 500 billion dollars!

----------


## libertybrewcity

> It's only as hard as people make it. My cousin got pregnant at 13, had a baby at 14.  I was 10, and it was a huge deal in the family, but 37 years later....it doesn't matter.  SHe died 10 years ago, and her son now has kids.  
> 
> I don't understand why people think babies are such a curse.


They're not a curse. But a fetus is dependent on the woman until it is born, thus the woman should be able to remove whatever she wants from her body. They can have babies if they want. No one is promoting forced abortions.

----------


## Brett85

> On a somewhat related topic.  A recent poll on a mommy web forum site:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that the people that seemingly are strongest in supporting the rights of the unborn, have no problem mutilating a newborn baby.  And the people that are fine with killing the unborn, are stronger in protecting the rights of the newborn.
> 
> It is an upside down world we live in.


Well in my opinion having a government law that prevents parents from circumcising their children would be an anti freedom, nanny state law.  Parents should be allowed to make their own decision on an issue like that without interference from the government.

----------


## Brett85

> They're not a curse. But a fetus is dependent on the woman until it is born, thus the woman should be able to remove whatever she wants from her body. They can have babies if they want. No one is promoting forced abortions.


What about an older person who is dependant on medical care just to survive?  Should we just kill all people who can't survive on their own, including the disabled as well?

----------


## specsaregood

> Well in my opinion having a government law that prevents parents from circumcising their children would be an anti freedom, nanny state law.  Parents should be allowed to make their own decisions on an issue like that without interference from the government.


So a parents should be able to legally circumcise their daughters?  How about amputate a limb or two?  Newborns don't have a right to be protectied from unnecessary mutilation?  I dont think it is any different than wanting to protect a fetus.

----------


## low preference guy

so we have people who are pro-life and pro-mutilation in our ranks? geez.

----------


## jmdrake

> They're not a curse. But a fetus is dependent on the woman until it is born, thus the woman should be able to remove whatever she wants from her body. They can have babies if they want. No one is promoting forced abortions.


This is how liberal-tarians lose votes.  They imply that a woman should be able to kill a baby at any time during the pregnancy because it is "her right over her body" even though over 80% of Americans are against late term abortions.

The fact is that Ron's position and Rand's position are the same.  Rand's bill isn't any worse than Ron's earlier bills on the same issue.  But folks seem to forget that and selectively attack Rand for being just like the old man that everyone here claims to support.  A baby is dependent upon its parents after its born too.  That doesn't mean infanticide should be legal.  I'm all for a "big tent" and a "middle of the road approach".  It's this "be pro choice or the highway" nonsense that's not helpful, especially considering that we are running mostly in *republican* primaries and under a banner of a *pro life* politician.

----------


## jmdrake

> so we have people who are pro-life and pro-mutilation in our ranks? geez.


Ron is pro life.  And who cares what he or anybody else thinks about circumcision?

----------


## robert68

> ... Women will just go across state lines to buy day after pills...





> How would states trying to prohibit abortion, prohibit access to those pills within their state?


Did you miss this question or did it stump you?

----------


## jmdrake

> Did you miss this question or did it stump you?


Relevance to anything?  Your point?  I'm not at all worried about women getting morning after pills.  Conception isn't until the zygote is implanted on the uterine wall.  If a state bars that it's gone too far anyway.  Who cares?

And here's the part that I wrote that you snipped out.

_Those who chose early enough will still be able to get abortions even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. After all it won't be overturned everywhere. Women will just go across state lines to buy day after pills. And the "doom and gloom" part is your unsubstantiated claim that there would be more abandoned babies. The burden on is on you to prove that and frankly you haven't._

Content without context is pretext.  The point that I was making is that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, early abortions will still happen.  In my opinion early abortions are >>>>>> than later abortions.  (Less likely to have a being capable of feeling pain).  So your "question" actually further strengthens my point.  I'm not sure why you thought you were "stumping" anybody.

----------


## specsaregood

> so we have people who are pro-life and pro-mutilation in our ranks? geez.


The disconnect is quite surprising isn't it.

----------


## Brett85

> So a parents should be able to legally circumcise their daughters?  How about amputate a limb or two?  Newborns don't have a right to be protectied from unnecessary mutilation?  I dont think it is any different than wanting to protect a fetus.


Huh?  I'm pretty sure girls don't have penisus, so they couldn't be circumcised.  Obviously you don't know what circumcision is if you call it "mutilation."  Circumcision is something that's very healthy for the baby, and obviously it's something that makes men look much better when they get older.  There's a reason why people circumcise their children.  I certainly don't want a nanny state government interfering in this issue.

----------


## Brett85

> The disconnect is quite surprising isn't it.


Right.  Since killing a baby and performing a procedure that actually makes it healthier is the exact same thing.

----------


## low preference guy

> Huh?  I'm pretty sure girls don't have penisus, so they couldn't be circumcised.  Obviously you don't know what circumcision is if you call it "mutilation."  *Circumcision is something that's very healthy for the baby, and obviously it's something that makes men look much better when they get older.*


rofl!

----------


## specsaregood

> Huh?  I'm pretty sure girls don't have penisus, so they couldn't be circumcised.  Obviously you don't know what circumcision is if you call it "mutilation."  Circumcision is something that's very healthy for the baby, and obviously it's something that makes men look much better when they get older.  There's a reason why people circumcise their children.  I certainly don't want a nanny state government interfering in this issue.


First, get educated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
And it isn't healthy for the baby, it is actually the opposite.  It is amputation, plain and simple.  I for one think a newborn has a right to not have a dangerous, unnecessary cosmetic mutilation performed on it.   If you want to stand up for the rights of the unborn, you should stand up for the rights of the newborn as well.

----------


## jmdrake

> So a parents should be able to legally circumcise their daughters?  How about amputate a limb or two?  Newborns don't have a right to be protectied from unnecessary mutilation?  I dont think it is any different than wanting to protect a fetus.


There's really no comparison to cutting off a piece of skin and completely cutting off someone's genitalia.  But I know people make that bogus comparison all the time.  Here's a more balanced outlook.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ion.html?cat=5

----------


## specsaregood

> There's really no comparison to cutting off a piece of skin and completely cutting off someone's genitalia.  But I know people make that bogus comparison all the time.  Here's a more balanced outlook.
> 
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ion.html?cat=5


Can you get that "piece of skin" back?  The nerve endings that are removed?  Sounds like amputation to me.  And it is unnecessary.  Newborns don't have a right to keep all their body parts?  Let them decide when they grow up if they want to have them removed?

----------


## jmdrake

> First, get educated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
> And it isn't healthy for the baby, it is actually the opposite.  It is amputation, plain and simple.  I for one think a newborn has a right to not have a dangerous, unnecessary cosmetic mutilation performed on it.   If you want to stand up for the rights of the unborn, you should stand up for the rights of the newborn as well.


Right.  FGM is cutting off the clitoris of the female in order that she not have pleasure during sex.  Cutting off the foreskin of the male has no similar effect.  Apples and orangutans.

----------


## Brett85

> First, get educated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
> And it isn't healthy for the baby, it is actually the opposite.  It is amputation, plain and simple.  I for one think a newborn has a right to not have a dangerous, unnecessary cosmetic mutilation performed on it.   If you want to stand up for the rights of the unborn, you should stand up for the rights of the newborn as well.


It's funny that you stand with the nanny state liberal Democrats in Massachusetts that are intent on interferring in parental rights.  I'm absolutely opposed to a nanny state.  Whether or not a child should be circumcized is something that the government has always stayed out of.  And no, there are all kinds of health benefits to circumcision.

http://www.circinfo.net/health-benef...d-reviews.html

----------


## robert68

> How would states trying to prohibit abortion, prohibit access to those pills within their state?





> Relevance to anything?  Your point?  I'm not at all worried about women getting morning after pills.  Conception isn't until the zygote is implanted on the uterine wall.  If a state bars that it's gone too far anyway.  Who cares?
> 
> And here's the part that I wrote that you snipped out.
> 
> _Those who chose early enough will still be able to get abortions even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. After all it won't be overturned everywhere. Women will just go across state lines to buy day after pills. And the "doom and gloom" part is your unsubstantiated claim that there would be more abandoned babies. The burden on is on you to prove that and frankly you haven't._
> 
> Content without context is pretext.  The point that I was making is that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, early abortions will still happen.  In my opinion early abortions are >>>>>> than later abortions.  (Less likely to have a being capable of feeling pain).  So your "question" actually further strengthens my point.  I'm not sure why you thought you were "stumping" anybody.


A simple question and you give attitude, geeez. The question certainly didn’t strengthen any claims you’ve made. Enjoy your “pro-life” fantasy world.

----------


## low preference guy

amputating body parts is actually more in line with the thought of pro-abortion east coast leftists.

----------


## specsaregood

> Right.  FGM is cutting off the clitoris of the female in order that she not have pleasure during sex.  Cutting off the foreskin of the male has no similar effect.  Apples and orangutans.


Well there are different levels of Female circumcision.  It doesn't always involve completely removing the clitoris.  And it does have a similar effect.  Circumcizing a male removes a great number of nerve endings and reduces the pleasure for the male.  Apples to Apples.

But you avoid the root question: does not a newborn have a right to keep all of its body parts?  Why can't it keep its parts and decide when it is an adult if it wants to have them removed?

----------


## jmdrake

> Can you get that "piece of skin" back?  The nerve endings that are removed?  Sounds like amputation to me.  And it is unnecessary.  Newborns don't have a right to keep all their body parts?  Let them decide when they grow up if they want to have them removed?


Technically I suppose removing the tonsils is a type of "amputation".  But it's for something that's not needed.  Kids used to have tonsils removed all the time when they were infected, but now it's more likely to treat the infection.  Good?  Bad?  Who knows.  But it would be silly to compare removing the tonsils to, say removing the tongue.  By the same token it is silly to compare removing the foreskin to removing the clitoris.  Removing the clitoris is more like whacking off most of the penis itself.  As for who gets to make the choice?  My understanding is that it's a more difficult procedure if done later.  Anyway, should parents not be allowed to pierce their daughters ears also?

----------


## Brett85

Here are reasons why the decision can't be delayed:

http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision...not_delay.html

----------


## low preference guy

> Circumcizing a male removes a great number of nerve endings and reduces the pleasure for the male.


and the female!




> [...] a study found that reduced female arousal and fewer female orgasms may be linked to women having sex with circumcised male partners. Women reported they were about twice as likely to experience orgasm if their male partner had a foreskin.
> 
> Nine out of ten women prefer having sex with intact men, the study finds.

----------


## Brett85

> amputating body parts is actually more in line with the thought of pro-abortion east coast leftists.


We're not talking about cutting off the penis.  We're talking about getting rid of some of the skin which helps the penis function better.  I can't believe I'm actually writing that word on a political forum.  Lol.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well there are different levels of Female circumcision.  It doesn't always involve completely removing the clitoris.  And it does have a similar effect.  Circumcizing a male removes a great number of nerve endings and reduces the pleasure for the male.  Apples to Apples.
> 
> But you avoid the root question: does not a newborn have a right to keep all of its body parts?  Why can't it keep its parts and decide when it is an adult if it wants to have them removed?


How far are you going to go with that argument?  Should a babies hair and fingernails not be cut either?  Or sure, they'll grow back.  But they'll likely not be as long as if they were never cut.  As for the "reduced pleasure for the male", do you have any double blind scientific study or are you just guessing?

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## Brett85

> But its not! That is why I posted that poll results.  For some reason, those that are pro-life, are more likely to be pro-amputation, and those that are pro-choice are more likelty to be pro-infant rights.  It is the exact opposite of what a logical person would expect.


Whether you agree with circumcision or not it's absolutely ridiculous to call it "amputation."  You act like the penis is actually being cut off.

----------


## specsaregood

> How far are you going to go with that argument?  Should a babies hair and fingernails not be cut either?  Or sure, they'll grow back.  But they'll likely not be as long as if they were never cut.  As for the "reduced pleasure for the male", do you have any double blind scientific study or are you just guessing?


Neither hair or fingernails can be compared to amputation.  Neither have nerve endings and constantly grow back.  Foreskin isn't like those.

As far as double blind study, do a little searching man.  I'm no expert on the subject but what I'm saying is pretty much common knowledge.
For the record: i'm circumcized but I did not choose to mutilate my son.

----------


## jmdrake

> But its not! That is why I posted that poll results.  For some reason, those that are pro-life, are more likely to be pro-amputation, and those that are pro-choice are more likelty to be pro-infant rights.  It is the exact opposite of what a logical person would expect.


Not really.  (I assume you're being facetious).  First it's not "amputation".  You can call it that all you want, but it's not.  No more than an ear piercing is "amputation".  Second it's in line with religious views.  No Christians aren't required to be circumcised, but there's this idea that "if Abraham did it, it can't be all bad".  Third there is the scientific evidence that it is more healthy for the person being circumcised.  Now you can dispute that all you want *but I defy you to find one study to suggest that abortion is healthier for the fetus*.

----------


## low preference guy

> Neither hair or fingernails can be compared to amputation.  Neither have nerve endings and constantly grow back.  Foreskin isn't like those.
> 
> As far as double blind study, do a little searching man.  I'm no expert on the subject but what I'm saying is pretty much common knowledge.
> For the record: i'm circumcized but I did not choose to mutilate my son.


i also believed it was common knowledge by now. i don't have anything to cite off the top off my head, but the foreskin protects the glans. for those circumcised, it looks dry and chafed in comparison, and they have reduced sensibility.

----------


## jmdrake

> Neither hair or fingernails can be compared to amputation.  Neither have nerve endings and constantly grow back.  Foreskin isn't like those.


_am·pu·tate verb \ˈam-pyə-ˌtāt\
transitive verb
: to remove by or as if by cutting; especially : to cut (as a limb) from the body_

The first definition includes hair and fingernails.  The second definition does not include foreskin.  Take your pick.




> As far as double blind study, do a little searching man.  I'm no expert on the subject but what I'm saying is pretty much common knowledge.


Common knowledge is often wrong.  (It's common knowledge that Keynesian economics got us out of the great depression for example).




> For the record: i'm circumcized but I did not choose to mutilate my son.


Well apparently it didn't prevent you from copulating.

----------


## Brett85

I can understand why some people might be opposed to circumcision, but comparing it to abortion is just ridiculous.  Abortion actually kills the baby.  Circumcision is a procedure with MANY known health benefits for the baby.  People certainly don't circumcize their child as some kind of punishment.

----------


## specsaregood

> Whether you agree with circumcision or not it's absolutely ridiculous to call it "amputation."  You act like the penis is actually being cut off.


That is exactly what is is though.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amputation



> 1. to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery. 
> 2. to prune, lop off, or remove


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



> The device is then placed (this sometimes requires a dorsal slit) and remains there until blood flow has stopped. Finally, *the foreskin is amputated.*


Oh also from the wiki:



> *The American Medical Association* report of 1999, which was "…confined to circumcisions that are not performed for ritualistic or religious purposes," states that *"Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision*, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice


So much for being healthy.

----------


## jmdrake

> That is exactly what is is though.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amputation


LOL.  *Your own dictionary reference disputes your claim and you just gleefully ignore that!*  Unless you think the foreskin is a "limb" or a "digit".  




> So much for being healthy.


http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
_There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes:

the provision of HIV testing and counseling services;
treatment for sexually transmitted infections;
the promotion of safer sex practices;
the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
_

So answer this question.  *Do you think a 60% reduction in the risk of HIV transmission is healthy or not?*

----------


## Brett85

> That is exactly what is is though.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amputation
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
> 
> 
> Oh also from the wiki:
> 
> So much for being healthy.


I could come up with all kinds of other articles that talk about the health benefits.  It's an ongoing debate.  But even if you want to call it "amputation," it's a part of the body that can be removed without harming sexual function later on.  Apparently you're living proof of that.

----------


## low preference guy

> I could come up with all kinds of other articles that talk about the health benefits.  It's an ongoing debate.  But even if you want to call it "amputation," it's a part of the body that can be removed without harming sexual function later on.  Apparently you're living proof of that.


specs never claimed it makes you sterile. he claimed it reduces male sexual pleasure. i'm not going to do your homework for you and search and give you all the links, but in one of the previous pages i posted a study where they concluded that 9/10 women experience more sexual pleasure when they have sex with intact men. so it reduces sexual pleasure not only for males, but also for females.

----------


## Aldanga

> i also believed it was common knowledge by now. i don't have anything to cite off the top off my head, but the foreskin protects the glans. for those circumcised, it looks dry and chafed in comparison, and they have reduced sensibility.


I researched circumcision and its effects extensively about 10 months ago and couldn't find any conclusive studies that found significant correlation between circumcision and sexual pleasure and enjoyment. The one study I remember specifically stated that it was about 50/50 between those who enjoyed intercourse more after being circumcized and those who didn't. This "common knowledge" might be common, but I'd wager to guess it's more of an urban legend than anything else.

----------


## specsaregood

> So answer this question.  *Do you think a 60% reduction in the risk of HIV transmission is healthy or not?*


That would be a decision that an adult would make.  Unless you expect your newborn to go around sticking his penis in HIV infected women.
Rather than forcing a child to undergo unnecessary surgery.




> I could come up with all kinds of other articles that talk about the health benefits.  It's an ongoing debate.  But even if you want to call it "amputation," it's a part of the body that can be removed without harming sexual function later on.  Apparently you're living proof of that.


You are anti-newborn rights.  You support forcing them to undergo unnecessary cosmetic procedures.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> What about an older person who is dependant on medical care just to survive?  Should we just kill all people who can't survive on their own, including the disabled as well?


absolutely not because the government should not have the right to kill anyone under any circumstances. A older person who is dependent on medical care should have the right to kill themselves however.

----------


## jmdrake

> specs never claimed it makes you sterile. he claimed it reduces male sexual pleasure. i'm not going to do your homework for you and search and give you all the links, but in one of the previous pages i posted a study where they concluded that 9/10 women experience more sexual pleasure when they have sex with intact men. so it reduces not only male sexual pleasure, but also female.


That's nice.  And I just posted a study that concluded it reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by 60%.  So have more pleasure and get more AIDS.  And I'm still waiting on you or specs or anyone to post a study that says abortion increases the health of the fetus.

----------


## low preference guy

> You are anti-newborn rights.  You support forcing them to undergo unnecessary cosmetic procedures.


unnecessary and very likely *IRREVERSIBLE* procedures.

----------


## specsaregood

> That's nice.  And I just posted a study that concluded it reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by 60%.  So have more pleasure and get more AIDS.  And I'm still waiting on you or specs or anyone to post a study that says abortion increases the health of the fetus.


I dunno about you, but I'd opt to use a condom;  it is even more effective.  And I'm pro-life.  The difference is that  I want to protect the rights of the unborn and the born.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> Huh?  I'm pretty sure girls don't have penisus, so they couldn't be circumcised.  Obviously you don't know what circumcision is if you call it "mutilation."  Circumcision is something that's very healthy for the baby, and obviously it's something that makes men look much better when they get older.  There's a reason why people circumcise their children.  I certainly don't want a nanny state government interfering in this issue.


are you serious?

----------


## low preference guy

> That's nice.  And I just posted a study that concluded it reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by 60%.


that's consistent with what amputation does. if you amputate more parts you'll reduce the chances of HIV transmission through regular intercourse by 100%. just cut a little more and it would be close to perfect protection!

----------


## jmdrake

> That would be a decision that an adult would make.  Unless you expect your newborn to go around sticking his penis in HIV infected women.
> Rather than forcing a child to undergo unnecessary surgery.


Nice dodge.  But I'm not going to let you escape that easily.  You said that it wasn't more healthy.  Just admit you were wrong and be done with it.  Whether the newborn should make the choice is a different question altogether.  




> You are anti-newborn rights.  You support forcing them to undergo unnecessary cosmetic procedures.


It isn't "cosmetic" if it has health benefits, even if those benefits don't occur until later.

And I congratulate you on a well thought out thread de-rail when it was apparent that your side was desperately losing the abortion debate.

----------


## jmdrake

> that's consistent with what amputation does. if you amputate it more parts you'll reduce the chances of HIV transmission through regular intercourse by 100%. just cut a little more and it would be close to perfect protection!


Except this isn't amputation, even though you and specs falsely want to claim that it is.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> This is how liberal-tarians lose votes.  They imply that a woman should be able to kill a baby at any time during the pregnancy because it is "her right over her body" even though over 80% of Americans are against late term abortions.
> 
> The fact is that Ron's position and Rand's position are the same.  Rand's bill isn't any worse than Ron's earlier bills on the same issue.  But folks seem to forget that and selectively attack Rand for being just like the old man that everyone here claims to support.  A baby is dependent upon its parents after its born too.  That doesn't mean infanticide should be legal.  I'm all for a "big tent" and a "middle of the road approach".  It's this "be pro choice or the highway" nonsense that's not helpful, especially considering that we are running mostly in *republican* primaries and under a banner of a *pro life* politician.


A baby is not attached to the mother though. It is considered it's own person because biologically, it is it's own person.

So you are saying i can't support somebody who is pro-life when I am not? I don't care that they propose this legislation; I just think it's a bad idea because social issues always kick the Republicans in the butt eventually.

----------


## jmdrake

> I dunno about you, but I'd opt to use a condom;  it is even more effective.  And I'm pro-life.  The difference is that  I want to protect the rights of the unborn and the born.


Oh, but I thought you were *soooooooo worried* about how it feels.  I'm pretty sure that sex without foreskin and without a condom feels better than sex with foreskin and with a condom.  And while I don't have a study to prove this, I'll appeal to "common knowledge".

----------


## low preference guy

> Except this isn't amputation, even though you and specs falsely want to claim that it is.


lol! jmdrake doesn't want words to mean what they mean. so they don't!

----------


## dannno

> Hello Dannno.  I'm glad you made that clear.  Because I'm not trying to convince pro-choicers that they should be pro-life.  More that pro-life is a valid position for others to hold and that, except for late term abortions, should be decided by local communities by overturning Roe v. Wade.


Ya when talking about giving abortion to the states regarding Ron Paul I often have the same conversation with people who are pro-choice, and I try to make it clear that the pro-life position is a valid position to hold, and it should be decided locally... though personally I am pro-choice obviously, I would like to see more education on the topic to reduce medical abortions. In fact, in addition to natural abortive remedies, there are also natural birth control teas. I'm not sure if the teas simply do not allow a fertilized egg to attach or what, haven't looked into it in a while.

----------


## jmdrake

> A baby is not attached to the mother though. It is considered it's own person because biologically, it is it's own person.


And a cojoined twin is attached to his/her twin.  And an embryo that hasn't been implanted is not attached to the mother and it has it's own body biologically.  This "attachment/detachment" argument is rather weak.




> So you are saying i can't support somebody who is pro-life when I am not? I don't care that they propose this legislation; I just think it's a bad idea because social issues always kick the Republicans in the butt eventually.


Huh?  How did you get that I said you can't support someone who is pro-life?  Support whoever you want.  It's just hypocritical to attack Rand for what Ron has already done.  And as for as "kicking the republicans in the butt", taking the pro choice position kicks you in the butt in the *republican* primary.  Here's the deal.  At some point Rand is going to do something that will piss off the "tea party" folks that backed him.  Maybe he'll vote to pull out of Afghanistan before they think he should.  Maybe he'll vote to close Gitmo or not to attack Iran.  It makes political sense for him to side with his base on something that he actually agrees with them on.

----------


## dannno

I haven't read the last couple of pages, but I did read somewhere that Traditional Conservative said that girls cannot be circumcised. That's not true, in some cultures women are circumcised by having their clitoris cut off to help prevent infidelity. I had to watch one of them in a sex class in college and it was the worst thing I've ever watched.. especially because the girl, about 7ish, was begging them not to do it, and on top of that it was EXTREMELY painful.

----------


## jmdrake

> lol! jmdrake doesn't want words to mean what they mean. so they don't!


LOL low preference guy doesn't know how to read a dictionary so he doesn't know what the words actually mean.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...2&t=1296021086
_am·pu·tat·edam·pu·tat·ing
Definition of AMPUTATE

transitive verb
: to remove by or as if by cutting; especially : to cut (as a limb) from the body_

And before you say I'm "cherry picking definitions", specs definition said the same thing.  So I'll explain it to you like I explained it to him.  If you take the "remove by cutting" definition then hair and nails are in.  If you take the "cut (as a limb)" definition then it doesn't include foreskin.  The fact that their are nerves doesn't factor into the definition.

----------


## jmdrake

> I haven't read the last couple of pages, but I did read somewhere that Traditional Conservative said that girls cannot be circumcised. That's not true, in some cultures women are circumcised by having their clitoris cut off to help prevent infidelity. I had to watch one of them in a sex class in college and it was the worst thing I've ever watched.. especially because the girl, about 7ish, was begging them not to do it, and on top of that it was EXTREMELY painful.


Ummm....yeah...everybody knows that including Traditional Conservative.  The question is if cutting off the clitoris is equivalent to cutting off the foreskin or is it more like cutting off the penis.  Specs and low preference guy are claiming that it's more like cutting off the penis (an amputation).  TC and I disagree.

----------


## Brett85

> I haven't read the last couple of pages, but I did read somewhere that Traditional Conservative said that girls cannot be circumcised. That's not true, in some cultures women are circumcised by having their clitoris cut off to help prevent infidelity. I had to watch one of them in a sex class in college and it was the worst thing I've ever watched.. especially because the girl, about 7ish, was begging them not to do it, and on top of that it was EXTREMELY painful.


I just didn't think that the procedure that was done on girls was actually called "circumcision."  It certainly isn't all that similar to the circumcision that is done on males.  Circumcision on males isn't done for the purpose of reducing sexual function in men.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Boy, this thread is officially derailed, on an equally divisive issue no less.




> Huh?  I'm pretty sure girls don't have penisus, so they couldn't be circumcised.  Obviously you don't know what circumcision is if you call it "mutilation."  Circumcision is something that's very healthy for the baby,


Wow. Where to begin. There is female circumcision. There is no proof that removing a God-given piece of highly sensitive skin is "healthy". It is risky, and complications include full amputation and death. If you were to research this issue, you might change your mind.




> and obviously it's something that makes men look much better when they get older.


Ok, you set yourself up there. The jokes and innuendo are too obvious... :P

----------


## robert68

> ...In fact, in addition to natural abortive remedies, there are also natural birth control teas. I'm not sure if the teas simply do not allow a fertilized egg to attach or what, haven't looked into it in a while...


There's also drugs like Mifeprex.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The question is if cutting off the clitoris is equivalent to cutting off the foreskin or is it more like cutting off the penis.  Specs and low preference guy are claiming that it's more like cutting off the penis (an amputation).  TC and I disagree.


Of course full amputation is a surgical error that only occurs rarely. Death is the other side effect that sometimes occurs.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Removing the external portion of the ear has no effect on actual hearing, as the ear drum is not effected. And it looks so much better not to have those funny ears sticking out like that. It's easier to cut and style hair too. Time to open an earcumcision clinic. It will make billions. Gotta run, have to pay off some doctors to write some reports about the wondrous benefits of earcumcision...

----------


## dannno

> Ummm....yeah...everybody knows that including Traditional Conservative.  The question is if cutting off the clitoris is equivalent to cutting off the foreskin or is it more like cutting off the penis.  Specs and low preference guy are claiming that it's more like cutting off the penis (an amputation).  TC and I disagree.


It is MORE like cutting off the penis than the foreskin, but not as bad, but really impossible to compare the two.

Women can have orgasms via the clitoris or the vagina. Men can only have orgasms one way.. but cutting of the clitoris is much more extreme than cutting off the foreskin.

----------


## Wayreth

I really don't see why the argument always ends up at the point that one form of surgical alteration of the body is more severe than another form and as a result, the less severe form can be justified because of it's historical precedence within one's own culture. Regardless of severity both alterations are permanent disfigurations of the child's body. 

The idea of positive benefits through circumcision are based on subjective values. The individual can easily opt to use a condom to prevent the spread of STDs. If he so wished, he could have his foreskin surgically removed(if there is even a practice that exists for adults.) 

The main argument should be outlined around that circumcision is a permanent disfiguration and it ought to be the individual to decide as the penis would otherwise be a normal functioning organ in absence of such a surgical procedure.

As in the other thread I posted in, I think it is important to understand all that is lost in the foreskin: http://www.norm.org/lost.html The link uses a host of medical journals to back up it's claims, which is promising but I have not scrutinized them yet.

----------


## dannno

Like abortion, I support the educational approach to circumcision rather than the state.. I can see valid arguments for the other side, as it is pretty violent, the child doesn't have a choice in the matter, etc.. but there are debates back and forth on whether it is safe, healthy, etc, and I'd rather those be meted out in the battlefield of ideas using intellect.. and personally I get a lot of pleasure out of pleasing the woman, so if sex were any more pleasurable, as i am circumcised, I don't see how that would help with that.. I honestly don't think it makes a huge difference, though I've seen information that seems to indicate otherwise.

----------


## Agorism

Mommy blogger is pissed about this!

----------


## MaxPower

I'm not altogether sure how this turned into a circumcision debate, and will reserve commentary thereupon for another thread.

Regarding the opening topic, I am proud to see our boy following in his father's pro-life footsteps. I am also surprised to see how many people here say they're "disappointed" Rand has sponsored this act; disappointed how, exactly? Were you really not aware that he campaigned on an openly anti-abortion platform and actively spoke during his election about pushing anti-abortion legislation once he entered the Senate? I could understand the reaction of "disappointment" if, say, he were to break a crucial campaign pledge and vote for corporate bail-outs, but regarding abortion, if you were paying attention, you must have known what you were getting.

----------


## jmdrake

> I really don't see why the argument always ends up at the point that one form of surgical alteration of the body is more severe than another form and as a result, the less severe form can be justified because of it's historical precedence within one's own culture. Regardless of severity both alterations are permanent disfigurations of the child's body. 
> 
> The idea of positive benefits through circumcision are based on subjective values. The individual can easily opt to use a condom to prevent the spread of STDs. If he so wished, he could have his foreskin surgically removed(if there is even a practice that exists for adults.) 
> 
> The main argument should be outlined around that circumcision is a permanent disfiguration and it ought to be the individual to decide as the penis would otherwise be a normal functioning organ in absence of such a surgical procedure.
> 
> As in the other thread I posted in, I think it is important to understand all that is lost in the foreskin: http://www.norm.org/lost.html The link uses a host of medical journals to back up it's claims, which is promising but I have not scrutinized them yet.


LOL @ your point about the derailment.  As for "using a  condom" *say if you are actually trying to procreate*?  And why would you try to procreate with someone with an STD?  Maybe you are unaware of the STD status (like many are unaware of the HPV status).  Maybe it's an STD where you're willing to accept some degree of risk like herpes.  Or maybe you just don't like condoms.  Plus the other side is making such a big deal about how sex feels with/without foreskin.  Well I don't know.  I do know it feels a lot better without a condom.  So I find the "they could use a condom" argument rather flippant.

----------


## Sola_Fide

*Toady is not impressed with this thread derailment!*

----------


## newbitech

> Total nonsense.  Your stats include older children, not just newborns.  There is a waiting list for newborn adoptions that is so severe that people try to adopt newborns from Eastern Europe, China and even Africa.  Also just because most women don't wait until the last minute doesn't mean they all don't.  The fact that recently an abortion doctor was charged will killing viable fetuses who had already been born shows that some women do wait until the last minute.  Those who chose early enough will still be able to get abortions even if Roe v. Wade is overturned.  After all it won't be overturned everywhere.  Women will just go across state lines to buy day after pills.  And the "doom and gloom" part is your unsubstantiated claim that there would be more abandoned babies.  The burden on is on you to prove that and frankly you haven't.


come on jmdrake...  total nonsense?  Domestic wait times for healthy newborns are 2-12 months.  INternational?  try 6 - 24 months.   And the wait is not because of high demand or low supply..  the wait has to do with finding a match.   The adoption system currently in place is not going to be able to handle the 800K+ abortions and 500k+ "unwanted" children per year.  thats 1.3million infants/children every year that are unwanted.  compared to less than 200k adoptions every year OF ALL AGE children as well.  quite the gap to cover.  Sure, there will be more adoptions if abortion is made completely illegal, like this law will do.  There will also be more abandoned newborns simply because the system of adoption CAN NOT keep up with all the unwanted children in its current state.  Will people all of a sudden decide to start adopting at a rate of 5x's what they currently do now?  Don't think so.  

I think its a sad state of humanity, regardless of politics.  The reality is, we can't save every life, and in trying to do so at the federal or even state level, we turn nightmares in to reality for many people, not the least of which is all the unwanted children who will be forced to live life without a family to support them.

----------


## specsaregood

> not the least of which is all the unwanted children who will be forced to live life without a family to support them.


I think the point is that they will still have a life to live.  Dunno, go ask 10 people that were put up for adoption as infants, ask them if they would have rather been killed.  Report back the results.

----------


## jmdrake

> come on jmdrake...  total nonsense?  Domestic wait times for healthy newborns are 2-12 months.  INternational?  try 6 - 24 months.   And the wait is not because of high demand or low supply..  the wait has to do with finding a match.   The adoption system currently in place is not going to be able to handle the 800K+ abortions and 500k+ "unwanted" children per year.


Yes it is total nonsense.  First off your assumption is that every mother who doesn't abort won't keep her baby.  Sometimes mothers change their minds about their pregnancy if the abortion decision is merely delayed.  Second, despite the wait times for international adoptions *they are still on the rise*.  Ask yourself why that is if there is such a "glut" of unwanted babies?  Third often when there is an unwanted baby family members will adopt even if they weren't already in the market for adoption.  Fourth there wasn't there is a greater problem of abandoned babies *now than there was before Roe v. Wade*.  Common sense should tell you that if a change in the law exacerbates a problem, then it's far fetched to claim that changing the law back will cause the problem to get worse.  Fifth, if you are *really* concerned about the "abandoned baby" problem, there are simple solutions that doesn't involve killing the baby such as funding more crisis pregnancy centers instead of abortion clinics.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think the point is that they will still have a life to live.  Dunno, go ask 10 people that were put up for adoption as infants, ask them if they would have rather been killed.  Report back the results.


We had to kill that baby in order to save it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The reality is, we can't save every life, and in trying to do so at the federal or even state level, we turn nightmares in to reality for many people, not the least of which is all the unwanted children who will be forced to live life without a family to support them.


^^^I find it bizarre that people who claim to be benevolent libertarians (or just good people) would be trying to cure the problem of "unwanted" babies by justifying more killing of babies instead of encouraging adoptions.

It just goes to show you that infanticide is not something you can be neutral on.  Even the people who claim they "dont care about abortion" are, by implication, supporting it.  Murdering innocent people is a moral issue that cannot be pushed down on the scale of important things.  No patriot can accept for long when his people are being murdered around him by Statist tyranny.

----------


## newbitech

> I think the point is that they will still have a life to live.  Dunno, go ask 10 people that were put up for adoption as infants, ask them if they would have rather been killed.  Report back the results.


yes, I understand that point.  People who are against abortion are so very concerned about making sure that baby pops out, but once it does pop out, who gives a $#@! right?  Mission accomplished.

----------


## specsaregood

> yes, I understand that point.  People who are against abortion are so very concerned about making sure that baby pops out, but once it does pop out, who gives a $#@! right?  Mission accomplished.


Ironically, it does appear so; as was discovered in the circumcision side discussion.

----------


## Krugerrand

> come on jmdrake...  total nonsense?  D*omestic wait times for healthy newborns are 2-12 months.*  INternational?  try 6 - 24 months.   And the wait is not because of high demand or low supply..  the wait has to do with finding a match.   The adoption system currently in place is not going to be able to handle the 800K+ abortions and 500k+ "unwanted" children per year.  thats 1.3million infants/children every year that are unwanted.  compared to less than 200k adoptions every year OF ALL AGE children as well.  quite the gap to cover.  Sure, there will be more adoptions if abortion is made completely illegal, like this law will do.  There will also be more abandoned newborns simply because the system of adoption CAN NOT keep up with all the unwanted children in its current state.  Will people all of a sudden decide to start adopting at a rate of 5x's what they currently do now?  Don't think so.  
> 
> *I think its a sad state of humanity, regardless of politics.  The reality is, we can't save every life, and in trying to do so at the federal or even state level, we turn nightmares in to reality for many people, not the least of which is all the unwanted children who will be forced to live life without a family to support them.*


My wife's cousin and her husband waited about 3 years to adopt.  I'm not sure where that 2-12 month figure came from.

I can't accept your last statement.  If it's murder, it must be illegal.  (I accept that every murder need not be a federal case.)    The reality that we cannot stop every murder has not and should not lead to legalizing it.  Does your unwanted child theory apply 4 years after birth?  4 months after birth?  4 minutes after birth?

I'll also add that your assumption that an unwanted child would regret life is wrong.  Watch this person who survived an attempted abortion talk about how she values her life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

One practical approach I'd like to see in this issue is to allow adopting parents to financially compensate the birth mother.  Lots of people make their livelihood by employment through adoption agencies.  The person who bore the child should be entitled to compensation as well.

----------


## newbitech

> Yes it is total nonsense.  First off your assumption is that every mother who doesn't abort won't keep her baby.  Sometimes mothers change their minds about their pregnancy if the abortion decision is merely delayed.  Second, despite the wait times for international adoptions *they are still on the rise*.  Ask yourself why that is if there is such a "glut" of unwanted babies?  Third often when there is an unwanted baby family members will adopt even if they weren't already in the market for adoption.  Fourth there wasn't there is a greater problem of abandoned babies *now than there was before Roe v. Wade*.  Common sense should tell you that if a change in the law exacerbates a problem, then it's far fetched to claim that changing the law back will cause the problem to get worse.  Fifth, if you are *really* concerned about the "abandoned baby" problem, there are simple solutions that doesn't involve killing the baby such as funding more crisis pregnancy centers instead of abortion clinics.


madonna-effect.  look it up. seriously.  if you want to talk about international adoptions, you might want to expand the scope of unwanted children as well.  




> Study author Professor Kevin Browne said: “Some argue that international adoption is a solution to the large number of children in institutional care but we have found the opposite is true.” (ANI)


800k+ babies a year hitting the market when this law passes.  What are you going to do with them all?  If we are going to protect life, lets protect it from cradle to grave, not just make sure it pops out.  Yes, I am concerned about all the unwanted people in the world.  800k+ in the united states alone.  The sad fact is that people are going to get pregnant and lose children.  Thanks to modern medicine, natural selection is not able to function as nature intended.  Everyone is in better health so on net, more lives are saved just by having better medical technology.  This creates the side effect of producing a "bumper crop" in babies.  Now, society has to figure out how to handle this excess.  I see this as an individual problem to solve.  Most people who have abortions are probably too stupid to survive on their own any ways, but since society has turned to medical science to make sure people can overcome nature, we must also turn to medical science to deal with this glut of unwanted children who won't terminate naturally.  I know, its sick, and believe me, if I could solve that problem I would.  But we cannot reverse the clock and go back to a time when 50% of pregnancy ended in "natural" abortion.  Society has learned how to help nature along through inducing abortion.  

Not one single person on either side can tell me that they remember being in the womb.  Hell most people cannot even remember being born, or their 1st 2nd or 3rd birthday.  We all like to think we understand life, some people even like to believe that the soul is created at conception, or some other time prior to birth.  THe fact is, we have no idea when **** Sapien becomes an individual with rights bestowed by the creator.  IN that sense, the creator is the mother and father, and if we really believe that is where rights come from, cannot the creator who bestowed those rights also take them away?  Or more simply choose not to grant them in the first place?

What we have in the abortion argument in my mind is 3 sides.  Pro-life are people who want to force other individuals to treat their bodies a certain way, and no other.  Pro-Choice are people who think they can live without the consequences of their actions.  Pro-Liberty are people who believe individuals must make these decisions on their own without interference from anyone else. 

I don't think people are going to meander back and forth.  We have to accept reality and facts.  We cannot stop unwanted pregnancies therefor abortions WILL occur.  You may seek to punish those who commit the act, but again, the fact is this woman is going to decide to abort whether she finds a doctor or not.  Without the doctor involvement, you will never even know she is pregnant, and of course, without the doctor involvement, she risks her own life.  I'd rather the medical establishment make those decisions, along with the parents and/or clergy, and not the federal government, or the state government, or the city government.  It really is up to the creator of that baby, the parents, to decide if that baby will be given the right to life.  Of course, you will want to say that the parent did not create the baby.  Well, if that is the case, then let the creator take care of the baby how he or she sees fit.

----------


## newbitech

> My wife's cousin and her husband waited about 3 years to adopt.  I'm not sure where that 2-12 month figure came from.
> 
> I can't accept your last statement.  If it's murder, it must be illegal.  (I accept that every murder need not be a federal case.)    The reality that we cannot stop every murder has not and should not lead to legalizing it.  Does your unwanted child theory apply 4 years after birth?  4 months after birth?  4 minutes after birth?
> 
> I'll also add that your assumption that an unwanted child would regret life is wrong.  Watch this person who survived an attempted abortion talk about how she values her life:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ
> 
> One practical approach I'd like to see in this issue is to allow adopting parents to financially compensate the birth mother.  Lots of people make their livelihood by employment through adoption agencies.  The person who bore the child should be entitled to compensation as well.


these are statistics compiled by private adoption services.  I'm not saying legalize murder.  I am saying we must come to a more clear definition of the right to life.  Who gives that right, and what exactly constitutes human life?  This certainly is a philosophical question, but we can appeal to 3000 years of human experience to understand that bringing life in to the world is not something to be taken for granted.  And choosing to not bring life in to the world is not murder.

----------


## teacherone

newbitech-- have you considered that if abortion were not legal and used as back up birth control people might be a little more careful with their protection?

----------


## newbitech

> newbitech-- have you considered that if abortion were not legal and used as back up birth control people might be a little more careful with their protection?


Of course, but keep in mind that for 1000's of years, the only form of protection for women WAS and still is abortion.  And i'm sorry but LOL, so lets knock up girls as soon as they can bear children to teach them the dangers of unprotected sex.  Anyways, no unprotected sex is natural, putting on a rubber or getting a shot, or taking some pills is not natural and have side effects and consequences of their own.  And of course, there is the man and his responsibility.

If you want to know what I think a good legal solution would be, I will tell you.  But it won't matter as long as people think their actions won't have consequences or that they can control what someone else does with their own body.

----------


## jmdrake

> madonna-effect.  look it up. seriously.  if you want to talk about international adoptions, you might want to expand the scope of unwanted children as well.


A) I looked it up.  That's tripe.  People were doing international adoptions long before Madonna. 
B) As a non-interventionist I'm concerned about what happens in *this* country first.
C) Part of the reason for unwanted babies in other countries (like China) is because of bad government policy in those countries.





> 800k+ babies a year hitting the market when this law passes.


Says you.  I've already explained why your assumptions are wrong.  You haven't addressed my explanation.  I'll leave it at that.  Relatives willing to adopt, more pregnancy crisis centers and more women deciding to simply keep their babies will drastically reduce that number.  Again we didn't have this massive problem that you're *sooooo* worried about before Roe v. Wade so it's illogical to assume that it must be that way after Roe v. Wade.  Someone else mentioned moral hazard.  Roe v. Wade has helped encourage more irresponsible behavior.  Plus economic factors (child labor laws, mandatory schooling, apprenticeships being replaced with "higher education") have turned children from an asset to a liability.  But, for the sake of argument, let's say your assumption is right.  And?  There are roughly 335,000 Christian churches in the U.S.  35% of them are over 100 members (about 105K) with a total of 25 *million* weekly worshipers.  If there was really any kind of backlog in newborns it could easily be absorbed by making it a church priority.  As others have pointed out the "We need these babies dead so they won't be unwanted" argument is a non starter.




> Not one single person on either side can tell me that they remember being in the womb.  Hell most people cannot even remember being born, or their 1st 2nd or 3rd birthday.


So then parents should be able to kill their children until they are old enough to remember the attempt if they happen to survive?  Really?    Science has proven that children in the woman can react to their mothers voice just like children outside the woman.  Whether the fetus or the toddler "remembers" any of this is irrelevant.




> We all like to think we understand life, some people even like to believe that the soul is created at conception, or some other time prior to birth.  THe fact is, we have no idea when **** Sapien becomes an individual with rights bestowed by the creator.  IN that sense, the creator is the mother and father, and if we really believe that is where rights come from, cannot the creator who bestowed those rights also take them away?  Or more simply choose not to grant them in the first place?


Life is a continuum.  Since we don't know I'm willing to err on the side of life.  As far as the mother and father being able to "take it away" are you suggesting that a father should be able to force a woman to have an abortion?  Or that a father should be able to kill a toddler up until the time that he/she is certain to have a "soul"?  I'm willing to bet the answer to my rhetorical question is a resounding *no*.  If I'm right (and I hope I am) then the answer to your question "cannot the creator (the parents) who bestowed those rights also take them away" must also be no.  Anyway, from a Christian sense most do not view parents as "creators" but rather "re-creators".  They are simply involved in a creative process designed and implemented eons ago by the real creator.




> What we have in the abortion argument in my mind is 3 sides.  Pro-life are people who want to force other individuals to treat their bodies a certain way, and no other.  Pro-Choice are people who think they can live without the consequences of their actions.  Pro-Liberty are people who believe individuals must make these decisions on their own without interference from anyone else.


Well that's in your mind I suppose.  In America there really is no "forced abortion" movement.  So it comes down to two choices.  People who believe that the unborn are people to and deserve liberty and people who don't.  If you analogize this to slavery, some might argue that some people should have the "choice" to own slaves.

----------


## K466

> Very disappointed.
> 
> How is this shrinking government? A women has the *right* to choose regardless of what you, I, Rand Paul, or the state believe is the right choice.
> 
> I hope this fails. I hope Ron Paul will not follow suit on this in the House or I'm voting someone else.


Just like the thief has a right to choose... oh wait, we want government to stop violations of our rights. Thanks, Rand Paul!

----------


## Noob

I wonder what the Greens think about it, since they want more abortions to happen.

----------


## dannno

> I wonder what the Greens think about it, since they want more abortions to happen.


That's a pretty collectivist statement...

I think _people_ on the left want better forms of birth control as to avoid abortions. Tho many _organizations_ on the left seem to like to support the abortion industrial complex..

----------


## jmdrake

> It's only as hard as people make it. My cousin got pregnant at 13, had a baby at 14.  I was 10, and it was a huge deal in the family, but 37 years later....it doesn't matter.  SHe died 10 years ago, and her son now has kids.  
> 
> I don't understand why people think babies are such a curse.


^This.  Socio-economic factors have turned us into a nation that loathes children.  There are people in the country old enough to remember a time when children were considered an asset as opposed to a liability.  Part of the problem is the forced move from an agriculture / small business economy to an industrial "work for the man" economy.  Child labor laws, taxes, destruction of apprenticeships and other forces have led us to the state we're in now.

----------


## Justinjj1

Personally, I abhor abortion, but I think it should be a personal decision.  The only thing this bill would do, is expand the power of government, and we all know that just because laws are passed does not mean that people will follow them.  This has no chance of passing and is only being done to score cheap political points with the social conservatives.  

If Rand really cares about preserving life, maybe he should break his silence and start speaking out against these unconstitutional wars.

----------


## Brett85

> Personally, I abhor abortion, but I think it should be a personal decision.  The only thing this bill would do is expand the power of government, and we all know that just because laws are passed does not mean that people will follow them.  This has no chance of passing and is only being done to score cheap political points with the social conservatives.  
> 
> If Rand really cares about preserving life, maybe he should break his silence and start speaking about against these unconstitutional wars.


Rand has talked about phasing out our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He just doesn't support an immediate pull out like Ron does.  He wants the withdrawel to be more orderly.  That doesn't mean that he supports the wars.

----------


## jmdrake

> Personally, I abhor abortion, but I think it should be a personal decision.  The only thing this bill would do is expand the power of government, and we all know that just because laws are passed does not mean that people will follow them.  This has no chance of passing and is only being done to score cheap political points with the social conservatives.  
> 
> If Rand really cares about preserving life, maybe he should break his silence and start speaking about against these unconstitutional wars.


I take it you haven't read Rand Paul's budget.  It calls for 16 *billion* in cuts to war spending.  Further do you think that Ron Paul's "sanctity of life"  and "we the people act" were done to score "cheap political points"?  They actually go further than this proposal by Rand that you and others are *sooooo* worked up about.

----------


## Krugerrand

> That's a pretty collectivist statement...
> 
> I think _people_ on the left want better forms of birth control as to avoid abortions. Tho many _organizations_ on the left seem to like to support the abortion industrial complex..


I'm glad you made this distinction, Dannno.  While I have issues w/ your "Tea Party" solution  simply taking away the massive amount of money that the AIC takes in (especially the tax payer portion) would greatly improve the situation.  The AIC is not pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.

----------


## Krugerrand

> ^This.  S*ocio-economic factors have turned us into a nation that loathes children.*  There are people in the country old enough to remember a time when children were considered an asset as opposed to a liability.  Part of the problem is the forced move from an agriculture / small business economy to an industrial "work for the man" economy.  Child labor laws, taxes, destruction of apprenticeships and other forces have led us to the state we're in now.


The loathing of children is real and is unfortunate.  We treat pregnancy as an illness.  It is even more so in Europe.

Then, look at the "expert studies" into what makes a place "child friendly" and the criteria is typically what percentage people turn their children over to others to raise for them.

----------


## specsaregood

> Further do you think that Ron Paul's "sanctity of life"  and "we the people act" were done to score "cheap political points"?  They actually go further than this proposal by Rand that you and others are *sooooo* worked up about.


I'd just like to say that I credit Ron with "radicalizing" me on the issue.  I've always been "pro-life" in the sense that I would never want an offspring of mine aborted; but didn't really care about the issue in regards to other people and it certainly wasn't a criteria for voting.   Ron's eloquent and simple way of explaining the issue cemented it in my mind that I could never actively support somebody that is pro-choice, and would only vote for one if there was no other possible option.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> And a cojoined twin is attached to his/her twin.  And an embryo that hasn't been implanted is not attached to the mother and it has it's own body biologically.  This "attachment/detachment" argument is rather weak.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  How did you get that I said you can't support someone who is pro-life?  Support whoever you want.  It's just hypocritical to attack Rand for what Ron has already done.  And as for as "kicking the republicans in the butt", taking the pro choice position kicks you in the butt in the *republican* primary.  Here's the deal.  At some point Rand is going to do something that will piss off the "tea party" folks that backed him.  Maybe he'll vote to pull out of Afghanistan before they think he should.  Maybe he'll vote to close Gitmo or not to attack Iran.  It makes political sense for him to side with his base on something that he actually agrees with them on.


No one is saying that we should kill conjoined twins and unplanted embryos. Those are rather weak counter arguments to my supposedly weak arguments. If something is a part of you, you should be able to cut it off. A human cell is a living organism but it is part of a larger system called an organ and multiple organs make up an organ system. A fetus is like an organ because it needs other organs and organ systems to survive(the mother). You are allowed to do whatever you want to your own body, and a fetus is still a part of ones body.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> *Toady is not impressed with this thread derailment!*



This is my new favorite picture ever BTW!!

----------


## dannno

> I have issues w/ your "Tea Party" solution


Think of it this way.. When a woman's body is not healthy enough to carry a child for whatever reason, the body creates natural mechanisms to cause miscarriage. It happens ALL the time, and it happens in the same way that the tea works. If a woman knows her body is going to miscarry time and time again, perhaps it has done so dozens of times, should she stop having sex? I mean, sure there is a SMALL chance it could work out finally, so I see no reason why even you wouldn't think that she should stop.. but in reality, she's just killing off more 'life' right? Now let's take it from a slightly different angle..

jmdrake just posted about how today's socioeconomic climate makes kids a detriment, whereas when we had a more free society they used to be an asset as they could help run a small family business or farm. Now they have to go to school all the time, and with child labor laws they inevitably don't do a whole lot of work. They are expensive to feed, clothe and house, all their friends have a lot of expensive gadgets.. This is the effects of an unhealthy and unfree society. The woman's body, however, does not recognize this barrier to survival so when a woman's socioeconomic standing is not healthy enough for a child so miscarriage does not occur.. but her brain does recognize it.. so by using natural plant substances and water that can be found in her environment, she merely helps her body perform the same natural function that it would do on it's own if it had the knowledge of the brain. So instead of that signal coming from various other organs in her body, it comes from her brain, her brain creates a natural solution using natural substances around her.

That's why I think it is ok.. and I would LOVE to go back to living in a free society where women didn't feel pushed into having abortions due to their socioeconomic status, and instead saw having children in a more positive light.. It would also be nice, however, if they didn't feel pushed into getting abortions due to society being overly judgmental about a woman who isn't married having a child, because I think that was likely the cause of abortions when we lived in a more free, but also more judgmental Christian society.

----------


## Krugerrand

> No one is saying that we should kill conjoined twins and unplanted embryos. Those are rather weak counter arguments to my supposedly weak arguments. If something is a part of you, you should be able to cut it off.* A human cell is a living organism* but it is part of a larger system called an organ and multiple organs make up an organ system. A fetus is like an organ because it needs other organs and organ systems to survive(the mother). You are allowed to do whatever you want to your own body, and a fetus is still a part of ones body.


A human cell is not an organism.  The organism the complete living entity.  Which - of course - leads to the justification of the protection of the unique human entity that is yet unborn.  The unborn child is very much a different organism than its mother.

----------


## dannno

> A human cell is not an organism.  The organism the complete living entity.  Which - of course - leads to the justification of the protection of the *unique human entity that is yet unborn*.  The unborn child is very much a different organism than its mother.


That's whole thing is highly opinionated, and in particular, a fetus is NOT an entity..

"An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence" -wiki

----------


## Krugerrand

> That's highly opinionated, and in particular, a fetus is NOT an entity..
> 
> "An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence" -wiki





> In biology, an organism is any *contiguous living system* (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole. An organism may either be unicellular (single-celled) or be composed of, as in humans, many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many-celled) describes any organism made up of more than one cell.


 -wiki

Each of us starts as a contiguous living system at the moment of conception.  *We don't even start "attached" to our mother.  We start, then we attach.*

Are we dependent on our mother - yes.  Newborns and toddlers are dependent too.  Each newly existing contiguous living system (unborn child) is protected and nourished inside of its mother.  That does not make it not an entity.  Consider the marsupial.  Their offspring return to inside their mother.  The baby kangaroo does not cease being a unique entity after it goes back inside its mother.

The unborn child is unquestionably a unique organism from its mother - biologically.  As such,  I say it's fair to call it a unique entity.  It has a distinct separate existence.  That existence is simply dependent on, and located inside of, its mother.

----------


## dannno

> -wiki
> 
> Each of us starts as a contiguous living system at the moment of conception.  *We don't even start "attached" to our mother.  We start, then we attach.*


That's not really even a fair statement, just because it isn't literally attached doesn't mean it isn't dependent on a proper environment within the mother to survive.

I certainly don't see it as "human" at that point at all.

----------


## dannno

> Are we dependent on our mother - yes.  Newborns and toddlers are dependent too.


Newborns and toddlers can survive without the mother.. if the mother dies at birth, the father or other family or friends can take care of them.

----------


## dannno

> Consider the marsupial.  Their offspring return to inside their mother.  The baby kangaroo does not cease being a unique entity after it goes back inside its mother.


http://tweentribune.com/content/reje...fe-saving-milk

----------


## Krugerrand

> That's not really even a fair statement, just because it isn't literally attached doesn't mean it isn't dependent on a proper environment within the mother to survive.
> 
> I certainly don't see it as "human" at that point at all.


It's dependent on a proper environment - but not necessarily inside the mother.  Artificially inseminated babies can survive up to a certain point outside of the mother.  As technology develops, I would not be surprised at all to see artificial environments that can support a child completely until it need no longer be connected to the artificial environment.  Also, consider that cases of women declared dead whose lifeless bodies were sustained for weeks and months to allow the unborn child to survive.

When would you consider an un-hatched chick to be a chick?  When would you consider an unborn puppy to be a puppy?

----------


## Krugerrand

> Newborns and toddlers can survive without the mother.. if the mother dies at birth, the father or other family or friends can take care of them.


Why should alternate means for the survival of the unique organism matter?

----------


## Krugerrand

> *Each of us starts as a contiguous living system at the moment of conception.* We don't even start "attached" to our mother. We start, then we attach.
> 			
> 		
> 
> That's not really even a fair statement, just because it isn't literally attached doesn't mean it isn't dependent on a proper environment within the mother to survive.
> 
> I certainly don't see it as "human" at that point at all.


Let me go back and highlight the other side of my quote.  The organism is the *contiguous living system*.  How can you possibly see any other start of the human organism as conception?

----------


## dannno

> Think of it this way.. When a woman's body is not healthy enough to carry a child for whatever reason, the body creates natural mechanisms to cause miscarriage. It happens ALL the time, and it happens in the same way that the tea works. If a woman knows her body is going to miscarry time and time again, perhaps it has done so dozens of times, should she stop having sex? I mean, sure there is a SMALL chance it could work out finally, so I see no reason why even you wouldn't think that she should stop.. but in reality, she's just killing off more 'life' right? Now let's take it from a slightly different angle..
> 
> jmdrake just posted about how today's socioeconomic climate makes kids a detriment, whereas when we had a more free society they used to be an asset as they could help run a small family business or farm. Now they have to go to school all the time, and with child labor laws they inevitably don't do a whole lot of work. They are expensive to feed, clothe and house, all their friends have a lot of expensive gadgets.. This is the effects of an unhealthy and unfree society. The woman's body, however, does not recognize this barrier to survival so when a woman's socioeconomic standing is not healthy enough for a child so miscarriage does not occur.. but her brain does recognize it.. so by using natural plant substances and water that can be found in her environment, she merely helps her body perform the same natural function that it would do on it's own if it had the knowledge of the brain. So instead of that signal coming from various other organs in her body, it comes from her brain, her brain creates a natural solution using natural substances around her.
> 
> That's why I think it is ok.. and I would LOVE to go back to living in a free society where women didn't feel pushed into having abortions due to their socioeconomic status, and instead saw having children in a more positive light.. It would also be nice, however, if they didn't feel pushed into getting abortions due to society being overly judgmental about a woman who isn't married having a child, because I think that was likely the cause of abortions when we lived in a more free, but also more judgmental Christian society.


I'd also like to add to this post that the tea solution does not work past 1-2 months of pregnancy.. so you're not going to see women miscarrying older fetuses.

It's almost as if nature says it is ok to have abortions very early on, but after that it actually starts forming into a person and becoming one.

----------


## jmdrake

> No one is saying that we should kill conjoined twins and unplanted embryos. Those are rather weak counter arguments to my supposedly weak arguments.


Well I'm glad you admit your arguments are weak.    It doesn't matter whether you say we should be able to kill conjoined twins are not.  The point is that's the logical conclusion from the argument you were making.  Oh, and are you saying that we *shouldn't* be able to kill unplanted embryos?  Would you honestly give more rights to a test tube zygote than a fetus that might already be viable if it were freed from the prison of the mother's womb? 




> If something is a part of you, you should be able to cut it off. A human cell is a living organism but it is part of a larger system called an organ and multiple organs make up an organ system. A fetus is like an organ because it needs other organs and organ systems to survive(the mother). You are allowed to do whatever you want to your own body, and a fetus is still a part of ones body.


a) At some point before delivery the fetus is able to live without the mother.

b) A cojoined twin is part of another human.  I know you don't want to think about this because it negates  your claim that "If something is a part of you, you should be able to cut it off".  Sorry, but logic dictates that whenever you make a weak claim that it should be rebutted by it's logical conclusion.

Here's the deal.  There are better arguments to defend the pro choice position than ridiculous claims like "As long as the fetus is inside the mother she should be able to kill it".  Like how about "We don't really know when a human entity crosses the line from zygote to human being so maybe the federal government should stay out entirely except for late term abortions"?  Yeah, you could bring yourself to say that if you tried *really really* hard.    That's a position that allows for both the pro life and pro choice positions in the RP movement.  But the absolutist position that you and others take does not make room for Ron Paul in his own movement.

----------


## Brett85

I wonder what Rand would think if he came on here and saw that there were 374 posts on a thread regarding his abortion bill.  Lol.

----------


## Agorism

Mommy blogger was PISSED when she saw he was sponsoring a pro-life bill.

Thats HER territory not his. Only Mommy approved politicians should be pro-life.

----------


## specsaregood

> I wonder what Rand would think if he came on here and saw that there were 374 posts on a thread regarding his abortion bill.  Lol.


I think he would recognize that it is a difficult issue with a lot of emotions involved.

----------


## dannno

> I wonder what Rand would think if he came on here and saw that there were 374 posts on a thread regarding his abortion bill.  Lol.


Ya well ultimately whatever he does in this arena is ok with me, he campaigned on it and I supported him then so I can't say I'm surprised.

----------


## Brett85

> Mommy blogger was PISSED when she saw he was sponsoring a pro-life bill.
> 
> Thats HER territory not his. Only Mommy approved politicians should be pro-life.


So she wrote a blog article about this?  What site is it on?

----------


## specsaregood

> So she wrote a blog article about this?  What site is it on?


lol, yeah she is off her rocker though.
i'll PM you a link.

----------


## BamaFanNKy



----------


## andym

March For Life 2012, network with other Ron Paul supporters there.  Need lots of help & hands for distributing fliers, carrying signs, and spreading out banners as 400,000 people walk by within a few hours.

Saw the following from the Daily Paul.  They're meeting at the 9-10am hour at the Smithsonian Mall Metro Exit (1200 Independence Ave, SW) as a set-up base.
http://www.dailypaul.com/205750/wash...-50-volunteers 

also RP Forums here... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...onday-Jan-23rd

Sign up at the MFL Brigade MU site here... http://www.meetup.com/Ron-Pauls-March-for-Life-Brigade

Central PA leaving with quite a few people... http://www.meetup.com/Central-PA-Ron...vents/44621752

Pittsburgh leaving with quite a few people... http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-97/events/45897602

----------

